Guidelines

Treatment of systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sJIA) should emphasize early use of conventional synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), compared with the previous reliance on NSAIDs and glucocorticoids, according to new guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology. The recently published 2021 guidelines focus on therapeutic approaches for oligoarthritis, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthritis, and sJIA.

“Systemic JIA should be treated early with biologics to rapidly bring disease under control and to avoid long-term use of glucocorticoids,” Karen Onel, MD, chief of the division of pediatric rheumatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and lead author of the guidelines, told this news organization. “Unfortunately, biologics can and are frequently denied for first-line use. For this reason, the guidelines are critically important as they demonstrate that first-line use of biologics are standard of care for the treatment of sJIA.”

The new publication is the second part of the ACR’s process to update JIA guidelines that began in 2017 and complements the release in 2019 of guidelines on the management of nonsystemic polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, and enthesitis, as well as a separate guidance on JIA-associated uveitis. The new guidelines include a second publication focused on nonpharmacologic therapies, medication monitoring, immunizations, and imaging. Both sets of guidelines grew out of a 15-member panel that included young adults with JIA and caregivers of children with JIA, and which required at least 70% agreement on recommendations.

“Though the scope of the two guidelines differed, one thing they had in common is the recognition of the importance of shared decision-making with the patient/caregiver,” Dr. Onel said. “Not every decision will be appropriate for every patient, which is why it was so instrumental to receive input from both patients and caregivers when creating these recommendations.”
 

Oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis

Oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis have similar recommendations, beginning with NSAIDs conditionally recommended and intra-articular glucocorticoids (IAGCs) strongly recommended as part of initial therapy. For oligoarticular arthritis, the guidelines specifically include a strong recommendation of triamcinolone hexacetonide as the preferred agent; no preferred agent is recommended for TMJ arthritis.

“The one thing that the panel was unanimous about was the use of triamcinolone hexacetonide for intra-articular steroid injections in oligoarticular kids,” Susan Shenoi, MBBS, MS, an associate professor and clinical director of pediatric rheumatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital and Research Center, said in an interview. “Triamcinolone hexacetonide has not been available recently, and through advocacy efforts, there is now a pathway to get that medication,” added Dr. Shenoi, a coauthor on the guidelines.

Dr. Onel said that “triamcinolone hexacetonide has been shown to be superior to alternative injectable glucocorticoids in achieving and maintaining remission in children with JIA,” but its unavailability meant physicians had to consider less effective, more potent, or more costly alternatives.” To address the shortage, “the FDA allowed the importation of one particular formulation of triamcinolone hexacetonide [Hexatrione 2%] specifically for joint injections in patients with JIA.”

The guidelines conditionally recommend against oral glucocorticoids for initial therapy for both oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis. In fact, throughout the guidelines it’s clear that the authors emphasize using steroids as little as possible, Dr. Shenoi said.

“Steroids are great anti-inflammatories, but in kids we worry about the long-term effects on growth and metabolism, and now we have many more DMARDs available,” Dr. Shenoi said.

The guidelines strongly recommend conventional synthetic DMARDs for patients with either of these diseases who cannot tolerate or do not respond to NSAIDs or IAGCs, with methotrexate conditionally recommended over leflunomide (Arava) for TMJ and over leflunomide, sulfasalazine (Azulfidine, Sulfazine), and hydroxychloroquine, respectively, for oligoarticular arthritis.

“NSAIDs remain widely used despite evidence supporting early use of DMARDs,” Dr. Onel said. “NSAIDs are readily available and familiar; however, they will not prevent disease progression. These guidelines should encourage short courses of NSAIDs only.”

If patients do not respond to or cannot tolerate NSAIDs, IAGCs, and at least one conventional DMARD, the guidelines strongly recommend a biologic DMARD for oligoarticular arthritis and conditionally recommend one for TMJ arthritis, without any preferences to the specific agent.

The guidelines also advise using validated disease activity measures to guide treatment decisions.

“The most important thing when you’re looking at these patients is to determine, do they have active disease or not?” Dr. Shenoi said. “If they have active disease, then you really want to step up therapy.” Using the relatively new concept of treat-to-target, Dr. Shenoi added that a crucial part of shared decision-making with the family is identifying the most appropriate target for that family “and then really trying hard to achieve that target.”

The guidelines also list risk factors for poor outcome that can be used to guide treatment decisions.

“Specific involvement of key joints, such as TMJ, wrist, sacroiliac, hip, and ankle, and other features were considered reasonable justification for early escalation of therapy,” Dr. Onel said. Other features included presence of erosive disease or enthesitis, delay in diagnosis, elevated levels of inflammation markers, and symmetric disease. “Moving quickly may be needed for a patient who is rapidly worsening, while moving slower may be appropriate for somebody who has improved substantially, but not fully.”

Systemic JIA with and without macrophage activation syndrome

For systemic JIA without macrophage activation syndrome (MAS), the guidelines similarly advise against oral glucocorticoids as initial monotherapy while conditionally recommending NSAIDs for initial monotherapy. Where the guidelines differ most from those for oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis is in progression of DMARD use, with a strong recommendation against conventional synthetic DMARDs as an initial monotherapy and interleukin-1 and IL-6 inhibitors conditionally recommended for initial monotherapy.

For patients who don’t adequately respond to NSAIDs or glucocorticoids, IL-1 and IL-6 inhibitors are strongly recommended over a single or combination of conventional DMARDs. Residual arthritis or an incomplete response to IL-1 or IL-6 inhibitors should lead next to biologic or conventional DMARDs instead of long-term glucocorticoids.

For patients with MAS, the guidelines conditionally recommend IL-1 and IL-6 inhibitors over calcineurin inhibitor monotherapy to reach inactive disease and MAS resolution, with glucocorticoids conditionally recommended in initial treatment. Again, however, for patients with incomplete responses to IL-1 or IL-6 inhibitors or with residual arthritis, the guidelines advise biologic or conventional DMARDs over long-term glucocorticoids.

In patients with sJIA with or without a history of MAS who have inactive disease, practitioners should taper and discontinue glucocorticoids (a strong recommendation). A conditional recommendation for tapering and discontinuing biologic DMARDs follows attainment of inactive disease.

Beyond pharmacology

Although many of the nonpharmacologic recommendations did not have strong evidence based on assessment with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology, consensus was more often the case than not, Dr. Onel said, such as with vaccination.

“There was strong support for the use of immunizations in children with JIA and specific guidance for children with JIA receiving immunosuppression, not on immunosuppression, and children who are underimmunized or unimmunized,” she said. “Although the supportive evidence was very low as per GRADE, panel members were strongly in favor [of immunizations], given risk of infection for immunosuppressed children as well as the preponderance of evidence in similar disease states, such as IBD [inflammatory bowel disease].”

An area with less consensus was whether to check antibody titers for vaccine-preventable childhood infections before beginning immunosuppressive medication, but more panelists opposed the practice than supported it, Dr. Onel said.

“Some panelists felt that the information might be useful for risk management in case of an outbreak or exposure,” she said. “Most believed that screening a fully immunized child was of low benefit and might delay treatment and incur unnecessary cost.”

The process of developing the documents also reveals where the biggest gaps are in research. 

“One of the things that we should strive for in the future is really to do more systematic studies so we have better quality of evidence going forward,” Dr. Shenoi said. Overall, however, the guidelines also reveal the progress made in treatment of JIA.

“We now know some of the key cytokines that are involved in the disease pathogenesis, and we have effective therapies for some of these pathways,” Dr. Shenoi said. “We used to use a lot more toxic medication for systemic JIA, and in past decades, these patients used to be on steroids forever. Now we have targeted therapies, and we have some patients who don’t ever need steroids because people are moving toward targeted therapies and having good results. That’s a huge step forward in the field.”

The research was funded by the ACR. Dr. Shenoi has been a consultant for Pfizer. Dr. Onel disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treatment of systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sJIA) should emphasize early use of conventional synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), compared with the previous reliance on NSAIDs and glucocorticoids, according to new guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology. The recently published 2021 guidelines focus on therapeutic approaches for oligoarthritis, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthritis, and sJIA.

“Systemic JIA should be treated early with biologics to rapidly bring disease under control and to avoid long-term use of glucocorticoids,” Karen Onel, MD, chief of the division of pediatric rheumatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and lead author of the guidelines, told this news organization. “Unfortunately, biologics can and are frequently denied for first-line use. For this reason, the guidelines are critically important as they demonstrate that first-line use of biologics are standard of care for the treatment of sJIA.”

The new publication is the second part of the ACR’s process to update JIA guidelines that began in 2017 and complements the release in 2019 of guidelines on the management of nonsystemic polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, and enthesitis, as well as a separate guidance on JIA-associated uveitis. The new guidelines include a second publication focused on nonpharmacologic therapies, medication monitoring, immunizations, and imaging. Both sets of guidelines grew out of a 15-member panel that included young adults with JIA and caregivers of children with JIA, and which required at least 70% agreement on recommendations.

“Though the scope of the two guidelines differed, one thing they had in common is the recognition of the importance of shared decision-making with the patient/caregiver,” Dr. Onel said. “Not every decision will be appropriate for every patient, which is why it was so instrumental to receive input from both patients and caregivers when creating these recommendations.”
 

Oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis

Oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis have similar recommendations, beginning with NSAIDs conditionally recommended and intra-articular glucocorticoids (IAGCs) strongly recommended as part of initial therapy. For oligoarticular arthritis, the guidelines specifically include a strong recommendation of triamcinolone hexacetonide as the preferred agent; no preferred agent is recommended for TMJ arthritis.

“The one thing that the panel was unanimous about was the use of triamcinolone hexacetonide for intra-articular steroid injections in oligoarticular kids,” Susan Shenoi, MBBS, MS, an associate professor and clinical director of pediatric rheumatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital and Research Center, said in an interview. “Triamcinolone hexacetonide has not been available recently, and through advocacy efforts, there is now a pathway to get that medication,” added Dr. Shenoi, a coauthor on the guidelines.

Dr. Onel said that “triamcinolone hexacetonide has been shown to be superior to alternative injectable glucocorticoids in achieving and maintaining remission in children with JIA,” but its unavailability meant physicians had to consider less effective, more potent, or more costly alternatives.” To address the shortage, “the FDA allowed the importation of one particular formulation of triamcinolone hexacetonide [Hexatrione 2%] specifically for joint injections in patients with JIA.”

The guidelines conditionally recommend against oral glucocorticoids for initial therapy for both oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis. In fact, throughout the guidelines it’s clear that the authors emphasize using steroids as little as possible, Dr. Shenoi said.

“Steroids are great anti-inflammatories, but in kids we worry about the long-term effects on growth and metabolism, and now we have many more DMARDs available,” Dr. Shenoi said.

The guidelines strongly recommend conventional synthetic DMARDs for patients with either of these diseases who cannot tolerate or do not respond to NSAIDs or IAGCs, with methotrexate conditionally recommended over leflunomide (Arava) for TMJ and over leflunomide, sulfasalazine (Azulfidine, Sulfazine), and hydroxychloroquine, respectively, for oligoarticular arthritis.

“NSAIDs remain widely used despite evidence supporting early use of DMARDs,” Dr. Onel said. “NSAIDs are readily available and familiar; however, they will not prevent disease progression. These guidelines should encourage short courses of NSAIDs only.”

If patients do not respond to or cannot tolerate NSAIDs, IAGCs, and at least one conventional DMARD, the guidelines strongly recommend a biologic DMARD for oligoarticular arthritis and conditionally recommend one for TMJ arthritis, without any preferences to the specific agent.

The guidelines also advise using validated disease activity measures to guide treatment decisions.

“The most important thing when you’re looking at these patients is to determine, do they have active disease or not?” Dr. Shenoi said. “If they have active disease, then you really want to step up therapy.” Using the relatively new concept of treat-to-target, Dr. Shenoi added that a crucial part of shared decision-making with the family is identifying the most appropriate target for that family “and then really trying hard to achieve that target.”

The guidelines also list risk factors for poor outcome that can be used to guide treatment decisions.

“Specific involvement of key joints, such as TMJ, wrist, sacroiliac, hip, and ankle, and other features were considered reasonable justification for early escalation of therapy,” Dr. Onel said. Other features included presence of erosive disease or enthesitis, delay in diagnosis, elevated levels of inflammation markers, and symmetric disease. “Moving quickly may be needed for a patient who is rapidly worsening, while moving slower may be appropriate for somebody who has improved substantially, but not fully.”

Systemic JIA with and without macrophage activation syndrome

For systemic JIA without macrophage activation syndrome (MAS), the guidelines similarly advise against oral glucocorticoids as initial monotherapy while conditionally recommending NSAIDs for initial monotherapy. Where the guidelines differ most from those for oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis is in progression of DMARD use, with a strong recommendation against conventional synthetic DMARDs as an initial monotherapy and interleukin-1 and IL-6 inhibitors conditionally recommended for initial monotherapy.

For patients who don’t adequately respond to NSAIDs or glucocorticoids, IL-1 and IL-6 inhibitors are strongly recommended over a single or combination of conventional DMARDs. Residual arthritis or an incomplete response to IL-1 or IL-6 inhibitors should lead next to biologic or conventional DMARDs instead of long-term glucocorticoids.

For patients with MAS, the guidelines conditionally recommend IL-1 and IL-6 inhibitors over calcineurin inhibitor monotherapy to reach inactive disease and MAS resolution, with glucocorticoids conditionally recommended in initial treatment. Again, however, for patients with incomplete responses to IL-1 or IL-6 inhibitors or with residual arthritis, the guidelines advise biologic or conventional DMARDs over long-term glucocorticoids.

In patients with sJIA with or without a history of MAS who have inactive disease, practitioners should taper and discontinue glucocorticoids (a strong recommendation). A conditional recommendation for tapering and discontinuing biologic DMARDs follows attainment of inactive disease.

Beyond pharmacology

Although many of the nonpharmacologic recommendations did not have strong evidence based on assessment with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology, consensus was more often the case than not, Dr. Onel said, such as with vaccination.

“There was strong support for the use of immunizations in children with JIA and specific guidance for children with JIA receiving immunosuppression, not on immunosuppression, and children who are underimmunized or unimmunized,” she said. “Although the supportive evidence was very low as per GRADE, panel members were strongly in favor [of immunizations], given risk of infection for immunosuppressed children as well as the preponderance of evidence in similar disease states, such as IBD [inflammatory bowel disease].”

An area with less consensus was whether to check antibody titers for vaccine-preventable childhood infections before beginning immunosuppressive medication, but more panelists opposed the practice than supported it, Dr. Onel said.

“Some panelists felt that the information might be useful for risk management in case of an outbreak or exposure,” she said. “Most believed that screening a fully immunized child was of low benefit and might delay treatment and incur unnecessary cost.”

The process of developing the documents also reveals where the biggest gaps are in research. 

“One of the things that we should strive for in the future is really to do more systematic studies so we have better quality of evidence going forward,” Dr. Shenoi said. Overall, however, the guidelines also reveal the progress made in treatment of JIA.

“We now know some of the key cytokines that are involved in the disease pathogenesis, and we have effective therapies for some of these pathways,” Dr. Shenoi said. “We used to use a lot more toxic medication for systemic JIA, and in past decades, these patients used to be on steroids forever. Now we have targeted therapies, and we have some patients who don’t ever need steroids because people are moving toward targeted therapies and having good results. That’s a huge step forward in the field.”

The research was funded by the ACR. Dr. Shenoi has been a consultant for Pfizer. Dr. Onel disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treatment of systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sJIA) should emphasize early use of conventional synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), compared with the previous reliance on NSAIDs and glucocorticoids, according to new guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology. The recently published 2021 guidelines focus on therapeutic approaches for oligoarthritis, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthritis, and sJIA.

“Systemic JIA should be treated early with biologics to rapidly bring disease under control and to avoid long-term use of glucocorticoids,” Karen Onel, MD, chief of the division of pediatric rheumatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and lead author of the guidelines, told this news organization. “Unfortunately, biologics can and are frequently denied for first-line use. For this reason, the guidelines are critically important as they demonstrate that first-line use of biologics are standard of care for the treatment of sJIA.”

The new publication is the second part of the ACR’s process to update JIA guidelines that began in 2017 and complements the release in 2019 of guidelines on the management of nonsystemic polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, and enthesitis, as well as a separate guidance on JIA-associated uveitis. The new guidelines include a second publication focused on nonpharmacologic therapies, medication monitoring, immunizations, and imaging. Both sets of guidelines grew out of a 15-member panel that included young adults with JIA and caregivers of children with JIA, and which required at least 70% agreement on recommendations.

“Though the scope of the two guidelines differed, one thing they had in common is the recognition of the importance of shared decision-making with the patient/caregiver,” Dr. Onel said. “Not every decision will be appropriate for every patient, which is why it was so instrumental to receive input from both patients and caregivers when creating these recommendations.”
 

Oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis

Oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis have similar recommendations, beginning with NSAIDs conditionally recommended and intra-articular glucocorticoids (IAGCs) strongly recommended as part of initial therapy. For oligoarticular arthritis, the guidelines specifically include a strong recommendation of triamcinolone hexacetonide as the preferred agent; no preferred agent is recommended for TMJ arthritis.

“The one thing that the panel was unanimous about was the use of triamcinolone hexacetonide for intra-articular steroid injections in oligoarticular kids,” Susan Shenoi, MBBS, MS, an associate professor and clinical director of pediatric rheumatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital and Research Center, said in an interview. “Triamcinolone hexacetonide has not been available recently, and through advocacy efforts, there is now a pathway to get that medication,” added Dr. Shenoi, a coauthor on the guidelines.

Dr. Onel said that “triamcinolone hexacetonide has been shown to be superior to alternative injectable glucocorticoids in achieving and maintaining remission in children with JIA,” but its unavailability meant physicians had to consider less effective, more potent, or more costly alternatives.” To address the shortage, “the FDA allowed the importation of one particular formulation of triamcinolone hexacetonide [Hexatrione 2%] specifically for joint injections in patients with JIA.”

The guidelines conditionally recommend against oral glucocorticoids for initial therapy for both oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis. In fact, throughout the guidelines it’s clear that the authors emphasize using steroids as little as possible, Dr. Shenoi said.

“Steroids are great anti-inflammatories, but in kids we worry about the long-term effects on growth and metabolism, and now we have many more DMARDs available,” Dr. Shenoi said.

The guidelines strongly recommend conventional synthetic DMARDs for patients with either of these diseases who cannot tolerate or do not respond to NSAIDs or IAGCs, with methotrexate conditionally recommended over leflunomide (Arava) for TMJ and over leflunomide, sulfasalazine (Azulfidine, Sulfazine), and hydroxychloroquine, respectively, for oligoarticular arthritis.

“NSAIDs remain widely used despite evidence supporting early use of DMARDs,” Dr. Onel said. “NSAIDs are readily available and familiar; however, they will not prevent disease progression. These guidelines should encourage short courses of NSAIDs only.”

If patients do not respond to or cannot tolerate NSAIDs, IAGCs, and at least one conventional DMARD, the guidelines strongly recommend a biologic DMARD for oligoarticular arthritis and conditionally recommend one for TMJ arthritis, without any preferences to the specific agent.

The guidelines also advise using validated disease activity measures to guide treatment decisions.

“The most important thing when you’re looking at these patients is to determine, do they have active disease or not?” Dr. Shenoi said. “If they have active disease, then you really want to step up therapy.” Using the relatively new concept of treat-to-target, Dr. Shenoi added that a crucial part of shared decision-making with the family is identifying the most appropriate target for that family “and then really trying hard to achieve that target.”

The guidelines also list risk factors for poor outcome that can be used to guide treatment decisions.

“Specific involvement of key joints, such as TMJ, wrist, sacroiliac, hip, and ankle, and other features were considered reasonable justification for early escalation of therapy,” Dr. Onel said. Other features included presence of erosive disease or enthesitis, delay in diagnosis, elevated levels of inflammation markers, and symmetric disease. “Moving quickly may be needed for a patient who is rapidly worsening, while moving slower may be appropriate for somebody who has improved substantially, but not fully.”

Systemic JIA with and without macrophage activation syndrome

For systemic JIA without macrophage activation syndrome (MAS), the guidelines similarly advise against oral glucocorticoids as initial monotherapy while conditionally recommending NSAIDs for initial monotherapy. Where the guidelines differ most from those for oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis is in progression of DMARD use, with a strong recommendation against conventional synthetic DMARDs as an initial monotherapy and interleukin-1 and IL-6 inhibitors conditionally recommended for initial monotherapy.

For patients who don’t adequately respond to NSAIDs or glucocorticoids, IL-1 and IL-6 inhibitors are strongly recommended over a single or combination of conventional DMARDs. Residual arthritis or an incomplete response to IL-1 or IL-6 inhibitors should lead next to biologic or conventional DMARDs instead of long-term glucocorticoids.

For patients with MAS, the guidelines conditionally recommend IL-1 and IL-6 inhibitors over calcineurin inhibitor monotherapy to reach inactive disease and MAS resolution, with glucocorticoids conditionally recommended in initial treatment. Again, however, for patients with incomplete responses to IL-1 or IL-6 inhibitors or with residual arthritis, the guidelines advise biologic or conventional DMARDs over long-term glucocorticoids.

In patients with sJIA with or without a history of MAS who have inactive disease, practitioners should taper and discontinue glucocorticoids (a strong recommendation). A conditional recommendation for tapering and discontinuing biologic DMARDs follows attainment of inactive disease.

Beyond pharmacology

Although many of the nonpharmacologic recommendations did not have strong evidence based on assessment with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology, consensus was more often the case than not, Dr. Onel said, such as with vaccination.

“There was strong support for the use of immunizations in children with JIA and specific guidance for children with JIA receiving immunosuppression, not on immunosuppression, and children who are underimmunized or unimmunized,” she said. “Although the supportive evidence was very low as per GRADE, panel members were strongly in favor [of immunizations], given risk of infection for immunosuppressed children as well as the preponderance of evidence in similar disease states, such as IBD [inflammatory bowel disease].”

An area with less consensus was whether to check antibody titers for vaccine-preventable childhood infections before beginning immunosuppressive medication, but more panelists opposed the practice than supported it, Dr. Onel said.

“Some panelists felt that the information might be useful for risk management in case of an outbreak or exposure,” she said. “Most believed that screening a fully immunized child was of low benefit and might delay treatment and incur unnecessary cost.”

The process of developing the documents also reveals where the biggest gaps are in research. 

“One of the things that we should strive for in the future is really to do more systematic studies so we have better quality of evidence going forward,” Dr. Shenoi said. Overall, however, the guidelines also reveal the progress made in treatment of JIA.

“We now know some of the key cytokines that are involved in the disease pathogenesis, and we have effective therapies for some of these pathways,” Dr. Shenoi said. “We used to use a lot more toxic medication for systemic JIA, and in past decades, these patients used to be on steroids forever. Now we have targeted therapies, and we have some patients who don’t ever need steroids because people are moving toward targeted therapies and having good results. That’s a huge step forward in the field.”

The research was funded by the ACR. Dr. Shenoi has been a consultant for Pfizer. Dr. Onel disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new expert commentary from the American Gastroenterological Association focuses on noninvasive screening options for colorectal cancer (CRC), as well as approaches to ensure quality in noninvasive screening programs. The commentary was published in Gastroenterology.

The American Cancer Society reported in its Cancer Facts & Figures 2021 report that lifetime risk of CRC in the United States is 4%, and those with above average risk are recommended to undergo CRC screening at an earlier age, with colonoscopy as a screening modality. Between 75% and 80% of the U.S. population is considered at average risk, and this is the group covered by the expert commentary. In this group, CRC rates jump from 35.1 to 61.2 cases per 100,000 people between the ages of 45-49 years and 50-54 years. Early-onset (before 50) CRC accounts for 12% of all cases and 7% of CRC-related deaths.

The authors noted that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force made a grade B recommendation for individuals to begin screening at age 45, regardless of screening method, and their modeling suggests that screening initialization at 45 rather than 50 years increases life-years gained by 6.2% at the cost of a 17% increase in colonoscopies.

According to the commentary authors, a hybrid approach combining annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) at age 45-49, followed by colonoscopy between ages 50 and 70, could result in substantial gains in life-years while prioritizing colonoscopies for advancing age, which is associated with increased risk of advanced adenomas (AA) and CRC.
 

Exploring options

For stool-based CRC screening, FIT has generally replaced guaiac fecal occult blood testing because of better patient adherence and fewer restrictions on medicine and diet. FIT can produce a quantitative result measured in micrograms of hemoglobin per gram, or qualitatively positive above a threshold of 20 mcg per gram. The MTsDNA (Cologuard) test combines FIT with two DNA methylation markers, KRAS mutation screening, and a measurement of total human DNA, with use of an algorithm of combined results to determine positivity. It is approved only for average-risk individuals aged 45-85.

In cases where MTsDNA tests positive, but colonoscopy reveals no findings, an aerodigestive cancer could be present. However, this is considered rare based on a study that revealed that 2.4% of patients with discordant results developed an aerodigestive cancer during a median 5.4 years of follow-up, compared with 1.1% of cases with negative MTsDNA and negative colonoscopy. The difference was not statistically significant. The commentary authors suggest that no further testing is required after a negative high-quality colonoscopy and that patients can resume screening at normal intervals with any of the recommended tests.

The Septin 9 blood test (Epi proColon) is another screening option, and is FDA approved for average-risk individuals older than 50 years. It detects methylation of the promoter region of the Septin 9 gene. It has a 48% sensitivity and 91.5% specificity for CRC, as well as a sensitivity of 11.2% for AA. One model found that Septin 9 screening every 1 or 2 years could lead to more quality-adjusted life-years gained and prevention of more deaths than annual FIT, but with more colonoscopies. CRC screening guidelines do not endorse Septin 9, but screening studies are in progress to assess its performance.
 

Ensuring quality

“The linchpin for effective noninvasive screening programs is adherence, and several measures of adherence are required,” the authors wrote. To ensure high quality of noninvasive screening programs, it is important to create metrics and employ continuous monitoring of compliance, and to initiate changes when adherence and outcomes lag. Important metrics include patient compliance, rapid reporting of test results, timely implementation of follow-up colonoscopies, and systems put in place to restore patients to appropriate CRC screening intervals.

The authors suggested several specific metrics and attainable performance goals. The ratio of tests completed within 1 year to tests ordered should reach 90% or more. Outreach should be conducted to patients who do not complete testing within 1 month of the order. All patients should be contacted with 2 weeks of test results, and those who test negative should be made aware of the appropriate interval for future screening, along with the method of contact.

At least 80% of patients who receive a positive test should be offered a colonoscopy date within 3 months, and all within 6 months, because delay past that time is associated with greater risk of AA, CRC, and advanced-stage CRC. Within 6 months of a positive noninvasive test, at least 95% of patients should have undergone a colonoscopy, unless they are too ill, have moved, or cannot be reached. “Quality metrics for noninvasive screening programs should be set and program performance should be measured and ideally reported publicly,” the authors summarized. “Poor adherence at any level should trigger review of established protocols and facilitate change to ensure high-quality screening.”

Two authors disclosed relationships with Freenome and/or Check-Cap, but the third disclosed no conflicts.
 

A new expert commentary from the American Gastroenterological Association focuses on noninvasive screening options for colorectal cancer (CRC), as well as approaches to ensure quality in noninvasive screening programs. The commentary was published in Gastroenterology.

The American Cancer Society reported in its Cancer Facts & Figures 2021 report that lifetime risk of CRC in the United States is 4%, and those with above average risk are recommended to undergo CRC screening at an earlier age, with colonoscopy as a screening modality. Between 75% and 80% of the U.S. population is considered at average risk, and this is the group covered by the expert commentary. In this group, CRC rates jump from 35.1 to 61.2 cases per 100,000 people between the ages of 45-49 years and 50-54 years. Early-onset (before 50) CRC accounts for 12% of all cases and 7% of CRC-related deaths.

The authors noted that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force made a grade B recommendation for individuals to begin screening at age 45, regardless of screening method, and their modeling suggests that screening initialization at 45 rather than 50 years increases life-years gained by 6.2% at the cost of a 17% increase in colonoscopies.

According to the commentary authors, a hybrid approach combining annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) at age 45-49, followed by colonoscopy between ages 50 and 70, could result in substantial gains in life-years while prioritizing colonoscopies for advancing age, which is associated with increased risk of advanced adenomas (AA) and CRC.
 

Exploring options

For stool-based CRC screening, FIT has generally replaced guaiac fecal occult blood testing because of better patient adherence and fewer restrictions on medicine and diet. FIT can produce a quantitative result measured in micrograms of hemoglobin per gram, or qualitatively positive above a threshold of 20 mcg per gram. The MTsDNA (Cologuard) test combines FIT with two DNA methylation markers, KRAS mutation screening, and a measurement of total human DNA, with use of an algorithm of combined results to determine positivity. It is approved only for average-risk individuals aged 45-85.

In cases where MTsDNA tests positive, but colonoscopy reveals no findings, an aerodigestive cancer could be present. However, this is considered rare based on a study that revealed that 2.4% of patients with discordant results developed an aerodigestive cancer during a median 5.4 years of follow-up, compared with 1.1% of cases with negative MTsDNA and negative colonoscopy. The difference was not statistically significant. The commentary authors suggest that no further testing is required after a negative high-quality colonoscopy and that patients can resume screening at normal intervals with any of the recommended tests.

The Septin 9 blood test (Epi proColon) is another screening option, and is FDA approved for average-risk individuals older than 50 years. It detects methylation of the promoter region of the Septin 9 gene. It has a 48% sensitivity and 91.5% specificity for CRC, as well as a sensitivity of 11.2% for AA. One model found that Septin 9 screening every 1 or 2 years could lead to more quality-adjusted life-years gained and prevention of more deaths than annual FIT, but with more colonoscopies. CRC screening guidelines do not endorse Septin 9, but screening studies are in progress to assess its performance.
 

Ensuring quality

“The linchpin for effective noninvasive screening programs is adherence, and several measures of adherence are required,” the authors wrote. To ensure high quality of noninvasive screening programs, it is important to create metrics and employ continuous monitoring of compliance, and to initiate changes when adherence and outcomes lag. Important metrics include patient compliance, rapid reporting of test results, timely implementation of follow-up colonoscopies, and systems put in place to restore patients to appropriate CRC screening intervals.

The authors suggested several specific metrics and attainable performance goals. The ratio of tests completed within 1 year to tests ordered should reach 90% or more. Outreach should be conducted to patients who do not complete testing within 1 month of the order. All patients should be contacted with 2 weeks of test results, and those who test negative should be made aware of the appropriate interval for future screening, along with the method of contact.

At least 80% of patients who receive a positive test should be offered a colonoscopy date within 3 months, and all within 6 months, because delay past that time is associated with greater risk of AA, CRC, and advanced-stage CRC. Within 6 months of a positive noninvasive test, at least 95% of patients should have undergone a colonoscopy, unless they are too ill, have moved, or cannot be reached. “Quality metrics for noninvasive screening programs should be set and program performance should be measured and ideally reported publicly,” the authors summarized. “Poor adherence at any level should trigger review of established protocols and facilitate change to ensure high-quality screening.”

Two authors disclosed relationships with Freenome and/or Check-Cap, but the third disclosed no conflicts.
 

A new expert commentary from the American Gastroenterological Association focuses on noninvasive screening options for colorectal cancer (CRC), as well as approaches to ensure quality in noninvasive screening programs. The commentary was published in Gastroenterology.

The American Cancer Society reported in its Cancer Facts & Figures 2021 report that lifetime risk of CRC in the United States is 4%, and those with above average risk are recommended to undergo CRC screening at an earlier age, with colonoscopy as a screening modality. Between 75% and 80% of the U.S. population is considered at average risk, and this is the group covered by the expert commentary. In this group, CRC rates jump from 35.1 to 61.2 cases per 100,000 people between the ages of 45-49 years and 50-54 years. Early-onset (before 50) CRC accounts for 12% of all cases and 7% of CRC-related deaths.

The authors noted that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force made a grade B recommendation for individuals to begin screening at age 45, regardless of screening method, and their modeling suggests that screening initialization at 45 rather than 50 years increases life-years gained by 6.2% at the cost of a 17% increase in colonoscopies.

According to the commentary authors, a hybrid approach combining annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) at age 45-49, followed by colonoscopy between ages 50 and 70, could result in substantial gains in life-years while prioritizing colonoscopies for advancing age, which is associated with increased risk of advanced adenomas (AA) and CRC.
 

Exploring options

For stool-based CRC screening, FIT has generally replaced guaiac fecal occult blood testing because of better patient adherence and fewer restrictions on medicine and diet. FIT can produce a quantitative result measured in micrograms of hemoglobin per gram, or qualitatively positive above a threshold of 20 mcg per gram. The MTsDNA (Cologuard) test combines FIT with two DNA methylation markers, KRAS mutation screening, and a measurement of total human DNA, with use of an algorithm of combined results to determine positivity. It is approved only for average-risk individuals aged 45-85.

In cases where MTsDNA tests positive, but colonoscopy reveals no findings, an aerodigestive cancer could be present. However, this is considered rare based on a study that revealed that 2.4% of patients with discordant results developed an aerodigestive cancer during a median 5.4 years of follow-up, compared with 1.1% of cases with negative MTsDNA and negative colonoscopy. The difference was not statistically significant. The commentary authors suggest that no further testing is required after a negative high-quality colonoscopy and that patients can resume screening at normal intervals with any of the recommended tests.

The Septin 9 blood test (Epi proColon) is another screening option, and is FDA approved for average-risk individuals older than 50 years. It detects methylation of the promoter region of the Septin 9 gene. It has a 48% sensitivity and 91.5% specificity for CRC, as well as a sensitivity of 11.2% for AA. One model found that Septin 9 screening every 1 or 2 years could lead to more quality-adjusted life-years gained and prevention of more deaths than annual FIT, but with more colonoscopies. CRC screening guidelines do not endorse Septin 9, but screening studies are in progress to assess its performance.
 

Ensuring quality

“The linchpin for effective noninvasive screening programs is adherence, and several measures of adherence are required,” the authors wrote. To ensure high quality of noninvasive screening programs, it is important to create metrics and employ continuous monitoring of compliance, and to initiate changes when adherence and outcomes lag. Important metrics include patient compliance, rapid reporting of test results, timely implementation of follow-up colonoscopies, and systems put in place to restore patients to appropriate CRC screening intervals.

The authors suggested several specific metrics and attainable performance goals. The ratio of tests completed within 1 year to tests ordered should reach 90% or more. Outreach should be conducted to patients who do not complete testing within 1 month of the order. All patients should be contacted with 2 weeks of test results, and those who test negative should be made aware of the appropriate interval for future screening, along with the method of contact.

At least 80% of patients who receive a positive test should be offered a colonoscopy date within 3 months, and all within 6 months, because delay past that time is associated with greater risk of AA, CRC, and advanced-stage CRC. Within 6 months of a positive noninvasive test, at least 95% of patients should have undergone a colonoscopy, unless they are too ill, have moved, or cannot be reached. “Quality metrics for noninvasive screening programs should be set and program performance should be measured and ideally reported publicly,” the authors summarized. “Poor adherence at any level should trigger review of established protocols and facilitate change to ensure high-quality screening.”

Two authors disclosed relationships with Freenome and/or Check-Cap, but the third disclosed no conflicts.
 

New recommendations from the American Gastroenterological Association focus on choice of systemic therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. The guideline authors point out that prognosis and treatment decisions are both heavily dependent on a combination of the severity of underlying disease and biological characteristics of the tumor.

The document includes options for patients who are ineligible for locoregional therapy or resection, patients with metastatic disease and preserved liver function, patients with poor liver function, and patients receiving adjuvant therapy following surgery or locoregional therapy (LRT).

Intermediate or advanced tumor stage is common among HCC patients, and curative options such as surgery and ablation are generally limited to early-stage disease. LRTs – including transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), transarterial radioembolization (TARE), and systemic therapy – may be employed against advanced or metastatic HCC, according to the authors, led by Grace L. Su, MD, of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System.

In 2007, the Food and Drug Administration approved the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib as the first systemic therapy for HCC. The new guideline comes in the wake of new systemic therapeutic options that have arrived in the years since, including molecularly targeted therapy and immunotherapy. The authors of the guidance, published in Gastroenterology, include advice on both first- and second-line therapies.

Certainty of evidence for the recommendations ranges from low to very low, indicating limited or very little confidence in the effect estimated, and the true effect is likely to be considerably different than predicted by best current estimates. Accordingly, the recommendations are conditional, and decisions should be made with the values and preferences of the individual patient in mind.

In patients with preserved liver function who are ineligible for LRT or resection, or who have metastatic disease, the authors suggest that first-line treatment should be the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab rather than sorafenib. Bevacizumab comes with a bleeding risk, so patients should first be evaluated endoscopically and treated for esophageal varices. For patients who are ineligible for bevacizumab, alternatives are lenvatinib or sorafenib. Patients who are more concerned about disease progression than adverse events may want to consider lenvatinib rather than sorafenib, while those concerned about blood pressure control and who are less concerned about adverse skin reactions may choose sorafenib.

Options for second-line therapy after sorafenib include cabozantinib (mortality reduction, 2.2 months) and pembrolizumab (mortality reduction, 3.3 months). Patients with alpha-fetoprotein levels higher than 400 ng/mL may be candidates for treatment with ramucirumab (mortality reduction, 1.2 months). Another option is regorafenib (mortality reduction, 2.8 months). Patients who are more concerned about adverse effects than a potential survival benefit with any of these therapies may reasonably choose no systemic therapy.

For HCC patients with poor liver function, who are not eligible for LRT or resection, or with metastatic disease, the guidelines recommend against routine use of sorafenib.

In the setting of adjuvant therapy following curative surgical resection, curative local ablation, or TACE LRT, the guidelines recommend against the use of sorafenib. The authors also recommended against the use of bevacizumab following TACE LRT.

The authors noted that there is no high-quality comparative evidence in the second-line setting for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, sorafenib, or lenvatinib. There is a dearth of evidence and few biomarkers to guide personalization of therapies, which places the emphasis on patient preferences, risks, and benefits.

The authors disclosed no conflicts.

New recommendations from the American Gastroenterological Association focus on choice of systemic therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. The guideline authors point out that prognosis and treatment decisions are both heavily dependent on a combination of the severity of underlying disease and biological characteristics of the tumor.

The document includes options for patients who are ineligible for locoregional therapy or resection, patients with metastatic disease and preserved liver function, patients with poor liver function, and patients receiving adjuvant therapy following surgery or locoregional therapy (LRT).

Intermediate or advanced tumor stage is common among HCC patients, and curative options such as surgery and ablation are generally limited to early-stage disease. LRTs – including transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), transarterial radioembolization (TARE), and systemic therapy – may be employed against advanced or metastatic HCC, according to the authors, led by Grace L. Su, MD, of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System.

In 2007, the Food and Drug Administration approved the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib as the first systemic therapy for HCC. The new guideline comes in the wake of new systemic therapeutic options that have arrived in the years since, including molecularly targeted therapy and immunotherapy. The authors of the guidance, published in Gastroenterology, include advice on both first- and second-line therapies.

Certainty of evidence for the recommendations ranges from low to very low, indicating limited or very little confidence in the effect estimated, and the true effect is likely to be considerably different than predicted by best current estimates. Accordingly, the recommendations are conditional, and decisions should be made with the values and preferences of the individual patient in mind.

In patients with preserved liver function who are ineligible for LRT or resection, or who have metastatic disease, the authors suggest that first-line treatment should be the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab rather than sorafenib. Bevacizumab comes with a bleeding risk, so patients should first be evaluated endoscopically and treated for esophageal varices. For patients who are ineligible for bevacizumab, alternatives are lenvatinib or sorafenib. Patients who are more concerned about disease progression than adverse events may want to consider lenvatinib rather than sorafenib, while those concerned about blood pressure control and who are less concerned about adverse skin reactions may choose sorafenib.

Options for second-line therapy after sorafenib include cabozantinib (mortality reduction, 2.2 months) and pembrolizumab (mortality reduction, 3.3 months). Patients with alpha-fetoprotein levels higher than 400 ng/mL may be candidates for treatment with ramucirumab (mortality reduction, 1.2 months). Another option is regorafenib (mortality reduction, 2.8 months). Patients who are more concerned about adverse effects than a potential survival benefit with any of these therapies may reasonably choose no systemic therapy.

For HCC patients with poor liver function, who are not eligible for LRT or resection, or with metastatic disease, the guidelines recommend against routine use of sorafenib.

In the setting of adjuvant therapy following curative surgical resection, curative local ablation, or TACE LRT, the guidelines recommend against the use of sorafenib. The authors also recommended against the use of bevacizumab following TACE LRT.

The authors noted that there is no high-quality comparative evidence in the second-line setting for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, sorafenib, or lenvatinib. There is a dearth of evidence and few biomarkers to guide personalization of therapies, which places the emphasis on patient preferences, risks, and benefits.

The authors disclosed no conflicts.

New recommendations from the American Gastroenterological Association focus on choice of systemic therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. The guideline authors point out that prognosis and treatment decisions are both heavily dependent on a combination of the severity of underlying disease and biological characteristics of the tumor.

The document includes options for patients who are ineligible for locoregional therapy or resection, patients with metastatic disease and preserved liver function, patients with poor liver function, and patients receiving adjuvant therapy following surgery or locoregional therapy (LRT).

Intermediate or advanced tumor stage is common among HCC patients, and curative options such as surgery and ablation are generally limited to early-stage disease. LRTs – including transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), transarterial radioembolization (TARE), and systemic therapy – may be employed against advanced or metastatic HCC, according to the authors, led by Grace L. Su, MD, of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System.

In 2007, the Food and Drug Administration approved the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib as the first systemic therapy for HCC. The new guideline comes in the wake of new systemic therapeutic options that have arrived in the years since, including molecularly targeted therapy and immunotherapy. The authors of the guidance, published in Gastroenterology, include advice on both first- and second-line therapies.

Certainty of evidence for the recommendations ranges from low to very low, indicating limited or very little confidence in the effect estimated, and the true effect is likely to be considerably different than predicted by best current estimates. Accordingly, the recommendations are conditional, and decisions should be made with the values and preferences of the individual patient in mind.

In patients with preserved liver function who are ineligible for LRT or resection, or who have metastatic disease, the authors suggest that first-line treatment should be the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab rather than sorafenib. Bevacizumab comes with a bleeding risk, so patients should first be evaluated endoscopically and treated for esophageal varices. For patients who are ineligible for bevacizumab, alternatives are lenvatinib or sorafenib. Patients who are more concerned about disease progression than adverse events may want to consider lenvatinib rather than sorafenib, while those concerned about blood pressure control and who are less concerned about adverse skin reactions may choose sorafenib.

Options for second-line therapy after sorafenib include cabozantinib (mortality reduction, 2.2 months) and pembrolizumab (mortality reduction, 3.3 months). Patients with alpha-fetoprotein levels higher than 400 ng/mL may be candidates for treatment with ramucirumab (mortality reduction, 1.2 months). Another option is regorafenib (mortality reduction, 2.8 months). Patients who are more concerned about adverse effects than a potential survival benefit with any of these therapies may reasonably choose no systemic therapy.

For HCC patients with poor liver function, who are not eligible for LRT or resection, or with metastatic disease, the guidelines recommend against routine use of sorafenib.

In the setting of adjuvant therapy following curative surgical resection, curative local ablation, or TACE LRT, the guidelines recommend against the use of sorafenib. The authors also recommended against the use of bevacizumab following TACE LRT.

The authors noted that there is no high-quality comparative evidence in the second-line setting for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, sorafenib, or lenvatinib. There is a dearth of evidence and few biomarkers to guide personalization of therapies, which places the emphasis on patient preferences, risks, and benefits.

The authors disclosed no conflicts.

The American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons have released updated guidelines regarding whether to withhold drugs such as biologics and immunosuppressives for patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease who are scheduled to undergo elective total hip or knee replacement surgery.

The guidelines, published in a summary by the societies on Feb. 28, include revised and new recommendations about biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for patients with several types of inflammatory arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In general, the guidelines recommend that the most powerful medications be withheld prior to surgery except for patients whose SLE is so severe that it threatens organs. They also recommend a shorter period of withholding drugs – 3 days instead of 7 – for JAK inhibitors.
 

The previous guidelines were published in 2017.

“These recommendations seek to balance flares of disease that are likely when medications are stopped vs. the risk of infection,” Susan M. Goodman, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, and co–principal investigator of the guideline, told this news organization. “Patients and physicians may want to be either more conservative or more aggressive with their medications, depending on their personal priorities or specific medical history.”

According to Dr. Goodman, patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases are especially likely to undergo joint replacement surgery because the conditions can damage the joints. “While the introduction of potent biologics has been linked to a decrease in surgery of soft tissues and small joints, there has been little impact on large-joint surgeries,” she said.

The risk of infection in these patients is about 50% higher than in the general population, she said. However, “it is hard to determine the magnitude of the effect of withholding medications, given the low rate of infection. In fact, using pharmaco-epidemiologic methods in large Medicare databases, no difference was seen in patients whose immunosuppressant medication infusions were close to the time of surgery compared to those patients whose medication infusions were months prior to surgery.”

The guidelines add a recommendation for the first time for apremilast (Otezla), saying that when it is administered twice daily it is okay to schedule surgery at any time.

Withholding drugs in patients with SLE

“We now recommend continuing biologics used to treat SLE – rituximab and belimumab – in patients with severe SLE but continue to recommend withholding them in less severe cases where there is little risk of organ damage,” Bryan D. Springer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Charlotte, N.C., first vice president of the AAHKS, and co–principal investigator of the new guidelines, told this news organization.

In severe SLE cases, the guidelines recommend timing total joint replacement surgery for 4-6 months after the latest IV dose of rituximab (Rituxan), which is given every 4-6 months. For patients taking belimumab (Benlysta), time surgery anytime when weekly subcutaneous doses are administered or at week 4 when monthly IV doses are given.

The guidelines also make recommendations regarding two new drugs for the treatment of severe SLE:

• Anifrolumab (Saphnelo): Time surgery at week 4 when IV treatment is given every 4 weeks.
• Voclosporin (Lupkynis): Continue doses when they’re given twice daily.

An ACR statement cautions that there are no published, peer-reviewed data regarding the use of these two drugs prior to total joint surgery. “The medications do increase the risk of infection,” the statement says, “and therefore their use in patients with severe SLE would merit review by the treating rheumatologist in consideration of surgery.”

Timing of stopping and restarting medication

The guidelines also recommend that certain drugs be withheld for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or any type of SLE and then “restarting the antirheumatic therapy once the wound shows evidence of healing, any sutures/staples are out, there is no significant swelling, erythema, or drainage, and there is no ongoing nonsurgical site infection, which is typically about 14 days.”

In regard to biologics, “we continue to recommend withholding biologic medications in patients with inflammatory arthritis, withholding the medication for a dosing cycle prior to surgery, and scheduling the surgery after that dose would be due,” Dr. Springer said. “For example, if a patient takes the medication every 4 weeks, the patient would withhold the dose of the medication and schedule surgery in the 5th week.”

The new recommendations for biologics suggest scheduling surgery at week 5 when the interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor ixekizumab (Taltz) is given once every 4 weeks and at week 9 when the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya) is given every 8 weeks.

The guidelines also revise the previous recommendation about tofacitinib (Xeljanz): Surgery should be scheduled on day 4 when the drug is given once or twice daily. New recommendations for fellow JAK inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant, daily) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq, daily) are the same: Withhold for 3 days prior to surgery and perform surgery on the 4th day.

“We shortened the time between the last dose of JAK inhibitors and surgery to 3 days from 7 based on trial data demonstrating early flares when the drug was withheld, suggesting the immunosuppressant effect wears off sooner than we previously thought,” Dr. Springer said.

The guidelines caution that the recommendations for JAK inhibitors are for infection risk but do not consider the risk of cardiac events or venous thromboembolism.

In patients with nonsevere SLE, the guidelines revise the recommendations for mycophenolate mofetil (twice daily), cyclosporine (twice daily), and tacrolimus (twice daily, IV and oral). The new advice is to withhold the drugs for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery. New recommendations offer the same advice for belimumab, both IV and subcutaneous: Withhold for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery.

The board of the ACR approved the guidelines summary; the full manuscript has been submitted for peer review with an eye toward later publication in the journals Arthritis and Rheumatology and Arthritis Care and Research.

The ACR and AAHKS funded the guidelines. Dr. Goodman and Dr. Springer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons have released updated guidelines regarding whether to withhold drugs such as biologics and immunosuppressives for patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease who are scheduled to undergo elective total hip or knee replacement surgery.

The guidelines, published in a summary by the societies on Feb. 28, include revised and new recommendations about biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for patients with several types of inflammatory arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In general, the guidelines recommend that the most powerful medications be withheld prior to surgery except for patients whose SLE is so severe that it threatens organs. They also recommend a shorter period of withholding drugs – 3 days instead of 7 – for JAK inhibitors.
 

The previous guidelines were published in 2017.

“These recommendations seek to balance flares of disease that are likely when medications are stopped vs. the risk of infection,” Susan M. Goodman, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, and co–principal investigator of the guideline, told this news organization. “Patients and physicians may want to be either more conservative or more aggressive with their medications, depending on their personal priorities or specific medical history.”

According to Dr. Goodman, patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases are especially likely to undergo joint replacement surgery because the conditions can damage the joints. “While the introduction of potent biologics has been linked to a decrease in surgery of soft tissues and small joints, there has been little impact on large-joint surgeries,” she said.

The risk of infection in these patients is about 50% higher than in the general population, she said. However, “it is hard to determine the magnitude of the effect of withholding medications, given the low rate of infection. In fact, using pharmaco-epidemiologic methods in large Medicare databases, no difference was seen in patients whose immunosuppressant medication infusions were close to the time of surgery compared to those patients whose medication infusions were months prior to surgery.”

The guidelines add a recommendation for the first time for apremilast (Otezla), saying that when it is administered twice daily it is okay to schedule surgery at any time.

Withholding drugs in patients with SLE

“We now recommend continuing biologics used to treat SLE – rituximab and belimumab – in patients with severe SLE but continue to recommend withholding them in less severe cases where there is little risk of organ damage,” Bryan D. Springer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Charlotte, N.C., first vice president of the AAHKS, and co–principal investigator of the new guidelines, told this news organization.

In severe SLE cases, the guidelines recommend timing total joint replacement surgery for 4-6 months after the latest IV dose of rituximab (Rituxan), which is given every 4-6 months. For patients taking belimumab (Benlysta), time surgery anytime when weekly subcutaneous doses are administered or at week 4 when monthly IV doses are given.

The guidelines also make recommendations regarding two new drugs for the treatment of severe SLE:

• Anifrolumab (Saphnelo): Time surgery at week 4 when IV treatment is given every 4 weeks.
• Voclosporin (Lupkynis): Continue doses when they’re given twice daily.

An ACR statement cautions that there are no published, peer-reviewed data regarding the use of these two drugs prior to total joint surgery. “The medications do increase the risk of infection,” the statement says, “and therefore their use in patients with severe SLE would merit review by the treating rheumatologist in consideration of surgery.”

Timing of stopping and restarting medication

The guidelines also recommend that certain drugs be withheld for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or any type of SLE and then “restarting the antirheumatic therapy once the wound shows evidence of healing, any sutures/staples are out, there is no significant swelling, erythema, or drainage, and there is no ongoing nonsurgical site infection, which is typically about 14 days.”

In regard to biologics, “we continue to recommend withholding biologic medications in patients with inflammatory arthritis, withholding the medication for a dosing cycle prior to surgery, and scheduling the surgery after that dose would be due,” Dr. Springer said. “For example, if a patient takes the medication every 4 weeks, the patient would withhold the dose of the medication and schedule surgery in the 5th week.”

The new recommendations for biologics suggest scheduling surgery at week 5 when the interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor ixekizumab (Taltz) is given once every 4 weeks and at week 9 when the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya) is given every 8 weeks.

The guidelines also revise the previous recommendation about tofacitinib (Xeljanz): Surgery should be scheduled on day 4 when the drug is given once or twice daily. New recommendations for fellow JAK inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant, daily) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq, daily) are the same: Withhold for 3 days prior to surgery and perform surgery on the 4th day.

“We shortened the time between the last dose of JAK inhibitors and surgery to 3 days from 7 based on trial data demonstrating early flares when the drug was withheld, suggesting the immunosuppressant effect wears off sooner than we previously thought,” Dr. Springer said.

The guidelines caution that the recommendations for JAK inhibitors are for infection risk but do not consider the risk of cardiac events or venous thromboembolism.

In patients with nonsevere SLE, the guidelines revise the recommendations for mycophenolate mofetil (twice daily), cyclosporine (twice daily), and tacrolimus (twice daily, IV and oral). The new advice is to withhold the drugs for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery. New recommendations offer the same advice for belimumab, both IV and subcutaneous: Withhold for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery.

The board of the ACR approved the guidelines summary; the full manuscript has been submitted for peer review with an eye toward later publication in the journals Arthritis and Rheumatology and Arthritis Care and Research.

The ACR and AAHKS funded the guidelines. Dr. Goodman and Dr. Springer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons have released updated guidelines regarding whether to withhold drugs such as biologics and immunosuppressives for patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease who are scheduled to undergo elective total hip or knee replacement surgery.

The guidelines, published in a summary by the societies on Feb. 28, include revised and new recommendations about biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for patients with several types of inflammatory arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In general, the guidelines recommend that the most powerful medications be withheld prior to surgery except for patients whose SLE is so severe that it threatens organs. They also recommend a shorter period of withholding drugs – 3 days instead of 7 – for JAK inhibitors.
 

The previous guidelines were published in 2017.

“These recommendations seek to balance flares of disease that are likely when medications are stopped vs. the risk of infection,” Susan M. Goodman, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, and co–principal investigator of the guideline, told this news organization. “Patients and physicians may want to be either more conservative or more aggressive with their medications, depending on their personal priorities or specific medical history.”

According to Dr. Goodman, patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases are especially likely to undergo joint replacement surgery because the conditions can damage the joints. “While the introduction of potent biologics has been linked to a decrease in surgery of soft tissues and small joints, there has been little impact on large-joint surgeries,” she said.

The risk of infection in these patients is about 50% higher than in the general population, she said. However, “it is hard to determine the magnitude of the effect of withholding medications, given the low rate of infection. In fact, using pharmaco-epidemiologic methods in large Medicare databases, no difference was seen in patients whose immunosuppressant medication infusions were close to the time of surgery compared to those patients whose medication infusions were months prior to surgery.”

The guidelines add a recommendation for the first time for apremilast (Otezla), saying that when it is administered twice daily it is okay to schedule surgery at any time.

Withholding drugs in patients with SLE

“We now recommend continuing biologics used to treat SLE – rituximab and belimumab – in patients with severe SLE but continue to recommend withholding them in less severe cases where there is little risk of organ damage,” Bryan D. Springer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Charlotte, N.C., first vice president of the AAHKS, and co–principal investigator of the new guidelines, told this news organization.

In severe SLE cases, the guidelines recommend timing total joint replacement surgery for 4-6 months after the latest IV dose of rituximab (Rituxan), which is given every 4-6 months. For patients taking belimumab (Benlysta), time surgery anytime when weekly subcutaneous doses are administered or at week 4 when monthly IV doses are given.

The guidelines also make recommendations regarding two new drugs for the treatment of severe SLE:

• Anifrolumab (Saphnelo): Time surgery at week 4 when IV treatment is given every 4 weeks.
• Voclosporin (Lupkynis): Continue doses when they’re given twice daily.

An ACR statement cautions that there are no published, peer-reviewed data regarding the use of these two drugs prior to total joint surgery. “The medications do increase the risk of infection,” the statement says, “and therefore their use in patients with severe SLE would merit review by the treating rheumatologist in consideration of surgery.”

Timing of stopping and restarting medication

The guidelines also recommend that certain drugs be withheld for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or any type of SLE and then “restarting the antirheumatic therapy once the wound shows evidence of healing, any sutures/staples are out, there is no significant swelling, erythema, or drainage, and there is no ongoing nonsurgical site infection, which is typically about 14 days.”

In regard to biologics, “we continue to recommend withholding biologic medications in patients with inflammatory arthritis, withholding the medication for a dosing cycle prior to surgery, and scheduling the surgery after that dose would be due,” Dr. Springer said. “For example, if a patient takes the medication every 4 weeks, the patient would withhold the dose of the medication and schedule surgery in the 5th week.”

The new recommendations for biologics suggest scheduling surgery at week 5 when the interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor ixekizumab (Taltz) is given once every 4 weeks and at week 9 when the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya) is given every 8 weeks.

The guidelines also revise the previous recommendation about tofacitinib (Xeljanz): Surgery should be scheduled on day 4 when the drug is given once or twice daily. New recommendations for fellow JAK inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant, daily) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq, daily) are the same: Withhold for 3 days prior to surgery and perform surgery on the 4th day.

“We shortened the time between the last dose of JAK inhibitors and surgery to 3 days from 7 based on trial data demonstrating early flares when the drug was withheld, suggesting the immunosuppressant effect wears off sooner than we previously thought,” Dr. Springer said.

The guidelines caution that the recommendations for JAK inhibitors are for infection risk but do not consider the risk of cardiac events or venous thromboembolism.

In patients with nonsevere SLE, the guidelines revise the recommendations for mycophenolate mofetil (twice daily), cyclosporine (twice daily), and tacrolimus (twice daily, IV and oral). The new advice is to withhold the drugs for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery. New recommendations offer the same advice for belimumab, both IV and subcutaneous: Withhold for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery.

The board of the ACR approved the guidelines summary; the full manuscript has been submitted for peer review with an eye toward later publication in the journals Arthritis and Rheumatology and Arthritis Care and Research.

The ACR and AAHKS funded the guidelines. Dr. Goodman and Dr. Springer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Low-value health care services that provide little or no benefit to patients are “common, potentially harmful, and costly,” and there is a critical need to reduce this kind of care, the American Heart Association said in a newly released scientific statement.

Each year, nearly half of patients in the United States will receive at least one low-value test or procedure, with the attendant risk of avoidable complications from cascades of care and excess costs to individuals and society, the authors noted. Reducing low-value care is particularly important in cardiology, given the high prevalence and costs of cardiovascular disease in the United States.

The statement was published online Feb. 22, 2022, in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

High burden with uncertain benefit

“Cardiovascular disease is common and can present suddenly, such as a heart attack or abnormal heart rhythm,” Vinay Kini, MD, chair of the statement writing group and assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said in a news release.

“Our desire to be vigilant about treating and preventing cardiovascular disease may sometimes lead to use of tests and procedures where the benefits to patients may be uncertain,” Dr. Kini said. “This may impose burdens on patients, in the form of increased risk of physical harm from the low-value procedure or potential complications, as well as follow-up care and out-of-pocket financial costs.”

For example, studies have shown that up to one in five echocardiograms and up to half of all stress tests performed in the United States may be rated as rarely appropriate, based on established guidelines for their use.

In addition, up to 15% of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) are classified as rarely appropriate, the writing group said.

Annually, among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, low-value stress testing in patients with stable coronary artery disease is estimated to cost between $212 million and $2.1 billion, while costs of PCI for stable CAD range from $212 million to $2.8 billion, the writing group noted.

“At best, spending on low-value care potentially diverts resources from higher-value services that would benefit patients more effectively at the same or reduced cost. At worst, low-value care results in physical harm in the form of preventable morbidity and mortality,” they said.

“Thus, reducing low-value care is one of the few patient-centered solutions that directly address both the need to control health care spending and the societal imperative to devote its limited resources to beneficial health care services that improve health,” they added.

The group outlines several ways to reduce low-value cardiovascular care targeting patients, providers, and payers/policymakers.

For patients, education and shared decision-making may help reduce low-value care and dispel misconceptions about the intended purpose of test or treatment, they suggested.

For clinicians, a “layered” approach to reducing low-value care may be most effective, such as through education, audit and feedback, and behavioral science tools (“nudges”) to shift behaviors and practices, they said.

For payers and policy leaders, interventions to reduce low-value care include national insurance coverage determinations; prior authorization; alternative payment models that reward lower costs and higher-quality health care; value-based insurance designs that financially penalize low-value care; and medical liability reform to reduce defensive medical practices.

Low-value cardiovascular care is a complex problem, the writing group acknowledged, and achieving meaningful reductions in low-value cardiovascular care will require a multidisciplinary approach that includes continuous research, implementation, evaluation, and adjustment while ensuring equitable access to care.

“Each approach has benefits and drawbacks,” Dr. Kini said. “For example, prior authorization imposes a large burden on health care professionals to obtain insurance approval for tests and treatments. Prior authorization and some value-based payment models may unintentionally worsen existing racial and ethnic health care disparities.

“A one-size-fits-all approach to reducing low-value care is unlikely to succeed; rather, acting through multiple perspectives and frequently measuring impacts and potential unintended consequences is critical,” he concluded.

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA’s Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research.

The research had no commercial funding. Dr. Kini disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Low-value health care services that provide little or no benefit to patients are “common, potentially harmful, and costly,” and there is a critical need to reduce this kind of care, the American Heart Association said in a newly released scientific statement.

Each year, nearly half of patients in the United States will receive at least one low-value test or procedure, with the attendant risk of avoidable complications from cascades of care and excess costs to individuals and society, the authors noted. Reducing low-value care is particularly important in cardiology, given the high prevalence and costs of cardiovascular disease in the United States.

The statement was published online Feb. 22, 2022, in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

High burden with uncertain benefit

“Cardiovascular disease is common and can present suddenly, such as a heart attack or abnormal heart rhythm,” Vinay Kini, MD, chair of the statement writing group and assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said in a news release.

“Our desire to be vigilant about treating and preventing cardiovascular disease may sometimes lead to use of tests and procedures where the benefits to patients may be uncertain,” Dr. Kini said. “This may impose burdens on patients, in the form of increased risk of physical harm from the low-value procedure or potential complications, as well as follow-up care and out-of-pocket financial costs.”

For example, studies have shown that up to one in five echocardiograms and up to half of all stress tests performed in the United States may be rated as rarely appropriate, based on established guidelines for their use.

In addition, up to 15% of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) are classified as rarely appropriate, the writing group said.

Annually, among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, low-value stress testing in patients with stable coronary artery disease is estimated to cost between $212 million and $2.1 billion, while costs of PCI for stable CAD range from $212 million to $2.8 billion, the writing group noted.

“At best, spending on low-value care potentially diverts resources from higher-value services that would benefit patients more effectively at the same or reduced cost. At worst, low-value care results in physical harm in the form of preventable morbidity and mortality,” they said.

“Thus, reducing low-value care is one of the few patient-centered solutions that directly address both the need to control health care spending and the societal imperative to devote its limited resources to beneficial health care services that improve health,” they added.

The group outlines several ways to reduce low-value cardiovascular care targeting patients, providers, and payers/policymakers.

For patients, education and shared decision-making may help reduce low-value care and dispel misconceptions about the intended purpose of test or treatment, they suggested.

For clinicians, a “layered” approach to reducing low-value care may be most effective, such as through education, audit and feedback, and behavioral science tools (“nudges”) to shift behaviors and practices, they said.

For payers and policy leaders, interventions to reduce low-value care include national insurance coverage determinations; prior authorization; alternative payment models that reward lower costs and higher-quality health care; value-based insurance designs that financially penalize low-value care; and medical liability reform to reduce defensive medical practices.

Low-value cardiovascular care is a complex problem, the writing group acknowledged, and achieving meaningful reductions in low-value cardiovascular care will require a multidisciplinary approach that includes continuous research, implementation, evaluation, and adjustment while ensuring equitable access to care.

“Each approach has benefits and drawbacks,” Dr. Kini said. “For example, prior authorization imposes a large burden on health care professionals to obtain insurance approval for tests and treatments. Prior authorization and some value-based payment models may unintentionally worsen existing racial and ethnic health care disparities.

“A one-size-fits-all approach to reducing low-value care is unlikely to succeed; rather, acting through multiple perspectives and frequently measuring impacts and potential unintended consequences is critical,” he concluded.

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA’s Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research.

The research had no commercial funding. Dr. Kini disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Low-value health care services that provide little or no benefit to patients are “common, potentially harmful, and costly,” and there is a critical need to reduce this kind of care, the American Heart Association said in a newly released scientific statement.

Each year, nearly half of patients in the United States will receive at least one low-value test or procedure, with the attendant risk of avoidable complications from cascades of care and excess costs to individuals and society, the authors noted. Reducing low-value care is particularly important in cardiology, given the high prevalence and costs of cardiovascular disease in the United States.

The statement was published online Feb. 22, 2022, in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

High burden with uncertain benefit

“Cardiovascular disease is common and can present suddenly, such as a heart attack or abnormal heart rhythm,” Vinay Kini, MD, chair of the statement writing group and assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said in a news release.

“Our desire to be vigilant about treating and preventing cardiovascular disease may sometimes lead to use of tests and procedures where the benefits to patients may be uncertain,” Dr. Kini said. “This may impose burdens on patients, in the form of increased risk of physical harm from the low-value procedure or potential complications, as well as follow-up care and out-of-pocket financial costs.”

For example, studies have shown that up to one in five echocardiograms and up to half of all stress tests performed in the United States may be rated as rarely appropriate, based on established guidelines for their use.

In addition, up to 15% of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) are classified as rarely appropriate, the writing group said.

Annually, among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, low-value stress testing in patients with stable coronary artery disease is estimated to cost between $212 million and $2.1 billion, while costs of PCI for stable CAD range from $212 million to $2.8 billion, the writing group noted.

“At best, spending on low-value care potentially diverts resources from higher-value services that would benefit patients more effectively at the same or reduced cost. At worst, low-value care results in physical harm in the form of preventable morbidity and mortality,” they said.

“Thus, reducing low-value care is one of the few patient-centered solutions that directly address both the need to control health care spending and the societal imperative to devote its limited resources to beneficial health care services that improve health,” they added.

The group outlines several ways to reduce low-value cardiovascular care targeting patients, providers, and payers/policymakers.

For patients, education and shared decision-making may help reduce low-value care and dispel misconceptions about the intended purpose of test or treatment, they suggested.

For clinicians, a “layered” approach to reducing low-value care may be most effective, such as through education, audit and feedback, and behavioral science tools (“nudges”) to shift behaviors and practices, they said.

For payers and policy leaders, interventions to reduce low-value care include national insurance coverage determinations; prior authorization; alternative payment models that reward lower costs and higher-quality health care; value-based insurance designs that financially penalize low-value care; and medical liability reform to reduce defensive medical practices.

Low-value cardiovascular care is a complex problem, the writing group acknowledged, and achieving meaningful reductions in low-value cardiovascular care will require a multidisciplinary approach that includes continuous research, implementation, evaluation, and adjustment while ensuring equitable access to care.

“Each approach has benefits and drawbacks,” Dr. Kini said. “For example, prior authorization imposes a large burden on health care professionals to obtain insurance approval for tests and treatments. Prior authorization and some value-based payment models may unintentionally worsen existing racial and ethnic health care disparities.

“A one-size-fits-all approach to reducing low-value care is unlikely to succeed; rather, acting through multiple perspectives and frequently measuring impacts and potential unintended consequences is critical,” he concluded.

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA’s Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research.

The research had no commercial funding. Dr. Kini disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology provide both broad and detailed advice for cardiovascular risk management in various rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), many of which can lead to an increased possibility of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

“The panel believes that these recommendations will enable health care providers and patients to mutually engage in a long-term care pathway tailored to patients’ needs and expectations for improving cardiovascular health in RMDs,” write George C. Drosos, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues. The recommendations were published in February in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases).

EULAR assembled a task force to generate best practices for preventing CVD in patients with gout, vasculitis, systemic sclerosis (SSc), myositis, mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), Sjögren syndrome (SS), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and antiphospholipid syndrome (APS).

The cardiovascular risk management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis was covered in prior EULAR recommendations.

The task force included 20 members from 11 European countries, including 12 rheumatologists, 2 cardiologists, 1 metabolic medicine physician, 1 health care professional, 2 patient representatives, and 2 EMEUNET (Emerging EULAR Network) members. One group of task force members conducted a systematic literature review of 105 articles about gout, vasculitis, SSc, myositis, MCTD, and SS, and another group evaluated 75 articles about SLE and APS. Together, they decided on four overarching principles:

Clinicians need to be aware of increased cardiovascular risk in patients with RMDs, with disease reduction likely decreasing risk.

Rheumatologists – in tandem with other health care providers – are responsible for their patients’ cardiovascular risk assessment and management.

Screening for cardiovascular risk should be performed regularly in all patients with RMDs, with an emphasis on factors like smoking and blood pressure management.

Patient education and counseling on cardiovascular risk, including important lifestyle modifications, is key for RMD patients.

Specific recommendations from the gout, vasculitis, SSc, myositis, MCTD, and SS group include deploying existing cardiovascular prediction tools as they are used in the general population, with the European Vasculitis Society model suggesting to supplement the Framingham Risk Score for patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis. They also recommended avoiding diuretics in patients with gout and beta-blockers in patients with SSc, as well as following the same blood pressure and lipid management strategies that are used among the general population.

Recommendations from the SLE and APS group include thoroughly assessing traditional cardiovascular risk factors in all patients, following typical blood pressure management strategies in patients with APS, and setting a blood pressure target of less than 130/80 mm Hg in patients with SLE. They also recommended administering the lowest possible glucocorticoid dose in patients with SLE, along with treatment with hydroxychloroquine – unless contraindicated – and even common preventive strategies like low-dose aspirin if it suits their cardiovascular risk profile.

As for next steps, the task force noted several areas where additional focus is needed, such as identifying patient subgroups with increased cardiovascular risk. This could include patients with a longer disease duration or more flare-ups, older patients, and those with certain disease characteristics like antiphospholipid positivity in SLE.

Can EULAR’s recommendations be implemented in U.S. rheumatology practices?

“We have been hearing for years that patients with rheumatic diseases have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease,” Ali A. Duarte Garcia, MD, a rheumatologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “That has been consistently published for more than a decade now. But any further guidance about it has not been issued. I think there was a void there.”

“Certainly, cardiovascular disease risk in rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis has been front of mind for the last decade or so,” Christie M. Bartels, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said when asked to comment on the recommendations. “But in some of these other conditions, it hasn’t been.”

When asked if rheumatologists would be ready and willing to implement these recommendations, Dr. Duarte Garcia acknowledged that it could be challenging for some.

“It’s a different workflow,” he said. “You’ve been trained traditionally to assess inflammation, to keep the disease under control, which is something they recommend, by the way. If you control the disease, patients do better. But I think lipid screening, for example, and testing for cholesterol, smoking cessation, those well-established programs are harder to bring to a rheumatology clinic. It’s doable, but it’s something that needs to be implemented within the current workflows and could take a few years to take hold.”

Dr. Bartels, however, noted that her group has done extensive work over the last 5 years incorporating certain interventions into practice, including sending patients with high blood pressure back to primary care.

“It’s a sustainable intervention in our clinic that basically our medical assistants and nurses do as a routine operation,” she said. “Our primary care providers are grateful to get these patients back. Our patients are grateful because otherwise when they come to the rheumatologist, get their blood pressure measured, and don’t get feedback, they assume they’re OK. So, we’re giving them a false signal.

“We have a similar intervention with smoking,” she added. “Often our patients aren’t even aware that they’re at increased risk of cardiovascular disease or that smoking might make their rheumatic disease and their cardiovascular outcomes worse. No one has had that conversation with them. They really welcome engaging in those discussions.

“Our tobacco intervention takes 90 seconds at point of care. Our blood pressure intervention at point of care, we’ve timed it, takes 3 minutes. There are ways that we can hardwire this into care.”

Along those lines, Dr. Duarte Garcia stated that the recommendations – although released by EULAR – are largely intuitive and should be very adaptable to an American health care context. He also recognized this moment as an opportunity for rheumatologists to consider patient outcomes beyond what they usually encounter firsthand.

“I don’t think we have many rheumatologists with patients who get a stroke or heart attack because if that happens, it’s in a hospital context or they go see a cardiologist,” he said. “You may see it once it happens if they survive and come and see you – or perhaps if you’re in a more integrated practice – but I don’t think it’s as apparent in our clinics because it is a predominantly outpatient practice and many times those are emergencies or inpatient complications.

“The bottom line,” he added, “is these are practical guidelines. It’s a push in the right direction, but there is still work to be done. And hopefully some of the recommendations, like measuring high blood pressure and addressing it just as in the general population, are something we can start to implement.”

Dr. Duarte Garcia reported receiving grant funding from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Bartels reported that her group’s tobacco cessation work is funded by Pfizer’s Independent Grants for Learning and Change.

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

New recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology provide both broad and detailed advice for cardiovascular risk management in various rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), many of which can lead to an increased possibility of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

“The panel believes that these recommendations will enable health care providers and patients to mutually engage in a long-term care pathway tailored to patients’ needs and expectations for improving cardiovascular health in RMDs,” write George C. Drosos, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues. The recommendations were published in February in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases).

EULAR assembled a task force to generate best practices for preventing CVD in patients with gout, vasculitis, systemic sclerosis (SSc), myositis, mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), Sjögren syndrome (SS), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and antiphospholipid syndrome (APS).

The cardiovascular risk management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis was covered in prior EULAR recommendations.

The task force included 20 members from 11 European countries, including 12 rheumatologists, 2 cardiologists, 1 metabolic medicine physician, 1 health care professional, 2 patient representatives, and 2 EMEUNET (Emerging EULAR Network) members. One group of task force members conducted a systematic literature review of 105 articles about gout, vasculitis, SSc, myositis, MCTD, and SS, and another group evaluated 75 articles about SLE and APS. Together, they decided on four overarching principles:

Clinicians need to be aware of increased cardiovascular risk in patients with RMDs, with disease reduction likely decreasing risk.

Rheumatologists – in tandem with other health care providers – are responsible for their patients’ cardiovascular risk assessment and management.

Screening for cardiovascular risk should be performed regularly in all patients with RMDs, with an emphasis on factors like smoking and blood pressure management.

Patient education and counseling on cardiovascular risk, including important lifestyle modifications, is key for RMD patients.

Specific recommendations from the gout, vasculitis, SSc, myositis, MCTD, and SS group include deploying existing cardiovascular prediction tools as they are used in the general population, with the European Vasculitis Society model suggesting to supplement the Framingham Risk Score for patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis. They also recommended avoiding diuretics in patients with gout and beta-blockers in patients with SSc, as well as following the same blood pressure and lipid management strategies that are used among the general population.

Recommendations from the SLE and APS group include thoroughly assessing traditional cardiovascular risk factors in all patients, following typical blood pressure management strategies in patients with APS, and setting a blood pressure target of less than 130/80 mm Hg in patients with SLE. They also recommended administering the lowest possible glucocorticoid dose in patients with SLE, along with treatment with hydroxychloroquine – unless contraindicated – and even common preventive strategies like low-dose aspirin if it suits their cardiovascular risk profile.

As for next steps, the task force noted several areas where additional focus is needed, such as identifying patient subgroups with increased cardiovascular risk. This could include patients with a longer disease duration or more flare-ups, older patients, and those with certain disease characteristics like antiphospholipid positivity in SLE.

Can EULAR’s recommendations be implemented in U.S. rheumatology practices?

“We have been hearing for years that patients with rheumatic diseases have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease,” Ali A. Duarte Garcia, MD, a rheumatologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “That has been consistently published for more than a decade now. But any further guidance about it has not been issued. I think there was a void there.”

“Certainly, cardiovascular disease risk in rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis has been front of mind for the last decade or so,” Christie M. Bartels, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said when asked to comment on the recommendations. “But in some of these other conditions, it hasn’t been.”

When asked if rheumatologists would be ready and willing to implement these recommendations, Dr. Duarte Garcia acknowledged that it could be challenging for some.

“It’s a different workflow,” he said. “You’ve been trained traditionally to assess inflammation, to keep the disease under control, which is something they recommend, by the way. If you control the disease, patients do better. But I think lipid screening, for example, and testing for cholesterol, smoking cessation, those well-established programs are harder to bring to a rheumatology clinic. It’s doable, but it’s something that needs to be implemented within the current workflows and could take a few years to take hold.”

Dr. Bartels, however, noted that her group has done extensive work over the last 5 years incorporating certain interventions into practice, including sending patients with high blood pressure back to primary care.

“It’s a sustainable intervention in our clinic that basically our medical assistants and nurses do as a routine operation,” she said. “Our primary care providers are grateful to get these patients back. Our patients are grateful because otherwise when they come to the rheumatologist, get their blood pressure measured, and don’t get feedback, they assume they’re OK. So, we’re giving them a false signal.

“We have a similar intervention with smoking,” she added. “Often our patients aren’t even aware that they’re at increased risk of cardiovascular disease or that smoking might make their rheumatic disease and their cardiovascular outcomes worse. No one has had that conversation with them. They really welcome engaging in those discussions.

“Our tobacco intervention takes 90 seconds at point of care. Our blood pressure intervention at point of care, we’ve timed it, takes 3 minutes. There are ways that we can hardwire this into care.”

Along those lines, Dr. Duarte Garcia stated that the recommendations – although released by EULAR – are largely intuitive and should be very adaptable to an American health care context. He also recognized this moment as an opportunity for rheumatologists to consider patient outcomes beyond what they usually encounter firsthand.

“I don’t think we have many rheumatologists with patients who get a stroke or heart attack because if that happens, it’s in a hospital context or they go see a cardiologist,” he said. “You may see it once it happens if they survive and come and see you – or perhaps if you’re in a more integrated practice – but I don’t think it’s as apparent in our clinics because it is a predominantly outpatient practice and many times those are emergencies or inpatient complications.

“The bottom line,” he added, “is these are practical guidelines. It’s a push in the right direction, but there is still work to be done. And hopefully some of the recommendations, like measuring high blood pressure and addressing it just as in the general population, are something we can start to implement.”

Dr. Duarte Garcia reported receiving grant funding from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Bartels reported that her group’s tobacco cessation work is funded by Pfizer’s Independent Grants for Learning and Change.

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

New recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology provide both broad and detailed advice for cardiovascular risk management in various rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), many of which can lead to an increased possibility of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

“The panel believes that these recommendations will enable health care providers and patients to mutually engage in a long-term care pathway tailored to patients’ needs and expectations for improving cardiovascular health in RMDs,” write George C. Drosos, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues. The recommendations were published in February in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases).

EULAR assembled a task force to generate best practices for preventing CVD in patients with gout, vasculitis, systemic sclerosis (SSc), myositis, mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), Sjögren syndrome (SS), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and antiphospholipid syndrome (APS).

The cardiovascular risk management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis was covered in prior EULAR recommendations.

The task force included 20 members from 11 European countries, including 12 rheumatologists, 2 cardiologists, 1 metabolic medicine physician, 1 health care professional, 2 patient representatives, and 2 EMEUNET (Emerging EULAR Network) members. One group of task force members conducted a systematic literature review of 105 articles about gout, vasculitis, SSc, myositis, MCTD, and SS, and another group evaluated 75 articles about SLE and APS. Together, they decided on four overarching principles:

Clinicians need to be aware of increased cardiovascular risk in patients with RMDs, with disease reduction likely decreasing risk.

Rheumatologists – in tandem with other health care providers – are responsible for their patients’ cardiovascular risk assessment and management.

Screening for cardiovascular risk should be performed regularly in all patients with RMDs, with an emphasis on factors like smoking and blood pressure management.

Patient education and counseling on cardiovascular risk, including important lifestyle modifications, is key for RMD patients.

Specific recommendations from the gout, vasculitis, SSc, myositis, MCTD, and SS group include deploying existing cardiovascular prediction tools as they are used in the general population, with the European Vasculitis Society model suggesting to supplement the Framingham Risk Score for patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis. They also recommended avoiding diuretics in patients with gout and beta-blockers in patients with SSc, as well as following the same blood pressure and lipid management strategies that are used among the general population.

Recommendations from the SLE and APS group include thoroughly assessing traditional cardiovascular risk factors in all patients, following typical blood pressure management strategies in patients with APS, and setting a blood pressure target of less than 130/80 mm Hg in patients with SLE. They also recommended administering the lowest possible glucocorticoid dose in patients with SLE, along with treatment with hydroxychloroquine – unless contraindicated – and even common preventive strategies like low-dose aspirin if it suits their cardiovascular risk profile.

As for next steps, the task force noted several areas where additional focus is needed, such as identifying patient subgroups with increased cardiovascular risk. This could include patients with a longer disease duration or more flare-ups, older patients, and those with certain disease characteristics like antiphospholipid positivity in SLE.

Can EULAR’s recommendations be implemented in U.S. rheumatology practices?

“We have been hearing for years that patients with rheumatic diseases have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease,” Ali A. Duarte Garcia, MD, a rheumatologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “That has been consistently published for more than a decade now. But any further guidance about it has not been issued. I think there was a void there.”

“Certainly, cardiovascular disease risk in rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis has been front of mind for the last decade or so,” Christie M. Bartels, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said when asked to comment on the recommendations. “But in some of these other conditions, it hasn’t been.”

When asked if rheumatologists would be ready and willing to implement these recommendations, Dr. Duarte Garcia acknowledged that it could be challenging for some.

“It’s a different workflow,” he said. “You’ve been trained traditionally to assess inflammation, to keep the disease under control, which is something they recommend, by the way. If you control the disease, patients do better. But I think lipid screening, for example, and testing for cholesterol, smoking cessation, those well-established programs are harder to bring to a rheumatology clinic. It’s doable, but it’s something that needs to be implemented within the current workflows and could take a few years to take hold.”

Dr. Bartels, however, noted that her group has done extensive work over the last 5 years incorporating certain interventions into practice, including sending patients with high blood pressure back to primary care.

“It’s a sustainable intervention in our clinic that basically our medical assistants and nurses do as a routine operation,” she said. “Our primary care providers are grateful to get these patients back. Our patients are grateful because otherwise when they come to the rheumatologist, get their blood pressure measured, and don’t get feedback, they assume they’re OK. So, we’re giving them a false signal.

“We have a similar intervention with smoking,” she added. “Often our patients aren’t even aware that they’re at increased risk of cardiovascular disease or that smoking might make their rheumatic disease and their cardiovascular outcomes worse. No one has had that conversation with them. They really welcome engaging in those discussions.

“Our tobacco intervention takes 90 seconds at point of care. Our blood pressure intervention at point of care, we’ve timed it, takes 3 minutes. There are ways that we can hardwire this into care.”

Along those lines, Dr. Duarte Garcia stated that the recommendations – although released by EULAR – are largely intuitive and should be very adaptable to an American health care context. He also recognized this moment as an opportunity for rheumatologists to consider patient outcomes beyond what they usually encounter firsthand.

“I don’t think we have many rheumatologists with patients who get a stroke or heart attack because if that happens, it’s in a hospital context or they go see a cardiologist,” he said. “You may see it once it happens if they survive and come and see you – or perhaps if you’re in a more integrated practice – but I don’t think it’s as apparent in our clinics because it is a predominantly outpatient practice and many times those are emergencies or inpatient complications.

“The bottom line,” he added, “is these are practical guidelines. It’s a push in the right direction, but there is still work to be done. And hopefully some of the recommendations, like measuring high blood pressure and addressing it just as in the general population, are something we can start to implement.”

Dr. Duarte Garcia reported receiving grant funding from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Bartels reported that her group’s tobacco cessation work is funded by Pfizer’s Independent Grants for Learning and Change.

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

Updated guidance for health care providers on multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) recognizes the evolving nature of the disease and offers strategies for pediatric rheumatologists, who also may be asked to recommend treatment for hyperinflammation in children with acute COVID-19.

Guidance is needed for many reasons, including the variable case definitions for MIS-C, the presence of MIS-C features in other infections and childhood rheumatic diseases, the extrapolation of treatment strategies from other conditions with similar presentations, and the issue of myocardial dysfunction, wrote Lauren A. Henderson, MD, MMSC, of Boston Children’s Hospital, and members of the American College of Rheumatology MIS-C and COVID-19–Related Hyperinflammation Task Force.

However, “modifications to treatment plans, particularly in patients with complex conditions, are highly disease, patient, geography, and time specific, and therefore must be individualized as part of a shared decision-making process,” the authors said. The updated guidance was published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
 

Update needed in wake of Omicron

“We continue to see cases of MIS-C across the United States due to the spike in SARS-CoV-2 infections from the Omicron variant,” and therefore updated guidance is important at this time, Dr. Henderson told this news organization.

“MIS-C remains a serious complication of COVID-19 in children and the ACR wanted to continue to provide pediatricians with up-to-date recommendations for the management of MIS-C,” she said.

“Children began to present with MIS-C in April 2020. At that time, little was known about this entity. Most of the recommendations in the first version of the MIS-C guidance were based on expert opinion,” she explained. However, “over the last 2 years, pediatricians have worked very hard to conduct high-quality research studies to better understand MIS-C, so we now have more scientific evidence to guide our recommendations.

“In version three of the MIS-C guidance, there are new recommendations on treatment. Previously, it was unclear what medications should be used for first-line treatment in patients with MIS-C. Some children were given intravenous immunoglobulin while others were given IVIg and steroids together. Several new studies show that children with MIS-C who are treated with a combination of IVIg and steroids have better outcomes. Accordingly, the MIS-C guidance now recommends dual therapy with IVIg and steroids in children with MIS-C.”

Diagnostic evaluation

The guidance calls for maintaining a broad differential diagnosis of MIS-C, given that the condition remains rare, and that most children with COVID-19 present with mild symptoms and have excellent outcomes, the authors noted. The range of clinical features associated with MIS-C include fever, mucocutaneous findings, myocardial dysfunction, cardiac conduction abnormalities, shock, gastrointestinal symptoms, and lymphadenopathy.

Some patients also experience neurologic involvement in the form of severe headache, altered mental status, seizures, cranial nerve palsies, meningismus, cerebral edema, and ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. Given the nonspecific nature of these symptoms, “it is imperative that a diagnostic evaluation for MIS-C include investigation for other possible causes, as deemed appropriate by the treating provider,” the authors emphasized. Other diagnostic considerations include the prevalence and chronology of COVID-19 in the community, which may change over time.
 

MIS-C and Kawasaki disease phenotypes

Earlier in the pandemic, when MIS-C first emerged, it was compared with Kawasaki disease (KD). “However, a closer examination of the literature shows that only about one-quarter to half of patients with a reported diagnosis of MIS-C meet the full diagnostic criteria for KD,” the authors wrote. Key features that separate MIS-C from KD include the greater incidence of KD among children in Japan and East Asia versus the higher incidence of MIS-C among non-Hispanic Black children. In addition, children with MIS-C have shown a wider age range, more prominent gastrointestinal and neurologic symptoms, and more frequent cardiac dysfunction, compared with those with KD.

Cardiac management

Close follow-up with cardiology is essential for children with MIS-C, according to the authors. The recommendations call for repeat echocardiograms for all children with MIS-C at a minimum of 7-14 days, then again at 4-6 weeks after the initial presentation. The authors also recommended additional echocardiograms for children with left ventricular dysfunction and cardiac aortic aneurysms. 

MIS-C treatment

Current treatment recommendations emphasize that patients under investigation for MIS-C with life-threatening manifestations may need immunomodulatory therapy before a full diagnostic evaluation is complete, the authors said. However, patients without life-threatening manifestations should be evaluated before starting immunomodulatory treatment to avoid potentially harmful therapies for pediatric patients who don’t need them.

When MIS-C is refractory to initial immunomodulatory treatment, a second dose of IVIg is not recommended, but intensification therapy is advised with either high-dose (10-30 mg/kg per day) glucocorticoids, anakinra, or infliximab. However, there is little evidence available for selecting a specific agent for intensification therapy.

The task force also advises giving low-dose aspirin (3-5 mg/kg per day, up to 81 mg once daily) to all MIS-C patients without active bleeding or significant bleeding risk until normalization of the platelet count and confirmed normal coronary arteries at least 4 weeks after diagnosis.
 

COVID-19 and hyperinflammation

The task force also noted a distinction between MIS-C and severe COVID-19 in children. Although many children with MIS-C are previously healthy, most children who develop severe COVID-19 during an initial infection have complex conditions or comorbidities such as developmental delay or genetic anomaly, or chronic conditions such as congenital heart disease, type 1 diabetes, or asthma, the authors said. They recommend that “hospitalized children with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen or respiratory support should be considered for immunomodulatory therapy in addition to supportive care and antiviral medications.”

The authors acknowledged the limitations and evolving nature of the recommendations, which will continue to change and do not replace clinical judgment for the management of individual patients. In the meantime, the ACR will support the task force in reviewing new evidence and providing revised versions of the current document.

Many questions about MIS-C remain, Dr. Henderson said in an interview. “It can be very hard to diagnose children with MIS-C because many of the symptoms are similar to those seen in other febrile illness of childhood. We need to identify better biomarkers to help us make the diagnosis of MIS-C. In addition, we need studies to provide information about what treatments should be used if children fail to respond to IVIg and steroids. Finally, it appears that vaccination [against SARS-CoV-2] protects against severe forms of MIS-C, and studies are needed to see how vaccination protects children from MIS-C.”

The development of the guidance was supported by the American College of Rheumatology. Dr. Henderson disclosed relationships with companies including Sobi, Pfizer, and Adaptive Biotechnologies (less than $10,000) and research support from the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and research grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

Updated guidance for health care providers on multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) recognizes the evolving nature of the disease and offers strategies for pediatric rheumatologists, who also may be asked to recommend treatment for hyperinflammation in children with acute COVID-19.

Guidance is needed for many reasons, including the variable case definitions for MIS-C, the presence of MIS-C features in other infections and childhood rheumatic diseases, the extrapolation of treatment strategies from other conditions with similar presentations, and the issue of myocardial dysfunction, wrote Lauren A. Henderson, MD, MMSC, of Boston Children’s Hospital, and members of the American College of Rheumatology MIS-C and COVID-19–Related Hyperinflammation Task Force.

However, “modifications to treatment plans, particularly in patients with complex conditions, are highly disease, patient, geography, and time specific, and therefore must be individualized as part of a shared decision-making process,” the authors said. The updated guidance was published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
 

Update needed in wake of Omicron

“We continue to see cases of MIS-C across the United States due to the spike in SARS-CoV-2 infections from the Omicron variant,” and therefore updated guidance is important at this time, Dr. Henderson told this news organization.

“MIS-C remains a serious complication of COVID-19 in children and the ACR wanted to continue to provide pediatricians with up-to-date recommendations for the management of MIS-C,” she said.

“Children began to present with MIS-C in April 2020. At that time, little was known about this entity. Most of the recommendations in the first version of the MIS-C guidance were based on expert opinion,” she explained. However, “over the last 2 years, pediatricians have worked very hard to conduct high-quality research studies to better understand MIS-C, so we now have more scientific evidence to guide our recommendations.

“In version three of the MIS-C guidance, there are new recommendations on treatment. Previously, it was unclear what medications should be used for first-line treatment in patients with MIS-C. Some children were given intravenous immunoglobulin while others were given IVIg and steroids together. Several new studies show that children with MIS-C who are treated with a combination of IVIg and steroids have better outcomes. Accordingly, the MIS-C guidance now recommends dual therapy with IVIg and steroids in children with MIS-C.”

Diagnostic evaluation

The guidance calls for maintaining a broad differential diagnosis of MIS-C, given that the condition remains rare, and that most children with COVID-19 present with mild symptoms and have excellent outcomes, the authors noted. The range of clinical features associated with MIS-C include fever, mucocutaneous findings, myocardial dysfunction, cardiac conduction abnormalities, shock, gastrointestinal symptoms, and lymphadenopathy.

Some patients also experience neurologic involvement in the form of severe headache, altered mental status, seizures, cranial nerve palsies, meningismus, cerebral edema, and ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. Given the nonspecific nature of these symptoms, “it is imperative that a diagnostic evaluation for MIS-C include investigation for other possible causes, as deemed appropriate by the treating provider,” the authors emphasized. Other diagnostic considerations include the prevalence and chronology of COVID-19 in the community, which may change over time.
 

MIS-C and Kawasaki disease phenotypes

Earlier in the pandemic, when MIS-C first emerged, it was compared with Kawasaki disease (KD). “However, a closer examination of the literature shows that only about one-quarter to half of patients with a reported diagnosis of MIS-C meet the full diagnostic criteria for KD,” the authors wrote. Key features that separate MIS-C from KD include the greater incidence of KD among children in Japan and East Asia versus the higher incidence of MIS-C among non-Hispanic Black children. In addition, children with MIS-C have shown a wider age range, more prominent gastrointestinal and neurologic symptoms, and more frequent cardiac dysfunction, compared with those with KD.

Cardiac management

Close follow-up with cardiology is essential for children with MIS-C, according to the authors. The recommendations call for repeat echocardiograms for all children with MIS-C at a minimum of 7-14 days, then again at 4-6 weeks after the initial presentation. The authors also recommended additional echocardiograms for children with left ventricular dysfunction and cardiac aortic aneurysms. 

MIS-C treatment

Current treatment recommendations emphasize that patients under investigation for MIS-C with life-threatening manifestations may need immunomodulatory therapy before a full diagnostic evaluation is complete, the authors said. However, patients without life-threatening manifestations should be evaluated before starting immunomodulatory treatment to avoid potentially harmful therapies for pediatric patients who don’t need them.

When MIS-C is refractory to initial immunomodulatory treatment, a second dose of IVIg is not recommended, but intensification therapy is advised with either high-dose (10-30 mg/kg per day) glucocorticoids, anakinra, or infliximab. However, there is little evidence available for selecting a specific agent for intensification therapy.

The task force also advises giving low-dose aspirin (3-5 mg/kg per day, up to 81 mg once daily) to all MIS-C patients without active bleeding or significant bleeding risk until normalization of the platelet count and confirmed normal coronary arteries at least 4 weeks after diagnosis.
 

COVID-19 and hyperinflammation

The task force also noted a distinction between MIS-C and severe COVID-19 in children. Although many children with MIS-C are previously healthy, most children who develop severe COVID-19 during an initial infection have complex conditions or comorbidities such as developmental delay or genetic anomaly, or chronic conditions such as congenital heart disease, type 1 diabetes, or asthma, the authors said. They recommend that “hospitalized children with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen or respiratory support should be considered for immunomodulatory therapy in addition to supportive care and antiviral medications.”

The authors acknowledged the limitations and evolving nature of the recommendations, which will continue to change and do not replace clinical judgment for the management of individual patients. In the meantime, the ACR will support the task force in reviewing new evidence and providing revised versions of the current document.

Many questions about MIS-C remain, Dr. Henderson said in an interview. “It can be very hard to diagnose children with MIS-C because many of the symptoms are similar to those seen in other febrile illness of childhood. We need to identify better biomarkers to help us make the diagnosis of MIS-C. In addition, we need studies to provide information about what treatments should be used if children fail to respond to IVIg and steroids. Finally, it appears that vaccination [against SARS-CoV-2] protects against severe forms of MIS-C, and studies are needed to see how vaccination protects children from MIS-C.”

The development of the guidance was supported by the American College of Rheumatology. Dr. Henderson disclosed relationships with companies including Sobi, Pfizer, and Adaptive Biotechnologies (less than $10,000) and research support from the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and research grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

Updated guidance for health care providers on multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) recognizes the evolving nature of the disease and offers strategies for pediatric rheumatologists, who also may be asked to recommend treatment for hyperinflammation in children with acute COVID-19.

Guidance is needed for many reasons, including the variable case definitions for MIS-C, the presence of MIS-C features in other infections and childhood rheumatic diseases, the extrapolation of treatment strategies from other conditions with similar presentations, and the issue of myocardial dysfunction, wrote Lauren A. Henderson, MD, MMSC, of Boston Children’s Hospital, and members of the American College of Rheumatology MIS-C and COVID-19–Related Hyperinflammation Task Force.

However, “modifications to treatment plans, particularly in patients with complex conditions, are highly disease, patient, geography, and time specific, and therefore must be individualized as part of a shared decision-making process,” the authors said. The updated guidance was published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
 

Update needed in wake of Omicron

“We continue to see cases of MIS-C across the United States due to the spike in SARS-CoV-2 infections from the Omicron variant,” and therefore updated guidance is important at this time, Dr. Henderson told this news organization.

“MIS-C remains a serious complication of COVID-19 in children and the ACR wanted to continue to provide pediatricians with up-to-date recommendations for the management of MIS-C,” she said.

“Children began to present with MIS-C in April 2020. At that time, little was known about this entity. Most of the recommendations in the first version of the MIS-C guidance were based on expert opinion,” she explained. However, “over the last 2 years, pediatricians have worked very hard to conduct high-quality research studies to better understand MIS-C, so we now have more scientific evidence to guide our recommendations.

“In version three of the MIS-C guidance, there are new recommendations on treatment. Previously, it was unclear what medications should be used for first-line treatment in patients with MIS-C. Some children were given intravenous immunoglobulin while others were given IVIg and steroids together. Several new studies show that children with MIS-C who are treated with a combination of IVIg and steroids have better outcomes. Accordingly, the MIS-C guidance now recommends dual therapy with IVIg and steroids in children with MIS-C.”

Diagnostic evaluation

The guidance calls for maintaining a broad differential diagnosis of MIS-C, given that the condition remains rare, and that most children with COVID-19 present with mild symptoms and have excellent outcomes, the authors noted. The range of clinical features associated with MIS-C include fever, mucocutaneous findings, myocardial dysfunction, cardiac conduction abnormalities, shock, gastrointestinal symptoms, and lymphadenopathy.

Some patients also experience neurologic involvement in the form of severe headache, altered mental status, seizures, cranial nerve palsies, meningismus, cerebral edema, and ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. Given the nonspecific nature of these symptoms, “it is imperative that a diagnostic evaluation for MIS-C include investigation for other possible causes, as deemed appropriate by the treating provider,” the authors emphasized. Other diagnostic considerations include the prevalence and chronology of COVID-19 in the community, which may change over time.
 

MIS-C and Kawasaki disease phenotypes

Earlier in the pandemic, when MIS-C first emerged, it was compared with Kawasaki disease (KD). “However, a closer examination of the literature shows that only about one-quarter to half of patients with a reported diagnosis of MIS-C meet the full diagnostic criteria for KD,” the authors wrote. Key features that separate MIS-C from KD include the greater incidence of KD among children in Japan and East Asia versus the higher incidence of MIS-C among non-Hispanic Black children. In addition, children with MIS-C have shown a wider age range, more prominent gastrointestinal and neurologic symptoms, and more frequent cardiac dysfunction, compared with those with KD.

Cardiac management

Close follow-up with cardiology is essential for children with MIS-C, according to the authors. The recommendations call for repeat echocardiograms for all children with MIS-C at a minimum of 7-14 days, then again at 4-6 weeks after the initial presentation. The authors also recommended additional echocardiograms for children with left ventricular dysfunction and cardiac aortic aneurysms. 

MIS-C treatment

Current treatment recommendations emphasize that patients under investigation for MIS-C with life-threatening manifestations may need immunomodulatory therapy before a full diagnostic evaluation is complete, the authors said. However, patients without life-threatening manifestations should be evaluated before starting immunomodulatory treatment to avoid potentially harmful therapies for pediatric patients who don’t need them.

When MIS-C is refractory to initial immunomodulatory treatment, a second dose of IVIg is not recommended, but intensification therapy is advised with either high-dose (10-30 mg/kg per day) glucocorticoids, anakinra, or infliximab. However, there is little evidence available for selecting a specific agent for intensification therapy.

The task force also advises giving low-dose aspirin (3-5 mg/kg per day, up to 81 mg once daily) to all MIS-C patients without active bleeding or significant bleeding risk until normalization of the platelet count and confirmed normal coronary arteries at least 4 weeks after diagnosis.
 

COVID-19 and hyperinflammation

The task force also noted a distinction between MIS-C and severe COVID-19 in children. Although many children with MIS-C are previously healthy, most children who develop severe COVID-19 during an initial infection have complex conditions or comorbidities such as developmental delay or genetic anomaly, or chronic conditions such as congenital heart disease, type 1 diabetes, or asthma, the authors said. They recommend that “hospitalized children with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen or respiratory support should be considered for immunomodulatory therapy in addition to supportive care and antiviral medications.”

The authors acknowledged the limitations and evolving nature of the recommendations, which will continue to change and do not replace clinical judgment for the management of individual patients. In the meantime, the ACR will support the task force in reviewing new evidence and providing revised versions of the current document.

Many questions about MIS-C remain, Dr. Henderson said in an interview. “It can be very hard to diagnose children with MIS-C because many of the symptoms are similar to those seen in other febrile illness of childhood. We need to identify better biomarkers to help us make the diagnosis of MIS-C. In addition, we need studies to provide information about what treatments should be used if children fail to respond to IVIg and steroids. Finally, it appears that vaccination [against SARS-CoV-2] protects against severe forms of MIS-C, and studies are needed to see how vaccination protects children from MIS-C.”

The development of the guidance was supported by the American College of Rheumatology. Dr. Henderson disclosed relationships with companies including Sobi, Pfizer, and Adaptive Biotechnologies (less than $10,000) and research support from the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and research grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

A practice guideline update from the ENT community on tympanostomy tubes in children reaffirms that tube insertion should not be considered in cases of otitis media with effusion (OME) lasting less than 3 months, or in children with recurrent acute otitis media (AOM) without middle ear effusion at the time of assessment for the procedure.

New in the update from the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO-HNSF) is a strong recommendation for timely follow-up after surgery and recommendations against both routine use of prophylactic antibiotic ear drops after surgery and the initial use of long-term tubes except when there are specific reasons for doing so.

The update also expands the list of risk factors that place children with OME at increased risk of developmental difficulties – and often in need of timely ear tube placement – to include intellectual disability, learning disorder, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

“Most of what we said in the 2013 [original] guideline was good and still valid ... and [important for] pediatricians, who are the key players” in managing otitis media, Jesse Hackell, MD, one of two general pediatricians who served on the Academy’s guideline update committee, said in an interview.

OME spontaneously clears up to 90% of the time within 3 months, said Dr. Hackell, of Pomona (New York) Pediatrics, and chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine.

The updated guideline, for children 6 months to 12 years, reaffirms a recommendation that tube insertion be offered to children with “bilateral OME for 3 months or longer AND documented hearing difficulties.”

It also reaffirms “options” (a lesser quality of evidence) that in the absence of hearing difficulties, surgery may be performed for children with chronic OME (3 months or longer) in one or both ears if 1) they are at increased risk of developmental difficulties from OME or 2) effusion is likely contributing to balance problems, poor school performance, behavioral problems, ear discomfort, or reduced quality of life.

Children with chronic OME who do not undergo surgery should be reevaluated at 3- to 6-month intervals and monitored until effusion is no longer present, significant hearing loss is detected, or structural abnormalities of the tympanic membrane or middle ear are detected, the update again recommends.

Tympanostomy tube placement is the most common ambulatory surgery performed on children in the United States, the guideline authors say. In 2014, about 9% of children had undergone the surgery, they wrote, noting also that “tubes were placed in 25%-30% of children with frequent ear infections.”

Recurrent AOM

The AAO-HNSF guidance regarding tympanostomy tubes for OME is similar overall to management guidance issued by the AAP in its clinical practice guideline on OME.

The organizations differ, however, on their guidance for tube insertion for recurrent AOM. In its 2013 clinical practice guideline on AOM, the AAP recommends that clinicians may offer tube insertion for recurrent AOM, with no mention of the presence or absence of persistent fluid as a consideration.

According to the AAO-HNSF update, grade A evidence, including some research published since its original 2013 guideline, has shown little benefit to tube insertion in reducing the incidence of AOM in otherwise healthy children who don’t have middle ear effusion.

One study published in 2019 assessed outcomes after watchful waiting and found that only one-third of 123 children eventually went on to tympanostomy tube placement, noted Richard M. Rosenfeld, MD, distinguished professor and chairman of otolaryngology at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, N.Y., and lead author of the original and updated guidelines.

In practice, “the real question [for the ENT] is the future. If the ears are perfectly clear, will tubes really reduce the frequency of infections going forward?” Dr. Rosenfeld said in an interview. “All the evidence seems to say no, it doesn’t make much of a difference.”

Dr. Hackell said he’s confident that the question “is settled enough.” While there “could be stronger research and higher quality studies, the evidence is still pretty good to suggest you gain little to no benefit with tubes when you’re dealing with recurrent AOM without effusion,” he said.

Asked to comment on the ENT update and its guidance on tympanostomy tubes for children with recurrent AOM, an AAP spokesperson said the “issue is under review” and that the AAP did not currently have a statement.
 

At-risk children

The AAO-HNSF update renews a recommendation to evaluate children with either recurrent AOM or OME of any duration for increased risk for speech, language, or learning problems from OME because of baseline factors (sensory, physical, cognitive, or behavioral).

When OME becomes chronic – or when a tympanogram gives a flat-line reading – OME is likely to persist, and families of at-risk children especially should be encouraged to pursue tube placement, Dr. Rosenfeld said.

Despite prior guidance to this effect, he said, ear tubes are being underutilized in at-risk children, with effusion being missed in primary care and with ENTs not expediting tube placement upon referral.

“These children have learning issues, cognitive issues, developmental issues,” he said in the interview. “It’s a population that does very poorly with ears full of fluid ... and despite guidance suggesting these children should be prioritized with tubes, it doesn’t seem to be happening enough.”

Formulating guidelines for at-risk children is challenging because they are often excluded from trials, Dr. Rosenfeld said, which limits evidence about the benefits of tubes and limits the strength of recommendations.

The addition of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, intellectual disability, and learning disorder to the list of risk factors is notable, Dr. Hackell said. (The list includes autism spectrum disorder, developmental delay, and suspected or confirmed speech and language delay or disorder.)

“We know that kids with ADHD take in and process information a little differently ... it may be harder to get their attention with auditory stimulation,” he said. “So anything that would impact the taking in of information even for a short period of time increases their risk.”

Surgical practice

ENTs are advised in the new guidance to use long-term tubes and perioperative antibiotic ear drops more judiciously. “Long-term tubes have a role, but there are some doctors who routinely use them, even for a first-time surgery,” said Dr. Rosenfeld.

Overuse of long-term tubes results in a higher incidence of tympanic membrane perforation, chronic drainage, and other complications, as well as greater need for long-term follow-up. “There needs to be a reason – something to justify the need for prolonged ventilation,” he said.

Perioperative antibiotic ear drops are often administered during surgery and then prescribed routinely for all children afterward, but research has shown that saline irrigation during surgery and a single application of antibiotic/steroid drops is similarly efficacious in preventing otorrhea, the guideline says. Antibiotic ear drops are also “expensive,” noted Dr. Hackell. “There’s not enough benefit to justify it.”

The update also more explicitly advises selective use of adenoidectomy. A new option says that clinicians may perform the procedure as an adjunct to tube insertion for children 4 years or older to potentially reduce the future incidence of recurrent OME or the need for repeat surgery.

However, in younger children, it should not be offered unless there are symptoms directly related to adenoid infection or nasal obstruction. “Under 4 years, there’s no primary benefit for the ears,” said Dr. Rosenfeld.

Follow-up with the surgeon after tympanostomy tube insertion should occur within 3 months to assess outcomes and educate the family, the update strongly recommends.

And pediatricians should know, Dr. Hackell notes, that clinical evidence continues to show that earplugs and other water precautions are not routinely needed for children who have tubes in place. A good approach, the guideline says, is to “first avoid water precautions and instead reserve them for children with recurrent or persistent tympanostomy tube otorrhea.”

Asked to comment on the guideline update, Tim Joos, MD, MPH, who practices combined internal medicine/pediatrics in Seattle and is an editorial advisory board member of Pediatric News, noted the inclusion of patient information sheets with frequently asked questions – resources that can be useful for guiding parents through what’s often a shared decision-making process.

Neither Dr. Rosenfeld nor Dr. Hackell reported any disclosures. Other members of the guideline update committee reported various book royalties, consulting fees, and other disclosures. Dr. Joos reported he has no connections to the guideline authors.

A practice guideline update from the ENT community on tympanostomy tubes in children reaffirms that tube insertion should not be considered in cases of otitis media with effusion (OME) lasting less than 3 months, or in children with recurrent acute otitis media (AOM) without middle ear effusion at the time of assessment for the procedure.

New in the update from the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO-HNSF) is a strong recommendation for timely follow-up after surgery and recommendations against both routine use of prophylactic antibiotic ear drops after surgery and the initial use of long-term tubes except when there are specific reasons for doing so.

The update also expands the list of risk factors that place children with OME at increased risk of developmental difficulties – and often in need of timely ear tube placement – to include intellectual disability, learning disorder, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

“Most of what we said in the 2013 [original] guideline was good and still valid ... and [important for] pediatricians, who are the key players” in managing otitis media, Jesse Hackell, MD, one of two general pediatricians who served on the Academy’s guideline update committee, said in an interview.

OME spontaneously clears up to 90% of the time within 3 months, said Dr. Hackell, of Pomona (New York) Pediatrics, and chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine.

The updated guideline, for children 6 months to 12 years, reaffirms a recommendation that tube insertion be offered to children with “bilateral OME for 3 months or longer AND documented hearing difficulties.”

It also reaffirms “options” (a lesser quality of evidence) that in the absence of hearing difficulties, surgery may be performed for children with chronic OME (3 months or longer) in one or both ears if 1) they are at increased risk of developmental difficulties from OME or 2) effusion is likely contributing to balance problems, poor school performance, behavioral problems, ear discomfort, or reduced quality of life.

Children with chronic OME who do not undergo surgery should be reevaluated at 3- to 6-month intervals and monitored until effusion is no longer present, significant hearing loss is detected, or structural abnormalities of the tympanic membrane or middle ear are detected, the update again recommends.

Tympanostomy tube placement is the most common ambulatory surgery performed on children in the United States, the guideline authors say. In 2014, about 9% of children had undergone the surgery, they wrote, noting also that “tubes were placed in 25%-30% of children with frequent ear infections.”

Recurrent AOM

The AAO-HNSF guidance regarding tympanostomy tubes for OME is similar overall to management guidance issued by the AAP in its clinical practice guideline on OME.

The organizations differ, however, on their guidance for tube insertion for recurrent AOM. In its 2013 clinical practice guideline on AOM, the AAP recommends that clinicians may offer tube insertion for recurrent AOM, with no mention of the presence or absence of persistent fluid as a consideration.

According to the AAO-HNSF update, grade A evidence, including some research published since its original 2013 guideline, has shown little benefit to tube insertion in reducing the incidence of AOM in otherwise healthy children who don’t have middle ear effusion.

One study published in 2019 assessed outcomes after watchful waiting and found that only one-third of 123 children eventually went on to tympanostomy tube placement, noted Richard M. Rosenfeld, MD, distinguished professor and chairman of otolaryngology at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, N.Y., and lead author of the original and updated guidelines.

In practice, “the real question [for the ENT] is the future. If the ears are perfectly clear, will tubes really reduce the frequency of infections going forward?” Dr. Rosenfeld said in an interview. “All the evidence seems to say no, it doesn’t make much of a difference.”

Dr. Hackell said he’s confident that the question “is settled enough.” While there “could be stronger research and higher quality studies, the evidence is still pretty good to suggest you gain little to no benefit with tubes when you’re dealing with recurrent AOM without effusion,” he said.

Asked to comment on the ENT update and its guidance on tympanostomy tubes for children with recurrent AOM, an AAP spokesperson said the “issue is under review” and that the AAP did not currently have a statement.
 

At-risk children

The AAO-HNSF update renews a recommendation to evaluate children with either recurrent AOM or OME of any duration for increased risk for speech, language, or learning problems from OME because of baseline factors (sensory, physical, cognitive, or behavioral).

When OME becomes chronic – or when a tympanogram gives a flat-line reading – OME is likely to persist, and families of at-risk children especially should be encouraged to pursue tube placement, Dr. Rosenfeld said.

Despite prior guidance to this effect, he said, ear tubes are being underutilized in at-risk children, with effusion being missed in primary care and with ENTs not expediting tube placement upon referral.

“These children have learning issues, cognitive issues, developmental issues,” he said in the interview. “It’s a population that does very poorly with ears full of fluid ... and despite guidance suggesting these children should be prioritized with tubes, it doesn’t seem to be happening enough.”

Formulating guidelines for at-risk children is challenging because they are often excluded from trials, Dr. Rosenfeld said, which limits evidence about the benefits of tubes and limits the strength of recommendations.

The addition of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, intellectual disability, and learning disorder to the list of risk factors is notable, Dr. Hackell said. (The list includes autism spectrum disorder, developmental delay, and suspected or confirmed speech and language delay or disorder.)

“We know that kids with ADHD take in and process information a little differently ... it may be harder to get their attention with auditory stimulation,” he said. “So anything that would impact the taking in of information even for a short period of time increases their risk.”

Surgical practice

ENTs are advised in the new guidance to use long-term tubes and perioperative antibiotic ear drops more judiciously. “Long-term tubes have a role, but there are some doctors who routinely use them, even for a first-time surgery,” said Dr. Rosenfeld.

Overuse of long-term tubes results in a higher incidence of tympanic membrane perforation, chronic drainage, and other complications, as well as greater need for long-term follow-up. “There needs to be a reason – something to justify the need for prolonged ventilation,” he said.

Perioperative antibiotic ear drops are often administered during surgery and then prescribed routinely for all children afterward, but research has shown that saline irrigation during surgery and a single application of antibiotic/steroid drops is similarly efficacious in preventing otorrhea, the guideline says. Antibiotic ear drops are also “expensive,” noted Dr. Hackell. “There’s not enough benefit to justify it.”

The update also more explicitly advises selective use of adenoidectomy. A new option says that clinicians may perform the procedure as an adjunct to tube insertion for children 4 years or older to potentially reduce the future incidence of recurrent OME or the need for repeat surgery.

However, in younger children, it should not be offered unless there are symptoms directly related to adenoid infection or nasal obstruction. “Under 4 years, there’s no primary benefit for the ears,” said Dr. Rosenfeld.

Follow-up with the surgeon after tympanostomy tube insertion should occur within 3 months to assess outcomes and educate the family, the update strongly recommends.

And pediatricians should know, Dr. Hackell notes, that clinical evidence continues to show that earplugs and other water precautions are not routinely needed for children who have tubes in place. A good approach, the guideline says, is to “first avoid water precautions and instead reserve them for children with recurrent or persistent tympanostomy tube otorrhea.”

Asked to comment on the guideline update, Tim Joos, MD, MPH, who practices combined internal medicine/pediatrics in Seattle and is an editorial advisory board member of Pediatric News, noted the inclusion of patient information sheets with frequently asked questions – resources that can be useful for guiding parents through what’s often a shared decision-making process.

Neither Dr. Rosenfeld nor Dr. Hackell reported any disclosures. Other members of the guideline update committee reported various book royalties, consulting fees, and other disclosures. Dr. Joos reported he has no connections to the guideline authors.

A practice guideline update from the ENT community on tympanostomy tubes in children reaffirms that tube insertion should not be considered in cases of otitis media with effusion (OME) lasting less than 3 months, or in children with recurrent acute otitis media (AOM) without middle ear effusion at the time of assessment for the procedure.

New in the update from the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO-HNSF) is a strong recommendation for timely follow-up after surgery and recommendations against both routine use of prophylactic antibiotic ear drops after surgery and the initial use of long-term tubes except when there are specific reasons for doing so.

The update also expands the list of risk factors that place children with OME at increased risk of developmental difficulties – and often in need of timely ear tube placement – to include intellectual disability, learning disorder, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

“Most of what we said in the 2013 [original] guideline was good and still valid ... and [important for] pediatricians, who are the key players” in managing otitis media, Jesse Hackell, MD, one of two general pediatricians who served on the Academy’s guideline update committee, said in an interview.

OME spontaneously clears up to 90% of the time within 3 months, said Dr. Hackell, of Pomona (New York) Pediatrics, and chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine.

The updated guideline, for children 6 months to 12 years, reaffirms a recommendation that tube insertion be offered to children with “bilateral OME for 3 months or longer AND documented hearing difficulties.”

It also reaffirms “options” (a lesser quality of evidence) that in the absence of hearing difficulties, surgery may be performed for children with chronic OME (3 months or longer) in one or both ears if 1) they are at increased risk of developmental difficulties from OME or 2) effusion is likely contributing to balance problems, poor school performance, behavioral problems, ear discomfort, or reduced quality of life.

Children with chronic OME who do not undergo surgery should be reevaluated at 3- to 6-month intervals and monitored until effusion is no longer present, significant hearing loss is detected, or structural abnormalities of the tympanic membrane or middle ear are detected, the update again recommends.

Tympanostomy tube placement is the most common ambulatory surgery performed on children in the United States, the guideline authors say. In 2014, about 9% of children had undergone the surgery, they wrote, noting also that “tubes were placed in 25%-30% of children with frequent ear infections.”

Recurrent AOM

The AAO-HNSF guidance regarding tympanostomy tubes for OME is similar overall to management guidance issued by the AAP in its clinical practice guideline on OME.

The organizations differ, however, on their guidance for tube insertion for recurrent AOM. In its 2013 clinical practice guideline on AOM, the AAP recommends that clinicians may offer tube insertion for recurrent AOM, with no mention of the presence or absence of persistent fluid as a consideration.

According to the AAO-HNSF update, grade A evidence, including some research published since its original 2013 guideline, has shown little benefit to tube insertion in reducing the incidence of AOM in otherwise healthy children who don’t have middle ear effusion.

One study published in 2019 assessed outcomes after watchful waiting and found that only one-third of 123 children eventually went on to tympanostomy tube placement, noted Richard M. Rosenfeld, MD, distinguished professor and chairman of otolaryngology at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, N.Y., and lead author of the original and updated guidelines.

In practice, “the real question [for the ENT] is the future. If the ears are perfectly clear, will tubes really reduce the frequency of infections going forward?” Dr. Rosenfeld said in an interview. “All the evidence seems to say no, it doesn’t make much of a difference.”

Dr. Hackell said he’s confident that the question “is settled enough.” While there “could be stronger research and higher quality studies, the evidence is still pretty good to suggest you gain little to no benefit with tubes when you’re dealing with recurrent AOM without effusion,” he said.

Asked to comment on the ENT update and its guidance on tympanostomy tubes for children with recurrent AOM, an AAP spokesperson said the “issue is under review” and that the AAP did not currently have a statement.
 

At-risk children

The AAO-HNSF update renews a recommendation to evaluate children with either recurrent AOM or OME of any duration for increased risk for speech, language, or learning problems from OME because of baseline factors (sensory, physical, cognitive, or behavioral).

When OME becomes chronic – or when a tympanogram gives a flat-line reading – OME is likely to persist, and families of at-risk children especially should be encouraged to pursue tube placement, Dr. Rosenfeld said.

Despite prior guidance to this effect, he said, ear tubes are being underutilized in at-risk children, with effusion being missed in primary care and with ENTs not expediting tube placement upon referral.

“These children have learning issues, cognitive issues, developmental issues,” he said in the interview. “It’s a population that does very poorly with ears full of fluid ... and despite guidance suggesting these children should be prioritized with tubes, it doesn’t seem to be happening enough.”

Formulating guidelines for at-risk children is challenging because they are often excluded from trials, Dr. Rosenfeld said, which limits evidence about the benefits of tubes and limits the strength of recommendations.

The addition of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, intellectual disability, and learning disorder to the list of risk factors is notable, Dr. Hackell said. (The list includes autism spectrum disorder, developmental delay, and suspected or confirmed speech and language delay or disorder.)

“We know that kids with ADHD take in and process information a little differently ... it may be harder to get their attention with auditory stimulation,” he said. “So anything that would impact the taking in of information even for a short period of time increases their risk.”

Surgical practice

ENTs are advised in the new guidance to use long-term tubes and perioperative antibiotic ear drops more judiciously. “Long-term tubes have a role, but there are some doctors who routinely use them, even for a first-time surgery,” said Dr. Rosenfeld.

Overuse of long-term tubes results in a higher incidence of tympanic membrane perforation, chronic drainage, and other complications, as well as greater need for long-term follow-up. “There needs to be a reason – something to justify the need for prolonged ventilation,” he said.

Perioperative antibiotic ear drops are often administered during surgery and then prescribed routinely for all children afterward, but research has shown that saline irrigation during surgery and a single application of antibiotic/steroid drops is similarly efficacious in preventing otorrhea, the guideline says. Antibiotic ear drops are also “expensive,” noted Dr. Hackell. “There’s not enough benefit to justify it.”

The update also more explicitly advises selective use of adenoidectomy. A new option says that clinicians may perform the procedure as an adjunct to tube insertion for children 4 years or older to potentially reduce the future incidence of recurrent OME or the need for repeat surgery.

However, in younger children, it should not be offered unless there are symptoms directly related to adenoid infection or nasal obstruction. “Under 4 years, there’s no primary benefit for the ears,” said Dr. Rosenfeld.

Follow-up with the surgeon after tympanostomy tube insertion should occur within 3 months to assess outcomes and educate the family, the update strongly recommends.

And pediatricians should know, Dr. Hackell notes, that clinical evidence continues to show that earplugs and other water precautions are not routinely needed for children who have tubes in place. A good approach, the guideline says, is to “first avoid water precautions and instead reserve them for children with recurrent or persistent tympanostomy tube otorrhea.”

Asked to comment on the guideline update, Tim Joos, MD, MPH, who practices combined internal medicine/pediatrics in Seattle and is an editorial advisory board member of Pediatric News, noted the inclusion of patient information sheets with frequently asked questions – resources that can be useful for guiding parents through what’s often a shared decision-making process.

Neither Dr. Rosenfeld nor Dr. Hackell reported any disclosures. Other members of the guideline update committee reported various book royalties, consulting fees, and other disclosures. Dr. Joos reported he has no connections to the guideline authors.

The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) has issued recommendations for treating depression in patients with epilepsy.

The new guidance highlights the high prevalence of depression among patients with epilepsy while offering the first systematic approach to treatment, reported lead author Marco Mula, MD, PhD, of Atkinson Morley Regional Neuroscience Centre at St George’s University Hospital, London, and colleagues.

“Despite evidence that depression represents a frequently encountered comorbidity [among patients with epilepsy], data on the treatment of depression in epilepsy [are] still limited and recommendations rely mostly on individual clinical experience and expertise,” the investigators wrote in Epilepsia.

Recommendations cover first-line treatment of unipolar depression in epilepsy without other psychiatric disorders.

For patients with mild depression, the guidance supports psychological intervention without pharmacologic therapy; however, if the patient wishes to use medication, has had a positive response to medication in the past, or nonpharmacologic treatments have previously failed or are unavailable, then SSRIs should be considered first-choice therapy. For moderate to severe depression, SSRIs are the first choice, according to Dr. Mula and colleagues.

“It has to be acknowledged that there is considerable debate in the psychiatric literature about the treatment of mild depression in adults,” the investigators noted. “A patient-level meta-analysis pointed out that the magnitude of benefit of antidepressant medications compared with placebo increases with severity of depression symptoms and it may be minimal or nonexistent, on average, in patients with mild or moderate symptoms.”

If a patient does not respond to first-line therapy, then venlafaxine should be considered, according to the guidance. When a patient does respond to therapy, treatment should be continued for at least 6 months, and when residual symptoms persist, treatment should be continued until resolution.

“In people with depression it is established that around two-thirds of patients do not achieve full remission with first-line treatment,” Dr. Mula and colleagues wrote. “In people with epilepsy, current data show that up to 50% of patients do not achieve full remission from depression. For this reason, augmentation strategies are often needed. They should be adopted by psychiatrists, neuropsychiatrists, or mental health professionals familiar with such therapeutic strategies.”

Beyond these key recommendations, the guidance covers a range of additional topics, including other pharmacologic options, medication discontinuation strategies, electroconvulsive therapy, light therapy, exercise training, vagus nerve stimulation, and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.
 

Useful advice that counters common misconceptions

According to Jacqueline A. French, MD, a professor at NYU Langone Medical Center, Dr. Mula and colleagues are “top notch,” and their recommendations “hit every nail on the head.”

Dr. French, chief medical officer of The Epilepsy Foundation, emphasized the importance of the publication, which addresses two common misconceptions within the medical community: First, that standard antidepressants are insufficient to treat depression in patients with epilepsy, and second, that antidepressants may trigger seizures.

“The first purpose [of the publication] is to say, yes, these antidepressants do work,” Dr. French said, “and no, they don’t worsen seizures, and you can use them safely, and they are appropriate to use.”

Dr. French explained that managing depression remains a practice gap among epileptologists and neurologists because it is a diagnosis that doesn’t traditionally fall into their purview, yet many patients with epilepsy forgo visiting their primary care providers, who more frequently diagnose and manage depression. Dr. French agreed with the guidance that epilepsy specialists should fill this gap.

“We need to at least be able to take people through their first antidepressant, even though we were not trained to be psychiatrists,” Dr. French said. “That’s part of the best care of our patients.”

Imad Najm, MD, director of the Charles Shor Epilepsy Center, Cleveland Clinic, said the recommendations are a step forward in the field, as they are supported by clinical data, instead of just clinical experience and expertise.

Still, Dr. Najm noted that more work is needed to stratify risk of depression in epilepsy and evaluate a possible causal relationship between epilepsy therapies and depression.

He went on to emphasizes the scale of issue at hand, and the stakes involved.

“Depression, anxiety, and psychosis affect a large number of patients with epilepsy,” Dr. Najm said. “Clinical screening and recognition of these comorbidities leads to the institution of treatment options and significant improvement in quality of life. Mental health professionals should be an integral part of any comprehensive epilepsy center.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Esai, UCB, Elsevier, and others. Dr. French is indirectly involved with multiple pharmaceutical companies developing epilepsy drugs through her role as director of The Epilepsy Study Consortium, a nonprofit organization. Dr. Najm reported no conflicts of interest.

The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) has issued recommendations for treating depression in patients with epilepsy.

The new guidance highlights the high prevalence of depression among patients with epilepsy while offering the first systematic approach to treatment, reported lead author Marco Mula, MD, PhD, of Atkinson Morley Regional Neuroscience Centre at St George’s University Hospital, London, and colleagues.

“Despite evidence that depression represents a frequently encountered comorbidity [among patients with epilepsy], data on the treatment of depression in epilepsy [are] still limited and recommendations rely mostly on individual clinical experience and expertise,” the investigators wrote in Epilepsia.

Recommendations cover first-line treatment of unipolar depression in epilepsy without other psychiatric disorders.

For patients with mild depression, the guidance supports psychological intervention without pharmacologic therapy; however, if the patient wishes to use medication, has had a positive response to medication in the past, or nonpharmacologic treatments have previously failed or are unavailable, then SSRIs should be considered first-choice therapy. For moderate to severe depression, SSRIs are the first choice, according to Dr. Mula and colleagues.

“It has to be acknowledged that there is considerable debate in the psychiatric literature about the treatment of mild depression in adults,” the investigators noted. “A patient-level meta-analysis pointed out that the magnitude of benefit of antidepressant medications compared with placebo increases with severity of depression symptoms and it may be minimal or nonexistent, on average, in patients with mild or moderate symptoms.”

If a patient does not respond to first-line therapy, then venlafaxine should be considered, according to the guidance. When a patient does respond to therapy, treatment should be continued for at least 6 months, and when residual symptoms persist, treatment should be continued until resolution.

“In people with depression it is established that around two-thirds of patients do not achieve full remission with first-line treatment,” Dr. Mula and colleagues wrote. “In people with epilepsy, current data show that up to 50% of patients do not achieve full remission from depression. For this reason, augmentation strategies are often needed. They should be adopted by psychiatrists, neuropsychiatrists, or mental health professionals familiar with such therapeutic strategies.”

Beyond these key recommendations, the guidance covers a range of additional topics, including other pharmacologic options, medication discontinuation strategies, electroconvulsive therapy, light therapy, exercise training, vagus nerve stimulation, and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.
 

Useful advice that counters common misconceptions

According to Jacqueline A. French, MD, a professor at NYU Langone Medical Center, Dr. Mula and colleagues are “top notch,” and their recommendations “hit every nail on the head.”

Dr. French, chief medical officer of The Epilepsy Foundation, emphasized the importance of the publication, which addresses two common misconceptions within the medical community: First, that standard antidepressants are insufficient to treat depression in patients with epilepsy, and second, that antidepressants may trigger seizures.

“The first purpose [of the publication] is to say, yes, these antidepressants do work,” Dr. French said, “and no, they don’t worsen seizures, and you can use them safely, and they are appropriate to use.”

Dr. French explained that managing depression remains a practice gap among epileptologists and neurologists because it is a diagnosis that doesn’t traditionally fall into their purview, yet many patients with epilepsy forgo visiting their primary care providers, who more frequently diagnose and manage depression. Dr. French agreed with the guidance that epilepsy specialists should fill this gap.

“We need to at least be able to take people through their first antidepressant, even though we were not trained to be psychiatrists,” Dr. French said. “That’s part of the best care of our patients.”

Imad Najm, MD, director of the Charles Shor Epilepsy Center, Cleveland Clinic, said the recommendations are a step forward in the field, as they are supported by clinical data, instead of just clinical experience and expertise.

Still, Dr. Najm noted that more work is needed to stratify risk of depression in epilepsy and evaluate a possible causal relationship between epilepsy therapies and depression.

He went on to emphasizes the scale of issue at hand, and the stakes involved.

“Depression, anxiety, and psychosis affect a large number of patients with epilepsy,” Dr. Najm said. “Clinical screening and recognition of these comorbidities leads to the institution of treatment options and significant improvement in quality of life. Mental health professionals should be an integral part of any comprehensive epilepsy center.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Esai, UCB, Elsevier, and others. Dr. French is indirectly involved with multiple pharmaceutical companies developing epilepsy drugs through her role as director of The Epilepsy Study Consortium, a nonprofit organization. Dr. Najm reported no conflicts of interest.

The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) has issued recommendations for treating depression in patients with epilepsy.

The new guidance highlights the high prevalence of depression among patients with epilepsy while offering the first systematic approach to treatment, reported lead author Marco Mula, MD, PhD, of Atkinson Morley Regional Neuroscience Centre at St George’s University Hospital, London, and colleagues.

“Despite evidence that depression represents a frequently encountered comorbidity [among patients with epilepsy], data on the treatment of depression in epilepsy [are] still limited and recommendations rely mostly on individual clinical experience and expertise,” the investigators wrote in Epilepsia.

Recommendations cover first-line treatment of unipolar depression in epilepsy without other psychiatric disorders.

For patients with mild depression, the guidance supports psychological intervention without pharmacologic therapy; however, if the patient wishes to use medication, has had a positive response to medication in the past, or nonpharmacologic treatments have previously failed or are unavailable, then SSRIs should be considered first-choice therapy. For moderate to severe depression, SSRIs are the first choice, according to Dr. Mula and colleagues.

“It has to be acknowledged that there is considerable debate in the psychiatric literature about the treatment of mild depression in adults,” the investigators noted. “A patient-level meta-analysis pointed out that the magnitude of benefit of antidepressant medications compared with placebo increases with severity of depression symptoms and it may be minimal or nonexistent, on average, in patients with mild or moderate symptoms.”

If a patient does not respond to first-line therapy, then venlafaxine should be considered, according to the guidance. When a patient does respond to therapy, treatment should be continued for at least 6 months, and when residual symptoms persist, treatment should be continued until resolution.

“In people with depression it is established that around two-thirds of patients do not achieve full remission with first-line treatment,” Dr. Mula and colleagues wrote. “In people with epilepsy, current data show that up to 50% of patients do not achieve full remission from depression. For this reason, augmentation strategies are often needed. They should be adopted by psychiatrists, neuropsychiatrists, or mental health professionals familiar with such therapeutic strategies.”

Beyond these key recommendations, the guidance covers a range of additional topics, including other pharmacologic options, medication discontinuation strategies, electroconvulsive therapy, light therapy, exercise training, vagus nerve stimulation, and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.
 

Useful advice that counters common misconceptions

According to Jacqueline A. French, MD, a professor at NYU Langone Medical Center, Dr. Mula and colleagues are “top notch,” and their recommendations “hit every nail on the head.”

Dr. French, chief medical officer of The Epilepsy Foundation, emphasized the importance of the publication, which addresses two common misconceptions within the medical community: First, that standard antidepressants are insufficient to treat depression in patients with epilepsy, and second, that antidepressants may trigger seizures.

“The first purpose [of the publication] is to say, yes, these antidepressants do work,” Dr. French said, “and no, they don’t worsen seizures, and you can use them safely, and they are appropriate to use.”

Dr. French explained that managing depression remains a practice gap among epileptologists and neurologists because it is a diagnosis that doesn’t traditionally fall into their purview, yet many patients with epilepsy forgo visiting their primary care providers, who more frequently diagnose and manage depression. Dr. French agreed with the guidance that epilepsy specialists should fill this gap.

“We need to at least be able to take people through their first antidepressant, even though we were not trained to be psychiatrists,” Dr. French said. “That’s part of the best care of our patients.”

Imad Najm, MD, director of the Charles Shor Epilepsy Center, Cleveland Clinic, said the recommendations are a step forward in the field, as they are supported by clinical data, instead of just clinical experience and expertise.

Still, Dr. Najm noted that more work is needed to stratify risk of depression in epilepsy and evaluate a possible causal relationship between epilepsy therapies and depression.

He went on to emphasizes the scale of issue at hand, and the stakes involved.

“Depression, anxiety, and psychosis affect a large number of patients with epilepsy,” Dr. Najm said. “Clinical screening and recognition of these comorbidities leads to the institution of treatment options and significant improvement in quality of life. Mental health professionals should be an integral part of any comprehensive epilepsy center.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Esai, UCB, Elsevier, and others. Dr. French is indirectly involved with multiple pharmaceutical companies developing epilepsy drugs through her role as director of The Epilepsy Study Consortium, a nonprofit organization. Dr. Najm reported no conflicts of interest.

The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) has issued new recommendations for exercise/physical activity in people with type 2 diabetes, which update a 2010 joint ACSM/American Diabetes Association position statement.

kali9/Getty Images

The guidance has been published in the February issue of Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.

“This consensus statement provides a brief summary of the current evidence and extends and updates the prior recommendations,” the authors explain.

In the past decade, there has been a “considerable amount” of research about exercise in people with type 2 diabetes, they add, while the prevalence of diabetes has steadily increased.

The updated recommendations have been “expanded to include physical activity – a broader, more comprehensive definition of human movement than planned exercise – and reducing sedentary time,” the authors note.

“The latest guidelines are applicable to most individuals with diabetes, including youth, with a few exceptions and modifications,” lead author Jill A. Kanaley, PhD, said in a press release from the ACSM.

The key takeaway is that “all individuals [with type 2 diabetes] should engage in regular physical activity, reduce sedentary time, and break up sitting time with frequent activity breaks,” said Dr. Kanaley, a professor in the department of nutrition and exercise physiology, University of Missouri, Columbia.

“Exercise can play an important role in managing type 2 diabetes, and workouts can be modified to fit the abilities of most people,” she stressed.

And those with type 2 diabetes who want to lose weight “should consider workouts of moderately high volume for 4 to 5 days per week,” she added.
 

Six key tips for physical activity in adults with type 2 diabetes

The consensus statement gives six key tips for physical activity in adults with type 2 diabetes, as follows.

• Regular aerobic exercise improves glycemic management; meta-analyses have reported fewer daily hyperglycemic episodes and reductions in A1c of 0.5%-0.7%.
• High-intensity resistance exercise, when performed safely, is better than low-to-moderate intensity resistance exercise for glucose management and attenuation of insulin levels. Resistance exercise typically results in improvements of 10% to 15% in strength, bone mineral density, blood pressure, lipid profile, skeletal muscle mass, and insulin sensitivity.
• Exercise after meals, such as taking a walk after dinner at one’s own pace, takes advantage of the blood glucose-stabilizing effects of exercise.
• Reduce sedentary time by taking regular breaks for small “doses” of physical activity, which can modestly attenuate postprandial glucose and insulin levels, particularly in individuals with insulin resistance and a higher body mass index.
• To prevent hypoglycemia during or after exercise, people taking insulin or insulin secretagogues should increase carbohydrate intake, or if possible, reduce insulin.
• People who are taking beta blockers should not rely on a heart monitor to measure workout intensity. They could ask a certified exercise professional about using ratings of perceived exertion to track how a workout feels.

Other recommendations

The consensus statement also summarizes precautions that people with complications of type 2 diabetes (such as neuropathy, retinopathy, kidney disease, and hypertension) should take.

Low impact exercises for flexibility can help introduce sedentary people to physical activity, the consensus group writes. Balance exercises can be helpful for older adults.

Weight loss greater than 5% can benefit A1c, blood lipid, and blood pressure levels. Moderate exercise 4 to 5 days a week can reduce visceral fat.  

In studies of youth with type 2 diabetes, intensive lifestyle interventions plus metformin were not superior to metformin alone for managing glycemia. Physical activity goals are the same for youth with or without diabetes.

Pregnant women with diabetes should participate in at least 20 to 30 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise most days of the week.

Participating in an exercise program before and after bariatric surgery may enhance surgical outcomes.  

Dr. Kanaley has reported receiving a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Disclosures for the other authors are listed in the article.

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

The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) has issued new recommendations for exercise/physical activity in people with type 2 diabetes, which update a 2010 joint ACSM/American Diabetes Association position statement.

kali9/Getty Images

The guidance has been published in the February issue of Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.

“This consensus statement provides a brief summary of the current evidence and extends and updates the prior recommendations,” the authors explain.

In the past decade, there has been a “considerable amount” of research about exercise in people with type 2 diabetes, they add, while the prevalence of diabetes has steadily increased.

The updated recommendations have been “expanded to include physical activity – a broader, more comprehensive definition of human movement than planned exercise – and reducing sedentary time,” the authors note.

“The latest guidelines are applicable to most individuals with diabetes, including youth, with a few exceptions and modifications,” lead author Jill A. Kanaley, PhD, said in a press release from the ACSM.

The key takeaway is that “all individuals [with type 2 diabetes] should engage in regular physical activity, reduce sedentary time, and break up sitting time with frequent activity breaks,” said Dr. Kanaley, a professor in the department of nutrition and exercise physiology, University of Missouri, Columbia.

“Exercise can play an important role in managing type 2 diabetes, and workouts can be modified to fit the abilities of most people,” she stressed.

And those with type 2 diabetes who want to lose weight “should consider workouts of moderately high volume for 4 to 5 days per week,” she added.
 

Six key tips for physical activity in adults with type 2 diabetes

The consensus statement gives six key tips for physical activity in adults with type 2 diabetes, as follows.

• Regular aerobic exercise improves glycemic management; meta-analyses have reported fewer daily hyperglycemic episodes and reductions in A1c of 0.5%-0.7%.
• High-intensity resistance exercise, when performed safely, is better than low-to-moderate intensity resistance exercise for glucose management and attenuation of insulin levels. Resistance exercise typically results in improvements of 10% to 15% in strength, bone mineral density, blood pressure, lipid profile, skeletal muscle mass, and insulin sensitivity.
• Exercise after meals, such as taking a walk after dinner at one’s own pace, takes advantage of the blood glucose-stabilizing effects of exercise.
• Reduce sedentary time by taking regular breaks for small “doses” of physical activity, which can modestly attenuate postprandial glucose and insulin levels, particularly in individuals with insulin resistance and a higher body mass index.
• To prevent hypoglycemia during or after exercise, people taking insulin or insulin secretagogues should increase carbohydrate intake, or if possible, reduce insulin.
• People who are taking beta blockers should not rely on a heart monitor to measure workout intensity. They could ask a certified exercise professional about using ratings of perceived exertion to track how a workout feels.

Other recommendations

The consensus statement also summarizes precautions that people with complications of type 2 diabetes (such as neuropathy, retinopathy, kidney disease, and hypertension) should take.

Low impact exercises for flexibility can help introduce sedentary people to physical activity, the consensus group writes. Balance exercises can be helpful for older adults.

Weight loss greater than 5% can benefit A1c, blood lipid, and blood pressure levels. Moderate exercise 4 to 5 days a week can reduce visceral fat.  

In studies of youth with type 2 diabetes, intensive lifestyle interventions plus metformin were not superior to metformin alone for managing glycemia. Physical activity goals are the same for youth with or without diabetes.

Pregnant women with diabetes should participate in at least 20 to 30 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise most days of the week.

Participating in an exercise program before and after bariatric surgery may enhance surgical outcomes.  

Dr. Kanaley has reported receiving a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Disclosures for the other authors are listed in the article.

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

The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) has issued new recommendations for exercise/physical activity in people with type 2 diabetes, which update a 2010 joint ACSM/American Diabetes Association position statement.

kali9/Getty Images

The guidance has been published in the February issue of Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.

“This consensus statement provides a brief summary of the current evidence and extends and updates the prior recommendations,” the authors explain.

In the past decade, there has been a “considerable amount” of research about exercise in people with type 2 diabetes, they add, while the prevalence of diabetes has steadily increased.

The updated recommendations have been “expanded to include physical activity – a broader, more comprehensive definition of human movement than planned exercise – and reducing sedentary time,” the authors note.

“The latest guidelines are applicable to most individuals with diabetes, including youth, with a few exceptions and modifications,” lead author Jill A. Kanaley, PhD, said in a press release from the ACSM.

The key takeaway is that “all individuals [with type 2 diabetes] should engage in regular physical activity, reduce sedentary time, and break up sitting time with frequent activity breaks,” said Dr. Kanaley, a professor in the department of nutrition and exercise physiology, University of Missouri, Columbia.

“Exercise can play an important role in managing type 2 diabetes, and workouts can be modified to fit the abilities of most people,” she stressed.

And those with type 2 diabetes who want to lose weight “should consider workouts of moderately high volume for 4 to 5 days per week,” she added.
 

Six key tips for physical activity in adults with type 2 diabetes

The consensus statement gives six key tips for physical activity in adults with type 2 diabetes, as follows.

• Regular aerobic exercise improves glycemic management; meta-analyses have reported fewer daily hyperglycemic episodes and reductions in A1c of 0.5%-0.7%.
• High-intensity resistance exercise, when performed safely, is better than low-to-moderate intensity resistance exercise for glucose management and attenuation of insulin levels. Resistance exercise typically results in improvements of 10% to 15% in strength, bone mineral density, blood pressure, lipid profile, skeletal muscle mass, and insulin sensitivity.
• Exercise after meals, such as taking a walk after dinner at one’s own pace, takes advantage of the blood glucose-stabilizing effects of exercise.
• Reduce sedentary time by taking regular breaks for small “doses” of physical activity, which can modestly attenuate postprandial glucose and insulin levels, particularly in individuals with insulin resistance and a higher body mass index.
• To prevent hypoglycemia during or after exercise, people taking insulin or insulin secretagogues should increase carbohydrate intake, or if possible, reduce insulin.
• People who are taking beta blockers should not rely on a heart monitor to measure workout intensity. They could ask a certified exercise professional about using ratings of perceived exertion to track how a workout feels.

Other recommendations

The consensus statement also summarizes precautions that people with complications of type 2 diabetes (such as neuropathy, retinopathy, kidney disease, and hypertension) should take.

Low impact exercises for flexibility can help introduce sedentary people to physical activity, the consensus group writes. Balance exercises can be helpful for older adults.

Weight loss greater than 5% can benefit A1c, blood lipid, and blood pressure levels. Moderate exercise 4 to 5 days a week can reduce visceral fat.  

In studies of youth with type 2 diabetes, intensive lifestyle interventions plus metformin were not superior to metformin alone for managing glycemia. Physical activity goals are the same for youth with or without diabetes.

Pregnant women with diabetes should participate in at least 20 to 30 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise most days of the week.

Participating in an exercise program before and after bariatric surgery may enhance surgical outcomes.  

Dr. Kanaley has reported receiving a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Disclosures for the other authors are listed in the article.

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