Musculoskeletal Disorders

People with subclinical hyperthyroidism are at 34% greater risk of experiencing a fracture compared with those with normal thyroid function, new research shows.

The finding, from a study of nearly 11,000 middle-aged men and women followed for a median of 2 decades, “highlights a potential role for more aggressive screening and monitoring of patients with subclinical hyperthyroidism to prevent bone mineral disease,” the researchers wrote.

Primary care physicians “should be more aware of the risks for fracture among persons with subclinical hyperthyroidism in the ambulatory setting,” Natalie R. Daya, a PhD student in epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, and first author of the study, told this news organization.

Ms. Daya and her colleagues published their findings in JAMA Network Open.

 

Building on earlier findings

The results agree with previous work, including a meta-analysis of 13 prospective cohort studies of 70,289 primarily White individuals with an average age of 64 years, which found that subclinical hyperthyroidism was associated with a modestly increased risk for fractures, the researchers noted.

“Our study extends these findings to a younger, community-based cohort that included both Black and White participants, included extensive adjustment for potential confounders, and had a longer follow-up period (median follow-up of 21 years vs. 12 years),” they wrote.

The study included 10,946 participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study who were recruited in Washington County, Maryland; Forsyth County, North Carolina; Jackson, Mississippi; and the suburbs of Minneapolis.

Baseline thyroid function was measured in blood samples collected during the second visit, which occurred between 1990 and 1992. No participants in the new analysis took thyroid medications or had a history of hospitalization for fractures at baseline, and all identified as Black or White. The mean age was 57 years, 24% were Black, and 54.3% were female.

Subclinical hyperthyroidism was defined as a thyrotropin level less than 0.56 mIU/L; subclinical hypothyroidism as a thyrotropin level greater than 5.1 mIU/L; and normal thyroid function as a thyrotropin level between 0.56 and 5.1 mIU/L, with normal free thyroxine levels of 0.85-1.4 ng/dL.

The vast majority (93%) of participants had normal thyroid function, 2.6% had subclinical hyperthyroidism, and 4.4% had subclinical hypothyroidism, according to the researchers.

Median follow-up was 21 years. The researchers identified 3,556 incident fractures, detected with hospitalization discharge codes through 2019 and inpatient and Medicare claims data through 2018, for a rate of 167.1 per 10,000 person-years.

Adjusted hazard ratios for fracture were 1.34 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.65) for people with subclinical hyperthyroidism and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.77-1.05) for those with subclinical hypothyroidism, compared with those with normal thyroid function.

Most fractures occurred in either the hip (14.1%) or spine (13.8%), according to the researchers.

Limitations included a lack of thyroid function data during the follow-up period and lack of data on bone mineral density, the researchers wrote.
 

‘An important risk factor’

Endocrinologist Michael McClung, MD, founding and emeritus director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland, who was not involved in the study, pointed out that both subclinical hypothyroidism and subclinical hyperthyroidism have been linked to greater risk for cardiovascular disease as well as fracture.

The new paper underscores that subclinical hyperthyroidism “should be included as an important risk factor” for fracture as well as cardiovascular risk, Dr. McClung said in an interview. In considering whether to treat osteoporosis, subclinical hyperthyroidism “may be enough to tip the balance in favor of pharmacological therapy,” he added.

Thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) tests to assess thyroid function are typically ordered only if a patient has symptoms of hyperthyroidism or hypothyroidism, Ms. Daya said. Depending on the cause and severity of a low TSH level, a physician may prescribe methimazole or radioactive iodine therapy to reduce the production of thyroxine, she said.

However, well-designed studies are needed to evaluate whether treatment of subclinical thyroid dysfunction reduces the risk for fracture or cardiovascular problems and assess downsides such as side effects, costs, and psychological harm, Dr. McClung noted.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concluded in 2015 that the data were insufficient to recommend screening for thyroid dysfunction in adults without symptoms. As of a year ago, no new evidence has emerged to support an update, according to the task force’s website.

“Until those studies are available, selective screening of thyroid function should be considered in all patients undergoing risk assessment for cardiovascular disease or skeletal health,” Dr. McClung said.

The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study has been funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Ms. Daya and four study authors reported receiving NIH grants during the study period. Dr. McClung reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

People with subclinical hyperthyroidism are at 34% greater risk of experiencing a fracture compared with those with normal thyroid function, new research shows.

The finding, from a study of nearly 11,000 middle-aged men and women followed for a median of 2 decades, “highlights a potential role for more aggressive screening and monitoring of patients with subclinical hyperthyroidism to prevent bone mineral disease,” the researchers wrote.

Primary care physicians “should be more aware of the risks for fracture among persons with subclinical hyperthyroidism in the ambulatory setting,” Natalie R. Daya, a PhD student in epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, and first author of the study, told this news organization.

Ms. Daya and her colleagues published their findings in JAMA Network Open.

 

Building on earlier findings

The results agree with previous work, including a meta-analysis of 13 prospective cohort studies of 70,289 primarily White individuals with an average age of 64 years, which found that subclinical hyperthyroidism was associated with a modestly increased risk for fractures, the researchers noted.

“Our study extends these findings to a younger, community-based cohort that included both Black and White participants, included extensive adjustment for potential confounders, and had a longer follow-up period (median follow-up of 21 years vs. 12 years),” they wrote.

The study included 10,946 participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study who were recruited in Washington County, Maryland; Forsyth County, North Carolina; Jackson, Mississippi; and the suburbs of Minneapolis.

Baseline thyroid function was measured in blood samples collected during the second visit, which occurred between 1990 and 1992. No participants in the new analysis took thyroid medications or had a history of hospitalization for fractures at baseline, and all identified as Black or White. The mean age was 57 years, 24% were Black, and 54.3% were female.

Subclinical hyperthyroidism was defined as a thyrotropin level less than 0.56 mIU/L; subclinical hypothyroidism as a thyrotropin level greater than 5.1 mIU/L; and normal thyroid function as a thyrotropin level between 0.56 and 5.1 mIU/L, with normal free thyroxine levels of 0.85-1.4 ng/dL.

The vast majority (93%) of participants had normal thyroid function, 2.6% had subclinical hyperthyroidism, and 4.4% had subclinical hypothyroidism, according to the researchers.

Median follow-up was 21 years. The researchers identified 3,556 incident fractures, detected with hospitalization discharge codes through 2019 and inpatient and Medicare claims data through 2018, for a rate of 167.1 per 10,000 person-years.

Adjusted hazard ratios for fracture were 1.34 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.65) for people with subclinical hyperthyroidism and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.77-1.05) for those with subclinical hypothyroidism, compared with those with normal thyroid function.

Most fractures occurred in either the hip (14.1%) or spine (13.8%), according to the researchers.

Limitations included a lack of thyroid function data during the follow-up period and lack of data on bone mineral density, the researchers wrote.
 

‘An important risk factor’

Endocrinologist Michael McClung, MD, founding and emeritus director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland, who was not involved in the study, pointed out that both subclinical hypothyroidism and subclinical hyperthyroidism have been linked to greater risk for cardiovascular disease as well as fracture.

The new paper underscores that subclinical hyperthyroidism “should be included as an important risk factor” for fracture as well as cardiovascular risk, Dr. McClung said in an interview. In considering whether to treat osteoporosis, subclinical hyperthyroidism “may be enough to tip the balance in favor of pharmacological therapy,” he added.

Thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) tests to assess thyroid function are typically ordered only if a patient has symptoms of hyperthyroidism or hypothyroidism, Ms. Daya said. Depending on the cause and severity of a low TSH level, a physician may prescribe methimazole or radioactive iodine therapy to reduce the production of thyroxine, she said.

However, well-designed studies are needed to evaluate whether treatment of subclinical thyroid dysfunction reduces the risk for fracture or cardiovascular problems and assess downsides such as side effects, costs, and psychological harm, Dr. McClung noted.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concluded in 2015 that the data were insufficient to recommend screening for thyroid dysfunction in adults without symptoms. As of a year ago, no new evidence has emerged to support an update, according to the task force’s website.

“Until those studies are available, selective screening of thyroid function should be considered in all patients undergoing risk assessment for cardiovascular disease or skeletal health,” Dr. McClung said.

The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study has been funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Ms. Daya and four study authors reported receiving NIH grants during the study period. Dr. McClung reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

People with subclinical hyperthyroidism are at 34% greater risk of experiencing a fracture compared with those with normal thyroid function, new research shows.

The finding, from a study of nearly 11,000 middle-aged men and women followed for a median of 2 decades, “highlights a potential role for more aggressive screening and monitoring of patients with subclinical hyperthyroidism to prevent bone mineral disease,” the researchers wrote.

Primary care physicians “should be more aware of the risks for fracture among persons with subclinical hyperthyroidism in the ambulatory setting,” Natalie R. Daya, a PhD student in epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, and first author of the study, told this news organization.

Ms. Daya and her colleagues published their findings in JAMA Network Open.

 

Building on earlier findings

The results agree with previous work, including a meta-analysis of 13 prospective cohort studies of 70,289 primarily White individuals with an average age of 64 years, which found that subclinical hyperthyroidism was associated with a modestly increased risk for fractures, the researchers noted.

“Our study extends these findings to a younger, community-based cohort that included both Black and White participants, included extensive adjustment for potential confounders, and had a longer follow-up period (median follow-up of 21 years vs. 12 years),” they wrote.

The study included 10,946 participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study who were recruited in Washington County, Maryland; Forsyth County, North Carolina; Jackson, Mississippi; and the suburbs of Minneapolis.

Baseline thyroid function was measured in blood samples collected during the second visit, which occurred between 1990 and 1992. No participants in the new analysis took thyroid medications or had a history of hospitalization for fractures at baseline, and all identified as Black or White. The mean age was 57 years, 24% were Black, and 54.3% were female.

Subclinical hyperthyroidism was defined as a thyrotropin level less than 0.56 mIU/L; subclinical hypothyroidism as a thyrotropin level greater than 5.1 mIU/L; and normal thyroid function as a thyrotropin level between 0.56 and 5.1 mIU/L, with normal free thyroxine levels of 0.85-1.4 ng/dL.

The vast majority (93%) of participants had normal thyroid function, 2.6% had subclinical hyperthyroidism, and 4.4% had subclinical hypothyroidism, according to the researchers.

Median follow-up was 21 years. The researchers identified 3,556 incident fractures, detected with hospitalization discharge codes through 2019 and inpatient and Medicare claims data through 2018, for a rate of 167.1 per 10,000 person-years.

Adjusted hazard ratios for fracture were 1.34 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.65) for people with subclinical hyperthyroidism and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.77-1.05) for those with subclinical hypothyroidism, compared with those with normal thyroid function.

Most fractures occurred in either the hip (14.1%) or spine (13.8%), according to the researchers.

Limitations included a lack of thyroid function data during the follow-up period and lack of data on bone mineral density, the researchers wrote.
 

‘An important risk factor’

Endocrinologist Michael McClung, MD, founding and emeritus director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland, who was not involved in the study, pointed out that both subclinical hypothyroidism and subclinical hyperthyroidism have been linked to greater risk for cardiovascular disease as well as fracture.

The new paper underscores that subclinical hyperthyroidism “should be included as an important risk factor” for fracture as well as cardiovascular risk, Dr. McClung said in an interview. In considering whether to treat osteoporosis, subclinical hyperthyroidism “may be enough to tip the balance in favor of pharmacological therapy,” he added.

Thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) tests to assess thyroid function are typically ordered only if a patient has symptoms of hyperthyroidism or hypothyroidism, Ms. Daya said. Depending on the cause and severity of a low TSH level, a physician may prescribe methimazole or radioactive iodine therapy to reduce the production of thyroxine, she said.

However, well-designed studies are needed to evaluate whether treatment of subclinical thyroid dysfunction reduces the risk for fracture or cardiovascular problems and assess downsides such as side effects, costs, and psychological harm, Dr. McClung noted.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concluded in 2015 that the data were insufficient to recommend screening for thyroid dysfunction in adults without symptoms. As of a year ago, no new evidence has emerged to support an update, according to the task force’s website.

“Until those studies are available, selective screening of thyroid function should be considered in all patients undergoing risk assessment for cardiovascular disease or skeletal health,” Dr. McClung said.

The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study has been funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Ms. Daya and four study authors reported receiving NIH grants during the study period. Dr. McClung reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

Knee and hip replacements can improve how well patients get around and can significantly increase their quality of life. But if a bone near the new joint breaks, the injury can be a major setback for the patient’s mobility, and the consequences can be life-threatening.

The proportion of patients who experience a periprosthetic fracture within 5 years of total hip arthroplasty is 0.9%. After total knee arthroplasty (TKA), the proportion is 0.6%, research shows.

Those rates might seem low. But given that more than a million of these joint replacement surgeries are performed each year in the United States – they are the most common inpatient surgical procedures among people aged 65 and older – thousands of revision surgeries due to periprosthetic fractures occur each year.

Primary care physicians, surgeons, and researchers are trying to identify risk factors, medication regimens, and nondrug approaches to avoid these complications. Primary care clinicians who make their patients’ bone health a priority early on – years before surgery, ideally – may help patients enjoy the benefits of new joints long term.

At the 2022 annual Santa Fe Bone Symposium this summer, Susan V. Bukata, MD, professor and chair of orthopedics at the University of California, San Diego, showed an image of “what we’re trying to avoid” – a patient with a broken bone and infection. Unfortunately, Dr. Bukata said, the patient’s clinicians had not adequately addressed her skeletal health before the injury.

“This is a complete disaster for this person who went in having a total hip to improve their function and now will probably never walk normally on that leg,” Dr. Bukata said at the meeting.

The patient eventually underwent total femur replacement. Five surgeries were required to clear the infection.

Medical and surgical advances have allowed more people – including older patients and those with other medical conditions – to undergo joint replacement surgery, including replacement of knees, hips, and shoulders.

The surgeries often are performed for adults whose bones are thinning. Sometimes surgeons don’t realize just how thin a patient’s bone is until they are operating.
 

Prioritizing bone health

In patients with osteoporosis, the bone surrounding the new joint is weaker than the metal of the prosthesis, and the metal can rip out of the bone, Dr. Bukata told this news organization. A periprosthetic fracture should be recognized as an osteoporotic fracture, too, although these fractures have not typically been categorized that way, she said.

People live with total joints in place for as long as 40 years, and fractures around the implants are “one of the fastest growing injuries that we are seeing in older patients,” Dr. Bukata said. “People don’t think of those as osteoporotic fractures. But a 90-year-old who falls and breaks next to their total knee, if they didn’t have that total knee in place, everybody would be, like, ‘Oh, that’s an osteoporotic fracture.’ ”

Periprosthetic fractures tend not to occur right after surgery but rather after the bone continues to lose density as the patient ages, Dr. Bukata said.
 

Missed chances

One approach to preventing periprosthetic fractures could involve prioritizing bone health earlier in life and diagnosing and treating osteoporosis well before a patient is scheduled for surgery.

A patient’s initial visit to their primary care doctor because of joint pain is an opportunity to check on and promote their bone health, given that they might be a candidate for surgery in the future, Dr. Bukata said.

Ahead of a scheduled surgery, patients can see endocrinologists or rheumatologists to receive medication to try to strengthen bones. Doctors may be limited in how much of a difference they can make in a matter of several weeks or months with these drugs, however. These patients still likely will need to be treated as if they have osteoporosis, Dr. Bukata said.

When surgeons realize that a patient has weaker bones while they are in the middle of an operation, they should emphasize the importance of bone health after the procedure, Dr. Bukata said.

Strengthening, maintaining, and protecting bone should be seen as a long-term investment in the patient’s success after a joint replacement. That said, “There is no clear evidence or protocol for us to follow,” she said. “The mantra at UCSD now is, let’s keep it simple. Get the patient on track. And then we can always refine things as we continue to treat the patient.”

Health systems should establish routines in which bone health is discussed before surgery in the way patient education programs address smoking cessation, nutrition, and weight management, Dr. Bukata said. Another step in the right direction could involve setting electronic medical records to automatically order assessments of bone health when a surgeon books a case.

Linda A. Russell, MD, rheumatologist and director of perioperative medicine at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said periprosthetic fractures are a “complication we fear.”

“It’s a big deal to try to repair it,” Dr. Russell said. “Sometimes you need to revise the joint, or sometimes you need to put lots more hardware in.” Surgeons increasingly appreciate the need to pay attention to the quality of the bone before they operate, she said.

Nevertheless, Dr. Russell does not necessarily say that such cases call for alarm or particularly aggressive treatment regimens – just regular bone health evaluations before and after surgery to see whether patients have osteoporosis and are candidates for treatment.
 

Lifelong effort

In some ways, to address bone health at the time of surgery may be too late.

Bone health “is not something that you can have as an afterthought when you’re 75 years old,” said Elizabeth Matzkin, MD, chief of women’s sports medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, in Boston.

The chance of being able to rebuild bone mass at that age is slim. If patients maximize bone density when they are young, they can afford to lose some bone mass each year as they age.

To that end, a healthy diet, exercise, not smoking, and cutting back on alcohol can help, she said.

For Dr. Matzkin, a fragility fracture is a red flag that the patient’s bone density is probably not optimal. In such cases, she prepares for various scenarios during surgery, such as a screw not holding in a low-density bone.

Recently published research reflects that prior fragility fractures are a significant risk factor for complications after surgery, including periprosthetic fractures.

Edward J. Testa, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and colleagues analyzed insurance claims to compare outcomes for 24,398 patients who had experienced a fragility fracture – that is, a break caused by low-velocity trauma such as a fall – during the 3 years before their TKA procedure and a matched group of patients who were similar in many respects but who had not had a fragility fracture in the 3 years before surgery.

Dr. Testa’s group found that a history of fragility fracture was associated with higher rates of complications in the year after surgery, including hospital readmissions (hazard ratio = 1.30; 95% CI, 1.22-1.38), periprosthetic fractures (odds ratio = 2.72; 95% CI, 1.89-3.99), and secondary fragility fractures (OR = 4.62; 95% CI, 4.19-5.12). Patients who had previously experienced fragility fractures also experienced dislocated prostheses (OR = 1.76; 95% CI, 1.22-2.56) and periprosthetic infections (OR = 1.49; 95% CI, 1.29-1.71) at higher rates.

The rates of complications were similar regardless of whether patients had filled a prescription for medications used to treat osteoporosis, including bisphosphonates, vitamin D replacement, raloxifene, and denosumab, the researchers reported.

The lack of a clear association between these treatments and patient outcomes could be related to an insufficient duration of pharmacotherapy before or after TKA, poor medication adherence, or small sample sizes, Dr. Testa said.

Given the findings, which were published online in the Journal of Arthroplasty, “patients with a history of fragility fracture should be identified and counseled appropriately for a possible increased risk of the aforementioned complications, and optimized when possible, prior to undergoing TKA,” Dr. Testa told this news organization. “Ultimately, the decision to move forward with surgery is far more complex than the identification of this sole, yet important, risk factor for certain postoperative, implant-related complications.”
 

Treatment gaps

Prior research has shown that women aged 70 years and older are at higher risk for periprosthetic fractures. Many women in this age group who could receive treatment for osteoporosis do not, and major treatment gaps exist worldwide, noted Neil Binkley, MD, with the University of Wisconsin–Madison, in a separate talk at the Santa Fe Bone Symposium.

Ensuring adequate protein intake and addressing the risk of falling are other measures that clinicians can take to promote healthy bones, apart from prescribing drugs, he said.

Unpublished data from one group show that nearly 90% of periprosthetic fractures may result from falls, while about 8% may be spontaneous. “We need to be thinking about falls,” Dr. Binkley said.

Dr. Bukata has consulted for Amgen, Radius, and Solarea Bio and has served on a speakers bureau for Radius. She also is a board member for the Orthopaedic Research Society and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Board of Specialty Societies. Dr. Binkley has received research support from Radius and has consulted for Amgen.

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

Knee and hip replacements can improve how well patients get around and can significantly increase their quality of life. But if a bone near the new joint breaks, the injury can be a major setback for the patient’s mobility, and the consequences can be life-threatening.

The proportion of patients who experience a periprosthetic fracture within 5 years of total hip arthroplasty is 0.9%. After total knee arthroplasty (TKA), the proportion is 0.6%, research shows.

Those rates might seem low. But given that more than a million of these joint replacement surgeries are performed each year in the United States – they are the most common inpatient surgical procedures among people aged 65 and older – thousands of revision surgeries due to periprosthetic fractures occur each year.

Primary care physicians, surgeons, and researchers are trying to identify risk factors, medication regimens, and nondrug approaches to avoid these complications. Primary care clinicians who make their patients’ bone health a priority early on – years before surgery, ideally – may help patients enjoy the benefits of new joints long term.

At the 2022 annual Santa Fe Bone Symposium this summer, Susan V. Bukata, MD, professor and chair of orthopedics at the University of California, San Diego, showed an image of “what we’re trying to avoid” – a patient with a broken bone and infection. Unfortunately, Dr. Bukata said, the patient’s clinicians had not adequately addressed her skeletal health before the injury.

“This is a complete disaster for this person who went in having a total hip to improve their function and now will probably never walk normally on that leg,” Dr. Bukata said at the meeting.

The patient eventually underwent total femur replacement. Five surgeries were required to clear the infection.

Medical and surgical advances have allowed more people – including older patients and those with other medical conditions – to undergo joint replacement surgery, including replacement of knees, hips, and shoulders.

The surgeries often are performed for adults whose bones are thinning. Sometimes surgeons don’t realize just how thin a patient’s bone is until they are operating.
 

Prioritizing bone health

In patients with osteoporosis, the bone surrounding the new joint is weaker than the metal of the prosthesis, and the metal can rip out of the bone, Dr. Bukata told this news organization. A periprosthetic fracture should be recognized as an osteoporotic fracture, too, although these fractures have not typically been categorized that way, she said.

People live with total joints in place for as long as 40 years, and fractures around the implants are “one of the fastest growing injuries that we are seeing in older patients,” Dr. Bukata said. “People don’t think of those as osteoporotic fractures. But a 90-year-old who falls and breaks next to their total knee, if they didn’t have that total knee in place, everybody would be, like, ‘Oh, that’s an osteoporotic fracture.’ ”

Periprosthetic fractures tend not to occur right after surgery but rather after the bone continues to lose density as the patient ages, Dr. Bukata said.
 

Missed chances

One approach to preventing periprosthetic fractures could involve prioritizing bone health earlier in life and diagnosing and treating osteoporosis well before a patient is scheduled for surgery.

A patient’s initial visit to their primary care doctor because of joint pain is an opportunity to check on and promote their bone health, given that they might be a candidate for surgery in the future, Dr. Bukata said.

Ahead of a scheduled surgery, patients can see endocrinologists or rheumatologists to receive medication to try to strengthen bones. Doctors may be limited in how much of a difference they can make in a matter of several weeks or months with these drugs, however. These patients still likely will need to be treated as if they have osteoporosis, Dr. Bukata said.

When surgeons realize that a patient has weaker bones while they are in the middle of an operation, they should emphasize the importance of bone health after the procedure, Dr. Bukata said.

Strengthening, maintaining, and protecting bone should be seen as a long-term investment in the patient’s success after a joint replacement. That said, “There is no clear evidence or protocol for us to follow,” she said. “The mantra at UCSD now is, let’s keep it simple. Get the patient on track. And then we can always refine things as we continue to treat the patient.”

Health systems should establish routines in which bone health is discussed before surgery in the way patient education programs address smoking cessation, nutrition, and weight management, Dr. Bukata said. Another step in the right direction could involve setting electronic medical records to automatically order assessments of bone health when a surgeon books a case.

Linda A. Russell, MD, rheumatologist and director of perioperative medicine at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said periprosthetic fractures are a “complication we fear.”

“It’s a big deal to try to repair it,” Dr. Russell said. “Sometimes you need to revise the joint, or sometimes you need to put lots more hardware in.” Surgeons increasingly appreciate the need to pay attention to the quality of the bone before they operate, she said.

Nevertheless, Dr. Russell does not necessarily say that such cases call for alarm or particularly aggressive treatment regimens – just regular bone health evaluations before and after surgery to see whether patients have osteoporosis and are candidates for treatment.
 

Lifelong effort

In some ways, to address bone health at the time of surgery may be too late.

Bone health “is not something that you can have as an afterthought when you’re 75 years old,” said Elizabeth Matzkin, MD, chief of women’s sports medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, in Boston.

The chance of being able to rebuild bone mass at that age is slim. If patients maximize bone density when they are young, they can afford to lose some bone mass each year as they age.

To that end, a healthy diet, exercise, not smoking, and cutting back on alcohol can help, she said.

For Dr. Matzkin, a fragility fracture is a red flag that the patient’s bone density is probably not optimal. In such cases, she prepares for various scenarios during surgery, such as a screw not holding in a low-density bone.

Recently published research reflects that prior fragility fractures are a significant risk factor for complications after surgery, including periprosthetic fractures.

Edward J. Testa, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and colleagues analyzed insurance claims to compare outcomes for 24,398 patients who had experienced a fragility fracture – that is, a break caused by low-velocity trauma such as a fall – during the 3 years before their TKA procedure and a matched group of patients who were similar in many respects but who had not had a fragility fracture in the 3 years before surgery.

Dr. Testa’s group found that a history of fragility fracture was associated with higher rates of complications in the year after surgery, including hospital readmissions (hazard ratio = 1.30; 95% CI, 1.22-1.38), periprosthetic fractures (odds ratio = 2.72; 95% CI, 1.89-3.99), and secondary fragility fractures (OR = 4.62; 95% CI, 4.19-5.12). Patients who had previously experienced fragility fractures also experienced dislocated prostheses (OR = 1.76; 95% CI, 1.22-2.56) and periprosthetic infections (OR = 1.49; 95% CI, 1.29-1.71) at higher rates.

The rates of complications were similar regardless of whether patients had filled a prescription for medications used to treat osteoporosis, including bisphosphonates, vitamin D replacement, raloxifene, and denosumab, the researchers reported.

The lack of a clear association between these treatments and patient outcomes could be related to an insufficient duration of pharmacotherapy before or after TKA, poor medication adherence, or small sample sizes, Dr. Testa said.

Given the findings, which were published online in the Journal of Arthroplasty, “patients with a history of fragility fracture should be identified and counseled appropriately for a possible increased risk of the aforementioned complications, and optimized when possible, prior to undergoing TKA,” Dr. Testa told this news organization. “Ultimately, the decision to move forward with surgery is far more complex than the identification of this sole, yet important, risk factor for certain postoperative, implant-related complications.”
 

Treatment gaps

Prior research has shown that women aged 70 years and older are at higher risk for periprosthetic fractures. Many women in this age group who could receive treatment for osteoporosis do not, and major treatment gaps exist worldwide, noted Neil Binkley, MD, with the University of Wisconsin–Madison, in a separate talk at the Santa Fe Bone Symposium.

Ensuring adequate protein intake and addressing the risk of falling are other measures that clinicians can take to promote healthy bones, apart from prescribing drugs, he said.

Unpublished data from one group show that nearly 90% of periprosthetic fractures may result from falls, while about 8% may be spontaneous. “We need to be thinking about falls,” Dr. Binkley said.

Dr. Bukata has consulted for Amgen, Radius, and Solarea Bio and has served on a speakers bureau for Radius. She also is a board member for the Orthopaedic Research Society and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Board of Specialty Societies. Dr. Binkley has received research support from Radius and has consulted for Amgen.

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

Knee and hip replacements can improve how well patients get around and can significantly increase their quality of life. But if a bone near the new joint breaks, the injury can be a major setback for the patient’s mobility, and the consequences can be life-threatening.

The proportion of patients who experience a periprosthetic fracture within 5 years of total hip arthroplasty is 0.9%. After total knee arthroplasty (TKA), the proportion is 0.6%, research shows.

Those rates might seem low. But given that more than a million of these joint replacement surgeries are performed each year in the United States – they are the most common inpatient surgical procedures among people aged 65 and older – thousands of revision surgeries due to periprosthetic fractures occur each year.

Primary care physicians, surgeons, and researchers are trying to identify risk factors, medication regimens, and nondrug approaches to avoid these complications. Primary care clinicians who make their patients’ bone health a priority early on – years before surgery, ideally – may help patients enjoy the benefits of new joints long term.

At the 2022 annual Santa Fe Bone Symposium this summer, Susan V. Bukata, MD, professor and chair of orthopedics at the University of California, San Diego, showed an image of “what we’re trying to avoid” – a patient with a broken bone and infection. Unfortunately, Dr. Bukata said, the patient’s clinicians had not adequately addressed her skeletal health before the injury.

“This is a complete disaster for this person who went in having a total hip to improve their function and now will probably never walk normally on that leg,” Dr. Bukata said at the meeting.

The patient eventually underwent total femur replacement. Five surgeries were required to clear the infection.

Medical and surgical advances have allowed more people – including older patients and those with other medical conditions – to undergo joint replacement surgery, including replacement of knees, hips, and shoulders.

The surgeries often are performed for adults whose bones are thinning. Sometimes surgeons don’t realize just how thin a patient’s bone is until they are operating.
 

Prioritizing bone health

In patients with osteoporosis, the bone surrounding the new joint is weaker than the metal of the prosthesis, and the metal can rip out of the bone, Dr. Bukata told this news organization. A periprosthetic fracture should be recognized as an osteoporotic fracture, too, although these fractures have not typically been categorized that way, she said.

People live with total joints in place for as long as 40 years, and fractures around the implants are “one of the fastest growing injuries that we are seeing in older patients,” Dr. Bukata said. “People don’t think of those as osteoporotic fractures. But a 90-year-old who falls and breaks next to their total knee, if they didn’t have that total knee in place, everybody would be, like, ‘Oh, that’s an osteoporotic fracture.’ ”

Periprosthetic fractures tend not to occur right after surgery but rather after the bone continues to lose density as the patient ages, Dr. Bukata said.
 

Missed chances

One approach to preventing periprosthetic fractures could involve prioritizing bone health earlier in life and diagnosing and treating osteoporosis well before a patient is scheduled for surgery.

A patient’s initial visit to their primary care doctor because of joint pain is an opportunity to check on and promote their bone health, given that they might be a candidate for surgery in the future, Dr. Bukata said.

Ahead of a scheduled surgery, patients can see endocrinologists or rheumatologists to receive medication to try to strengthen bones. Doctors may be limited in how much of a difference they can make in a matter of several weeks or months with these drugs, however. These patients still likely will need to be treated as if they have osteoporosis, Dr. Bukata said.

When surgeons realize that a patient has weaker bones while they are in the middle of an operation, they should emphasize the importance of bone health after the procedure, Dr. Bukata said.

Strengthening, maintaining, and protecting bone should be seen as a long-term investment in the patient’s success after a joint replacement. That said, “There is no clear evidence or protocol for us to follow,” she said. “The mantra at UCSD now is, let’s keep it simple. Get the patient on track. And then we can always refine things as we continue to treat the patient.”

Health systems should establish routines in which bone health is discussed before surgery in the way patient education programs address smoking cessation, nutrition, and weight management, Dr. Bukata said. Another step in the right direction could involve setting electronic medical records to automatically order assessments of bone health when a surgeon books a case.

Linda A. Russell, MD, rheumatologist and director of perioperative medicine at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said periprosthetic fractures are a “complication we fear.”

“It’s a big deal to try to repair it,” Dr. Russell said. “Sometimes you need to revise the joint, or sometimes you need to put lots more hardware in.” Surgeons increasingly appreciate the need to pay attention to the quality of the bone before they operate, she said.

Nevertheless, Dr. Russell does not necessarily say that such cases call for alarm or particularly aggressive treatment regimens – just regular bone health evaluations before and after surgery to see whether patients have osteoporosis and are candidates for treatment.
 

Lifelong effort

In some ways, to address bone health at the time of surgery may be too late.

Bone health “is not something that you can have as an afterthought when you’re 75 years old,” said Elizabeth Matzkin, MD, chief of women’s sports medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, in Boston.

The chance of being able to rebuild bone mass at that age is slim. If patients maximize bone density when they are young, they can afford to lose some bone mass each year as they age.

To that end, a healthy diet, exercise, not smoking, and cutting back on alcohol can help, she said.

For Dr. Matzkin, a fragility fracture is a red flag that the patient’s bone density is probably not optimal. In such cases, she prepares for various scenarios during surgery, such as a screw not holding in a low-density bone.

Recently published research reflects that prior fragility fractures are a significant risk factor for complications after surgery, including periprosthetic fractures.

Edward J. Testa, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and colleagues analyzed insurance claims to compare outcomes for 24,398 patients who had experienced a fragility fracture – that is, a break caused by low-velocity trauma such as a fall – during the 3 years before their TKA procedure and a matched group of patients who were similar in many respects but who had not had a fragility fracture in the 3 years before surgery.

Dr. Testa’s group found that a history of fragility fracture was associated with higher rates of complications in the year after surgery, including hospital readmissions (hazard ratio = 1.30; 95% CI, 1.22-1.38), periprosthetic fractures (odds ratio = 2.72; 95% CI, 1.89-3.99), and secondary fragility fractures (OR = 4.62; 95% CI, 4.19-5.12). Patients who had previously experienced fragility fractures also experienced dislocated prostheses (OR = 1.76; 95% CI, 1.22-2.56) and periprosthetic infections (OR = 1.49; 95% CI, 1.29-1.71) at higher rates.

The rates of complications were similar regardless of whether patients had filled a prescription for medications used to treat osteoporosis, including bisphosphonates, vitamin D replacement, raloxifene, and denosumab, the researchers reported.

The lack of a clear association between these treatments and patient outcomes could be related to an insufficient duration of pharmacotherapy before or after TKA, poor medication adherence, or small sample sizes, Dr. Testa said.

Given the findings, which were published online in the Journal of Arthroplasty, “patients with a history of fragility fracture should be identified and counseled appropriately for a possible increased risk of the aforementioned complications, and optimized when possible, prior to undergoing TKA,” Dr. Testa told this news organization. “Ultimately, the decision to move forward with surgery is far more complex than the identification of this sole, yet important, risk factor for certain postoperative, implant-related complications.”
 

Treatment gaps

Prior research has shown that women aged 70 years and older are at higher risk for periprosthetic fractures. Many women in this age group who could receive treatment for osteoporosis do not, and major treatment gaps exist worldwide, noted Neil Binkley, MD, with the University of Wisconsin–Madison, in a separate talk at the Santa Fe Bone Symposium.

Ensuring adequate protein intake and addressing the risk of falling are other measures that clinicians can take to promote healthy bones, apart from prescribing drugs, he said.

Unpublished data from one group show that nearly 90% of periprosthetic fractures may result from falls, while about 8% may be spontaneous. “We need to be thinking about falls,” Dr. Binkley said.

Dr. Bukata has consulted for Amgen, Radius, and Solarea Bio and has served on a speakers bureau for Radius. She also is a board member for the Orthopaedic Research Society and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Board of Specialty Societies. Dr. Binkley has received research support from Radius and has consulted for Amgen.

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

Several chiropractors in the United States are posting TikTok videos of themselves working with newborns, babies, and toddlers, often promoting treatments that aren’t backed by science, according to The Washington Post.

The videos include various devices and treatments, such as vibrating handheld massagers, spinal adjustments, and body movements, which are meant to address colic, constipation, reflux, musculoskeletal problems, and even trauma that babies experience during childbirth.

Chiropractors say the treatments are safe and gentle for babies and are unlike the more strenuous movements associated with adult chiropractic care. However, some doctors have said the videos are concerning because babies have softer bones and looser joints.

“Ultimately, there is no way you’re going to get an improvement in a newborn from a manipulation,” Sean Tabaie, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Children’s National Hospital, Washington, told the newspaper.

Dr. Tabaie said his colleagues are shocked when he sends them Instagram or TikTok videos of chiropractic clinics treating infants.

“The only thing that you might possibly cause is harm,” he said.

Generally, chiropractors are licensed health professionals who use stretching, pressure, and joint manipulation on the spine to treat patients. Although chiropractic care is typically seen as an “alternative therapy,” some data in adults suggest that chiropractic treatments can help some conditions, such as low back pain.

“To my knowledge, there is little to no evidence that chiropractic care changes the natural history of any disease or condition,” Anthony Stans, MD, a pediatric orthopedic surgeon at Mayo Clinic Children’s Center, Rochester, Minn., told the newspaper. Stans said he would caution parents and recommend against chiropractic treatment for babies.

For some parents, the treatments and TikTok videos seem appealing because they promise relief for problems that traditional medicine can’t always address, especially colic, the newspaper reported. Colic, which features intense and prolonged crying in an otherwise healthy baby, tends to resolve over time without treatment.

Recent studies have attempted to study chiropractic care in infants. In a 2021 study, researchers in Denmark conducted a randomized controlled trial with 186 babies to test light pressure treatments. Although excessive crying was reduced by half an hour in the group that received treatment, the findings weren’t statistically significant in the end.

In a new study, researchers in Spain conducted a randomized trial with 58 babies to test “light touch manual therapy.” The babies who received treatment appeared to cry significantly less, but the parents weren’t “blinded” and were aware of the study’s treatment conditions, which can bias the results.

However, it can be challenging to “get that level of evidence” to support manual therapies such as chiropractic care, Joy Weydert, MD, director of pediatric integrative medicine at the University of Arizona, Tucson, told the newspaper. Certain treatments could help reduce the discomfort of colic or reflux, which can be difficult to measures in infants, she said.

The American Academy of Pediatrics told The Post that it doesn’t have an “official policy” on chiropractic care for infants or toddlers. At the same time, a 2017 report released by the organization concluded that “high-quality evidence” is lacking for spinal manipulation in children.

The American Chiropractic Association said chiropractic treatments are safe and effective for children, yet more research is needed to prove they work.

“We still haven’t been able to demonstrate in the research the effectiveness that we’ve seen clinically,” Jennifer Brocker, president of the group’s Council on Chiropractic Pediatrics, told the newspaper.

“We can’t really say for sure what’s happening,” she said. “It’s sort of like a black box. But what we do know is that, clinically, what we’re doing is effective because we see a change in the symptoms of the child.”

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

Several chiropractors in the United States are posting TikTok videos of themselves working with newborns, babies, and toddlers, often promoting treatments that aren’t backed by science, according to The Washington Post.

The videos include various devices and treatments, such as vibrating handheld massagers, spinal adjustments, and body movements, which are meant to address colic, constipation, reflux, musculoskeletal problems, and even trauma that babies experience during childbirth.

Chiropractors say the treatments are safe and gentle for babies and are unlike the more strenuous movements associated with adult chiropractic care. However, some doctors have said the videos are concerning because babies have softer bones and looser joints.

“Ultimately, there is no way you’re going to get an improvement in a newborn from a manipulation,” Sean Tabaie, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Children’s National Hospital, Washington, told the newspaper.

Dr. Tabaie said his colleagues are shocked when he sends them Instagram or TikTok videos of chiropractic clinics treating infants.

“The only thing that you might possibly cause is harm,” he said.

Generally, chiropractors are licensed health professionals who use stretching, pressure, and joint manipulation on the spine to treat patients. Although chiropractic care is typically seen as an “alternative therapy,” some data in adults suggest that chiropractic treatments can help some conditions, such as low back pain.

“To my knowledge, there is little to no evidence that chiropractic care changes the natural history of any disease or condition,” Anthony Stans, MD, a pediatric orthopedic surgeon at Mayo Clinic Children’s Center, Rochester, Minn., told the newspaper. Stans said he would caution parents and recommend against chiropractic treatment for babies.

For some parents, the treatments and TikTok videos seem appealing because they promise relief for problems that traditional medicine can’t always address, especially colic, the newspaper reported. Colic, which features intense and prolonged crying in an otherwise healthy baby, tends to resolve over time without treatment.

Recent studies have attempted to study chiropractic care in infants. In a 2021 study, researchers in Denmark conducted a randomized controlled trial with 186 babies to test light pressure treatments. Although excessive crying was reduced by half an hour in the group that received treatment, the findings weren’t statistically significant in the end.

In a new study, researchers in Spain conducted a randomized trial with 58 babies to test “light touch manual therapy.” The babies who received treatment appeared to cry significantly less, but the parents weren’t “blinded” and were aware of the study’s treatment conditions, which can bias the results.

However, it can be challenging to “get that level of evidence” to support manual therapies such as chiropractic care, Joy Weydert, MD, director of pediatric integrative medicine at the University of Arizona, Tucson, told the newspaper. Certain treatments could help reduce the discomfort of colic or reflux, which can be difficult to measures in infants, she said.

The American Academy of Pediatrics told The Post that it doesn’t have an “official policy” on chiropractic care for infants or toddlers. At the same time, a 2017 report released by the organization concluded that “high-quality evidence” is lacking for spinal manipulation in children.

The American Chiropractic Association said chiropractic treatments are safe and effective for children, yet more research is needed to prove they work.

“We still haven’t been able to demonstrate in the research the effectiveness that we’ve seen clinically,” Jennifer Brocker, president of the group’s Council on Chiropractic Pediatrics, told the newspaper.

“We can’t really say for sure what’s happening,” she said. “It’s sort of like a black box. But what we do know is that, clinically, what we’re doing is effective because we see a change in the symptoms of the child.”

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

Several chiropractors in the United States are posting TikTok videos of themselves working with newborns, babies, and toddlers, often promoting treatments that aren’t backed by science, according to The Washington Post.

The videos include various devices and treatments, such as vibrating handheld massagers, spinal adjustments, and body movements, which are meant to address colic, constipation, reflux, musculoskeletal problems, and even trauma that babies experience during childbirth.

Chiropractors say the treatments are safe and gentle for babies and are unlike the more strenuous movements associated with adult chiropractic care. However, some doctors have said the videos are concerning because babies have softer bones and looser joints.

“Ultimately, there is no way you’re going to get an improvement in a newborn from a manipulation,” Sean Tabaie, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Children’s National Hospital, Washington, told the newspaper.

Dr. Tabaie said his colleagues are shocked when he sends them Instagram or TikTok videos of chiropractic clinics treating infants.

“The only thing that you might possibly cause is harm,” he said.

Generally, chiropractors are licensed health professionals who use stretching, pressure, and joint manipulation on the spine to treat patients. Although chiropractic care is typically seen as an “alternative therapy,” some data in adults suggest that chiropractic treatments can help some conditions, such as low back pain.

“To my knowledge, there is little to no evidence that chiropractic care changes the natural history of any disease or condition,” Anthony Stans, MD, a pediatric orthopedic surgeon at Mayo Clinic Children’s Center, Rochester, Minn., told the newspaper. Stans said he would caution parents and recommend against chiropractic treatment for babies.

For some parents, the treatments and TikTok videos seem appealing because they promise relief for problems that traditional medicine can’t always address, especially colic, the newspaper reported. Colic, which features intense and prolonged crying in an otherwise healthy baby, tends to resolve over time without treatment.

Recent studies have attempted to study chiropractic care in infants. In a 2021 study, researchers in Denmark conducted a randomized controlled trial with 186 babies to test light pressure treatments. Although excessive crying was reduced by half an hour in the group that received treatment, the findings weren’t statistically significant in the end.

In a new study, researchers in Spain conducted a randomized trial with 58 babies to test “light touch manual therapy.” The babies who received treatment appeared to cry significantly less, but the parents weren’t “blinded” and were aware of the study’s treatment conditions, which can bias the results.

However, it can be challenging to “get that level of evidence” to support manual therapies such as chiropractic care, Joy Weydert, MD, director of pediatric integrative medicine at the University of Arizona, Tucson, told the newspaper. Certain treatments could help reduce the discomfort of colic or reflux, which can be difficult to measures in infants, she said.

The American Academy of Pediatrics told The Post that it doesn’t have an “official policy” on chiropractic care for infants or toddlers. At the same time, a 2017 report released by the organization concluded that “high-quality evidence” is lacking for spinal manipulation in children.

The American Chiropractic Association said chiropractic treatments are safe and effective for children, yet more research is needed to prove they work.

“We still haven’t been able to demonstrate in the research the effectiveness that we’ve seen clinically,” Jennifer Brocker, president of the group’s Council on Chiropractic Pediatrics, told the newspaper.

“We can’t really say for sure what’s happening,” she said. “It’s sort of like a black box. But what we do know is that, clinically, what we’re doing is effective because we see a change in the symptoms of the child.”

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

The European Society of Cardiology guidelines on cardiovascular assessment and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery have seen extensive revision since the 2014 version.

They still have the same aim – to prevent surgery-related bleeding complications, perioperative myocardial infarction/injury (PMI), stent thrombosis, acute heart failure, arrhythmias, pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular (CV) death.

lyosha_nazarenko/Thinkstock

Cochairpersons Sigrun Halvorsen, MD, PhD, and Julinda Mehilli, MD, presented highlights from the guidelines at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and the document was simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal.

The document classifies noncardiac surgery into three levels of 30-day risk of CV death, MI, or stroke. Low (< 1%) risk includes eye or thyroid surgery; intermediate (1%-5%) risk includes knee or hip replacement or renal transplant; and high (> 5%) risk includes aortic aneurysm, lung transplant, or pancreatic or bladder cancer surgery (see more examples below).

It classifies patients as low risk if they are younger than 65 without CV disease or CV risk factors (smoking, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, family history); intermediate risk if they are 65 or older or have CV risk factors; and high risk if they have CVD.  

In an interview, Dr. Halvorsen, professor in cardiology, University of Oslo, zeroed in on three important revisions:

First, recommendations for preoperative ECG and biomarkers are more specific, he noted.

The guidelines advise that before intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery, in patients who have known CVD, CV risk factors (including age 65 or older), or symptoms suggestive of CVD:

• It is recommended to obtain a preoperative 12-lead ECG (class I).
• It is recommended to measure high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTn T) or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTn I). It is also recommended to measure these biomarkers at 24 hours and 48 hours post surgery (class I).
• It should be considered to measure B-type natriuretic peptide or N-terminal of the prohormone BNP (NT-proBNP).

However, for low-risk patients undergoing low- and intermediate-risk noncardiac surgery, it is not recommended to routinely obtain preoperative ECG, hs-cTn T/I, or BNP/NT-proBNP concentrations (class III).

Troponins have a stronger class I recommendation, compared with the IIA recommendation for BNP, because they are useful for preoperative risk stratification and for diagnosis of PMI, Dr. Halvorsen explained. “Patients receive painkillers after surgery and may have no pain,” she noted, but they may have PMI, which has a bad prognosis.

Second, the guidelines recommend that “all patients should stop smoking 4 weeks before noncardiac surgery [class I],” she noted. Clinicians should also “measure hemoglobin, and if the patient is anemic, treat the anemia.”

Third, the sections on antithrombotic treatment have been significantly revised. “Bridging – stopping an oral antithrombotic drug and switching to a subcutaneous or IV drug – has been common,” Dr. Halvorsen said, “but recently we have new evidence that in most cases that increases the risk of bleeding.”

“We are [now] much more restrictive with respect to bridging” with unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin, she said. “We recommend against bridging in patients with low to moderate thrombotic risk,” and bridging should only be considered in patients with mechanical prosthetic heart valves or with very high thrombotic risk.
 

More preoperative recommendations

In the guideline overview session at the congress, Dr. Halverson highlighted some of the new recommendations for preoperative risk assessment.  

If time allows, it is recommended to optimize guideline-recommended treatment of CVD and control of CV risk factors including blood pressure, dyslipidemia, and diabetes, before noncardiac surgery (class I).

Patients commonly have “murmurs, chest pain, dyspnea, and edema that may suggest severe CVD, but may also be caused by noncardiac disease,” she noted. The guidelines state that “for patients with a newly detected murmur and symptoms or signs of CVD, transthoracic echocardiography is recommended before noncardiac surgery (class I).

“Many studies have been performed to try to find out if initiation of specific drugs before surgery could reduce the risk of complications,” Dr. Halvorsen noted. However, few have shown any benefit and “the question of presurgery initiation of beta-blockers has been greatly debated,” she said. “We have again reviewed the literature and concluded ‘Routine initiation of beta-blockers perioperatively is not recommended (class IIIA).’ “

“We adhere to the guidelines on acute and chronic coronary syndrome recommending 6-12 months of dual antiplatelet treatment as a standard before elective surgery,” she said. “However, in case of time-sensitive surgery, the duration of that treatment can be shortened down to a minimum of 1 month after elective PCI and a minimum of 3 months after PCI and ACS.”
 

Patients with specific types of CVD

Dr. Mehilli, a professor at Landshut-Achdorf (Germany) Hospital, highlighted some new guideline recommendations for patients who have specific types of cardiovascular disease.

Coronary artery disease (CAD). “For chronic coronary syndrome, a cardiac workup is recommended only for patients undergoing intermediate risk or high-risk noncardiac surgery.”

“Stress imaging should be considered before any high risk, noncardiac surgery in asymptomatic patients with poor functional capacity and prior PCI or coronary artery bypass graft (new recommendation, class IIa).”

Mitral valve regurgitation. For patients undergoing scheduled noncardiac surgery, who remain symptomatic despite guideline-directed medical treatment for mitral valve regurgitation (including resynchronization and myocardial revascularization), consider a valve intervention – either transcatheter or surgical – before noncardiac surgery in eligible patients with acceptable procedural risk (new recommendation).

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). For high-risk patients with CIEDs undergoing noncardiac surgery with high probability of electromagnetic interference, a CIED checkup and necessary reprogramming immediately before the procedure should be considered (new recommendation).

Arrhythmias. “I want only to stress,” Dr. Mehilli said, “in patients with atrial fibrillation with acute or worsening hemodynamic instability undergoing noncardiac surgery, an emergency electrical cardioversion is recommended (class I).”

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) and abdominal aortic aneurysm. For these patients “we do not recommend a routine referral for a cardiac workup. But we recommend it for patients with poor functional capacity or with significant risk factors or symptoms (new recommendations).”

Chronic arterial hypertension. “We have modified the recommendation, recommending avoidance of large perioperative fluctuations in blood pressure, and we do not recommend deferring noncardiac surgery in patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension,” she said.
 

Postoperative cardiovascular complications

The most frequent postoperative cardiovascular complication is PMI, Dr. Mehilli noted.

“In the BASEL-PMI registry, the incidence of this complication around intermediate or high-risk noncardiac surgery was up to 15% among patients older than 65 years or with a history of CAD or PAD, which makes this kind of complication really important to prevent, to assess, and to know how to treat.”

“It is recommended to have a high awareness for perioperative cardiovascular complications, combined with surveillance for PMI in patients undergoing intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery” based on serial measurements of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin.

The guidelines define PMI as “an increase in the delta of high-sensitivity troponin more than the upper level of normal,” Dr. Mehilli said. “It’s different from the one used in a rule-in algorithm for non-STEMI acute coronary syndrome.”

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (AFib) is observed in 2%-30% of noncardiac surgery patients in different registries, particularly in patients undergoing intermediate or high-risk noncardiac surgery, she noted.

“We propose an algorithm on how to prevent and treat this complication. I want to highlight that in patients with hemodynamic unstable postoperative AF[ib], an emergency cardioversion is indicated. For the others, a rate control with the target heart rate of less than 110 beats per minute is indicated.”

In patients with postoperative AFib, long-term oral anticoagulation therapy should be considered in all patients at risk for stroke, considering the anticipated net clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation therapy as well as informed patient preference (new recommendations).

Routine use of beta-blockers to prevent postoperative AFib in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery is not recommended.

The document also covers the management of patients with kidney disease, diabetes, cancer, obesity, and COVID-19. In general, elective noncardiac surgery should be postponed after a patient has COVID-19, until he or she recovers completely, and coexisting conditions are optimized.

The guidelines are available from the ESC website in several formats: pocket guidelines, pocket guidelines smartphone app, guidelines slide set, essential messages, and the European Heart Journal article.
 

Noncardiac surgery risk categories

The guideline includes a table that classifies noncardiac surgeries into three groups, based on the associated 30-day risk of death, MI, or stroke:

• Low (< 1%): breast, dental, eye, thyroid, and minor gynecologic, orthopedic, and urologic surgery.
• Intermediate (1%-5%): carotid surgery, endovascular aortic aneurysm repair, gallbladder surgery, head or neck surgery, hernia repair, peripheral arterial angioplasty, renal transplant, major gynecologic, orthopedic, or neurologic (hip or spine) surgery, or urologic surgery
• High (> 5%): aortic and major vascular surgery (including aortic aneurysm), bladder removal (usually as a result of cancer), limb amputation, lung or liver transplant, pancreatic surgery, or perforated bowel repair.

The guidelines were endorsed by the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care. The guideline authors reported numerous disclosures.

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

The European Society of Cardiology guidelines on cardiovascular assessment and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery have seen extensive revision since the 2014 version.

They still have the same aim – to prevent surgery-related bleeding complications, perioperative myocardial infarction/injury (PMI), stent thrombosis, acute heart failure, arrhythmias, pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular (CV) death.

lyosha_nazarenko/Thinkstock

Cochairpersons Sigrun Halvorsen, MD, PhD, and Julinda Mehilli, MD, presented highlights from the guidelines at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and the document was simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal.

The document classifies noncardiac surgery into three levels of 30-day risk of CV death, MI, or stroke. Low (< 1%) risk includes eye or thyroid surgery; intermediate (1%-5%) risk includes knee or hip replacement or renal transplant; and high (> 5%) risk includes aortic aneurysm, lung transplant, or pancreatic or bladder cancer surgery (see more examples below).

It classifies patients as low risk if they are younger than 65 without CV disease or CV risk factors (smoking, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, family history); intermediate risk if they are 65 or older or have CV risk factors; and high risk if they have CVD.  

In an interview, Dr. Halvorsen, professor in cardiology, University of Oslo, zeroed in on three important revisions:

First, recommendations for preoperative ECG and biomarkers are more specific, he noted.

The guidelines advise that before intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery, in patients who have known CVD, CV risk factors (including age 65 or older), or symptoms suggestive of CVD:

• It is recommended to obtain a preoperative 12-lead ECG (class I).
• It is recommended to measure high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTn T) or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTn I). It is also recommended to measure these biomarkers at 24 hours and 48 hours post surgery (class I).
• It should be considered to measure B-type natriuretic peptide or N-terminal of the prohormone BNP (NT-proBNP).

However, for low-risk patients undergoing low- and intermediate-risk noncardiac surgery, it is not recommended to routinely obtain preoperative ECG, hs-cTn T/I, or BNP/NT-proBNP concentrations (class III).

Troponins have a stronger class I recommendation, compared with the IIA recommendation for BNP, because they are useful for preoperative risk stratification and for diagnosis of PMI, Dr. Halvorsen explained. “Patients receive painkillers after surgery and may have no pain,” she noted, but they may have PMI, which has a bad prognosis.

Second, the guidelines recommend that “all patients should stop smoking 4 weeks before noncardiac surgery [class I],” she noted. Clinicians should also “measure hemoglobin, and if the patient is anemic, treat the anemia.”

Third, the sections on antithrombotic treatment have been significantly revised. “Bridging – stopping an oral antithrombotic drug and switching to a subcutaneous or IV drug – has been common,” Dr. Halvorsen said, “but recently we have new evidence that in most cases that increases the risk of bleeding.”

“We are [now] much more restrictive with respect to bridging” with unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin, she said. “We recommend against bridging in patients with low to moderate thrombotic risk,” and bridging should only be considered in patients with mechanical prosthetic heart valves or with very high thrombotic risk.
 

More preoperative recommendations

In the guideline overview session at the congress, Dr. Halverson highlighted some of the new recommendations for preoperative risk assessment.  

If time allows, it is recommended to optimize guideline-recommended treatment of CVD and control of CV risk factors including blood pressure, dyslipidemia, and diabetes, before noncardiac surgery (class I).

Patients commonly have “murmurs, chest pain, dyspnea, and edema that may suggest severe CVD, but may also be caused by noncardiac disease,” she noted. The guidelines state that “for patients with a newly detected murmur and symptoms or signs of CVD, transthoracic echocardiography is recommended before noncardiac surgery (class I).

“Many studies have been performed to try to find out if initiation of specific drugs before surgery could reduce the risk of complications,” Dr. Halvorsen noted. However, few have shown any benefit and “the question of presurgery initiation of beta-blockers has been greatly debated,” she said. “We have again reviewed the literature and concluded ‘Routine initiation of beta-blockers perioperatively is not recommended (class IIIA).’ “

“We adhere to the guidelines on acute and chronic coronary syndrome recommending 6-12 months of dual antiplatelet treatment as a standard before elective surgery,” she said. “However, in case of time-sensitive surgery, the duration of that treatment can be shortened down to a minimum of 1 month after elective PCI and a minimum of 3 months after PCI and ACS.”
 

Patients with specific types of CVD

Dr. Mehilli, a professor at Landshut-Achdorf (Germany) Hospital, highlighted some new guideline recommendations for patients who have specific types of cardiovascular disease.

Coronary artery disease (CAD). “For chronic coronary syndrome, a cardiac workup is recommended only for patients undergoing intermediate risk or high-risk noncardiac surgery.”

“Stress imaging should be considered before any high risk, noncardiac surgery in asymptomatic patients with poor functional capacity and prior PCI or coronary artery bypass graft (new recommendation, class IIa).”

Mitral valve regurgitation. For patients undergoing scheduled noncardiac surgery, who remain symptomatic despite guideline-directed medical treatment for mitral valve regurgitation (including resynchronization and myocardial revascularization), consider a valve intervention – either transcatheter or surgical – before noncardiac surgery in eligible patients with acceptable procedural risk (new recommendation).

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). For high-risk patients with CIEDs undergoing noncardiac surgery with high probability of electromagnetic interference, a CIED checkup and necessary reprogramming immediately before the procedure should be considered (new recommendation).

Arrhythmias. “I want only to stress,” Dr. Mehilli said, “in patients with atrial fibrillation with acute or worsening hemodynamic instability undergoing noncardiac surgery, an emergency electrical cardioversion is recommended (class I).”

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) and abdominal aortic aneurysm. For these patients “we do not recommend a routine referral for a cardiac workup. But we recommend it for patients with poor functional capacity or with significant risk factors or symptoms (new recommendations).”

Chronic arterial hypertension. “We have modified the recommendation, recommending avoidance of large perioperative fluctuations in blood pressure, and we do not recommend deferring noncardiac surgery in patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension,” she said.
 

Postoperative cardiovascular complications

The most frequent postoperative cardiovascular complication is PMI, Dr. Mehilli noted.

“In the BASEL-PMI registry, the incidence of this complication around intermediate or high-risk noncardiac surgery was up to 15% among patients older than 65 years or with a history of CAD or PAD, which makes this kind of complication really important to prevent, to assess, and to know how to treat.”

“It is recommended to have a high awareness for perioperative cardiovascular complications, combined with surveillance for PMI in patients undergoing intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery” based on serial measurements of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin.

The guidelines define PMI as “an increase in the delta of high-sensitivity troponin more than the upper level of normal,” Dr. Mehilli said. “It’s different from the one used in a rule-in algorithm for non-STEMI acute coronary syndrome.”

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (AFib) is observed in 2%-30% of noncardiac surgery patients in different registries, particularly in patients undergoing intermediate or high-risk noncardiac surgery, she noted.

“We propose an algorithm on how to prevent and treat this complication. I want to highlight that in patients with hemodynamic unstable postoperative AF[ib], an emergency cardioversion is indicated. For the others, a rate control with the target heart rate of less than 110 beats per minute is indicated.”

In patients with postoperative AFib, long-term oral anticoagulation therapy should be considered in all patients at risk for stroke, considering the anticipated net clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation therapy as well as informed patient preference (new recommendations).

Routine use of beta-blockers to prevent postoperative AFib in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery is not recommended.

The document also covers the management of patients with kidney disease, diabetes, cancer, obesity, and COVID-19. In general, elective noncardiac surgery should be postponed after a patient has COVID-19, until he or she recovers completely, and coexisting conditions are optimized.

The guidelines are available from the ESC website in several formats: pocket guidelines, pocket guidelines smartphone app, guidelines slide set, essential messages, and the European Heart Journal article.
 

Noncardiac surgery risk categories

The guideline includes a table that classifies noncardiac surgeries into three groups, based on the associated 30-day risk of death, MI, or stroke:

• Low (< 1%): breast, dental, eye, thyroid, and minor gynecologic, orthopedic, and urologic surgery.
• Intermediate (1%-5%): carotid surgery, endovascular aortic aneurysm repair, gallbladder surgery, head or neck surgery, hernia repair, peripheral arterial angioplasty, renal transplant, major gynecologic, orthopedic, or neurologic (hip or spine) surgery, or urologic surgery
• High (> 5%): aortic and major vascular surgery (including aortic aneurysm), bladder removal (usually as a result of cancer), limb amputation, lung or liver transplant, pancreatic surgery, or perforated bowel repair.

The guidelines were endorsed by the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care. The guideline authors reported numerous disclosures.

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

The European Society of Cardiology guidelines on cardiovascular assessment and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery have seen extensive revision since the 2014 version.

They still have the same aim – to prevent surgery-related bleeding complications, perioperative myocardial infarction/injury (PMI), stent thrombosis, acute heart failure, arrhythmias, pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular (CV) death.

lyosha_nazarenko/Thinkstock

Cochairpersons Sigrun Halvorsen, MD, PhD, and Julinda Mehilli, MD, presented highlights from the guidelines at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and the document was simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal.

The document classifies noncardiac surgery into three levels of 30-day risk of CV death, MI, or stroke. Low (< 1%) risk includes eye or thyroid surgery; intermediate (1%-5%) risk includes knee or hip replacement or renal transplant; and high (> 5%) risk includes aortic aneurysm, lung transplant, or pancreatic or bladder cancer surgery (see more examples below).

It classifies patients as low risk if they are younger than 65 without CV disease or CV risk factors (smoking, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, family history); intermediate risk if they are 65 or older or have CV risk factors; and high risk if they have CVD.  

In an interview, Dr. Halvorsen, professor in cardiology, University of Oslo, zeroed in on three important revisions:

First, recommendations for preoperative ECG and biomarkers are more specific, he noted.

The guidelines advise that before intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery, in patients who have known CVD, CV risk factors (including age 65 or older), or symptoms suggestive of CVD:

• It is recommended to obtain a preoperative 12-lead ECG (class I).
• It is recommended to measure high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTn T) or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTn I). It is also recommended to measure these biomarkers at 24 hours and 48 hours post surgery (class I).
• It should be considered to measure B-type natriuretic peptide or N-terminal of the prohormone BNP (NT-proBNP).

However, for low-risk patients undergoing low- and intermediate-risk noncardiac surgery, it is not recommended to routinely obtain preoperative ECG, hs-cTn T/I, or BNP/NT-proBNP concentrations (class III).

Troponins have a stronger class I recommendation, compared with the IIA recommendation for BNP, because they are useful for preoperative risk stratification and for diagnosis of PMI, Dr. Halvorsen explained. “Patients receive painkillers after surgery and may have no pain,” she noted, but they may have PMI, which has a bad prognosis.

Second, the guidelines recommend that “all patients should stop smoking 4 weeks before noncardiac surgery [class I],” she noted. Clinicians should also “measure hemoglobin, and if the patient is anemic, treat the anemia.”

Third, the sections on antithrombotic treatment have been significantly revised. “Bridging – stopping an oral antithrombotic drug and switching to a subcutaneous or IV drug – has been common,” Dr. Halvorsen said, “but recently we have new evidence that in most cases that increases the risk of bleeding.”

“We are [now] much more restrictive with respect to bridging” with unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin, she said. “We recommend against bridging in patients with low to moderate thrombotic risk,” and bridging should only be considered in patients with mechanical prosthetic heart valves or with very high thrombotic risk.
 

More preoperative recommendations

In the guideline overview session at the congress, Dr. Halverson highlighted some of the new recommendations for preoperative risk assessment.  

If time allows, it is recommended to optimize guideline-recommended treatment of CVD and control of CV risk factors including blood pressure, dyslipidemia, and diabetes, before noncardiac surgery (class I).

Patients commonly have “murmurs, chest pain, dyspnea, and edema that may suggest severe CVD, but may also be caused by noncardiac disease,” she noted. The guidelines state that “for patients with a newly detected murmur and symptoms or signs of CVD, transthoracic echocardiography is recommended before noncardiac surgery (class I).

“Many studies have been performed to try to find out if initiation of specific drugs before surgery could reduce the risk of complications,” Dr. Halvorsen noted. However, few have shown any benefit and “the question of presurgery initiation of beta-blockers has been greatly debated,” she said. “We have again reviewed the literature and concluded ‘Routine initiation of beta-blockers perioperatively is not recommended (class IIIA).’ “

“We adhere to the guidelines on acute and chronic coronary syndrome recommending 6-12 months of dual antiplatelet treatment as a standard before elective surgery,” she said. “However, in case of time-sensitive surgery, the duration of that treatment can be shortened down to a minimum of 1 month after elective PCI and a minimum of 3 months after PCI and ACS.”
 

Patients with specific types of CVD

Dr. Mehilli, a professor at Landshut-Achdorf (Germany) Hospital, highlighted some new guideline recommendations for patients who have specific types of cardiovascular disease.

Coronary artery disease (CAD). “For chronic coronary syndrome, a cardiac workup is recommended only for patients undergoing intermediate risk or high-risk noncardiac surgery.”

“Stress imaging should be considered before any high risk, noncardiac surgery in asymptomatic patients with poor functional capacity and prior PCI or coronary artery bypass graft (new recommendation, class IIa).”

Mitral valve regurgitation. For patients undergoing scheduled noncardiac surgery, who remain symptomatic despite guideline-directed medical treatment for mitral valve regurgitation (including resynchronization and myocardial revascularization), consider a valve intervention – either transcatheter or surgical – before noncardiac surgery in eligible patients with acceptable procedural risk (new recommendation).

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). For high-risk patients with CIEDs undergoing noncardiac surgery with high probability of electromagnetic interference, a CIED checkup and necessary reprogramming immediately before the procedure should be considered (new recommendation).

Arrhythmias. “I want only to stress,” Dr. Mehilli said, “in patients with atrial fibrillation with acute or worsening hemodynamic instability undergoing noncardiac surgery, an emergency electrical cardioversion is recommended (class I).”

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) and abdominal aortic aneurysm. For these patients “we do not recommend a routine referral for a cardiac workup. But we recommend it for patients with poor functional capacity or with significant risk factors or symptoms (new recommendations).”

Chronic arterial hypertension. “We have modified the recommendation, recommending avoidance of large perioperative fluctuations in blood pressure, and we do not recommend deferring noncardiac surgery in patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension,” she said.
 

Postoperative cardiovascular complications

The most frequent postoperative cardiovascular complication is PMI, Dr. Mehilli noted.

“In the BASEL-PMI registry, the incidence of this complication around intermediate or high-risk noncardiac surgery was up to 15% among patients older than 65 years or with a history of CAD or PAD, which makes this kind of complication really important to prevent, to assess, and to know how to treat.”

“It is recommended to have a high awareness for perioperative cardiovascular complications, combined with surveillance for PMI in patients undergoing intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery” based on serial measurements of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin.

The guidelines define PMI as “an increase in the delta of high-sensitivity troponin more than the upper level of normal,” Dr. Mehilli said. “It’s different from the one used in a rule-in algorithm for non-STEMI acute coronary syndrome.”

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (AFib) is observed in 2%-30% of noncardiac surgery patients in different registries, particularly in patients undergoing intermediate or high-risk noncardiac surgery, she noted.

“We propose an algorithm on how to prevent and treat this complication. I want to highlight that in patients with hemodynamic unstable postoperative AF[ib], an emergency cardioversion is indicated. For the others, a rate control with the target heart rate of less than 110 beats per minute is indicated.”

In patients with postoperative AFib, long-term oral anticoagulation therapy should be considered in all patients at risk for stroke, considering the anticipated net clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation therapy as well as informed patient preference (new recommendations).

Routine use of beta-blockers to prevent postoperative AFib in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery is not recommended.

The document also covers the management of patients with kidney disease, diabetes, cancer, obesity, and COVID-19. In general, elective noncardiac surgery should be postponed after a patient has COVID-19, until he or she recovers completely, and coexisting conditions are optimized.

The guidelines are available from the ESC website in several formats: pocket guidelines, pocket guidelines smartphone app, guidelines slide set, essential messages, and the European Heart Journal article.
 

Noncardiac surgery risk categories

The guideline includes a table that classifies noncardiac surgeries into three groups, based on the associated 30-day risk of death, MI, or stroke:

• Low (< 1%): breast, dental, eye, thyroid, and minor gynecologic, orthopedic, and urologic surgery.
• Intermediate (1%-5%): carotid surgery, endovascular aortic aneurysm repair, gallbladder surgery, head or neck surgery, hernia repair, peripheral arterial angioplasty, renal transplant, major gynecologic, orthopedic, or neurologic (hip or spine) surgery, or urologic surgery
• High (> 5%): aortic and major vascular surgery (including aortic aneurysm), bladder removal (usually as a result of cancer), limb amputation, lung or liver transplant, pancreatic surgery, or perforated bowel repair.

The guidelines were endorsed by the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care. The guideline authors reported numerous disclosures.

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

People who maintain a vegan diet show significant deficits in bone microarchitecture, compared with omnivores; however, resistance training not only appears to improve those deficits but may have a stronger effect in vegans, suggesting an important strategy in maintaining bone health with a vegan diet.

“We expected better bone structure in both vegans and omnivores who reported resistance training,” first author Robert Wakolbinger-Habel, MD, PhD, of St. Vincent Hospital Vienna and the Medical University of Vienna, said in an interview.

Thinkstock.com

“However, we expected [there would still be] differences in structure between vegans and omnivores [who practiced resistance training], as previous literature reported higher fracture rates in vegans,” he said. “Still, the positive message is that ‘pumping iron’ could counterbalance these differences between vegans and omnivores.”

The research was published online in The Endocrine Society’s Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
 

Exercise significantly impacts bone health in vegans

The potential effects of the plant-based vegan diet on bone health have been reported in studies linking the diet to an increased risk of fractures and lower bone mineral density (BMD), with common theories including lower bone- and muscle-building protein in vegan diets.

However, most previous studies have not considered other key factors, such as the effects of exercise, the authors noted.

“While previous studies on bone health in vegans only took BMD, biochemical and nutritional parameters into account, they did not consider the significant effects of physical activity,” they wrote.

“By ignoring these effects, important factors influencing bone health are neglected.”

For the study, 88 participants were enrolled in Vienna, with vegan participants recruited with the help of the Austrian Vegan Society.

Importantly, the study documented participants’ bone microarchitecture, a key measure of bone strength that has also not been previously investigated in vegans, using high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT.

Inclusion criteria included maintaining an omnivore diet of meat and plant-based foods or a vegan diet for at least 5 years, not being underweight or obese (body mass index [BMI], 18.5-30 kg/m²), being age 30-50 years, and being premenopausal.

Of the participants, 43 were vegan and 45 were omnivores, with generally equal ratios of men and women.

Vegan bone deficits disappear with strength training

Overall, compared with omnivores, the vegan group showed significant deficits in 7 of 14 measures of BMI-adjusted trabecular and cortical structure (all P < .05).

Among participants who reported no resistance training, vegans still showed significant decreases in bone microarchitecture, compared with omnivores, including radius trabecular BMD, radius trabecular bone volume fraction, and other tibial and cortical bone microarchitecture measures.

However, among those who did report progressive resistant training (20 vegans and 25 omnivores), defined as using machines, free weights, or bodyweight resistance exercises at least once a week, those differences disappeared and there were no significant differences in BMI-adjusted bone microarchitecture between vegans and omnivores after the 5 years.

Of note, no significant differences in bone microarchitecture were observed between those who performed exclusively aerobic activities and those who reported no sports activities in the vegan or omnivore group.

Based on the findings, “other types of exercise such as aerobics, cycling, etc, would not be sufficient for a similar positive effect on bone [as resistance training],” Dr. Wakolbinger-Habel said.

Although the findings suggest that resistance training seemed to allow vegans to “catch up” with omnivores in terms of bone microarchitecture, Dr. Wakolbinger-Habel cautioned that a study limitation is the relatively low number of participants.

“The absolute numbers suggest that in vegans the differences, and the relative effect, respectively of resistance training might be larger,” he said. “However, the number of participants in the subgroups is small and it is still an observational study, so we need to be careful in drawing causal conclusions.”

Serum bone markers were within normal ranges across all subgroups. And although there were some correlations between nutrient intake and bone microarchitecture among vegans who did and did not practice resistance training, no conclusions could be drawn from that data, the authors noted.

“Based on our data, the structural [differences between vegans and omnivores] cannot solely be explained by deficits in certain nutrients according to lifestyle,” the authors concluded.
 

Mechanisms

The mechanisms by which progressive resistance training could result in the benefits include that mechanical loads trigger stimulation of key pathways involved in bone formation, or mechanotransduction, the authors explained.

The unique effects have been observed in other studies, including one study showing that, among young adult runners, the addition of resistance training once a week was associated with significantly greater BMD.

“Veganism is a global trend with strongly increasing numbers of people worldwide adhering to a purely plant-based diet,” first author Christian Muschitz, MD, also of St. Vincent Hospital Vienna and the Medical University of Vienna, said in a press statement.

“Our study showed resistance training offsets diminished bone structure in vegan people when compared to omnivores,” he said.

Dr. Wakolbinger-Habel recommended that, based on the findings, “exercise, including resistance training, should be strongly advocated [for vegans], I would say, at least two times per week.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

People who maintain a vegan diet show significant deficits in bone microarchitecture, compared with omnivores; however, resistance training not only appears to improve those deficits but may have a stronger effect in vegans, suggesting an important strategy in maintaining bone health with a vegan diet.

“We expected better bone structure in both vegans and omnivores who reported resistance training,” first author Robert Wakolbinger-Habel, MD, PhD, of St. Vincent Hospital Vienna and the Medical University of Vienna, said in an interview.

Thinkstock.com

“However, we expected [there would still be] differences in structure between vegans and omnivores [who practiced resistance training], as previous literature reported higher fracture rates in vegans,” he said. “Still, the positive message is that ‘pumping iron’ could counterbalance these differences between vegans and omnivores.”

The research was published online in The Endocrine Society’s Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
 

Exercise significantly impacts bone health in vegans

The potential effects of the plant-based vegan diet on bone health have been reported in studies linking the diet to an increased risk of fractures and lower bone mineral density (BMD), with common theories including lower bone- and muscle-building protein in vegan diets.

However, most previous studies have not considered other key factors, such as the effects of exercise, the authors noted.

“While previous studies on bone health in vegans only took BMD, biochemical and nutritional parameters into account, they did not consider the significant effects of physical activity,” they wrote.

“By ignoring these effects, important factors influencing bone health are neglected.”

For the study, 88 participants were enrolled in Vienna, with vegan participants recruited with the help of the Austrian Vegan Society.

Importantly, the study documented participants’ bone microarchitecture, a key measure of bone strength that has also not been previously investigated in vegans, using high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT.

Inclusion criteria included maintaining an omnivore diet of meat and plant-based foods or a vegan diet for at least 5 years, not being underweight or obese (body mass index [BMI], 18.5-30 kg/m²), being age 30-50 years, and being premenopausal.

Of the participants, 43 were vegan and 45 were omnivores, with generally equal ratios of men and women.

Vegan bone deficits disappear with strength training

Overall, compared with omnivores, the vegan group showed significant deficits in 7 of 14 measures of BMI-adjusted trabecular and cortical structure (all P < .05).

Among participants who reported no resistance training, vegans still showed significant decreases in bone microarchitecture, compared with omnivores, including radius trabecular BMD, radius trabecular bone volume fraction, and other tibial and cortical bone microarchitecture measures.

However, among those who did report progressive resistant training (20 vegans and 25 omnivores), defined as using machines, free weights, or bodyweight resistance exercises at least once a week, those differences disappeared and there were no significant differences in BMI-adjusted bone microarchitecture between vegans and omnivores after the 5 years.

Of note, no significant differences in bone microarchitecture were observed between those who performed exclusively aerobic activities and those who reported no sports activities in the vegan or omnivore group.

Based on the findings, “other types of exercise such as aerobics, cycling, etc, would not be sufficient for a similar positive effect on bone [as resistance training],” Dr. Wakolbinger-Habel said.

Although the findings suggest that resistance training seemed to allow vegans to “catch up” with omnivores in terms of bone microarchitecture, Dr. Wakolbinger-Habel cautioned that a study limitation is the relatively low number of participants.

“The absolute numbers suggest that in vegans the differences, and the relative effect, respectively of resistance training might be larger,” he said. “However, the number of participants in the subgroups is small and it is still an observational study, so we need to be careful in drawing causal conclusions.”

Serum bone markers were within normal ranges across all subgroups. And although there were some correlations between nutrient intake and bone microarchitecture among vegans who did and did not practice resistance training, no conclusions could be drawn from that data, the authors noted.

“Based on our data, the structural [differences between vegans and omnivores] cannot solely be explained by deficits in certain nutrients according to lifestyle,” the authors concluded.
 

Mechanisms

The mechanisms by which progressive resistance training could result in the benefits include that mechanical loads trigger stimulation of key pathways involved in bone formation, or mechanotransduction, the authors explained.

The unique effects have been observed in other studies, including one study showing that, among young adult runners, the addition of resistance training once a week was associated with significantly greater BMD.

“Veganism is a global trend with strongly increasing numbers of people worldwide adhering to a purely plant-based diet,” first author Christian Muschitz, MD, also of St. Vincent Hospital Vienna and the Medical University of Vienna, said in a press statement.

“Our study showed resistance training offsets diminished bone structure in vegan people when compared to omnivores,” he said.

Dr. Wakolbinger-Habel recommended that, based on the findings, “exercise, including resistance training, should be strongly advocated [for vegans], I would say, at least two times per week.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

People who maintain a vegan diet show significant deficits in bone microarchitecture, compared with omnivores; however, resistance training not only appears to improve those deficits but may have a stronger effect in vegans, suggesting an important strategy in maintaining bone health with a vegan diet.

“We expected better bone structure in both vegans and omnivores who reported resistance training,” first author Robert Wakolbinger-Habel, MD, PhD, of St. Vincent Hospital Vienna and the Medical University of Vienna, said in an interview.

Thinkstock.com

“However, we expected [there would still be] differences in structure between vegans and omnivores [who practiced resistance training], as previous literature reported higher fracture rates in vegans,” he said. “Still, the positive message is that ‘pumping iron’ could counterbalance these differences between vegans and omnivores.”

The research was published online in The Endocrine Society’s Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
 

Exercise significantly impacts bone health in vegans

The potential effects of the plant-based vegan diet on bone health have been reported in studies linking the diet to an increased risk of fractures and lower bone mineral density (BMD), with common theories including lower bone- and muscle-building protein in vegan diets.

However, most previous studies have not considered other key factors, such as the effects of exercise, the authors noted.

“While previous studies on bone health in vegans only took BMD, biochemical and nutritional parameters into account, they did not consider the significant effects of physical activity,” they wrote.

“By ignoring these effects, important factors influencing bone health are neglected.”

For the study, 88 participants were enrolled in Vienna, with vegan participants recruited with the help of the Austrian Vegan Society.

Importantly, the study documented participants’ bone microarchitecture, a key measure of bone strength that has also not been previously investigated in vegans, using high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT.

Inclusion criteria included maintaining an omnivore diet of meat and plant-based foods or a vegan diet for at least 5 years, not being underweight or obese (body mass index [BMI], 18.5-30 kg/m²), being age 30-50 years, and being premenopausal.

Of the participants, 43 were vegan and 45 were omnivores, with generally equal ratios of men and women.

Vegan bone deficits disappear with strength training

Overall, compared with omnivores, the vegan group showed significant deficits in 7 of 14 measures of BMI-adjusted trabecular and cortical structure (all P < .05).

Among participants who reported no resistance training, vegans still showed significant decreases in bone microarchitecture, compared with omnivores, including radius trabecular BMD, radius trabecular bone volume fraction, and other tibial and cortical bone microarchitecture measures.

However, among those who did report progressive resistant training (20 vegans and 25 omnivores), defined as using machines, free weights, or bodyweight resistance exercises at least once a week, those differences disappeared and there were no significant differences in BMI-adjusted bone microarchitecture between vegans and omnivores after the 5 years.

Of note, no significant differences in bone microarchitecture were observed between those who performed exclusively aerobic activities and those who reported no sports activities in the vegan or omnivore group.

Based on the findings, “other types of exercise such as aerobics, cycling, etc, would not be sufficient for a similar positive effect on bone [as resistance training],” Dr. Wakolbinger-Habel said.

Although the findings suggest that resistance training seemed to allow vegans to “catch up” with omnivores in terms of bone microarchitecture, Dr. Wakolbinger-Habel cautioned that a study limitation is the relatively low number of participants.

“The absolute numbers suggest that in vegans the differences, and the relative effect, respectively of resistance training might be larger,” he said. “However, the number of participants in the subgroups is small and it is still an observational study, so we need to be careful in drawing causal conclusions.”

Serum bone markers were within normal ranges across all subgroups. And although there were some correlations between nutrient intake and bone microarchitecture among vegans who did and did not practice resistance training, no conclusions could be drawn from that data, the authors noted.

“Based on our data, the structural [differences between vegans and omnivores] cannot solely be explained by deficits in certain nutrients according to lifestyle,” the authors concluded.
 

Mechanisms

The mechanisms by which progressive resistance training could result in the benefits include that mechanical loads trigger stimulation of key pathways involved in bone formation, or mechanotransduction, the authors explained.

The unique effects have been observed in other studies, including one study showing that, among young adult runners, the addition of resistance training once a week was associated with significantly greater BMD.

“Veganism is a global trend with strongly increasing numbers of people worldwide adhering to a purely plant-based diet,” first author Christian Muschitz, MD, also of St. Vincent Hospital Vienna and the Medical University of Vienna, said in a press statement.

“Our study showed resistance training offsets diminished bone structure in vegan people when compared to omnivores,” he said.

Dr. Wakolbinger-Habel recommended that, based on the findings, “exercise, including resistance training, should be strongly advocated [for vegans], I would say, at least two times per week.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Switching from one biosimilar medication to another is safe and effective, a new systematic review indicates, even though this clinical practice is not governed by current health authority regulations or guidance.

“No reduction in effectiveness or increase in adverse events was detected in biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching studies conducted to date,” the review’s authors noted in their study, published online in BioDrugs.

“The possibility of multiple switches between biosimilars of the same reference biologic is already a reality, and these types of switches are expected to become more common in the future. ... Although it is not covered by current health authority regulations or guidance,” added the authors, led by Hillel P. Cohen, PhD, executive director of scientific affairs at Sandoz, a division of Novartis.

The researchers searched electronic databases through December 2021 and found 23 observational studies that met their search criteria, of which 13 were published in peer-reviewed journals; the remainder appeared in abstract form. The studies totaled 3,657 patients. The researchers did not identify any randomized clinical trials.

“The studies were heterogeneous in size, design, and endpoints, providing data on safety, effectiveness, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, patient retention, patient and physician perceptions, and drug-use patterns,” the authors wrote.

The authors found that the majority of studies evaluated switches between biosimilars of infliximab, but they also identified switches between biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and rituximab.

“Some health care providers are hesitant to switch patients from one biosimilar to another biosimilar because of a perceived lack of clinical data on such switches,” Dr. Cohen said in an interview.

The review’s findings – that there were no clinically relevant differences when switching patients from one biosimilar to another – are consistent with the science, Dr. Cohen said. “Physicians should have confidence that the data demonstrate that safety and effectiveness are not impacted if patients switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference biologic,” he said.

Currently, the published data include biosimilars to only four reference biologics. “However, I anticipate additional biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching data will become available in the future,” Dr. Cohen said. “In fact, several new studies have been published in recent months, after the cut-off date for inclusion in our systematic review.”

Switching common in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology

Biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching was observed most commonly in rheumatology practice, but also was seen in the specialties of dermatology and gastroenterology.

Jeffrey Weinberg, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in an interview that the study is among the best to date showing that switching biosimilars does not compromise efficacy or safety. 

“I would hypothesize that the interchangeability would apply to psoriasis patients,” Dr. Weinberg said. However, “over the next few years, we will have an increasing number of biosimilars for an increasing number of different molecules. We will need to be vigilant to observe if similar behavior is observed with the biosimilars yet to come.”

Keith Choate, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and genetics, and associate dean for physician-scientist development at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said that biosimilars have comparable efficacy to the branded medication they replace. “If response is lost to an individual agent, we would not typically then switch to a biosimilar, but would favor another class of therapy or a distinct therapeutic which targets the same pathway.”

When physicians prescribe a biosimilar for rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis, in 9 out 10 people, “it’s going to work as well, and it’s not going to cause any more side effects,” said Stanford Shoor, MD, clinical professor of medicine and rheumatology, Stanford (Calif.) University.

The systematic review, even within its limitations, reinforces confidence in the antitumor necrosis factor biosimilars, said Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, codirector of the Feinstein Inflammatory Bowel Disease Clinical Center at Mount Sinai, New York, and professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

“Still, studies with longer follow-up are needed,” Dr. Colombel said, adding that the remaining questions relate to the efficacy and safety of switching multiple times, which will likely occur in the near future. There will be a “need to provide information to the patient regarding what originator or biosimilar(s) he has been exposed to during the course of his disease.”

Switching will increasingly become the norm, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic. In his clinical practice, he has the most experience with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, and biosimilar-to-biosimilar infliximab switches. “Unless there are data that emerge, I have no concerns with this.” 

He added that it’s an “interesting study that affirms my findings in clinical practice – that one can switch from a biosimilar to biosimilar (of the same reference product).”

The review’s results also make sense from an economic standpoint, said Rajat Bhatt, MD, owner of Prime Rheumatology in Richmond, Tex., and an adjunct faculty member at Caribbean Medical University, Willemstad, Curaçao. “Switching to biosimilars will result in cost savings for the health care system.” Patients on certain insurances also will save by switching to a biosimilar with a lower copay.

However, the review is limited by a relatively small number of studies that have provided primary data on this topic, and most of these were switching from infliximab to a biosimilar for inflammatory bowel disease, said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an adult rheumatologist at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, and assistant professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis.

As with any meta-analysis evaluating a small number of studies, “broad applicability to all conditions and reference/biosimilar pair can only be assumed. Also, many of the studies used for this meta-analysis are observational, which can introduce a variety of biases that can be difficult to adjust for,” Dr. Kim said. “Nevertheless, these analyses are an important first step in validating the [Food and Drug Administration’s] approach to evaluating biosimilars, as the clinical outcomes are consistent between different biosimilars.”

This systematic review is not enough to prove that all patients will do fine when switching from one biosimilar to another, said Florence Aslinia, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Kansas Health System in Kansas City. It’s possible that some patients may not do as well, she said, noting that, in one study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, 10% of patients on a biosimilar infliximab needed to switch back to the originator infliximab (Remicade, Janssen) because of side effects attributed to the biosimilar. The same thing may or may not happen with biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching, and it requires further study.

The authors did not receive any funding for writing this review. Dr. Cohen is an employee of Sandoz, a division of Novartis. He may own stock in Novartis. Two coauthors are also employees of Sandoz. The other three coauthors reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Sandoz and/or Novartis. Dr. Colombel reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis and other manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Regueiro reports financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including some manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Weinberg reported financial relationships with Celgene, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and Novartis. Kim reports financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Aslinia, Dr. Shoor, Dr. Choate, and Dr. Bhatt reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Switching from one biosimilar medication to another is safe and effective, a new systematic review indicates, even though this clinical practice is not governed by current health authority regulations or guidance.

“No reduction in effectiveness or increase in adverse events was detected in biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching studies conducted to date,” the review’s authors noted in their study, published online in BioDrugs.

“The possibility of multiple switches between biosimilars of the same reference biologic is already a reality, and these types of switches are expected to become more common in the future. ... Although it is not covered by current health authority regulations or guidance,” added the authors, led by Hillel P. Cohen, PhD, executive director of scientific affairs at Sandoz, a division of Novartis.

The researchers searched electronic databases through December 2021 and found 23 observational studies that met their search criteria, of which 13 were published in peer-reviewed journals; the remainder appeared in abstract form. The studies totaled 3,657 patients. The researchers did not identify any randomized clinical trials.

“The studies were heterogeneous in size, design, and endpoints, providing data on safety, effectiveness, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, patient retention, patient and physician perceptions, and drug-use patterns,” the authors wrote.

The authors found that the majority of studies evaluated switches between biosimilars of infliximab, but they also identified switches between biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and rituximab.

“Some health care providers are hesitant to switch patients from one biosimilar to another biosimilar because of a perceived lack of clinical data on such switches,” Dr. Cohen said in an interview.

The review’s findings – that there were no clinically relevant differences when switching patients from one biosimilar to another – are consistent with the science, Dr. Cohen said. “Physicians should have confidence that the data demonstrate that safety and effectiveness are not impacted if patients switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference biologic,” he said.

Currently, the published data include biosimilars to only four reference biologics. “However, I anticipate additional biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching data will become available in the future,” Dr. Cohen said. “In fact, several new studies have been published in recent months, after the cut-off date for inclusion in our systematic review.”

Switching common in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology

Biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching was observed most commonly in rheumatology practice, but also was seen in the specialties of dermatology and gastroenterology.

Jeffrey Weinberg, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in an interview that the study is among the best to date showing that switching biosimilars does not compromise efficacy or safety. 

“I would hypothesize that the interchangeability would apply to psoriasis patients,” Dr. Weinberg said. However, “over the next few years, we will have an increasing number of biosimilars for an increasing number of different molecules. We will need to be vigilant to observe if similar behavior is observed with the biosimilars yet to come.”

Keith Choate, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and genetics, and associate dean for physician-scientist development at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said that biosimilars have comparable efficacy to the branded medication they replace. “If response is lost to an individual agent, we would not typically then switch to a biosimilar, but would favor another class of therapy or a distinct therapeutic which targets the same pathway.”

When physicians prescribe a biosimilar for rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis, in 9 out 10 people, “it’s going to work as well, and it’s not going to cause any more side effects,” said Stanford Shoor, MD, clinical professor of medicine and rheumatology, Stanford (Calif.) University.

The systematic review, even within its limitations, reinforces confidence in the antitumor necrosis factor biosimilars, said Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, codirector of the Feinstein Inflammatory Bowel Disease Clinical Center at Mount Sinai, New York, and professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

“Still, studies with longer follow-up are needed,” Dr. Colombel said, adding that the remaining questions relate to the efficacy and safety of switching multiple times, which will likely occur in the near future. There will be a “need to provide information to the patient regarding what originator or biosimilar(s) he has been exposed to during the course of his disease.”

Switching will increasingly become the norm, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic. In his clinical practice, he has the most experience with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, and biosimilar-to-biosimilar infliximab switches. “Unless there are data that emerge, I have no concerns with this.” 

He added that it’s an “interesting study that affirms my findings in clinical practice – that one can switch from a biosimilar to biosimilar (of the same reference product).”

The review’s results also make sense from an economic standpoint, said Rajat Bhatt, MD, owner of Prime Rheumatology in Richmond, Tex., and an adjunct faculty member at Caribbean Medical University, Willemstad, Curaçao. “Switching to biosimilars will result in cost savings for the health care system.” Patients on certain insurances also will save by switching to a biosimilar with a lower copay.

However, the review is limited by a relatively small number of studies that have provided primary data on this topic, and most of these were switching from infliximab to a biosimilar for inflammatory bowel disease, said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an adult rheumatologist at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, and assistant professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis.

As with any meta-analysis evaluating a small number of studies, “broad applicability to all conditions and reference/biosimilar pair can only be assumed. Also, many of the studies used for this meta-analysis are observational, which can introduce a variety of biases that can be difficult to adjust for,” Dr. Kim said. “Nevertheless, these analyses are an important first step in validating the [Food and Drug Administration’s] approach to evaluating biosimilars, as the clinical outcomes are consistent between different biosimilars.”

This systematic review is not enough to prove that all patients will do fine when switching from one biosimilar to another, said Florence Aslinia, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Kansas Health System in Kansas City. It’s possible that some patients may not do as well, she said, noting that, in one study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, 10% of patients on a biosimilar infliximab needed to switch back to the originator infliximab (Remicade, Janssen) because of side effects attributed to the biosimilar. The same thing may or may not happen with biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching, and it requires further study.

The authors did not receive any funding for writing this review. Dr. Cohen is an employee of Sandoz, a division of Novartis. He may own stock in Novartis. Two coauthors are also employees of Sandoz. The other three coauthors reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Sandoz and/or Novartis. Dr. Colombel reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis and other manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Regueiro reports financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including some manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Weinberg reported financial relationships with Celgene, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and Novartis. Kim reports financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Aslinia, Dr. Shoor, Dr. Choate, and Dr. Bhatt reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Switching from one biosimilar medication to another is safe and effective, a new systematic review indicates, even though this clinical practice is not governed by current health authority regulations or guidance.

“No reduction in effectiveness or increase in adverse events was detected in biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching studies conducted to date,” the review’s authors noted in their study, published online in BioDrugs.

“The possibility of multiple switches between biosimilars of the same reference biologic is already a reality, and these types of switches are expected to become more common in the future. ... Although it is not covered by current health authority regulations or guidance,” added the authors, led by Hillel P. Cohen, PhD, executive director of scientific affairs at Sandoz, a division of Novartis.

The researchers searched electronic databases through December 2021 and found 23 observational studies that met their search criteria, of which 13 were published in peer-reviewed journals; the remainder appeared in abstract form. The studies totaled 3,657 patients. The researchers did not identify any randomized clinical trials.

“The studies were heterogeneous in size, design, and endpoints, providing data on safety, effectiveness, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, patient retention, patient and physician perceptions, and drug-use patterns,” the authors wrote.

The authors found that the majority of studies evaluated switches between biosimilars of infliximab, but they also identified switches between biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and rituximab.

“Some health care providers are hesitant to switch patients from one biosimilar to another biosimilar because of a perceived lack of clinical data on such switches,” Dr. Cohen said in an interview.

The review’s findings – that there were no clinically relevant differences when switching patients from one biosimilar to another – are consistent with the science, Dr. Cohen said. “Physicians should have confidence that the data demonstrate that safety and effectiveness are not impacted if patients switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference biologic,” he said.

Currently, the published data include biosimilars to only four reference biologics. “However, I anticipate additional biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching data will become available in the future,” Dr. Cohen said. “In fact, several new studies have been published in recent months, after the cut-off date for inclusion in our systematic review.”

Switching common in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology

Biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching was observed most commonly in rheumatology practice, but also was seen in the specialties of dermatology and gastroenterology.

Jeffrey Weinberg, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in an interview that the study is among the best to date showing that switching biosimilars does not compromise efficacy or safety. 

“I would hypothesize that the interchangeability would apply to psoriasis patients,” Dr. Weinberg said. However, “over the next few years, we will have an increasing number of biosimilars for an increasing number of different molecules. We will need to be vigilant to observe if similar behavior is observed with the biosimilars yet to come.”

Keith Choate, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and genetics, and associate dean for physician-scientist development at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said that biosimilars have comparable efficacy to the branded medication they replace. “If response is lost to an individual agent, we would not typically then switch to a biosimilar, but would favor another class of therapy or a distinct therapeutic which targets the same pathway.”

When physicians prescribe a biosimilar for rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis, in 9 out 10 people, “it’s going to work as well, and it’s not going to cause any more side effects,” said Stanford Shoor, MD, clinical professor of medicine and rheumatology, Stanford (Calif.) University.

The systematic review, even within its limitations, reinforces confidence in the antitumor necrosis factor biosimilars, said Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, codirector of the Feinstein Inflammatory Bowel Disease Clinical Center at Mount Sinai, New York, and professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

“Still, studies with longer follow-up are needed,” Dr. Colombel said, adding that the remaining questions relate to the efficacy and safety of switching multiple times, which will likely occur in the near future. There will be a “need to provide information to the patient regarding what originator or biosimilar(s) he has been exposed to during the course of his disease.”

Switching will increasingly become the norm, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic. In his clinical practice, he has the most experience with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, and biosimilar-to-biosimilar infliximab switches. “Unless there are data that emerge, I have no concerns with this.” 

He added that it’s an “interesting study that affirms my findings in clinical practice – that one can switch from a biosimilar to biosimilar (of the same reference product).”

The review’s results also make sense from an economic standpoint, said Rajat Bhatt, MD, owner of Prime Rheumatology in Richmond, Tex., and an adjunct faculty member at Caribbean Medical University, Willemstad, Curaçao. “Switching to biosimilars will result in cost savings for the health care system.” Patients on certain insurances also will save by switching to a biosimilar with a lower copay.

However, the review is limited by a relatively small number of studies that have provided primary data on this topic, and most of these were switching from infliximab to a biosimilar for inflammatory bowel disease, said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an adult rheumatologist at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, and assistant professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis.

As with any meta-analysis evaluating a small number of studies, “broad applicability to all conditions and reference/biosimilar pair can only be assumed. Also, many of the studies used for this meta-analysis are observational, which can introduce a variety of biases that can be difficult to adjust for,” Dr. Kim said. “Nevertheless, these analyses are an important first step in validating the [Food and Drug Administration’s] approach to evaluating biosimilars, as the clinical outcomes are consistent between different biosimilars.”

This systematic review is not enough to prove that all patients will do fine when switching from one biosimilar to another, said Florence Aslinia, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Kansas Health System in Kansas City. It’s possible that some patients may not do as well, she said, noting that, in one study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, 10% of patients on a biosimilar infliximab needed to switch back to the originator infliximab (Remicade, Janssen) because of side effects attributed to the biosimilar. The same thing may or may not happen with biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching, and it requires further study.

The authors did not receive any funding for writing this review. Dr. Cohen is an employee of Sandoz, a division of Novartis. He may own stock in Novartis. Two coauthors are also employees of Sandoz. The other three coauthors reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Sandoz and/or Novartis. Dr. Colombel reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis and other manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Regueiro reports financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including some manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Weinberg reported financial relationships with Celgene, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and Novartis. Kim reports financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Aslinia, Dr. Shoor, Dr. Choate, and Dr. Bhatt reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

I’m pretty sure my ancestors came from Europe. And, as far as I know, I have no relatives in Australia. But, I must have some cosmic relationship with the Land Down Under because as I review articles for these columns I have an uncanny attraction to those coming out of Australia. Most of them are about sleep, one of my obsessions, and in general they address simple questions that no one has thought to ask.

My most recent Australia-based nugget appeared in the August edition of Pediatrics.

The researchers in Sidney were seeking to define “growing pains” by embarking on an extensive review of the medical literature. Beginning with thousands of articles, they winnowed these down to 145 studies. They found “there was extremely poor consensus between studies.” The most consistent components were the lower limb, bilaterality, evening onset, a normal physical assessment, and an episodic or recurrent course. However, all of these factors were mentioned in 50% or less of the articles they reviewed. The investigators wisely concluded that clinicians “should be wary of relying on the diagnosis to direct treatment decisions.”

This may seem like one small step for pediatrics. You may have reassured parents that none of your patients ever died of “growing pains” and the condition would eventually resolve. Hopefully, you were correct and that your case rate fatality is zero. But I suspect it wouldn’t take too long to unearth a wealth of malpractices cases in which another pediatrician’s patient died with an illness whose eventual discovery was tragically delayed by a period of false reassurance and diagnosis that the child merely had growing pains.

I can’t remember which of my sage instructors told me to never use “growing pains” as a diagnosis. It may have just been something I stumbled upon as my clinical experience grew. While holding firm to my commitment to never use it as a diagnosis, it became abundantly clear that I was seeing a large group of children (toddlers to early adolescents) who were experiencing lower leg pains in the early evening, often bad enough to wake them.

It took a bit longer to discover that most often these painful episodes occurred in children who were acutely or chronically sleep deprived. Occasionally, the pain would come on days in which the child had been unusually physically active. However, in most cases there was little correlation with lower limb activity.

I will admit that my observations were colored by my growing obsession that sleep deprivation is the root of many evils, including the phenomenon known as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. I was even bold enough to include it in my one of the books I have written (Is My Child Overtired? Simon & Schuster, 2001). Nonetheless, I am still convinced that every investigation of a child with evening leg pains should include a thorough history of the child’s sleep history.

The bottom line is that these Australian researchers have done us a great favor with their research. However, I think they should have made a bolder statement in their conclusion. It is clear to me that “growing pains” should be removed as a diagnosis and no longer be reimbursed by third-party payers.

The void created by that action should spur some research into a better-defined diagnosis of the condition. If you want to use my tack and label it “nocturnal leg pains of childhood” and suggest better sleep hygiene, I will be flattered. But more importantly, take the time to take a good history, do a thorough exam, and then follow up, follow up, follow up, until the problem resolves.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

I’m pretty sure my ancestors came from Europe. And, as far as I know, I have no relatives in Australia. But, I must have some cosmic relationship with the Land Down Under because as I review articles for these columns I have an uncanny attraction to those coming out of Australia. Most of them are about sleep, one of my obsessions, and in general they address simple questions that no one has thought to ask.

My most recent Australia-based nugget appeared in the August edition of Pediatrics.

The researchers in Sidney were seeking to define “growing pains” by embarking on an extensive review of the medical literature. Beginning with thousands of articles, they winnowed these down to 145 studies. They found “there was extremely poor consensus between studies.” The most consistent components were the lower limb, bilaterality, evening onset, a normal physical assessment, and an episodic or recurrent course. However, all of these factors were mentioned in 50% or less of the articles they reviewed. The investigators wisely concluded that clinicians “should be wary of relying on the diagnosis to direct treatment decisions.”

This may seem like one small step for pediatrics. You may have reassured parents that none of your patients ever died of “growing pains” and the condition would eventually resolve. Hopefully, you were correct and that your case rate fatality is zero. But I suspect it wouldn’t take too long to unearth a wealth of malpractices cases in which another pediatrician’s patient died with an illness whose eventual discovery was tragically delayed by a period of false reassurance and diagnosis that the child merely had growing pains.

I can’t remember which of my sage instructors told me to never use “growing pains” as a diagnosis. It may have just been something I stumbled upon as my clinical experience grew. While holding firm to my commitment to never use it as a diagnosis, it became abundantly clear that I was seeing a large group of children (toddlers to early adolescents) who were experiencing lower leg pains in the early evening, often bad enough to wake them.

It took a bit longer to discover that most often these painful episodes occurred in children who were acutely or chronically sleep deprived. Occasionally, the pain would come on days in which the child had been unusually physically active. However, in most cases there was little correlation with lower limb activity.

I will admit that my observations were colored by my growing obsession that sleep deprivation is the root of many evils, including the phenomenon known as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. I was even bold enough to include it in my one of the books I have written (Is My Child Overtired? Simon & Schuster, 2001). Nonetheless, I am still convinced that every investigation of a child with evening leg pains should include a thorough history of the child’s sleep history.

The bottom line is that these Australian researchers have done us a great favor with their research. However, I think they should have made a bolder statement in their conclusion. It is clear to me that “growing pains” should be removed as a diagnosis and no longer be reimbursed by third-party payers.

The void created by that action should spur some research into a better-defined diagnosis of the condition. If you want to use my tack and label it “nocturnal leg pains of childhood” and suggest better sleep hygiene, I will be flattered. But more importantly, take the time to take a good history, do a thorough exam, and then follow up, follow up, follow up, until the problem resolves.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

I’m pretty sure my ancestors came from Europe. And, as far as I know, I have no relatives in Australia. But, I must have some cosmic relationship with the Land Down Under because as I review articles for these columns I have an uncanny attraction to those coming out of Australia. Most of them are about sleep, one of my obsessions, and in general they address simple questions that no one has thought to ask.

My most recent Australia-based nugget appeared in the August edition of Pediatrics.

The researchers in Sidney were seeking to define “growing pains” by embarking on an extensive review of the medical literature. Beginning with thousands of articles, they winnowed these down to 145 studies. They found “there was extremely poor consensus between studies.” The most consistent components were the lower limb, bilaterality, evening onset, a normal physical assessment, and an episodic or recurrent course. However, all of these factors were mentioned in 50% or less of the articles they reviewed. The investigators wisely concluded that clinicians “should be wary of relying on the diagnosis to direct treatment decisions.”

This may seem like one small step for pediatrics. You may have reassured parents that none of your patients ever died of “growing pains” and the condition would eventually resolve. Hopefully, you were correct and that your case rate fatality is zero. But I suspect it wouldn’t take too long to unearth a wealth of malpractices cases in which another pediatrician’s patient died with an illness whose eventual discovery was tragically delayed by a period of false reassurance and diagnosis that the child merely had growing pains.

I can’t remember which of my sage instructors told me to never use “growing pains” as a diagnosis. It may have just been something I stumbled upon as my clinical experience grew. While holding firm to my commitment to never use it as a diagnosis, it became abundantly clear that I was seeing a large group of children (toddlers to early adolescents) who were experiencing lower leg pains in the early evening, often bad enough to wake them.

It took a bit longer to discover that most often these painful episodes occurred in children who were acutely or chronically sleep deprived. Occasionally, the pain would come on days in which the child had been unusually physically active. However, in most cases there was little correlation with lower limb activity.

I will admit that my observations were colored by my growing obsession that sleep deprivation is the root of many evils, including the phenomenon known as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. I was even bold enough to include it in my one of the books I have written (Is My Child Overtired? Simon & Schuster, 2001). Nonetheless, I am still convinced that every investigation of a child with evening leg pains should include a thorough history of the child’s sleep history.

The bottom line is that these Australian researchers have done us a great favor with their research. However, I think they should have made a bolder statement in their conclusion. It is clear to me that “growing pains” should be removed as a diagnosis and no longer be reimbursed by third-party payers.

The void created by that action should spur some research into a better-defined diagnosis of the condition. If you want to use my tack and label it “nocturnal leg pains of childhood” and suggest better sleep hygiene, I will be flattered. But more importantly, take the time to take a good history, do a thorough exam, and then follow up, follow up, follow up, until the problem resolves.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Just about every child hears it growing up: An ache in the leg? “Growing pains.” A dull pain in the side? “Growing pains.”

The catch-all phrase for random pains that children and teens have is so common that it even inspired the name of a 1980s sitcom. Yet when scientists dug into the evidence to find out what growing pains actually are, they found out that no one really knows. The definitions were as random and all over the place as the very pains that kids complain about, the researchers report in the journal Pediatrics.

Although some studies have suggested that up to a third of children have growing pains, the term has long seemed more like folk medicine than an actual medical diagnosis. Even so, parents, teachers, and doctors frequently use it when they have no other obvious answer to a particular pain a child or teen might describe.

A group of researchers at the University of Sydney in Australia wanted to find out if there was any research offering a more precise definition or criteria. They combed through eight databases for any papers that mentioned growing pains or growth pains in children or adolescents. They found 145 studies and set out to look for common ground: Where do growing pains occur? At what age do they start? Are there any patterns? Risk factors? Common clinical features? Relationships to particular activities?

What they found was that there is “no consensus whatsoever as to what growing pains really are, what they mean, how they’re defined, and how they should be diagnosed,” coauthor Steven J. Kamper, PhD, explained in a video about the findings. “The definitions were really variable, really vague, and sometimes downright contradictory,” he said. “Some studies would suggest growing pains happen in the arms, some in the lower limbs only. Some said it was about muscles, some about joints.”

The closest thing to consistency that they found was that exactly half the studies mentioned the pain being in the lower limbs. Nearly half (48%) described it as happening in the evening or nighttime, 42% said it was recurring, 35% reported it as occurring in youths with an otherwise normal physical exam, and 31% said the pain occurred on both sides of the body. Besides these, no other common feature was mentioned in more than 30% of the studies.

“Really curiously,” Dr. Kamper said, “more than 80% said nothing about the age at which these growing pains come on.” And 93% of the studies didn’t even mention growth as being related to the pain at all.

Several studies did acknowledge that the cause of growing pains is unknown, and several others considered it a diagnosis of exclusion – that is, it’s the diagnosis when everything else has been ruled out.

But that’s hardly a satisfactory explanation for kids and their families, so the researchers drew the only reasonable conclusion they could from what they found: “We think it’s important that the term is not used without some qualification or clarification, whether by researchers or clinicians,” Dr. Kamper said.

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

Just about every child hears it growing up: An ache in the leg? “Growing pains.” A dull pain in the side? “Growing pains.”

The catch-all phrase for random pains that children and teens have is so common that it even inspired the name of a 1980s sitcom. Yet when scientists dug into the evidence to find out what growing pains actually are, they found out that no one really knows. The definitions were as random and all over the place as the very pains that kids complain about, the researchers report in the journal Pediatrics.

Although some studies have suggested that up to a third of children have growing pains, the term has long seemed more like folk medicine than an actual medical diagnosis. Even so, parents, teachers, and doctors frequently use it when they have no other obvious answer to a particular pain a child or teen might describe.

A group of researchers at the University of Sydney in Australia wanted to find out if there was any research offering a more precise definition or criteria. They combed through eight databases for any papers that mentioned growing pains or growth pains in children or adolescents. They found 145 studies and set out to look for common ground: Where do growing pains occur? At what age do they start? Are there any patterns? Risk factors? Common clinical features? Relationships to particular activities?

What they found was that there is “no consensus whatsoever as to what growing pains really are, what they mean, how they’re defined, and how they should be diagnosed,” coauthor Steven J. Kamper, PhD, explained in a video about the findings. “The definitions were really variable, really vague, and sometimes downright contradictory,” he said. “Some studies would suggest growing pains happen in the arms, some in the lower limbs only. Some said it was about muscles, some about joints.”

The closest thing to consistency that they found was that exactly half the studies mentioned the pain being in the lower limbs. Nearly half (48%) described it as happening in the evening or nighttime, 42% said it was recurring, 35% reported it as occurring in youths with an otherwise normal physical exam, and 31% said the pain occurred on both sides of the body. Besides these, no other common feature was mentioned in more than 30% of the studies.

“Really curiously,” Dr. Kamper said, “more than 80% said nothing about the age at which these growing pains come on.” And 93% of the studies didn’t even mention growth as being related to the pain at all.

Several studies did acknowledge that the cause of growing pains is unknown, and several others considered it a diagnosis of exclusion – that is, it’s the diagnosis when everything else has been ruled out.

But that’s hardly a satisfactory explanation for kids and their families, so the researchers drew the only reasonable conclusion they could from what they found: “We think it’s important that the term is not used without some qualification or clarification, whether by researchers or clinicians,” Dr. Kamper said.

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

Just about every child hears it growing up: An ache in the leg? “Growing pains.” A dull pain in the side? “Growing pains.”

The catch-all phrase for random pains that children and teens have is so common that it even inspired the name of a 1980s sitcom. Yet when scientists dug into the evidence to find out what growing pains actually are, they found out that no one really knows. The definitions were as random and all over the place as the very pains that kids complain about, the researchers report in the journal Pediatrics.

Although some studies have suggested that up to a third of children have growing pains, the term has long seemed more like folk medicine than an actual medical diagnosis. Even so, parents, teachers, and doctors frequently use it when they have no other obvious answer to a particular pain a child or teen might describe.

A group of researchers at the University of Sydney in Australia wanted to find out if there was any research offering a more precise definition or criteria. They combed through eight databases for any papers that mentioned growing pains or growth pains in children or adolescents. They found 145 studies and set out to look for common ground: Where do growing pains occur? At what age do they start? Are there any patterns? Risk factors? Common clinical features? Relationships to particular activities?

What they found was that there is “no consensus whatsoever as to what growing pains really are, what they mean, how they’re defined, and how they should be diagnosed,” coauthor Steven J. Kamper, PhD, explained in a video about the findings. “The definitions were really variable, really vague, and sometimes downright contradictory,” he said. “Some studies would suggest growing pains happen in the arms, some in the lower limbs only. Some said it was about muscles, some about joints.”

The closest thing to consistency that they found was that exactly half the studies mentioned the pain being in the lower limbs. Nearly half (48%) described it as happening in the evening or nighttime, 42% said it was recurring, 35% reported it as occurring in youths with an otherwise normal physical exam, and 31% said the pain occurred on both sides of the body. Besides these, no other common feature was mentioned in more than 30% of the studies.

“Really curiously,” Dr. Kamper said, “more than 80% said nothing about the age at which these growing pains come on.” And 93% of the studies didn’t even mention growth as being related to the pain at all.

Several studies did acknowledge that the cause of growing pains is unknown, and several others considered it a diagnosis of exclusion – that is, it’s the diagnosis when everything else has been ruled out.

But that’s hardly a satisfactory explanation for kids and their families, so the researchers drew the only reasonable conclusion they could from what they found: “We think it’s important that the term is not used without some qualification or clarification, whether by researchers or clinicians,” Dr. Kamper said.

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

About two-thirds of children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) were able to return to an inactive disease state within 12 months after a flare occurred when they took a break from medication, and slightly more than half – 55% – reached this state within 6 months, according to findings from registry data examined in a study published in Arthritis Care & Research.

Sarah Ringold, MD, MS, of the Seattle Children’s Hospital, and coauthors used data from participants in the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Registry to track what happened to patients when they took a break from antirheumatic drugs. They described their paper as being the first to use a large multicenter database such as the CARRA Registry to focus on JIA outcomes after medication discontinuation and flare, to describe flare severity after medication discontinuation, and to report patterns of medication use for flares.

“To date, JIA studies have established that flares after medication discontinuation are common but have generated conflicting data regarding flare risk factors,” Dr. Ringold and coauthors wrote. “Since it is not yet possible to predict reliably which children will successfully discontinue medication, families and physicians face uncertainty when deciding to stop medications, and there is significant variation in approach.”

The study will be “very helpful” to physicians working with parents and patients to make decisions about discontinuing medications, said Grant Schulert, MD, PhD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, who was not involved with the study.

“It gives some numbers to help us have those conversations,” he said in an interview.

But interpreting those numbers still will present parents with a challenge, Dr. Schulert said.

“You can say: ‘The glass is half full; 55% of them could go back into remission in 6 months, a little bit higher in a year,’ ” he said. “Or the glass is half empty; some of them, even at a year, are still not back in remission.”

But “patients aren’t a statistic. They’re each one person,” he said. “They’re going to be in one of those two situations.”

There are many challenges in explaining the potential advantages and disadvantages of medication breaks to patients and families, said the study’s senior author, Daniel B. Horton, MD, MSCE, of Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and the Rutgers Center for Pharmacoepidemiology and Treatment Science, both in New Brunswick, N.J., and the department of biostatistics and epidemiology at Rutgers School of Public Health, Piscataway, N.J.

“One of the challenges of explaining the pros and cons about stopping medicines is the uncertainty – not knowing if and when a flare will occur, if and when a flare would be well controlled, and, for treatments that are continued, if and when complications of that treatment could occur,” Dr. Horton said in an interview. “Many patients and families are afraid about what the medicines might do long-term and want to stop treatment as soon as possible, despite the risks of stopping. Another challenge is that we do not yet have accurate, widely available tests that help us predict these various outcomes. Still, it is important for clinicians to explain the risks of continuing treatment and of stopping treatment, and to give patients and families time to ask questions and share their own values and preferences. If these conversations don’t happen, patients or families may just stop the medicines even if stopping is not warranted or is likely to lead to a poor outcome.”
 

Study details

Of the 367 patients studied, 270 (74%) were female. Half of all patients in the study had extended oligoarticular/rheumatoid factor (RF)–negative polyarticular JIA, and the second most common category was persistent oligoarthritis at 25%.The median age at disease onset was 4, with a range of 2-9 years.

The median age at disease flare was 11.3, with a range of 7.5-15.7 years. At the time of flare, children had a median disease duration of 5.1 years and had been off systemic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for a median of 205 days. In addition, at the time of flare, the median active joint count was 1 and the maximum active joint count was 33, and approximately 13% of children had 5 or more active joints.

Conventional synthetic DMARDs were the most commonly stopped medications (48%), and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) were second (42%), Dr. Ringold and coauthors wrote.

Independent predictors of successful recapture of inactive disease included TNFi as recapture medication and history of a non-TNFi biologic use.

Dr. Ringold and coauthors noted limitations of the registry-based study. This is “a convenience sample of patients who are cared for and consented at academic sites, and additional study may be needed to understand how these results generalize to other countries and health systems,” they wrote.

And there may have been misclassification and inclusion of patients who stopped medications for self-perceived well-controlled disease, they wrote.

“Although the intent was to include children who stopped their medications at their physician’s direction due to physician-confirmed inactive disease, patients who had been previously enrolled in the registry were included if inactive disease was listed as the reason for medication discontinuation,” they said.

Still, these results should serve as a “benchmark for future studies of medication discontinuation” in JIA, the researchers wrote.
 

‘Fortunate challenge’

In an accompanying editorial, Melissa L. Mannion, MD, MSPH, and Randy Q. Cron, MD, PhD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham noted that pediatric rheumatologists now face what they call the “fortunate challenge” of helping patients and parents decide whether treatments can be stopped in cases where there’s been a sustained period of inactive disease.

“Once a patient has reached the goal of inactive disease, why would patients or providers want to stop medications?” Dr. Mannion and Dr. Cron wrote. “We tell our patients that we want them to be like everyone else and have no limitations on their goals. However, the burden of chronic medication to achieve that goal is a constant reminder that they are different from their peers.”

In their article, Dr. Mannion and Dr. Cron noted what they called “interesting” results observed among children with different forms of JIA in the study.

Children with “systemic JIA had the highest recapture rates at 6 or 12 months, perhaps reflecting the high percentage use of [biologic] DMARDs targeting interleukin-1 and IL-6, or maybe the timeliness of recognition (e.g., fever, rash) of disease flare,” Dr. Mannion and Dr. Cron wrote. “Conversely, children with JIA enthesitis-related arthritis (ERA) had the lowest recapture rate at 6 months (27.6%, even lower than RF-positive polyarticular JIA, 42.9%).”

Still, the editorial authors said that “additional well-controlled studies are needed to move pediatric rheumatology deeper into the realm of precision medicine and the ability to decide whether or not to wean DMARD therapy for those with clinically inactive disease.”

Pamela Weiss, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in a comment that the study by Dr. Ringold and colleagues, as well as others that address similar questions, “are critically needed to move our field towards a personalized medicine approach.” But she added that while the paper from Dr. Ringold and colleagues addresses an important question, it “should be interpreted with some caution.”

She noted, for example, that “disease flare,” which prompted reinitiation of treatment and study entry, was not always aligned with a registry visit, which makes determination of the primary exposure less stringent. The rate of recapture across JIA categories differed by as much as 20% depending upon which inactive disease assessment outcome was used – either the study’s novel but unvalidated primary outcome or the validated secondary outcome of using the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score based on 10 joints. The resulting difference was marked for some JIA categories and minimal for others.

“The flare and recapture rates are likely to be vastly different for JIA categories with distinct pathophysiology – namely systemic JIA, psoriatic arthritis, and enthesitis-related arthritis,” Dr. Weiss said. “While numbers for these categories were too small to make meaningful conclusions, grouping them with the other JIA categories has limitations.”

The research was funded by a Rheumatology Research Foundation Innovative Research Award.

Dr. Ringold’s current employment is through Janssen Research & Development. She changed primary employment from Seattle Children’s to Janssen during completion of the analyses and preparation of the manuscript. She has maintained her affiliation with Seattle Children’s. Dr. Schulert has consulting for Novartis. Dr. Cron reported speaker fees, consulting fees, and grant support from Sobi, consulting fees from Sironax and Novartis, speaker fees from Lilly, and support from Pfizer for working on a committee adjudicating clinical trial side effects.

* This article was updated on 8/11/2022.

About two-thirds of children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) were able to return to an inactive disease state within 12 months after a flare occurred when they took a break from medication, and slightly more than half – 55% – reached this state within 6 months, according to findings from registry data examined in a study published in Arthritis Care & Research.

Sarah Ringold, MD, MS, of the Seattle Children’s Hospital, and coauthors used data from participants in the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Registry to track what happened to patients when they took a break from antirheumatic drugs. They described their paper as being the first to use a large multicenter database such as the CARRA Registry to focus on JIA outcomes after medication discontinuation and flare, to describe flare severity after medication discontinuation, and to report patterns of medication use for flares.

“To date, JIA studies have established that flares after medication discontinuation are common but have generated conflicting data regarding flare risk factors,” Dr. Ringold and coauthors wrote. “Since it is not yet possible to predict reliably which children will successfully discontinue medication, families and physicians face uncertainty when deciding to stop medications, and there is significant variation in approach.”

The study will be “very helpful” to physicians working with parents and patients to make decisions about discontinuing medications, said Grant Schulert, MD, PhD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, who was not involved with the study.

“It gives some numbers to help us have those conversations,” he said in an interview.

But interpreting those numbers still will present parents with a challenge, Dr. Schulert said.

“You can say: ‘The glass is half full; 55% of them could go back into remission in 6 months, a little bit higher in a year,’ ” he said. “Or the glass is half empty; some of them, even at a year, are still not back in remission.”

But “patients aren’t a statistic. They’re each one person,” he said. “They’re going to be in one of those two situations.”

There are many challenges in explaining the potential advantages and disadvantages of medication breaks to patients and families, said the study’s senior author, Daniel B. Horton, MD, MSCE, of Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and the Rutgers Center for Pharmacoepidemiology and Treatment Science, both in New Brunswick, N.J., and the department of biostatistics and epidemiology at Rutgers School of Public Health, Piscataway, N.J.

“One of the challenges of explaining the pros and cons about stopping medicines is the uncertainty – not knowing if and when a flare will occur, if and when a flare would be well controlled, and, for treatments that are continued, if and when complications of that treatment could occur,” Dr. Horton said in an interview. “Many patients and families are afraid about what the medicines might do long-term and want to stop treatment as soon as possible, despite the risks of stopping. Another challenge is that we do not yet have accurate, widely available tests that help us predict these various outcomes. Still, it is important for clinicians to explain the risks of continuing treatment and of stopping treatment, and to give patients and families time to ask questions and share their own values and preferences. If these conversations don’t happen, patients or families may just stop the medicines even if stopping is not warranted or is likely to lead to a poor outcome.”
 

Study details

Of the 367 patients studied, 270 (74%) were female. Half of all patients in the study had extended oligoarticular/rheumatoid factor (RF)–negative polyarticular JIA, and the second most common category was persistent oligoarthritis at 25%.The median age at disease onset was 4, with a range of 2-9 years.

The median age at disease flare was 11.3, with a range of 7.5-15.7 years. At the time of flare, children had a median disease duration of 5.1 years and had been off systemic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for a median of 205 days. In addition, at the time of flare, the median active joint count was 1 and the maximum active joint count was 33, and approximately 13% of children had 5 or more active joints.

Conventional synthetic DMARDs were the most commonly stopped medications (48%), and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) were second (42%), Dr. Ringold and coauthors wrote.

Independent predictors of successful recapture of inactive disease included TNFi as recapture medication and history of a non-TNFi biologic use.

Dr. Ringold and coauthors noted limitations of the registry-based study. This is “a convenience sample of patients who are cared for and consented at academic sites, and additional study may be needed to understand how these results generalize to other countries and health systems,” they wrote.

And there may have been misclassification and inclusion of patients who stopped medications for self-perceived well-controlled disease, they wrote.

“Although the intent was to include children who stopped their medications at their physician’s direction due to physician-confirmed inactive disease, patients who had been previously enrolled in the registry were included if inactive disease was listed as the reason for medication discontinuation,” they said.

Still, these results should serve as a “benchmark for future studies of medication discontinuation” in JIA, the researchers wrote.
 

‘Fortunate challenge’

In an accompanying editorial, Melissa L. Mannion, MD, MSPH, and Randy Q. Cron, MD, PhD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham noted that pediatric rheumatologists now face what they call the “fortunate challenge” of helping patients and parents decide whether treatments can be stopped in cases where there’s been a sustained period of inactive disease.

“Once a patient has reached the goal of inactive disease, why would patients or providers want to stop medications?” Dr. Mannion and Dr. Cron wrote. “We tell our patients that we want them to be like everyone else and have no limitations on their goals. However, the burden of chronic medication to achieve that goal is a constant reminder that they are different from their peers.”

In their article, Dr. Mannion and Dr. Cron noted what they called “interesting” results observed among children with different forms of JIA in the study.

Children with “systemic JIA had the highest recapture rates at 6 or 12 months, perhaps reflecting the high percentage use of [biologic] DMARDs targeting interleukin-1 and IL-6, or maybe the timeliness of recognition (e.g., fever, rash) of disease flare,” Dr. Mannion and Dr. Cron wrote. “Conversely, children with JIA enthesitis-related arthritis (ERA) had the lowest recapture rate at 6 months (27.6%, even lower than RF-positive polyarticular JIA, 42.9%).”

Still, the editorial authors said that “additional well-controlled studies are needed to move pediatric rheumatology deeper into the realm of precision medicine and the ability to decide whether or not to wean DMARD therapy for those with clinically inactive disease.”

Pamela Weiss, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in a comment that the study by Dr. Ringold and colleagues, as well as others that address similar questions, “are critically needed to move our field towards a personalized medicine approach.” But she added that while the paper from Dr. Ringold and colleagues addresses an important question, it “should be interpreted with some caution.”

She noted, for example, that “disease flare,” which prompted reinitiation of treatment and study entry, was not always aligned with a registry visit, which makes determination of the primary exposure less stringent. The rate of recapture across JIA categories differed by as much as 20% depending upon which inactive disease assessment outcome was used – either the study’s novel but unvalidated primary outcome or the validated secondary outcome of using the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score based on 10 joints. The resulting difference was marked for some JIA categories and minimal for others.

“The flare and recapture rates are likely to be vastly different for JIA categories with distinct pathophysiology – namely systemic JIA, psoriatic arthritis, and enthesitis-related arthritis,” Dr. Weiss said. “While numbers for these categories were too small to make meaningful conclusions, grouping them with the other JIA categories has limitations.”

The research was funded by a Rheumatology Research Foundation Innovative Research Award.

Dr. Ringold’s current employment is through Janssen Research & Development. She changed primary employment from Seattle Children’s to Janssen during completion of the analyses and preparation of the manuscript. She has maintained her affiliation with Seattle Children’s. Dr. Schulert has consulting for Novartis. Dr. Cron reported speaker fees, consulting fees, and grant support from Sobi, consulting fees from Sironax and Novartis, speaker fees from Lilly, and support from Pfizer for working on a committee adjudicating clinical trial side effects.

* This article was updated on 8/11/2022.

About two-thirds of children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) were able to return to an inactive disease state within 12 months after a flare occurred when they took a break from medication, and slightly more than half – 55% – reached this state within 6 months, according to findings from registry data examined in a study published in Arthritis Care & Research.

Sarah Ringold, MD, MS, of the Seattle Children’s Hospital, and coauthors used data from participants in the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Registry to track what happened to patients when they took a break from antirheumatic drugs. They described their paper as being the first to use a large multicenter database such as the CARRA Registry to focus on JIA outcomes after medication discontinuation and flare, to describe flare severity after medication discontinuation, and to report patterns of medication use for flares.

“To date, JIA studies have established that flares after medication discontinuation are common but have generated conflicting data regarding flare risk factors,” Dr. Ringold and coauthors wrote. “Since it is not yet possible to predict reliably which children will successfully discontinue medication, families and physicians face uncertainty when deciding to stop medications, and there is significant variation in approach.”

The study will be “very helpful” to physicians working with parents and patients to make decisions about discontinuing medications, said Grant Schulert, MD, PhD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, who was not involved with the study.

“It gives some numbers to help us have those conversations,” he said in an interview.

But interpreting those numbers still will present parents with a challenge, Dr. Schulert said.

“You can say: ‘The glass is half full; 55% of them could go back into remission in 6 months, a little bit higher in a year,’ ” he said. “Or the glass is half empty; some of them, even at a year, are still not back in remission.”

But “patients aren’t a statistic. They’re each one person,” he said. “They’re going to be in one of those two situations.”

There are many challenges in explaining the potential advantages and disadvantages of medication breaks to patients and families, said the study’s senior author, Daniel B. Horton, MD, MSCE, of Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and the Rutgers Center for Pharmacoepidemiology and Treatment Science, both in New Brunswick, N.J., and the department of biostatistics and epidemiology at Rutgers School of Public Health, Piscataway, N.J.

“One of the challenges of explaining the pros and cons about stopping medicines is the uncertainty – not knowing if and when a flare will occur, if and when a flare would be well controlled, and, for treatments that are continued, if and when complications of that treatment could occur,” Dr. Horton said in an interview. “Many patients and families are afraid about what the medicines might do long-term and want to stop treatment as soon as possible, despite the risks of stopping. Another challenge is that we do not yet have accurate, widely available tests that help us predict these various outcomes. Still, it is important for clinicians to explain the risks of continuing treatment and of stopping treatment, and to give patients and families time to ask questions and share their own values and preferences. If these conversations don’t happen, patients or families may just stop the medicines even if stopping is not warranted or is likely to lead to a poor outcome.”
 

Study details

Of the 367 patients studied, 270 (74%) were female. Half of all patients in the study had extended oligoarticular/rheumatoid factor (RF)–negative polyarticular JIA, and the second most common category was persistent oligoarthritis at 25%.The median age at disease onset was 4, with a range of 2-9 years.

The median age at disease flare was 11.3, with a range of 7.5-15.7 years. At the time of flare, children had a median disease duration of 5.1 years and had been off systemic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for a median of 205 days. In addition, at the time of flare, the median active joint count was 1 and the maximum active joint count was 33, and approximately 13% of children had 5 or more active joints.

Conventional synthetic DMARDs were the most commonly stopped medications (48%), and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) were second (42%), Dr. Ringold and coauthors wrote.

Independent predictors of successful recapture of inactive disease included TNFi as recapture medication and history of a non-TNFi biologic use.

Dr. Ringold and coauthors noted limitations of the registry-based study. This is “a convenience sample of patients who are cared for and consented at academic sites, and additional study may be needed to understand how these results generalize to other countries and health systems,” they wrote.

And there may have been misclassification and inclusion of patients who stopped medications for self-perceived well-controlled disease, they wrote.

“Although the intent was to include children who stopped their medications at their physician’s direction due to physician-confirmed inactive disease, patients who had been previously enrolled in the registry were included if inactive disease was listed as the reason for medication discontinuation,” they said.

Still, these results should serve as a “benchmark for future studies of medication discontinuation” in JIA, the researchers wrote.
 

‘Fortunate challenge’

In an accompanying editorial, Melissa L. Mannion, MD, MSPH, and Randy Q. Cron, MD, PhD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham noted that pediatric rheumatologists now face what they call the “fortunate challenge” of helping patients and parents decide whether treatments can be stopped in cases where there’s been a sustained period of inactive disease.

“Once a patient has reached the goal of inactive disease, why would patients or providers want to stop medications?” Dr. Mannion and Dr. Cron wrote. “We tell our patients that we want them to be like everyone else and have no limitations on their goals. However, the burden of chronic medication to achieve that goal is a constant reminder that they are different from their peers.”

In their article, Dr. Mannion and Dr. Cron noted what they called “interesting” results observed among children with different forms of JIA in the study.

Children with “systemic JIA had the highest recapture rates at 6 or 12 months, perhaps reflecting the high percentage use of [biologic] DMARDs targeting interleukin-1 and IL-6, or maybe the timeliness of recognition (e.g., fever, rash) of disease flare,” Dr. Mannion and Dr. Cron wrote. “Conversely, children with JIA enthesitis-related arthritis (ERA) had the lowest recapture rate at 6 months (27.6%, even lower than RF-positive polyarticular JIA, 42.9%).”

Still, the editorial authors said that “additional well-controlled studies are needed to move pediatric rheumatology deeper into the realm of precision medicine and the ability to decide whether or not to wean DMARD therapy for those with clinically inactive disease.”

Pamela Weiss, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in a comment that the study by Dr. Ringold and colleagues, as well as others that address similar questions, “are critically needed to move our field towards a personalized medicine approach.” But she added that while the paper from Dr. Ringold and colleagues addresses an important question, it “should be interpreted with some caution.”

She noted, for example, that “disease flare,” which prompted reinitiation of treatment and study entry, was not always aligned with a registry visit, which makes determination of the primary exposure less stringent. The rate of recapture across JIA categories differed by as much as 20% depending upon which inactive disease assessment outcome was used – either the study’s novel but unvalidated primary outcome or the validated secondary outcome of using the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score based on 10 joints. The resulting difference was marked for some JIA categories and minimal for others.

“The flare and recapture rates are likely to be vastly different for JIA categories with distinct pathophysiology – namely systemic JIA, psoriatic arthritis, and enthesitis-related arthritis,” Dr. Weiss said. “While numbers for these categories were too small to make meaningful conclusions, grouping them with the other JIA categories has limitations.”

The research was funded by a Rheumatology Research Foundation Innovative Research Award.

Dr. Ringold’s current employment is through Janssen Research & Development. She changed primary employment from Seattle Children’s to Janssen during completion of the analyses and preparation of the manuscript. She has maintained her affiliation with Seattle Children’s. Dr. Schulert has consulting for Novartis. Dr. Cron reported speaker fees, consulting fees, and grant support from Sobi, consulting fees from Sironax and Novartis, speaker fees from Lilly, and support from Pfizer for working on a committee adjudicating clinical trial side effects.

* This article was updated on 8/11/2022.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the dual interleukin-12 and IL-23 inhibitor ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of juvenile psoriatic arthritis (jPsA) in patients aged 6 years and older, according to an Aug. 1 announcement from its manufacturer, Janssen.

The approval makes jPsA the sixth approved indication for ustekinumab, which include active psoriatic arthritis in adults, moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in both adults and children aged 6 years or older who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy, moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease in adults, and moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in adults.

In addition, ustekinumab is now the second biologic to be approved for jPsA, following the agency’s December 2021 approval of secukinumab (Cosentyx) to treat jPsA in children and adolescents aged 2 years and older as well as enthesitis-related arthritis in children and adolescents aged 4 years and older.

In pediatric patients, ustekinumab is administered as a subcutaneous injection dosed four times per year after two starter doses.

Ustekinumab’s approval is based on “an extrapolation of the established data and existing safety profile” of ustekinumab in multiple phase 3 studies in adult and pediatric patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and adult patients with active PsA, according to Janssen.

“With the limited availability of pediatric patients for clinical trial inclusion, researchers can extrapolate data from trials with adults to determine the potential efficacy and tolerability of a treatment for a pediatric population,” according to the October 2021 announcement from the company that the Biologics License Application had been submitted to the FDA.

Juvenile arthritis occurs in an estimated 20-45 children per 100,000 in the United States, with about 5% of those children having jPsA, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation.

The prescribing information for ustekinumab includes specific warnings and areas of concern. The drug should not be administered to individuals with known hypersensitivity to ustekinumab. The drug may lower the ability of the immune system to fight infections and may increase risk of infections, sometimes serious, and a test for tuberculosis infection should be given before administration.

Patients taking ustekinumab should not be given a live vaccine, and their doctors should be informed if anyone in their household needs a live vaccine. They also should not receive the BCG vaccine during the 1 year before receiving the drug or 1 year after they stop taking it, according to Johnson & Johnson.

The most common adverse effects include nasal congestion, sore throat, runny nose, upper respiratory infections, fever, headache, tiredness, itching, nausea and vomiting, redness at the injection site, vaginal yeast infections, urinary tract infections, sinus infection, bronchitis, diarrhea, stomach pain, and joint pain.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the dual interleukin-12 and IL-23 inhibitor ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of juvenile psoriatic arthritis (jPsA) in patients aged 6 years and older, according to an Aug. 1 announcement from its manufacturer, Janssen.

The approval makes jPsA the sixth approved indication for ustekinumab, which include active psoriatic arthritis in adults, moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in both adults and children aged 6 years or older who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy, moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease in adults, and moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in adults.

In addition, ustekinumab is now the second biologic to be approved for jPsA, following the agency’s December 2021 approval of secukinumab (Cosentyx) to treat jPsA in children and adolescents aged 2 years and older as well as enthesitis-related arthritis in children and adolescents aged 4 years and older.

In pediatric patients, ustekinumab is administered as a subcutaneous injection dosed four times per year after two starter doses.

Ustekinumab’s approval is based on “an extrapolation of the established data and existing safety profile” of ustekinumab in multiple phase 3 studies in adult and pediatric patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and adult patients with active PsA, according to Janssen.

“With the limited availability of pediatric patients for clinical trial inclusion, researchers can extrapolate data from trials with adults to determine the potential efficacy and tolerability of a treatment for a pediatric population,” according to the October 2021 announcement from the company that the Biologics License Application had been submitted to the FDA.

Juvenile arthritis occurs in an estimated 20-45 children per 100,000 in the United States, with about 5% of those children having jPsA, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation.

The prescribing information for ustekinumab includes specific warnings and areas of concern. The drug should not be administered to individuals with known hypersensitivity to ustekinumab. The drug may lower the ability of the immune system to fight infections and may increase risk of infections, sometimes serious, and a test for tuberculosis infection should be given before administration.

Patients taking ustekinumab should not be given a live vaccine, and their doctors should be informed if anyone in their household needs a live vaccine. They also should not receive the BCG vaccine during the 1 year before receiving the drug or 1 year after they stop taking it, according to Johnson & Johnson.

The most common adverse effects include nasal congestion, sore throat, runny nose, upper respiratory infections, fever, headache, tiredness, itching, nausea and vomiting, redness at the injection site, vaginal yeast infections, urinary tract infections, sinus infection, bronchitis, diarrhea, stomach pain, and joint pain.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the dual interleukin-12 and IL-23 inhibitor ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of juvenile psoriatic arthritis (jPsA) in patients aged 6 years and older, according to an Aug. 1 announcement from its manufacturer, Janssen.

The approval makes jPsA the sixth approved indication for ustekinumab, which include active psoriatic arthritis in adults, moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in both adults and children aged 6 years or older who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy, moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease in adults, and moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in adults.

In addition, ustekinumab is now the second biologic to be approved for jPsA, following the agency’s December 2021 approval of secukinumab (Cosentyx) to treat jPsA in children and adolescents aged 2 years and older as well as enthesitis-related arthritis in children and adolescents aged 4 years and older.

In pediatric patients, ustekinumab is administered as a subcutaneous injection dosed four times per year after two starter doses.

Ustekinumab’s approval is based on “an extrapolation of the established data and existing safety profile” of ustekinumab in multiple phase 3 studies in adult and pediatric patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and adult patients with active PsA, according to Janssen.

“With the limited availability of pediatric patients for clinical trial inclusion, researchers can extrapolate data from trials with adults to determine the potential efficacy and tolerability of a treatment for a pediatric population,” according to the October 2021 announcement from the company that the Biologics License Application had been submitted to the FDA.

Juvenile arthritis occurs in an estimated 20-45 children per 100,000 in the United States, with about 5% of those children having jPsA, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation.

The prescribing information for ustekinumab includes specific warnings and areas of concern. The drug should not be administered to individuals with known hypersensitivity to ustekinumab. The drug may lower the ability of the immune system to fight infections and may increase risk of infections, sometimes serious, and a test for tuberculosis infection should be given before administration.

Patients taking ustekinumab should not be given a live vaccine, and their doctors should be informed if anyone in their household needs a live vaccine. They also should not receive the BCG vaccine during the 1 year before receiving the drug or 1 year after they stop taking it, according to Johnson & Johnson.

The most common adverse effects include nasal congestion, sore throat, runny nose, upper respiratory infections, fever, headache, tiredness, itching, nausea and vomiting, redness at the injection site, vaginal yeast infections, urinary tract infections, sinus infection, bronchitis, diarrhea, stomach pain, and joint pain.

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