Jennifer Lubell

Gender-affirming hormone therapy’s effect on transgender patients with rheumatic disease is unclear but does not appear to modulate its course and does not need to be strictly contraindicated in most patients, according to a case series and systematic literature review.

More doctors are practicing transgender medicine, yet a limited amount of information is available on rheumatic disease in transgender and gender diverse (TGGD) individuals, Kristen Mathias, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in her presentation of the study at the Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.

“This is important, as it is well known that sex hormones affect the pathogenesis and expression of autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Mathias said. Knowing more about the effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) and gender-affirming surgery on disease activity in TGGD individuals could better inform decisions about care in this population.

Dr. Mathias and colleagues identified 7 transgender patients with rheumatic diseases from a pool of 1,053 patients seen at the Los Angeles County and University of Southern California Medical Center, Los Angeles, from June 2019 to June 2021. This included five transgender males and two transgender females. They ranged in age from 13 to 52 years.

All seven were on GAHT, and its impact on disease activity was considered “possible” in two of the seven patients.

In a systematic literature review, investigators found 11 studies that included 11 transgender women and 2 transgender men, ranging in age from 22 to 49 years. All the patients were on GAHT. In 12 of 13 patients, the hormones were considered possibly related to their rheumatic disease activity.

The 20 patients had diagnoses of rheumatoid arthritis, cutaneous and systemic lupus erythematosus, adult-onset Still disease, spondyloarthritis, myositis, and systemic sclerosis.

GAHT should not be a strict contraindication in these patients, based on these findings, Dr. Mathias noted. Information to clarify the effect of GAHT on rheumatic disease is sparse, however. Physicians should adopt a personalized, shared decision-making approach when consulting patients.

“During patient encounters, they should be screened for psychosocial barriers when appropriate,” Dr. Mathias recommended.

Findings could pave way for larger studies, more data

Studies on the impact and consequences of rheumatic disease in TGGD individuals are sorely lacking, said Vagishwari Murugesan, MBBS, a clinical fellow in rheumatology at the University of Toronto.

“While this is a small study of only seven patients and no conclusive results can be drawn, studies like these can help pave the way for larger multicentric studies, which can give us more definitive data on gender-affirming hormone therapy and its consequences on rheumatic diseases,” said Dr. Murugesan, who was not involved in the study.

A registry would be a great way to collaborate with other stakeholders interested in the same topic and conduct larger studies, she said. “I would recommend that not only do we screen for psychosocial barriers but also actively engage as a health care community in addressing how we can overcome the barriers for patients to access effective health care.”

No external funding was obtained for the study.

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

Gender-affirming hormone therapy’s effect on transgender patients with rheumatic disease is unclear but does not appear to modulate its course and does not need to be strictly contraindicated in most patients, according to a case series and systematic literature review.

More doctors are practicing transgender medicine, yet a limited amount of information is available on rheumatic disease in transgender and gender diverse (TGGD) individuals, Kristen Mathias, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in her presentation of the study at the Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.

“This is important, as it is well known that sex hormones affect the pathogenesis and expression of autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Mathias said. Knowing more about the effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) and gender-affirming surgery on disease activity in TGGD individuals could better inform decisions about care in this population.

Dr. Mathias and colleagues identified 7 transgender patients with rheumatic diseases from a pool of 1,053 patients seen at the Los Angeles County and University of Southern California Medical Center, Los Angeles, from June 2019 to June 2021. This included five transgender males and two transgender females. They ranged in age from 13 to 52 years.

All seven were on GAHT, and its impact on disease activity was considered “possible” in two of the seven patients.

In a systematic literature review, investigators found 11 studies that included 11 transgender women and 2 transgender men, ranging in age from 22 to 49 years. All the patients were on GAHT. In 12 of 13 patients, the hormones were considered possibly related to their rheumatic disease activity.

The 20 patients had diagnoses of rheumatoid arthritis, cutaneous and systemic lupus erythematosus, adult-onset Still disease, spondyloarthritis, myositis, and systemic sclerosis.

GAHT should not be a strict contraindication in these patients, based on these findings, Dr. Mathias noted. Information to clarify the effect of GAHT on rheumatic disease is sparse, however. Physicians should adopt a personalized, shared decision-making approach when consulting patients.

“During patient encounters, they should be screened for psychosocial barriers when appropriate,” Dr. Mathias recommended.

Findings could pave way for larger studies, more data

Studies on the impact and consequences of rheumatic disease in TGGD individuals are sorely lacking, said Vagishwari Murugesan, MBBS, a clinical fellow in rheumatology at the University of Toronto.

“While this is a small study of only seven patients and no conclusive results can be drawn, studies like these can help pave the way for larger multicentric studies, which can give us more definitive data on gender-affirming hormone therapy and its consequences on rheumatic diseases,” said Dr. Murugesan, who was not involved in the study.

A registry would be a great way to collaborate with other stakeholders interested in the same topic and conduct larger studies, she said. “I would recommend that not only do we screen for psychosocial barriers but also actively engage as a health care community in addressing how we can overcome the barriers for patients to access effective health care.”

No external funding was obtained for the study.

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

Gender-affirming hormone therapy’s effect on transgender patients with rheumatic disease is unclear but does not appear to modulate its course and does not need to be strictly contraindicated in most patients, according to a case series and systematic literature review.

More doctors are practicing transgender medicine, yet a limited amount of information is available on rheumatic disease in transgender and gender diverse (TGGD) individuals, Kristen Mathias, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in her presentation of the study at the Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.

“This is important, as it is well known that sex hormones affect the pathogenesis and expression of autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Mathias said. Knowing more about the effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) and gender-affirming surgery on disease activity in TGGD individuals could better inform decisions about care in this population.

Dr. Mathias and colleagues identified 7 transgender patients with rheumatic diseases from a pool of 1,053 patients seen at the Los Angeles County and University of Southern California Medical Center, Los Angeles, from June 2019 to June 2021. This included five transgender males and two transgender females. They ranged in age from 13 to 52 years.

All seven were on GAHT, and its impact on disease activity was considered “possible” in two of the seven patients.

In a systematic literature review, investigators found 11 studies that included 11 transgender women and 2 transgender men, ranging in age from 22 to 49 years. All the patients were on GAHT. In 12 of 13 patients, the hormones were considered possibly related to their rheumatic disease activity.

The 20 patients had diagnoses of rheumatoid arthritis, cutaneous and systemic lupus erythematosus, adult-onset Still disease, spondyloarthritis, myositis, and systemic sclerosis.

GAHT should not be a strict contraindication in these patients, based on these findings, Dr. Mathias noted. Information to clarify the effect of GAHT on rheumatic disease is sparse, however. Physicians should adopt a personalized, shared decision-making approach when consulting patients.

“During patient encounters, they should be screened for psychosocial barriers when appropriate,” Dr. Mathias recommended.

Findings could pave way for larger studies, more data

Studies on the impact and consequences of rheumatic disease in TGGD individuals are sorely lacking, said Vagishwari Murugesan, MBBS, a clinical fellow in rheumatology at the University of Toronto.

“While this is a small study of only seven patients and no conclusive results can be drawn, studies like these can help pave the way for larger multicentric studies, which can give us more definitive data on gender-affirming hormone therapy and its consequences on rheumatic diseases,” said Dr. Murugesan, who was not involved in the study.

A registry would be a great way to collaborate with other stakeholders interested in the same topic and conduct larger studies, she said. “I would recommend that not only do we screen for psychosocial barriers but also actively engage as a health care community in addressing how we can overcome the barriers for patients to access effective health care.”

No external funding was obtained for the study.

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

A retrospective study that analyzed sex disparities in patients with COVID-19 and rheumatoid arthritis found that men had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19–related outcomes, compared with women.

“Differences in genetics between sex and sex steroid hormones may play a role in predisposition to COVID-19 infection as well as modulating the disease progression,” according to Xiaofeng Zhou, PhD, senior director at Pfizer, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Dr. Zhou presented her findings at The Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.

Patients with chronic rheumatic diseases treated with immunomodulatory therapies may be at higher risk for more severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization, complications, and death. Research on sex-based disparities in RA patients with COVID-19 in the United States is limited, said Dr. Zhou, who embarked on a retrospective cohort study to examine the demographic and clinical characteristics of RA patients with COVID-19 and estimate the risk of possible COVID-19 outcomes by sex.

Dr. Zhou and colleagues used U.S. COVID-19 data collected through electronic health records by Optum during 2020 to June 2021. The study included adult patients with RA and a COVID-19 diagnosis (≥ 1 diagnosis code or positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test) and greater than or equal to 183 days of database enrollment who received treatment with immunomodulatory therapies prior to the diagnosis date. They were stratified by sex.

Investigators used logistic regression to estimate the risk of 11 possible COVID-19–related outcomes within 30 days of the COVID-19 diagnosis (hospitalization, ICU admission, pneumonia, kidney failure, thrombotic event, heart failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS], sepsis/septic shock, mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO], in-hospital death, and all-cause mortality), adjusting for demographics and baseline clinical covariates.

A total of 4,476 COVID-19 patients with RA (78% female) took part in the study. Male patients trended older (64 vs. 60 years) and had lower African American representation and Medicaid enrollment than female patients, but they had more baseline comorbidities such as hypertension (55% vs. 45%), hyperlipidemia (45% vs. 33%), diabetes (25% vs. 20%), coronary artery disease (28% vs. 12%), and chronic kidney disease (20% vs. 15%).

Eight of the eleven COVID-19 outcomes were significantly more likely to occur in men than women (hospitalization: odds ratio, 1.32 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.56]; ICU admission: OR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.36-2.40]; mechanical ventilation/ECMO: OR, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.04-2.11]; in-hospital death: OR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.13-2.07]; all-cause mortality: OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.09-1.86]; sepsis: OR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.20-2.02]; kidney failure: OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.15-1.85]; ARDS: OR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.15-1.69]).

Sex hormones factor into risk

The data illustrated that men with RA had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19 outcomes than women.

Sex hormones regulate virus entry into host cells, respiratory function, immune response, the cardiovascular system, and coagulation, explained Dr. Zhou.

Estrogen and progesterone in women could help develop stronger and efficient immune responses to viruses and reduce virus entry into the host cells. Also, “[the] larger number of copies of ACE2 genes in women, [which] is linked with protection in the lungs against edema, permeability, and pulmonary damage, could be associated with lower incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes, such as respiratory-related mortality and mortality,” Dr. Zhou said.

By comparison, androgens in men may increase virus entry into the host cells and promote unfavorable immune response through the induction of cytokine production and reducing the antibody response to the virus. This could lead to severe infection, Dr. Zhou said.

Sex-based differences in steroid hormones may also explain the higher incidence of morbidity and fatality that’s been observed in other studies of male patients with other infectious diseases, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome.
 

Study bolsters evidence on sex disparities

The results add real-world evidence to the limited literature on sex disparities in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with RA in the United States, Dr. Zhou said. “The differential role in sex steroid hormones among women and men may shed light on clinical management of COVID-19 patients and the need to consider sex-specific approaches in clinical trials in preventing and treating COVID-19 patients,” she said.

Considering that all patients are recommended to get COVID-19 vaccinations, “it is difficult to say how this impacts clinical practice,” said Janet Pope, MD, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London, who was not involved with the study.

Sharing results with some patients may help to encourage vaccination, thus reducing risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Pope said.

In future studies, Dr. Zhou suggests using multiple databases and considering other geographies beyond the United States to further understand the etiology of sexual dimorphism in COVID-19 and expand generalizability. “In addition, future research will seek to provide insights into health equity gaps in the management of COVID-19. This may inform development of precision medicines and vaccines, especially among patients on immunosuppressive treatments,” she said.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Zhou and other study authors are Pfizer employees and hold Pfizer stock.

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

A retrospective study that analyzed sex disparities in patients with COVID-19 and rheumatoid arthritis found that men had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19–related outcomes, compared with women.

“Differences in genetics between sex and sex steroid hormones may play a role in predisposition to COVID-19 infection as well as modulating the disease progression,” according to Xiaofeng Zhou, PhD, senior director at Pfizer, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Dr. Zhou presented her findings at The Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.

Patients with chronic rheumatic diseases treated with immunomodulatory therapies may be at higher risk for more severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization, complications, and death. Research on sex-based disparities in RA patients with COVID-19 in the United States is limited, said Dr. Zhou, who embarked on a retrospective cohort study to examine the demographic and clinical characteristics of RA patients with COVID-19 and estimate the risk of possible COVID-19 outcomes by sex.

Dr. Zhou and colleagues used U.S. COVID-19 data collected through electronic health records by Optum during 2020 to June 2021. The study included adult patients with RA and a COVID-19 diagnosis (≥ 1 diagnosis code or positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test) and greater than or equal to 183 days of database enrollment who received treatment with immunomodulatory therapies prior to the diagnosis date. They were stratified by sex.

Investigators used logistic regression to estimate the risk of 11 possible COVID-19–related outcomes within 30 days of the COVID-19 diagnosis (hospitalization, ICU admission, pneumonia, kidney failure, thrombotic event, heart failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS], sepsis/septic shock, mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO], in-hospital death, and all-cause mortality), adjusting for demographics and baseline clinical covariates.

A total of 4,476 COVID-19 patients with RA (78% female) took part in the study. Male patients trended older (64 vs. 60 years) and had lower African American representation and Medicaid enrollment than female patients, but they had more baseline comorbidities such as hypertension (55% vs. 45%), hyperlipidemia (45% vs. 33%), diabetes (25% vs. 20%), coronary artery disease (28% vs. 12%), and chronic kidney disease (20% vs. 15%).

Eight of the eleven COVID-19 outcomes were significantly more likely to occur in men than women (hospitalization: odds ratio, 1.32 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.56]; ICU admission: OR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.36-2.40]; mechanical ventilation/ECMO: OR, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.04-2.11]; in-hospital death: OR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.13-2.07]; all-cause mortality: OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.09-1.86]; sepsis: OR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.20-2.02]; kidney failure: OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.15-1.85]; ARDS: OR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.15-1.69]).

Sex hormones factor into risk

The data illustrated that men with RA had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19 outcomes than women.

Sex hormones regulate virus entry into host cells, respiratory function, immune response, the cardiovascular system, and coagulation, explained Dr. Zhou.

Estrogen and progesterone in women could help develop stronger and efficient immune responses to viruses and reduce virus entry into the host cells. Also, “[the] larger number of copies of ACE2 genes in women, [which] is linked with protection in the lungs against edema, permeability, and pulmonary damage, could be associated with lower incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes, such as respiratory-related mortality and mortality,” Dr. Zhou said.

By comparison, androgens in men may increase virus entry into the host cells and promote unfavorable immune response through the induction of cytokine production and reducing the antibody response to the virus. This could lead to severe infection, Dr. Zhou said.

Sex-based differences in steroid hormones may also explain the higher incidence of morbidity and fatality that’s been observed in other studies of male patients with other infectious diseases, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome.
 

Study bolsters evidence on sex disparities

The results add real-world evidence to the limited literature on sex disparities in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with RA in the United States, Dr. Zhou said. “The differential role in sex steroid hormones among women and men may shed light on clinical management of COVID-19 patients and the need to consider sex-specific approaches in clinical trials in preventing and treating COVID-19 patients,” she said.

Considering that all patients are recommended to get COVID-19 vaccinations, “it is difficult to say how this impacts clinical practice,” said Janet Pope, MD, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London, who was not involved with the study.

Sharing results with some patients may help to encourage vaccination, thus reducing risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Pope said.

In future studies, Dr. Zhou suggests using multiple databases and considering other geographies beyond the United States to further understand the etiology of sexual dimorphism in COVID-19 and expand generalizability. “In addition, future research will seek to provide insights into health equity gaps in the management of COVID-19. This may inform development of precision medicines and vaccines, especially among patients on immunosuppressive treatments,” she said.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Zhou and other study authors are Pfizer employees and hold Pfizer stock.

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

A retrospective study that analyzed sex disparities in patients with COVID-19 and rheumatoid arthritis found that men had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19–related outcomes, compared with women.

“Differences in genetics between sex and sex steroid hormones may play a role in predisposition to COVID-19 infection as well as modulating the disease progression,” according to Xiaofeng Zhou, PhD, senior director at Pfizer, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Dr. Zhou presented her findings at The Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.

Patients with chronic rheumatic diseases treated with immunomodulatory therapies may be at higher risk for more severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization, complications, and death. Research on sex-based disparities in RA patients with COVID-19 in the United States is limited, said Dr. Zhou, who embarked on a retrospective cohort study to examine the demographic and clinical characteristics of RA patients with COVID-19 and estimate the risk of possible COVID-19 outcomes by sex.

Dr. Zhou and colleagues used U.S. COVID-19 data collected through electronic health records by Optum during 2020 to June 2021. The study included adult patients with RA and a COVID-19 diagnosis (≥ 1 diagnosis code or positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test) and greater than or equal to 183 days of database enrollment who received treatment with immunomodulatory therapies prior to the diagnosis date. They were stratified by sex.

Investigators used logistic regression to estimate the risk of 11 possible COVID-19–related outcomes within 30 days of the COVID-19 diagnosis (hospitalization, ICU admission, pneumonia, kidney failure, thrombotic event, heart failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS], sepsis/septic shock, mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO], in-hospital death, and all-cause mortality), adjusting for demographics and baseline clinical covariates.

A total of 4,476 COVID-19 patients with RA (78% female) took part in the study. Male patients trended older (64 vs. 60 years) and had lower African American representation and Medicaid enrollment than female patients, but they had more baseline comorbidities such as hypertension (55% vs. 45%), hyperlipidemia (45% vs. 33%), diabetes (25% vs. 20%), coronary artery disease (28% vs. 12%), and chronic kidney disease (20% vs. 15%).

Eight of the eleven COVID-19 outcomes were significantly more likely to occur in men than women (hospitalization: odds ratio, 1.32 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.56]; ICU admission: OR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.36-2.40]; mechanical ventilation/ECMO: OR, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.04-2.11]; in-hospital death: OR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.13-2.07]; all-cause mortality: OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.09-1.86]; sepsis: OR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.20-2.02]; kidney failure: OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.15-1.85]; ARDS: OR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.15-1.69]).

Sex hormones factor into risk

The data illustrated that men with RA had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19 outcomes than women.

Sex hormones regulate virus entry into host cells, respiratory function, immune response, the cardiovascular system, and coagulation, explained Dr. Zhou.

Estrogen and progesterone in women could help develop stronger and efficient immune responses to viruses and reduce virus entry into the host cells. Also, “[the] larger number of copies of ACE2 genes in women, [which] is linked with protection in the lungs against edema, permeability, and pulmonary damage, could be associated with lower incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes, such as respiratory-related mortality and mortality,” Dr. Zhou said.

By comparison, androgens in men may increase virus entry into the host cells and promote unfavorable immune response through the induction of cytokine production and reducing the antibody response to the virus. This could lead to severe infection, Dr. Zhou said.

Sex-based differences in steroid hormones may also explain the higher incidence of morbidity and fatality that’s been observed in other studies of male patients with other infectious diseases, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome.
 

Study bolsters evidence on sex disparities

The results add real-world evidence to the limited literature on sex disparities in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with RA in the United States, Dr. Zhou said. “The differential role in sex steroid hormones among women and men may shed light on clinical management of COVID-19 patients and the need to consider sex-specific approaches in clinical trials in preventing and treating COVID-19 patients,” she said.

Considering that all patients are recommended to get COVID-19 vaccinations, “it is difficult to say how this impacts clinical practice,” said Janet Pope, MD, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London, who was not involved with the study.

Sharing results with some patients may help to encourage vaccination, thus reducing risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Pope said.

In future studies, Dr. Zhou suggests using multiple databases and considering other geographies beyond the United States to further understand the etiology of sexual dimorphism in COVID-19 and expand generalizability. “In addition, future research will seek to provide insights into health equity gaps in the management of COVID-19. This may inform development of precision medicines and vaccines, especially among patients on immunosuppressive treatments,” she said.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Zhou and other study authors are Pfizer employees and hold Pfizer stock.

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

Mexican researchers found no direct association between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and worsening symptoms among 60 patients with Parkinson’s disease. Nonmotor symptoms seemed to improve after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, although the investigators could not verify a causal relationship.

Vaccination programs should continue for patients with Parkinson’s disease, they said, reporting their clinical results at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.

The International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society has recommended vaccining patients with Parkinson’s disease. “All approved mRNA-based and viral vector vaccines are not expected to interact with Parkinson’s disease, but patients [still] report concern with regard to the benefits, risks, and safeness in Parkinson’s disease,” Mayela Rodríguez-Violante, MD, MSc, and colleagues wrote in an abstract of their findings.

Social isolation may be contributing to these beliefs and concerns, though this is inconclusive.

Investigators from Mexico City conducted a retrospective study of patients with Parkinson’s disease to see how COVID-19 vaccination affected motor and nonmotor symptoms. They enlisted 60 patients (66.7% were male; aged 65.7 ± 11.35 years) who received either a vector-viral vaccine (Vaxzevria Coronavirus) or an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2).

A Wilcoxon signed-rank test assessed scale differences before and after vaccination, measuring motor involvement (Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale), nonmotor involvement (Non-Motor Rating Scale [NMSS]), cognitive impairment (Montreal Cognitive Assessment), and quality of life (8-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire index).

Investigators found no significant difference between scales, although they did notice a marked improvement in non-motor symptoms.

“The main takeaway is that vaccination against COVID-19 does not appear to worsen motor or nonmotor symptoms in persons with Parkinson’s disease. The benefits outweigh the risks,” said Dr. Rodríguez-Violante, the study’s lead author and a movement disorder specialist at the National Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Mexico City.

Next steps are to increase the sample size to see if it’s possible to have a similar number in terms of type of vaccine, said Dr. Rodríguez-Violante. “Also, the data presented refers to primary series doses so booster effects will also be studied.”

Few studies have looked at vaccines and their possible effects on this patient population. However, a 2021 study of 181 patients with Parkinson’s disease reported that 2 (1.1%) had adverse effects after receiving the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. One of the patients, a 61-year-old woman with a decade-long history of Parkinson’s disease, developed severe, continuous, generalized dyskinesia 6 hours after a first dose of vaccine. The second patient was 79 years old and had Parkinson’s disease for 5 years. She developed fever, confusion, delusions, and continuous severe dyskinesia for 3 days following her vaccination.

“This highlights that there is a variability in the response triggered by the vaccine that might likely depend on individual immunological profiles … clinicians should be aware of this possibility and monitor their patients after they receive their vaccination,” Roberto Erro, MD, PhD and colleagues wrote in the Movement Disorders journal.

Mexican researchers found no direct association between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and worsening symptoms among 60 patients with Parkinson’s disease. Nonmotor symptoms seemed to improve after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, although the investigators could not verify a causal relationship.

Vaccination programs should continue for patients with Parkinson’s disease, they said, reporting their clinical results at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.

The International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society has recommended vaccining patients with Parkinson’s disease. “All approved mRNA-based and viral vector vaccines are not expected to interact with Parkinson’s disease, but patients [still] report concern with regard to the benefits, risks, and safeness in Parkinson’s disease,” Mayela Rodríguez-Violante, MD, MSc, and colleagues wrote in an abstract of their findings.

Social isolation may be contributing to these beliefs and concerns, though this is inconclusive.

Investigators from Mexico City conducted a retrospective study of patients with Parkinson’s disease to see how COVID-19 vaccination affected motor and nonmotor symptoms. They enlisted 60 patients (66.7% were male; aged 65.7 ± 11.35 years) who received either a vector-viral vaccine (Vaxzevria Coronavirus) or an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2).

A Wilcoxon signed-rank test assessed scale differences before and after vaccination, measuring motor involvement (Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale), nonmotor involvement (Non-Motor Rating Scale [NMSS]), cognitive impairment (Montreal Cognitive Assessment), and quality of life (8-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire index).

Investigators found no significant difference between scales, although they did notice a marked improvement in non-motor symptoms.

“The main takeaway is that vaccination against COVID-19 does not appear to worsen motor or nonmotor symptoms in persons with Parkinson’s disease. The benefits outweigh the risks,” said Dr. Rodríguez-Violante, the study’s lead author and a movement disorder specialist at the National Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Mexico City.

Next steps are to increase the sample size to see if it’s possible to have a similar number in terms of type of vaccine, said Dr. Rodríguez-Violante. “Also, the data presented refers to primary series doses so booster effects will also be studied.”

Few studies have looked at vaccines and their possible effects on this patient population. However, a 2021 study of 181 patients with Parkinson’s disease reported that 2 (1.1%) had adverse effects after receiving the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. One of the patients, a 61-year-old woman with a decade-long history of Parkinson’s disease, developed severe, continuous, generalized dyskinesia 6 hours after a first dose of vaccine. The second patient was 79 years old and had Parkinson’s disease for 5 years. She developed fever, confusion, delusions, and continuous severe dyskinesia for 3 days following her vaccination.

“This highlights that there is a variability in the response triggered by the vaccine that might likely depend on individual immunological profiles … clinicians should be aware of this possibility and monitor their patients after they receive their vaccination,” Roberto Erro, MD, PhD and colleagues wrote in the Movement Disorders journal.

Mexican researchers found no direct association between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and worsening symptoms among 60 patients with Parkinson’s disease. Nonmotor symptoms seemed to improve after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, although the investigators could not verify a causal relationship.

Vaccination programs should continue for patients with Parkinson’s disease, they said, reporting their clinical results at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.

The International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society has recommended vaccining patients with Parkinson’s disease. “All approved mRNA-based and viral vector vaccines are not expected to interact with Parkinson’s disease, but patients [still] report concern with regard to the benefits, risks, and safeness in Parkinson’s disease,” Mayela Rodríguez-Violante, MD, MSc, and colleagues wrote in an abstract of their findings.

Social isolation may be contributing to these beliefs and concerns, though this is inconclusive.

Investigators from Mexico City conducted a retrospective study of patients with Parkinson’s disease to see how COVID-19 vaccination affected motor and nonmotor symptoms. They enlisted 60 patients (66.7% were male; aged 65.7 ± 11.35 years) who received either a vector-viral vaccine (Vaxzevria Coronavirus) or an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2).

A Wilcoxon signed-rank test assessed scale differences before and after vaccination, measuring motor involvement (Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale), nonmotor involvement (Non-Motor Rating Scale [NMSS]), cognitive impairment (Montreal Cognitive Assessment), and quality of life (8-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire index).

Investigators found no significant difference between scales, although they did notice a marked improvement in non-motor symptoms.

“The main takeaway is that vaccination against COVID-19 does not appear to worsen motor or nonmotor symptoms in persons with Parkinson’s disease. The benefits outweigh the risks,” said Dr. Rodríguez-Violante, the study’s lead author and a movement disorder specialist at the National Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Mexico City.

Next steps are to increase the sample size to see if it’s possible to have a similar number in terms of type of vaccine, said Dr. Rodríguez-Violante. “Also, the data presented refers to primary series doses so booster effects will also be studied.”

Few studies have looked at vaccines and their possible effects on this patient population. However, a 2021 study of 181 patients with Parkinson’s disease reported that 2 (1.1%) had adverse effects after receiving the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. One of the patients, a 61-year-old woman with a decade-long history of Parkinson’s disease, developed severe, continuous, generalized dyskinesia 6 hours after a first dose of vaccine. The second patient was 79 years old and had Parkinson’s disease for 5 years. She developed fever, confusion, delusions, and continuous severe dyskinesia for 3 days following her vaccination.

“This highlights that there is a variability in the response triggered by the vaccine that might likely depend on individual immunological profiles … clinicians should be aware of this possibility and monitor their patients after they receive their vaccination,” Roberto Erro, MD, PhD and colleagues wrote in the Movement Disorders journal.

Two studies from different parts of the world demonstrated telehealth’s ability to increase access to care and manage symptoms of Parkinson’s disease and other movement disorders. Researchers presented their findings at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.

Serving the underserved

One of the studies – from Kenya, Africa – documented a 2-year experience with telemedicine in a rural patient population.

Kenya suffers from a dearth of neurologists and movement disorder specialists. Most are based in the capital city of Nairobi, “leaving regions with a population of more than 30 million without access to their care,” wrote the study’s investigators. Internists with an interest in neurology usually manage the bulk of these patients.

Telemedicine has helped to bridge gaps between providers in this part of Africa.

Investigators in their study reviewed all cases of movement disorders at Meru Teaching and Referral Hospital and an affiliated clinic, Oregon Health Services, Meru, Kenya, during 2020 and 2021.

They also reviewed WhatsApp messaging, video calls via WhatsApp, patient videos, and phone calls to see how final diagnoses were arrived at using these platforms.

“For instance, a relative would send a video of a patient experiencing a tremor,” explained lead study author Bundi Karau, MD, a consultant physician. “We also shared the diagnostic challenges with experienced neurologists in Kenya and abroad by forwarding WhatsApp and recorded videos of the patients,” he added.

Telemedicine bridged the gap between rural doctors and patients in several ways. It enabled physicians to discuss cases with neurologists in and out of Kenya. “We were able to advise on medical management or further investigations in a more structured pattern and without spending months to make a diagnosis,” said Dr. Karau.

Patients no longer had to travel to Nairobi for care.  “Where a direct link could be expensive or out of reach, we bridged this and consequently brought care closer to the patient,” he added.

More than 100 patients were diagnosed with a movement disorder and enrolled in care and follow-up during this 2-year time. Patients averaged about 62 years of age and more than 60% were male. Parkinson’s disease was the most common diagnosed condition (38.9%) followed by drug-induced movement disorders (30.6%), dystonia (11.1%), and functional movement disorders (11.1%).

Investigators found 3 cases of diabetic striatopathy, 8 cases of myoclonus, and 2 cases of Sydenham’s chorea.

Looking ahead, Dr. Karau and colleagues plan to do a cost benefit analysis vis-a-vis traditional physician visits and a trial model for follow-up visits for other neurological diseases.
 

Wearable devices and apps improve care

Moving from Africa to Greece, investigators in another study assessed the feasibility of using wearable devices to monitor symptoms in patients with Parkinson’s disease.

Such devices may enhance physical exams during virtual visits. Studies have shown that patients can commit to using such devices or mobile apps. What’s lacking is real-world data from everyday device usage, noted lead author George Rigas, PhD, and colleagues.

Fifty-two private physicians instructed a total of 133 patients to wear a device for Parkinson’s disease motor symptom telemonitoring for 1 week per month during waking hours.

Patients used a mobile app to report symptoms, medication, and nutrition adherence and to message their doctor.

The study team noticed that adherence rates stayed above 70% over a 12-month period. Medication and nutrition were among the most popular app features, an encouraging finding given that patients averaged 67 years of age.

“The high adherence percentage is significant, considering the target population and the early stage of telemedicine in Greece,” they concluded. Additional real-world data could help better inform longer-term adherence.

“These studies from all over the world demonstrate that we are only scratching the surface of the telehealth’s potential to improve care and the lives of individuals with Parkinson’s disease,” said Ray Dorsey, MD, a professor of neurology with the Center for Health + Technology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.).

Dr. Dorsey was not involved with the studies but has written and researched extensively on this topic.

Dr. Dorsey is a consultant for and has equity interests in Mediflix and Included Health, two digital health companies.

Two studies from different parts of the world demonstrated telehealth’s ability to increase access to care and manage symptoms of Parkinson’s disease and other movement disorders. Researchers presented their findings at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.

Serving the underserved

One of the studies – from Kenya, Africa – documented a 2-year experience with telemedicine in a rural patient population.

Kenya suffers from a dearth of neurologists and movement disorder specialists. Most are based in the capital city of Nairobi, “leaving regions with a population of more than 30 million without access to their care,” wrote the study’s investigators. Internists with an interest in neurology usually manage the bulk of these patients.

Telemedicine has helped to bridge gaps between providers in this part of Africa.

Investigators in their study reviewed all cases of movement disorders at Meru Teaching and Referral Hospital and an affiliated clinic, Oregon Health Services, Meru, Kenya, during 2020 and 2021.

They also reviewed WhatsApp messaging, video calls via WhatsApp, patient videos, and phone calls to see how final diagnoses were arrived at using these platforms.

“For instance, a relative would send a video of a patient experiencing a tremor,” explained lead study author Bundi Karau, MD, a consultant physician. “We also shared the diagnostic challenges with experienced neurologists in Kenya and abroad by forwarding WhatsApp and recorded videos of the patients,” he added.

Telemedicine bridged the gap between rural doctors and patients in several ways. It enabled physicians to discuss cases with neurologists in and out of Kenya. “We were able to advise on medical management or further investigations in a more structured pattern and without spending months to make a diagnosis,” said Dr. Karau.

Patients no longer had to travel to Nairobi for care.  “Where a direct link could be expensive or out of reach, we bridged this and consequently brought care closer to the patient,” he added.

More than 100 patients were diagnosed with a movement disorder and enrolled in care and follow-up during this 2-year time. Patients averaged about 62 years of age and more than 60% were male. Parkinson’s disease was the most common diagnosed condition (38.9%) followed by drug-induced movement disorders (30.6%), dystonia (11.1%), and functional movement disorders (11.1%).

Investigators found 3 cases of diabetic striatopathy, 8 cases of myoclonus, and 2 cases of Sydenham’s chorea.

Looking ahead, Dr. Karau and colleagues plan to do a cost benefit analysis vis-a-vis traditional physician visits and a trial model for follow-up visits for other neurological diseases.
 

Wearable devices and apps improve care

Moving from Africa to Greece, investigators in another study assessed the feasibility of using wearable devices to monitor symptoms in patients with Parkinson’s disease.

Such devices may enhance physical exams during virtual visits. Studies have shown that patients can commit to using such devices or mobile apps. What’s lacking is real-world data from everyday device usage, noted lead author George Rigas, PhD, and colleagues.

Fifty-two private physicians instructed a total of 133 patients to wear a device for Parkinson’s disease motor symptom telemonitoring for 1 week per month during waking hours.

Patients used a mobile app to report symptoms, medication, and nutrition adherence and to message their doctor.

The study team noticed that adherence rates stayed above 70% over a 12-month period. Medication and nutrition were among the most popular app features, an encouraging finding given that patients averaged 67 years of age.

“The high adherence percentage is significant, considering the target population and the early stage of telemedicine in Greece,” they concluded. Additional real-world data could help better inform longer-term adherence.

“These studies from all over the world demonstrate that we are only scratching the surface of the telehealth’s potential to improve care and the lives of individuals with Parkinson’s disease,” said Ray Dorsey, MD, a professor of neurology with the Center for Health + Technology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.).

Dr. Dorsey was not involved with the studies but has written and researched extensively on this topic.

Dr. Dorsey is a consultant for and has equity interests in Mediflix and Included Health, two digital health companies.

Two studies from different parts of the world demonstrated telehealth’s ability to increase access to care and manage symptoms of Parkinson’s disease and other movement disorders. Researchers presented their findings at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.

Serving the underserved

One of the studies – from Kenya, Africa – documented a 2-year experience with telemedicine in a rural patient population.

Kenya suffers from a dearth of neurologists and movement disorder specialists. Most are based in the capital city of Nairobi, “leaving regions with a population of more than 30 million without access to their care,” wrote the study’s investigators. Internists with an interest in neurology usually manage the bulk of these patients.

Telemedicine has helped to bridge gaps between providers in this part of Africa.

Investigators in their study reviewed all cases of movement disorders at Meru Teaching and Referral Hospital and an affiliated clinic, Oregon Health Services, Meru, Kenya, during 2020 and 2021.

They also reviewed WhatsApp messaging, video calls via WhatsApp, patient videos, and phone calls to see how final diagnoses were arrived at using these platforms.

“For instance, a relative would send a video of a patient experiencing a tremor,” explained lead study author Bundi Karau, MD, a consultant physician. “We also shared the diagnostic challenges with experienced neurologists in Kenya and abroad by forwarding WhatsApp and recorded videos of the patients,” he added.

Telemedicine bridged the gap between rural doctors and patients in several ways. It enabled physicians to discuss cases with neurologists in and out of Kenya. “We were able to advise on medical management or further investigations in a more structured pattern and without spending months to make a diagnosis,” said Dr. Karau.

Patients no longer had to travel to Nairobi for care.  “Where a direct link could be expensive or out of reach, we bridged this and consequently brought care closer to the patient,” he added.

More than 100 patients were diagnosed with a movement disorder and enrolled in care and follow-up during this 2-year time. Patients averaged about 62 years of age and more than 60% were male. Parkinson’s disease was the most common diagnosed condition (38.9%) followed by drug-induced movement disorders (30.6%), dystonia (11.1%), and functional movement disorders (11.1%).

Investigators found 3 cases of diabetic striatopathy, 8 cases of myoclonus, and 2 cases of Sydenham’s chorea.

Looking ahead, Dr. Karau and colleagues plan to do a cost benefit analysis vis-a-vis traditional physician visits and a trial model for follow-up visits for other neurological diseases.
 

Wearable devices and apps improve care

Moving from Africa to Greece, investigators in another study assessed the feasibility of using wearable devices to monitor symptoms in patients with Parkinson’s disease.

Such devices may enhance physical exams during virtual visits. Studies have shown that patients can commit to using such devices or mobile apps. What’s lacking is real-world data from everyday device usage, noted lead author George Rigas, PhD, and colleagues.

Fifty-two private physicians instructed a total of 133 patients to wear a device for Parkinson’s disease motor symptom telemonitoring for 1 week per month during waking hours.

Patients used a mobile app to report symptoms, medication, and nutrition adherence and to message their doctor.

The study team noticed that adherence rates stayed above 70% over a 12-month period. Medication and nutrition were among the most popular app features, an encouraging finding given that patients averaged 67 years of age.

“The high adherence percentage is significant, considering the target population and the early stage of telemedicine in Greece,” they concluded. Additional real-world data could help better inform longer-term adherence.

“These studies from all over the world demonstrate that we are only scratching the surface of the telehealth’s potential to improve care and the lives of individuals with Parkinson’s disease,” said Ray Dorsey, MD, a professor of neurology with the Center for Health + Technology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.).

Dr. Dorsey was not involved with the studies but has written and researched extensively on this topic.

Dr. Dorsey is a consultant for and has equity interests in Mediflix and Included Health, two digital health companies.

Medical cannabis doesn’t appear to exacerbate disease or neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients with movement disorders, two Israeli research teams reported.

The practice calls for careful monitoring of patients and additional study, said the researchers, who presented their findings at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.
 

Cannabis for Parkinson’s disease

One retrospective study focused on Parkinson’s disease, evaluating the safety and effects of long-term treatment with medical cannabis, which has become a widely available treatment for controlling symptoms in Parkinson’s disease and other pain disorders. Studies have demonstrated its efficacy in patients with Parkinson’s disease, but long-term safety has never been examined in Parkinson’s disease compared with untreated patients.

Their study included 152 patients with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease (mean age at diagnosis: 55.6 plus or minus 9.5 years) from the Sheba Medical Center Movement Disorders Institute who had been issued a license for medical cannabis. Seventy-six patients treated with cannabis were compared with 76 patients with similar characteristics who were not treated with cannabis.

Investigators collected data on patients who were followed at the institute between 2008 and 2022. Average follow-up period was 3.6 years.

Specifically, they collected data on levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD), Hoehn and Yahr scale progression, and patient-reported outcome measures on cognitive impairment, depressive, and psychotic symptoms, at baseline and at follow-up.

The Hoehn and Yahr scale allows for the quantification of different disease stages and LEDD provides a summary of the total daily medication a patient is receiving, explained Tomer Goldberg, BSc, the study’s lead author. Both are widely accepted motor severity and progression measures for Parkinson’s disease. “We wanted to check whether cannabis treatment influences these two motor parameters,” said Mr. Goldberg, who is affiliated with Tel Aviv University and the Movement Disorders Institute at Sheba Medical Center.

The medical cannabis–treated group and the untreated group had no significant differences in the mean annual change in LEDD or Hoehn and Yahr score. At 1, 2, and 3 years of follow-up, the treated group showed no signs of psychotic, depressive, or cognitive deterioration (P = .10-.68). The groups in Kaplan-Meier analyses also exhibited no differences in these nonmotor symptoms over time (P = .27-.93).

The findings suggest that cannabis treatment appears to be safe and has no negative effect on disease progression, said Mr. Goldberg. “It is important to note that we did not investigate all of the potential side effects of this treatment, and that prescribing medical cannabis for patients with Parkinson’s disease should be done with careful monitoring of each patient’s individual response to the treatment,” he added.
 

Cannabis for Huntington’s disease

Another study, targeting Huntington’s disease, drew similar conclusions. Psychiatric symptoms and cognitive decline are often present in Huntington’s disease patients, who have few treatment options. “An overall improvement in chorea and in neuropsychiatric symptoms was reported following cannabis treatment in several studies both in humans and in murine models,” wrote the study authors.

In this study, a certified Huntington’s disease specialist reviewed the medical records of 150 patients who were being followed in an Huntington’s disease clinic. Study metrics included the Unified Huntington’s Disease Rating Scale and Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores, indications for treatment, and adverse events related to treatment. Among the 150 patients, 19 had received cannabis treatment for indications such as sleep disorders, behavioral anomalies, and chorea. All but one patient reported an improvement in symptoms (94%). No adverse events were recorded, although one patient died from a COVID-19 infection.

Overall, medical cannabis appeared to safely relieve symptoms in patients with Huntington’s disease. A double-blind randomized controlled trial should further examine efficacy of these findings, the study authors recommended.

Mr. Goldberg had no disclosures or conflicts of interest in reporting his research.

Medical cannabis doesn’t appear to exacerbate disease or neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients with movement disorders, two Israeli research teams reported.

The practice calls for careful monitoring of patients and additional study, said the researchers, who presented their findings at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.
 

Cannabis for Parkinson’s disease

One retrospective study focused on Parkinson’s disease, evaluating the safety and effects of long-term treatment with medical cannabis, which has become a widely available treatment for controlling symptoms in Parkinson’s disease and other pain disorders. Studies have demonstrated its efficacy in patients with Parkinson’s disease, but long-term safety has never been examined in Parkinson’s disease compared with untreated patients.

Their study included 152 patients with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease (mean age at diagnosis: 55.6 plus or minus 9.5 years) from the Sheba Medical Center Movement Disorders Institute who had been issued a license for medical cannabis. Seventy-six patients treated with cannabis were compared with 76 patients with similar characteristics who were not treated with cannabis.

Investigators collected data on patients who were followed at the institute between 2008 and 2022. Average follow-up period was 3.6 years.

Specifically, they collected data on levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD), Hoehn and Yahr scale progression, and patient-reported outcome measures on cognitive impairment, depressive, and psychotic symptoms, at baseline and at follow-up.

The Hoehn and Yahr scale allows for the quantification of different disease stages and LEDD provides a summary of the total daily medication a patient is receiving, explained Tomer Goldberg, BSc, the study’s lead author. Both are widely accepted motor severity and progression measures for Parkinson’s disease. “We wanted to check whether cannabis treatment influences these two motor parameters,” said Mr. Goldberg, who is affiliated with Tel Aviv University and the Movement Disorders Institute at Sheba Medical Center.

The medical cannabis–treated group and the untreated group had no significant differences in the mean annual change in LEDD or Hoehn and Yahr score. At 1, 2, and 3 years of follow-up, the treated group showed no signs of psychotic, depressive, or cognitive deterioration (P = .10-.68). The groups in Kaplan-Meier analyses also exhibited no differences in these nonmotor symptoms over time (P = .27-.93).

The findings suggest that cannabis treatment appears to be safe and has no negative effect on disease progression, said Mr. Goldberg. “It is important to note that we did not investigate all of the potential side effects of this treatment, and that prescribing medical cannabis for patients with Parkinson’s disease should be done with careful monitoring of each patient’s individual response to the treatment,” he added.
 

Cannabis for Huntington’s disease

Another study, targeting Huntington’s disease, drew similar conclusions. Psychiatric symptoms and cognitive decline are often present in Huntington’s disease patients, who have few treatment options. “An overall improvement in chorea and in neuropsychiatric symptoms was reported following cannabis treatment in several studies both in humans and in murine models,” wrote the study authors.

In this study, a certified Huntington’s disease specialist reviewed the medical records of 150 patients who were being followed in an Huntington’s disease clinic. Study metrics included the Unified Huntington’s Disease Rating Scale and Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores, indications for treatment, and adverse events related to treatment. Among the 150 patients, 19 had received cannabis treatment for indications such as sleep disorders, behavioral anomalies, and chorea. All but one patient reported an improvement in symptoms (94%). No adverse events were recorded, although one patient died from a COVID-19 infection.

Overall, medical cannabis appeared to safely relieve symptoms in patients with Huntington’s disease. A double-blind randomized controlled trial should further examine efficacy of these findings, the study authors recommended.

Mr. Goldberg had no disclosures or conflicts of interest in reporting his research.

Medical cannabis doesn’t appear to exacerbate disease or neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients with movement disorders, two Israeli research teams reported.

The practice calls for careful monitoring of patients and additional study, said the researchers, who presented their findings at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.
 

Cannabis for Parkinson’s disease

One retrospective study focused on Parkinson’s disease, evaluating the safety and effects of long-term treatment with medical cannabis, which has become a widely available treatment for controlling symptoms in Parkinson’s disease and other pain disorders. Studies have demonstrated its efficacy in patients with Parkinson’s disease, but long-term safety has never been examined in Parkinson’s disease compared with untreated patients.

Their study included 152 patients with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease (mean age at diagnosis: 55.6 plus or minus 9.5 years) from the Sheba Medical Center Movement Disorders Institute who had been issued a license for medical cannabis. Seventy-six patients treated with cannabis were compared with 76 patients with similar characteristics who were not treated with cannabis.

Investigators collected data on patients who were followed at the institute between 2008 and 2022. Average follow-up period was 3.6 years.

Specifically, they collected data on levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD), Hoehn and Yahr scale progression, and patient-reported outcome measures on cognitive impairment, depressive, and psychotic symptoms, at baseline and at follow-up.

The Hoehn and Yahr scale allows for the quantification of different disease stages and LEDD provides a summary of the total daily medication a patient is receiving, explained Tomer Goldberg, BSc, the study’s lead author. Both are widely accepted motor severity and progression measures for Parkinson’s disease. “We wanted to check whether cannabis treatment influences these two motor parameters,” said Mr. Goldberg, who is affiliated with Tel Aviv University and the Movement Disorders Institute at Sheba Medical Center.

The medical cannabis–treated group and the untreated group had no significant differences in the mean annual change in LEDD or Hoehn and Yahr score. At 1, 2, and 3 years of follow-up, the treated group showed no signs of psychotic, depressive, or cognitive deterioration (P = .10-.68). The groups in Kaplan-Meier analyses also exhibited no differences in these nonmotor symptoms over time (P = .27-.93).

The findings suggest that cannabis treatment appears to be safe and has no negative effect on disease progression, said Mr. Goldberg. “It is important to note that we did not investigate all of the potential side effects of this treatment, and that prescribing medical cannabis for patients with Parkinson’s disease should be done with careful monitoring of each patient’s individual response to the treatment,” he added.
 

Cannabis for Huntington’s disease

Another study, targeting Huntington’s disease, drew similar conclusions. Psychiatric symptoms and cognitive decline are often present in Huntington’s disease patients, who have few treatment options. “An overall improvement in chorea and in neuropsychiatric symptoms was reported following cannabis treatment in several studies both in humans and in murine models,” wrote the study authors.

In this study, a certified Huntington’s disease specialist reviewed the medical records of 150 patients who were being followed in an Huntington’s disease clinic. Study metrics included the Unified Huntington’s Disease Rating Scale and Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores, indications for treatment, and adverse events related to treatment. Among the 150 patients, 19 had received cannabis treatment for indications such as sleep disorders, behavioral anomalies, and chorea. All but one patient reported an improvement in symptoms (94%). No adverse events were recorded, although one patient died from a COVID-19 infection.

Overall, medical cannabis appeared to safely relieve symptoms in patients with Huntington’s disease. A double-blind randomized controlled trial should further examine efficacy of these findings, the study authors recommended.

Mr. Goldberg had no disclosures or conflicts of interest in reporting his research.

A novel, low-dose formulation of pramipexole and rasagiline (P2B001) shows promise as a first-line treatment for patients with early-stage Parkinson’s disease. Results from a phase 3 trial found that P2B001 was superior to its components in improving motor symptoms and daily function and was comparable with marketed doses of pramipexole.

P2B001 also produced less daytime sleepiness and fewer dopaminergic effects, said the investigators, who presented findings at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.

The treatment studied, P2B001, is a proprietary, fixed-dose combination of extended-release (ER) formulations of pramipexole and rasagiline. Neither dose is currently available on the market.

Investigators wanted to test the hypothesis that two anti-Parkinsonian drugs that act through different mechanisms could work synergistically, providing benefits comparable with pramipexole but with fewer side effects, said lead study author Warren Olanow, MD, professor emeritus in the neurology and neuroscience departments at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Pramipexole is problematic in that it causes dopaminergic and sleep-related side effects.

Laboratory studies have shown that low doses of pramipexole and rasagiline act synergistically, said Dr. Olanow. “A previous double-blind controlled study demonstrated that P2B001 was significantly superior to placebo with respect to efficacy (P < .001) and had a good safety and tolerability profile.”
 

P2B001 outperforms other formulations

The multicenter phase 3 study (NCT03329508) enrolled 544 patients aged 35-80 with early Parkinson’s disease to assess efficacy and safety of a daily dose of P2B001, compared with its components. Patients were randomized 2:2:2:1 to 12 weeks of treatment with P2B001; pramipexole ER 0.6 mg; rasagiline ER 0.75 mg, or to a calibration arm of marketed pramipexole-ER titrated to optimal dose (mean dose, 3.2 mg).

The primary endpoint compared baseline with week 12 changes in Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale total scores for P2B001 versus its individual components. The secondary endpoint compared baseline changes in Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) for P2B001 versus pramipexole-ER.

P2B001 showed superior efficacy to each of its individual components and comparable efficacy with marketed doses of pramipexole-ER. It also yielded fewer adverse events related to dopaminergic side effects and less daytime sleepiness as measured by ESS. “Further, the drug is administered once a day and does not require titration,” said Dr. Olanow.
 

Levodopa-related benefits

Another advantage of starting early-stage patients on P2B001 is that it would give patients more time to be on an effective therapy with fewer side effects before going on levodopa, the current gold standard for Parkinson’s disease treatment.

Although the American Academy of Neurology recommends levodopa as initial therapy for Parkinson’s disease, the drug has been associated with a risk of developing motor complications.

“This opinion, however, was formulated prior to the availability of the results of the P2B001 study and should be reassessed in the light of the present study,” said Dr. Olanow. Longer-term studies should assess when and if patients will require levodopa therapy, as well as the long-term effects of P2B001 on the development of motor complications in patients with early Parkinson’s disease patients.

Investigators are preparing a regulatory market approval filing for P2B001 with the Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Olanow is CEO of Clintrex Research Corporation, which has provided services to Pharma2B, sponsor of the phase 3 study. Pharma Two B is a private, late clinical-stage pharmaceutical company in Rehovot, Israel, that owns worldwide granted patents for P2B001 pharmaceutical composition and method of treatment.

A novel, low-dose formulation of pramipexole and rasagiline (P2B001) shows promise as a first-line treatment for patients with early-stage Parkinson’s disease. Results from a phase 3 trial found that P2B001 was superior to its components in improving motor symptoms and daily function and was comparable with marketed doses of pramipexole.

P2B001 also produced less daytime sleepiness and fewer dopaminergic effects, said the investigators, who presented findings at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.

The treatment studied, P2B001, is a proprietary, fixed-dose combination of extended-release (ER) formulations of pramipexole and rasagiline. Neither dose is currently available on the market.

Investigators wanted to test the hypothesis that two anti-Parkinsonian drugs that act through different mechanisms could work synergistically, providing benefits comparable with pramipexole but with fewer side effects, said lead study author Warren Olanow, MD, professor emeritus in the neurology and neuroscience departments at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Pramipexole is problematic in that it causes dopaminergic and sleep-related side effects.

Laboratory studies have shown that low doses of pramipexole and rasagiline act synergistically, said Dr. Olanow. “A previous double-blind controlled study demonstrated that P2B001 was significantly superior to placebo with respect to efficacy (P < .001) and had a good safety and tolerability profile.”
 

P2B001 outperforms other formulations

The multicenter phase 3 study (NCT03329508) enrolled 544 patients aged 35-80 with early Parkinson’s disease to assess efficacy and safety of a daily dose of P2B001, compared with its components. Patients were randomized 2:2:2:1 to 12 weeks of treatment with P2B001; pramipexole ER 0.6 mg; rasagiline ER 0.75 mg, or to a calibration arm of marketed pramipexole-ER titrated to optimal dose (mean dose, 3.2 mg).

The primary endpoint compared baseline with week 12 changes in Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale total scores for P2B001 versus its individual components. The secondary endpoint compared baseline changes in Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) for P2B001 versus pramipexole-ER.

P2B001 showed superior efficacy to each of its individual components and comparable efficacy with marketed doses of pramipexole-ER. It also yielded fewer adverse events related to dopaminergic side effects and less daytime sleepiness as measured by ESS. “Further, the drug is administered once a day and does not require titration,” said Dr. Olanow.
 

Levodopa-related benefits

Another advantage of starting early-stage patients on P2B001 is that it would give patients more time to be on an effective therapy with fewer side effects before going on levodopa, the current gold standard for Parkinson’s disease treatment.

Although the American Academy of Neurology recommends levodopa as initial therapy for Parkinson’s disease, the drug has been associated with a risk of developing motor complications.

“This opinion, however, was formulated prior to the availability of the results of the P2B001 study and should be reassessed in the light of the present study,” said Dr. Olanow. Longer-term studies should assess when and if patients will require levodopa therapy, as well as the long-term effects of P2B001 on the development of motor complications in patients with early Parkinson’s disease patients.

Investigators are preparing a regulatory market approval filing for P2B001 with the Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Olanow is CEO of Clintrex Research Corporation, which has provided services to Pharma2B, sponsor of the phase 3 study. Pharma Two B is a private, late clinical-stage pharmaceutical company in Rehovot, Israel, that owns worldwide granted patents for P2B001 pharmaceutical composition and method of treatment.

A novel, low-dose formulation of pramipexole and rasagiline (P2B001) shows promise as a first-line treatment for patients with early-stage Parkinson’s disease. Results from a phase 3 trial found that P2B001 was superior to its components in improving motor symptoms and daily function and was comparable with marketed doses of pramipexole.

P2B001 also produced less daytime sleepiness and fewer dopaminergic effects, said the investigators, who presented findings at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.

The treatment studied, P2B001, is a proprietary, fixed-dose combination of extended-release (ER) formulations of pramipexole and rasagiline. Neither dose is currently available on the market.

Investigators wanted to test the hypothesis that two anti-Parkinsonian drugs that act through different mechanisms could work synergistically, providing benefits comparable with pramipexole but with fewer side effects, said lead study author Warren Olanow, MD, professor emeritus in the neurology and neuroscience departments at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Pramipexole is problematic in that it causes dopaminergic and sleep-related side effects.

Laboratory studies have shown that low doses of pramipexole and rasagiline act synergistically, said Dr. Olanow. “A previous double-blind controlled study demonstrated that P2B001 was significantly superior to placebo with respect to efficacy (P < .001) and had a good safety and tolerability profile.”
 

P2B001 outperforms other formulations

The multicenter phase 3 study (NCT03329508) enrolled 544 patients aged 35-80 with early Parkinson’s disease to assess efficacy and safety of a daily dose of P2B001, compared with its components. Patients were randomized 2:2:2:1 to 12 weeks of treatment with P2B001; pramipexole ER 0.6 mg; rasagiline ER 0.75 mg, or to a calibration arm of marketed pramipexole-ER titrated to optimal dose (mean dose, 3.2 mg).

The primary endpoint compared baseline with week 12 changes in Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale total scores for P2B001 versus its individual components. The secondary endpoint compared baseline changes in Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) for P2B001 versus pramipexole-ER.

P2B001 showed superior efficacy to each of its individual components and comparable efficacy with marketed doses of pramipexole-ER. It also yielded fewer adverse events related to dopaminergic side effects and less daytime sleepiness as measured by ESS. “Further, the drug is administered once a day and does not require titration,” said Dr. Olanow.
 

Levodopa-related benefits

Another advantage of starting early-stage patients on P2B001 is that it would give patients more time to be on an effective therapy with fewer side effects before going on levodopa, the current gold standard for Parkinson’s disease treatment.

Although the American Academy of Neurology recommends levodopa as initial therapy for Parkinson’s disease, the drug has been associated with a risk of developing motor complications.

“This opinion, however, was formulated prior to the availability of the results of the P2B001 study and should be reassessed in the light of the present study,” said Dr. Olanow. Longer-term studies should assess when and if patients will require levodopa therapy, as well as the long-term effects of P2B001 on the development of motor complications in patients with early Parkinson’s disease patients.

Investigators are preparing a regulatory market approval filing for P2B001 with the Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Olanow is CEO of Clintrex Research Corporation, which has provided services to Pharma2B, sponsor of the phase 3 study. Pharma Two B is a private, late clinical-stage pharmaceutical company in Rehovot, Israel, that owns worldwide granted patents for P2B001 pharmaceutical composition and method of treatment.

Clinical research in rheumatology was suffering from an identity crisis of sorts 40 years ago. A lack of consensus across continents resulted in differing views about clinical outcome measures and judgments about treatments.

Patients were not allowed to be the generating source of a clinical outcome, according to Peter Tugwell, MSc, MD. “The only outcomes that were acceptable were clinician assessments, blood tests, and imaging,” said Dr. Tugwell, professor of medicine, epidemiology, and public health at the University of Ottawa (Ont.) and a practicing rheumatologist at Ottawa Hospital.

Clinicians were coming to different conclusions about patient responses to treatment when managing rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice.

OMERACT sought to address this lack of uniformity. This international group, formed in 1992, leverages stakeholder groups to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology endpoints through a consensus-building, data-driven format.

It was originally known as “Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials,” but its leaders have since broadened its scope to “Outcome Measures in Rheumatology.” Over the years, it has evolved into an international network that assesses measurement across a wide variety of intervention studies. Now 30 years old, the network spans 40 active working groups and has influenced work in patient outcomes across 500 peer-reviewed publications.

The network meets every 2 years to address what is always a challenging agenda, said Dr. Tugwell, one of its founding members and chair. “There’s lots of strong opinions.” Participating in the discussions are individuals from all stages of seniority in rheumatology and clinical epidemiology, patient research partners, industry, approval agencies, and many countries who are committed to the spirit of OMERACT.

“The secret to our success has been getting world leaders to come together and have those discussions, work them through, and identify common ground in such a way that the approval agencies accept these outcome measures in clinical trials,” he added.

“My impression was the founders perceived a problem in the early 1990s and devised a consensus method in an attempt to quantify clinical parameters to define disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis – an important first step to do clinical trials and allow comparisons between them,” said Patricia Woo, CBE, FMedSci, FRCP, emeritus professor of pediatric rheumatology and previous head of the Centre for Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology at UCL, London. At that time, even disease definitions varied between the United States and Europe and other parts of the world, said Dr. Woo, who is not a part of OMERACT. “This was especially true for pediatric rheumatology.”
 

Fusing the continental divide

OMERACT arose from a need to streamline clinical outcome measures in rheumatology. Research papers during the 1980s demonstrated a lack of coherence in managing patients with rheumatoid arthritis in routine practice. In addition, the measures used to define clinical endpoints in clinical trials operated in silos – they were either too specific to a certain trial, overlapped with other concepts, or didn’t reflect changes in treatment.

Approval agencies in Europe and North America were approving only outcomes measures developed by their respective researchers. This was also true of patients they tested on. “This seemed crazy,” Dr. Tugwell said.

Dr. Tugwell was involved in the Cochrane collaboration, which conducts systematic reviews of best evidence across the world that assesses the magnitude of benefits versus harms.

To achieve this goal, “you need to pull studies from around the world,” he said. Maarten Boers, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist (and later professor of clinical epidemiology at Amsterdam University Medical Center) from the Netherlands, spent a year in Ontario, Canada, to train as a clinical epidemiologist. Together, Dr. Tugwell and Dr. Boers began discussing options to develop more streamlined outcome measures.

Courtesy OMERACT

They initiated the first OMERACT conference in Maastricht, the Netherlands, in 1992. The Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency participated, along with leaders of outcomes measurement in Europe and in North America.

Discussions centered on methods to develop outcomes in a meaningful fashion. During the first meeting, North American and European approval agencies agreed to accept each other’s studies and endpoints and patient reported outcomes.

Agreement was achieved on a preliminary set of outcome domains and measures that later became known as the WHO-ILAR (World Health Organization–International League of Associations for Rheumatology) core set. The set included seven outcome domains: tender joints, swollen joints, pain, physician global assessment, patient global assessment, physical disability, and acute phase reactants, and one additional outcome domain for studies lasting 1 year or more: radiographs of the joints.

“A proactive program was planned to test not only the validity of these endpoints, but also the methods for their measurement. This was the start of a continuing process,” OMERACT members said in a joint statement for this article. Meetings have since taken place every 2 years.

Courtesy OMERACT

OMERACT accomplishments

OMERACT now requires buy-in from four continents: Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America.

Its leaders have developed an explicit process for gaining endorsement of core outcome domains and instrument measurement sets. To fully capture the possibilities of “what to measure,” i.e., “measurable aspects of health conditions,” OMERACT has developed a framework of concepts, core areas, and outcome domains. The key concepts are pathophysiology (with a core area termed “manifestations/abnormalities”) and impact (with core areas of “death/lifespan,” and “life impact,” and the optional area of “societal/resource use”). An outcome domain defines an element of a core area to measure the effects of a treatment, such as blood markers, pain intensity, physical function, or emotional well-being.

A core outcome domain set is developed by agreeing to at least one outcome domain within one of the three core areas. Subsequently, a core outcome measurement set is developed by agreeing to at least one applicable measurement instrument for each core outcome domain. This requires documentation of validity, summarized under three metrics: truth, discrimination, and feasibility.

OMERACT’s handbook provides tutelage on establishing and implementing core outcomes, and several workbooks offer guidance on developing core outcome domain sets, selecting instruments for core outcome measurement sets, and OMERACT methodology.

All this work has led to widespread adoption.

Approval agencies have accepted OMERACT’s filter and methods advances, which have been adopted by many research groups in rheumatology and among nonrheumatology research groups. Organizations such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke have sought its advice.

Its core outcomes have been adopted and used for approval in the great majority of studies on rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Tugwell said.

Several BMJ articles underscore the influence and uptake of OMERACT’s core outcome set. One 2017 paper, which analyzed 273 randomized trials of rheumatoid arthritis drug treatments on ClinicalTrials.gov, found that the WHO-ILAR arthritis core outcome set was reported in 81% of the studies. “The adoption of a core outcome set has the potential to increase consistency in outcomes measured across trials and ensure that trials are more likely to measure appropriate outcomes,” the authors concluded.

Since the initial 1992 meeting, OMERACT has broadened its focus from rheumatoid arthritis to 25 other musculoskeletal conditions.

For example, other OMERACT conferences have led to consensus on core sets of measures for osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, psychosocial measures, and a core set of data for cost-effectiveness evaluations.
 

‘Speed is a limitation’

OMERACT is a bottom-up volunteer organization. It doesn’t represent any official organization of any clinical society. “We’ve not asked to be adopted by the American College of Rheumatology, EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology], or other international organizations,” Dr. Tugwell said. It offers a chance for patients, users, and doers of research to work together to agree on rigorous criteria accepted by the approval agencies and take the necessary time to work things through.

This is not a fast process, usually taking 4-6 years to initiate and establish an outcome domain set, he emphasized. “It would be beneficial to do it faster if we had the resources to meet every year. The fact is we’re a volunteer organization that meets every 2 years.”

Speed is a limitation, he acknowledged, but it’s an acceptable trade-off for doing things correctly.

The group has faced other challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, pivoting to a virtual format that had benefits and limitations.

In one respect, moving to a virtual meeting increased uptake in participation and voting, Dr. Tugwell said. Patient participants with severe rheumatoid arthritis no longer faced the challenges of travel. “On the other hand, we didn’t have the same opportunity to achieve common ground virtually,” he said. “Where there are strong disagreements, I’m a great believer that people need to know one another. There needs to be relationship building.”

OMERACT’s emerging leader program has been a cornerstone of its in-person meetings, engaging young rheumatologists to interact with some of the leaders of outcome measurement. The virtual format dampened this process somewhat, eliminating those important “café chats” between the stakeholders.

The hope is to bring people face-to-face once more at the next meeting in May 2023. The agenda will focus on relationship building, identifying controversial areas, and bringing younger people to develop relationships, Dr. Tugwell said. OMERACT will retain a virtual option for the worldwide voting, “which will allow for more buy-in from so many more people,” he added.
 

A consensus on pain

The onus of developing outcome measures that move with the times is sometimes too great for one group to manage. In 2018, OMERACT became a part of the Red Hat Group (RHG), an organization conceived at the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) VII meeting in Amsterdam.

RHG aims to improve the choice of outcomes in health research. It includes eight groups: COMET; OMERACT; the Cochrane Skin Core Outcome Set Initiative; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations; Center for Medical Technology Policy; COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments; Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium; and Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology.

The collaboration between groups offers a “very interesting interface between consensus building as well as hard evidence,” Dr. Tugwell said. The focus goes beyond rheumatology to other clinical areas of common interest, exploring how one classifies outcome domains in terms of symptoms, life impact, or death.

Pain is an important common denominator that the RHG has evaluated.

“We believe it’s too general. We’re trying to define pain across all Red Hat Groups because it’s clear that the research community has all these different scales for defining pain severity,” Dr. Tugwell said. “We have to find a way to make ruthless decisions and rules for doing it. And of course, it has to be transparent.”
 

Looking ahead

As part of its ongoing work, OMERACT is evaluating the robustness of instruments that rheumatologists use as outcome measures in clinical trials, which can be a laborious process. The OMERACT Filter 2.0, part of the latest iteration of the handbook, offers strong guidance for researchers but needs a long-term strategy and key methodological support. “To that end, we set up a technical advisory group to help people in the instrument selection work and that remains an ongoing process,” OMERACT leaders said in their joint statement.

OMERACT is looking at opportunities to create benchmark processes for developing core sets outside of rheumatology and a methodology around outcome measures such as contextual factors, composites, and surrogates.

It will also be taking a step back to solicit opinions from the approval agencies represented by the OMERACT membership on the OMERACT handbook.

The goal is to make sure the handbook aligns with everyone else’s approval and labeling requirements.
 

OMERACT’s patient participants bring important perspectives

OMERACT over the years has sought to become a more patient-centered group. Patients have been involved in OMERACT activities since its sixth meeting, forming an independent, yet integrated, group within the network. They have their own steering committee and produced and helped to update a glossary for OMERACT patients and professionals. 

Catherine (McGowan) Hofstetter, who was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis 30 years ago, chairs OMERACT’s Patient Research Partners Support Team. In a Q&A, she discussed the importance of patient voices and OMERACT’s plans to further educate and include patients in the dialogue on outcomes.

Question: Have patients always been a part of OMERACT meetings? 

Answer: Patients have been involved with OMERACT since 2002. The patient voice adds relevance to all the work that OMERACT does. You can’t begin to talk about outcomes unless there is a patient at the table with lived experience.

Q: Can you cite a few examples of how the patient voice enriches the conversation on outcomes research? 

A: Outcomes and priorities that are important to patients are often completely different than those of the clinician. For instance, a work outcome is important to someone who doesn’t have any medical insurance or disability insurance, so that you can ensure that there is food on the table and a roof over your head. Or it may be important to someone because the employment provides medical and disability insurance to provide security for them and their family. These are two different perspectives on work and therefore work priorities and outcomes.

Q: What have been some of the challenges of getting patients to participate?

A: Training patients is one challenge. OMERACT’s work has a very steep learning curve, and while the basics are the same between the groups in terms of looking at what we measure and how we measure it, the nuances of different working groups require a lot of time and energy to be comfortable enough with the work, and then be confident enough to bring your perspective and lived experience to the table. It’s also a very accomplished group, which can be quite intimidating. Self-disclosure is a very personal and intimate undertaking that requires patience, compassion, and respect.

Q: Are there any plans to enhance patient engagement?

A: When we had OMERACT 2020 it was a virtual conference that took place over about 6 months. We had far more patient research partners [PRPs] participate than we have ever had at any OMERACT face-to-face meeting. There is a desire and passion on the part of patients to lend their voices to the work. The working groups meet virtually throughout the year to advance their agendas, and PRPs are a part of each of the working groups. 

Hopefully, we can start working toward including more voices at the conferences by enabling a hybrid model. The PRP Support Team will begin engaging patients this fall with education, mentoring, and team-building exercises so by the time we meet in person in May 2023, they will have enough background knowledge and information to give them the confidence that will enhance their experience at the face-to-face meeting.

We also need to ensure that those patients who want to stay engaged can. This means that the education and training should continue long after the face-to-face meeting is over. We need to build capacity in the PRP group and look to succession planning and be a resource to working groups struggling to find PRPs to work with them on a longer-term basis.

Clinical research in rheumatology was suffering from an identity crisis of sorts 40 years ago. A lack of consensus across continents resulted in differing views about clinical outcome measures and judgments about treatments.

Patients were not allowed to be the generating source of a clinical outcome, according to Peter Tugwell, MSc, MD. “The only outcomes that were acceptable were clinician assessments, blood tests, and imaging,” said Dr. Tugwell, professor of medicine, epidemiology, and public health at the University of Ottawa (Ont.) and a practicing rheumatologist at Ottawa Hospital.

Clinicians were coming to different conclusions about patient responses to treatment when managing rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice.

OMERACT sought to address this lack of uniformity. This international group, formed in 1992, leverages stakeholder groups to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology endpoints through a consensus-building, data-driven format.

It was originally known as “Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials,” but its leaders have since broadened its scope to “Outcome Measures in Rheumatology.” Over the years, it has evolved into an international network that assesses measurement across a wide variety of intervention studies. Now 30 years old, the network spans 40 active working groups and has influenced work in patient outcomes across 500 peer-reviewed publications.

The network meets every 2 years to address what is always a challenging agenda, said Dr. Tugwell, one of its founding members and chair. “There’s lots of strong opinions.” Participating in the discussions are individuals from all stages of seniority in rheumatology and clinical epidemiology, patient research partners, industry, approval agencies, and many countries who are committed to the spirit of OMERACT.

“The secret to our success has been getting world leaders to come together and have those discussions, work them through, and identify common ground in such a way that the approval agencies accept these outcome measures in clinical trials,” he added.

“My impression was the founders perceived a problem in the early 1990s and devised a consensus method in an attempt to quantify clinical parameters to define disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis – an important first step to do clinical trials and allow comparisons between them,” said Patricia Woo, CBE, FMedSci, FRCP, emeritus professor of pediatric rheumatology and previous head of the Centre for Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology at UCL, London. At that time, even disease definitions varied between the United States and Europe and other parts of the world, said Dr. Woo, who is not a part of OMERACT. “This was especially true for pediatric rheumatology.”
 

Fusing the continental divide

OMERACT arose from a need to streamline clinical outcome measures in rheumatology. Research papers during the 1980s demonstrated a lack of coherence in managing patients with rheumatoid arthritis in routine practice. In addition, the measures used to define clinical endpoints in clinical trials operated in silos – they were either too specific to a certain trial, overlapped with other concepts, or didn’t reflect changes in treatment.

Approval agencies in Europe and North America were approving only outcomes measures developed by their respective researchers. This was also true of patients they tested on. “This seemed crazy,” Dr. Tugwell said.

Dr. Tugwell was involved in the Cochrane collaboration, which conducts systematic reviews of best evidence across the world that assesses the magnitude of benefits versus harms.

To achieve this goal, “you need to pull studies from around the world,” he said. Maarten Boers, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist (and later professor of clinical epidemiology at Amsterdam University Medical Center) from the Netherlands, spent a year in Ontario, Canada, to train as a clinical epidemiologist. Together, Dr. Tugwell and Dr. Boers began discussing options to develop more streamlined outcome measures.

Courtesy OMERACT

They initiated the first OMERACT conference in Maastricht, the Netherlands, in 1992. The Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency participated, along with leaders of outcomes measurement in Europe and in North America.

Discussions centered on methods to develop outcomes in a meaningful fashion. During the first meeting, North American and European approval agencies agreed to accept each other’s studies and endpoints and patient reported outcomes.

Agreement was achieved on a preliminary set of outcome domains and measures that later became known as the WHO-ILAR (World Health Organization–International League of Associations for Rheumatology) core set. The set included seven outcome domains: tender joints, swollen joints, pain, physician global assessment, patient global assessment, physical disability, and acute phase reactants, and one additional outcome domain for studies lasting 1 year or more: radiographs of the joints.

“A proactive program was planned to test not only the validity of these endpoints, but also the methods for their measurement. This was the start of a continuing process,” OMERACT members said in a joint statement for this article. Meetings have since taken place every 2 years.

Courtesy OMERACT

OMERACT accomplishments

OMERACT now requires buy-in from four continents: Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America.

Its leaders have developed an explicit process for gaining endorsement of core outcome domains and instrument measurement sets. To fully capture the possibilities of “what to measure,” i.e., “measurable aspects of health conditions,” OMERACT has developed a framework of concepts, core areas, and outcome domains. The key concepts are pathophysiology (with a core area termed “manifestations/abnormalities”) and impact (with core areas of “death/lifespan,” and “life impact,” and the optional area of “societal/resource use”). An outcome domain defines an element of a core area to measure the effects of a treatment, such as blood markers, pain intensity, physical function, or emotional well-being.

A core outcome domain set is developed by agreeing to at least one outcome domain within one of the three core areas. Subsequently, a core outcome measurement set is developed by agreeing to at least one applicable measurement instrument for each core outcome domain. This requires documentation of validity, summarized under three metrics: truth, discrimination, and feasibility.

OMERACT’s handbook provides tutelage on establishing and implementing core outcomes, and several workbooks offer guidance on developing core outcome domain sets, selecting instruments for core outcome measurement sets, and OMERACT methodology.

All this work has led to widespread adoption.

Approval agencies have accepted OMERACT’s filter and methods advances, which have been adopted by many research groups in rheumatology and among nonrheumatology research groups. Organizations such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke have sought its advice.

Its core outcomes have been adopted and used for approval in the great majority of studies on rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Tugwell said.

Several BMJ articles underscore the influence and uptake of OMERACT’s core outcome set. One 2017 paper, which analyzed 273 randomized trials of rheumatoid arthritis drug treatments on ClinicalTrials.gov, found that the WHO-ILAR arthritis core outcome set was reported in 81% of the studies. “The adoption of a core outcome set has the potential to increase consistency in outcomes measured across trials and ensure that trials are more likely to measure appropriate outcomes,” the authors concluded.

Since the initial 1992 meeting, OMERACT has broadened its focus from rheumatoid arthritis to 25 other musculoskeletal conditions.

For example, other OMERACT conferences have led to consensus on core sets of measures for osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, psychosocial measures, and a core set of data for cost-effectiveness evaluations.
 

‘Speed is a limitation’

OMERACT is a bottom-up volunteer organization. It doesn’t represent any official organization of any clinical society. “We’ve not asked to be adopted by the American College of Rheumatology, EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology], or other international organizations,” Dr. Tugwell said. It offers a chance for patients, users, and doers of research to work together to agree on rigorous criteria accepted by the approval agencies and take the necessary time to work things through.

This is not a fast process, usually taking 4-6 years to initiate and establish an outcome domain set, he emphasized. “It would be beneficial to do it faster if we had the resources to meet every year. The fact is we’re a volunteer organization that meets every 2 years.”

Speed is a limitation, he acknowledged, but it’s an acceptable trade-off for doing things correctly.

The group has faced other challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, pivoting to a virtual format that had benefits and limitations.

In one respect, moving to a virtual meeting increased uptake in participation and voting, Dr. Tugwell said. Patient participants with severe rheumatoid arthritis no longer faced the challenges of travel. “On the other hand, we didn’t have the same opportunity to achieve common ground virtually,” he said. “Where there are strong disagreements, I’m a great believer that people need to know one another. There needs to be relationship building.”

OMERACT’s emerging leader program has been a cornerstone of its in-person meetings, engaging young rheumatologists to interact with some of the leaders of outcome measurement. The virtual format dampened this process somewhat, eliminating those important “café chats” between the stakeholders.

The hope is to bring people face-to-face once more at the next meeting in May 2023. The agenda will focus on relationship building, identifying controversial areas, and bringing younger people to develop relationships, Dr. Tugwell said. OMERACT will retain a virtual option for the worldwide voting, “which will allow for more buy-in from so many more people,” he added.
 

A consensus on pain

The onus of developing outcome measures that move with the times is sometimes too great for one group to manage. In 2018, OMERACT became a part of the Red Hat Group (RHG), an organization conceived at the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) VII meeting in Amsterdam.

RHG aims to improve the choice of outcomes in health research. It includes eight groups: COMET; OMERACT; the Cochrane Skin Core Outcome Set Initiative; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations; Center for Medical Technology Policy; COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments; Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium; and Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology.

The collaboration between groups offers a “very interesting interface between consensus building as well as hard evidence,” Dr. Tugwell said. The focus goes beyond rheumatology to other clinical areas of common interest, exploring how one classifies outcome domains in terms of symptoms, life impact, or death.

Pain is an important common denominator that the RHG has evaluated.

“We believe it’s too general. We’re trying to define pain across all Red Hat Groups because it’s clear that the research community has all these different scales for defining pain severity,” Dr. Tugwell said. “We have to find a way to make ruthless decisions and rules for doing it. And of course, it has to be transparent.”
 

Looking ahead

As part of its ongoing work, OMERACT is evaluating the robustness of instruments that rheumatologists use as outcome measures in clinical trials, which can be a laborious process. The OMERACT Filter 2.0, part of the latest iteration of the handbook, offers strong guidance for researchers but needs a long-term strategy and key methodological support. “To that end, we set up a technical advisory group to help people in the instrument selection work and that remains an ongoing process,” OMERACT leaders said in their joint statement.

OMERACT is looking at opportunities to create benchmark processes for developing core sets outside of rheumatology and a methodology around outcome measures such as contextual factors, composites, and surrogates.

It will also be taking a step back to solicit opinions from the approval agencies represented by the OMERACT membership on the OMERACT handbook.

The goal is to make sure the handbook aligns with everyone else’s approval and labeling requirements.
 

OMERACT’s patient participants bring important perspectives

OMERACT over the years has sought to become a more patient-centered group. Patients have been involved in OMERACT activities since its sixth meeting, forming an independent, yet integrated, group within the network. They have their own steering committee and produced and helped to update a glossary for OMERACT patients and professionals. 

Catherine (McGowan) Hofstetter, who was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis 30 years ago, chairs OMERACT’s Patient Research Partners Support Team. In a Q&A, she discussed the importance of patient voices and OMERACT’s plans to further educate and include patients in the dialogue on outcomes.

Question: Have patients always been a part of OMERACT meetings? 

Answer: Patients have been involved with OMERACT since 2002. The patient voice adds relevance to all the work that OMERACT does. You can’t begin to talk about outcomes unless there is a patient at the table with lived experience.

Q: Can you cite a few examples of how the patient voice enriches the conversation on outcomes research? 

A: Outcomes and priorities that are important to patients are often completely different than those of the clinician. For instance, a work outcome is important to someone who doesn’t have any medical insurance or disability insurance, so that you can ensure that there is food on the table and a roof over your head. Or it may be important to someone because the employment provides medical and disability insurance to provide security for them and their family. These are two different perspectives on work and therefore work priorities and outcomes.

Q: What have been some of the challenges of getting patients to participate?

A: Training patients is one challenge. OMERACT’s work has a very steep learning curve, and while the basics are the same between the groups in terms of looking at what we measure and how we measure it, the nuances of different working groups require a lot of time and energy to be comfortable enough with the work, and then be confident enough to bring your perspective and lived experience to the table. It’s also a very accomplished group, which can be quite intimidating. Self-disclosure is a very personal and intimate undertaking that requires patience, compassion, and respect.

Q: Are there any plans to enhance patient engagement?

A: When we had OMERACT 2020 it was a virtual conference that took place over about 6 months. We had far more patient research partners [PRPs] participate than we have ever had at any OMERACT face-to-face meeting. There is a desire and passion on the part of patients to lend their voices to the work. The working groups meet virtually throughout the year to advance their agendas, and PRPs are a part of each of the working groups. 

Hopefully, we can start working toward including more voices at the conferences by enabling a hybrid model. The PRP Support Team will begin engaging patients this fall with education, mentoring, and team-building exercises so by the time we meet in person in May 2023, they will have enough background knowledge and information to give them the confidence that will enhance their experience at the face-to-face meeting.

We also need to ensure that those patients who want to stay engaged can. This means that the education and training should continue long after the face-to-face meeting is over. We need to build capacity in the PRP group and look to succession planning and be a resource to working groups struggling to find PRPs to work with them on a longer-term basis.

Clinical research in rheumatology was suffering from an identity crisis of sorts 40 years ago. A lack of consensus across continents resulted in differing views about clinical outcome measures and judgments about treatments.

Patients were not allowed to be the generating source of a clinical outcome, according to Peter Tugwell, MSc, MD. “The only outcomes that were acceptable were clinician assessments, blood tests, and imaging,” said Dr. Tugwell, professor of medicine, epidemiology, and public health at the University of Ottawa (Ont.) and a practicing rheumatologist at Ottawa Hospital.

Clinicians were coming to different conclusions about patient responses to treatment when managing rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice.

OMERACT sought to address this lack of uniformity. This international group, formed in 1992, leverages stakeholder groups to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology endpoints through a consensus-building, data-driven format.

It was originally known as “Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials,” but its leaders have since broadened its scope to “Outcome Measures in Rheumatology.” Over the years, it has evolved into an international network that assesses measurement across a wide variety of intervention studies. Now 30 years old, the network spans 40 active working groups and has influenced work in patient outcomes across 500 peer-reviewed publications.

The network meets every 2 years to address what is always a challenging agenda, said Dr. Tugwell, one of its founding members and chair. “There’s lots of strong opinions.” Participating in the discussions are individuals from all stages of seniority in rheumatology and clinical epidemiology, patient research partners, industry, approval agencies, and many countries who are committed to the spirit of OMERACT.

“The secret to our success has been getting world leaders to come together and have those discussions, work them through, and identify common ground in such a way that the approval agencies accept these outcome measures in clinical trials,” he added.

“My impression was the founders perceived a problem in the early 1990s and devised a consensus method in an attempt to quantify clinical parameters to define disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis – an important first step to do clinical trials and allow comparisons between them,” said Patricia Woo, CBE, FMedSci, FRCP, emeritus professor of pediatric rheumatology and previous head of the Centre for Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology at UCL, London. At that time, even disease definitions varied between the United States and Europe and other parts of the world, said Dr. Woo, who is not a part of OMERACT. “This was especially true for pediatric rheumatology.”
 

Fusing the continental divide

OMERACT arose from a need to streamline clinical outcome measures in rheumatology. Research papers during the 1980s demonstrated a lack of coherence in managing patients with rheumatoid arthritis in routine practice. In addition, the measures used to define clinical endpoints in clinical trials operated in silos – they were either too specific to a certain trial, overlapped with other concepts, or didn’t reflect changes in treatment.

Approval agencies in Europe and North America were approving only outcomes measures developed by their respective researchers. This was also true of patients they tested on. “This seemed crazy,” Dr. Tugwell said.

Dr. Tugwell was involved in the Cochrane collaboration, which conducts systematic reviews of best evidence across the world that assesses the magnitude of benefits versus harms.

To achieve this goal, “you need to pull studies from around the world,” he said. Maarten Boers, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist (and later professor of clinical epidemiology at Amsterdam University Medical Center) from the Netherlands, spent a year in Ontario, Canada, to train as a clinical epidemiologist. Together, Dr. Tugwell and Dr. Boers began discussing options to develop more streamlined outcome measures.

Courtesy OMERACT

They initiated the first OMERACT conference in Maastricht, the Netherlands, in 1992. The Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency participated, along with leaders of outcomes measurement in Europe and in North America.

Discussions centered on methods to develop outcomes in a meaningful fashion. During the first meeting, North American and European approval agencies agreed to accept each other’s studies and endpoints and patient reported outcomes.

Agreement was achieved on a preliminary set of outcome domains and measures that later became known as the WHO-ILAR (World Health Organization–International League of Associations for Rheumatology) core set. The set included seven outcome domains: tender joints, swollen joints, pain, physician global assessment, patient global assessment, physical disability, and acute phase reactants, and one additional outcome domain for studies lasting 1 year or more: radiographs of the joints.

“A proactive program was planned to test not only the validity of these endpoints, but also the methods for their measurement. This was the start of a continuing process,” OMERACT members said in a joint statement for this article. Meetings have since taken place every 2 years.

Courtesy OMERACT

OMERACT accomplishments

OMERACT now requires buy-in from four continents: Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America.

Its leaders have developed an explicit process for gaining endorsement of core outcome domains and instrument measurement sets. To fully capture the possibilities of “what to measure,” i.e., “measurable aspects of health conditions,” OMERACT has developed a framework of concepts, core areas, and outcome domains. The key concepts are pathophysiology (with a core area termed “manifestations/abnormalities”) and impact (with core areas of “death/lifespan,” and “life impact,” and the optional area of “societal/resource use”). An outcome domain defines an element of a core area to measure the effects of a treatment, such as blood markers, pain intensity, physical function, or emotional well-being.

A core outcome domain set is developed by agreeing to at least one outcome domain within one of the three core areas. Subsequently, a core outcome measurement set is developed by agreeing to at least one applicable measurement instrument for each core outcome domain. This requires documentation of validity, summarized under three metrics: truth, discrimination, and feasibility.

OMERACT’s handbook provides tutelage on establishing and implementing core outcomes, and several workbooks offer guidance on developing core outcome domain sets, selecting instruments for core outcome measurement sets, and OMERACT methodology.

All this work has led to widespread adoption.

Approval agencies have accepted OMERACT’s filter and methods advances, which have been adopted by many research groups in rheumatology and among nonrheumatology research groups. Organizations such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke have sought its advice.

Its core outcomes have been adopted and used for approval in the great majority of studies on rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Tugwell said.

Several BMJ articles underscore the influence and uptake of OMERACT’s core outcome set. One 2017 paper, which analyzed 273 randomized trials of rheumatoid arthritis drug treatments on ClinicalTrials.gov, found that the WHO-ILAR arthritis core outcome set was reported in 81% of the studies. “The adoption of a core outcome set has the potential to increase consistency in outcomes measured across trials and ensure that trials are more likely to measure appropriate outcomes,” the authors concluded.

Since the initial 1992 meeting, OMERACT has broadened its focus from rheumatoid arthritis to 25 other musculoskeletal conditions.

For example, other OMERACT conferences have led to consensus on core sets of measures for osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, psychosocial measures, and a core set of data for cost-effectiveness evaluations.
 

‘Speed is a limitation’

OMERACT is a bottom-up volunteer organization. It doesn’t represent any official organization of any clinical society. “We’ve not asked to be adopted by the American College of Rheumatology, EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology], or other international organizations,” Dr. Tugwell said. It offers a chance for patients, users, and doers of research to work together to agree on rigorous criteria accepted by the approval agencies and take the necessary time to work things through.

This is not a fast process, usually taking 4-6 years to initiate and establish an outcome domain set, he emphasized. “It would be beneficial to do it faster if we had the resources to meet every year. The fact is we’re a volunteer organization that meets every 2 years.”

Speed is a limitation, he acknowledged, but it’s an acceptable trade-off for doing things correctly.

The group has faced other challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, pivoting to a virtual format that had benefits and limitations.

In one respect, moving to a virtual meeting increased uptake in participation and voting, Dr. Tugwell said. Patient participants with severe rheumatoid arthritis no longer faced the challenges of travel. “On the other hand, we didn’t have the same opportunity to achieve common ground virtually,” he said. “Where there are strong disagreements, I’m a great believer that people need to know one another. There needs to be relationship building.”

OMERACT’s emerging leader program has been a cornerstone of its in-person meetings, engaging young rheumatologists to interact with some of the leaders of outcome measurement. The virtual format dampened this process somewhat, eliminating those important “café chats” between the stakeholders.

The hope is to bring people face-to-face once more at the next meeting in May 2023. The agenda will focus on relationship building, identifying controversial areas, and bringing younger people to develop relationships, Dr. Tugwell said. OMERACT will retain a virtual option for the worldwide voting, “which will allow for more buy-in from so many more people,” he added.
 

A consensus on pain

The onus of developing outcome measures that move with the times is sometimes too great for one group to manage. In 2018, OMERACT became a part of the Red Hat Group (RHG), an organization conceived at the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) VII meeting in Amsterdam.

RHG aims to improve the choice of outcomes in health research. It includes eight groups: COMET; OMERACT; the Cochrane Skin Core Outcome Set Initiative; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations; Center for Medical Technology Policy; COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments; Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium; and Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology.

The collaboration between groups offers a “very interesting interface between consensus building as well as hard evidence,” Dr. Tugwell said. The focus goes beyond rheumatology to other clinical areas of common interest, exploring how one classifies outcome domains in terms of symptoms, life impact, or death.

Pain is an important common denominator that the RHG has evaluated.

“We believe it’s too general. We’re trying to define pain across all Red Hat Groups because it’s clear that the research community has all these different scales for defining pain severity,” Dr. Tugwell said. “We have to find a way to make ruthless decisions and rules for doing it. And of course, it has to be transparent.”
 

Looking ahead

As part of its ongoing work, OMERACT is evaluating the robustness of instruments that rheumatologists use as outcome measures in clinical trials, which can be a laborious process. The OMERACT Filter 2.0, part of the latest iteration of the handbook, offers strong guidance for researchers but needs a long-term strategy and key methodological support. “To that end, we set up a technical advisory group to help people in the instrument selection work and that remains an ongoing process,” OMERACT leaders said in their joint statement.

OMERACT is looking at opportunities to create benchmark processes for developing core sets outside of rheumatology and a methodology around outcome measures such as contextual factors, composites, and surrogates.

It will also be taking a step back to solicit opinions from the approval agencies represented by the OMERACT membership on the OMERACT handbook.

The goal is to make sure the handbook aligns with everyone else’s approval and labeling requirements.
 

OMERACT’s patient participants bring important perspectives

OMERACT over the years has sought to become a more patient-centered group. Patients have been involved in OMERACT activities since its sixth meeting, forming an independent, yet integrated, group within the network. They have their own steering committee and produced and helped to update a glossary for OMERACT patients and professionals. 

Catherine (McGowan) Hofstetter, who was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis 30 years ago, chairs OMERACT’s Patient Research Partners Support Team. In a Q&A, she discussed the importance of patient voices and OMERACT’s plans to further educate and include patients in the dialogue on outcomes.

Question: Have patients always been a part of OMERACT meetings? 

Answer: Patients have been involved with OMERACT since 2002. The patient voice adds relevance to all the work that OMERACT does. You can’t begin to talk about outcomes unless there is a patient at the table with lived experience.

Q: Can you cite a few examples of how the patient voice enriches the conversation on outcomes research? 

A: Outcomes and priorities that are important to patients are often completely different than those of the clinician. For instance, a work outcome is important to someone who doesn’t have any medical insurance or disability insurance, so that you can ensure that there is food on the table and a roof over your head. Or it may be important to someone because the employment provides medical and disability insurance to provide security for them and their family. These are two different perspectives on work and therefore work priorities and outcomes.

Q: What have been some of the challenges of getting patients to participate?

A: Training patients is one challenge. OMERACT’s work has a very steep learning curve, and while the basics are the same between the groups in terms of looking at what we measure and how we measure it, the nuances of different working groups require a lot of time and energy to be comfortable enough with the work, and then be confident enough to bring your perspective and lived experience to the table. It’s also a very accomplished group, which can be quite intimidating. Self-disclosure is a very personal and intimate undertaking that requires patience, compassion, and respect.

Q: Are there any plans to enhance patient engagement?

A: When we had OMERACT 2020 it was a virtual conference that took place over about 6 months. We had far more patient research partners [PRPs] participate than we have ever had at any OMERACT face-to-face meeting. There is a desire and passion on the part of patients to lend their voices to the work. The working groups meet virtually throughout the year to advance their agendas, and PRPs are a part of each of the working groups. 

Hopefully, we can start working toward including more voices at the conferences by enabling a hybrid model. The PRP Support Team will begin engaging patients this fall with education, mentoring, and team-building exercises so by the time we meet in person in May 2023, they will have enough background knowledge and information to give them the confidence that will enhance their experience at the face-to-face meeting.

We also need to ensure that those patients who want to stay engaged can. This means that the education and training should continue long after the face-to-face meeting is over. We need to build capacity in the PRP group and look to succession planning and be a resource to working groups struggling to find PRPs to work with them on a longer-term basis.

A commonly prescribed cancer and arthritis drug that is sometimes used as an oral abortifacient is facing prescription roadblocks in the wake of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade.

The Court’s 5-4 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which halted abortion procedures across the country, also appears to be affecting certain drug regimens. Reports have emerged that pharmacies are denying access to methotrexate (MTX), a drug often used in patients with arthritis or cancer, as well as psoriasis and other skin diseases. In very high doses, MTX it is used to terminate an ectopic pregnancy after miscarriage. The drug can also lead to birth defects.

“It’s happening all over,” Donald Miller, PharmD, professor of pharmacy practice at North Dakota State University, Fargo, said in an interview. “Pharmacists are reluctant to dispense it, and rheumatologists are reluctant to prescribe it because they’re afraid of going to jail.”

Becky Schwartz, a patient who takes MTX for lupus, recently tweeted that her physician’s office stopped prescribing the drug because it is considered an abortifacient. “I had care that made my disabled life easier, and [the Supreme Court] took that from me,” Ms. Schwartz wrote.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, physicians were concerned about the impact an overturning of the 1973 law would have on patient access to MTX and other prescription medications with abortifacient properties. Doctors in general are becoming afraid of prescribing anything that’s a teratogen, said Dr. Miller.

MTX is used far more often for autoimmune disease than as an abortifacient, said rheumatologist Kristen Young, MD, clinical assistant professor at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix. It’s a slippery slope if states reacting to the Supreme Court ruling start regulating oral abortifacients, she added. Specifically, this will have a significant impact on patients with rheumatic disease.
 

Texas pharmacies target two drugs

MTX denials have caught the attention of health care organizations. “Uncertainty in financial and criminal liability for health care professionals in certain state laws and regulations are possibly compromising continuity of care and access [to] medications proven to be safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration for these indications,” warned the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) in a statement to this news organization.

The APhA said that it was monitoring this situation to assess the effect on patients and pharmacists.

The Arthritis Foundation was made aware of challenges from patients in accessing their MTX prescription for managing their arthritis and shared a statement on the Foundation’s website.

In Texas, pharmacists can refuse to fill scripts for misoprostol and MTX, a combination used for medical abortions. According to the foundation, “Already there are reports that people in Texas who miscarry or take methotrexate for arthritis [are] having trouble getting their prescriptions filled.”

MTX, approved by the FDA in 1985, “is the absolute cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis. We cannot deny our patients this incredibly valuable drug,” said John Reveille, MD, vice-chair for the department of medicine at the University of Texas McGovern School of Medicine and a member of the Arthritis Foundation expert panel, in an interview.

“While it’s true that methotrexate can be lethal to the fetus, misoprostol is much more likely to cause a spontaneous abortion, and the combination is especially effective,” he said.

“If you look at Cochrane clinical studies, the dose of misoprostol contained in certain combinations with NSAIDs [nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs] can induce spontaneous abortions. It’s surprising that pharmacists are targeting methotrexate, an essential drug in arthritis treatment, when there are medications available that do not have this benefit that can by themselves cause loss of the fetus, such as mifepristone,” added Dr. Reveille.

The Dobbs ruling could also affect the ability of oncologists to provide lifesaving cancer care, according to Jason Westin, MD, an oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in the department of lymphoma and myeloma.

“We have heard of medications with multiple indications, such as methotrexate, not being dispensed by pharmacies due to confusion regarding the intended use and potential consequences for the health care team,” he said in an interview.
 

Conflicting laws pose challenges for physicians

In North Dakota, inconsistencies in several laws are making it difficult for physicians and pharmacists to make decisions. “Lots of confusion can result when people pass laws against abortion. There’s sometimes no insight into the ramifications of those laws,” said Dr. Miller.

North Dakota approved a trigger law several years ago that makes abortion illegal 30 days after an overturning of Roe. However, another law that regulates abortion conflicts with the trigger law. “Some of the language will need clarification in the next legislative session,” he said.

APhA and other pharmacy associations strongly favor not interfering with the doctor- or pharmacist-patient relationship. The law needs to defer to appropriate care between doctor and patient, said Dr. Miller. State pharmacy associations in North Dakota are working with legislatures to clarify any exceptions in the law, he added.

Arizona lawmakers are trying to reconcile two abortion laws on the books. One, based on an 1864 territorial law, deems abortion illegal. In addition, a newly approved law bans abortions after 15 weeks. The latter will go into effect in September 2022. In both laws, a risk to the mother’s life is the only exception for abortion, said Dr. Young.
 

Denials aren’t widespread

Not all doctors are seeing MTX denials, but they’re worried about the future. “To date, we have not encountered difficulty in obtaining methotrexate based upon state abortion restrictions but are concerned that this could occur and result in dangerous delays in care,” said Dr. Westin.

Dr. Reveille, who practices rheumatology in Houston, has not yet received any complaints from patients. Things may be different in more rural parts of Texas, where pharmacists could be denying prescriptions based on religious issues, he offered.

It’s a little soon to see what repercussions may result from the Supreme Court ruling and state actions, said Dr. Reveille. “In Texas, we’re a bit ahead of the tidal wave.”

Access problems also haven’t shown up at the university clinic where Dr. Young practices. “In Arizona, it’s unclear if there would be a legal basis to refuse a person methotrexate on the basis that it can be used as an abortifacient,” she said.

Specificity is key in writing Rx scripts

Physicians can make things easier for patients by writing the indication and dose for the drug on the prescription slip. For example, a 10-mg script for MTX is not going to be used for an abortion, said Dr. Miller.

Rheumatologists in Texas have been doing this for some time, even before the Supreme Court ruling, said Fehmida Zahabi, MD, FACR, president of the Society of Texas Association of Rheumatology. For MTX prescriptions in premenopausal women, “patients are told their doctor needs to call the pharmacist. In the small print, we are asked to give a diagnosis to make sure we aren’t using it to terminate pregnancies,” said Dr. Zahabi.

She further noted that if the diagnosis is already indicated on the script, pharmacies generally won’t give patients a hard time.

Patients can also ask their physicians for a letter of medical necessity that confirms a drug’s use for a specific medical condition.

Mail order is another option if a local pharmacy won’t fill a prescription, said Dr. Miller. “This is legal unless a state makes it illegal to send an abortifacient across state lines,” he added.

Many medications used in rheumatic diseases are harmful in pregnancy, and it’s important to routinely discuss pregnancy risk and planning in the rheumatology clinic, said Dr. Young. This should include a thorough discussion and referral for long-acting reversible contraception in most cases, she suggested.
 

Actions at the federal, state level 

President Joe Biden recently signed an executive order prompting federal regulators to protect access to medication abortions, among other steps to safeguard access to reproductive services.

In a statement on Twitter, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) said that it was “ ... following this issue closely to determine if rheumatology providers and patients are experiencing any widespread difficulty accessing methotrexate or if any initial disruptions are potentially temporary and due to the independent actions of pharmacists trying to figure out what is and isn’t allowed where they practice.”

ACR has assembled a task force of medical and policy experts to determine the best course of action for patients.

The Arthritis Foundation also continues to monitor the situation, encouraging patients to call its hotline, said Steven Schultz, director of state legislative affairs, in an interview.

“We are analyzing how medication abortion could cause confusion on the part of providers or pharmacists dispensing the medication and what this means for specific patients,” said Mr. Schultz. Through a survey, the foundation hopes to get a better idea of what’s going on in the states at a macro level.

This may take some time, as states go through a process of lawsuits, injunctions, or coming into session to do something that may affect access to MTX, said Mr. Schultz.

Being involved in local advocacy is more important than ever, stressed Dr. Young. “Additionally, being plugged into what the ACR and other advocacy groups are doing on the national level is helpful as well to know the status of these medication access issues.”

Rheumatologists have a unique voice in this discussion, she added. “We guide our patients to stability for a safe pregnancy, and even with careful planning, we see patients who become critically ill during pregnancy and require lifesaving treatment, which at times can mean an abortion is necessary.”

Oncologists also advocate for their patients on a regular basis to make sure they have access to the care they need, said Dr. Westin. This situation with Roe is no different, he added. “We will continue to use our unique expertise to advocate for policies that assure access to high-quality, evidence-based care – and to help our patients overcome barriers that may interfere.”

Dr. Reveille participated on an advisory board with Eli Lilly in October 2021.

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

A commonly prescribed cancer and arthritis drug that is sometimes used as an oral abortifacient is facing prescription roadblocks in the wake of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade.

The Court’s 5-4 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which halted abortion procedures across the country, also appears to be affecting certain drug regimens. Reports have emerged that pharmacies are denying access to methotrexate (MTX), a drug often used in patients with arthritis or cancer, as well as psoriasis and other skin diseases. In very high doses, MTX it is used to terminate an ectopic pregnancy after miscarriage. The drug can also lead to birth defects.

“It’s happening all over,” Donald Miller, PharmD, professor of pharmacy practice at North Dakota State University, Fargo, said in an interview. “Pharmacists are reluctant to dispense it, and rheumatologists are reluctant to prescribe it because they’re afraid of going to jail.”

Becky Schwartz, a patient who takes MTX for lupus, recently tweeted that her physician’s office stopped prescribing the drug because it is considered an abortifacient. “I had care that made my disabled life easier, and [the Supreme Court] took that from me,” Ms. Schwartz wrote.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, physicians were concerned about the impact an overturning of the 1973 law would have on patient access to MTX and other prescription medications with abortifacient properties. Doctors in general are becoming afraid of prescribing anything that’s a teratogen, said Dr. Miller.

MTX is used far more often for autoimmune disease than as an abortifacient, said rheumatologist Kristen Young, MD, clinical assistant professor at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix. It’s a slippery slope if states reacting to the Supreme Court ruling start regulating oral abortifacients, she added. Specifically, this will have a significant impact on patients with rheumatic disease.
 

Texas pharmacies target two drugs

MTX denials have caught the attention of health care organizations. “Uncertainty in financial and criminal liability for health care professionals in certain state laws and regulations are possibly compromising continuity of care and access [to] medications proven to be safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration for these indications,” warned the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) in a statement to this news organization.

The APhA said that it was monitoring this situation to assess the effect on patients and pharmacists.

The Arthritis Foundation was made aware of challenges from patients in accessing their MTX prescription for managing their arthritis and shared a statement on the Foundation’s website.

In Texas, pharmacists can refuse to fill scripts for misoprostol and MTX, a combination used for medical abortions. According to the foundation, “Already there are reports that people in Texas who miscarry or take methotrexate for arthritis [are] having trouble getting their prescriptions filled.”

MTX, approved by the FDA in 1985, “is the absolute cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis. We cannot deny our patients this incredibly valuable drug,” said John Reveille, MD, vice-chair for the department of medicine at the University of Texas McGovern School of Medicine and a member of the Arthritis Foundation expert panel, in an interview.

“While it’s true that methotrexate can be lethal to the fetus, misoprostol is much more likely to cause a spontaneous abortion, and the combination is especially effective,” he said.

“If you look at Cochrane clinical studies, the dose of misoprostol contained in certain combinations with NSAIDs [nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs] can induce spontaneous abortions. It’s surprising that pharmacists are targeting methotrexate, an essential drug in arthritis treatment, when there are medications available that do not have this benefit that can by themselves cause loss of the fetus, such as mifepristone,” added Dr. Reveille.

The Dobbs ruling could also affect the ability of oncologists to provide lifesaving cancer care, according to Jason Westin, MD, an oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in the department of lymphoma and myeloma.

“We have heard of medications with multiple indications, such as methotrexate, not being dispensed by pharmacies due to confusion regarding the intended use and potential consequences for the health care team,” he said in an interview.
 

Conflicting laws pose challenges for physicians

In North Dakota, inconsistencies in several laws are making it difficult for physicians and pharmacists to make decisions. “Lots of confusion can result when people pass laws against abortion. There’s sometimes no insight into the ramifications of those laws,” said Dr. Miller.

North Dakota approved a trigger law several years ago that makes abortion illegal 30 days after an overturning of Roe. However, another law that regulates abortion conflicts with the trigger law. “Some of the language will need clarification in the next legislative session,” he said.

APhA and other pharmacy associations strongly favor not interfering with the doctor- or pharmacist-patient relationship. The law needs to defer to appropriate care between doctor and patient, said Dr. Miller. State pharmacy associations in North Dakota are working with legislatures to clarify any exceptions in the law, he added.

Arizona lawmakers are trying to reconcile two abortion laws on the books. One, based on an 1864 territorial law, deems abortion illegal. In addition, a newly approved law bans abortions after 15 weeks. The latter will go into effect in September 2022. In both laws, a risk to the mother’s life is the only exception for abortion, said Dr. Young.
 

Denials aren’t widespread

Not all doctors are seeing MTX denials, but they’re worried about the future. “To date, we have not encountered difficulty in obtaining methotrexate based upon state abortion restrictions but are concerned that this could occur and result in dangerous delays in care,” said Dr. Westin.

Dr. Reveille, who practices rheumatology in Houston, has not yet received any complaints from patients. Things may be different in more rural parts of Texas, where pharmacists could be denying prescriptions based on religious issues, he offered.

It’s a little soon to see what repercussions may result from the Supreme Court ruling and state actions, said Dr. Reveille. “In Texas, we’re a bit ahead of the tidal wave.”

Access problems also haven’t shown up at the university clinic where Dr. Young practices. “In Arizona, it’s unclear if there would be a legal basis to refuse a person methotrexate on the basis that it can be used as an abortifacient,” she said.

Specificity is key in writing Rx scripts

Physicians can make things easier for patients by writing the indication and dose for the drug on the prescription slip. For example, a 10-mg script for MTX is not going to be used for an abortion, said Dr. Miller.

Rheumatologists in Texas have been doing this for some time, even before the Supreme Court ruling, said Fehmida Zahabi, MD, FACR, president of the Society of Texas Association of Rheumatology. For MTX prescriptions in premenopausal women, “patients are told their doctor needs to call the pharmacist. In the small print, we are asked to give a diagnosis to make sure we aren’t using it to terminate pregnancies,” said Dr. Zahabi.

She further noted that if the diagnosis is already indicated on the script, pharmacies generally won’t give patients a hard time.

Patients can also ask their physicians for a letter of medical necessity that confirms a drug’s use for a specific medical condition.

Mail order is another option if a local pharmacy won’t fill a prescription, said Dr. Miller. “This is legal unless a state makes it illegal to send an abortifacient across state lines,” he added.

Many medications used in rheumatic diseases are harmful in pregnancy, and it’s important to routinely discuss pregnancy risk and planning in the rheumatology clinic, said Dr. Young. This should include a thorough discussion and referral for long-acting reversible contraception in most cases, she suggested.
 

Actions at the federal, state level 

President Joe Biden recently signed an executive order prompting federal regulators to protect access to medication abortions, among other steps to safeguard access to reproductive services.

In a statement on Twitter, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) said that it was “ ... following this issue closely to determine if rheumatology providers and patients are experiencing any widespread difficulty accessing methotrexate or if any initial disruptions are potentially temporary and due to the independent actions of pharmacists trying to figure out what is and isn’t allowed where they practice.”

ACR has assembled a task force of medical and policy experts to determine the best course of action for patients.

The Arthritis Foundation also continues to monitor the situation, encouraging patients to call its hotline, said Steven Schultz, director of state legislative affairs, in an interview.

“We are analyzing how medication abortion could cause confusion on the part of providers or pharmacists dispensing the medication and what this means for specific patients,” said Mr. Schultz. Through a survey, the foundation hopes to get a better idea of what’s going on in the states at a macro level.

This may take some time, as states go through a process of lawsuits, injunctions, or coming into session to do something that may affect access to MTX, said Mr. Schultz.

Being involved in local advocacy is more important than ever, stressed Dr. Young. “Additionally, being plugged into what the ACR and other advocacy groups are doing on the national level is helpful as well to know the status of these medication access issues.”

Rheumatologists have a unique voice in this discussion, she added. “We guide our patients to stability for a safe pregnancy, and even with careful planning, we see patients who become critically ill during pregnancy and require lifesaving treatment, which at times can mean an abortion is necessary.”

Oncologists also advocate for their patients on a regular basis to make sure they have access to the care they need, said Dr. Westin. This situation with Roe is no different, he added. “We will continue to use our unique expertise to advocate for policies that assure access to high-quality, evidence-based care – and to help our patients overcome barriers that may interfere.”

Dr. Reveille participated on an advisory board with Eli Lilly in October 2021.

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

A commonly prescribed cancer and arthritis drug that is sometimes used as an oral abortifacient is facing prescription roadblocks in the wake of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade.

The Court’s 5-4 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which halted abortion procedures across the country, also appears to be affecting certain drug regimens. Reports have emerged that pharmacies are denying access to methotrexate (MTX), a drug often used in patients with arthritis or cancer, as well as psoriasis and other skin diseases. In very high doses, MTX it is used to terminate an ectopic pregnancy after miscarriage. The drug can also lead to birth defects.

“It’s happening all over,” Donald Miller, PharmD, professor of pharmacy practice at North Dakota State University, Fargo, said in an interview. “Pharmacists are reluctant to dispense it, and rheumatologists are reluctant to prescribe it because they’re afraid of going to jail.”

Becky Schwartz, a patient who takes MTX for lupus, recently tweeted that her physician’s office stopped prescribing the drug because it is considered an abortifacient. “I had care that made my disabled life easier, and [the Supreme Court] took that from me,” Ms. Schwartz wrote.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, physicians were concerned about the impact an overturning of the 1973 law would have on patient access to MTX and other prescription medications with abortifacient properties. Doctors in general are becoming afraid of prescribing anything that’s a teratogen, said Dr. Miller.

MTX is used far more often for autoimmune disease than as an abortifacient, said rheumatologist Kristen Young, MD, clinical assistant professor at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix. It’s a slippery slope if states reacting to the Supreme Court ruling start regulating oral abortifacients, she added. Specifically, this will have a significant impact on patients with rheumatic disease.
 

Texas pharmacies target two drugs

MTX denials have caught the attention of health care organizations. “Uncertainty in financial and criminal liability for health care professionals in certain state laws and regulations are possibly compromising continuity of care and access [to] medications proven to be safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration for these indications,” warned the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) in a statement to this news organization.

The APhA said that it was monitoring this situation to assess the effect on patients and pharmacists.

The Arthritis Foundation was made aware of challenges from patients in accessing their MTX prescription for managing their arthritis and shared a statement on the Foundation’s website.

In Texas, pharmacists can refuse to fill scripts for misoprostol and MTX, a combination used for medical abortions. According to the foundation, “Already there are reports that people in Texas who miscarry or take methotrexate for arthritis [are] having trouble getting their prescriptions filled.”

MTX, approved by the FDA in 1985, “is the absolute cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis. We cannot deny our patients this incredibly valuable drug,” said John Reveille, MD, vice-chair for the department of medicine at the University of Texas McGovern School of Medicine and a member of the Arthritis Foundation expert panel, in an interview.

“While it’s true that methotrexate can be lethal to the fetus, misoprostol is much more likely to cause a spontaneous abortion, and the combination is especially effective,” he said.

“If you look at Cochrane clinical studies, the dose of misoprostol contained in certain combinations with NSAIDs [nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs] can induce spontaneous abortions. It’s surprising that pharmacists are targeting methotrexate, an essential drug in arthritis treatment, when there are medications available that do not have this benefit that can by themselves cause loss of the fetus, such as mifepristone,” added Dr. Reveille.

The Dobbs ruling could also affect the ability of oncologists to provide lifesaving cancer care, according to Jason Westin, MD, an oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in the department of lymphoma and myeloma.

“We have heard of medications with multiple indications, such as methotrexate, not being dispensed by pharmacies due to confusion regarding the intended use and potential consequences for the health care team,” he said in an interview.
 

Conflicting laws pose challenges for physicians

In North Dakota, inconsistencies in several laws are making it difficult for physicians and pharmacists to make decisions. “Lots of confusion can result when people pass laws against abortion. There’s sometimes no insight into the ramifications of those laws,” said Dr. Miller.

North Dakota approved a trigger law several years ago that makes abortion illegal 30 days after an overturning of Roe. However, another law that regulates abortion conflicts with the trigger law. “Some of the language will need clarification in the next legislative session,” he said.

APhA and other pharmacy associations strongly favor not interfering with the doctor- or pharmacist-patient relationship. The law needs to defer to appropriate care between doctor and patient, said Dr. Miller. State pharmacy associations in North Dakota are working with legislatures to clarify any exceptions in the law, he added.

Arizona lawmakers are trying to reconcile two abortion laws on the books. One, based on an 1864 territorial law, deems abortion illegal. In addition, a newly approved law bans abortions after 15 weeks. The latter will go into effect in September 2022. In both laws, a risk to the mother’s life is the only exception for abortion, said Dr. Young.
 

Denials aren’t widespread

Not all doctors are seeing MTX denials, but they’re worried about the future. “To date, we have not encountered difficulty in obtaining methotrexate based upon state abortion restrictions but are concerned that this could occur and result in dangerous delays in care,” said Dr. Westin.

Dr. Reveille, who practices rheumatology in Houston, has not yet received any complaints from patients. Things may be different in more rural parts of Texas, where pharmacists could be denying prescriptions based on religious issues, he offered.

It’s a little soon to see what repercussions may result from the Supreme Court ruling and state actions, said Dr. Reveille. “In Texas, we’re a bit ahead of the tidal wave.”

Access problems also haven’t shown up at the university clinic where Dr. Young practices. “In Arizona, it’s unclear if there would be a legal basis to refuse a person methotrexate on the basis that it can be used as an abortifacient,” she said.

Specificity is key in writing Rx scripts

Physicians can make things easier for patients by writing the indication and dose for the drug on the prescription slip. For example, a 10-mg script for MTX is not going to be used for an abortion, said Dr. Miller.

Rheumatologists in Texas have been doing this for some time, even before the Supreme Court ruling, said Fehmida Zahabi, MD, FACR, president of the Society of Texas Association of Rheumatology. For MTX prescriptions in premenopausal women, “patients are told their doctor needs to call the pharmacist. In the small print, we are asked to give a diagnosis to make sure we aren’t using it to terminate pregnancies,” said Dr. Zahabi.

She further noted that if the diagnosis is already indicated on the script, pharmacies generally won’t give patients a hard time.

Patients can also ask their physicians for a letter of medical necessity that confirms a drug’s use for a specific medical condition.

Mail order is another option if a local pharmacy won’t fill a prescription, said Dr. Miller. “This is legal unless a state makes it illegal to send an abortifacient across state lines,” he added.

Many medications used in rheumatic diseases are harmful in pregnancy, and it’s important to routinely discuss pregnancy risk and planning in the rheumatology clinic, said Dr. Young. This should include a thorough discussion and referral for long-acting reversible contraception in most cases, she suggested.
 

Actions at the federal, state level 

President Joe Biden recently signed an executive order prompting federal regulators to protect access to medication abortions, among other steps to safeguard access to reproductive services.

In a statement on Twitter, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) said that it was “ ... following this issue closely to determine if rheumatology providers and patients are experiencing any widespread difficulty accessing methotrexate or if any initial disruptions are potentially temporary and due to the independent actions of pharmacists trying to figure out what is and isn’t allowed where they practice.”

ACR has assembled a task force of medical and policy experts to determine the best course of action for patients.

The Arthritis Foundation also continues to monitor the situation, encouraging patients to call its hotline, said Steven Schultz, director of state legislative affairs, in an interview.

“We are analyzing how medication abortion could cause confusion on the part of providers or pharmacists dispensing the medication and what this means for specific patients,” said Mr. Schultz. Through a survey, the foundation hopes to get a better idea of what’s going on in the states at a macro level.

This may take some time, as states go through a process of lawsuits, injunctions, or coming into session to do something that may affect access to MTX, said Mr. Schultz.

Being involved in local advocacy is more important than ever, stressed Dr. Young. “Additionally, being plugged into what the ACR and other advocacy groups are doing on the national level is helpful as well to know the status of these medication access issues.”

Rheumatologists have a unique voice in this discussion, she added. “We guide our patients to stability for a safe pregnancy, and even with careful planning, we see patients who become critically ill during pregnancy and require lifesaving treatment, which at times can mean an abortion is necessary.”

Oncologists also advocate for their patients on a regular basis to make sure they have access to the care they need, said Dr. Westin. This situation with Roe is no different, he added. “We will continue to use our unique expertise to advocate for policies that assure access to high-quality, evidence-based care – and to help our patients overcome barriers that may interfere.”

Dr. Reveille participated on an advisory board with Eli Lilly in October 2021.

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

Obstetrician Beverly Gray, MD, is already seeing the effects of the Roe v. Wade abortion debate in her North Carolina practice.

The state allows abortion but requires that women get counseling with a qualified health professional 72 hours before the procedure. “Aside from that, we still have patients asking for more efficacious contraceptive methods just in case,” said Dr. Gray, residency director and division director for women’s community and population health and associate professor for obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Patients and staff in her clinic have also been approaching her about tubal ligation. “They’re asking about additional birth control methods because they’re concerned about what’s going to happen” with the challenge to the historic Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court and subsequent actions in the states to restrict or ban abortion, she said.

This has implications not just for abortion but for medications known to affect pregnancy. “What I’m really worried about is physicians will be withholding medicine because they’re concerned about teratogenic effects,” said Dr. Gray.

With more states issuing restrictions on abortion, doctors are worried that patients needing certain drugs to maintain their lupus flares, cancer, or other diseases may decide not to take them in the event they accidentally become pregnant. If the drug is known to affect the fetus, the fear is a patient who lives in a state with abortion restrictions will no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy.

zoranm/Getty Images

The U.S. landscape on abortion restrictions

A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban has sent the medical community into a tailspin. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that affirms the constitutional right to abortion. It’s anticipated the high court will decide on the case in June.

Although the upcoming decision is subject to change, the draft indicated the high court would uphold the Mississippi ban. This would essentially overturn the 1973 ruling. An earlier Supreme Court decision allowing a Texas law banning abortion at 6 weeks suggests the court may already be heading in this direction. At the state level, legislatures have been moving on divergent paths – some taking steps to preserve abortion rights, others initiating restrictions.

More than 100 abortion restrictions in 19 states took effect in 2021, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks such metrics. In 2022, “two key themes are anti-abortion policymakers’ continued pursuit of various types of abortion bans and restrictions on medication abortion,” the institute reported.

Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have introduced 2,025 restrictions or proactive measures on sexual and reproductive health and rights so far this year. The latest tally from Guttmacher, updated in late May, revealed that 11 states so far have enacted 42 abortion restrictions. A total of 6 states (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have issued nine bans on abortion.

Comparatively, 11 states have enacted 19 protective abortion measures.

Twenty-two states have introduced 117 restrictions on medication abortions, which account for 54% of U.S. abortions. This includes seven measures that would ban medication abortion outright, according to Guttmacher. Kentucky and South Dakota collectively have enacted 14 restrictions on medication abortion, as well as provisions that ban mailing of abortion pills.
 

Chilling effect on prescribing

Some physicians anticipate that drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel) will become less available as restrictions go into effect, since these are medications designed to prevent pregnancy.*

However, the ongoing effort to put a lid on abortion measures has prompted concerns about a trickle-down effect on other medications that are otherwise life-changing or lifesaving to patients but pose a risk to the fetus.

Several drugs are well documented to affect fetal growth and development of the fetus, ranging from mild, transitory effects to severe, permanent birth defects, said Ronald G. Grifka, MD, chief medical officer of University of Michigan Health-West and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. “As new medications are developed, we will need heightened attention to make sure they are safe for the fetus,” he added.

Christina Chambers

The iPLEDGE factor

Some rheumatology drugs like lenalidomide (Revlimid) require a valid negative pregnancy test in a lab every month. Similarly, the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy seeks to reduce the teratogenicity of isotretinoin by requiring two types of birth control and regular pregnancy tests by users.

For isotretinoin specifically, abortion restrictions “could lead to increased adherence to pregnancy prevention measures which are already stringent in iPLEDGE. But on the other hand, it could lead to reduced willingness of physicians to prescribe or patients to take the medication,” said Dr. Chambers.

With programs like iPLEDGE in effect, the rate of pregnancies and abortions that occur in dermatology are relatively low, said Jenny Murase, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.

Fewer women in clinical trials?

Abortion restrictions could possibly discourage women of reproductive age to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication, said Dr. Chambers.

A female patient with a chronic disease who’s randomized to receive a new medication may be required to use certain types of birth control because of unknown potential adverse effects the drug may have on the fetus. But in some cases, accidental pregnancies happen.

The participant in the trial may say, “I don’t know enough about the safety of this drug in pregnancy, and I’ve already taken it. I want to terminate the pregnancy,” said Dr. Chambers. Thinking ahead, a woman may decide not to do the trial to avoid the risk of getting pregnant and not having the option to terminate the pregnancy.

This could apply to new drugs such as antiviral treatments, or medications for severe chronic disease that typically have no clinical trial data in pregnancy prior to initial release into the market.

Women may start taking the drug without thinking about getting pregnant, then realize there are no safety data and become concerned about its effects on a future pregnancy.

The question is: Will abortion restrictions have a chilling effect on these new drugs as well? Patients and their doctors may decide not to try it until more data are available. “I can see where abortion restrictions would change the risk or benefit calculation in thinking about what you do or don’t prescribe or take during reproductive age,” said Dr. Chambers.
 

The upside of restrictions?

If there’s a positive side to these developments with abortion bans, it may encourage women taking new medications or joining clinical trials to think even more carefully about adherence to effective contraception, said Dr. Chambers.

Some methods are more effective than others, she emphasized. “When you have an unplanned pregnancy, it could mean that the method you used wasn’t optimal or you weren’t using it as recommended.” A goal moving forward is to encourage more thoughtful use of highly effective contraceptives, thus reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, she added.

If patients are taking methotrexate, “the time to think about pregnancy is before getting pregnant so you can switch to a drug that’s compatible with pregnancy,” she said.

This whole thought process regarding pregnancy planning could work toward useful health goals, said Dr. Chambers. “Nobody thinks termination is the preferred method, but planning ahead should involve a discussion of what works best for the patient.”

Patients do have other choices, said Dr. Grifka. “Fortunately, there are many commonly prescribed medications which cross the placenta and have no ill effects on the fetus.”

Talking to patients about choices

Dr. Clowse, who spends a lot of time training rheumatologists, encourages them to have conversations with patients about pregnancy planning. It’s a lot to manage, getting the right drug to a female patient with chronic illness, especially in this current climate of abortion upheaval, she noted.

Her approach is to have an open and honest conversation with patients about their concerns and fears, what the realities are, and what the potential future options are for certain rheumatology drugs in the United States.

Some women who see what’s happening across the country may become so risk averse that they may choose to die rather than take a lifesaving drug that poses certain risks under new restrictions.

“I think that’s tragic,” said Dr. Clowse.

To help their patients, Dr. Gray believes physicians across specialties should better educate themselves about physiology in pregnancy and how to counsel patients on the impact of not taking medications in pregnancy.

In her view, it’s almost coercive to say to a patient, “You really need to have effective contraception if I’m going to give you this lifesaving or quality-of-life-improving medication.”

When confronting such scenarios, Dr. Gray doesn’t think physicians need to change how they counsel patients about contraception. “I don’t think we should be putting pressure on patients to consider other permanent methods just because there’s a lack of abortion options.”

Patients will eventually make those decisions for themselves, she said. “They’re going to want a more efficacious method because they’re worried about not having access to abortion if they get pregnant.”

Dr. Gray reports being a site principal investigator for a phase 3 trial for VeraCept IUD, funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clowse reports receiving research funding and doing consulting for GlaxoSmithKline.

*Correction, 6/2/2022: A previous version of this article misstated the intended use of drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel). They are taken to prevent unintended pregnancy.

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

Obstetrician Beverly Gray, MD, is already seeing the effects of the Roe v. Wade abortion debate in her North Carolina practice.

The state allows abortion but requires that women get counseling with a qualified health professional 72 hours before the procedure. “Aside from that, we still have patients asking for more efficacious contraceptive methods just in case,” said Dr. Gray, residency director and division director for women’s community and population health and associate professor for obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Patients and staff in her clinic have also been approaching her about tubal ligation. “They’re asking about additional birth control methods because they’re concerned about what’s going to happen” with the challenge to the historic Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court and subsequent actions in the states to restrict or ban abortion, she said.

This has implications not just for abortion but for medications known to affect pregnancy. “What I’m really worried about is physicians will be withholding medicine because they’re concerned about teratogenic effects,” said Dr. Gray.

With more states issuing restrictions on abortion, doctors are worried that patients needing certain drugs to maintain their lupus flares, cancer, or other diseases may decide not to take them in the event they accidentally become pregnant. If the drug is known to affect the fetus, the fear is a patient who lives in a state with abortion restrictions will no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy.

zoranm/Getty Images

The U.S. landscape on abortion restrictions

A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban has sent the medical community into a tailspin. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that affirms the constitutional right to abortion. It’s anticipated the high court will decide on the case in June.

Although the upcoming decision is subject to change, the draft indicated the high court would uphold the Mississippi ban. This would essentially overturn the 1973 ruling. An earlier Supreme Court decision allowing a Texas law banning abortion at 6 weeks suggests the court may already be heading in this direction. At the state level, legislatures have been moving on divergent paths – some taking steps to preserve abortion rights, others initiating restrictions.

More than 100 abortion restrictions in 19 states took effect in 2021, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks such metrics. In 2022, “two key themes are anti-abortion policymakers’ continued pursuit of various types of abortion bans and restrictions on medication abortion,” the institute reported.

Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have introduced 2,025 restrictions or proactive measures on sexual and reproductive health and rights so far this year. The latest tally from Guttmacher, updated in late May, revealed that 11 states so far have enacted 42 abortion restrictions. A total of 6 states (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have issued nine bans on abortion.

Comparatively, 11 states have enacted 19 protective abortion measures.

Twenty-two states have introduced 117 restrictions on medication abortions, which account for 54% of U.S. abortions. This includes seven measures that would ban medication abortion outright, according to Guttmacher. Kentucky and South Dakota collectively have enacted 14 restrictions on medication abortion, as well as provisions that ban mailing of abortion pills.
 

Chilling effect on prescribing

Some physicians anticipate that drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel) will become less available as restrictions go into effect, since these are medications designed to prevent pregnancy.*

However, the ongoing effort to put a lid on abortion measures has prompted concerns about a trickle-down effect on other medications that are otherwise life-changing or lifesaving to patients but pose a risk to the fetus.

Several drugs are well documented to affect fetal growth and development of the fetus, ranging from mild, transitory effects to severe, permanent birth defects, said Ronald G. Grifka, MD, chief medical officer of University of Michigan Health-West and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. “As new medications are developed, we will need heightened attention to make sure they are safe for the fetus,” he added.

Christina Chambers

The iPLEDGE factor

Some rheumatology drugs like lenalidomide (Revlimid) require a valid negative pregnancy test in a lab every month. Similarly, the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy seeks to reduce the teratogenicity of isotretinoin by requiring two types of birth control and regular pregnancy tests by users.

For isotretinoin specifically, abortion restrictions “could lead to increased adherence to pregnancy prevention measures which are already stringent in iPLEDGE. But on the other hand, it could lead to reduced willingness of physicians to prescribe or patients to take the medication,” said Dr. Chambers.

With programs like iPLEDGE in effect, the rate of pregnancies and abortions that occur in dermatology are relatively low, said Jenny Murase, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.

Fewer women in clinical trials?

Abortion restrictions could possibly discourage women of reproductive age to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication, said Dr. Chambers.

A female patient with a chronic disease who’s randomized to receive a new medication may be required to use certain types of birth control because of unknown potential adverse effects the drug may have on the fetus. But in some cases, accidental pregnancies happen.

The participant in the trial may say, “I don’t know enough about the safety of this drug in pregnancy, and I’ve already taken it. I want to terminate the pregnancy,” said Dr. Chambers. Thinking ahead, a woman may decide not to do the trial to avoid the risk of getting pregnant and not having the option to terminate the pregnancy.

This could apply to new drugs such as antiviral treatments, or medications for severe chronic disease that typically have no clinical trial data in pregnancy prior to initial release into the market.

Women may start taking the drug without thinking about getting pregnant, then realize there are no safety data and become concerned about its effects on a future pregnancy.

The question is: Will abortion restrictions have a chilling effect on these new drugs as well? Patients and their doctors may decide not to try it until more data are available. “I can see where abortion restrictions would change the risk or benefit calculation in thinking about what you do or don’t prescribe or take during reproductive age,” said Dr. Chambers.
 

The upside of restrictions?

If there’s a positive side to these developments with abortion bans, it may encourage women taking new medications or joining clinical trials to think even more carefully about adherence to effective contraception, said Dr. Chambers.

Some methods are more effective than others, she emphasized. “When you have an unplanned pregnancy, it could mean that the method you used wasn’t optimal or you weren’t using it as recommended.” A goal moving forward is to encourage more thoughtful use of highly effective contraceptives, thus reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, she added.

If patients are taking methotrexate, “the time to think about pregnancy is before getting pregnant so you can switch to a drug that’s compatible with pregnancy,” she said.

This whole thought process regarding pregnancy planning could work toward useful health goals, said Dr. Chambers. “Nobody thinks termination is the preferred method, but planning ahead should involve a discussion of what works best for the patient.”

Patients do have other choices, said Dr. Grifka. “Fortunately, there are many commonly prescribed medications which cross the placenta and have no ill effects on the fetus.”

Talking to patients about choices

Dr. Clowse, who spends a lot of time training rheumatologists, encourages them to have conversations with patients about pregnancy planning. It’s a lot to manage, getting the right drug to a female patient with chronic illness, especially in this current climate of abortion upheaval, she noted.

Her approach is to have an open and honest conversation with patients about their concerns and fears, what the realities are, and what the potential future options are for certain rheumatology drugs in the United States.

Some women who see what’s happening across the country may become so risk averse that they may choose to die rather than take a lifesaving drug that poses certain risks under new restrictions.

“I think that’s tragic,” said Dr. Clowse.

To help their patients, Dr. Gray believes physicians across specialties should better educate themselves about physiology in pregnancy and how to counsel patients on the impact of not taking medications in pregnancy.

In her view, it’s almost coercive to say to a patient, “You really need to have effective contraception if I’m going to give you this lifesaving or quality-of-life-improving medication.”

When confronting such scenarios, Dr. Gray doesn’t think physicians need to change how they counsel patients about contraception. “I don’t think we should be putting pressure on patients to consider other permanent methods just because there’s a lack of abortion options.”

Patients will eventually make those decisions for themselves, she said. “They’re going to want a more efficacious method because they’re worried about not having access to abortion if they get pregnant.”

Dr. Gray reports being a site principal investigator for a phase 3 trial for VeraCept IUD, funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clowse reports receiving research funding and doing consulting for GlaxoSmithKline.

*Correction, 6/2/2022: A previous version of this article misstated the intended use of drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel). They are taken to prevent unintended pregnancy.

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

Obstetrician Beverly Gray, MD, is already seeing the effects of the Roe v. Wade abortion debate in her North Carolina practice.

The state allows abortion but requires that women get counseling with a qualified health professional 72 hours before the procedure. “Aside from that, we still have patients asking for more efficacious contraceptive methods just in case,” said Dr. Gray, residency director and division director for women’s community and population health and associate professor for obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Patients and staff in her clinic have also been approaching her about tubal ligation. “They’re asking about additional birth control methods because they’re concerned about what’s going to happen” with the challenge to the historic Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court and subsequent actions in the states to restrict or ban abortion, she said.

This has implications not just for abortion but for medications known to affect pregnancy. “What I’m really worried about is physicians will be withholding medicine because they’re concerned about teratogenic effects,” said Dr. Gray.

With more states issuing restrictions on abortion, doctors are worried that patients needing certain drugs to maintain their lupus flares, cancer, or other diseases may decide not to take them in the event they accidentally become pregnant. If the drug is known to affect the fetus, the fear is a patient who lives in a state with abortion restrictions will no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy.

zoranm/Getty Images

The U.S. landscape on abortion restrictions

A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban has sent the medical community into a tailspin. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that affirms the constitutional right to abortion. It’s anticipated the high court will decide on the case in June.

Although the upcoming decision is subject to change, the draft indicated the high court would uphold the Mississippi ban. This would essentially overturn the 1973 ruling. An earlier Supreme Court decision allowing a Texas law banning abortion at 6 weeks suggests the court may already be heading in this direction. At the state level, legislatures have been moving on divergent paths – some taking steps to preserve abortion rights, others initiating restrictions.

More than 100 abortion restrictions in 19 states took effect in 2021, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks such metrics. In 2022, “two key themes are anti-abortion policymakers’ continued pursuit of various types of abortion bans and restrictions on medication abortion,” the institute reported.

Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have introduced 2,025 restrictions or proactive measures on sexual and reproductive health and rights so far this year. The latest tally from Guttmacher, updated in late May, revealed that 11 states so far have enacted 42 abortion restrictions. A total of 6 states (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have issued nine bans on abortion.

Comparatively, 11 states have enacted 19 protective abortion measures.

Twenty-two states have introduced 117 restrictions on medication abortions, which account for 54% of U.S. abortions. This includes seven measures that would ban medication abortion outright, according to Guttmacher. Kentucky and South Dakota collectively have enacted 14 restrictions on medication abortion, as well as provisions that ban mailing of abortion pills.
 

Chilling effect on prescribing

Some physicians anticipate that drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel) will become less available as restrictions go into effect, since these are medications designed to prevent pregnancy.*

However, the ongoing effort to put a lid on abortion measures has prompted concerns about a trickle-down effect on other medications that are otherwise life-changing or lifesaving to patients but pose a risk to the fetus.

Several drugs are well documented to affect fetal growth and development of the fetus, ranging from mild, transitory effects to severe, permanent birth defects, said Ronald G. Grifka, MD, chief medical officer of University of Michigan Health-West and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. “As new medications are developed, we will need heightened attention to make sure they are safe for the fetus,” he added.

Christina Chambers

The iPLEDGE factor

Some rheumatology drugs like lenalidomide (Revlimid) require a valid negative pregnancy test in a lab every month. Similarly, the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy seeks to reduce the teratogenicity of isotretinoin by requiring two types of birth control and regular pregnancy tests by users.

For isotretinoin specifically, abortion restrictions “could lead to increased adherence to pregnancy prevention measures which are already stringent in iPLEDGE. But on the other hand, it could lead to reduced willingness of physicians to prescribe or patients to take the medication,” said Dr. Chambers.

With programs like iPLEDGE in effect, the rate of pregnancies and abortions that occur in dermatology are relatively low, said Jenny Murase, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.

Fewer women in clinical trials?

Abortion restrictions could possibly discourage women of reproductive age to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication, said Dr. Chambers.

A female patient with a chronic disease who’s randomized to receive a new medication may be required to use certain types of birth control because of unknown potential adverse effects the drug may have on the fetus. But in some cases, accidental pregnancies happen.

The participant in the trial may say, “I don’t know enough about the safety of this drug in pregnancy, and I’ve already taken it. I want to terminate the pregnancy,” said Dr. Chambers. Thinking ahead, a woman may decide not to do the trial to avoid the risk of getting pregnant and not having the option to terminate the pregnancy.

This could apply to new drugs such as antiviral treatments, or medications for severe chronic disease that typically have no clinical trial data in pregnancy prior to initial release into the market.

Women may start taking the drug without thinking about getting pregnant, then realize there are no safety data and become concerned about its effects on a future pregnancy.

The question is: Will abortion restrictions have a chilling effect on these new drugs as well? Patients and their doctors may decide not to try it until more data are available. “I can see where abortion restrictions would change the risk or benefit calculation in thinking about what you do or don’t prescribe or take during reproductive age,” said Dr. Chambers.
 

The upside of restrictions?

If there’s a positive side to these developments with abortion bans, it may encourage women taking new medications or joining clinical trials to think even more carefully about adherence to effective contraception, said Dr. Chambers.

Some methods are more effective than others, she emphasized. “When you have an unplanned pregnancy, it could mean that the method you used wasn’t optimal or you weren’t using it as recommended.” A goal moving forward is to encourage more thoughtful use of highly effective contraceptives, thus reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, she added.

If patients are taking methotrexate, “the time to think about pregnancy is before getting pregnant so you can switch to a drug that’s compatible with pregnancy,” she said.

This whole thought process regarding pregnancy planning could work toward useful health goals, said Dr. Chambers. “Nobody thinks termination is the preferred method, but planning ahead should involve a discussion of what works best for the patient.”

Patients do have other choices, said Dr. Grifka. “Fortunately, there are many commonly prescribed medications which cross the placenta and have no ill effects on the fetus.”

Talking to patients about choices

Dr. Clowse, who spends a lot of time training rheumatologists, encourages them to have conversations with patients about pregnancy planning. It’s a lot to manage, getting the right drug to a female patient with chronic illness, especially in this current climate of abortion upheaval, she noted.

Her approach is to have an open and honest conversation with patients about their concerns and fears, what the realities are, and what the potential future options are for certain rheumatology drugs in the United States.

Some women who see what’s happening across the country may become so risk averse that they may choose to die rather than take a lifesaving drug that poses certain risks under new restrictions.

“I think that’s tragic,” said Dr. Clowse.

To help their patients, Dr. Gray believes physicians across specialties should better educate themselves about physiology in pregnancy and how to counsel patients on the impact of not taking medications in pregnancy.

In her view, it’s almost coercive to say to a patient, “You really need to have effective contraception if I’m going to give you this lifesaving or quality-of-life-improving medication.”

When confronting such scenarios, Dr. Gray doesn’t think physicians need to change how they counsel patients about contraception. “I don’t think we should be putting pressure on patients to consider other permanent methods just because there’s a lack of abortion options.”

Patients will eventually make those decisions for themselves, she said. “They’re going to want a more efficacious method because they’re worried about not having access to abortion if they get pregnant.”

Dr. Gray reports being a site principal investigator for a phase 3 trial for VeraCept IUD, funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clowse reports receiving research funding and doing consulting for GlaxoSmithKline.

*Correction, 6/2/2022: A previous version of this article misstated the intended use of drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel). They are taken to prevent unintended pregnancy.

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

A study that tracked psychopathology in 13,000 children and adolescents found that mental health difficulties fluctuate over time, especially in younger children, and those trajectories differ among boys and girls.

Investigators also found a strong correlation between new incidence of high psychopathology and externalizing problems such as hyperactivity. “It is of paramount importance to identify factors that distinguish those with persisting problems and escalating trajectories so that resources can be appropriately directed,” wrote the authors of the study published online in JAMA Network Open.

Recent studies have shown that concurrent and sequential comorbidity of psychiatric disorders are very common in adult populations, lead author Colm Healy, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher for psychiatry with the University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ireland, said in an interview.

The speculation is that this occurs in early life when psychiatry symptoms experience high fluidity. “This presents a complex scenario to model, where young people’s mental health appears to shift and change across development. Few investigations to date have had the data available to examine these trajectories over the full range of child development,” said Dr. Healy.

He and his colleagues attempted to map the profiles and trajectories of psychopathology in children and adolescents, using latent profile transition analysis (LPTA), a person-centered method, to assess comorbidity and movement in the various phases of childhood development.

“The idea behind person-centered methods such as LTPA is that it identifies unobserved subgroups of participants who respond similarly to specific variables – in this case responses to a broad measure of psychopathology,” explained Dr. Healy.

The study included 7,507 children from the child sample (ages 3, 5, and 9 years) and 6,039 children from the adolescent sample (ages 9, 13, and 17 or 18 years). Data analysis took place from October 2020 to September 2021.

Dr. Healy and colleagues in a supplementary investigation compared cohorts at age 9 years to look for sex and generational differences.
 

Four developmental profiles

Researchers identified 4 distinct developmental profies for person-centered psychopathological trajectories: no psychopathology (incidence range, 60%-70%), high psychopathology (incidence range, 3%-5%), externalizing problems (incidence range, 15%-25%), and internalizing problems (incidence range, 7%-12%).

Internalizing problems reflect issues with peers and emotional problems whereas externalizing problems more closely associate with hyperactivity and conduct.

Less than 5% of the youth studied experienced persistent symptoms. However, 48.6% in the child cohort and 44.1% in the adolescent cohort moved into one of the 3 psychopathology profiles (high psychopathology, externalizing, internalizing problems) at some point in development.

The spread of trajectories was more diverse in the child cohort, said Dr. Healy. “Children ebbed and flowed between the different profiles over time with a large proportion falling into one of the psychopathology categories and then switching between these profiles.” Switching was also evident in the adolescent cohort but to a lesser extent, he said.
 

Externalizing problems link to high psychopathology

Rates of remittance were higher among individuals in both cohorts for internalizing problems, compared with externalizing problems.

It’s possible that for some of these young people, internalizing problems are a reaction to environmental stressors such as bullying,” said Dr. Healy. “When that stress is relieved, the internalizing problems may dissipate.”

In a clinically relevant finding, children with externalizing problems (age 5, 129 [61.3%] and age 9, 95 [74.3%]) were more likely to present with new incidents of high psychopathology. This was also true in the adolescent group (age 13, 129 [91.1%] and age 17, 146 [89.9%]).

This suggests that a proportion of youth with externalizing problems have an escalating trajectory of psychopathology. “Thus, it may be possible to distinguish those with an escalating trajectory from a stable or remitting trajectory. The specific distinguishing factors require further investigation, but it has been observed before that some of those reporting externalizing problems in early life continue to have difficulties into later life,” noted Dr. Healy.

A combination of environmental or biological factors may explain this escalation, which could respond to early intervention, he said.

Overall, few children in the study transitioned directly from no psychopathology to high psychopathology.
 

Differences between boys, girls

In both cohorts, investigators noticed significant differences between the sexes.

Boys in childhood made up a larger proportion of the three psychopathology profiles. But by late adolescence, girls made up a larger proportion of the internalizing profile whereas boys made up a larger proportion of the externalizing profile. “These differences were in line with our expectations,” said Dr. Healy.

Trajectories also differed among boys and girls. In childhood, girls had a higher percentage of de-escalating trajectories relative to boys. “More girls than boys in the psychopathology profiles switched to a non or less severe profile. In adolescence, differences in trajectories were less obvious, with the exception that girls were more likely than boys to transition to internalizing problems from all of the other profiles at age 17,” said Dr. Healy.

Most young people who experience psychopathology will eventually see an improvement in symptoms, noted Dr. Healy. Next steps are to identify markers that distinguish individuals with persistent trajectories from remitting trajectories at the different phases of development, he said.
 

Study draws mixed reviews

Clinical psychiatrists not involved in the study had varying reactions to the results.

“This study is notable for its data-driven and powerful illustration of how childhood and adolescence are dynamic periods during which psychiatric symptoms can emerge and evolve,” said Sunny X. Tang, MD, a psychiatrist and an assistant professor at the Institute of Behavioral Science and the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York.

The clinical call for action is for person-centered mental health screening to be a routine part of pediatric and adolescent primary care or school-based services, noted Dr. Tang.

Paul S. Nestadt, MD, an assistant professor and public mental health researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, did not think the study would have a significant impact on clinical practice.

He noted that Dr. Healy and coauthors found that some children stayed true to type, but many fluctuated between the four profile groups. The finding that fluctuation occurred more frequently in younger children is not surprising “and is consistent with what we know about the ‘moving targets’ that make diagnosing children so difficult,” said Dr. Nestadt.

“It would have been helpful to have identified clinical indicators of likely persistence in psychopathology, but the measure employed here did not allow that. It is also frustrating to not have any information on treatment, such that we cannot know whether the children who shifted to ‘no psychopathology’ did so because of treatment or spontaneously,” he added.

Victor M. Fornari, MD, MS, director of the Division of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry at The Zucker Hillside Hospital and Cohen’s Children’s Medical Center, New York, said the study is an important contribution to understanding the development of psychopathology during childhood.

“Generally, it is felt that nearly one in five youth will meet criteria for at least one psychiatric disorder by the age of 18. It is well known that externalizing disorders like ADHD manifest earlier in childhood and that depression often manifests later in adolescence,” he said.

No disclosures were reported.

A study that tracked psychopathology in 13,000 children and adolescents found that mental health difficulties fluctuate over time, especially in younger children, and those trajectories differ among boys and girls.

Investigators also found a strong correlation between new incidence of high psychopathology and externalizing problems such as hyperactivity. “It is of paramount importance to identify factors that distinguish those with persisting problems and escalating trajectories so that resources can be appropriately directed,” wrote the authors of the study published online in JAMA Network Open.

Recent studies have shown that concurrent and sequential comorbidity of psychiatric disorders are very common in adult populations, lead author Colm Healy, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher for psychiatry with the University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ireland, said in an interview.

The speculation is that this occurs in early life when psychiatry symptoms experience high fluidity. “This presents a complex scenario to model, where young people’s mental health appears to shift and change across development. Few investigations to date have had the data available to examine these trajectories over the full range of child development,” said Dr. Healy.

He and his colleagues attempted to map the profiles and trajectories of psychopathology in children and adolescents, using latent profile transition analysis (LPTA), a person-centered method, to assess comorbidity and movement in the various phases of childhood development.

“The idea behind person-centered methods such as LTPA is that it identifies unobserved subgroups of participants who respond similarly to specific variables – in this case responses to a broad measure of psychopathology,” explained Dr. Healy.

The study included 7,507 children from the child sample (ages 3, 5, and 9 years) and 6,039 children from the adolescent sample (ages 9, 13, and 17 or 18 years). Data analysis took place from October 2020 to September 2021.

Dr. Healy and colleagues in a supplementary investigation compared cohorts at age 9 years to look for sex and generational differences.
 

Four developmental profiles

Researchers identified 4 distinct developmental profies for person-centered psychopathological trajectories: no psychopathology (incidence range, 60%-70%), high psychopathology (incidence range, 3%-5%), externalizing problems (incidence range, 15%-25%), and internalizing problems (incidence range, 7%-12%).

Internalizing problems reflect issues with peers and emotional problems whereas externalizing problems more closely associate with hyperactivity and conduct.

Less than 5% of the youth studied experienced persistent symptoms. However, 48.6% in the child cohort and 44.1% in the adolescent cohort moved into one of the 3 psychopathology profiles (high psychopathology, externalizing, internalizing problems) at some point in development.

The spread of trajectories was more diverse in the child cohort, said Dr. Healy. “Children ebbed and flowed between the different profiles over time with a large proportion falling into one of the psychopathology categories and then switching between these profiles.” Switching was also evident in the adolescent cohort but to a lesser extent, he said.
 

Externalizing problems link to high psychopathology

Rates of remittance were higher among individuals in both cohorts for internalizing problems, compared with externalizing problems.

It’s possible that for some of these young people, internalizing problems are a reaction to environmental stressors such as bullying,” said Dr. Healy. “When that stress is relieved, the internalizing problems may dissipate.”

In a clinically relevant finding, children with externalizing problems (age 5, 129 [61.3%] and age 9, 95 [74.3%]) were more likely to present with new incidents of high psychopathology. This was also true in the adolescent group (age 13, 129 [91.1%] and age 17, 146 [89.9%]).

This suggests that a proportion of youth with externalizing problems have an escalating trajectory of psychopathology. “Thus, it may be possible to distinguish those with an escalating trajectory from a stable or remitting trajectory. The specific distinguishing factors require further investigation, but it has been observed before that some of those reporting externalizing problems in early life continue to have difficulties into later life,” noted Dr. Healy.

A combination of environmental or biological factors may explain this escalation, which could respond to early intervention, he said.

Overall, few children in the study transitioned directly from no psychopathology to high psychopathology.
 

Differences between boys, girls

In both cohorts, investigators noticed significant differences between the sexes.

Boys in childhood made up a larger proportion of the three psychopathology profiles. But by late adolescence, girls made up a larger proportion of the internalizing profile whereas boys made up a larger proportion of the externalizing profile. “These differences were in line with our expectations,” said Dr. Healy.

Trajectories also differed among boys and girls. In childhood, girls had a higher percentage of de-escalating trajectories relative to boys. “More girls than boys in the psychopathology profiles switched to a non or less severe profile. In adolescence, differences in trajectories were less obvious, with the exception that girls were more likely than boys to transition to internalizing problems from all of the other profiles at age 17,” said Dr. Healy.

Most young people who experience psychopathology will eventually see an improvement in symptoms, noted Dr. Healy. Next steps are to identify markers that distinguish individuals with persistent trajectories from remitting trajectories at the different phases of development, he said.
 

Study draws mixed reviews

Clinical psychiatrists not involved in the study had varying reactions to the results.

“This study is notable for its data-driven and powerful illustration of how childhood and adolescence are dynamic periods during which psychiatric symptoms can emerge and evolve,” said Sunny X. Tang, MD, a psychiatrist and an assistant professor at the Institute of Behavioral Science and the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York.

The clinical call for action is for person-centered mental health screening to be a routine part of pediatric and adolescent primary care or school-based services, noted Dr. Tang.

Paul S. Nestadt, MD, an assistant professor and public mental health researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, did not think the study would have a significant impact on clinical practice.

He noted that Dr. Healy and coauthors found that some children stayed true to type, but many fluctuated between the four profile groups. The finding that fluctuation occurred more frequently in younger children is not surprising “and is consistent with what we know about the ‘moving targets’ that make diagnosing children so difficult,” said Dr. Nestadt.

“It would have been helpful to have identified clinical indicators of likely persistence in psychopathology, but the measure employed here did not allow that. It is also frustrating to not have any information on treatment, such that we cannot know whether the children who shifted to ‘no psychopathology’ did so because of treatment or spontaneously,” he added.

Victor M. Fornari, MD, MS, director of the Division of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry at The Zucker Hillside Hospital and Cohen’s Children’s Medical Center, New York, said the study is an important contribution to understanding the development of psychopathology during childhood.

“Generally, it is felt that nearly one in five youth will meet criteria for at least one psychiatric disorder by the age of 18. It is well known that externalizing disorders like ADHD manifest earlier in childhood and that depression often manifests later in adolescence,” he said.

No disclosures were reported.

A study that tracked psychopathology in 13,000 children and adolescents found that mental health difficulties fluctuate over time, especially in younger children, and those trajectories differ among boys and girls.

Investigators also found a strong correlation between new incidence of high psychopathology and externalizing problems such as hyperactivity. “It is of paramount importance to identify factors that distinguish those with persisting problems and escalating trajectories so that resources can be appropriately directed,” wrote the authors of the study published online in JAMA Network Open.

Recent studies have shown that concurrent and sequential comorbidity of psychiatric disorders are very common in adult populations, lead author Colm Healy, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher for psychiatry with the University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ireland, said in an interview.

The speculation is that this occurs in early life when psychiatry symptoms experience high fluidity. “This presents a complex scenario to model, where young people’s mental health appears to shift and change across development. Few investigations to date have had the data available to examine these trajectories over the full range of child development,” said Dr. Healy.

He and his colleagues attempted to map the profiles and trajectories of psychopathology in children and adolescents, using latent profile transition analysis (LPTA), a person-centered method, to assess comorbidity and movement in the various phases of childhood development.

“The idea behind person-centered methods such as LTPA is that it identifies unobserved subgroups of participants who respond similarly to specific variables – in this case responses to a broad measure of psychopathology,” explained Dr. Healy.

The study included 7,507 children from the child sample (ages 3, 5, and 9 years) and 6,039 children from the adolescent sample (ages 9, 13, and 17 or 18 years). Data analysis took place from October 2020 to September 2021.

Dr. Healy and colleagues in a supplementary investigation compared cohorts at age 9 years to look for sex and generational differences.
 

Four developmental profiles

Researchers identified 4 distinct developmental profies for person-centered psychopathological trajectories: no psychopathology (incidence range, 60%-70%), high psychopathology (incidence range, 3%-5%), externalizing problems (incidence range, 15%-25%), and internalizing problems (incidence range, 7%-12%).

Internalizing problems reflect issues with peers and emotional problems whereas externalizing problems more closely associate with hyperactivity and conduct.

Less than 5% of the youth studied experienced persistent symptoms. However, 48.6% in the child cohort and 44.1% in the adolescent cohort moved into one of the 3 psychopathology profiles (high psychopathology, externalizing, internalizing problems) at some point in development.

The spread of trajectories was more diverse in the child cohort, said Dr. Healy. “Children ebbed and flowed between the different profiles over time with a large proportion falling into one of the psychopathology categories and then switching between these profiles.” Switching was also evident in the adolescent cohort but to a lesser extent, he said.
 

Externalizing problems link to high psychopathology

Rates of remittance were higher among individuals in both cohorts for internalizing problems, compared with externalizing problems.

It’s possible that for some of these young people, internalizing problems are a reaction to environmental stressors such as bullying,” said Dr. Healy. “When that stress is relieved, the internalizing problems may dissipate.”

In a clinically relevant finding, children with externalizing problems (age 5, 129 [61.3%] and age 9, 95 [74.3%]) were more likely to present with new incidents of high psychopathology. This was also true in the adolescent group (age 13, 129 [91.1%] and age 17, 146 [89.9%]).

This suggests that a proportion of youth with externalizing problems have an escalating trajectory of psychopathology. “Thus, it may be possible to distinguish those with an escalating trajectory from a stable or remitting trajectory. The specific distinguishing factors require further investigation, but it has been observed before that some of those reporting externalizing problems in early life continue to have difficulties into later life,” noted Dr. Healy.

A combination of environmental or biological factors may explain this escalation, which could respond to early intervention, he said.

Overall, few children in the study transitioned directly from no psychopathology to high psychopathology.
 

Differences between boys, girls

In both cohorts, investigators noticed significant differences between the sexes.

Boys in childhood made up a larger proportion of the three psychopathology profiles. But by late adolescence, girls made up a larger proportion of the internalizing profile whereas boys made up a larger proportion of the externalizing profile. “These differences were in line with our expectations,” said Dr. Healy.

Trajectories also differed among boys and girls. In childhood, girls had a higher percentage of de-escalating trajectories relative to boys. “More girls than boys in the psychopathology profiles switched to a non or less severe profile. In adolescence, differences in trajectories were less obvious, with the exception that girls were more likely than boys to transition to internalizing problems from all of the other profiles at age 17,” said Dr. Healy.

Most young people who experience psychopathology will eventually see an improvement in symptoms, noted Dr. Healy. Next steps are to identify markers that distinguish individuals with persistent trajectories from remitting trajectories at the different phases of development, he said.
 

Study draws mixed reviews

Clinical psychiatrists not involved in the study had varying reactions to the results.

“This study is notable for its data-driven and powerful illustration of how childhood and adolescence are dynamic periods during which psychiatric symptoms can emerge and evolve,” said Sunny X. Tang, MD, a psychiatrist and an assistant professor at the Institute of Behavioral Science and the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York.

The clinical call for action is for person-centered mental health screening to be a routine part of pediatric and adolescent primary care or school-based services, noted Dr. Tang.

Paul S. Nestadt, MD, an assistant professor and public mental health researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, did not think the study would have a significant impact on clinical practice.

He noted that Dr. Healy and coauthors found that some children stayed true to type, but many fluctuated between the four profile groups. The finding that fluctuation occurred more frequently in younger children is not surprising “and is consistent with what we know about the ‘moving targets’ that make diagnosing children so difficult,” said Dr. Nestadt.

“It would have been helpful to have identified clinical indicators of likely persistence in psychopathology, but the measure employed here did not allow that. It is also frustrating to not have any information on treatment, such that we cannot know whether the children who shifted to ‘no psychopathology’ did so because of treatment or spontaneously,” he added.

Victor M. Fornari, MD, MS, director of the Division of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry at The Zucker Hillside Hospital and Cohen’s Children’s Medical Center, New York, said the study is an important contribution to understanding the development of psychopathology during childhood.

“Generally, it is felt that nearly one in five youth will meet criteria for at least one psychiatric disorder by the age of 18. It is well known that externalizing disorders like ADHD manifest earlier in childhood and that depression often manifests later in adolescence,” he said.

No disclosures were reported.