User login
Research fails to justify post-COVID-19 wave of new-onset parkinsonism
, a multinational team of researchers reported at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.
SARS-CoV-2 led to numerous discussions about a potential post–COVID-19 emergence of new-onset parkinsonism in susceptible individuals, often referred to in the literature as a “perfect storm” or a “wave” of parkinsonism, according to lead study author Iro Boura, MD.
Postviral precedence
“Although pathogens have been associated both with parkinsonism cases and Parkinson’s disease pathogenesis, the main concern of a potential connection between COVID-19 and new-onset parkinsonism arose from the historically documented parkinsonism cases appearing with encephalitis lethargica,” said Dr. Boura, a PhD candidate with the University of Crete in Greece and ex-fellow at King’s College London.
Encephalitis lethargica appeared between 1916 and 1930 and has been epidemiologically related to the Spanish influenza pandemic, “although this link has been strongly debated by other researchers,” she added.
Because the connection of COVID-19 and parkinsonism seemed highly speculative, Dr. Boura and movement disorder specialist Kallol Ray Chaudhuri DSc, FRCP, MD, decided to search for any data supporting this notion. “Such a possibility would have a significant impact on everyday practice, including long follow-up neurological assessments of COVID-19 patients, along with greater vigilance in recognizing potential symptoms,” said Dr. Boura.
They found no organized research exploring this link, aside from published case reports.
Scant evidence of a parkinsonism wave
The investigators conducted a review of the literature up to February 2022 to identify and analyze published cases of new-onset parkinsonism following a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in otherwise healthy individuals. They ended up with 20 such cases.
Although some cases presented during or shortly after a COVID-19 infection, “the numbers are currently quite low to draw safe conclusions and generalize these findings as a risk of parkinsonism for the general population,” said Dr. Boura. Overall, parkinsonism appeared in the context of encephalopathy in 11 patients. Four patients developed postinfectious parkinsonism without encephalopathy. Another four had phenotypic similarities to idiopathic Parkinson’s disease.
Nine patients were responsive to levodopa, while four required immunomodulatory treatment.
Although cases have already been reported, current data do not yet justify the concept of a post–COVID-19 parkinsonism wave. However, long-term surveillance is crucial to ensure that reports of further cases are carefully documented and analyzed.
Dr. Chaudhuri’s research team recently wrote a book exploring the numerous aspects of COVID-19 and parkinsonism, including Parkinson’s disease, said Dr. Boura.
“Moreover, the COVID-19 Clinical Neuroscience Study (COVID-CNS), with serial follow-up visits for COVID-19 patients, including imaging, is currently running in the United Kingdom with the active participation of Prof Chaudhuri’s team, aiming at revealing any potential parkinsonism cases after a COVID-19 infection,” she said.
, a multinational team of researchers reported at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.
SARS-CoV-2 led to numerous discussions about a potential post–COVID-19 emergence of new-onset parkinsonism in susceptible individuals, often referred to in the literature as a “perfect storm” or a “wave” of parkinsonism, according to lead study author Iro Boura, MD.
Postviral precedence
“Although pathogens have been associated both with parkinsonism cases and Parkinson’s disease pathogenesis, the main concern of a potential connection between COVID-19 and new-onset parkinsonism arose from the historically documented parkinsonism cases appearing with encephalitis lethargica,” said Dr. Boura, a PhD candidate with the University of Crete in Greece and ex-fellow at King’s College London.
Encephalitis lethargica appeared between 1916 and 1930 and has been epidemiologically related to the Spanish influenza pandemic, “although this link has been strongly debated by other researchers,” she added.
Because the connection of COVID-19 and parkinsonism seemed highly speculative, Dr. Boura and movement disorder specialist Kallol Ray Chaudhuri DSc, FRCP, MD, decided to search for any data supporting this notion. “Such a possibility would have a significant impact on everyday practice, including long follow-up neurological assessments of COVID-19 patients, along with greater vigilance in recognizing potential symptoms,” said Dr. Boura.
They found no organized research exploring this link, aside from published case reports.
Scant evidence of a parkinsonism wave
The investigators conducted a review of the literature up to February 2022 to identify and analyze published cases of new-onset parkinsonism following a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in otherwise healthy individuals. They ended up with 20 such cases.
Although some cases presented during or shortly after a COVID-19 infection, “the numbers are currently quite low to draw safe conclusions and generalize these findings as a risk of parkinsonism for the general population,” said Dr. Boura. Overall, parkinsonism appeared in the context of encephalopathy in 11 patients. Four patients developed postinfectious parkinsonism without encephalopathy. Another four had phenotypic similarities to idiopathic Parkinson’s disease.
Nine patients were responsive to levodopa, while four required immunomodulatory treatment.
Although cases have already been reported, current data do not yet justify the concept of a post–COVID-19 parkinsonism wave. However, long-term surveillance is crucial to ensure that reports of further cases are carefully documented and analyzed.
Dr. Chaudhuri’s research team recently wrote a book exploring the numerous aspects of COVID-19 and parkinsonism, including Parkinson’s disease, said Dr. Boura.
“Moreover, the COVID-19 Clinical Neuroscience Study (COVID-CNS), with serial follow-up visits for COVID-19 patients, including imaging, is currently running in the United Kingdom with the active participation of Prof Chaudhuri’s team, aiming at revealing any potential parkinsonism cases after a COVID-19 infection,” she said.
, a multinational team of researchers reported at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.
SARS-CoV-2 led to numerous discussions about a potential post–COVID-19 emergence of new-onset parkinsonism in susceptible individuals, often referred to in the literature as a “perfect storm” or a “wave” of parkinsonism, according to lead study author Iro Boura, MD.
Postviral precedence
“Although pathogens have been associated both with parkinsonism cases and Parkinson’s disease pathogenesis, the main concern of a potential connection between COVID-19 and new-onset parkinsonism arose from the historically documented parkinsonism cases appearing with encephalitis lethargica,” said Dr. Boura, a PhD candidate with the University of Crete in Greece and ex-fellow at King’s College London.
Encephalitis lethargica appeared between 1916 and 1930 and has been epidemiologically related to the Spanish influenza pandemic, “although this link has been strongly debated by other researchers,” she added.
Because the connection of COVID-19 and parkinsonism seemed highly speculative, Dr. Boura and movement disorder specialist Kallol Ray Chaudhuri DSc, FRCP, MD, decided to search for any data supporting this notion. “Such a possibility would have a significant impact on everyday practice, including long follow-up neurological assessments of COVID-19 patients, along with greater vigilance in recognizing potential symptoms,” said Dr. Boura.
They found no organized research exploring this link, aside from published case reports.
Scant evidence of a parkinsonism wave
The investigators conducted a review of the literature up to February 2022 to identify and analyze published cases of new-onset parkinsonism following a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in otherwise healthy individuals. They ended up with 20 such cases.
Although some cases presented during or shortly after a COVID-19 infection, “the numbers are currently quite low to draw safe conclusions and generalize these findings as a risk of parkinsonism for the general population,” said Dr. Boura. Overall, parkinsonism appeared in the context of encephalopathy in 11 patients. Four patients developed postinfectious parkinsonism without encephalopathy. Another four had phenotypic similarities to idiopathic Parkinson’s disease.
Nine patients were responsive to levodopa, while four required immunomodulatory treatment.
Although cases have already been reported, current data do not yet justify the concept of a post–COVID-19 parkinsonism wave. However, long-term surveillance is crucial to ensure that reports of further cases are carefully documented and analyzed.
Dr. Chaudhuri’s research team recently wrote a book exploring the numerous aspects of COVID-19 and parkinsonism, including Parkinson’s disease, said Dr. Boura.
“Moreover, the COVID-19 Clinical Neuroscience Study (COVID-CNS), with serial follow-up visits for COVID-19 patients, including imaging, is currently running in the United Kingdom with the active participation of Prof Chaudhuri’s team, aiming at revealing any potential parkinsonism cases after a COVID-19 infection,” she said.
FROM MDS 2022
Sex differences seen in inflammatory arthritis health care use
Women with inflammatory arthritis (IA) are more likely to use healthcare services than men, a Canadian study found. The results suggest there are biological differences in disease course and sociocultural differences in health care access and patient behavior among the sexes, Sanjana Tarannum said in a presentation at the Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.
Ms. Tarannum and colleagues also recently published the study in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
Effectively managing IA patients calls for timely access to and appropriate use of health care resources, said Ms. Tarannum, of the Women’s College Research Institute in Toronto.
Sex and gender are often used interchangeably but they refer to different things. “Sex is the biological characteristic of being male or female. It relates to disease inheritance patterns, pain processing mechanisms, and immune dysregulation in the context of inflammatory arthritis,” Ms. Tarannum said during her presentation.
Gender is a sociocultural construct associated with masculine or feminine traits. In the context of IA, gender relates to coping strategies, pain perception and reporting, and health care–seeking behavior of patients and interaction with care providers.
A patient’s sex relates to healthcare encounters, time to diagnosis, and prescription patterns. These all affect disease outcomes. Previous studies have yielded inconsistent results and mainly focused on rheumatoid arthritis rather than other IA types such as ankylosing spondylitis (AS).
Ms. Tarannum and colleagues sought to compare health care usage between male and female patients for musculoskeletal-related issues before and after IA diagnosis. They used Ontario administrative health data to create three cohorts of patients with RA, AS, and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), the three most common types of IA. The patients were diagnosed during 2010-2017, and outcomes were assessed in each year for 3 years before and after diagnosis.
Health care use indicators included visits to physicians, musculoskeletal imaging, laboratory tests, and dispensation of drugs. Regression models adjusting for sociodemographic factors and comorbidities were used to compare male and female patients.
Sex-related differences emerge in all IA groups
The investigators assessed 41,277 patients with RA (69% female), 8,150 patients with AS (51% female), and 6,446 patients with PsA (54% female). Male patients had more cardiovascular disease, whereas female patients had higher incidences of depression and osteoporosis.
Similar trends of sex-related differences emerged in all three cohorts. Before diagnosis, female patients were more likely to visit rheumatologists or family physicians for musculoskeletal reasons or use musculoskeletal imaging and laboratory tests. Women were also more likely to remain in rheumatology care after diagnosis.
Men were more likely to visit the ED for musculoskeletal reasons immediately before diagnosis.
No sex- or gender-related differences were observed in medication use, although older females with RA or AS were more likely to get prescriptions for NSAIDs and opioids and conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, respectively.
The findings show that overall musculoskeletal health care use was higher in female patients with IA. “Sex differences were more pronounced the earlier the encounter was from the time of diagnosis and tended to diminish with time,” Ms. Tarannum observed. Sex differences were also more prominent in the RA and AS cohorts.
Women seek out care, do repeat visits
Several reasons may explain why utilization was higher in females. Women with IA have a higher overall risk of musculoskeletal conditions such as osteoarthritis, which could have driven the health care encounters. Numerous studies have also reported that female patients have a lower threshold for pain as well as a greater tendency to seek out health care.
Additionally, female patients often present with pain and fatigue, which are often misdiagnosed as fibromyalgia or depression. Therefore, they often require repeated health care encounters to arrive at an IA diagnosis, Ms. Tarannum said.
An early prodromal phase in females could have triggered a health care encounter as well.
Men, by comparison, are more likely to have acute-onset or severe disease. Objective signs and radiologic features can facilitate diagnosis in men, she said. Male patients also show more reluctance in seeking care, have a higher threshold for pain, and are less likely to have a usual source of care such as a family physician.
Higher confidence in hospital-based emergency services also could have resulted in more ED visits and lower health care use in men. Better response to treatments could also have resulted in fewer episodes of rheumatology care after diagnosis.
The results aren’t surprising, said Scott Zashin, MD, a rheumatologist in Dallas who wasn’t a part of the study.
“At least in terms of musculoskeletal disorders, my clinical experience suggests that women are more compliant with their follow-up than male patients. Especially with gout, a common type of arthritis in men, male patients may wait until their symptoms are severe before seeking medical attention,” Dr. Zashin said.
The Enid Walker Graduate Student Award for Research in Women’s Health provided funding for this study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Women with inflammatory arthritis (IA) are more likely to use healthcare services than men, a Canadian study found. The results suggest there are biological differences in disease course and sociocultural differences in health care access and patient behavior among the sexes, Sanjana Tarannum said in a presentation at the Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.
Ms. Tarannum and colleagues also recently published the study in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
Effectively managing IA patients calls for timely access to and appropriate use of health care resources, said Ms. Tarannum, of the Women’s College Research Institute in Toronto.
Sex and gender are often used interchangeably but they refer to different things. “Sex is the biological characteristic of being male or female. It relates to disease inheritance patterns, pain processing mechanisms, and immune dysregulation in the context of inflammatory arthritis,” Ms. Tarannum said during her presentation.
Gender is a sociocultural construct associated with masculine or feminine traits. In the context of IA, gender relates to coping strategies, pain perception and reporting, and health care–seeking behavior of patients and interaction with care providers.
A patient’s sex relates to healthcare encounters, time to diagnosis, and prescription patterns. These all affect disease outcomes. Previous studies have yielded inconsistent results and mainly focused on rheumatoid arthritis rather than other IA types such as ankylosing spondylitis (AS).
Ms. Tarannum and colleagues sought to compare health care usage between male and female patients for musculoskeletal-related issues before and after IA diagnosis. They used Ontario administrative health data to create three cohorts of patients with RA, AS, and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), the three most common types of IA. The patients were diagnosed during 2010-2017, and outcomes were assessed in each year for 3 years before and after diagnosis.
Health care use indicators included visits to physicians, musculoskeletal imaging, laboratory tests, and dispensation of drugs. Regression models adjusting for sociodemographic factors and comorbidities were used to compare male and female patients.
Sex-related differences emerge in all IA groups
The investigators assessed 41,277 patients with RA (69% female), 8,150 patients with AS (51% female), and 6,446 patients with PsA (54% female). Male patients had more cardiovascular disease, whereas female patients had higher incidences of depression and osteoporosis.
Similar trends of sex-related differences emerged in all three cohorts. Before diagnosis, female patients were more likely to visit rheumatologists or family physicians for musculoskeletal reasons or use musculoskeletal imaging and laboratory tests. Women were also more likely to remain in rheumatology care after diagnosis.
Men were more likely to visit the ED for musculoskeletal reasons immediately before diagnosis.
No sex- or gender-related differences were observed in medication use, although older females with RA or AS were more likely to get prescriptions for NSAIDs and opioids and conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, respectively.
The findings show that overall musculoskeletal health care use was higher in female patients with IA. “Sex differences were more pronounced the earlier the encounter was from the time of diagnosis and tended to diminish with time,” Ms. Tarannum observed. Sex differences were also more prominent in the RA and AS cohorts.
Women seek out care, do repeat visits
Several reasons may explain why utilization was higher in females. Women with IA have a higher overall risk of musculoskeletal conditions such as osteoarthritis, which could have driven the health care encounters. Numerous studies have also reported that female patients have a lower threshold for pain as well as a greater tendency to seek out health care.
Additionally, female patients often present with pain and fatigue, which are often misdiagnosed as fibromyalgia or depression. Therefore, they often require repeated health care encounters to arrive at an IA diagnosis, Ms. Tarannum said.
An early prodromal phase in females could have triggered a health care encounter as well.
Men, by comparison, are more likely to have acute-onset or severe disease. Objective signs and radiologic features can facilitate diagnosis in men, she said. Male patients also show more reluctance in seeking care, have a higher threshold for pain, and are less likely to have a usual source of care such as a family physician.
Higher confidence in hospital-based emergency services also could have resulted in more ED visits and lower health care use in men. Better response to treatments could also have resulted in fewer episodes of rheumatology care after diagnosis.
The results aren’t surprising, said Scott Zashin, MD, a rheumatologist in Dallas who wasn’t a part of the study.
“At least in terms of musculoskeletal disorders, my clinical experience suggests that women are more compliant with their follow-up than male patients. Especially with gout, a common type of arthritis in men, male patients may wait until their symptoms are severe before seeking medical attention,” Dr. Zashin said.
The Enid Walker Graduate Student Award for Research in Women’s Health provided funding for this study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Women with inflammatory arthritis (IA) are more likely to use healthcare services than men, a Canadian study found. The results suggest there are biological differences in disease course and sociocultural differences in health care access and patient behavior among the sexes, Sanjana Tarannum said in a presentation at the Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.
Ms. Tarannum and colleagues also recently published the study in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
Effectively managing IA patients calls for timely access to and appropriate use of health care resources, said Ms. Tarannum, of the Women’s College Research Institute in Toronto.
Sex and gender are often used interchangeably but they refer to different things. “Sex is the biological characteristic of being male or female. It relates to disease inheritance patterns, pain processing mechanisms, and immune dysregulation in the context of inflammatory arthritis,” Ms. Tarannum said during her presentation.
Gender is a sociocultural construct associated with masculine or feminine traits. In the context of IA, gender relates to coping strategies, pain perception and reporting, and health care–seeking behavior of patients and interaction with care providers.
A patient’s sex relates to healthcare encounters, time to diagnosis, and prescription patterns. These all affect disease outcomes. Previous studies have yielded inconsistent results and mainly focused on rheumatoid arthritis rather than other IA types such as ankylosing spondylitis (AS).
Ms. Tarannum and colleagues sought to compare health care usage between male and female patients for musculoskeletal-related issues before and after IA diagnosis. They used Ontario administrative health data to create three cohorts of patients with RA, AS, and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), the three most common types of IA. The patients were diagnosed during 2010-2017, and outcomes were assessed in each year for 3 years before and after diagnosis.
Health care use indicators included visits to physicians, musculoskeletal imaging, laboratory tests, and dispensation of drugs. Regression models adjusting for sociodemographic factors and comorbidities were used to compare male and female patients.
Sex-related differences emerge in all IA groups
The investigators assessed 41,277 patients with RA (69% female), 8,150 patients with AS (51% female), and 6,446 patients with PsA (54% female). Male patients had more cardiovascular disease, whereas female patients had higher incidences of depression and osteoporosis.
Similar trends of sex-related differences emerged in all three cohorts. Before diagnosis, female patients were more likely to visit rheumatologists or family physicians for musculoskeletal reasons or use musculoskeletal imaging and laboratory tests. Women were also more likely to remain in rheumatology care after diagnosis.
Men were more likely to visit the ED for musculoskeletal reasons immediately before diagnosis.
No sex- or gender-related differences were observed in medication use, although older females with RA or AS were more likely to get prescriptions for NSAIDs and opioids and conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, respectively.
The findings show that overall musculoskeletal health care use was higher in female patients with IA. “Sex differences were more pronounced the earlier the encounter was from the time of diagnosis and tended to diminish with time,” Ms. Tarannum observed. Sex differences were also more prominent in the RA and AS cohorts.
Women seek out care, do repeat visits
Several reasons may explain why utilization was higher in females. Women with IA have a higher overall risk of musculoskeletal conditions such as osteoarthritis, which could have driven the health care encounters. Numerous studies have also reported that female patients have a lower threshold for pain as well as a greater tendency to seek out health care.
Additionally, female patients often present with pain and fatigue, which are often misdiagnosed as fibromyalgia or depression. Therefore, they often require repeated health care encounters to arrive at an IA diagnosis, Ms. Tarannum said.
An early prodromal phase in females could have triggered a health care encounter as well.
Men, by comparison, are more likely to have acute-onset or severe disease. Objective signs and radiologic features can facilitate diagnosis in men, she said. Male patients also show more reluctance in seeking care, have a higher threshold for pain, and are less likely to have a usual source of care such as a family physician.
Higher confidence in hospital-based emergency services also could have resulted in more ED visits and lower health care use in men. Better response to treatments could also have resulted in fewer episodes of rheumatology care after diagnosis.
The results aren’t surprising, said Scott Zashin, MD, a rheumatologist in Dallas who wasn’t a part of the study.
“At least in terms of musculoskeletal disorders, my clinical experience suggests that women are more compliant with their follow-up than male patients. Especially with gout, a common type of arthritis in men, male patients may wait until their symptoms are severe before seeking medical attention,” Dr. Zashin said.
The Enid Walker Graduate Student Award for Research in Women’s Health provided funding for this study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET SUMMIT ON SEX AND GENDER IN RHEUMATOLOGY
Hormones’ impact described in transgender rheumatology patients
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.
FROM THE LANCET SUMMIT ON SEX AND GENDER IN RHEUMATOLOGY
Severe COVID-19–related outcomes found worse in men with RA
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.
FROM THE LANCET SUMMIT ON SEX AND GENDER IN RHEUMATOLOGY
COVID vaccination does not appear to worsen symptoms of 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.
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.
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.
FROM MDS 2022
Telehealth effective in managing patients with 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.
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.
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.
From MDS 2022
Medical cannabis appears safe for 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.
, 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.
, 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.
FROM MDS 2022
Novel combination treatment improves function in early 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.
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.
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.
From MDS 2022
OMERACT continues to set standards on research outcomes, enhancing the patient voice
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Physicians urged to write indications on drug scripts as methotrexate users face new barriers with SCOTUS decision
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.