MDedge Rheumatology

My previous column on practice valuation prompted a number of questions on the mechanics of selling a private practice. As usual, I cannot hope to cover this complex topic comprehensively in only 750 words, but here are the basics.

A generation ago, the sale of a medical practice was much like the sale of any other business: A retiring physician would sell his or her practice to a young doctor and the practice would continue on as before. Occasionally, that still happens, but changes in the business of medicine – most significantly the growth of managed care – have had a big impact on the way medical practices are bought and sold.

For one thing, there are far fewer solo practitioners these days, and polls indicate that most young physicians intend to continue that trend. The buyer of a medical practice today is more likely to be an institution, such as a hospital, an HMO, or a large practice group, rather than an individual.

For another, because the rules governing such sales have become so numbingly complex, the services of expert (and expensive) third parties are essential.

While these issues may complicate matters, there is still a market for the sale of medical practices. However, you must do everything possible to ensure you identify the best possible buyer and structure the best deal.

The first hurdle is the accurate valuation of your practice, which was covered in some detail in my last column. Briefly, for the protection of both parties, it is important that the appraisal be done by an experienced and neutral financial consultant, that all techniques used in the valuation be divulged and explained, and that documentation be supplied to support the conclusions reached.

Keep in mind that the valuation will not necessarily equal the purchase price; other factors may need to be considered before a final price can be agreed upon. Keep in mind, too, that there may be legal constraints on the purchase price. For example, if the buyer is a nonprofit corporation such as a hospital or HMO, by law it cannot pay in excess of fair market value for the practice – which may rule out any valuation of “good will.” In some states, the purchase of private practices by hospitals is prohibited altogether – so you might need to consider a long-term lease rather than a sale.

Once a value has been agreed upon, you must consider how the transaction will be structured. The most popular structures include purchase of assets, purchase of corporate stock, and merger.

Many buyers prefer to purchase assets, because it allows them to pick and choose only those items that have value to them. This can leave you with a bunch of “odd lot” assets to dispose of. But depending on the circumstances, an asset sale may still be to your advantage.

Sellers typically prefer to sell stock, because it allows them to sell their entire practice, which is often worth more than the sum of its parts, and often provides tax advantages.

The third option, merger, continues to grow in popularity and is a column subject in itself, and I will address it separately next month.

Tax issues must always be considered. Most private practices are corporations, and the sale of corporate stock will result in a long-term capital gain that will be taxed – currently at 15%-20%. As the saying goes, it’s not what you earn, it’s what you keep. So it may benefit you to accept a slightly lower price if the sale can be structured to provide significantly lower tax treatment. However, any gain that does not qualify as a long-term capital gain will be taxed as regular income – currently in the 32%-37% percent range – plus a Social Security tax of about 15%.

Payment in installments is a popular way to defer taxes, since they are incurred on each installment as it is paid; but such payments may be mistaken by the IRS for payments for referrals, which is illegal. And there is always the problem of making certain all payments are eventually made.

You may wish to continue working at the practice as an employee for an agreed-upon period of time, and this is often to the buyer’s advantage as well. Transitioning to new ownership in stages often maximizes the value of the business by improving patient retention, and allows patients to become accustomed to the transition. However, care must be taken, with the aid of good legal advice, to structure such an arrangement in a way that minimizes concerns of fraud and abuse.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

My previous column on practice valuation prompted a number of questions on the mechanics of selling a private practice. As usual, I cannot hope to cover this complex topic comprehensively in only 750 words, but here are the basics.

A generation ago, the sale of a medical practice was much like the sale of any other business: A retiring physician would sell his or her practice to a young doctor and the practice would continue on as before. Occasionally, that still happens, but changes in the business of medicine – most significantly the growth of managed care – have had a big impact on the way medical practices are bought and sold.

For one thing, there are far fewer solo practitioners these days, and polls indicate that most young physicians intend to continue that trend. The buyer of a medical practice today is more likely to be an institution, such as a hospital, an HMO, or a large practice group, rather than an individual.

For another, because the rules governing such sales have become so numbingly complex, the services of expert (and expensive) third parties are essential.

While these issues may complicate matters, there is still a market for the sale of medical practices. However, you must do everything possible to ensure you identify the best possible buyer and structure the best deal.

The first hurdle is the accurate valuation of your practice, which was covered in some detail in my last column. Briefly, for the protection of both parties, it is important that the appraisal be done by an experienced and neutral financial consultant, that all techniques used in the valuation be divulged and explained, and that documentation be supplied to support the conclusions reached.

Keep in mind that the valuation will not necessarily equal the purchase price; other factors may need to be considered before a final price can be agreed upon. Keep in mind, too, that there may be legal constraints on the purchase price. For example, if the buyer is a nonprofit corporation such as a hospital or HMO, by law it cannot pay in excess of fair market value for the practice – which may rule out any valuation of “good will.” In some states, the purchase of private practices by hospitals is prohibited altogether – so you might need to consider a long-term lease rather than a sale.

Once a value has been agreed upon, you must consider how the transaction will be structured. The most popular structures include purchase of assets, purchase of corporate stock, and merger.

Many buyers prefer to purchase assets, because it allows them to pick and choose only those items that have value to them. This can leave you with a bunch of “odd lot” assets to dispose of. But depending on the circumstances, an asset sale may still be to your advantage.

Sellers typically prefer to sell stock, because it allows them to sell their entire practice, which is often worth more than the sum of its parts, and often provides tax advantages.

The third option, merger, continues to grow in popularity and is a column subject in itself, and I will address it separately next month.

Tax issues must always be considered. Most private practices are corporations, and the sale of corporate stock will result in a long-term capital gain that will be taxed – currently at 15%-20%. As the saying goes, it’s not what you earn, it’s what you keep. So it may benefit you to accept a slightly lower price if the sale can be structured to provide significantly lower tax treatment. However, any gain that does not qualify as a long-term capital gain will be taxed as regular income – currently in the 32%-37% percent range – plus a Social Security tax of about 15%.

Payment in installments is a popular way to defer taxes, since they are incurred on each installment as it is paid; but such payments may be mistaken by the IRS for payments for referrals, which is illegal. And there is always the problem of making certain all payments are eventually made.

You may wish to continue working at the practice as an employee for an agreed-upon period of time, and this is often to the buyer’s advantage as well. Transitioning to new ownership in stages often maximizes the value of the business by improving patient retention, and allows patients to become accustomed to the transition. However, care must be taken, with the aid of good legal advice, to structure such an arrangement in a way that minimizes concerns of fraud and abuse.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

My previous column on practice valuation prompted a number of questions on the mechanics of selling a private practice. As usual, I cannot hope to cover this complex topic comprehensively in only 750 words, but here are the basics.

A generation ago, the sale of a medical practice was much like the sale of any other business: A retiring physician would sell his or her practice to a young doctor and the practice would continue on as before. Occasionally, that still happens, but changes in the business of medicine – most significantly the growth of managed care – have had a big impact on the way medical practices are bought and sold.

For one thing, there are far fewer solo practitioners these days, and polls indicate that most young physicians intend to continue that trend. The buyer of a medical practice today is more likely to be an institution, such as a hospital, an HMO, or a large practice group, rather than an individual.

For another, because the rules governing such sales have become so numbingly complex, the services of expert (and expensive) third parties are essential.

While these issues may complicate matters, there is still a market for the sale of medical practices. However, you must do everything possible to ensure you identify the best possible buyer and structure the best deal.

The first hurdle is the accurate valuation of your practice, which was covered in some detail in my last column. Briefly, for the protection of both parties, it is important that the appraisal be done by an experienced and neutral financial consultant, that all techniques used in the valuation be divulged and explained, and that documentation be supplied to support the conclusions reached.

Keep in mind that the valuation will not necessarily equal the purchase price; other factors may need to be considered before a final price can be agreed upon. Keep in mind, too, that there may be legal constraints on the purchase price. For example, if the buyer is a nonprofit corporation such as a hospital or HMO, by law it cannot pay in excess of fair market value for the practice – which may rule out any valuation of “good will.” In some states, the purchase of private practices by hospitals is prohibited altogether – so you might need to consider a long-term lease rather than a sale.

Once a value has been agreed upon, you must consider how the transaction will be structured. The most popular structures include purchase of assets, purchase of corporate stock, and merger.

Many buyers prefer to purchase assets, because it allows them to pick and choose only those items that have value to them. This can leave you with a bunch of “odd lot” assets to dispose of. But depending on the circumstances, an asset sale may still be to your advantage.

Sellers typically prefer to sell stock, because it allows them to sell their entire practice, which is often worth more than the sum of its parts, and often provides tax advantages.

The third option, merger, continues to grow in popularity and is a column subject in itself, and I will address it separately next month.

Tax issues must always be considered. Most private practices are corporations, and the sale of corporate stock will result in a long-term capital gain that will be taxed – currently at 15%-20%. As the saying goes, it’s not what you earn, it’s what you keep. So it may benefit you to accept a slightly lower price if the sale can be structured to provide significantly lower tax treatment. However, any gain that does not qualify as a long-term capital gain will be taxed as regular income – currently in the 32%-37% percent range – plus a Social Security tax of about 15%.

Payment in installments is a popular way to defer taxes, since they are incurred on each installment as it is paid; but such payments may be mistaken by the IRS for payments for referrals, which is illegal. And there is always the problem of making certain all payments are eventually made.

You may wish to continue working at the practice as an employee for an agreed-upon period of time, and this is often to the buyer’s advantage as well. Transitioning to new ownership in stages often maximizes the value of the business by improving patient retention, and allows patients to become accustomed to the transition. However, care must be taken, with the aid of good legal advice, to structure such an arrangement in a way that minimizes concerns of fraud and abuse.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

On the morning of Feb. 24, rheumatologist Olena Garmish woke at 5:50 a.m. from the blasts of rocket fire in Kiev, Ukraine, and saw the explosions through her window

She described that next week to this news organization: air sirens 20 hours a day, fearing death 24 hours a day, and growing food shortages.

Dr. Garmish, executive director of the Association of Rheumatologists of Ukraine, said she continued working at a Kiev hospital until March 4, but then had to leave the country with her children and has traveled to two other countries since. Now she is looking for employment abroad after 22 years as a clinical researcher and practitioner.

omersukrugoksu/Getty Images

“We lost our jobs and rheumatology practice,” she said. Now, she says, she provides online consultations to patients as much as she can.

As air strikes continued Tuesday in Ukraine’s capital city and elsewhere throughout the country, rheumatologists are among citizens forced to upend their personal and professional lives and make the best decisions they can to keep themselves and their families safe.

Roman Yatsyshyn, MD, professor at Ivano-Frankivsk National Medical University in Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine, and vice president of the Association of Rheumatologists of Ukraine, told this news organization that many rheumatologists, like Dr. Garmish, have been forced to close their practices and flee the country. The hope is that the moves are temporary, he said.

He said rheumatologists there are having very different experiences depending on their proximity to the shelling.

Dmytro Rekalov, MD, PhD, who has been a practicing rheumatologist for 20 years, said he has had to relocate – he hopes temporarily – to western Ukraine.

He told this news organization that the battles are about 40 km (25 miles) from him.

“I have a small private rheumatology clinic in Zaporizhzhia [in southeastern Ukraine], so if they invade our city, I’ll have to close my clinic and find another place to live and to practice in.” Zaporizhzhia is home to the largest nuclear plant in Europe, a facility that came under attack earlier this month.

Doctors from areas under siege have been forced to move to quieter locations and consult with patients remotely, Dr. Yatsyshyn said.  

“Moreover, all doctors are actively volunteering, helping refugees, and supporting our military at the front,” he said, adding that medications are in short supply.

“We express our sincere gratitude to the world and European medical communities for their help for Ukraine at this time. Medicines and medical devices come to Ukraine from many countries around the world every day,” he said.

Dr. Yatsyshyn said the Ministry of Health of Ukraine is coordinating delivery of medications.

“However, there is still a need for an uninterrupted supply of basic antirheumatic drugs, cytostatics, glucocorticosteroids, analgesics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. We will be grateful if such help will continue to come from our colleagues,” Dr. Yatsyshyn said.

In most cases, he says, rheumatologists stay in touch with their patients via social media and apps, Skype, and Zoom.

“We have also created professional and patient groups in chat rooms,” he said. “There, we can respond quickly to current issues in different regions. If necessary, we send medicines in case of their absence or danger in certain regions of the country. Rheumatologists have set up a joint group for online counseling and exchange.”

Some rheumatologists have been retrained as emergency physicians, he said. In areas with less military activity, rheumatologists continue to treat patients at their practices. In places where it is relatively calm, rheumatologists consult not only local patients but also migrants from other regions affected by the war, Dr. Yatsyshyn explained.

The Association of Rheumatologists of Ukraine continues its activities, he said.

“We monitor the problems of our colleagues, their relocations, security, and the opportunity to work. In close cooperation with the Ministry of Health, we monitor the provision of necessary medicines to our patients. We are very grateful for the help of our colleagues from European associations, the United States, pharmaceutical companies, medical centers, universities, and volunteer organizations.”

“We have two other big requests to the entire medical and scientific community,” Dr. Yatsyshyn said. “To suspend the membership of all Russian medical communities in European and world associations (including EULAR, EUSTAR, Lupus Academy, ACR, British Society of Rheumatology, and others) with a ban on attending international forums just as almost all sports and art organizations in Europe and the civilized world have done.”

The second request, he said, is “to close the sky over Ukraine to stop killing children, civilians, destroying Ukrainian memories, and to destroy Ukrainians as a nation. We pray for this to all the conscious world.”

EULAR, the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, said in a statement, “EULAR has stood for peace in Europe and globally, and for improving the lives of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, for 75 years. We are committed to the tradition of humanity and peace and are deeply concerned about the general situation of the people in Ukraine. We will do our utmost to contribute to alleviate the suffering. To this end we are urgently exploring options together with other biomedical partners. Please also help to support the people in Ukraine, for example by donating to UNHCR (the UN refugee agency) or ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross).

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

On the morning of Feb. 24, rheumatologist Olena Garmish woke at 5:50 a.m. from the blasts of rocket fire in Kiev, Ukraine, and saw the explosions through her window

She described that next week to this news organization: air sirens 20 hours a day, fearing death 24 hours a day, and growing food shortages.

Dr. Garmish, executive director of the Association of Rheumatologists of Ukraine, said she continued working at a Kiev hospital until March 4, but then had to leave the country with her children and has traveled to two other countries since. Now she is looking for employment abroad after 22 years as a clinical researcher and practitioner.

omersukrugoksu/Getty Images

“We lost our jobs and rheumatology practice,” she said. Now, she says, she provides online consultations to patients as much as she can.

As air strikes continued Tuesday in Ukraine’s capital city and elsewhere throughout the country, rheumatologists are among citizens forced to upend their personal and professional lives and make the best decisions they can to keep themselves and their families safe.

Roman Yatsyshyn, MD, professor at Ivano-Frankivsk National Medical University in Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine, and vice president of the Association of Rheumatologists of Ukraine, told this news organization that many rheumatologists, like Dr. Garmish, have been forced to close their practices and flee the country. The hope is that the moves are temporary, he said.

He said rheumatologists there are having very different experiences depending on their proximity to the shelling.

Dmytro Rekalov, MD, PhD, who has been a practicing rheumatologist for 20 years, said he has had to relocate – he hopes temporarily – to western Ukraine.

He told this news organization that the battles are about 40 km (25 miles) from him.

“I have a small private rheumatology clinic in Zaporizhzhia [in southeastern Ukraine], so if they invade our city, I’ll have to close my clinic and find another place to live and to practice in.” Zaporizhzhia is home to the largest nuclear plant in Europe, a facility that came under attack earlier this month.

Doctors from areas under siege have been forced to move to quieter locations and consult with patients remotely, Dr. Yatsyshyn said.  

“Moreover, all doctors are actively volunteering, helping refugees, and supporting our military at the front,” he said, adding that medications are in short supply.

“We express our sincere gratitude to the world and European medical communities for their help for Ukraine at this time. Medicines and medical devices come to Ukraine from many countries around the world every day,” he said.

Dr. Yatsyshyn said the Ministry of Health of Ukraine is coordinating delivery of medications.

“However, there is still a need for an uninterrupted supply of basic antirheumatic drugs, cytostatics, glucocorticosteroids, analgesics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. We will be grateful if such help will continue to come from our colleagues,” Dr. Yatsyshyn said.

In most cases, he says, rheumatologists stay in touch with their patients via social media and apps, Skype, and Zoom.

“We have also created professional and patient groups in chat rooms,” he said. “There, we can respond quickly to current issues in different regions. If necessary, we send medicines in case of their absence or danger in certain regions of the country. Rheumatologists have set up a joint group for online counseling and exchange.”

Some rheumatologists have been retrained as emergency physicians, he said. In areas with less military activity, rheumatologists continue to treat patients at their practices. In places where it is relatively calm, rheumatologists consult not only local patients but also migrants from other regions affected by the war, Dr. Yatsyshyn explained.

The Association of Rheumatologists of Ukraine continues its activities, he said.

“We monitor the problems of our colleagues, their relocations, security, and the opportunity to work. In close cooperation with the Ministry of Health, we monitor the provision of necessary medicines to our patients. We are very grateful for the help of our colleagues from European associations, the United States, pharmaceutical companies, medical centers, universities, and volunteer organizations.”

“We have two other big requests to the entire medical and scientific community,” Dr. Yatsyshyn said. “To suspend the membership of all Russian medical communities in European and world associations (including EULAR, EUSTAR, Lupus Academy, ACR, British Society of Rheumatology, and others) with a ban on attending international forums just as almost all sports and art organizations in Europe and the civilized world have done.”

The second request, he said, is “to close the sky over Ukraine to stop killing children, civilians, destroying Ukrainian memories, and to destroy Ukrainians as a nation. We pray for this to all the conscious world.”

EULAR, the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, said in a statement, “EULAR has stood for peace in Europe and globally, and for improving the lives of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, for 75 years. We are committed to the tradition of humanity and peace and are deeply concerned about the general situation of the people in Ukraine. We will do our utmost to contribute to alleviate the suffering. To this end we are urgently exploring options together with other biomedical partners. Please also help to support the people in Ukraine, for example by donating to UNHCR (the UN refugee agency) or ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross).

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

On the morning of Feb. 24, rheumatologist Olena Garmish woke at 5:50 a.m. from the blasts of rocket fire in Kiev, Ukraine, and saw the explosions through her window

She described that next week to this news organization: air sirens 20 hours a day, fearing death 24 hours a day, and growing food shortages.

Dr. Garmish, executive director of the Association of Rheumatologists of Ukraine, said she continued working at a Kiev hospital until March 4, but then had to leave the country with her children and has traveled to two other countries since. Now she is looking for employment abroad after 22 years as a clinical researcher and practitioner.

omersukrugoksu/Getty Images

“We lost our jobs and rheumatology practice,” she said. Now, she says, she provides online consultations to patients as much as she can.

As air strikes continued Tuesday in Ukraine’s capital city and elsewhere throughout the country, rheumatologists are among citizens forced to upend their personal and professional lives and make the best decisions they can to keep themselves and their families safe.

Roman Yatsyshyn, MD, professor at Ivano-Frankivsk National Medical University in Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine, and vice president of the Association of Rheumatologists of Ukraine, told this news organization that many rheumatologists, like Dr. Garmish, have been forced to close their practices and flee the country. The hope is that the moves are temporary, he said.

He said rheumatologists there are having very different experiences depending on their proximity to the shelling.

Dmytro Rekalov, MD, PhD, who has been a practicing rheumatologist for 20 years, said he has had to relocate – he hopes temporarily – to western Ukraine.

He told this news organization that the battles are about 40 km (25 miles) from him.

“I have a small private rheumatology clinic in Zaporizhzhia [in southeastern Ukraine], so if they invade our city, I’ll have to close my clinic and find another place to live and to practice in.” Zaporizhzhia is home to the largest nuclear plant in Europe, a facility that came under attack earlier this month.

Doctors from areas under siege have been forced to move to quieter locations and consult with patients remotely, Dr. Yatsyshyn said.  

“Moreover, all doctors are actively volunteering, helping refugees, and supporting our military at the front,” he said, adding that medications are in short supply.

“We express our sincere gratitude to the world and European medical communities for their help for Ukraine at this time. Medicines and medical devices come to Ukraine from many countries around the world every day,” he said.

Dr. Yatsyshyn said the Ministry of Health of Ukraine is coordinating delivery of medications.

“However, there is still a need for an uninterrupted supply of basic antirheumatic drugs, cytostatics, glucocorticosteroids, analgesics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. We will be grateful if such help will continue to come from our colleagues,” Dr. Yatsyshyn said.

In most cases, he says, rheumatologists stay in touch with their patients via social media and apps, Skype, and Zoom.

“We have also created professional and patient groups in chat rooms,” he said. “There, we can respond quickly to current issues in different regions. If necessary, we send medicines in case of their absence or danger in certain regions of the country. Rheumatologists have set up a joint group for online counseling and exchange.”

Some rheumatologists have been retrained as emergency physicians, he said. In areas with less military activity, rheumatologists continue to treat patients at their practices. In places where it is relatively calm, rheumatologists consult not only local patients but also migrants from other regions affected by the war, Dr. Yatsyshyn explained.

The Association of Rheumatologists of Ukraine continues its activities, he said.

“We monitor the problems of our colleagues, their relocations, security, and the opportunity to work. In close cooperation with the Ministry of Health, we monitor the provision of necessary medicines to our patients. We are very grateful for the help of our colleagues from European associations, the United States, pharmaceutical companies, medical centers, universities, and volunteer organizations.”

“We have two other big requests to the entire medical and scientific community,” Dr. Yatsyshyn said. “To suspend the membership of all Russian medical communities in European and world associations (including EULAR, EUSTAR, Lupus Academy, ACR, British Society of Rheumatology, and others) with a ban on attending international forums just as almost all sports and art organizations in Europe and the civilized world have done.”

The second request, he said, is “to close the sky over Ukraine to stop killing children, civilians, destroying Ukrainian memories, and to destroy Ukrainians as a nation. We pray for this to all the conscious world.”

EULAR, the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, said in a statement, “EULAR has stood for peace in Europe and globally, and for improving the lives of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, for 75 years. We are committed to the tradition of humanity and peace and are deeply concerned about the general situation of the people in Ukraine. We will do our utmost to contribute to alleviate the suffering. To this end we are urgently exploring options together with other biomedical partners. Please also help to support the people in Ukraine, for example by donating to UNHCR (the UN refugee agency) or ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross).

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

Small airway disease with air trapping appears to be a long-lasting sequela of SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to a prospective study that compared 100 COVID-19 survivors who had persistent symptoms and 106 healthy control persons.

“Something is going on in the distal airways related to either inflammation or fibrosis that is giving us a signal of air trapping,” noted senior author Alejandro P. Comellas, MD, in a press release. The study was stimulated by reports from University of Iowa clinicians noting that many patients with initial SARS-CoV-2 infection who were either hospitalized or were treated in the ambulatory setting later reported shortness of breath and other respiratory symptoms indicative of chronic lung disease.

Study results

Investigators classified patients (mean age, 48 years; 66 women) with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 according to whether they were ambulatory (67%), hospitalized (17%), or required treatment in the intensive care unit (16%). They then compared CT findings of patients who had COVID-19 and persistent symptoms with those of a healthy control group.

COVID-19 severity did not affect the percentage of cases of lung with air trapping among these patients. Air trapping occurred at rates of 25.4% among ambulatory patients, 34.6% in hospitalized patients, and in 27.3% of those requiring intensive care (P = .10). The percentage of lungs affected by air trapping in ambulatory participants was sharply and significantly higher than in healthy controls (25.4% vs. 7.2%; P < .001). Also, air trapping persisted; it was still present in 8 of 9 participants who underwent imaging more than 200 days post diagnosis.

Qualitative analysis of chest CT images showed that the most common imaging abnormality was air trapping (58%); ground glass opacities (GGOs) were found in 51% (46/91), note Dr. Comellas and coauthors. This suggests ongoing lung inflammation, edema, or fibrosis. These symptoms are often observed during acute COVID-19, frequently in an organizing pneumonia pattern, and have been shown to persist for months after infection in survivors of severe disease. The mean percentage of total lung classified as having regional GGOs on chest CT scans was 13.2% and 28.7%, respectively, in the hospitalized and ICU groups, both very much higher than in the ambulatory group, at 3.7% (P < .001 for both). Among healthy controls, the GGO rate on chest CT was only 0.06% (P < .001).

In addition, air trapping correlated with the ratio of residual volume to total lung capacity (r = 0.6; P < .001) but not with spirometry results. In fact, the investigators did not observe airflow obstruction by spirometry in any group, suggesting that air trapping in these patients involves only small rather than large airways and that these small airways contribute little to total airway resistance. Only when a large percentage, perhaps 75% or more, of all small airways are obstructed will spirometry pick up small airways disease, the authors observe.

Continuing disease

The findings taken together suggest that functional small airways disease and air trapping are a consequence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to Dr. Comellas. “If a portion of patients continues to have small airways disease, then we need to think about the mechanisms behind it,” he said. “It could be something related to inflammation that’s reversible, or it may be something related to a scar that is irreversible, and then we need to look at ways to prevent further progression of the disease.” Furthermore, “studies aimed at determining the natural history of functional small airways disease in patients with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 and the biological mechanisms that underlie these findings are urgently needed to identify therapeutic and preventative interventions,” Dr. Comellas, professor of internal medicine at Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, concluded.

The study limitations, the authors state, include the fact that theirs was a single-center study that enrolled participants infected early during the COVID-19 pandemic and did not include patients with Delta or Omicron variants, thus limiting the generalizability of the findings.

The study was published in Radiology.

The reported findings “indicate a long-term impact on bronchiolar obstruction,” states Brett M. Elicker, MD, professor of clinical radiology, University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial . Because collagen may be absorbed for months after an acute insult, it is not entirely clear whether the abnormalities seen in the current study will be permanent. He said further, “the presence of ground glass opacity and/or fibrosis on CT were most common in the patients admitted to the ICU and likely correspond to post-organizing pneumonia and/or post-diffuse alveolar damage fibrosis.”

Dr. Elicker also pointed out that organizing pneumonia is especially common among patients with COVID-19 and is usually highly steroid-responsive. The opacities improve or resolve with treatment, but sometimes residual fibrosis occurs. “Longer-term studies assessing the clinical and imaging manifestations 1-2 years after the initial infection are needed to fully ascertain the permanent manifestations of post-COVID fibrosis.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Elicker have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Small airway disease with air trapping appears to be a long-lasting sequela of SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to a prospective study that compared 100 COVID-19 survivors who had persistent symptoms and 106 healthy control persons.

“Something is going on in the distal airways related to either inflammation or fibrosis that is giving us a signal of air trapping,” noted senior author Alejandro P. Comellas, MD, in a press release. The study was stimulated by reports from University of Iowa clinicians noting that many patients with initial SARS-CoV-2 infection who were either hospitalized or were treated in the ambulatory setting later reported shortness of breath and other respiratory symptoms indicative of chronic lung disease.

Study results

Investigators classified patients (mean age, 48 years; 66 women) with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 according to whether they were ambulatory (67%), hospitalized (17%), or required treatment in the intensive care unit (16%). They then compared CT findings of patients who had COVID-19 and persistent symptoms with those of a healthy control group.

COVID-19 severity did not affect the percentage of cases of lung with air trapping among these patients. Air trapping occurred at rates of 25.4% among ambulatory patients, 34.6% in hospitalized patients, and in 27.3% of those requiring intensive care (P = .10). The percentage of lungs affected by air trapping in ambulatory participants was sharply and significantly higher than in healthy controls (25.4% vs. 7.2%; P < .001). Also, air trapping persisted; it was still present in 8 of 9 participants who underwent imaging more than 200 days post diagnosis.

Qualitative analysis of chest CT images showed that the most common imaging abnormality was air trapping (58%); ground glass opacities (GGOs) were found in 51% (46/91), note Dr. Comellas and coauthors. This suggests ongoing lung inflammation, edema, or fibrosis. These symptoms are often observed during acute COVID-19, frequently in an organizing pneumonia pattern, and have been shown to persist for months after infection in survivors of severe disease. The mean percentage of total lung classified as having regional GGOs on chest CT scans was 13.2% and 28.7%, respectively, in the hospitalized and ICU groups, both very much higher than in the ambulatory group, at 3.7% (P < .001 for both). Among healthy controls, the GGO rate on chest CT was only 0.06% (P < .001).

In addition, air trapping correlated with the ratio of residual volume to total lung capacity (r = 0.6; P < .001) but not with spirometry results. In fact, the investigators did not observe airflow obstruction by spirometry in any group, suggesting that air trapping in these patients involves only small rather than large airways and that these small airways contribute little to total airway resistance. Only when a large percentage, perhaps 75% or more, of all small airways are obstructed will spirometry pick up small airways disease, the authors observe.

Continuing disease

The findings taken together suggest that functional small airways disease and air trapping are a consequence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to Dr. Comellas. “If a portion of patients continues to have small airways disease, then we need to think about the mechanisms behind it,” he said. “It could be something related to inflammation that’s reversible, or it may be something related to a scar that is irreversible, and then we need to look at ways to prevent further progression of the disease.” Furthermore, “studies aimed at determining the natural history of functional small airways disease in patients with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 and the biological mechanisms that underlie these findings are urgently needed to identify therapeutic and preventative interventions,” Dr. Comellas, professor of internal medicine at Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, concluded.

The study limitations, the authors state, include the fact that theirs was a single-center study that enrolled participants infected early during the COVID-19 pandemic and did not include patients with Delta or Omicron variants, thus limiting the generalizability of the findings.

The study was published in Radiology.

The reported findings “indicate a long-term impact on bronchiolar obstruction,” states Brett M. Elicker, MD, professor of clinical radiology, University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial . Because collagen may be absorbed for months after an acute insult, it is not entirely clear whether the abnormalities seen in the current study will be permanent. He said further, “the presence of ground glass opacity and/or fibrosis on CT were most common in the patients admitted to the ICU and likely correspond to post-organizing pneumonia and/or post-diffuse alveolar damage fibrosis.”

Dr. Elicker also pointed out that organizing pneumonia is especially common among patients with COVID-19 and is usually highly steroid-responsive. The opacities improve or resolve with treatment, but sometimes residual fibrosis occurs. “Longer-term studies assessing the clinical and imaging manifestations 1-2 years after the initial infection are needed to fully ascertain the permanent manifestations of post-COVID fibrosis.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Elicker have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Small airway disease with air trapping appears to be a long-lasting sequela of SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to a prospective study that compared 100 COVID-19 survivors who had persistent symptoms and 106 healthy control persons.

“Something is going on in the distal airways related to either inflammation or fibrosis that is giving us a signal of air trapping,” noted senior author Alejandro P. Comellas, MD, in a press release. The study was stimulated by reports from University of Iowa clinicians noting that many patients with initial SARS-CoV-2 infection who were either hospitalized or were treated in the ambulatory setting later reported shortness of breath and other respiratory symptoms indicative of chronic lung disease.

Study results

Investigators classified patients (mean age, 48 years; 66 women) with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 according to whether they were ambulatory (67%), hospitalized (17%), or required treatment in the intensive care unit (16%). They then compared CT findings of patients who had COVID-19 and persistent symptoms with those of a healthy control group.

COVID-19 severity did not affect the percentage of cases of lung with air trapping among these patients. Air trapping occurred at rates of 25.4% among ambulatory patients, 34.6% in hospitalized patients, and in 27.3% of those requiring intensive care (P = .10). The percentage of lungs affected by air trapping in ambulatory participants was sharply and significantly higher than in healthy controls (25.4% vs. 7.2%; P < .001). Also, air trapping persisted; it was still present in 8 of 9 participants who underwent imaging more than 200 days post diagnosis.

Qualitative analysis of chest CT images showed that the most common imaging abnormality was air trapping (58%); ground glass opacities (GGOs) were found in 51% (46/91), note Dr. Comellas and coauthors. This suggests ongoing lung inflammation, edema, or fibrosis. These symptoms are often observed during acute COVID-19, frequently in an organizing pneumonia pattern, and have been shown to persist for months after infection in survivors of severe disease. The mean percentage of total lung classified as having regional GGOs on chest CT scans was 13.2% and 28.7%, respectively, in the hospitalized and ICU groups, both very much higher than in the ambulatory group, at 3.7% (P < .001 for both). Among healthy controls, the GGO rate on chest CT was only 0.06% (P < .001).

In addition, air trapping correlated with the ratio of residual volume to total lung capacity (r = 0.6; P < .001) but not with spirometry results. In fact, the investigators did not observe airflow obstruction by spirometry in any group, suggesting that air trapping in these patients involves only small rather than large airways and that these small airways contribute little to total airway resistance. Only when a large percentage, perhaps 75% or more, of all small airways are obstructed will spirometry pick up small airways disease, the authors observe.

Continuing disease

The findings taken together suggest that functional small airways disease and air trapping are a consequence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to Dr. Comellas. “If a portion of patients continues to have small airways disease, then we need to think about the mechanisms behind it,” he said. “It could be something related to inflammation that’s reversible, or it may be something related to a scar that is irreversible, and then we need to look at ways to prevent further progression of the disease.” Furthermore, “studies aimed at determining the natural history of functional small airways disease in patients with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 and the biological mechanisms that underlie these findings are urgently needed to identify therapeutic and preventative interventions,” Dr. Comellas, professor of internal medicine at Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, concluded.

The study limitations, the authors state, include the fact that theirs was a single-center study that enrolled participants infected early during the COVID-19 pandemic and did not include patients with Delta or Omicron variants, thus limiting the generalizability of the findings.

The study was published in Radiology.

The reported findings “indicate a long-term impact on bronchiolar obstruction,” states Brett M. Elicker, MD, professor of clinical radiology, University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial . Because collagen may be absorbed for months after an acute insult, it is not entirely clear whether the abnormalities seen in the current study will be permanent. He said further, “the presence of ground glass opacity and/or fibrosis on CT were most common in the patients admitted to the ICU and likely correspond to post-organizing pneumonia and/or post-diffuse alveolar damage fibrosis.”

Dr. Elicker also pointed out that organizing pneumonia is especially common among patients with COVID-19 and is usually highly steroid-responsive. The opacities improve or resolve with treatment, but sometimes residual fibrosis occurs. “Longer-term studies assessing the clinical and imaging manifestations 1-2 years after the initial infection are needed to fully ascertain the permanent manifestations of post-COVID fibrosis.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Elicker have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

Oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Systemic JIA with and without macrophage activation syndrome

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

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

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

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

Beyond pharmacology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Systemic JIA with and without macrophage activation syndrome

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

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

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

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

Beyond pharmacology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Systemic JIA with and without macrophage activation syndrome

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

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

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

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

Beyond pharmacology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s now known that tinnitus may be an unexpected side effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and there is an urgent need to understand the precise mechanisms and best treatment for vaccine-associated tinnitus, researchers say.

As of mid-September 2021, 12,247 cases of tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, following COVID-19 vaccination had been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Despite several cases of tinnitus being reported following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the precise pathophysiology is still not clear,” write Syed Hassan Ahmed, 3rd-year MBBS student, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan, and coauthors.

The researchers review what is known and unknown about SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-associated tinnitus in an article published online Feb. 11 in Annals of Medicine and Surgery.
 

Molecular mimicry?

The researchers say cross-reactivity between anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and otologic antigens is one possibility, based on the mechanisms behind other COVID-19 vaccine–induced disorders and the phenomenon of molecular mimicry.

“The heptapeptide resemblance between coronavirus spike glycoprotein and numerous human proteins further supports molecular mimicry as a potential mechanism behind such vaccine-induced disorders,” they write.

Anti-spike antibodies may react with antigens anywhere along the auditory pathway and fuel an inflammatory reaction, they point out.

“Therefore, understanding the phenomenon of cross-reactivity and molecular mimicry may be helpful in postulating potential treatment behind not only tinnitus but also the rare events of vaccination associated hearing loss and other otologic manifestations,” the authors say.

Genetic predispositions and associated conditions may also play a significant role in determining whether an individual develops vaccine-induced tinnitus.

Stress and anxiety following COVID vaccination may also play a role, inasmuch as anxiety-related adverse events following vaccination have been reported. Vaccine-related anxiety as a potential cause of tinnitus developing after vaccination needs to be explored, they write.
 

Jury out on best management

How best to manage COVID vaccine-associated tinnitus also remains unclear, but it starts with a well-established diagnosis, the authors say.

A well-focused and detailed history and examination are essential, with particular emphasis placed on preexisting health conditions, specifically, autoimmune diseases, such as Hashimoto thyroiditis; otologic conditions, such as sensorineural hearing loss; glaucoma; and psychological well-being. According to the review, patients often present with a history of one or more of these disorders.

“However, any such association has not yet been established and requires further investigation to be concluded as potential risk factors for vaccine-induced tinnitus,” they caution.

Routine cranial nerve examination, otoscopy, Weber test, and Rinne test, which are used for tinnitus diagnosis in general, may be helpful for confirmation of vaccine-associated tinnitus.

Owing to the significant association between tinnitus and hearing impairment, audiology should also performed, the authors say.

Although treatments for non–vaccine-induced tinnitus vary significantly, corticosteroids are the top treatment choice for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced tinnitus reported in the literature.

Trials of other drug and nondrug interventions that may uniquely help with vaccine-associated tinnitus are urgently needed, the authors say.

Summing up, the reviewers say, “Although the incidence of COVID-19 vaccine-associated tinnitus is rare, there is an overwhelming need to discern the precise pathophysiology and clinical management as a better understanding of adverse events may help in encountering vaccine hesitancy and hence fostering the COVID-19 global vaccination program.

“Despite the incidence of adverse events, the benefits of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in reducing hospitalization and deaths continue to outweigh the rare ramifications,” they conclude.

The research had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s now known that tinnitus may be an unexpected side effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and there is an urgent need to understand the precise mechanisms and best treatment for vaccine-associated tinnitus, researchers say.

As of mid-September 2021, 12,247 cases of tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, following COVID-19 vaccination had been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Despite several cases of tinnitus being reported following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the precise pathophysiology is still not clear,” write Syed Hassan Ahmed, 3rd-year MBBS student, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan, and coauthors.

The researchers review what is known and unknown about SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-associated tinnitus in an article published online Feb. 11 in Annals of Medicine and Surgery.
 

Molecular mimicry?

The researchers say cross-reactivity between anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and otologic antigens is one possibility, based on the mechanisms behind other COVID-19 vaccine–induced disorders and the phenomenon of molecular mimicry.

“The heptapeptide resemblance between coronavirus spike glycoprotein and numerous human proteins further supports molecular mimicry as a potential mechanism behind such vaccine-induced disorders,” they write.

Anti-spike antibodies may react with antigens anywhere along the auditory pathway and fuel an inflammatory reaction, they point out.

“Therefore, understanding the phenomenon of cross-reactivity and molecular mimicry may be helpful in postulating potential treatment behind not only tinnitus but also the rare events of vaccination associated hearing loss and other otologic manifestations,” the authors say.

Genetic predispositions and associated conditions may also play a significant role in determining whether an individual develops vaccine-induced tinnitus.

Stress and anxiety following COVID vaccination may also play a role, inasmuch as anxiety-related adverse events following vaccination have been reported. Vaccine-related anxiety as a potential cause of tinnitus developing after vaccination needs to be explored, they write.
 

Jury out on best management

How best to manage COVID vaccine-associated tinnitus also remains unclear, but it starts with a well-established diagnosis, the authors say.

A well-focused and detailed history and examination are essential, with particular emphasis placed on preexisting health conditions, specifically, autoimmune diseases, such as Hashimoto thyroiditis; otologic conditions, such as sensorineural hearing loss; glaucoma; and psychological well-being. According to the review, patients often present with a history of one or more of these disorders.

“However, any such association has not yet been established and requires further investigation to be concluded as potential risk factors for vaccine-induced tinnitus,” they caution.

Routine cranial nerve examination, otoscopy, Weber test, and Rinne test, which are used for tinnitus diagnosis in general, may be helpful for confirmation of vaccine-associated tinnitus.

Owing to the significant association between tinnitus and hearing impairment, audiology should also performed, the authors say.

Although treatments for non–vaccine-induced tinnitus vary significantly, corticosteroids are the top treatment choice for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced tinnitus reported in the literature.

Trials of other drug and nondrug interventions that may uniquely help with vaccine-associated tinnitus are urgently needed, the authors say.

Summing up, the reviewers say, “Although the incidence of COVID-19 vaccine-associated tinnitus is rare, there is an overwhelming need to discern the precise pathophysiology and clinical management as a better understanding of adverse events may help in encountering vaccine hesitancy and hence fostering the COVID-19 global vaccination program.

“Despite the incidence of adverse events, the benefits of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in reducing hospitalization and deaths continue to outweigh the rare ramifications,” they conclude.

The research had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s now known that tinnitus may be an unexpected side effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and there is an urgent need to understand the precise mechanisms and best treatment for vaccine-associated tinnitus, researchers say.

As of mid-September 2021, 12,247 cases of tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, following COVID-19 vaccination had been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Despite several cases of tinnitus being reported following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the precise pathophysiology is still not clear,” write Syed Hassan Ahmed, 3rd-year MBBS student, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan, and coauthors.

The researchers review what is known and unknown about SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-associated tinnitus in an article published online Feb. 11 in Annals of Medicine and Surgery.
 

Molecular mimicry?

The researchers say cross-reactivity between anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and otologic antigens is one possibility, based on the mechanisms behind other COVID-19 vaccine–induced disorders and the phenomenon of molecular mimicry.

“The heptapeptide resemblance between coronavirus spike glycoprotein and numerous human proteins further supports molecular mimicry as a potential mechanism behind such vaccine-induced disorders,” they write.

Anti-spike antibodies may react with antigens anywhere along the auditory pathway and fuel an inflammatory reaction, they point out.

“Therefore, understanding the phenomenon of cross-reactivity and molecular mimicry may be helpful in postulating potential treatment behind not only tinnitus but also the rare events of vaccination associated hearing loss and other otologic manifestations,” the authors say.

Genetic predispositions and associated conditions may also play a significant role in determining whether an individual develops vaccine-induced tinnitus.

Stress and anxiety following COVID vaccination may also play a role, inasmuch as anxiety-related adverse events following vaccination have been reported. Vaccine-related anxiety as a potential cause of tinnitus developing after vaccination needs to be explored, they write.
 

Jury out on best management

How best to manage COVID vaccine-associated tinnitus also remains unclear, but it starts with a well-established diagnosis, the authors say.

A well-focused and detailed history and examination are essential, with particular emphasis placed on preexisting health conditions, specifically, autoimmune diseases, such as Hashimoto thyroiditis; otologic conditions, such as sensorineural hearing loss; glaucoma; and psychological well-being. According to the review, patients often present with a history of one or more of these disorders.

“However, any such association has not yet been established and requires further investigation to be concluded as potential risk factors for vaccine-induced tinnitus,” they caution.

Routine cranial nerve examination, otoscopy, Weber test, and Rinne test, which are used for tinnitus diagnosis in general, may be helpful for confirmation of vaccine-associated tinnitus.

Owing to the significant association between tinnitus and hearing impairment, audiology should also performed, the authors say.

Although treatments for non–vaccine-induced tinnitus vary significantly, corticosteroids are the top treatment choice for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced tinnitus reported in the literature.

Trials of other drug and nondrug interventions that may uniquely help with vaccine-associated tinnitus are urgently needed, the authors say.

Summing up, the reviewers say, “Although the incidence of COVID-19 vaccine-associated tinnitus is rare, there is an overwhelming need to discern the precise pathophysiology and clinical management as a better understanding of adverse events may help in encountering vaccine hesitancy and hence fostering the COVID-19 global vaccination program.

“Despite the incidence of adverse events, the benefits of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in reducing hospitalization and deaths continue to outweigh the rare ramifications,” they conclude.

The research had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Biden administration’s new test-to-treat program is simple on the surface: if you feel like you may have COVID-19, go to a pharmacy, get tested, and, if positive, get treated with an antiviral medication on the spot.

But the program is not that simple to groups representing physicians and pharmacists.

One large physicians’ group is concerned that the program leaves doctors on the margins, and may put patients at risk if there are adverse effects from the medications. Pharmacists groups, on the other hand, say the program is too restrictive, according to an article by the research group Advisory Board.

Recently, the White House announced that more than 1,000 pharmacy clinics across the United States had registered to participate in the initiative, according to CNN. Ordering of the drugs is underway in many of these clinics, a White House official told the network.

Besides retail clinics in chain pharmacies, the antivirals will also be available in community health centers, long-term-care facilities, and Veterans Health Administration clinics, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The two antiviral pills authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration include Pfizer’s Paxlovid, for people 12 and older, and Merck’s molnupiravir, for adults. Either drug has to be taken within 5 days after symptoms appear to be effective in preventing serious illness.

The need for speed is a major reason why the government chose to work with retail clinics that are more accessible than most primary care offices. However, the American Medical Association (AMA), the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA), and the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) have publicly criticized the administration’s approach.

The pharmacists’ groups are concerned that the program is limited only to pharmacies with clinics on site, thus restricting the number of pharmacies qualified to participate. Fourteen pharmacy groups, including the NCPA and the APhA, have also sent a letter to the Biden administration urging it to remove barriers to pharmacies ordering the medications.

The groups also want permission as “clinically trained medication experts” to prescribe the drugs and ensure their safe use.

The AMA on March 4 took issue with the prescribing component, saying that “the pharmacy-based clinic component of the test-to-treat plan flouts patient safety and risks significant negative health outcomes.”

In the AMA’s view, prescribing Paxlovid without a patient’s physician being present poses a risk for adverse drug interactions, as neither the nurse practitioners in retail clinics nor the pharmacists who dispense the drug have full knowledge of a patient›s medical history.

The next day, the AMA released another statement, saying it was reassured by comments from administration officials “that patients who have access to a regular source of care should contact their physician shortly after testing positive for COVID-19 to assess their treatment options.”
 

“Traditional doctor-only approach”

Having patients call their doctors after testing positive for COVID in a pharmacy “strikes me as unnecessary in the vast majority of cases, and it will delay treatment,” Robert Wachter, MD, professor and chair of the department of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “In this case, it seems like the AMA is taking a very traditional doctor-only approach. And the world has changed. It’s much more of a team sport than an individual sport, the way it was years ago.”

Dr. Wachter said he has the utmost respect for pharmacists’ ability to screen prescriptions for adverse drug interactions. “We’re required to do medication reconciliation when patients see us,” he says. “And in many hospitals, we delegate that to pharmacists. They’re at least as good at it if not better than physicians are.”

While it’s essential to know what other medications a patient is taking, he noted, pharmacies have computer records of all the prescriptions they’ve filled for patients. In addition, pharmacies have access to complete medication histories through Surescripts, the company that enables electronic prescribing transactions between prescribers and pharmacies.
 

Drug interactions “not trivial”

Preeti Malani, MD, the chief health officer and a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, told this news organization that the potential interactions between Paxlovid and some other medications are “not trivial.”

However, she said, “The really dangerous drugs are the ones for people who have had organ transplants and the like. Those aren’t individuals who are going to shop at a pharmacy.”

Besides the antirejection drugs, Dr. Wachter said, there can be serious interactions with cholesterol-lowering medications. If a person is taking Lipitor, for instance, “Someone would have to make the decision on whether it’s ok for me to stop it for a while, or to lower the dose. But I trust the pharmacist to do that as well as anybody.”

Except for these potential drug interactions with Paxlovid, the antiviral medications are “quite safe,” he said, adding that being able to treat people who test positive for COVID-19 right away is a big advantage of the test-to-treat program, considering how difficult it is for many people to get access to a doctor. That delay could mean that the antivirals are not prescribed and taken until they are no longer effective.

Both Dr. Wachter and Dr. Malani said that the widespread distribution of pharmacies and their extended hours are other big pluses, especially for people who can’t easily leave work or travel far to visit a physician.

Dr. Malani cautioned that there are still kinks to work out in the test-to-treat program. It will be a while before the retail clinics all have the antiviral drugs, and many pharmacies don’t have clinics on site.

Still, she said people can still go to their physicians to be tested, and presumably those doctors can also write antiviral prescriptions. But it’s not clear where the antivirals will be available in the near term.

“Right now, we’re playing catch-up,” Dr. Malani said. “But pharmacies are an important piece of the puzzle.”

Looking at the big picture, she said, “We know that neither vaccination nor natural infection provides long lasting immunity, and so there will be a role for antivirals in order to make this a manageable illness. And when you’re talking about millions of cases, as we were having a few months ago, the health system can’t field all those patients. So we do need a system where I can go to a pharmacy and get a test and treatment.”

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

The Biden administration’s new test-to-treat program is simple on the surface: if you feel like you may have COVID-19, go to a pharmacy, get tested, and, if positive, get treated with an antiviral medication on the spot.

But the program is not that simple to groups representing physicians and pharmacists.

One large physicians’ group is concerned that the program leaves doctors on the margins, and may put patients at risk if there are adverse effects from the medications. Pharmacists groups, on the other hand, say the program is too restrictive, according to an article by the research group Advisory Board.

Recently, the White House announced that more than 1,000 pharmacy clinics across the United States had registered to participate in the initiative, according to CNN. Ordering of the drugs is underway in many of these clinics, a White House official told the network.

Besides retail clinics in chain pharmacies, the antivirals will also be available in community health centers, long-term-care facilities, and Veterans Health Administration clinics, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The two antiviral pills authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration include Pfizer’s Paxlovid, for people 12 and older, and Merck’s molnupiravir, for adults. Either drug has to be taken within 5 days after symptoms appear to be effective in preventing serious illness.

The need for speed is a major reason why the government chose to work with retail clinics that are more accessible than most primary care offices. However, the American Medical Association (AMA), the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA), and the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) have publicly criticized the administration’s approach.

The pharmacists’ groups are concerned that the program is limited only to pharmacies with clinics on site, thus restricting the number of pharmacies qualified to participate. Fourteen pharmacy groups, including the NCPA and the APhA, have also sent a letter to the Biden administration urging it to remove barriers to pharmacies ordering the medications.

The groups also want permission as “clinically trained medication experts” to prescribe the drugs and ensure their safe use.

The AMA on March 4 took issue with the prescribing component, saying that “the pharmacy-based clinic component of the test-to-treat plan flouts patient safety and risks significant negative health outcomes.”

In the AMA’s view, prescribing Paxlovid without a patient’s physician being present poses a risk for adverse drug interactions, as neither the nurse practitioners in retail clinics nor the pharmacists who dispense the drug have full knowledge of a patient›s medical history.

The next day, the AMA released another statement, saying it was reassured by comments from administration officials “that patients who have access to a regular source of care should contact their physician shortly after testing positive for COVID-19 to assess their treatment options.”
 

“Traditional doctor-only approach”

Having patients call their doctors after testing positive for COVID in a pharmacy “strikes me as unnecessary in the vast majority of cases, and it will delay treatment,” Robert Wachter, MD, professor and chair of the department of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “In this case, it seems like the AMA is taking a very traditional doctor-only approach. And the world has changed. It’s much more of a team sport than an individual sport, the way it was years ago.”

Dr. Wachter said he has the utmost respect for pharmacists’ ability to screen prescriptions for adverse drug interactions. “We’re required to do medication reconciliation when patients see us,” he says. “And in many hospitals, we delegate that to pharmacists. They’re at least as good at it if not better than physicians are.”

While it’s essential to know what other medications a patient is taking, he noted, pharmacies have computer records of all the prescriptions they’ve filled for patients. In addition, pharmacies have access to complete medication histories through Surescripts, the company that enables electronic prescribing transactions between prescribers and pharmacies.
 

Drug interactions “not trivial”

Preeti Malani, MD, the chief health officer and a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, told this news organization that the potential interactions between Paxlovid and some other medications are “not trivial.”

However, she said, “The really dangerous drugs are the ones for people who have had organ transplants and the like. Those aren’t individuals who are going to shop at a pharmacy.”

Besides the antirejection drugs, Dr. Wachter said, there can be serious interactions with cholesterol-lowering medications. If a person is taking Lipitor, for instance, “Someone would have to make the decision on whether it’s ok for me to stop it for a while, or to lower the dose. But I trust the pharmacist to do that as well as anybody.”

Except for these potential drug interactions with Paxlovid, the antiviral medications are “quite safe,” he said, adding that being able to treat people who test positive for COVID-19 right away is a big advantage of the test-to-treat program, considering how difficult it is for many people to get access to a doctor. That delay could mean that the antivirals are not prescribed and taken until they are no longer effective.

Both Dr. Wachter and Dr. Malani said that the widespread distribution of pharmacies and their extended hours are other big pluses, especially for people who can’t easily leave work or travel far to visit a physician.

Dr. Malani cautioned that there are still kinks to work out in the test-to-treat program. It will be a while before the retail clinics all have the antiviral drugs, and many pharmacies don’t have clinics on site.

Still, she said people can still go to their physicians to be tested, and presumably those doctors can also write antiviral prescriptions. But it’s not clear where the antivirals will be available in the near term.

“Right now, we’re playing catch-up,” Dr. Malani said. “But pharmacies are an important piece of the puzzle.”

Looking at the big picture, she said, “We know that neither vaccination nor natural infection provides long lasting immunity, and so there will be a role for antivirals in order to make this a manageable illness. And when you’re talking about millions of cases, as we were having a few months ago, the health system can’t field all those patients. So we do need a system where I can go to a pharmacy and get a test and treatment.”

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

The Biden administration’s new test-to-treat program is simple on the surface: if you feel like you may have COVID-19, go to a pharmacy, get tested, and, if positive, get treated with an antiviral medication on the spot.

But the program is not that simple to groups representing physicians and pharmacists.

One large physicians’ group is concerned that the program leaves doctors on the margins, and may put patients at risk if there are adverse effects from the medications. Pharmacists groups, on the other hand, say the program is too restrictive, according to an article by the research group Advisory Board.

Recently, the White House announced that more than 1,000 pharmacy clinics across the United States had registered to participate in the initiative, according to CNN. Ordering of the drugs is underway in many of these clinics, a White House official told the network.

Besides retail clinics in chain pharmacies, the antivirals will also be available in community health centers, long-term-care facilities, and Veterans Health Administration clinics, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The two antiviral pills authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration include Pfizer’s Paxlovid, for people 12 and older, and Merck’s molnupiravir, for adults. Either drug has to be taken within 5 days after symptoms appear to be effective in preventing serious illness.

The need for speed is a major reason why the government chose to work with retail clinics that are more accessible than most primary care offices. However, the American Medical Association (AMA), the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA), and the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) have publicly criticized the administration’s approach.

The pharmacists’ groups are concerned that the program is limited only to pharmacies with clinics on site, thus restricting the number of pharmacies qualified to participate. Fourteen pharmacy groups, including the NCPA and the APhA, have also sent a letter to the Biden administration urging it to remove barriers to pharmacies ordering the medications.

The groups also want permission as “clinically trained medication experts” to prescribe the drugs and ensure their safe use.

The AMA on March 4 took issue with the prescribing component, saying that “the pharmacy-based clinic component of the test-to-treat plan flouts patient safety and risks significant negative health outcomes.”

In the AMA’s view, prescribing Paxlovid without a patient’s physician being present poses a risk for adverse drug interactions, as neither the nurse practitioners in retail clinics nor the pharmacists who dispense the drug have full knowledge of a patient›s medical history.

The next day, the AMA released another statement, saying it was reassured by comments from administration officials “that patients who have access to a regular source of care should contact their physician shortly after testing positive for COVID-19 to assess their treatment options.”
 

“Traditional doctor-only approach”

Having patients call their doctors after testing positive for COVID in a pharmacy “strikes me as unnecessary in the vast majority of cases, and it will delay treatment,” Robert Wachter, MD, professor and chair of the department of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “In this case, it seems like the AMA is taking a very traditional doctor-only approach. And the world has changed. It’s much more of a team sport than an individual sport, the way it was years ago.”

Dr. Wachter said he has the utmost respect for pharmacists’ ability to screen prescriptions for adverse drug interactions. “We’re required to do medication reconciliation when patients see us,” he says. “And in many hospitals, we delegate that to pharmacists. They’re at least as good at it if not better than physicians are.”

While it’s essential to know what other medications a patient is taking, he noted, pharmacies have computer records of all the prescriptions they’ve filled for patients. In addition, pharmacies have access to complete medication histories through Surescripts, the company that enables electronic prescribing transactions between prescribers and pharmacies.
 

Drug interactions “not trivial”

Preeti Malani, MD, the chief health officer and a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, told this news organization that the potential interactions between Paxlovid and some other medications are “not trivial.”

However, she said, “The really dangerous drugs are the ones for people who have had organ transplants and the like. Those aren’t individuals who are going to shop at a pharmacy.”

Besides the antirejection drugs, Dr. Wachter said, there can be serious interactions with cholesterol-lowering medications. If a person is taking Lipitor, for instance, “Someone would have to make the decision on whether it’s ok for me to stop it for a while, or to lower the dose. But I trust the pharmacist to do that as well as anybody.”

Except for these potential drug interactions with Paxlovid, the antiviral medications are “quite safe,” he said, adding that being able to treat people who test positive for COVID-19 right away is a big advantage of the test-to-treat program, considering how difficult it is for many people to get access to a doctor. That delay could mean that the antivirals are not prescribed and taken until they are no longer effective.

Both Dr. Wachter and Dr. Malani said that the widespread distribution of pharmacies and their extended hours are other big pluses, especially for people who can’t easily leave work or travel far to visit a physician.

Dr. Malani cautioned that there are still kinks to work out in the test-to-treat program. It will be a while before the retail clinics all have the antiviral drugs, and many pharmacies don’t have clinics on site.

Still, she said people can still go to their physicians to be tested, and presumably those doctors can also write antiviral prescriptions. But it’s not clear where the antivirals will be available in the near term.

“Right now, we’re playing catch-up,” Dr. Malani said. “But pharmacies are an important piece of the puzzle.”

Looking at the big picture, she said, “We know that neither vaccination nor natural infection provides long lasting immunity, and so there will be a role for antivirals in order to make this a manageable illness. And when you’re talking about millions of cases, as we were having a few months ago, the health system can’t field all those patients. So we do need a system where I can go to a pharmacy and get a test and treatment.”

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

Exposure to air pollution – even short term – may play a role in triggering psoriasis flares, according to new research from Italy, which found a significant association between exposure to higher levels of air pollution prior to patients presenting for psoriasis flares at medical visits, compared with visits unrelated to flares.

“We found that higher concentration of different air pollutants was associated with psoriasis flares in patients living in an industrialized city of the Po Valley” in Verona, Italy, report the authors of the study, published in JAMA Dermatology.

The findings underscore the need for clinicians to “consider environmental/external triggers in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases experiencing flares,” first author Francesco Bellinato, MD, of the Section of Dermatology and Venereology, University of Verona, Italy, told this news organization.

He and his coauthors conducted a case-crossover and cross-sectional longitudinal study that involved a retrospective analysis of data in 957 patients in Verona with chronic plaque psoriasis, who were evaluated every 3-4 months at an outpatient dermatology clinic for a median of 2.7 years.

Over the study period, disease flares, defined as an increase in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) of 5 or more points from the previous visit, occurred in 369 patients (38.6%), consistent with known flare rates in psoriasis. Participants in the study (mean age, 61) had median PASI scores of 12 during visits for psoriatic flares compared with PASI scores of 1 during control (no flare) visits (P < .001).

Evaluations of mean concentrations of several air pollutants within 10 miles of the patients over 4,398 visits showed that concentrations were significantly higher in the 60 days prior to the psoriasis flare, compared with control visits that were not related to flares (P < .05), after adjusting for factors including seasonality (by trimester, to adjust for weather conditions and UV/sunlight exposure) and the type of systemic psoriasis treatments patients were receiving (conventional or biological).

Increases in air pollutant levels prior to flares were observed among the 35.8% of patients who had a flare of at least a 50% increase in the PASI score, as well among the 47.2% of patients who had at least a 100% increase in PASI, compared with control visits not involving flares. In addition, mean and area-under-the-curve concentrations of air pollutants were higher in the 60 days before the visits among those with PASI 5 or greater, compared with those with PASI scores below 5, the authors add.

Dr. Bellinato noted that the associations were not limited to any particular subgroup. “The associations with air pollution and flares were observed in the entire population,” he said in an interview.

Vehicle, industry emissions

The pollutants that were measured were those mainly associated with fossil fuel combustion from vehicle and industry emissions, including carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, other nitrogen oxides, benzene, coarse particulate matter (2.5-10.0 μm in diameter) and fine particulate matter (less than 2.5 μm in diameter).

They note that the risk of having a PASI score of 5 or greater was elevated even at thresholds of exposure that are largely considered safe. “Indeed, the risk for having a PASI score of 5 or greater was 40% to 50% higher at exposures as low as 20 μg/m³” of coarse particulate matter and 15 μg/m³ of fine particulate matter in the 60-day period prior to the visits, they write.

The authors referred to evidence linking air pollution with a worsening of a variety of inflammatory cutaneous diseases, including atopic dermatitis and acne, as well as photoaging. Psoriasis flares are known to be triggered by a variety of environmental factors, including infections or certain drugs; however, evidence of a role of air pollution has been lacking. Potential mechanisms linking the exposures to flares include the possibility that exhaust particles can activate skin resident T-cells, “resulting in abnormal production of proinflammatory cytokines including tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) and interleukins (ILs), including IL-1α, IL-1β, IL-6, and IL-8.8,” the authors write.

Their results, though inferring a causal relationship, fall short of showing a clear dose–response relationship between higher pollutant levels and an increased risk of psoriasis flares, possibly the result of a smaller sample size of subjects exposed to higher levels of pollution, they add.

Limitations of the study included the definition of flare, which used a clinical score that could be affected by other measurements, they point out, while strengths of the study included the large cohort of patients followed for over 7 years and the availability of daily measurements of air pollutants.

While the study suggests that environmental air pollutant fluctuations may affect psoriasis course,” the authors concluded, “further study is needed to examine whether these findings generalize to other populations and to better understand the mechanisms by which air pollution may affect psoriasis disease activity.”

Dr. Bellinato and four coauthors had no disclosures; the remaining authors had disclosures that included receiving personal fees from pharmaceutical companies that were outside of the submitted work.

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

Exposure to air pollution – even short term – may play a role in triggering psoriasis flares, according to new research from Italy, which found a significant association between exposure to higher levels of air pollution prior to patients presenting for psoriasis flares at medical visits, compared with visits unrelated to flares.

“We found that higher concentration of different air pollutants was associated with psoriasis flares in patients living in an industrialized city of the Po Valley” in Verona, Italy, report the authors of the study, published in JAMA Dermatology.

The findings underscore the need for clinicians to “consider environmental/external triggers in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases experiencing flares,” first author Francesco Bellinato, MD, of the Section of Dermatology and Venereology, University of Verona, Italy, told this news organization.

He and his coauthors conducted a case-crossover and cross-sectional longitudinal study that involved a retrospective analysis of data in 957 patients in Verona with chronic plaque psoriasis, who were evaluated every 3-4 months at an outpatient dermatology clinic for a median of 2.7 years.

Over the study period, disease flares, defined as an increase in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) of 5 or more points from the previous visit, occurred in 369 patients (38.6%), consistent with known flare rates in psoriasis. Participants in the study (mean age, 61) had median PASI scores of 12 during visits for psoriatic flares compared with PASI scores of 1 during control (no flare) visits (P < .001).

Evaluations of mean concentrations of several air pollutants within 10 miles of the patients over 4,398 visits showed that concentrations were significantly higher in the 60 days prior to the psoriasis flare, compared with control visits that were not related to flares (P < .05), after adjusting for factors including seasonality (by trimester, to adjust for weather conditions and UV/sunlight exposure) and the type of systemic psoriasis treatments patients were receiving (conventional or biological).

Increases in air pollutant levels prior to flares were observed among the 35.8% of patients who had a flare of at least a 50% increase in the PASI score, as well among the 47.2% of patients who had at least a 100% increase in PASI, compared with control visits not involving flares. In addition, mean and area-under-the-curve concentrations of air pollutants were higher in the 60 days before the visits among those with PASI 5 or greater, compared with those with PASI scores below 5, the authors add.

Dr. Bellinato noted that the associations were not limited to any particular subgroup. “The associations with air pollution and flares were observed in the entire population,” he said in an interview.

Vehicle, industry emissions

The pollutants that were measured were those mainly associated with fossil fuel combustion from vehicle and industry emissions, including carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, other nitrogen oxides, benzene, coarse particulate matter (2.5-10.0 μm in diameter) and fine particulate matter (less than 2.5 μm in diameter).

They note that the risk of having a PASI score of 5 or greater was elevated even at thresholds of exposure that are largely considered safe. “Indeed, the risk for having a PASI score of 5 or greater was 40% to 50% higher at exposures as low as 20 μg/m³” of coarse particulate matter and 15 μg/m³ of fine particulate matter in the 60-day period prior to the visits, they write.

The authors referred to evidence linking air pollution with a worsening of a variety of inflammatory cutaneous diseases, including atopic dermatitis and acne, as well as photoaging. Psoriasis flares are known to be triggered by a variety of environmental factors, including infections or certain drugs; however, evidence of a role of air pollution has been lacking. Potential mechanisms linking the exposures to flares include the possibility that exhaust particles can activate skin resident T-cells, “resulting in abnormal production of proinflammatory cytokines including tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) and interleukins (ILs), including IL-1α, IL-1β, IL-6, and IL-8.8,” the authors write.

Their results, though inferring a causal relationship, fall short of showing a clear dose–response relationship between higher pollutant levels and an increased risk of psoriasis flares, possibly the result of a smaller sample size of subjects exposed to higher levels of pollution, they add.

Limitations of the study included the definition of flare, which used a clinical score that could be affected by other measurements, they point out, while strengths of the study included the large cohort of patients followed for over 7 years and the availability of daily measurements of air pollutants.

While the study suggests that environmental air pollutant fluctuations may affect psoriasis course,” the authors concluded, “further study is needed to examine whether these findings generalize to other populations and to better understand the mechanisms by which air pollution may affect psoriasis disease activity.”

Dr. Bellinato and four coauthors had no disclosures; the remaining authors had disclosures that included receiving personal fees from pharmaceutical companies that were outside of the submitted work.

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

Exposure to air pollution – even short term – may play a role in triggering psoriasis flares, according to new research from Italy, which found a significant association between exposure to higher levels of air pollution prior to patients presenting for psoriasis flares at medical visits, compared with visits unrelated to flares.

“We found that higher concentration of different air pollutants was associated with psoriasis flares in patients living in an industrialized city of the Po Valley” in Verona, Italy, report the authors of the study, published in JAMA Dermatology.

The findings underscore the need for clinicians to “consider environmental/external triggers in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases experiencing flares,” first author Francesco Bellinato, MD, of the Section of Dermatology and Venereology, University of Verona, Italy, told this news organization.

He and his coauthors conducted a case-crossover and cross-sectional longitudinal study that involved a retrospective analysis of data in 957 patients in Verona with chronic plaque psoriasis, who were evaluated every 3-4 months at an outpatient dermatology clinic for a median of 2.7 years.

Over the study period, disease flares, defined as an increase in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) of 5 or more points from the previous visit, occurred in 369 patients (38.6%), consistent with known flare rates in psoriasis. Participants in the study (mean age, 61) had median PASI scores of 12 during visits for psoriatic flares compared with PASI scores of 1 during control (no flare) visits (P < .001).

Evaluations of mean concentrations of several air pollutants within 10 miles of the patients over 4,398 visits showed that concentrations were significantly higher in the 60 days prior to the psoriasis flare, compared with control visits that were not related to flares (P < .05), after adjusting for factors including seasonality (by trimester, to adjust for weather conditions and UV/sunlight exposure) and the type of systemic psoriasis treatments patients were receiving (conventional or biological).

Increases in air pollutant levels prior to flares were observed among the 35.8% of patients who had a flare of at least a 50% increase in the PASI score, as well among the 47.2% of patients who had at least a 100% increase in PASI, compared with control visits not involving flares. In addition, mean and area-under-the-curve concentrations of air pollutants were higher in the 60 days before the visits among those with PASI 5 or greater, compared with those with PASI scores below 5, the authors add.

Dr. Bellinato noted that the associations were not limited to any particular subgroup. “The associations with air pollution and flares were observed in the entire population,” he said in an interview.

Vehicle, industry emissions

The pollutants that were measured were those mainly associated with fossil fuel combustion from vehicle and industry emissions, including carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, other nitrogen oxides, benzene, coarse particulate matter (2.5-10.0 μm in diameter) and fine particulate matter (less than 2.5 μm in diameter).

They note that the risk of having a PASI score of 5 or greater was elevated even at thresholds of exposure that are largely considered safe. “Indeed, the risk for having a PASI score of 5 or greater was 40% to 50% higher at exposures as low as 20 μg/m³” of coarse particulate matter and 15 μg/m³ of fine particulate matter in the 60-day period prior to the visits, they write.

The authors referred to evidence linking air pollution with a worsening of a variety of inflammatory cutaneous diseases, including atopic dermatitis and acne, as well as photoaging. Psoriasis flares are known to be triggered by a variety of environmental factors, including infections or certain drugs; however, evidence of a role of air pollution has been lacking. Potential mechanisms linking the exposures to flares include the possibility that exhaust particles can activate skin resident T-cells, “resulting in abnormal production of proinflammatory cytokines including tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) and interleukins (ILs), including IL-1α, IL-1β, IL-6, and IL-8.8,” the authors write.

Their results, though inferring a causal relationship, fall short of showing a clear dose–response relationship between higher pollutant levels and an increased risk of psoriasis flares, possibly the result of a smaller sample size of subjects exposed to higher levels of pollution, they add.

Limitations of the study included the definition of flare, which used a clinical score that could be affected by other measurements, they point out, while strengths of the study included the large cohort of patients followed for over 7 years and the availability of daily measurements of air pollutants.

While the study suggests that environmental air pollutant fluctuations may affect psoriasis course,” the authors concluded, “further study is needed to examine whether these findings generalize to other populations and to better understand the mechanisms by which air pollution may affect psoriasis disease activity.”

Dr. Bellinato and four coauthors had no disclosures; the remaining authors had disclosures that included receiving personal fees from pharmaceutical companies that were outside of the submitted work.

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

Should pharmaceutical companies continue to do business in Russia, running ongoing clinical trials, starting new ones, or continuing to sell their products there?

Some argue that medicine and science must not get enmeshed in politics, staying above the fray to protect their independence and credibility. Other defenders of business-as-usual say the pharmaceutical industry deals in health and aids the vulnerable. Humanitarianism requires continued interaction with Russia.

I think both arguments fail. Pharma should follow the lead of other Western companies and suspend their involvement with Putin’s Russia.

We are fighting a war with Russia. It is a war of economic strangulation, social isolation, and pushing Russia as hard as we can to become a pariah state so that internal pressure on Putin will cause him to rethink his cruel, unjustified invasion or the Russian people to replace him. This pressure must be harsh and it must happen quickly. Why?

Having failed to rapidly defeat the Ukrainian army in the war’s first weeks, Russian commanders are now resorting to the horrible barbarism they used in previous wars in Chechnya and Syria: flattening cities, attacking civilians, killing children with massive and indiscriminate firepower.

To mention one recent horror among many, Russian shelling destroyed a maternity hospital in Mariupol. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in bemoaning the Russians for their continuing series of war crimes called on the world to act.

“Mariupol. Direct Strike of Russian troops at the maternity hospital,” he wrote in a Twitter post. “People, children are under the wreckage. Atrocity! How much longer will the world be an accomplice ignoring terror?”

The Russian government’s response: “It is not the first time we have seen pathetic outcries concerning the so-called atrocities,” said Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, claiming the hospital was being used as a base by an “ultra-radical” Ukrainian battalion.

Health and its preservation are key parts of the aim of medicine and science. There is no way that medicine and science can ignore what war does to health, what attacks on hospitals do to the sick and those who serve them there, the psychological toll that intentional terrorism takes on civilians and their defenders, and what the destruction of infrastructure means for the long-term well-being of Ukrainians.

There can be no collusion with war criminals. There can be no denial of the inextricable link between medicine, science, and politics. Medicine and science are controlled by political forces; their use for good or evil is driven by political considerations, and each doctor, scientist, and scientific society must take a stand when politics corrodes the underlying aims of research and healing.

How far does noncooperation with Russia go? Very, very far. All research, both ongoing and new, must cease immediately. Whatever can be done to minimize harm to existing subjects in a short period of time ought to be done, but that is it.

Similarly, no sale of medicines or therapies ought to be occurring, be they life-saving or consumer products. Putin will see to it that such shipments go to the military or are sold on the black market for revenue, and there is nothing pharma companies can do to stop that.

The Russian people need to be pinched not only by the loss of cheeseburgers and boutique coffee but by products they use to maintain their well-being. War is cruel that way, but if you tolerate a government that is bombing and shelling a peaceful neighbor to oblivion, then pharma must ensure that efforts to make Putin and his kleptocratic goons feel the wrath of their fellow citizens.

Given the realities of nuclear Armageddon, the civilized world must fight obvious barbarity as best it can with sanctions, financial assaults, property seizures, and forgoing commerce, including important raw materials and health products. War, even in a fiscal form, is not without terrible costs; but achieving a rapid, just resolution against tyranny permits no exceptions for pharma or any other business if it is a war that must be fought.

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He has consulted with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use.



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

Should pharmaceutical companies continue to do business in Russia, running ongoing clinical trials, starting new ones, or continuing to sell their products there?

Some argue that medicine and science must not get enmeshed in politics, staying above the fray to protect their independence and credibility. Other defenders of business-as-usual say the pharmaceutical industry deals in health and aids the vulnerable. Humanitarianism requires continued interaction with Russia.

I think both arguments fail. Pharma should follow the lead of other Western companies and suspend their involvement with Putin’s Russia.

We are fighting a war with Russia. It is a war of economic strangulation, social isolation, and pushing Russia as hard as we can to become a pariah state so that internal pressure on Putin will cause him to rethink his cruel, unjustified invasion or the Russian people to replace him. This pressure must be harsh and it must happen quickly. Why?

Having failed to rapidly defeat the Ukrainian army in the war’s first weeks, Russian commanders are now resorting to the horrible barbarism they used in previous wars in Chechnya and Syria: flattening cities, attacking civilians, killing children with massive and indiscriminate firepower.

To mention one recent horror among many, Russian shelling destroyed a maternity hospital in Mariupol. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in bemoaning the Russians for their continuing series of war crimes called on the world to act.

“Mariupol. Direct Strike of Russian troops at the maternity hospital,” he wrote in a Twitter post. “People, children are under the wreckage. Atrocity! How much longer will the world be an accomplice ignoring terror?”

The Russian government’s response: “It is not the first time we have seen pathetic outcries concerning the so-called atrocities,” said Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, claiming the hospital was being used as a base by an “ultra-radical” Ukrainian battalion.

Health and its preservation are key parts of the aim of medicine and science. There is no way that medicine and science can ignore what war does to health, what attacks on hospitals do to the sick and those who serve them there, the psychological toll that intentional terrorism takes on civilians and their defenders, and what the destruction of infrastructure means for the long-term well-being of Ukrainians.

There can be no collusion with war criminals. There can be no denial of the inextricable link between medicine, science, and politics. Medicine and science are controlled by political forces; their use for good or evil is driven by political considerations, and each doctor, scientist, and scientific society must take a stand when politics corrodes the underlying aims of research and healing.

How far does noncooperation with Russia go? Very, very far. All research, both ongoing and new, must cease immediately. Whatever can be done to minimize harm to existing subjects in a short period of time ought to be done, but that is it.

Similarly, no sale of medicines or therapies ought to be occurring, be they life-saving or consumer products. Putin will see to it that such shipments go to the military or are sold on the black market for revenue, and there is nothing pharma companies can do to stop that.

The Russian people need to be pinched not only by the loss of cheeseburgers and boutique coffee but by products they use to maintain their well-being. War is cruel that way, but if you tolerate a government that is bombing and shelling a peaceful neighbor to oblivion, then pharma must ensure that efforts to make Putin and his kleptocratic goons feel the wrath of their fellow citizens.

Given the realities of nuclear Armageddon, the civilized world must fight obvious barbarity as best it can with sanctions, financial assaults, property seizures, and forgoing commerce, including important raw materials and health products. War, even in a fiscal form, is not without terrible costs; but achieving a rapid, just resolution against tyranny permits no exceptions for pharma or any other business if it is a war that must be fought.

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He has consulted with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use.



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

Should pharmaceutical companies continue to do business in Russia, running ongoing clinical trials, starting new ones, or continuing to sell their products there?

Some argue that medicine and science must not get enmeshed in politics, staying above the fray to protect their independence and credibility. Other defenders of business-as-usual say the pharmaceutical industry deals in health and aids the vulnerable. Humanitarianism requires continued interaction with Russia.

I think both arguments fail. Pharma should follow the lead of other Western companies and suspend their involvement with Putin’s Russia.

We are fighting a war with Russia. It is a war of economic strangulation, social isolation, and pushing Russia as hard as we can to become a pariah state so that internal pressure on Putin will cause him to rethink his cruel, unjustified invasion or the Russian people to replace him. This pressure must be harsh and it must happen quickly. Why?

Having failed to rapidly defeat the Ukrainian army in the war’s first weeks, Russian commanders are now resorting to the horrible barbarism they used in previous wars in Chechnya and Syria: flattening cities, attacking civilians, killing children with massive and indiscriminate firepower.

To mention one recent horror among many, Russian shelling destroyed a maternity hospital in Mariupol. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in bemoaning the Russians for their continuing series of war crimes called on the world to act.

“Mariupol. Direct Strike of Russian troops at the maternity hospital,” he wrote in a Twitter post. “People, children are under the wreckage. Atrocity! How much longer will the world be an accomplice ignoring terror?”

The Russian government’s response: “It is not the first time we have seen pathetic outcries concerning the so-called atrocities,” said Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, claiming the hospital was being used as a base by an “ultra-radical” Ukrainian battalion.

Health and its preservation are key parts of the aim of medicine and science. There is no way that medicine and science can ignore what war does to health, what attacks on hospitals do to the sick and those who serve them there, the psychological toll that intentional terrorism takes on civilians and their defenders, and what the destruction of infrastructure means for the long-term well-being of Ukrainians.

There can be no collusion with war criminals. There can be no denial of the inextricable link between medicine, science, and politics. Medicine and science are controlled by political forces; their use for good or evil is driven by political considerations, and each doctor, scientist, and scientific society must take a stand when politics corrodes the underlying aims of research and healing.

How far does noncooperation with Russia go? Very, very far. All research, both ongoing and new, must cease immediately. Whatever can be done to minimize harm to existing subjects in a short period of time ought to be done, but that is it.

Similarly, no sale of medicines or therapies ought to be occurring, be they life-saving or consumer products. Putin will see to it that such shipments go to the military or are sold on the black market for revenue, and there is nothing pharma companies can do to stop that.

The Russian people need to be pinched not only by the loss of cheeseburgers and boutique coffee but by products they use to maintain their well-being. War is cruel that way, but if you tolerate a government that is bombing and shelling a peaceful neighbor to oblivion, then pharma must ensure that efforts to make Putin and his kleptocratic goons feel the wrath of their fellow citizens.

Given the realities of nuclear Armageddon, the civilized world must fight obvious barbarity as best it can with sanctions, financial assaults, property seizures, and forgoing commerce, including important raw materials and health products. War, even in a fiscal form, is not without terrible costs; but achieving a rapid, just resolution against tyranny permits no exceptions for pharma or any other business if it is a war that must be fought.

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He has consulted with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use.



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

The risk of cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with psoriatic disease rises with higher levels of two cardiac biomarkers in a manner independent of risk calculated by the Framingham Risk Score (FRS), a longitudinal cohort study has shown. But researchers who conducted the study note that neither of the two biomarkers identified in the study – cardiac troponin I (cTnI) and N-terminal pro-brain-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) – led to an improvement in predictive performance when combined with the FRS, despite their association with carotid plaque burden.

Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are both associated with greater risk of CV morbidity and mortality, partly because of systemic inflammation that leads to atherogenesis. Measures of CV risk such as the FRS rely on traditional measures of CV risk and thus are likely to underestimate the CV event risk of people with psoriatic disease, according to the authors of the new study, published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology. The effort was led by Keith Colaço, MSc; Lihi Eder, MD, PhD; and other researchers affiliated with the University of Toronto.

Alexander Raths/ThinkStock

“We are desperately in need of biomarker science advancement in psoriatic arthritis for a variety of places of guidance: How to choose a medication more accurately for the patient in front of us – that is, getting to be more like oncologists who use biomarkers to pick the best treatment or combination. That’s an important need. A second important need is how to guide clinicians regarding risk prediction for things like persistent, severe disease activity, progressive structural damage from disease, and, in this case, predicting a very common comorbidity that occurs in [psoriasis and] psoriatic arthritis patients,” Philip J. Mease, MD, told this news organization when asked to comment on the study.

Such biomarkers could assist with patient counseling, according to Dr. Mease, who is director of rheumatology research at Swedish Medical Center/Providence St. Joseph Health and is a clinical professor at the University of Washington, both in Seattle. Some patients may struggle with advice to lose weight or adopt lifestyle measures to limit CV risk, and more accurate predictions of risk may serve as further motivation. “It could well be that if you have a biomarker that accurately predicts a coming cataclysm, that it will lead you to redouble your efforts to do whatever it takes to reduce cardiovascular risk,” he said.

Both cTnI and NT-proBNP have been linked to increased CV risk in the general population, but little work has been done in the context of rheumatologic diseases.

The researchers analyzed data from 358 patients seen at the University of Toronto. The mean follow-up was 3.69 years. After adjustment for CV risk factors, lipid-lowering therapy, and creatinine levels, there was an association between cTnI levels and total carotid plaque area (adjusted beta coefficient, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0-0.41), but not for levels of NT-proBNP.

Atherosclerosis progressed in 89 participants overall, but multivariate adjustment revealed no significant relationship between progression and cTnI or NT-proBNP levels.

Separately, the researchers analyzed 1,000 individuals with psoriatic arthritis (n = 648) or with psoriasis and no arthritis (n = 352) whom they followed for a mean of 7.1 years after the patients underwent evaluation during 2002-2019. After adjustment for FRS, there was an association between the risk of a CV event and each 1–standard deviation increase in both cTnI (hazard ratio, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.12-8.16) and NT-proBNP (HR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.28-3.18).

The combination of both biomarkers with the FRS predicted higher CV risk (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.23-2.97). Neither biomarker made a statistically significant difference in changing CV risk prediction when added individually to FRS, although cTnI trended toward significance (HR, 2.60; 95% CI, 0.98-6.87).

Instead of the carotid plaque burden, Dr. Mease would have liked to have seen the authors evaluate calcium scores in coronary arteries as measured by CT. “I would have loved to have seen the researchers using that in addition to the carotid plaque assessment, to see what that would show us about these patients,” he said.

Only a small number of patients experienced CV events during the study period, which will likely make it necessary to conduct larger studies to identify a clear relationship. “You need a registry-type study with probably many hundreds if not thousands of patients in order to identify whether or not adding troponin could be useful to what we typically measure with patients when we’re trying to assess their risk,” Dr. Mease said.

The study was supported in part by the National Psoriasis Foundation and the Arthritis Society. Individual researchers have received support from a range of sources, including the Enid Walker Estate, the Women’s College Research Institute, the Arthritis Society, the National Psoriasis Foundation, the Edward Dunlop Foundation, the Ontario Ministry of Science and Innovation, and a Pfizer Chair Research Award. Some of the researchers have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.

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

The risk of cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with psoriatic disease rises with higher levels of two cardiac biomarkers in a manner independent of risk calculated by the Framingham Risk Score (FRS), a longitudinal cohort study has shown. But researchers who conducted the study note that neither of the two biomarkers identified in the study – cardiac troponin I (cTnI) and N-terminal pro-brain-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) – led to an improvement in predictive performance when combined with the FRS, despite their association with carotid plaque burden.

Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are both associated with greater risk of CV morbidity and mortality, partly because of systemic inflammation that leads to atherogenesis. Measures of CV risk such as the FRS rely on traditional measures of CV risk and thus are likely to underestimate the CV event risk of people with psoriatic disease, according to the authors of the new study, published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology. The effort was led by Keith Colaço, MSc; Lihi Eder, MD, PhD; and other researchers affiliated with the University of Toronto.

Alexander Raths/ThinkStock

“We are desperately in need of biomarker science advancement in psoriatic arthritis for a variety of places of guidance: How to choose a medication more accurately for the patient in front of us – that is, getting to be more like oncologists who use biomarkers to pick the best treatment or combination. That’s an important need. A second important need is how to guide clinicians regarding risk prediction for things like persistent, severe disease activity, progressive structural damage from disease, and, in this case, predicting a very common comorbidity that occurs in [psoriasis and] psoriatic arthritis patients,” Philip J. Mease, MD, told this news organization when asked to comment on the study.

Such biomarkers could assist with patient counseling, according to Dr. Mease, who is director of rheumatology research at Swedish Medical Center/Providence St. Joseph Health and is a clinical professor at the University of Washington, both in Seattle. Some patients may struggle with advice to lose weight or adopt lifestyle measures to limit CV risk, and more accurate predictions of risk may serve as further motivation. “It could well be that if you have a biomarker that accurately predicts a coming cataclysm, that it will lead you to redouble your efforts to do whatever it takes to reduce cardiovascular risk,” he said.

Both cTnI and NT-proBNP have been linked to increased CV risk in the general population, but little work has been done in the context of rheumatologic diseases.

The researchers analyzed data from 358 patients seen at the University of Toronto. The mean follow-up was 3.69 years. After adjustment for CV risk factors, lipid-lowering therapy, and creatinine levels, there was an association between cTnI levels and total carotid plaque area (adjusted beta coefficient, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0-0.41), but not for levels of NT-proBNP.

Atherosclerosis progressed in 89 participants overall, but multivariate adjustment revealed no significant relationship between progression and cTnI or NT-proBNP levels.

Separately, the researchers analyzed 1,000 individuals with psoriatic arthritis (n = 648) or with psoriasis and no arthritis (n = 352) whom they followed for a mean of 7.1 years after the patients underwent evaluation during 2002-2019. After adjustment for FRS, there was an association between the risk of a CV event and each 1–standard deviation increase in both cTnI (hazard ratio, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.12-8.16) and NT-proBNP (HR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.28-3.18).

The combination of both biomarkers with the FRS predicted higher CV risk (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.23-2.97). Neither biomarker made a statistically significant difference in changing CV risk prediction when added individually to FRS, although cTnI trended toward significance (HR, 2.60; 95% CI, 0.98-6.87).

Instead of the carotid plaque burden, Dr. Mease would have liked to have seen the authors evaluate calcium scores in coronary arteries as measured by CT. “I would have loved to have seen the researchers using that in addition to the carotid plaque assessment, to see what that would show us about these patients,” he said.

Only a small number of patients experienced CV events during the study period, which will likely make it necessary to conduct larger studies to identify a clear relationship. “You need a registry-type study with probably many hundreds if not thousands of patients in order to identify whether or not adding troponin could be useful to what we typically measure with patients when we’re trying to assess their risk,” Dr. Mease said.

The study was supported in part by the National Psoriasis Foundation and the Arthritis Society. Individual researchers have received support from a range of sources, including the Enid Walker Estate, the Women’s College Research Institute, the Arthritis Society, the National Psoriasis Foundation, the Edward Dunlop Foundation, the Ontario Ministry of Science and Innovation, and a Pfizer Chair Research Award. Some of the researchers have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.

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

The risk of cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with psoriatic disease rises with higher levels of two cardiac biomarkers in a manner independent of risk calculated by the Framingham Risk Score (FRS), a longitudinal cohort study has shown. But researchers who conducted the study note that neither of the two biomarkers identified in the study – cardiac troponin I (cTnI) and N-terminal pro-brain-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) – led to an improvement in predictive performance when combined with the FRS, despite their association with carotid plaque burden.

Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are both associated with greater risk of CV morbidity and mortality, partly because of systemic inflammation that leads to atherogenesis. Measures of CV risk such as the FRS rely on traditional measures of CV risk and thus are likely to underestimate the CV event risk of people with psoriatic disease, according to the authors of the new study, published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology. The effort was led by Keith Colaço, MSc; Lihi Eder, MD, PhD; and other researchers affiliated with the University of Toronto.

Alexander Raths/ThinkStock

“We are desperately in need of biomarker science advancement in psoriatic arthritis for a variety of places of guidance: How to choose a medication more accurately for the patient in front of us – that is, getting to be more like oncologists who use biomarkers to pick the best treatment or combination. That’s an important need. A second important need is how to guide clinicians regarding risk prediction for things like persistent, severe disease activity, progressive structural damage from disease, and, in this case, predicting a very common comorbidity that occurs in [psoriasis and] psoriatic arthritis patients,” Philip J. Mease, MD, told this news organization when asked to comment on the study.

Such biomarkers could assist with patient counseling, according to Dr. Mease, who is director of rheumatology research at Swedish Medical Center/Providence St. Joseph Health and is a clinical professor at the University of Washington, both in Seattle. Some patients may struggle with advice to lose weight or adopt lifestyle measures to limit CV risk, and more accurate predictions of risk may serve as further motivation. “It could well be that if you have a biomarker that accurately predicts a coming cataclysm, that it will lead you to redouble your efforts to do whatever it takes to reduce cardiovascular risk,” he said.

Both cTnI and NT-proBNP have been linked to increased CV risk in the general population, but little work has been done in the context of rheumatologic diseases.

The researchers analyzed data from 358 patients seen at the University of Toronto. The mean follow-up was 3.69 years. After adjustment for CV risk factors, lipid-lowering therapy, and creatinine levels, there was an association between cTnI levels and total carotid plaque area (adjusted beta coefficient, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0-0.41), but not for levels of NT-proBNP.

Atherosclerosis progressed in 89 participants overall, but multivariate adjustment revealed no significant relationship between progression and cTnI or NT-proBNP levels.

Separately, the researchers analyzed 1,000 individuals with psoriatic arthritis (n = 648) or with psoriasis and no arthritis (n = 352) whom they followed for a mean of 7.1 years after the patients underwent evaluation during 2002-2019. After adjustment for FRS, there was an association between the risk of a CV event and each 1–standard deviation increase in both cTnI (hazard ratio, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.12-8.16) and NT-proBNP (HR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.28-3.18).

The combination of both biomarkers with the FRS predicted higher CV risk (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.23-2.97). Neither biomarker made a statistically significant difference in changing CV risk prediction when added individually to FRS, although cTnI trended toward significance (HR, 2.60; 95% CI, 0.98-6.87).

Instead of the carotid plaque burden, Dr. Mease would have liked to have seen the authors evaluate calcium scores in coronary arteries as measured by CT. “I would have loved to have seen the researchers using that in addition to the carotid plaque assessment, to see what that would show us about these patients,” he said.

Only a small number of patients experienced CV events during the study period, which will likely make it necessary to conduct larger studies to identify a clear relationship. “You need a registry-type study with probably many hundreds if not thousands of patients in order to identify whether or not adding troponin could be useful to what we typically measure with patients when we’re trying to assess their risk,” Dr. Mease said.

The study was supported in part by the National Psoriasis Foundation and the Arthritis Society. Individual researchers have received support from a range of sources, including the Enid Walker Estate, the Women’s College Research Institute, the Arthritis Society, the National Psoriasis Foundation, the Edward Dunlop Foundation, the Ontario Ministry of Science and Innovation, and a Pfizer Chair Research Award. Some of the researchers have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.

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

Survival rates of biologics and other novel immunomodulatory drugs vary substantially across chronic inflammatory diseases, and rates are highest for rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and golimumab in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but with similar rates seen for most drugs used in the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to findings from a study of two Danish registries.

Drug survival refers to “the probability that patients will remain on a given drug, and is a proxy for efficacy as well as safety in daily clinical practice,” wrote Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Copenhagen University Hospital–Bispebjerg, and colleagues. Although the use of biologics has expanded for inflammatory diseases, real-world data on drug survival in newer agents such as interleukin (IL)-17, IL-23, and Janus kinase inhibitors are lacking, they said.

In a study published in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, the researchers reviewed data from the DANBIO and DERMBIO registries of patients in Denmark with inflammatory diseases including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and psoriasis.

The study population included 12,089 adults: 5,104 with RA, 2,157 with AxSpA, 2,251 with PsA, and 2,577 with psoriasis. Patients’ mean age at the time of first treatment for these conditions was 57.8 years, 42.3 years, 49 years, and 45 years, respectively. Participants were treated with biologics or novel small molecule therapies for RA, AxSpA, PsA, or psoriasis between January 2015 and May 2021 (from the DANBIO database) and November 2009 to November 2019 (DERMBIO database).

In adjusted models, drug survival in RA was highest for rituximab followed by baricitinib, etanercept, and tocilizumab. Drug survival in AxSpA was highest for golimumab, compared with all other drugs, followed by secukinumab and etanercept. Survival was lowest for infliximab. In PsA, drug survival was roughly equal for most drugs, including golimumab, secukinumab, and ixekizumab, with the lowest survival observed for tofacitinib and infliximab, compared with all other drugs. Drug survival in psoriasis was highest with guselkumab, followed by ustekinumab and IL-17 inhibitors.

However, the number of treatment series “was low for some drugs, and not all differences were statistically significant, which could influence the overall interpretability of these findings,” the researchers noted in their discussion.

Notably, the high treatment persistence for rituximab in RA patients needs further confirmation, the researchers said. “In Denmark, rituximab is often the biologic drug of choice in RA patients with a history of cancer while there is a reluctancy to use TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitors in such patients; this may have prolonged the drug survival for rituximab treated patients due to limited treatment alternatives,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational study design and changes in guidelines over the course of the study, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inability to adjust for certain variables, such as antibody status, body weight, and smoking, because of missing data, and a lack of data on the underlying reasons for drug discontinuation, they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the large number of patients and completeness of the registries, the researchers emphasized. The range in responses to different drug types across diseases supports the need for individualized treatments with attention to underlying disease, patient profile, and treatment history, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Eight coauthors reported financial ties to a number of pharmaceutical companies.

Survival rates of biologics and other novel immunomodulatory drugs vary substantially across chronic inflammatory diseases, and rates are highest for rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and golimumab in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but with similar rates seen for most drugs used in the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to findings from a study of two Danish registries.

Drug survival refers to “the probability that patients will remain on a given drug, and is a proxy for efficacy as well as safety in daily clinical practice,” wrote Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Copenhagen University Hospital–Bispebjerg, and colleagues. Although the use of biologics has expanded for inflammatory diseases, real-world data on drug survival in newer agents such as interleukin (IL)-17, IL-23, and Janus kinase inhibitors are lacking, they said.

In a study published in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, the researchers reviewed data from the DANBIO and DERMBIO registries of patients in Denmark with inflammatory diseases including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and psoriasis.

The study population included 12,089 adults: 5,104 with RA, 2,157 with AxSpA, 2,251 with PsA, and 2,577 with psoriasis. Patients’ mean age at the time of first treatment for these conditions was 57.8 years, 42.3 years, 49 years, and 45 years, respectively. Participants were treated with biologics or novel small molecule therapies for RA, AxSpA, PsA, or psoriasis between January 2015 and May 2021 (from the DANBIO database) and November 2009 to November 2019 (DERMBIO database).

In adjusted models, drug survival in RA was highest for rituximab followed by baricitinib, etanercept, and tocilizumab. Drug survival in AxSpA was highest for golimumab, compared with all other drugs, followed by secukinumab and etanercept. Survival was lowest for infliximab. In PsA, drug survival was roughly equal for most drugs, including golimumab, secukinumab, and ixekizumab, with the lowest survival observed for tofacitinib and infliximab, compared with all other drugs. Drug survival in psoriasis was highest with guselkumab, followed by ustekinumab and IL-17 inhibitors.

However, the number of treatment series “was low for some drugs, and not all differences were statistically significant, which could influence the overall interpretability of these findings,” the researchers noted in their discussion.

Notably, the high treatment persistence for rituximab in RA patients needs further confirmation, the researchers said. “In Denmark, rituximab is often the biologic drug of choice in RA patients with a history of cancer while there is a reluctancy to use TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitors in such patients; this may have prolonged the drug survival for rituximab treated patients due to limited treatment alternatives,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational study design and changes in guidelines over the course of the study, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inability to adjust for certain variables, such as antibody status, body weight, and smoking, because of missing data, and a lack of data on the underlying reasons for drug discontinuation, they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the large number of patients and completeness of the registries, the researchers emphasized. The range in responses to different drug types across diseases supports the need for individualized treatments with attention to underlying disease, patient profile, and treatment history, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Eight coauthors reported financial ties to a number of pharmaceutical companies.

Survival rates of biologics and other novel immunomodulatory drugs vary substantially across chronic inflammatory diseases, and rates are highest for rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and golimumab in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but with similar rates seen for most drugs used in the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to findings from a study of two Danish registries.

Drug survival refers to “the probability that patients will remain on a given drug, and is a proxy for efficacy as well as safety in daily clinical practice,” wrote Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Copenhagen University Hospital–Bispebjerg, and colleagues. Although the use of biologics has expanded for inflammatory diseases, real-world data on drug survival in newer agents such as interleukin (IL)-17, IL-23, and Janus kinase inhibitors are lacking, they said.

In a study published in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, the researchers reviewed data from the DANBIO and DERMBIO registries of patients in Denmark with inflammatory diseases including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and psoriasis.

The study population included 12,089 adults: 5,104 with RA, 2,157 with AxSpA, 2,251 with PsA, and 2,577 with psoriasis. Patients’ mean age at the time of first treatment for these conditions was 57.8 years, 42.3 years, 49 years, and 45 years, respectively. Participants were treated with biologics or novel small molecule therapies for RA, AxSpA, PsA, or psoriasis between January 2015 and May 2021 (from the DANBIO database) and November 2009 to November 2019 (DERMBIO database).

In adjusted models, drug survival in RA was highest for rituximab followed by baricitinib, etanercept, and tocilizumab. Drug survival in AxSpA was highest for golimumab, compared with all other drugs, followed by secukinumab and etanercept. Survival was lowest for infliximab. In PsA, drug survival was roughly equal for most drugs, including golimumab, secukinumab, and ixekizumab, with the lowest survival observed for tofacitinib and infliximab, compared with all other drugs. Drug survival in psoriasis was highest with guselkumab, followed by ustekinumab and IL-17 inhibitors.

However, the number of treatment series “was low for some drugs, and not all differences were statistically significant, which could influence the overall interpretability of these findings,” the researchers noted in their discussion.

Notably, the high treatment persistence for rituximab in RA patients needs further confirmation, the researchers said. “In Denmark, rituximab is often the biologic drug of choice in RA patients with a history of cancer while there is a reluctancy to use TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitors in such patients; this may have prolonged the drug survival for rituximab treated patients due to limited treatment alternatives,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational study design and changes in guidelines over the course of the study, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inability to adjust for certain variables, such as antibody status, body weight, and smoking, because of missing data, and a lack of data on the underlying reasons for drug discontinuation, they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the large number of patients and completeness of the registries, the researchers emphasized. The range in responses to different drug types across diseases supports the need for individualized treatments with attention to underlying disease, patient profile, and treatment history, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Eight coauthors reported financial ties to a number of pharmaceutical companies.