Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Latest guidelines on the treatment of osteoporosis have been released that include new recommendations for the use of romosozumab (Evenity) in postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis, but they contain caveats as to which women should – and should not – receive the drug.

The updated clinical practice guideline from the Endocrine Society is in response to the approval of romosozumab by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in April 2019, and more recently, by the European Medicines Agency.

It was published online February 18 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

In the new guidelines, committee members recommend the use of romosozumab for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at very high risk of fracture. Candidates would include women with severe osteoporosis (T-score of less than –2.5 and a prior fracture) or women with a history of multiple vertebral fractures.

Women should be treated with romosozumab for up to 1 year, followed by an antiresorptive agent to maintain bone mineral density gains and further reduce fracture risk.

“The recommended dosage is 210 mg monthly by subcutaneous injection for 12 months,” the authors wrote.

However, and very importantly, romosozumab should not be considered for women at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) or cerebrovascular disease. A high risk of CVD includes women who have had a previous myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.

Experts questioned by Medscape Medical News stressed that romosozumab should not be a first-line, or even generally a second-line, option for osteoporosis, but it can be a considered for select patients with severe osteoporosis, taking into account CV risk.

Boxed warning

In the Active-Controlled Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis at High Risk (ARCH), there were more major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in the first year of the trial with romosozumab, and patients had a 31% higher risk of MACE with romosozumab, compared with the bisphosphonate alendronate.

As a result, the drug was initially rejected by a number of regulatory agencies.

In the United States and Canada, it was eventually approved with a boxed warning, which cautions against the use of the drug in patients at risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, and CVD-related death.

“Romosozumab offers promising results for postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis or who have a history of fractures,” Clifford Rosen, MD, Maine Medical Center Research Institute in Scarborough and chair of the writing committee, said in an Endocrine Society statement. “It does, however, come with a risk of heart disease, so clinicians need to be careful when selecting patients for this therapy.”

Exact risk unknown

Asked by Medscape Medical News to comment, Kenneth Saag, MD, professor of medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham and principle investigator of the ARCH study, said that physicians needed more data from real-world studies to resolve the issue around whether romosozumab heightens the risk of CV events in women with osteoporosis or whether that particular finding from ARCH was an artifact.

“Women who have had a recent cardiovascular event should not receive the drug,” he said, agreeing with the new guidelines.

But it remains unclear, for example, whether women who are at slightly higher risk of having a CV event by virtue of their age alone, are also at risk, he noted.

In the meantime, results from the ARCH study clearly showed that not only was romosozumab more effective than alendronate, “but it is more effective than other bone-building drugs as well,” Dr. Saag observed, and it leads to a significantly greater reduction in vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures, compared with the alendronate, the current standard of care in osteoporosis.

“In patients who have very severe osteoporosis and who have had a recent fracture or who are at risk for imminent future fracture, physicians need to balance the benefit versus the risk in favor of using romosozumab,” Dr. Saag suggested.

“And while I would say most women prefer not to inject themselves, the women I have put on this medicine have all had recent fractures and they are very aware of the pain and the disability of having a broken bone, so it is something they are willing to do,” he added.
 

Not for all women

Giving his opinion, Bart Clarke, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, underscored the fact that the Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis (FRAME), again conducted in postmenopausal women, showed no increase in CV events in patients treated with romosozumab compared with placebo.

“So there are questions about what this means, because if these events really were a drug effect, then that effect would be even more evident compared with placebo and they did not see any signal of CV events [in FRAME],” said Dr. Clarke, past president of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research.

Like everything else in medicine, “there is always some risk,” Dr. Clarke observed.

However, what physicians should do is talk to women, ensure they have not had either an MI or stroke in the last year, and if patients have severe osteoporosis and a high risk of fracture, “then we can say, here’s another option,” he suggested.

“Then, if a woman develops chest pain or shortness of breath while on the drug, [she needs] to let us know ,and then we’ll stop the drug and reassess the situation,” he added.

Dr. Clarke also pointed out that if the FDA had received further reports of CV events linked to romosozumab, physicians would know about it by now, but to his knowledge, there has been no change to the drug’s current warning label.

Furthermore, neither he nor any of his colleagues who treat metabolic bone disease at the Mayo Clinic has seen a single CV event in patients prescribed the agent.

“This is not a drug we would use as first-line for most patients, and we don’t even use it as second-line for most patients, but in people who have not responded to other drugs or who have had terrible things happen to them already, hip fracture especially, then we are saying, you can consider this, he concluded.

The guidelines were supported by the Endocrine Society. Dr. Rosen and Dr. Clarke reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Saag reported receiving grants and personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Radius, and is a consultant for Amgen, Radius, Roche, and Daiichi Sankyo.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Latest guidelines on the treatment of osteoporosis have been released that include new recommendations for the use of romosozumab (Evenity) in postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis, but they contain caveats as to which women should – and should not – receive the drug.

The updated clinical practice guideline from the Endocrine Society is in response to the approval of romosozumab by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in April 2019, and more recently, by the European Medicines Agency.

It was published online February 18 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

In the new guidelines, committee members recommend the use of romosozumab for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at very high risk of fracture. Candidates would include women with severe osteoporosis (T-score of less than –2.5 and a prior fracture) or women with a history of multiple vertebral fractures.

Women should be treated with romosozumab for up to 1 year, followed by an antiresorptive agent to maintain bone mineral density gains and further reduce fracture risk.

“The recommended dosage is 210 mg monthly by subcutaneous injection for 12 months,” the authors wrote.

However, and very importantly, romosozumab should not be considered for women at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) or cerebrovascular disease. A high risk of CVD includes women who have had a previous myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.

Experts questioned by Medscape Medical News stressed that romosozumab should not be a first-line, or even generally a second-line, option for osteoporosis, but it can be a considered for select patients with severe osteoporosis, taking into account CV risk.

Boxed warning

In the Active-Controlled Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis at High Risk (ARCH), there were more major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in the first year of the trial with romosozumab, and patients had a 31% higher risk of MACE with romosozumab, compared with the bisphosphonate alendronate.

As a result, the drug was initially rejected by a number of regulatory agencies.

In the United States and Canada, it was eventually approved with a boxed warning, which cautions against the use of the drug in patients at risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, and CVD-related death.

“Romosozumab offers promising results for postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis or who have a history of fractures,” Clifford Rosen, MD, Maine Medical Center Research Institute in Scarborough and chair of the writing committee, said in an Endocrine Society statement. “It does, however, come with a risk of heart disease, so clinicians need to be careful when selecting patients for this therapy.”

Exact risk unknown

Asked by Medscape Medical News to comment, Kenneth Saag, MD, professor of medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham and principle investigator of the ARCH study, said that physicians needed more data from real-world studies to resolve the issue around whether romosozumab heightens the risk of CV events in women with osteoporosis or whether that particular finding from ARCH was an artifact.

“Women who have had a recent cardiovascular event should not receive the drug,” he said, agreeing with the new guidelines.

But it remains unclear, for example, whether women who are at slightly higher risk of having a CV event by virtue of their age alone, are also at risk, he noted.

In the meantime, results from the ARCH study clearly showed that not only was romosozumab more effective than alendronate, “but it is more effective than other bone-building drugs as well,” Dr. Saag observed, and it leads to a significantly greater reduction in vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures, compared with the alendronate, the current standard of care in osteoporosis.

“In patients who have very severe osteoporosis and who have had a recent fracture or who are at risk for imminent future fracture, physicians need to balance the benefit versus the risk in favor of using romosozumab,” Dr. Saag suggested.

“And while I would say most women prefer not to inject themselves, the women I have put on this medicine have all had recent fractures and they are very aware of the pain and the disability of having a broken bone, so it is something they are willing to do,” he added.
 

Not for all women

Giving his opinion, Bart Clarke, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, underscored the fact that the Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis (FRAME), again conducted in postmenopausal women, showed no increase in CV events in patients treated with romosozumab compared with placebo.

“So there are questions about what this means, because if these events really were a drug effect, then that effect would be even more evident compared with placebo and they did not see any signal of CV events [in FRAME],” said Dr. Clarke, past president of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research.

Like everything else in medicine, “there is always some risk,” Dr. Clarke observed.

However, what physicians should do is talk to women, ensure they have not had either an MI or stroke in the last year, and if patients have severe osteoporosis and a high risk of fracture, “then we can say, here’s another option,” he suggested.

“Then, if a woman develops chest pain or shortness of breath while on the drug, [she needs] to let us know ,and then we’ll stop the drug and reassess the situation,” he added.

Dr. Clarke also pointed out that if the FDA had received further reports of CV events linked to romosozumab, physicians would know about it by now, but to his knowledge, there has been no change to the drug’s current warning label.

Furthermore, neither he nor any of his colleagues who treat metabolic bone disease at the Mayo Clinic has seen a single CV event in patients prescribed the agent.

“This is not a drug we would use as first-line for most patients, and we don’t even use it as second-line for most patients, but in people who have not responded to other drugs or who have had terrible things happen to them already, hip fracture especially, then we are saying, you can consider this, he concluded.

The guidelines were supported by the Endocrine Society. Dr. Rosen and Dr. Clarke reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Saag reported receiving grants and personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Radius, and is a consultant for Amgen, Radius, Roche, and Daiichi Sankyo.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Latest guidelines on the treatment of osteoporosis have been released that include new recommendations for the use of romosozumab (Evenity) in postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis, but they contain caveats as to which women should – and should not – receive the drug.

The updated clinical practice guideline from the Endocrine Society is in response to the approval of romosozumab by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in April 2019, and more recently, by the European Medicines Agency.

It was published online February 18 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

In the new guidelines, committee members recommend the use of romosozumab for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at very high risk of fracture. Candidates would include women with severe osteoporosis (T-score of less than –2.5 and a prior fracture) or women with a history of multiple vertebral fractures.

Women should be treated with romosozumab for up to 1 year, followed by an antiresorptive agent to maintain bone mineral density gains and further reduce fracture risk.

“The recommended dosage is 210 mg monthly by subcutaneous injection for 12 months,” the authors wrote.

However, and very importantly, romosozumab should not be considered for women at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) or cerebrovascular disease. A high risk of CVD includes women who have had a previous myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.

Experts questioned by Medscape Medical News stressed that romosozumab should not be a first-line, or even generally a second-line, option for osteoporosis, but it can be a considered for select patients with severe osteoporosis, taking into account CV risk.

Boxed warning

In the Active-Controlled Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis at High Risk (ARCH), there were more major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in the first year of the trial with romosozumab, and patients had a 31% higher risk of MACE with romosozumab, compared with the bisphosphonate alendronate.

As a result, the drug was initially rejected by a number of regulatory agencies.

In the United States and Canada, it was eventually approved with a boxed warning, which cautions against the use of the drug in patients at risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, and CVD-related death.

“Romosozumab offers promising results for postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis or who have a history of fractures,” Clifford Rosen, MD, Maine Medical Center Research Institute in Scarborough and chair of the writing committee, said in an Endocrine Society statement. “It does, however, come with a risk of heart disease, so clinicians need to be careful when selecting patients for this therapy.”

Exact risk unknown

Asked by Medscape Medical News to comment, Kenneth Saag, MD, professor of medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham and principle investigator of the ARCH study, said that physicians needed more data from real-world studies to resolve the issue around whether romosozumab heightens the risk of CV events in women with osteoporosis or whether that particular finding from ARCH was an artifact.

“Women who have had a recent cardiovascular event should not receive the drug,” he said, agreeing with the new guidelines.

But it remains unclear, for example, whether women who are at slightly higher risk of having a CV event by virtue of their age alone, are also at risk, he noted.

In the meantime, results from the ARCH study clearly showed that not only was romosozumab more effective than alendronate, “but it is more effective than other bone-building drugs as well,” Dr. Saag observed, and it leads to a significantly greater reduction in vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures, compared with the alendronate, the current standard of care in osteoporosis.

“In patients who have very severe osteoporosis and who have had a recent fracture or who are at risk for imminent future fracture, physicians need to balance the benefit versus the risk in favor of using romosozumab,” Dr. Saag suggested.

“And while I would say most women prefer not to inject themselves, the women I have put on this medicine have all had recent fractures and they are very aware of the pain and the disability of having a broken bone, so it is something they are willing to do,” he added.
 

Not for all women

Giving his opinion, Bart Clarke, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, underscored the fact that the Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis (FRAME), again conducted in postmenopausal women, showed no increase in CV events in patients treated with romosozumab compared with placebo.

“So there are questions about what this means, because if these events really were a drug effect, then that effect would be even more evident compared with placebo and they did not see any signal of CV events [in FRAME],” said Dr. Clarke, past president of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research.

Like everything else in medicine, “there is always some risk,” Dr. Clarke observed.

However, what physicians should do is talk to women, ensure they have not had either an MI or stroke in the last year, and if patients have severe osteoporosis and a high risk of fracture, “then we can say, here’s another option,” he suggested.

“Then, if a woman develops chest pain or shortness of breath while on the drug, [she needs] to let us know ,and then we’ll stop the drug and reassess the situation,” he added.

Dr. Clarke also pointed out that if the FDA had received further reports of CV events linked to romosozumab, physicians would know about it by now, but to his knowledge, there has been no change to the drug’s current warning label.

Furthermore, neither he nor any of his colleagues who treat metabolic bone disease at the Mayo Clinic has seen a single CV event in patients prescribed the agent.

“This is not a drug we would use as first-line for most patients, and we don’t even use it as second-line for most patients, but in people who have not responded to other drugs or who have had terrible things happen to them already, hip fracture especially, then we are saying, you can consider this, he concluded.

The guidelines were supported by the Endocrine Society. Dr. Rosen and Dr. Clarke reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Saag reported receiving grants and personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Radius, and is a consultant for Amgen, Radius, Roche, and Daiichi Sankyo.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Following a percutaneous intervention with a second-generation drug-eluting stent, a judicious interruption of antiplatelet therapy for noncardiac surgery does not increase risk of net adverse clinical events, according to a large dataset presented at CRT 2020 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Drawn from a multicenter registry in South Korea, it is likely that those in whom antiplatelet therapy was stopped during the perioperative period were at a lower relative risk, but the data remain reassuring, according to Jung-Sun Kim, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea.

In the registry of patients with a second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) undergoing noncardiac surgery, “antiplatelet therapy was discontinued in almost half of the patients,” Dr. Kim reported. When these patients were compared with those who did not discontinue antiplatelet therapy, the data, called an “exploratory analysis,” suggested “no increased risk” of a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) or major bleeding.

The retrospective analysis involved 3,582 percutaneous intervention (PCI) patients who had received a second-generation DES and subsequently underwent noncardiac surgery. In 1,750 of these patients, antiplatelet therapy was temporarily discontinued. The remaining 1,832 remained on some form of antiplatelet treatment, whether aspirin, a P2Y12 inhibitor, or dual-antiplatelet therapy.

There were no significant differences in crude rates between groups in rates at 30 days of a composite endpoint of MACE, major bleeding as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, or net adverse clinical events (NACE), a composite of adverse events that included MACE and major bleeding.

Relative risks for antiplatelet discontinuation remained generally low even after multiple stratifications performed to explore different variables, including the types of antiplatelet therapy being taken at the time of discontinuation, the types of noncardiac surgery performed, and the duration of discontinuation.

Of these variables, the interval of discontinuation appeared to be most relevant. Antiplatelet discontinuation of 3 days or less appeared to be associated with a higher risk of bleeding, although the difference did not reach significance. Discontinuations of 9 days or more were associated with increased risk of MACE, and this difference did reach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 3.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-8.38).

“Discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy for a period of 4-8 days appears to be optimal,” Dr. Kim said.

In general, risk of MACE, major bleeding, or NACE could not be linked to type of surgery, with the exception of intra-abdominal surgery. For this procedure, there appeared to be a lower risk of MACE in those who discontinued relative to those who remained on antiplatelet therapy, Dr. Kim reported.

Importantly, because of the fact that the decision to stop antiplatelet treatment was made by treating physicians, the characteristics of those who discontinued or remained on antiplatelet therapy differed meaningfully. Specifically, those in the discontinuation group were younger and were less likely to have additional risks for thrombotic events such as diabetes or chronic kidney disease. In those who discontinued antiplatelets, the average time since PCI was 23 months versus 16 months in the continuation group.

In addition, “more of the patients underwent higher-risk surgeries in the discontinuation group,” Dr. Kim added.

Relative rates of MACE and NACE remained similar even after risk adjustment, but Dr. Kim advised that the data should be “interpreted cautiously” because of the retrospective nature of the analysis.

A panel of experts invited to comment on the presentation agreed. These data were considered reassuring for clinicians considering an interruption of antiplatelet therapy following PCI with a second-generation DES, but there was uncertainty about their value for defining which patients are the best candidates.

The decision to discontinue antiplatelet drugs for noncardiac surgery is an important and common dilemma, but these data might be best characterized as “a testament to Korean cardiologists making good decisions,” said David J. Moliterno, MD, chairman of the department of medicine at University of Kentucky Health Care, Lexington.

Dr. Kim reported no potential financial conflicts of interest.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Following a percutaneous intervention with a second-generation drug-eluting stent, a judicious interruption of antiplatelet therapy for noncardiac surgery does not increase risk of net adverse clinical events, according to a large dataset presented at CRT 2020 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Drawn from a multicenter registry in South Korea, it is likely that those in whom antiplatelet therapy was stopped during the perioperative period were at a lower relative risk, but the data remain reassuring, according to Jung-Sun Kim, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea.

In the registry of patients with a second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) undergoing noncardiac surgery, “antiplatelet therapy was discontinued in almost half of the patients,” Dr. Kim reported. When these patients were compared with those who did not discontinue antiplatelet therapy, the data, called an “exploratory analysis,” suggested “no increased risk” of a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) or major bleeding.

The retrospective analysis involved 3,582 percutaneous intervention (PCI) patients who had received a second-generation DES and subsequently underwent noncardiac surgery. In 1,750 of these patients, antiplatelet therapy was temporarily discontinued. The remaining 1,832 remained on some form of antiplatelet treatment, whether aspirin, a P2Y12 inhibitor, or dual-antiplatelet therapy.

There were no significant differences in crude rates between groups in rates at 30 days of a composite endpoint of MACE, major bleeding as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, or net adverse clinical events (NACE), a composite of adverse events that included MACE and major bleeding.

Relative risks for antiplatelet discontinuation remained generally low even after multiple stratifications performed to explore different variables, including the types of antiplatelet therapy being taken at the time of discontinuation, the types of noncardiac surgery performed, and the duration of discontinuation.

Of these variables, the interval of discontinuation appeared to be most relevant. Antiplatelet discontinuation of 3 days or less appeared to be associated with a higher risk of bleeding, although the difference did not reach significance. Discontinuations of 9 days or more were associated with increased risk of MACE, and this difference did reach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 3.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-8.38).

“Discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy for a period of 4-8 days appears to be optimal,” Dr. Kim said.

In general, risk of MACE, major bleeding, or NACE could not be linked to type of surgery, with the exception of intra-abdominal surgery. For this procedure, there appeared to be a lower risk of MACE in those who discontinued relative to those who remained on antiplatelet therapy, Dr. Kim reported.

Importantly, because of the fact that the decision to stop antiplatelet treatment was made by treating physicians, the characteristics of those who discontinued or remained on antiplatelet therapy differed meaningfully. Specifically, those in the discontinuation group were younger and were less likely to have additional risks for thrombotic events such as diabetes or chronic kidney disease. In those who discontinued antiplatelets, the average time since PCI was 23 months versus 16 months in the continuation group.

In addition, “more of the patients underwent higher-risk surgeries in the discontinuation group,” Dr. Kim added.

Relative rates of MACE and NACE remained similar even after risk adjustment, but Dr. Kim advised that the data should be “interpreted cautiously” because of the retrospective nature of the analysis.

A panel of experts invited to comment on the presentation agreed. These data were considered reassuring for clinicians considering an interruption of antiplatelet therapy following PCI with a second-generation DES, but there was uncertainty about their value for defining which patients are the best candidates.

The decision to discontinue antiplatelet drugs for noncardiac surgery is an important and common dilemma, but these data might be best characterized as “a testament to Korean cardiologists making good decisions,” said David J. Moliterno, MD, chairman of the department of medicine at University of Kentucky Health Care, Lexington.

Dr. Kim reported no potential financial conflicts of interest.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Following a percutaneous intervention with a second-generation drug-eluting stent, a judicious interruption of antiplatelet therapy for noncardiac surgery does not increase risk of net adverse clinical events, according to a large dataset presented at CRT 2020 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Drawn from a multicenter registry in South Korea, it is likely that those in whom antiplatelet therapy was stopped during the perioperative period were at a lower relative risk, but the data remain reassuring, according to Jung-Sun Kim, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea.

In the registry of patients with a second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) undergoing noncardiac surgery, “antiplatelet therapy was discontinued in almost half of the patients,” Dr. Kim reported. When these patients were compared with those who did not discontinue antiplatelet therapy, the data, called an “exploratory analysis,” suggested “no increased risk” of a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) or major bleeding.

The retrospective analysis involved 3,582 percutaneous intervention (PCI) patients who had received a second-generation DES and subsequently underwent noncardiac surgery. In 1,750 of these patients, antiplatelet therapy was temporarily discontinued. The remaining 1,832 remained on some form of antiplatelet treatment, whether aspirin, a P2Y12 inhibitor, or dual-antiplatelet therapy.

There were no significant differences in crude rates between groups in rates at 30 days of a composite endpoint of MACE, major bleeding as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, or net adverse clinical events (NACE), a composite of adverse events that included MACE and major bleeding.

Relative risks for antiplatelet discontinuation remained generally low even after multiple stratifications performed to explore different variables, including the types of antiplatelet therapy being taken at the time of discontinuation, the types of noncardiac surgery performed, and the duration of discontinuation.

Of these variables, the interval of discontinuation appeared to be most relevant. Antiplatelet discontinuation of 3 days or less appeared to be associated with a higher risk of bleeding, although the difference did not reach significance. Discontinuations of 9 days or more were associated with increased risk of MACE, and this difference did reach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 3.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-8.38).

“Discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy for a period of 4-8 days appears to be optimal,” Dr. Kim said.

In general, risk of MACE, major bleeding, or NACE could not be linked to type of surgery, with the exception of intra-abdominal surgery. For this procedure, there appeared to be a lower risk of MACE in those who discontinued relative to those who remained on antiplatelet therapy, Dr. Kim reported.

Importantly, because of the fact that the decision to stop antiplatelet treatment was made by treating physicians, the characteristics of those who discontinued or remained on antiplatelet therapy differed meaningfully. Specifically, those in the discontinuation group were younger and were less likely to have additional risks for thrombotic events such as diabetes or chronic kidney disease. In those who discontinued antiplatelets, the average time since PCI was 23 months versus 16 months in the continuation group.

In addition, “more of the patients underwent higher-risk surgeries in the discontinuation group,” Dr. Kim added.

Relative rates of MACE and NACE remained similar even after risk adjustment, but Dr. Kim advised that the data should be “interpreted cautiously” because of the retrospective nature of the analysis.

A panel of experts invited to comment on the presentation agreed. These data were considered reassuring for clinicians considering an interruption of antiplatelet therapy following PCI with a second-generation DES, but there was uncertainty about their value for defining which patients are the best candidates.

The decision to discontinue antiplatelet drugs for noncardiac surgery is an important and common dilemma, but these data might be best characterized as “a testament to Korean cardiologists making good decisions,” said David J. Moliterno, MD, chairman of the department of medicine at University of Kentucky Health Care, Lexington.

Dr. Kim reported no potential financial conflicts of interest.

Thyroid dysfunction is common in patients with diabetes, with a prevalence of around 17%, according to a new analysis of an Australian population.

The results add to the debate over whether patients with diabetes should undergo clinical or biochemical screening for thyroid dysfunction. The American Diabetes Association and U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines do not recommend general thyroid function monitoring in type 2 diabetes, but the authors of the new study noted concerns that thyroid dysfunction could have metabolic consequences in type 2 disease.

Although the prevalence of undiagnosed thyroid disease in participants with type 2 diabetes was similar to that found in the general Australian population, the researchers, led by Kristen E. Peters, PhD, MedSc, and Timothy M.E. Davis, BMedSc MB, DPhil, of the University of Western Australia, Perth, noted in an article in Clinical Endocrinology that thyroid disease may worsen cardiometabolic risk factors, potentially giving it more significance in this population.

For their study, the researchers analyzed longitudinal data from 1,617 participants in the Fremantle Diabetes Study Phase II, of whom 8.0% had type 1 diabetes, 87.1% had type 2 diabetes, and 4.9% had latent autoimmune diabetes of adults (LADA).

All of the participants filled out questionnaires and underwent baseline fasting biochemical tests and were invited to return for biennial clinical and biochemical measures and to complete biennial questionnaires that were mailed to them. The participants were followed from 2008-2011 (baseline/recruitment period) to 2016. At baseline, 11.7% of the sample (189 of 1,617) had known thyroid disease, based on previous hospitalization of self-reported thyroid medication. Thyroid disease was more prevalent in women than in men (20.4% vs. 3.8%; P less than .001), and there was a nonsignificant trend for a higher prevalence of thyroid disease in participants with type 1 disease, compared with LADA and type 2 (16.9%, 11.4%, and 11.2%, respectively).

Among the 1,428 participants with no documented thyroid disease, 93 (6.5%) were found to have an abnormal thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) at baseline testing. Of those 93 participants, 79 had type 2 diabetes, 9 had type 1, and 5 had LADA; across all diabetes types, 5.1% of the participants had subclinical hypothyroidism, 1.1% had overt hypothyroidism, 0.1% had subclinical hyperthyroidism, and 0.2% had overt hyperthyroidism.

Overall, the baseline prevalence of any thyroid disease, known or previously undiagnosed, was 17.4% – 282 of 1,617 participants, of whom 23.8% had type 1 diabetes, 17.7% had LADA, and 16.8% had type 2.

At the end of year 4, serum concentrations were available for 844 participants who had no history of thyroid disease and normal baseline TSH. Over the course of the follow-up period (5,694 patient-years), 25 participants (3%) with normal baseline TSH levels had a first hospitalization for thyroid disease or started thyroid medication, including 2.8% of those with type 1 diabetes and 3.1% of those with type 2. Of the remaining 819 participants who did not have baseline thyroid disease, 3.4% developed subclinical hypothyroidism, 0.2% developed overt hypothyroidism, and 0.5% developed subclinical hyperthyroidism. In each case, there was no statistically significant difference in risk of developing thyroid dysfunction by diabetes type.

“The incidence of any new thyroid disease, including those [participants] with an abnormal follow-up TSH and those with known incident thyroid disease, was 59/844 (7.0%) during [4 years] of follow-up,” the authors noted. “The total incidence of new overt disease was 3.2% (27/844), with 7.4% (2/27) of these patients unaware of the condition. All of the patients with LADA remained euthyroid during follow-up.”

Among the limitations of the study, the authors noted, were that the identification of participants with thyroid disease depended on the available documentation in the databases the researchers used, they were not able to establish pretreatment of thyroid function in most participants with incident thyroid dysfunction, and they did not record free T3.

“Thyroid dysfunction, whether diagnosed or detected on biochemical screening, is common in diabetes regardless of type,” the authors wrote. “Subclinical hypothyroidism is the commonest form [of thyroid dysfunction], and it has a variable course. This latter observation alone makes an argument for periodic biochemical screening in all people with diabetes (not just type 1) as part of routine management.”

However, in an interview, Robert Eckel, MD, professor of medicine at University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said that the authors’ suggestion for routine thyroid function testing of patients with any type of diabetes may be premature. He noted that the study lacked a control group, making it difficult to justify a change in practice.

“My take-home message is that the current guidelines are probably not modified by [these findings], but the idea that 17% [of individuals with diabetes] have thyroid disease is worth noting. However, the absence of a control group limits changing recommendations based on this particular study,” said Dr. Eckel, who is also current president, medicine and science, of the ADA.

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the Spinnaker Health Research Foundation. The study authors did not disclose an financial conflicts.

SOURCE: Peters KE et al. Clin Endocrinol. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.1111/cen.14164.

Thyroid dysfunction is common in patients with diabetes, with a prevalence of around 17%, according to a new analysis of an Australian population.

The results add to the debate over whether patients with diabetes should undergo clinical or biochemical screening for thyroid dysfunction. The American Diabetes Association and U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines do not recommend general thyroid function monitoring in type 2 diabetes, but the authors of the new study noted concerns that thyroid dysfunction could have metabolic consequences in type 2 disease.

Although the prevalence of undiagnosed thyroid disease in participants with type 2 diabetes was similar to that found in the general Australian population, the researchers, led by Kristen E. Peters, PhD, MedSc, and Timothy M.E. Davis, BMedSc MB, DPhil, of the University of Western Australia, Perth, noted in an article in Clinical Endocrinology that thyroid disease may worsen cardiometabolic risk factors, potentially giving it more significance in this population.

For their study, the researchers analyzed longitudinal data from 1,617 participants in the Fremantle Diabetes Study Phase II, of whom 8.0% had type 1 diabetes, 87.1% had type 2 diabetes, and 4.9% had latent autoimmune diabetes of adults (LADA).

All of the participants filled out questionnaires and underwent baseline fasting biochemical tests and were invited to return for biennial clinical and biochemical measures and to complete biennial questionnaires that were mailed to them. The participants were followed from 2008-2011 (baseline/recruitment period) to 2016. At baseline, 11.7% of the sample (189 of 1,617) had known thyroid disease, based on previous hospitalization of self-reported thyroid medication. Thyroid disease was more prevalent in women than in men (20.4% vs. 3.8%; P less than .001), and there was a nonsignificant trend for a higher prevalence of thyroid disease in participants with type 1 disease, compared with LADA and type 2 (16.9%, 11.4%, and 11.2%, respectively).

Among the 1,428 participants with no documented thyroid disease, 93 (6.5%) were found to have an abnormal thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) at baseline testing. Of those 93 participants, 79 had type 2 diabetes, 9 had type 1, and 5 had LADA; across all diabetes types, 5.1% of the participants had subclinical hypothyroidism, 1.1% had overt hypothyroidism, 0.1% had subclinical hyperthyroidism, and 0.2% had overt hyperthyroidism.

Overall, the baseline prevalence of any thyroid disease, known or previously undiagnosed, was 17.4% – 282 of 1,617 participants, of whom 23.8% had type 1 diabetes, 17.7% had LADA, and 16.8% had type 2.

At the end of year 4, serum concentrations were available for 844 participants who had no history of thyroid disease and normal baseline TSH. Over the course of the follow-up period (5,694 patient-years), 25 participants (3%) with normal baseline TSH levels had a first hospitalization for thyroid disease or started thyroid medication, including 2.8% of those with type 1 diabetes and 3.1% of those with type 2. Of the remaining 819 participants who did not have baseline thyroid disease, 3.4% developed subclinical hypothyroidism, 0.2% developed overt hypothyroidism, and 0.5% developed subclinical hyperthyroidism. In each case, there was no statistically significant difference in risk of developing thyroid dysfunction by diabetes type.

“The incidence of any new thyroid disease, including those [participants] with an abnormal follow-up TSH and those with known incident thyroid disease, was 59/844 (7.0%) during [4 years] of follow-up,” the authors noted. “The total incidence of new overt disease was 3.2% (27/844), with 7.4% (2/27) of these patients unaware of the condition. All of the patients with LADA remained euthyroid during follow-up.”

Among the limitations of the study, the authors noted, were that the identification of participants with thyroid disease depended on the available documentation in the databases the researchers used, they were not able to establish pretreatment of thyroid function in most participants with incident thyroid dysfunction, and they did not record free T3.

“Thyroid dysfunction, whether diagnosed or detected on biochemical screening, is common in diabetes regardless of type,” the authors wrote. “Subclinical hypothyroidism is the commonest form [of thyroid dysfunction], and it has a variable course. This latter observation alone makes an argument for periodic biochemical screening in all people with diabetes (not just type 1) as part of routine management.”

However, in an interview, Robert Eckel, MD, professor of medicine at University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said that the authors’ suggestion for routine thyroid function testing of patients with any type of diabetes may be premature. He noted that the study lacked a control group, making it difficult to justify a change in practice.

“My take-home message is that the current guidelines are probably not modified by [these findings], but the idea that 17% [of individuals with diabetes] have thyroid disease is worth noting. However, the absence of a control group limits changing recommendations based on this particular study,” said Dr. Eckel, who is also current president, medicine and science, of the ADA.

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the Spinnaker Health Research Foundation. The study authors did not disclose an financial conflicts.

SOURCE: Peters KE et al. Clin Endocrinol. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.1111/cen.14164.

Thyroid dysfunction is common in patients with diabetes, with a prevalence of around 17%, according to a new analysis of an Australian population.

The results add to the debate over whether patients with diabetes should undergo clinical or biochemical screening for thyroid dysfunction. The American Diabetes Association and U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines do not recommend general thyroid function monitoring in type 2 diabetes, but the authors of the new study noted concerns that thyroid dysfunction could have metabolic consequences in type 2 disease.

Although the prevalence of undiagnosed thyroid disease in participants with type 2 diabetes was similar to that found in the general Australian population, the researchers, led by Kristen E. Peters, PhD, MedSc, and Timothy M.E. Davis, BMedSc MB, DPhil, of the University of Western Australia, Perth, noted in an article in Clinical Endocrinology that thyroid disease may worsen cardiometabolic risk factors, potentially giving it more significance in this population.

For their study, the researchers analyzed longitudinal data from 1,617 participants in the Fremantle Diabetes Study Phase II, of whom 8.0% had type 1 diabetes, 87.1% had type 2 diabetes, and 4.9% had latent autoimmune diabetes of adults (LADA).

All of the participants filled out questionnaires and underwent baseline fasting biochemical tests and were invited to return for biennial clinical and biochemical measures and to complete biennial questionnaires that were mailed to them. The participants were followed from 2008-2011 (baseline/recruitment period) to 2016. At baseline, 11.7% of the sample (189 of 1,617) had known thyroid disease, based on previous hospitalization of self-reported thyroid medication. Thyroid disease was more prevalent in women than in men (20.4% vs. 3.8%; P less than .001), and there was a nonsignificant trend for a higher prevalence of thyroid disease in participants with type 1 disease, compared with LADA and type 2 (16.9%, 11.4%, and 11.2%, respectively).

Among the 1,428 participants with no documented thyroid disease, 93 (6.5%) were found to have an abnormal thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) at baseline testing. Of those 93 participants, 79 had type 2 diabetes, 9 had type 1, and 5 had LADA; across all diabetes types, 5.1% of the participants had subclinical hypothyroidism, 1.1% had overt hypothyroidism, 0.1% had subclinical hyperthyroidism, and 0.2% had overt hyperthyroidism.

Overall, the baseline prevalence of any thyroid disease, known or previously undiagnosed, was 17.4% – 282 of 1,617 participants, of whom 23.8% had type 1 diabetes, 17.7% had LADA, and 16.8% had type 2.

At the end of year 4, serum concentrations were available for 844 participants who had no history of thyroid disease and normal baseline TSH. Over the course of the follow-up period (5,694 patient-years), 25 participants (3%) with normal baseline TSH levels had a first hospitalization for thyroid disease or started thyroid medication, including 2.8% of those with type 1 diabetes and 3.1% of those with type 2. Of the remaining 819 participants who did not have baseline thyroid disease, 3.4% developed subclinical hypothyroidism, 0.2% developed overt hypothyroidism, and 0.5% developed subclinical hyperthyroidism. In each case, there was no statistically significant difference in risk of developing thyroid dysfunction by diabetes type.

“The incidence of any new thyroid disease, including those [participants] with an abnormal follow-up TSH and those with known incident thyroid disease, was 59/844 (7.0%) during [4 years] of follow-up,” the authors noted. “The total incidence of new overt disease was 3.2% (27/844), with 7.4% (2/27) of these patients unaware of the condition. All of the patients with LADA remained euthyroid during follow-up.”

Among the limitations of the study, the authors noted, were that the identification of participants with thyroid disease depended on the available documentation in the databases the researchers used, they were not able to establish pretreatment of thyroid function in most participants with incident thyroid dysfunction, and they did not record free T3.

“Thyroid dysfunction, whether diagnosed or detected on biochemical screening, is common in diabetes regardless of type,” the authors wrote. “Subclinical hypothyroidism is the commonest form [of thyroid dysfunction], and it has a variable course. This latter observation alone makes an argument for periodic biochemical screening in all people with diabetes (not just type 1) as part of routine management.”

However, in an interview, Robert Eckel, MD, professor of medicine at University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said that the authors’ suggestion for routine thyroid function testing of patients with any type of diabetes may be premature. He noted that the study lacked a control group, making it difficult to justify a change in practice.

“My take-home message is that the current guidelines are probably not modified by [these findings], but the idea that 17% [of individuals with diabetes] have thyroid disease is worth noting. However, the absence of a control group limits changing recommendations based on this particular study,” said Dr. Eckel, who is also current president, medicine and science, of the ADA.

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the Spinnaker Health Research Foundation. The study authors did not disclose an financial conflicts.

SOURCE: Peters KE et al. Clin Endocrinol. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.1111/cen.14164.

MAUI, HAWAII – Outpatient total hip and knee replacement is “the latest craze” in orthopedic surgery, and it’s being driven by the might of Medicare, William Bugbee, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“In 2019, Medicare took total knee replacement off the inpatient-only list, meaning you could do it as an outpatient. And just in January 2020, they took total hips off that list. So I have to designate most of my hip and knee replacements as outpatients, even if I do it in the hospital and keep them for 1 night. And some of the private insurers have already gone to that, so they’ll deny coverage if I say I want a 1-day hospital stay, believe it or not,” according to Dr. Bugbee, chief of joint reconstruction in the department of orthopedics at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif.

He provided a behind-the-scenes look at contemporary trends in joint replacement as well as tips on how rheumatologists can best help their patients get through the experience with excellent outcomes.

Joint replacement remains the best treatment for advanced arthritis of the hips and knees, he said. There is a high degree of confidence about the predictability and durability of the results. But joint replacement has become highly commoditized.

“We’re getting pummeled by Medicare to make this as cheap as possible,” the orthopedic surgeon explained. “An implant costs the hospital $3,000-$6,000. A care episode for a primary total joint replacement should cost a hospital $8,000-$15,000, which is about what Medicare pays for the [Diagnosis Related Group], so the margins are small. That’s why we’re being drilled on about how much we spend on every little thing. We hardly do any labs, x-rays, anything.”

As a result of recent advances in pre-, peri-, and postoperative management, outpatient joint replacement has become a safe and comparatively economical option for generally healthy patients.

“We’ve engineered a much better patient experience, so the assault and battery of 5, 10, 15 years ago isn’t so bad anymore,” Dr. Bugbee said.

Rheumatologists can expect to see a growing number of their patients undergoing total knee or hip replacement at outpatient surgery centers. That’s not a bad thing so long as the procedure is being done there because the outpatient center employs best practices in order to provide a highly efficient episode of care supported by excellent outcome data, he continued.

State-of-the-art perioperative management in 2020 includes accelerated-care pathways that allow ambulation within an hour or 2 after surgery along with same-day discharge, regional anesthesia with motor-sparing nerve blocks, and multimodal pain management with avoidance of intravenous narcotics except in opioid-tolerant patients. Tranexamic acid is now widely used in order to reduce operative blood loss.

“When I started practice 25 years ago, 50% of patients got a blood transfusion. I haven’t given a blood transfusion to a patient in probably 2 years. Tranexamic acid reduces blood loss by 500-700 cc with no discernible adverse effects. It’s truly remarkable,” he said.

Another important technical advance has been the routine use of oral dexamethasone. “Decadron is an antiemetic, it has anti-inflammatory effects, and it makes people happy. It’s a simple, cheap drug that has revolutionized care,” the surgeon continued.

Postoperative management has been streamlined. Dr. Bugbee is among many orthopedic surgeons who no longer routinely prescribe therapist-directed formal physical therapy for total hip arthroplasty patients, relying instead upon online tools and apps for self-administered physical therapy. Pedal exercise devices available online for $30 or so have been shown to be as effective as supervised physical therapy for knee rehabilitation.
 

What patients want to know about joint replacement

The question patients most often ask both their referring physician and the orthopedic surgeon is, “How long will my joint replacement last?” The best available data come from a couple of recent paired meta-analyses. The investigators reported 82% implant survivorship 25 years after primary total knee arthroplasty and 70% after unicondylar knee arthroplasty as well as a 25-year implant survivorship rate of 77% for total hip arthroplasty.

“I expected that hip arthroplasty survivorship rate to be much higher than 77%. The reason it’s not is probably because of the metal-on-metal bearing surface debacle of about 10 years ago. There’ve been lots of revisions because of that. We thought metal-on-metal implants were going to be all that, with microscopically low wear, but they turned out to be a nightmare because of metal ion release,” Dr. Bugbee observed.

The long-term joint survivorship data are based upon older implants. Encouraging albeit still preliminary data suggest contemporary implants may last significantly longer. The “clear winner,” he said, is a 36-mm ceramic head and a highly crosslinked polyethylene liner.

“That’s been a game changer, with a 10- to 20-fold decrease in wear compared to plastics for weight-bearing surfaces,” Dr. Bugbee said.

In terms of functional improvement, by various measures 85%-97% of patients are satisfied with the results of their total hip replacement, and 60% report returning to high-level recreational activities. Patient satisfaction scores are lower – 75%-90% – after total knee arthroplasty.

“The total knee replacement just doesn’t work like a regular joint,” the surgeon observed. “When I think of hip and knee replacements, I think of a hip as a Ferrari – it’s a high-performance joint replacement – and I think of the knee as a Ford – it’s serviceable, it does the job, and it’s okay but not fantastic.”

How referring physicians can optimize preoperative management and long-term follow-up

Orthopedic surgeons would appreciate help from rheumatologists and primary care physicians in preoperatively addressing the known modifiable risk factors for poor outcomes of joint replacement. These include obesity, smoking, depression, a hemoglobin A_1c of 7% or more, and being on opioids. These risk factors are incompatible with outpatient hip or knee replacement.

“Let the surgeon know if you think outpatient joint replacement is a bad idea in your patient for medical reasons,” Dr. Bugbee urged.

Also, orthopedic surgeons can generally benefit from rheumatologist input regarding perioperative management of patients on standard disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, or Janus kinase inhibitors as recommended in the guidelines published jointly by the American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.

“I can guarantee you that most orthopedic surgeons don’t know about these guidelines. The evidence base for these recommendations is not great, but these are the best guidelines we have,” Dr. Bugbee said.

After joint replacement surgery a patient should get an x-ray of the replacement every 5 years. And if a patient develops a painful hip after arthroplasty, it’s worthwhile to order blood chromium and cobalt levels.

“The implant weight-bearing surface matters. You can’t necessarily tell on x-ray what’s a metal-on-metal hip and what’s metal-on-plastic or ceramic. You already send people for a lot of labs. If you see a patient with a painful total hip replacement, just add a cobalt and chromium. If they’re elevated, talk to the orthopedist,” he advised.

The road ahead

Hip and knee replacement is an $18 billion market today. And it’s a major growth industry: According to a recent projection, there will be 1 million total hip replacements and 4 million total knee replacements annually 10 years from now, figures four times greater than projected for 2030 in an earlier 2005 estimate. The rapid growth is coming from the expanding elderly population combined with a virtual epidemic of posttraumatic arthritis in young people – but decidedly not from patients with joint failure attributable to rheumatoid arthritis.

“Congratulations! You’ve eradicated rheumatoid arthritis from my practice,” Dr. Bugbee declared. “Most of the rheumatoid arthritis patients who come to me come because they have osteoarthritis in their joint, not because of their rheumatoid arthritis.”

He reported serving as a consultant to Orthalign, Insight Medical, and Arthrex, and receiving royalties from Smith and Nephew and Depuy.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – Outpatient total hip and knee replacement is “the latest craze” in orthopedic surgery, and it’s being driven by the might of Medicare, William Bugbee, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“In 2019, Medicare took total knee replacement off the inpatient-only list, meaning you could do it as an outpatient. And just in January 2020, they took total hips off that list. So I have to designate most of my hip and knee replacements as outpatients, even if I do it in the hospital and keep them for 1 night. And some of the private insurers have already gone to that, so they’ll deny coverage if I say I want a 1-day hospital stay, believe it or not,” according to Dr. Bugbee, chief of joint reconstruction in the department of orthopedics at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif.

He provided a behind-the-scenes look at contemporary trends in joint replacement as well as tips on how rheumatologists can best help their patients get through the experience with excellent outcomes.

Joint replacement remains the best treatment for advanced arthritis of the hips and knees, he said. There is a high degree of confidence about the predictability and durability of the results. But joint replacement has become highly commoditized.

“We’re getting pummeled by Medicare to make this as cheap as possible,” the orthopedic surgeon explained. “An implant costs the hospital $3,000-$6,000. A care episode for a primary total joint replacement should cost a hospital $8,000-$15,000, which is about what Medicare pays for the [Diagnosis Related Group], so the margins are small. That’s why we’re being drilled on about how much we spend on every little thing. We hardly do any labs, x-rays, anything.”

As a result of recent advances in pre-, peri-, and postoperative management, outpatient joint replacement has become a safe and comparatively economical option for generally healthy patients.

“We’ve engineered a much better patient experience, so the assault and battery of 5, 10, 15 years ago isn’t so bad anymore,” Dr. Bugbee said.

Rheumatologists can expect to see a growing number of their patients undergoing total knee or hip replacement at outpatient surgery centers. That’s not a bad thing so long as the procedure is being done there because the outpatient center employs best practices in order to provide a highly efficient episode of care supported by excellent outcome data, he continued.

State-of-the-art perioperative management in 2020 includes accelerated-care pathways that allow ambulation within an hour or 2 after surgery along with same-day discharge, regional anesthesia with motor-sparing nerve blocks, and multimodal pain management with avoidance of intravenous narcotics except in opioid-tolerant patients. Tranexamic acid is now widely used in order to reduce operative blood loss.

“When I started practice 25 years ago, 50% of patients got a blood transfusion. I haven’t given a blood transfusion to a patient in probably 2 years. Tranexamic acid reduces blood loss by 500-700 cc with no discernible adverse effects. It’s truly remarkable,” he said.

Another important technical advance has been the routine use of oral dexamethasone. “Decadron is an antiemetic, it has anti-inflammatory effects, and it makes people happy. It’s a simple, cheap drug that has revolutionized care,” the surgeon continued.

Postoperative management has been streamlined. Dr. Bugbee is among many orthopedic surgeons who no longer routinely prescribe therapist-directed formal physical therapy for total hip arthroplasty patients, relying instead upon online tools and apps for self-administered physical therapy. Pedal exercise devices available online for $30 or so have been shown to be as effective as supervised physical therapy for knee rehabilitation.
 

What patients want to know about joint replacement

The question patients most often ask both their referring physician and the orthopedic surgeon is, “How long will my joint replacement last?” The best available data come from a couple of recent paired meta-analyses. The investigators reported 82% implant survivorship 25 years after primary total knee arthroplasty and 70% after unicondylar knee arthroplasty as well as a 25-year implant survivorship rate of 77% for total hip arthroplasty.

“I expected that hip arthroplasty survivorship rate to be much higher than 77%. The reason it’s not is probably because of the metal-on-metal bearing surface debacle of about 10 years ago. There’ve been lots of revisions because of that. We thought metal-on-metal implants were going to be all that, with microscopically low wear, but they turned out to be a nightmare because of metal ion release,” Dr. Bugbee observed.

The long-term joint survivorship data are based upon older implants. Encouraging albeit still preliminary data suggest contemporary implants may last significantly longer. The “clear winner,” he said, is a 36-mm ceramic head and a highly crosslinked polyethylene liner.

“That’s been a game changer, with a 10- to 20-fold decrease in wear compared to plastics for weight-bearing surfaces,” Dr. Bugbee said.

In terms of functional improvement, by various measures 85%-97% of patients are satisfied with the results of their total hip replacement, and 60% report returning to high-level recreational activities. Patient satisfaction scores are lower – 75%-90% – after total knee arthroplasty.

“The total knee replacement just doesn’t work like a regular joint,” the surgeon observed. “When I think of hip and knee replacements, I think of a hip as a Ferrari – it’s a high-performance joint replacement – and I think of the knee as a Ford – it’s serviceable, it does the job, and it’s okay but not fantastic.”

How referring physicians can optimize preoperative management and long-term follow-up

Orthopedic surgeons would appreciate help from rheumatologists and primary care physicians in preoperatively addressing the known modifiable risk factors for poor outcomes of joint replacement. These include obesity, smoking, depression, a hemoglobin A_1c of 7% or more, and being on opioids. These risk factors are incompatible with outpatient hip or knee replacement.

“Let the surgeon know if you think outpatient joint replacement is a bad idea in your patient for medical reasons,” Dr. Bugbee urged.

Also, orthopedic surgeons can generally benefit from rheumatologist input regarding perioperative management of patients on standard disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, or Janus kinase inhibitors as recommended in the guidelines published jointly by the American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.

“I can guarantee you that most orthopedic surgeons don’t know about these guidelines. The evidence base for these recommendations is not great, but these are the best guidelines we have,” Dr. Bugbee said.

After joint replacement surgery a patient should get an x-ray of the replacement every 5 years. And if a patient develops a painful hip after arthroplasty, it’s worthwhile to order blood chromium and cobalt levels.

“The implant weight-bearing surface matters. You can’t necessarily tell on x-ray what’s a metal-on-metal hip and what’s metal-on-plastic or ceramic. You already send people for a lot of labs. If you see a patient with a painful total hip replacement, just add a cobalt and chromium. If they’re elevated, talk to the orthopedist,” he advised.

The road ahead

Hip and knee replacement is an $18 billion market today. And it’s a major growth industry: According to a recent projection, there will be 1 million total hip replacements and 4 million total knee replacements annually 10 years from now, figures four times greater than projected for 2030 in an earlier 2005 estimate. The rapid growth is coming from the expanding elderly population combined with a virtual epidemic of posttraumatic arthritis in young people – but decidedly not from patients with joint failure attributable to rheumatoid arthritis.

“Congratulations! You’ve eradicated rheumatoid arthritis from my practice,” Dr. Bugbee declared. “Most of the rheumatoid arthritis patients who come to me come because they have osteoarthritis in their joint, not because of their rheumatoid arthritis.”

He reported serving as a consultant to Orthalign, Insight Medical, and Arthrex, and receiving royalties from Smith and Nephew and Depuy.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – Outpatient total hip and knee replacement is “the latest craze” in orthopedic surgery, and it’s being driven by the might of Medicare, William Bugbee, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“In 2019, Medicare took total knee replacement off the inpatient-only list, meaning you could do it as an outpatient. And just in January 2020, they took total hips off that list. So I have to designate most of my hip and knee replacements as outpatients, even if I do it in the hospital and keep them for 1 night. And some of the private insurers have already gone to that, so they’ll deny coverage if I say I want a 1-day hospital stay, believe it or not,” according to Dr. Bugbee, chief of joint reconstruction in the department of orthopedics at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif.

He provided a behind-the-scenes look at contemporary trends in joint replacement as well as tips on how rheumatologists can best help their patients get through the experience with excellent outcomes.

Joint replacement remains the best treatment for advanced arthritis of the hips and knees, he said. There is a high degree of confidence about the predictability and durability of the results. But joint replacement has become highly commoditized.

“We’re getting pummeled by Medicare to make this as cheap as possible,” the orthopedic surgeon explained. “An implant costs the hospital $3,000-$6,000. A care episode for a primary total joint replacement should cost a hospital $8,000-$15,000, which is about what Medicare pays for the [Diagnosis Related Group], so the margins are small. That’s why we’re being drilled on about how much we spend on every little thing. We hardly do any labs, x-rays, anything.”

As a result of recent advances in pre-, peri-, and postoperative management, outpatient joint replacement has become a safe and comparatively economical option for generally healthy patients.

“We’ve engineered a much better patient experience, so the assault and battery of 5, 10, 15 years ago isn’t so bad anymore,” Dr. Bugbee said.

Rheumatologists can expect to see a growing number of their patients undergoing total knee or hip replacement at outpatient surgery centers. That’s not a bad thing so long as the procedure is being done there because the outpatient center employs best practices in order to provide a highly efficient episode of care supported by excellent outcome data, he continued.

State-of-the-art perioperative management in 2020 includes accelerated-care pathways that allow ambulation within an hour or 2 after surgery along with same-day discharge, regional anesthesia with motor-sparing nerve blocks, and multimodal pain management with avoidance of intravenous narcotics except in opioid-tolerant patients. Tranexamic acid is now widely used in order to reduce operative blood loss.

“When I started practice 25 years ago, 50% of patients got a blood transfusion. I haven’t given a blood transfusion to a patient in probably 2 years. Tranexamic acid reduces blood loss by 500-700 cc with no discernible adverse effects. It’s truly remarkable,” he said.

Another important technical advance has been the routine use of oral dexamethasone. “Decadron is an antiemetic, it has anti-inflammatory effects, and it makes people happy. It’s a simple, cheap drug that has revolutionized care,” the surgeon continued.

Postoperative management has been streamlined. Dr. Bugbee is among many orthopedic surgeons who no longer routinely prescribe therapist-directed formal physical therapy for total hip arthroplasty patients, relying instead upon online tools and apps for self-administered physical therapy. Pedal exercise devices available online for $30 or so have been shown to be as effective as supervised physical therapy for knee rehabilitation.
 

What patients want to know about joint replacement

The question patients most often ask both their referring physician and the orthopedic surgeon is, “How long will my joint replacement last?” The best available data come from a couple of recent paired meta-analyses. The investigators reported 82% implant survivorship 25 years after primary total knee arthroplasty and 70% after unicondylar knee arthroplasty as well as a 25-year implant survivorship rate of 77% for total hip arthroplasty.

“I expected that hip arthroplasty survivorship rate to be much higher than 77%. The reason it’s not is probably because of the metal-on-metal bearing surface debacle of about 10 years ago. There’ve been lots of revisions because of that. We thought metal-on-metal implants were going to be all that, with microscopically low wear, but they turned out to be a nightmare because of metal ion release,” Dr. Bugbee observed.

The long-term joint survivorship data are based upon older implants. Encouraging albeit still preliminary data suggest contemporary implants may last significantly longer. The “clear winner,” he said, is a 36-mm ceramic head and a highly crosslinked polyethylene liner.

“That’s been a game changer, with a 10- to 20-fold decrease in wear compared to plastics for weight-bearing surfaces,” Dr. Bugbee said.

In terms of functional improvement, by various measures 85%-97% of patients are satisfied with the results of their total hip replacement, and 60% report returning to high-level recreational activities. Patient satisfaction scores are lower – 75%-90% – after total knee arthroplasty.

“The total knee replacement just doesn’t work like a regular joint,” the surgeon observed. “When I think of hip and knee replacements, I think of a hip as a Ferrari – it’s a high-performance joint replacement – and I think of the knee as a Ford – it’s serviceable, it does the job, and it’s okay but not fantastic.”

How referring physicians can optimize preoperative management and long-term follow-up

Orthopedic surgeons would appreciate help from rheumatologists and primary care physicians in preoperatively addressing the known modifiable risk factors for poor outcomes of joint replacement. These include obesity, smoking, depression, a hemoglobin A_1c of 7% or more, and being on opioids. These risk factors are incompatible with outpatient hip or knee replacement.

“Let the surgeon know if you think outpatient joint replacement is a bad idea in your patient for medical reasons,” Dr. Bugbee urged.

Also, orthopedic surgeons can generally benefit from rheumatologist input regarding perioperative management of patients on standard disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, or Janus kinase inhibitors as recommended in the guidelines published jointly by the American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.

“I can guarantee you that most orthopedic surgeons don’t know about these guidelines. The evidence base for these recommendations is not great, but these are the best guidelines we have,” Dr. Bugbee said.

After joint replacement surgery a patient should get an x-ray of the replacement every 5 years. And if a patient develops a painful hip after arthroplasty, it’s worthwhile to order blood chromium and cobalt levels.

“The implant weight-bearing surface matters. You can’t necessarily tell on x-ray what’s a metal-on-metal hip and what’s metal-on-plastic or ceramic. You already send people for a lot of labs. If you see a patient with a painful total hip replacement, just add a cobalt and chromium. If they’re elevated, talk to the orthopedist,” he advised.

The road ahead

Hip and knee replacement is an $18 billion market today. And it’s a major growth industry: According to a recent projection, there will be 1 million total hip replacements and 4 million total knee replacements annually 10 years from now, figures four times greater than projected for 2030 in an earlier 2005 estimate. The rapid growth is coming from the expanding elderly population combined with a virtual epidemic of posttraumatic arthritis in young people – but decidedly not from patients with joint failure attributable to rheumatoid arthritis.

“Congratulations! You’ve eradicated rheumatoid arthritis from my practice,” Dr. Bugbee declared. “Most of the rheumatoid arthritis patients who come to me come because they have osteoarthritis in their joint, not because of their rheumatoid arthritis.”

He reported serving as a consultant to Orthalign, Insight Medical, and Arthrex, and receiving royalties from Smith and Nephew and Depuy.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – In a subanalysis of the TST (Treat Stroke to Target) trial, restricting analysis to only French participants followed for an average of 5 years demonstrated an even more robust potential to reduce recurrent stroke and other major cardiovascular events by treating patients to an LDL target of below 70 mg/dL. Treating LDL to a mean of 66 mg/dL versus 96 mg/dL was associated with a 26% relative risk reduction for the composite endpoint of ischemic stroke, MI, new symptoms requiring urgent coronary or carotid revascularization, and vascular death in an adjusted analysis.

“The results are similar to the main paper but even more spectacular, with no increase in hemorrhagic stroke whatsoever, and positive results on any stroke,” study investigator Pierre Amarenco, MD, professor and chair of the department of neurology and Stroke Centre, Bichat University Hospital, Paris, said.

Dr. Amarenco presented the findings as a late-breaking abstract at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. The trial was published simultaneously in the journal Stroke.

In the full TST trial population, risk was reduced by 22% with more-aggressive LDL-lowering treatment, compared with the more lax 90-110 mg/dL target.

The TST cohort included both French and Korean participants. Dr. Amarenco and colleagues focused on the French population in the current study because the group was larger (2,148 vs. 742 Korean participants) and had a longer follow-up, an average of 5.3 years compared to 2.0 years among Korean patients. The initial study had shown “very significant results in the French patients and no apparent effect in Korean patients,” he said. The longer duration of treatment in the French cohort could have contributed to the greater risk reduction, said Dr. Amarenco.

A 2017 European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel statement noted that exposure time to lipid-lowering drugs correlates with outcomes. The European Stroke Organization and the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines each recommend intensive statin treatment to lower serum lipids following an ischemic stroke of atherosclerotic origin or after a transient ischemic attack (TIA). However, the current researchers noted that the recommendations do not specify specific target numbers.

“Therefore, there is uncertainty about the target levels of LDL cholesterol,” he said.
 

Aiming at different targets

To learn more, Dr. Amarenco and colleagues randomly assigned 1,073 of the French patients to a target LDL treatment group of 70 mg/dL and another 1,075 to a target range of 90-110 mg/dL. They enrolled participants at 61 sites in France. Mean age was 67 years. All participants had experienced an ischemic stroke within 3 months or a TIA within 15 days of baseline. They presented either with a modified Rankin Scale poststroke score of 0-3 or a TIA that included at least arm and leg motor deficit or speech disturbance that lasted more than 10 minutes.

Investigators could use any type and any dose of statin to reach the respective targets. Statins could be prescribed as monotherapy or in combination with ezetimibe (Zetia) or other agents. The baseline mean LDL cholesterol level was 137 mg/dL in the lower target group and 138 mg/dL in the higher target group, respectively (3.5 mmol/L in both groups). Dr. Amarenco and colleagues measured LDL cholesterol levels at 3 weeks postrandomization and then every 6 months.

A smaller proportion of the lower LDL cholesterol target group experienced the adverse composite outcome, 9.6%, compared with 12.9% of the higher LDL cholesterol target group. This translated to a hazard ratio of 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.94; P = .015). The absolute risk reduction was 3.3% with a number needed to treat of 30.

An analysis adjusted for covariates showed a hazard ratio of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.57-0.95; P = .019).

Cerebral infarction and acute cerebral artery revascularization were reduced by 27% (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.99; P = .046). Cerebral infarction or intracranial hemorrhage (all strokes) were reduced by 28% (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.98; P = .023). In this case, there was an absolute risk reduction of 2.9% and a number needed to treat of 34.

In contrast, MI or urgent coronary revascularization following new symptoms were not significantly reduced (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.67-1.20; P = .18). The investigators also reported nonsignificant results regarding vascular death (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.44-1.32; P = .32] and all deaths (HR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.74-1.35; P = .99).

Dr. Amarenco and colleagues also tracked adverse events. They found intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 13 (1.2%) patients assigned an LDL cholesterol below 70 mg/dL and in 11 (1%) patients assigned an LDL cholesterol of 100 ± 10 mg/dL. In this analysis, the hazard ratio was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.53-2.62; P = .70), and the absolute difference was 0.2%.

The investigators also reported that 10.3% of the lower LDL target group vs 13.6% of the higher LDL target group experienced either the primary outcome or intracranial hemorrhage. This translated to a 25% relative risk reduction (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.96; P = .021), an absolute risk reduction of 3.3% and a number needed to treat of 30.
 

Avoiding one in four events

Assessing the French participants in the TST trial showed that targeting LDL below 70 mg/dL for more than 5 years avoided more than one in four subsequent major cardiovascular events among adults who experienced a recent ischemic stroke or TIA.

Furthermore, more intense LDL lowering also avoided more than one in four recurrent cerebral infarctions or urgent carotid revascularizations following a TIA, as well as one in four recurrent cerebral infarctions or hemorrhages (all strokes), compared with the higher LDL target.

“This was obtained without increasing the risk of intracranial hemorrhage with a number needed to treat of 30,” the researchers noted. “In the context of all randomized clinical trials with statin and other lipid-lowering drugs, there is no reason to think that Asian patients do not benefit from statin treatment and from a lower target LDL cholesterol,” the researchers added.

Therefore, they plan to continue assessing the 742 Korean participants until they reach a median of 5 years of follow-up.

Clinically validating results

“My feeling is that these data are highly supportive of a practice that many of us have been using for years without this level of evidence,” Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, said when asked to comment on the study.

Prior secondary analyses of studies, including research into patients with intracranial atherosclerosis, demonstrated benefit from treating to this lower LDL cholesterol target. “These studies were suggestive enough that many of us were treating patients aggressively with statins,” added Dr. Elkind, professor of neurology and epidemiology and chief of the division of neurology clinical outcomes research and population sciences at Columbia University in New York.

“But this really confirms that [fact] with clinical trial evidence,” said Dr. Elkind, “and I think will be very useful to us as clinicians.”

The results could be used to counsel patients about the potential benefits of statin therapy or to motivate primary care providers to treat patients more aggressively, said Dr. Elkind, who will begin his term as president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association in July.

This study was supported by a grant from the French Ministry of Health and from SOS-Attaque Cérébrale Association, with unrestricted grants from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Merck for French sites and from Pfizer for South Korean sites.

Dr. Amarenco receives research grant support and consulting fees from Pfizer, Merck, and AstraZeneca. Elkind had has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SOURCE: Amarenko P et al. ISC 2020. Late-breaking abstract 9.

LOS ANGELES – In a subanalysis of the TST (Treat Stroke to Target) trial, restricting analysis to only French participants followed for an average of 5 years demonstrated an even more robust potential to reduce recurrent stroke and other major cardiovascular events by treating patients to an LDL target of below 70 mg/dL. Treating LDL to a mean of 66 mg/dL versus 96 mg/dL was associated with a 26% relative risk reduction for the composite endpoint of ischemic stroke, MI, new symptoms requiring urgent coronary or carotid revascularization, and vascular death in an adjusted analysis.

“The results are similar to the main paper but even more spectacular, with no increase in hemorrhagic stroke whatsoever, and positive results on any stroke,” study investigator Pierre Amarenco, MD, professor and chair of the department of neurology and Stroke Centre, Bichat University Hospital, Paris, said.

Dr. Amarenco presented the findings as a late-breaking abstract at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. The trial was published simultaneously in the journal Stroke.

In the full TST trial population, risk was reduced by 22% with more-aggressive LDL-lowering treatment, compared with the more lax 90-110 mg/dL target.

The TST cohort included both French and Korean participants. Dr. Amarenco and colleagues focused on the French population in the current study because the group was larger (2,148 vs. 742 Korean participants) and had a longer follow-up, an average of 5.3 years compared to 2.0 years among Korean patients. The initial study had shown “very significant results in the French patients and no apparent effect in Korean patients,” he said. The longer duration of treatment in the French cohort could have contributed to the greater risk reduction, said Dr. Amarenco.

A 2017 European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel statement noted that exposure time to lipid-lowering drugs correlates with outcomes. The European Stroke Organization and the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines each recommend intensive statin treatment to lower serum lipids following an ischemic stroke of atherosclerotic origin or after a transient ischemic attack (TIA). However, the current researchers noted that the recommendations do not specify specific target numbers.

“Therefore, there is uncertainty about the target levels of LDL cholesterol,” he said.
 

Aiming at different targets

To learn more, Dr. Amarenco and colleagues randomly assigned 1,073 of the French patients to a target LDL treatment group of 70 mg/dL and another 1,075 to a target range of 90-110 mg/dL. They enrolled participants at 61 sites in France. Mean age was 67 years. All participants had experienced an ischemic stroke within 3 months or a TIA within 15 days of baseline. They presented either with a modified Rankin Scale poststroke score of 0-3 or a TIA that included at least arm and leg motor deficit or speech disturbance that lasted more than 10 minutes.

Investigators could use any type and any dose of statin to reach the respective targets. Statins could be prescribed as monotherapy or in combination with ezetimibe (Zetia) or other agents. The baseline mean LDL cholesterol level was 137 mg/dL in the lower target group and 138 mg/dL in the higher target group, respectively (3.5 mmol/L in both groups). Dr. Amarenco and colleagues measured LDL cholesterol levels at 3 weeks postrandomization and then every 6 months.

A smaller proportion of the lower LDL cholesterol target group experienced the adverse composite outcome, 9.6%, compared with 12.9% of the higher LDL cholesterol target group. This translated to a hazard ratio of 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.94; P = .015). The absolute risk reduction was 3.3% with a number needed to treat of 30.

An analysis adjusted for covariates showed a hazard ratio of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.57-0.95; P = .019).

Cerebral infarction and acute cerebral artery revascularization were reduced by 27% (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.99; P = .046). Cerebral infarction or intracranial hemorrhage (all strokes) were reduced by 28% (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.98; P = .023). In this case, there was an absolute risk reduction of 2.9% and a number needed to treat of 34.

In contrast, MI or urgent coronary revascularization following new symptoms were not significantly reduced (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.67-1.20; P = .18). The investigators also reported nonsignificant results regarding vascular death (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.44-1.32; P = .32] and all deaths (HR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.74-1.35; P = .99).

Dr. Amarenco and colleagues also tracked adverse events. They found intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 13 (1.2%) patients assigned an LDL cholesterol below 70 mg/dL and in 11 (1%) patients assigned an LDL cholesterol of 100 ± 10 mg/dL. In this analysis, the hazard ratio was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.53-2.62; P = .70), and the absolute difference was 0.2%.

The investigators also reported that 10.3% of the lower LDL target group vs 13.6% of the higher LDL target group experienced either the primary outcome or intracranial hemorrhage. This translated to a 25% relative risk reduction (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.96; P = .021), an absolute risk reduction of 3.3% and a number needed to treat of 30.
 

Avoiding one in four events

Assessing the French participants in the TST trial showed that targeting LDL below 70 mg/dL for more than 5 years avoided more than one in four subsequent major cardiovascular events among adults who experienced a recent ischemic stroke or TIA.

Furthermore, more intense LDL lowering also avoided more than one in four recurrent cerebral infarctions or urgent carotid revascularizations following a TIA, as well as one in four recurrent cerebral infarctions or hemorrhages (all strokes), compared with the higher LDL target.

“This was obtained without increasing the risk of intracranial hemorrhage with a number needed to treat of 30,” the researchers noted. “In the context of all randomized clinical trials with statin and other lipid-lowering drugs, there is no reason to think that Asian patients do not benefit from statin treatment and from a lower target LDL cholesterol,” the researchers added.

Therefore, they plan to continue assessing the 742 Korean participants until they reach a median of 5 years of follow-up.

Clinically validating results

“My feeling is that these data are highly supportive of a practice that many of us have been using for years without this level of evidence,” Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, said when asked to comment on the study.

Prior secondary analyses of studies, including research into patients with intracranial atherosclerosis, demonstrated benefit from treating to this lower LDL cholesterol target. “These studies were suggestive enough that many of us were treating patients aggressively with statins,” added Dr. Elkind, professor of neurology and epidemiology and chief of the division of neurology clinical outcomes research and population sciences at Columbia University in New York.

“But this really confirms that [fact] with clinical trial evidence,” said Dr. Elkind, “and I think will be very useful to us as clinicians.”

The results could be used to counsel patients about the potential benefits of statin therapy or to motivate primary care providers to treat patients more aggressively, said Dr. Elkind, who will begin his term as president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association in July.

This study was supported by a grant from the French Ministry of Health and from SOS-Attaque Cérébrale Association, with unrestricted grants from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Merck for French sites and from Pfizer for South Korean sites.

Dr. Amarenco receives research grant support and consulting fees from Pfizer, Merck, and AstraZeneca. Elkind had has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SOURCE: Amarenko P et al. ISC 2020. Late-breaking abstract 9.

LOS ANGELES – In a subanalysis of the TST (Treat Stroke to Target) trial, restricting analysis to only French participants followed for an average of 5 years demonstrated an even more robust potential to reduce recurrent stroke and other major cardiovascular events by treating patients to an LDL target of below 70 mg/dL. Treating LDL to a mean of 66 mg/dL versus 96 mg/dL was associated with a 26% relative risk reduction for the composite endpoint of ischemic stroke, MI, new symptoms requiring urgent coronary or carotid revascularization, and vascular death in an adjusted analysis.

“The results are similar to the main paper but even more spectacular, with no increase in hemorrhagic stroke whatsoever, and positive results on any stroke,” study investigator Pierre Amarenco, MD, professor and chair of the department of neurology and Stroke Centre, Bichat University Hospital, Paris, said.

Dr. Amarenco presented the findings as a late-breaking abstract at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. The trial was published simultaneously in the journal Stroke.

In the full TST trial population, risk was reduced by 22% with more-aggressive LDL-lowering treatment, compared with the more lax 90-110 mg/dL target.

The TST cohort included both French and Korean participants. Dr. Amarenco and colleagues focused on the French population in the current study because the group was larger (2,148 vs. 742 Korean participants) and had a longer follow-up, an average of 5.3 years compared to 2.0 years among Korean patients. The initial study had shown “very significant results in the French patients and no apparent effect in Korean patients,” he said. The longer duration of treatment in the French cohort could have contributed to the greater risk reduction, said Dr. Amarenco.

A 2017 European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel statement noted that exposure time to lipid-lowering drugs correlates with outcomes. The European Stroke Organization and the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines each recommend intensive statin treatment to lower serum lipids following an ischemic stroke of atherosclerotic origin or after a transient ischemic attack (TIA). However, the current researchers noted that the recommendations do not specify specific target numbers.

“Therefore, there is uncertainty about the target levels of LDL cholesterol,” he said.
 

Aiming at different targets

To learn more, Dr. Amarenco and colleagues randomly assigned 1,073 of the French patients to a target LDL treatment group of 70 mg/dL and another 1,075 to a target range of 90-110 mg/dL. They enrolled participants at 61 sites in France. Mean age was 67 years. All participants had experienced an ischemic stroke within 3 months or a TIA within 15 days of baseline. They presented either with a modified Rankin Scale poststroke score of 0-3 or a TIA that included at least arm and leg motor deficit or speech disturbance that lasted more than 10 minutes.

Investigators could use any type and any dose of statin to reach the respective targets. Statins could be prescribed as monotherapy or in combination with ezetimibe (Zetia) or other agents. The baseline mean LDL cholesterol level was 137 mg/dL in the lower target group and 138 mg/dL in the higher target group, respectively (3.5 mmol/L in both groups). Dr. Amarenco and colleagues measured LDL cholesterol levels at 3 weeks postrandomization and then every 6 months.

A smaller proportion of the lower LDL cholesterol target group experienced the adverse composite outcome, 9.6%, compared with 12.9% of the higher LDL cholesterol target group. This translated to a hazard ratio of 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.94; P = .015). The absolute risk reduction was 3.3% with a number needed to treat of 30.

An analysis adjusted for covariates showed a hazard ratio of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.57-0.95; P = .019).

Cerebral infarction and acute cerebral artery revascularization were reduced by 27% (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.99; P = .046). Cerebral infarction or intracranial hemorrhage (all strokes) were reduced by 28% (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.98; P = .023). In this case, there was an absolute risk reduction of 2.9% and a number needed to treat of 34.

In contrast, MI or urgent coronary revascularization following new symptoms were not significantly reduced (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.67-1.20; P = .18). The investigators also reported nonsignificant results regarding vascular death (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.44-1.32; P = .32] and all deaths (HR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.74-1.35; P = .99).

Dr. Amarenco and colleagues also tracked adverse events. They found intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 13 (1.2%) patients assigned an LDL cholesterol below 70 mg/dL and in 11 (1%) patients assigned an LDL cholesterol of 100 ± 10 mg/dL. In this analysis, the hazard ratio was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.53-2.62; P = .70), and the absolute difference was 0.2%.

The investigators also reported that 10.3% of the lower LDL target group vs 13.6% of the higher LDL target group experienced either the primary outcome or intracranial hemorrhage. This translated to a 25% relative risk reduction (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.96; P = .021), an absolute risk reduction of 3.3% and a number needed to treat of 30.
 

Avoiding one in four events

Assessing the French participants in the TST trial showed that targeting LDL below 70 mg/dL for more than 5 years avoided more than one in four subsequent major cardiovascular events among adults who experienced a recent ischemic stroke or TIA.

Furthermore, more intense LDL lowering also avoided more than one in four recurrent cerebral infarctions or urgent carotid revascularizations following a TIA, as well as one in four recurrent cerebral infarctions or hemorrhages (all strokes), compared with the higher LDL target.

“This was obtained without increasing the risk of intracranial hemorrhage with a number needed to treat of 30,” the researchers noted. “In the context of all randomized clinical trials with statin and other lipid-lowering drugs, there is no reason to think that Asian patients do not benefit from statin treatment and from a lower target LDL cholesterol,” the researchers added.

Therefore, they plan to continue assessing the 742 Korean participants until they reach a median of 5 years of follow-up.

Clinically validating results

“My feeling is that these data are highly supportive of a practice that many of us have been using for years without this level of evidence,” Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, said when asked to comment on the study.

Prior secondary analyses of studies, including research into patients with intracranial atherosclerosis, demonstrated benefit from treating to this lower LDL cholesterol target. “These studies were suggestive enough that many of us were treating patients aggressively with statins,” added Dr. Elkind, professor of neurology and epidemiology and chief of the division of neurology clinical outcomes research and population sciences at Columbia University in New York.

“But this really confirms that [fact] with clinical trial evidence,” said Dr. Elkind, “and I think will be very useful to us as clinicians.”

The results could be used to counsel patients about the potential benefits of statin therapy or to motivate primary care providers to treat patients more aggressively, said Dr. Elkind, who will begin his term as president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association in July.

This study was supported by a grant from the French Ministry of Health and from SOS-Attaque Cérébrale Association, with unrestricted grants from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Merck for French sites and from Pfizer for South Korean sites.

Dr. Amarenco receives research grant support and consulting fees from Pfizer, Merck, and AstraZeneca. Elkind had has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SOURCE: Amarenko P et al. ISC 2020. Late-breaking abstract 9.

MAUI, HAWAII – Osteoporosis affects about 15% of people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but the disease pattern is different than in the general population, said gastroenterologist Millie Long, MD, from the Department of Medicine at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.

In the general population, those who develop osteoporosis are typically women who are thin and postmenopausal, and family history, smoking status, and alcohol use usually play a role, Long said at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.

But in the population with IBD, the risk for osteoporosis is similar in women and men, age plays a large role, and corticosteroid use seems to be a driving factor in the development of the disease, she explained.

A previous study that looked at fractures in patients with IBD showed that the risk “is 40% greater than in the general population,” Long reported. In patients younger than 40 years, the risk for fracture was 37% higher than in the general population, and this rate increased with age.
 

Preventing fractures

Fractures to the hip and spine are linked to significant morbidity, including hospitalization, major surgery, and even death, Long noted. But they are one of the preventable downstream effects of IBD, and patients need to understand that there’s something they can do about their elevated risk.

Patients should be educated on the importance of weight-bearing exercise and quitting smoking, she said.

“We need to think of preventive measures for anyone on more than 5 mg of prednisone a day for a time period of about 3 months,” she added. “Unfortunately, most of our patients meet this criterion.”

Patients with IBD should undergo dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) to calculate bone density and establish the need for calcium and vitamin D supplementation.

“One of the things I’m starting to do in my practice is check vitamin D levels annually on my patients. I do this in the springtime and try to optimize their levels,” Long said.
 

Higher risk for herpes zoster

The risk for infection is also elevated in patients with IBD, including the risk for herpes zoster, which is already high, affecting one in three people in the general population.

In fact, the risk for herpes zoster in patients with IBD in their 20s is similar to the risk for people in their 50s in the general population. This is “something we need to be addressing in all of our patients,” said Long.

Physicians should emphasize the need for zoster vaccination in patients at least 50 years of age, and potentially younger patients on certain therapies, she added.

But because the Shingrix shingles vaccine (GlaxoSmithKline) is so much more powerful than the previous live vaccine, some have wondered whether it could stimulate an immune response, causing the IBD to flare after vaccination, she said.

However, a recent study of IBD patients followed for 207 days after shingles vaccination showed that only one of the 67 study participants (1.5%) experienced a flare. But fever is fairly common after the shot.

“I counsel my patients that they may feel pretty wiped out for 24 hours; they may have myalgias,” Long reported. “If you have someone who has to travel for work, you want them to time this vaccination so they can have a day of rest afterward. It’s the real deal.”
 

Screening for TB

Screening to rule out latent tuberculosis (TB) is also important in IBD.

“We should be looking at whether they’ve had close contact with active TB or people from endemic areas,” said Long. “The reason we really care about this is that the risk of serious infection is doubled with anti-TNF therapy.”

The treatment of latent TB prior to the initiation of an anti-TNF “reduces the incidence of active TB by over 80%. This is why it’s imperative to screen prior to initiation, and then periodically based on risk factors,” she explained.

“It’s profound how much maintenance is required for patients with IBD,” said Christopher Stanke, MD, from the Oregon Medical Group in Eugene.

He said he is particularly struck by the collective risks for younger patients with IBD.

“Young people look to us as their only doctor. They don’t even see their primary care physicians very often. We have to take over a lot of this stuff,” he told Medscape Medical News.

And osteoporosis doesn’t often get the attention it needs in gastroenterologists’ offices, he acknowledged.

“I often check it on people as they get close to 50 or 60,” said Stanke, who added that Long’s presentation is a good reminder that younger patients, especially those who have been on steroids for a while, need more attention.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MAUI, HAWAII – Osteoporosis affects about 15% of people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but the disease pattern is different than in the general population, said gastroenterologist Millie Long, MD, from the Department of Medicine at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.

In the general population, those who develop osteoporosis are typically women who are thin and postmenopausal, and family history, smoking status, and alcohol use usually play a role, Long said at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.

But in the population with IBD, the risk for osteoporosis is similar in women and men, age plays a large role, and corticosteroid use seems to be a driving factor in the development of the disease, she explained.

A previous study that looked at fractures in patients with IBD showed that the risk “is 40% greater than in the general population,” Long reported. In patients younger than 40 years, the risk for fracture was 37% higher than in the general population, and this rate increased with age.
 

Preventing fractures

Fractures to the hip and spine are linked to significant morbidity, including hospitalization, major surgery, and even death, Long noted. But they are one of the preventable downstream effects of IBD, and patients need to understand that there’s something they can do about their elevated risk.

Patients should be educated on the importance of weight-bearing exercise and quitting smoking, she said.

“We need to think of preventive measures for anyone on more than 5 mg of prednisone a day for a time period of about 3 months,” she added. “Unfortunately, most of our patients meet this criterion.”

Patients with IBD should undergo dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) to calculate bone density and establish the need for calcium and vitamin D supplementation.

“One of the things I’m starting to do in my practice is check vitamin D levels annually on my patients. I do this in the springtime and try to optimize their levels,” Long said.
 

Higher risk for herpes zoster

The risk for infection is also elevated in patients with IBD, including the risk for herpes zoster, which is already high, affecting one in three people in the general population.

In fact, the risk for herpes zoster in patients with IBD in their 20s is similar to the risk for people in their 50s in the general population. This is “something we need to be addressing in all of our patients,” said Long.

Physicians should emphasize the need for zoster vaccination in patients at least 50 years of age, and potentially younger patients on certain therapies, she added.

But because the Shingrix shingles vaccine (GlaxoSmithKline) is so much more powerful than the previous live vaccine, some have wondered whether it could stimulate an immune response, causing the IBD to flare after vaccination, she said.

However, a recent study of IBD patients followed for 207 days after shingles vaccination showed that only one of the 67 study participants (1.5%) experienced a flare. But fever is fairly common after the shot.

“I counsel my patients that they may feel pretty wiped out for 24 hours; they may have myalgias,” Long reported. “If you have someone who has to travel for work, you want them to time this vaccination so they can have a day of rest afterward. It’s the real deal.”
 

Screening for TB

Screening to rule out latent tuberculosis (TB) is also important in IBD.

“We should be looking at whether they’ve had close contact with active TB or people from endemic areas,” said Long. “The reason we really care about this is that the risk of serious infection is doubled with anti-TNF therapy.”

The treatment of latent TB prior to the initiation of an anti-TNF “reduces the incidence of active TB by over 80%. This is why it’s imperative to screen prior to initiation, and then periodically based on risk factors,” she explained.

“It’s profound how much maintenance is required for patients with IBD,” said Christopher Stanke, MD, from the Oregon Medical Group in Eugene.

He said he is particularly struck by the collective risks for younger patients with IBD.

“Young people look to us as their only doctor. They don’t even see their primary care physicians very often. We have to take over a lot of this stuff,” he told Medscape Medical News.

And osteoporosis doesn’t often get the attention it needs in gastroenterologists’ offices, he acknowledged.

“I often check it on people as they get close to 50 or 60,” said Stanke, who added that Long’s presentation is a good reminder that younger patients, especially those who have been on steroids for a while, need more attention.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MAUI, HAWAII – Osteoporosis affects about 15% of people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but the disease pattern is different than in the general population, said gastroenterologist Millie Long, MD, from the Department of Medicine at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.

In the general population, those who develop osteoporosis are typically women who are thin and postmenopausal, and family history, smoking status, and alcohol use usually play a role, Long said at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.

But in the population with IBD, the risk for osteoporosis is similar in women and men, age plays a large role, and corticosteroid use seems to be a driving factor in the development of the disease, she explained.

A previous study that looked at fractures in patients with IBD showed that the risk “is 40% greater than in the general population,” Long reported. In patients younger than 40 years, the risk for fracture was 37% higher than in the general population, and this rate increased with age.
 

Preventing fractures

Fractures to the hip and spine are linked to significant morbidity, including hospitalization, major surgery, and even death, Long noted. But they are one of the preventable downstream effects of IBD, and patients need to understand that there’s something they can do about their elevated risk.

Patients should be educated on the importance of weight-bearing exercise and quitting smoking, she said.

“We need to think of preventive measures for anyone on more than 5 mg of prednisone a day for a time period of about 3 months,” she added. “Unfortunately, most of our patients meet this criterion.”

Patients with IBD should undergo dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) to calculate bone density and establish the need for calcium and vitamin D supplementation.

“One of the things I’m starting to do in my practice is check vitamin D levels annually on my patients. I do this in the springtime and try to optimize their levels,” Long said.
 

Higher risk for herpes zoster

The risk for infection is also elevated in patients with IBD, including the risk for herpes zoster, which is already high, affecting one in three people in the general population.

In fact, the risk for herpes zoster in patients with IBD in their 20s is similar to the risk for people in their 50s in the general population. This is “something we need to be addressing in all of our patients,” said Long.

Physicians should emphasize the need for zoster vaccination in patients at least 50 years of age, and potentially younger patients on certain therapies, she added.

But because the Shingrix shingles vaccine (GlaxoSmithKline) is so much more powerful than the previous live vaccine, some have wondered whether it could stimulate an immune response, causing the IBD to flare after vaccination, she said.

However, a recent study of IBD patients followed for 207 days after shingles vaccination showed that only one of the 67 study participants (1.5%) experienced a flare. But fever is fairly common after the shot.

“I counsel my patients that they may feel pretty wiped out for 24 hours; they may have myalgias,” Long reported. “If you have someone who has to travel for work, you want them to time this vaccination so they can have a day of rest afterward. It’s the real deal.”
 

Screening for TB

Screening to rule out latent tuberculosis (TB) is also important in IBD.

“We should be looking at whether they’ve had close contact with active TB or people from endemic areas,” said Long. “The reason we really care about this is that the risk of serious infection is doubled with anti-TNF therapy.”

The treatment of latent TB prior to the initiation of an anti-TNF “reduces the incidence of active TB by over 80%. This is why it’s imperative to screen prior to initiation, and then periodically based on risk factors,” she explained.

“It’s profound how much maintenance is required for patients with IBD,” said Christopher Stanke, MD, from the Oregon Medical Group in Eugene.

He said he is particularly struck by the collective risks for younger patients with IBD.

“Young people look to us as their only doctor. They don’t even see their primary care physicians very often. We have to take over a lot of this stuff,” he told Medscape Medical News.

And osteoporosis doesn’t often get the attention it needs in gastroenterologists’ offices, he acknowledged.

“I often check it on people as they get close to 50 or 60,” said Stanke, who added that Long’s presentation is a good reminder that younger patients, especially those who have been on steroids for a while, need more attention.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Implementing a more stringent treat‐to‐target strategy could provide better outcomes for patients with early RA, according to a recent comparative study.

The findings confirm the feasibility of adopting a treat‐to‐target approach to ensure optimal outcomes are achieved for patients with early-stage disease.

“The objective of the present study was to compare achievement of remission during 2 years of follow-up in two early RA cohorts implementing different treat‐to‐target strategies,” wrote Vibeke Norvang, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, and colleagues. The findings were published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

The researchers performed a pooled analysis of data from the randomized ARCTIC trial and the Norwegian Very Early Arthritis Clinic (NOR-VEAC) observational study. The combined cohort included a total of 429 disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)–naive early RA patients, 189 and 330 from each study, respectively.

The American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Boolean remission criteria differed between the two cohorts, with more stringent criteria in ARCTIC than in NOR-VEAC. Remission was defined as scores of less than 1.6 and 2.6 on the Disease Activity Scores in 44 joints and 28 joints, respectively.

At 12- and 24-month follow-up, the researchers found that the odds of achieving remission were greater in ARCTIC than in NOR-VEAC (odds ratios, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-3.20 vs. OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.05-3.16).

“We found that more than half of patients in each cohort had reached the study-specific remission targets at 6 months, and this increased to more than 60% in each cohort at 12 and 24 months,” they reported.

With respect to drug therapy, all study patients started with methotrexate monotherapy at a mean dose of 16.0 mg and 15.5 mg in ARCTIC and NOR-VEAC, respectively. In addition, similar rates of escalation to a biologic DMARD were observed in both studies (25.6% vs. 25.4%) at 24 months.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was comparing outcomes in two cohorts with different study designs; hence, the risk of bias in estimates of effect cannot be excluded.

“Targeting a more stringent remission and implementing more frequent visits provide further potential for favorable outcomes of a treat‐to‐target strategy,” they concluded.

The study was supported by legacy funds provided to the department of rheumatology at Diakonhjemmet Hospital. Three authors reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Corrona, Genentech, Janssen, Mylan, Pfizer, and other companies.

SOURCE: Norvang V et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Feb 23. doi: 10.1002/art.41232.

Implementing a more stringent treat‐to‐target strategy could provide better outcomes for patients with early RA, according to a recent comparative study.

The findings confirm the feasibility of adopting a treat‐to‐target approach to ensure optimal outcomes are achieved for patients with early-stage disease.

“The objective of the present study was to compare achievement of remission during 2 years of follow-up in two early RA cohorts implementing different treat‐to‐target strategies,” wrote Vibeke Norvang, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, and colleagues. The findings were published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

The researchers performed a pooled analysis of data from the randomized ARCTIC trial and the Norwegian Very Early Arthritis Clinic (NOR-VEAC) observational study. The combined cohort included a total of 429 disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)–naive early RA patients, 189 and 330 from each study, respectively.

The American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Boolean remission criteria differed between the two cohorts, with more stringent criteria in ARCTIC than in NOR-VEAC. Remission was defined as scores of less than 1.6 and 2.6 on the Disease Activity Scores in 44 joints and 28 joints, respectively.

At 12- and 24-month follow-up, the researchers found that the odds of achieving remission were greater in ARCTIC than in NOR-VEAC (odds ratios, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-3.20 vs. OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.05-3.16).

“We found that more than half of patients in each cohort had reached the study-specific remission targets at 6 months, and this increased to more than 60% in each cohort at 12 and 24 months,” they reported.

With respect to drug therapy, all study patients started with methotrexate monotherapy at a mean dose of 16.0 mg and 15.5 mg in ARCTIC and NOR-VEAC, respectively. In addition, similar rates of escalation to a biologic DMARD were observed in both studies (25.6% vs. 25.4%) at 24 months.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was comparing outcomes in two cohorts with different study designs; hence, the risk of bias in estimates of effect cannot be excluded.

“Targeting a more stringent remission and implementing more frequent visits provide further potential for favorable outcomes of a treat‐to‐target strategy,” they concluded.

The study was supported by legacy funds provided to the department of rheumatology at Diakonhjemmet Hospital. Three authors reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Corrona, Genentech, Janssen, Mylan, Pfizer, and other companies.

SOURCE: Norvang V et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Feb 23. doi: 10.1002/art.41232.

Implementing a more stringent treat‐to‐target strategy could provide better outcomes for patients with early RA, according to a recent comparative study.

The findings confirm the feasibility of adopting a treat‐to‐target approach to ensure optimal outcomes are achieved for patients with early-stage disease.

“The objective of the present study was to compare achievement of remission during 2 years of follow-up in two early RA cohorts implementing different treat‐to‐target strategies,” wrote Vibeke Norvang, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, and colleagues. The findings were published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

The researchers performed a pooled analysis of data from the randomized ARCTIC trial and the Norwegian Very Early Arthritis Clinic (NOR-VEAC) observational study. The combined cohort included a total of 429 disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)–naive early RA patients, 189 and 330 from each study, respectively.

The American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Boolean remission criteria differed between the two cohorts, with more stringent criteria in ARCTIC than in NOR-VEAC. Remission was defined as scores of less than 1.6 and 2.6 on the Disease Activity Scores in 44 joints and 28 joints, respectively.

At 12- and 24-month follow-up, the researchers found that the odds of achieving remission were greater in ARCTIC than in NOR-VEAC (odds ratios, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-3.20 vs. OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.05-3.16).

“We found that more than half of patients in each cohort had reached the study-specific remission targets at 6 months, and this increased to more than 60% in each cohort at 12 and 24 months,” they reported.

With respect to drug therapy, all study patients started with methotrexate monotherapy at a mean dose of 16.0 mg and 15.5 mg in ARCTIC and NOR-VEAC, respectively. In addition, similar rates of escalation to a biologic DMARD were observed in both studies (25.6% vs. 25.4%) at 24 months.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was comparing outcomes in two cohorts with different study designs; hence, the risk of bias in estimates of effect cannot be excluded.

“Targeting a more stringent remission and implementing more frequent visits provide further potential for favorable outcomes of a treat‐to‐target strategy,” they concluded.

The study was supported by legacy funds provided to the department of rheumatology at Diakonhjemmet Hospital. Three authors reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Corrona, Genentech, Janssen, Mylan, Pfizer, and other companies.

SOURCE: Norvang V et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Feb 23. doi: 10.1002/art.41232.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has additionally approved dulaglutide (Trulicity) for reducing the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in adults with type 2 diabetes with and without established cardiovascular disease (CVD) or multiple CV risk factors, the company has announced.

Dulaglutide is a once-weekly injectable glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist first approved in the United States in 2014 for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

It is now the first and only type 2 diabetes medicine approved to reduce the risk of CV events for both primary and secondary prevention populations. The European Medicines Agency approved a similar indication for dulaglutide last fall.

The new US indication is based on results of the CV outcomes trial for dulaglutide, known as REWIND, which was the longest-running CV outcomes trial in the GLP-1 agonist class.

Chair of the REWIND study, Hertzel Gerstein, MD, professor of medicine at McMaster University and Hamilton Health Sciences, Ontario, Canada, said in a Lilly statement that the trial included a “broad population of people living with type 2 diabetes, reflective of those in the general population. We therefore assessed the effect of Trulicity in people with established CVD as well as those with multiple CV risk factors.”

“Globally, over 415 million people have type 2 diabetes, which is itself a CV risk factor. However, only about one third have established CVD, which is why this new indication, and the supporting evidence, is important for the millions of people in the United States living with diabetes,” he added.

Other GLP-1 agonists have been granted approvals for additional reduction of CV events in patients with type 2 diabetes, but only for secondary prevention.

Most recently the FDA expanded the indication for once-weekly semaglutide to include reducing the risk for MACE, including CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, in adults with type 2 diabetes who have established CVD.
 

Additional approval based on REWIND trial

The REWIND trial included primarily people with type 2 diabetes without established CVD. The full study results were presented at the 2019 American Diabetes Association Scientific Sessions.

REWIND showed a significant reduction in risk of MACE – a composite endpoint of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or CV death – which occurred in 12.0% of patients in the dulaglutide group, compared with 13.4% of patients in the placebo group, for a risk reduction of 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.99; P = .026), which was consistent across subgroups.

All three components of the MACE primary endpoint showed a reduction with dulaglutide, compared with placebo, including CV death (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78-1.06) and nonfatal MI (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.79-1.16), with the strongest and only significant effect seen in nonfatal stroke (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.95).

No difference was seen between groups in hospital admissions for heart failure.

Dulaglutide was also found to modestly reduce weight by around 1.5 kg (P = .0001) and systolic blood pressure by 1.7 mm Hg (P = .0001).

The safety profile of dulaglutide in REWIND was consistent with other members of the GLP-1 agonist class, with gastrointestinal events being the most common adverse event leading to discontinuation.

Sherry Martin, MD, Lilly’s vice president, medical affairs, noted in the company statement: “For the first time, health care providers can prescribe a diabetes medicine proven to significantly reduce the risk of experiencing a CV event for people with type 2 diabetes with and without established CVD.”

“Trulicity can help people achieve their A_1C goals and protect them from experiencing a CV event with a once-weekly, easy-to-use treatment option,” added Martin.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has additionally approved dulaglutide (Trulicity) for reducing the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in adults with type 2 diabetes with and without established cardiovascular disease (CVD) or multiple CV risk factors, the company has announced.

Dulaglutide is a once-weekly injectable glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist first approved in the United States in 2014 for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

It is now the first and only type 2 diabetes medicine approved to reduce the risk of CV events for both primary and secondary prevention populations. The European Medicines Agency approved a similar indication for dulaglutide last fall.

The new US indication is based on results of the CV outcomes trial for dulaglutide, known as REWIND, which was the longest-running CV outcomes trial in the GLP-1 agonist class.

Chair of the REWIND study, Hertzel Gerstein, MD, professor of medicine at McMaster University and Hamilton Health Sciences, Ontario, Canada, said in a Lilly statement that the trial included a “broad population of people living with type 2 diabetes, reflective of those in the general population. We therefore assessed the effect of Trulicity in people with established CVD as well as those with multiple CV risk factors.”

“Globally, over 415 million people have type 2 diabetes, which is itself a CV risk factor. However, only about one third have established CVD, which is why this new indication, and the supporting evidence, is important for the millions of people in the United States living with diabetes,” he added.

Other GLP-1 agonists have been granted approvals for additional reduction of CV events in patients with type 2 diabetes, but only for secondary prevention.

Most recently the FDA expanded the indication for once-weekly semaglutide to include reducing the risk for MACE, including CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, in adults with type 2 diabetes who have established CVD.
 

Additional approval based on REWIND trial

The REWIND trial included primarily people with type 2 diabetes without established CVD. The full study results were presented at the 2019 American Diabetes Association Scientific Sessions.

REWIND showed a significant reduction in risk of MACE – a composite endpoint of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or CV death – which occurred in 12.0% of patients in the dulaglutide group, compared with 13.4% of patients in the placebo group, for a risk reduction of 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.99; P = .026), which was consistent across subgroups.

All three components of the MACE primary endpoint showed a reduction with dulaglutide, compared with placebo, including CV death (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78-1.06) and nonfatal MI (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.79-1.16), with the strongest and only significant effect seen in nonfatal stroke (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.95).

No difference was seen between groups in hospital admissions for heart failure.

Dulaglutide was also found to modestly reduce weight by around 1.5 kg (P = .0001) and systolic blood pressure by 1.7 mm Hg (P = .0001).

The safety profile of dulaglutide in REWIND was consistent with other members of the GLP-1 agonist class, with gastrointestinal events being the most common adverse event leading to discontinuation.

Sherry Martin, MD, Lilly’s vice president, medical affairs, noted in the company statement: “For the first time, health care providers can prescribe a diabetes medicine proven to significantly reduce the risk of experiencing a CV event for people with type 2 diabetes with and without established CVD.”

“Trulicity can help people achieve their A_1C goals and protect them from experiencing a CV event with a once-weekly, easy-to-use treatment option,” added Martin.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has additionally approved dulaglutide (Trulicity) for reducing the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in adults with type 2 diabetes with and without established cardiovascular disease (CVD) or multiple CV risk factors, the company has announced.

Dulaglutide is a once-weekly injectable glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist first approved in the United States in 2014 for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

It is now the first and only type 2 diabetes medicine approved to reduce the risk of CV events for both primary and secondary prevention populations. The European Medicines Agency approved a similar indication for dulaglutide last fall.

The new US indication is based on results of the CV outcomes trial for dulaglutide, known as REWIND, which was the longest-running CV outcomes trial in the GLP-1 agonist class.

Chair of the REWIND study, Hertzel Gerstein, MD, professor of medicine at McMaster University and Hamilton Health Sciences, Ontario, Canada, said in a Lilly statement that the trial included a “broad population of people living with type 2 diabetes, reflective of those in the general population. We therefore assessed the effect of Trulicity in people with established CVD as well as those with multiple CV risk factors.”

“Globally, over 415 million people have type 2 diabetes, which is itself a CV risk factor. However, only about one third have established CVD, which is why this new indication, and the supporting evidence, is important for the millions of people in the United States living with diabetes,” he added.

Other GLP-1 agonists have been granted approvals for additional reduction of CV events in patients with type 2 diabetes, but only for secondary prevention.

Most recently the FDA expanded the indication for once-weekly semaglutide to include reducing the risk for MACE, including CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, in adults with type 2 diabetes who have established CVD.
 

Additional approval based on REWIND trial

The REWIND trial included primarily people with type 2 diabetes without established CVD. The full study results were presented at the 2019 American Diabetes Association Scientific Sessions.

REWIND showed a significant reduction in risk of MACE – a composite endpoint of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or CV death – which occurred in 12.0% of patients in the dulaglutide group, compared with 13.4% of patients in the placebo group, for a risk reduction of 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.99; P = .026), which was consistent across subgroups.

All three components of the MACE primary endpoint showed a reduction with dulaglutide, compared with placebo, including CV death (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78-1.06) and nonfatal MI (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.79-1.16), with the strongest and only significant effect seen in nonfatal stroke (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.95).

No difference was seen between groups in hospital admissions for heart failure.

Dulaglutide was also found to modestly reduce weight by around 1.5 kg (P = .0001) and systolic blood pressure by 1.7 mm Hg (P = .0001).

The safety profile of dulaglutide in REWIND was consistent with other members of the GLP-1 agonist class, with gastrointestinal events being the most common adverse event leading to discontinuation.

Sherry Martin, MD, Lilly’s vice president, medical affairs, noted in the company statement: “For the first time, health care providers can prescribe a diabetes medicine proven to significantly reduce the risk of experiencing a CV event for people with type 2 diabetes with and without established CVD.”

“Trulicity can help people achieve their A_1C goals and protect them from experiencing a CV event with a once-weekly, easy-to-use treatment option,” added Martin.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Trump administration can move forward with expanding a rule that makes it more difficult for immigrants to remain in the United States if they receive health care assistance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote.

Courtesy Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Feb. 21 order allows the administration to broaden the so-called “public charge rule” while legal challenges against the expanded regulation continue in the lower courts. The Supreme Court’s decision, which lifts a preliminary injunction against the expansion, applies to enforcement only in Illinois, where a district court blocked the revised rule from moving forward in October 2019. The Supreme Court’s measure follows another 5-4 order in January, in which justices lifted a nationwide injunction against the revised rule.

Under the long-standing public charge rule, immigration officials can refuse to admit immigrants into the United States or can deny them permanent legal status if they are deemed likely to become a public charge. Previously, immigration officers considered cash aid, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or long-term institutionalized care, as potential public charge reasons for denial.

The revised regulation allows officials to consider previously excluded programs in their determination, including nonemergency Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and several housing programs. Use of these programs for more than 12 months in the aggregate during a 36-month period may result in a “public charge” designation and lead to green card denial.

Eight legal challenges were immediately filed against the rule changes, including a complaint issued by 14 states. At least five trial courts have since blocked the measure, while appeals courts have lifted some of the injunctions and upheld enforcement.

In its Jan. 27 order lifting the nationwide injunction, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote that nationwide injunctions are being overused by trial courts with negative consequences.

“The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of ‘nationwide,’ ‘universal,’ or ‘cosmic’ scope, these orders share the same basic flaw – they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case,” he wrote. “It has become increasingly apparent that this court must, at some point, confront these important objections to this increasingly widespread practice. As the brief and furious history of the regulation before us illustrates, the routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions.”

In the court’s Feb. 21 order lifting the injunction in Illinois, justices gave no explanation for overturning the lower court’s injunction. However, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a sharply-worded dissent, criticizing her fellow justices for allowing the rule to proceed.

“In sum, the government’s only claimed hardship is that it must enforce an existing interpretation of an immigration rule in one state – just as it has done for the past 20 years – while an updated version of the rule takes effect in the remaining 49,” she wrote. “The government has not quantified or explained any burdens that would arise from this state of the world.”

ACA cases still in limbo

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has not decided whether it will hear Texas v. United States, a case that could effectively dismantle the Affordable Care Act.

The high court was expected to announce whether it would take the high-profile case at a private Feb. 21 conference, but the justices have released no update. The case was relisted for consideration at the court’s Feb. 28 conference.

Texas v. United States stems from a lawsuit by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors that was filed after Congress zeroed out the ACA’s individual mandate penalty in 2017. The plaintiffs contend the now-valueless mandate is no longer constitutional and thus, the entire ACA should be struck down. Because the Trump administration declined to defend the law, a coalition of Democratic attorneys general and governors intervened in the case as defendants.

In 2018, a Texas district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared the entire health care law invalid. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirmed the district court’s decision, ruling that the mandate was unconstitutional, but sending the case back to the lower court for more analysis on severability. The Democratic attorneys general and governors appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the challenge, the court could fast-track the case and schedule arguments for the current term or wait until its next term, which starts in October 2020. If justices decline to hear the case, the challenge will remain with the district court for more analysis about the law’s severability.

Another ACA-related case – Maine Community Health Options v. U.S. – also remains in limbo. Justices heard the case, which was consolidated with two similar challenges, on Dec. 10, 2019, but still have not issued a decision.

The consolidated challenges center on whether the federal government owes insurers billions based on an Affordable Care Act provision intended to help health plans mitigate risk under the law. The ACA’s risk corridor program required the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services to collect funds from profitable insurers that offered qualified health plans under the exchanges and distribute the funds to insurers with excessive losses. Collections from profitable insurers under the program fell short in 2014, 2015, and 2016, while losses steadily grew, resulting in the HHS paying about 12 cents on the dollar in payments to insurers. More than 150 insurers now allege they were shortchanged and they want the Supreme Court to force the government to reimburse them to the tune of $12 billion.

The Department of Justice counters that the government is not required to pay the insurers because of appropriations measures passed by Congress in 2014 and in later years that limited the funding available to compensate insurers for their losses.

The federal government and insurers have each experienced wins and losses at the lower court level. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided in favor of the government, ruling that while the ACA required the government to compensate the insurers for their losses, the appropriations measures repealed or suspended that requirement.

A Supreme Court decision in the case could come as soon as Feb. 26.

Court to hear women’s health cases

Two closely watched reproductive health cases will go before the court this spring.

On March 4, justices will hear oral arguments in June Medical Services v. Russo, regarding the constitutionality of a Louisiana law that requires physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Doctors who perform abortions without admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles face fines and imprisonment, according to the state law, originally passed in 2014. Clinics that employ such doctors can also have their licenses revoked.

June Medical Services LLC, a women’s health clinic, sued over the law. A district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and upheld Louisiana’s law. The clinic appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Louisiana officials argue the challenge should be dismissed, and the law allowed to proceed, because the plaintiffs lack standing.

The Supreme Court in 2016 heard a similar case – Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt – concerning a comparable law in Texas. In that case, justices struck down the measure as unconstitutional.

And on April 29, justices will hear arguments in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, a consolidated case about whether the Trump administration acted properly when it expanded exemptions under the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. Entities that object to providing contraception on the basis of religious beliefs can opt out of complying with the mandate, according to the 2018 regulations. Additionally, nonprofit organizations and small businesses that have nonreligious moral convictions against the mandate can skip compliance. A number of states and entities sued over the new rules.

A federal appeals court temporarily barred the regulations from moving forward, ruling the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving the Trump administration did not follow appropriate procedures when it promulgated the new rules and that the regulations were not authorized under the ACA.

Justices will decide whether the parties have standing in the case, whether the Trump administration followed correct rule-making procedures, and if the regulations can stand.

[email protected]

The Trump administration can move forward with expanding a rule that makes it more difficult for immigrants to remain in the United States if they receive health care assistance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote.

Courtesy Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Feb. 21 order allows the administration to broaden the so-called “public charge rule” while legal challenges against the expanded regulation continue in the lower courts. The Supreme Court’s decision, which lifts a preliminary injunction against the expansion, applies to enforcement only in Illinois, where a district court blocked the revised rule from moving forward in October 2019. The Supreme Court’s measure follows another 5-4 order in January, in which justices lifted a nationwide injunction against the revised rule.

Under the long-standing public charge rule, immigration officials can refuse to admit immigrants into the United States or can deny them permanent legal status if they are deemed likely to become a public charge. Previously, immigration officers considered cash aid, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or long-term institutionalized care, as potential public charge reasons for denial.

The revised regulation allows officials to consider previously excluded programs in their determination, including nonemergency Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and several housing programs. Use of these programs for more than 12 months in the aggregate during a 36-month period may result in a “public charge” designation and lead to green card denial.

Eight legal challenges were immediately filed against the rule changes, including a complaint issued by 14 states. At least five trial courts have since blocked the measure, while appeals courts have lifted some of the injunctions and upheld enforcement.

In its Jan. 27 order lifting the nationwide injunction, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote that nationwide injunctions are being overused by trial courts with negative consequences.

“The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of ‘nationwide,’ ‘universal,’ or ‘cosmic’ scope, these orders share the same basic flaw – they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case,” he wrote. “It has become increasingly apparent that this court must, at some point, confront these important objections to this increasingly widespread practice. As the brief and furious history of the regulation before us illustrates, the routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions.”

In the court’s Feb. 21 order lifting the injunction in Illinois, justices gave no explanation for overturning the lower court’s injunction. However, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a sharply-worded dissent, criticizing her fellow justices for allowing the rule to proceed.

“In sum, the government’s only claimed hardship is that it must enforce an existing interpretation of an immigration rule in one state – just as it has done for the past 20 years – while an updated version of the rule takes effect in the remaining 49,” she wrote. “The government has not quantified or explained any burdens that would arise from this state of the world.”

ACA cases still in limbo

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has not decided whether it will hear Texas v. United States, a case that could effectively dismantle the Affordable Care Act.

The high court was expected to announce whether it would take the high-profile case at a private Feb. 21 conference, but the justices have released no update. The case was relisted for consideration at the court’s Feb. 28 conference.

Texas v. United States stems from a lawsuit by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors that was filed after Congress zeroed out the ACA’s individual mandate penalty in 2017. The plaintiffs contend the now-valueless mandate is no longer constitutional and thus, the entire ACA should be struck down. Because the Trump administration declined to defend the law, a coalition of Democratic attorneys general and governors intervened in the case as defendants.

In 2018, a Texas district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared the entire health care law invalid. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirmed the district court’s decision, ruling that the mandate was unconstitutional, but sending the case back to the lower court for more analysis on severability. The Democratic attorneys general and governors appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the challenge, the court could fast-track the case and schedule arguments for the current term or wait until its next term, which starts in October 2020. If justices decline to hear the case, the challenge will remain with the district court for more analysis about the law’s severability.

Another ACA-related case – Maine Community Health Options v. U.S. – also remains in limbo. Justices heard the case, which was consolidated with two similar challenges, on Dec. 10, 2019, but still have not issued a decision.

The consolidated challenges center on whether the federal government owes insurers billions based on an Affordable Care Act provision intended to help health plans mitigate risk under the law. The ACA’s risk corridor program required the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services to collect funds from profitable insurers that offered qualified health plans under the exchanges and distribute the funds to insurers with excessive losses. Collections from profitable insurers under the program fell short in 2014, 2015, and 2016, while losses steadily grew, resulting in the HHS paying about 12 cents on the dollar in payments to insurers. More than 150 insurers now allege they were shortchanged and they want the Supreme Court to force the government to reimburse them to the tune of $12 billion.

The Department of Justice counters that the government is not required to pay the insurers because of appropriations measures passed by Congress in 2014 and in later years that limited the funding available to compensate insurers for their losses.

The federal government and insurers have each experienced wins and losses at the lower court level. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided in favor of the government, ruling that while the ACA required the government to compensate the insurers for their losses, the appropriations measures repealed or suspended that requirement.

A Supreme Court decision in the case could come as soon as Feb. 26.

Court to hear women’s health cases

Two closely watched reproductive health cases will go before the court this spring.

On March 4, justices will hear oral arguments in June Medical Services v. Russo, regarding the constitutionality of a Louisiana law that requires physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Doctors who perform abortions without admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles face fines and imprisonment, according to the state law, originally passed in 2014. Clinics that employ such doctors can also have their licenses revoked.

June Medical Services LLC, a women’s health clinic, sued over the law. A district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and upheld Louisiana’s law. The clinic appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Louisiana officials argue the challenge should be dismissed, and the law allowed to proceed, because the plaintiffs lack standing.

The Supreme Court in 2016 heard a similar case – Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt – concerning a comparable law in Texas. In that case, justices struck down the measure as unconstitutional.

And on April 29, justices will hear arguments in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, a consolidated case about whether the Trump administration acted properly when it expanded exemptions under the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. Entities that object to providing contraception on the basis of religious beliefs can opt out of complying with the mandate, according to the 2018 regulations. Additionally, nonprofit organizations and small businesses that have nonreligious moral convictions against the mandate can skip compliance. A number of states and entities sued over the new rules.

A federal appeals court temporarily barred the regulations from moving forward, ruling the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving the Trump administration did not follow appropriate procedures when it promulgated the new rules and that the regulations were not authorized under the ACA.

Justices will decide whether the parties have standing in the case, whether the Trump administration followed correct rule-making procedures, and if the regulations can stand.

[email protected]

The Trump administration can move forward with expanding a rule that makes it more difficult for immigrants to remain in the United States if they receive health care assistance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote.

Courtesy Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Feb. 21 order allows the administration to broaden the so-called “public charge rule” while legal challenges against the expanded regulation continue in the lower courts. The Supreme Court’s decision, which lifts a preliminary injunction against the expansion, applies to enforcement only in Illinois, where a district court blocked the revised rule from moving forward in October 2019. The Supreme Court’s measure follows another 5-4 order in January, in which justices lifted a nationwide injunction against the revised rule.

Under the long-standing public charge rule, immigration officials can refuse to admit immigrants into the United States or can deny them permanent legal status if they are deemed likely to become a public charge. Previously, immigration officers considered cash aid, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or long-term institutionalized care, as potential public charge reasons for denial.

The revised regulation allows officials to consider previously excluded programs in their determination, including nonemergency Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and several housing programs. Use of these programs for more than 12 months in the aggregate during a 36-month period may result in a “public charge” designation and lead to green card denial.

Eight legal challenges were immediately filed against the rule changes, including a complaint issued by 14 states. At least five trial courts have since blocked the measure, while appeals courts have lifted some of the injunctions and upheld enforcement.

In its Jan. 27 order lifting the nationwide injunction, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote that nationwide injunctions are being overused by trial courts with negative consequences.

“The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of ‘nationwide,’ ‘universal,’ or ‘cosmic’ scope, these orders share the same basic flaw – they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case,” he wrote. “It has become increasingly apparent that this court must, at some point, confront these important objections to this increasingly widespread practice. As the brief and furious history of the regulation before us illustrates, the routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions.”

In the court’s Feb. 21 order lifting the injunction in Illinois, justices gave no explanation for overturning the lower court’s injunction. However, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a sharply-worded dissent, criticizing her fellow justices for allowing the rule to proceed.

“In sum, the government’s only claimed hardship is that it must enforce an existing interpretation of an immigration rule in one state – just as it has done for the past 20 years – while an updated version of the rule takes effect in the remaining 49,” she wrote. “The government has not quantified or explained any burdens that would arise from this state of the world.”

ACA cases still in limbo

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has not decided whether it will hear Texas v. United States, a case that could effectively dismantle the Affordable Care Act.

The high court was expected to announce whether it would take the high-profile case at a private Feb. 21 conference, but the justices have released no update. The case was relisted for consideration at the court’s Feb. 28 conference.

Texas v. United States stems from a lawsuit by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors that was filed after Congress zeroed out the ACA’s individual mandate penalty in 2017. The plaintiffs contend the now-valueless mandate is no longer constitutional and thus, the entire ACA should be struck down. Because the Trump administration declined to defend the law, a coalition of Democratic attorneys general and governors intervened in the case as defendants.

In 2018, a Texas district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared the entire health care law invalid. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirmed the district court’s decision, ruling that the mandate was unconstitutional, but sending the case back to the lower court for more analysis on severability. The Democratic attorneys general and governors appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the challenge, the court could fast-track the case and schedule arguments for the current term or wait until its next term, which starts in October 2020. If justices decline to hear the case, the challenge will remain with the district court for more analysis about the law’s severability.

Another ACA-related case – Maine Community Health Options v. U.S. – also remains in limbo. Justices heard the case, which was consolidated with two similar challenges, on Dec. 10, 2019, but still have not issued a decision.

The consolidated challenges center on whether the federal government owes insurers billions based on an Affordable Care Act provision intended to help health plans mitigate risk under the law. The ACA’s risk corridor program required the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services to collect funds from profitable insurers that offered qualified health plans under the exchanges and distribute the funds to insurers with excessive losses. Collections from profitable insurers under the program fell short in 2014, 2015, and 2016, while losses steadily grew, resulting in the HHS paying about 12 cents on the dollar in payments to insurers. More than 150 insurers now allege they were shortchanged and they want the Supreme Court to force the government to reimburse them to the tune of $12 billion.

The Department of Justice counters that the government is not required to pay the insurers because of appropriations measures passed by Congress in 2014 and in later years that limited the funding available to compensate insurers for their losses.

The federal government and insurers have each experienced wins and losses at the lower court level. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided in favor of the government, ruling that while the ACA required the government to compensate the insurers for their losses, the appropriations measures repealed or suspended that requirement.

A Supreme Court decision in the case could come as soon as Feb. 26.

Court to hear women’s health cases

Two closely watched reproductive health cases will go before the court this spring.

On March 4, justices will hear oral arguments in June Medical Services v. Russo, regarding the constitutionality of a Louisiana law that requires physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Doctors who perform abortions without admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles face fines and imprisonment, according to the state law, originally passed in 2014. Clinics that employ such doctors can also have their licenses revoked.

June Medical Services LLC, a women’s health clinic, sued over the law. A district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and upheld Louisiana’s law. The clinic appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Louisiana officials argue the challenge should be dismissed, and the law allowed to proceed, because the plaintiffs lack standing.

The Supreme Court in 2016 heard a similar case – Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt – concerning a comparable law in Texas. In that case, justices struck down the measure as unconstitutional.

And on April 29, justices will hear arguments in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, a consolidated case about whether the Trump administration acted properly when it expanded exemptions under the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. Entities that object to providing contraception on the basis of religious beliefs can opt out of complying with the mandate, according to the 2018 regulations. Additionally, nonprofit organizations and small businesses that have nonreligious moral convictions against the mandate can skip compliance. A number of states and entities sued over the new rules.

A federal appeals court temporarily barred the regulations from moving forward, ruling the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving the Trump administration did not follow appropriate procedures when it promulgated the new rules and that the regulations were not authorized under the ACA.

Justices will decide whether the parties have standing in the case, whether the Trump administration followed correct rule-making procedures, and if the regulations can stand.

[email protected]

It’s past time to call the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, a pandemic and “time to push people to prepare, and guide their prep,” according to risk communication experts.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Medical messaging about containing or stopping the spread of the virus is doing more harm than good, write Peter Sandman, PhD, and Jody Lanard, MD, both based in New York City, in a recent blog post.

“We are near-certain that the desperate-sounding last-ditch containment messaging of recent days is contributing to a massive global misperception,” they warn.

“The most crucial (and overdue) risk communication task … is to help people visualize their communities when ‘keeping it out’ – containment – is no longer relevant.”

That message is embraced by several experts who spoke to Medscape Medical News.

“I’m jealous of what [they] have written: It is so clear, so correct, and so practical,” said David Fisman, MD, MPH, professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto, Canada. “I think WHO [World Health Organization] is shying away from the P word,” he continued, referring to the organization’s continuing decision not to call the outbreak a pandemic.

“I fully support exactly what [Sandman and Lanard] are saying,” said Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, professor of environmental health sciences and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

Health care professionals should now be advising people how to prepare – yet this is the most neglected message, Sandman and Lanard write. “Hardly any officials are telling civil society and the general public how to get ready for this pandemic.”

Effective communication should inform people of what to expect now, they continue: “[T]he end of most quarantines, travel restrictions, contact tracing, and other measures designed to keep ‘them’ from infecting ‘us,’ and the switch to measures like canceling mass events designed to keep us from infecting each other.”

Among the new messages that should be delivered are things like:

• Stockpiling nonperishable food and prescription meds.
• Considering care of sick family members.
• Cross-training work personnel so one person’s absence won’t derail an organization’s ability to function.

“We hope that governments and healthcare institutions are using this time wisely,” Sandman and Lanard continue. “We know that ordinary citizens are not being asked to do so. In most countries … ordinary citizens have not been asked to prepare. Instead, they have been led to expect that their governments will keep the virus from their doors.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s past time to call the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, a pandemic and “time to push people to prepare, and guide their prep,” according to risk communication experts.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Medical messaging about containing or stopping the spread of the virus is doing more harm than good, write Peter Sandman, PhD, and Jody Lanard, MD, both based in New York City, in a recent blog post.

“We are near-certain that the desperate-sounding last-ditch containment messaging of recent days is contributing to a massive global misperception,” they warn.

“The most crucial (and overdue) risk communication task … is to help people visualize their communities when ‘keeping it out’ – containment – is no longer relevant.”

That message is embraced by several experts who spoke to Medscape Medical News.

“I’m jealous of what [they] have written: It is so clear, so correct, and so practical,” said David Fisman, MD, MPH, professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto, Canada. “I think WHO [World Health Organization] is shying away from the P word,” he continued, referring to the organization’s continuing decision not to call the outbreak a pandemic.

“I fully support exactly what [Sandman and Lanard] are saying,” said Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, professor of environmental health sciences and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

Health care professionals should now be advising people how to prepare – yet this is the most neglected message, Sandman and Lanard write. “Hardly any officials are telling civil society and the general public how to get ready for this pandemic.”

Effective communication should inform people of what to expect now, they continue: “[T]he end of most quarantines, travel restrictions, contact tracing, and other measures designed to keep ‘them’ from infecting ‘us,’ and the switch to measures like canceling mass events designed to keep us from infecting each other.”

Among the new messages that should be delivered are things like:

• Stockpiling nonperishable food and prescription meds.
• Considering care of sick family members.
• Cross-training work personnel so one person’s absence won’t derail an organization’s ability to function.

“We hope that governments and healthcare institutions are using this time wisely,” Sandman and Lanard continue. “We know that ordinary citizens are not being asked to do so. In most countries … ordinary citizens have not been asked to prepare. Instead, they have been led to expect that their governments will keep the virus from their doors.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s past time to call the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, a pandemic and “time to push people to prepare, and guide their prep,” according to risk communication experts.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Medical messaging about containing or stopping the spread of the virus is doing more harm than good, write Peter Sandman, PhD, and Jody Lanard, MD, both based in New York City, in a recent blog post.

“We are near-certain that the desperate-sounding last-ditch containment messaging of recent days is contributing to a massive global misperception,” they warn.

“The most crucial (and overdue) risk communication task … is to help people visualize their communities when ‘keeping it out’ – containment – is no longer relevant.”

That message is embraced by several experts who spoke to Medscape Medical News.

“I’m jealous of what [they] have written: It is so clear, so correct, and so practical,” said David Fisman, MD, MPH, professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto, Canada. “I think WHO [World Health Organization] is shying away from the P word,” he continued, referring to the organization’s continuing decision not to call the outbreak a pandemic.

“I fully support exactly what [Sandman and Lanard] are saying,” said Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, professor of environmental health sciences and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

Health care professionals should now be advising people how to prepare – yet this is the most neglected message, Sandman and Lanard write. “Hardly any officials are telling civil society and the general public how to get ready for this pandemic.”

Effective communication should inform people of what to expect now, they continue: “[T]he end of most quarantines, travel restrictions, contact tracing, and other measures designed to keep ‘them’ from infecting ‘us,’ and the switch to measures like canceling mass events designed to keep us from infecting each other.”

Among the new messages that should be delivered are things like:

• Stockpiling nonperishable food and prescription meds.
• Considering care of sick family members.
• Cross-training work personnel so one person’s absence won’t derail an organization’s ability to function.

“We hope that governments and healthcare institutions are using this time wisely,” Sandman and Lanard continue. “We know that ordinary citizens are not being asked to do so. In most countries … ordinary citizens have not been asked to prepare. Instead, they have been led to expect that their governments will keep the virus from their doors.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.