The accumulation of multiple adverse social determinants of health is linked to worse disease at initial presentation and worse disease activity over time in children with rheumatologic conditions, according to findings presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

One study revealed that cumulative factors conferring social disadvantage progressively increased the odds of active disease and functional disability in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Another study similarly found that children with lupus living in neighborhoods with comparatively fewer resources for childhood opportunity had worse disease at presentation and greater disease activity over follow-up.

The findings suggest that exposure to multiple disadvantaging social variables may be linked to worse outcomes than exposure to any single factor, William Daniel Soulsby, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, told attendees in his presentation of data from the JIA study.

“Most prior studies have analyzed such determinants as independent risk factors,” Dr. Soulsby said. “However, individuals experiencing social disadvantage often face multiple social hardships that rarely act in isolation; studying these factors independently may miss underlying disparities.”

Stacy P. Ardoin, MD, MSc, professor of pediatric and adult rheumatology at Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University in Columbus, and vice president of CARRA, did not find the results of Soulsby’s study surprising, but she said they do “provide important confirmation of our growing understanding of the impact of social determinants of health on the outcomes of children and adolescents with chronic disease like juvenile idiopathic arthritis.” She added: “In medicine, we often think about the bench, the bedside, and the clinic, but this study tells us that if we want to improve outcomes for our patients, we also need to think about the ‘backyard,’ too.”
 

Social Disadvantage With JIA

Dr. Soulsby’s team adopted an approach similar to that of a recent National Survey of Children’s Health analysis that used a combined scoring system to calculate cumulative social disadvantage. The researchers used income level, insurance status, and education level to capture individual factors related to disadvantage and then an area deprivation index (ADI) to capture community factors. While they were unable to use any variables specific to societal factors, they included race, which is relevant at all three levels.

The cohort included 9612 patients in the CARRA Registry from July 2015 to January 2022. They included all patients who had a JIA diagnosis with onset before age 16 and at least one visit with a complete clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (JADAS) score. Most of the patients (70%) were female, with an average age at enrollment of 11 and a mean time to diagnosis of 10.6 months.

Most of the patients had oligoarthritis (35.5%) or rheumatoid factor–negative polyarthritis (29.4%), followed by enthesitis-related arthritis (10.5%) and then other forms. A total of 4% of patients had a secondary rheumatologic condition. Most of the patients were White (74.9%), with 3.9% Black, 7.6% Hispanic, and 6.5% of more than one race. ADI data were missing for 17.2% of patients.

The researchers assigned a score to each patient that could add up to a maximum of 3. They received 1 point for an annual household income below $50,000, 1 point for having public insurance or no insurance, and 1 point for their guardian having no more than a high school education. Patients with a score of 0 comprised 60.9% of the patients, while 21.3% had a score of 1, 12.9% had a score of 2, and 4.9% had a score of 3.

Just over a quarter of the patients (26.3%) were underinsured, 19.1% were low income, and 16.4% had caregivers with a high school education or less. However, income level was unknown for 24.6% of patients, and guardians’ education level was unknown for 15.7% of patients.

The primary outcomes were the odds of active disease as based on clinical JADAS (at least a 1.1 score for oligoarticular JIA and more than 2.5 for all other subtypes) and odds of functional disability based on the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ). Adjustments were made for sex, race/ethnicity, age at enrollment, time to diagnosis, ADI, JIA category, presence of secondary rheumatologic disease, and medication (use of a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [DMARD], biologic DMARD, or small molecule drug).

Nearly half (48%) of patients had active disease during follow-up, with an average clinical JADAS score of 4 from the whole cohort. Compared with children with a cumulative disadvantage score of 0, each additional point on the clinical JADAS resulted in significantly increased odds of active disease. Those with the highest score of 3 were twice as likely to have active disease (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.05; P < .001) as those with a score of 0, but those with a score of 1 (aOR, 1.36; P < .001) or 2 (aOR, 1.86; P < .001) were also more likely to have active disease. Other significant independent predictors of active arthritis included being of Black race (aOR, 1.55) or more than one race (aOR, 1.31).

Each of the scored factors also independently increased the likelihood of active disease by similar amounts: 1.69 higher odds for low household income on its own, 1.6 higher odds for public or no insurance, and 1.45 higher odds for high school education or less (all P < .001).

Similarly, odds of functional disability based on CHAQ increased significantly with each additional point. The mean CHAQ score was 0.31, and 46% of patients had functional disability during follow-up. Those with a cumulative social disadvantage score of 3 were three times as likely to have functional disability (aOR, 3.09; P < .001) as those with a score of 0. Those with a score of 1 (aOR, 1.82) or 2 (aOR, 2.81) were also more likely to have functional disability (P < .001). Again, Black individuals (aOR, 2.09) or those of mixed race (aOR, 1.78) had greater odds of functional disability (P < .001).

The independent factor most associated with increased odds of functional disability was a household income below $50,000 a year (OR, 3.03; P < .001), followed by having public or no insurance (OR, 2.57) or a caregiver with no more than a high school education (OR, 1.98). Dr. Soulsby noted that their study was limited by the missing data and may oversimplify the relationships between social determinants of health.

Overall, however, the findings revealed both the importance of social risk screening in the pediatric rheumatology clinic and the coupling of that screening with individual level support for patients, Dr. Soulsby said.

“This study did a great job of harnessing the power of the CARRA Registry,” said Dr. Ardoin, who was not involved in the research. “These findings underscore how important it is for all clinicians, including pediatric rheumatologists, to evaluate every child for social risks of poor outcomes,” she said.

One take-home message from the findings is that once pediatric rheumatologists identify social risks for poor outcomes in their patients, they can “consult with social workers and connect families with community resources in an effort to ameliorate social deprivation.”
 

Childhood Lupus and Reduced Childhood Opportunity

In a similar study looking at children with childhood-onset lupus, researchers similarly identified the way that compounding social determinants of health were linked to greater disease activity.

“We know that structural racism segregates children from historically marginalized groups into different neighborhoods with lower childhood opportunity,” Joyce C. Chang, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, told attendees. “When we talk about child opportunity, we’re really describing all of the resources and conditions that helped to promote healthy childhood development,” including factors related to education, physical health, the built environment, and social and economic security, she said.

Dr. Chang and her colleagues therefore assessed the relationship between a 29-indicator Child Opportunity Index for patients with childhood-onset lupus and the severity of their disease presentation and activity over time. They determined the Child Opportunity Index for different neighborhoods and assessed the amount of racial residential segregation around the three institutions involved in the study. Severity of lupus presentation was based on the need for intensive care unit admission or dialysis or a Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) score of 10 or higher. Disease activity over time was based on the SLEDAI-2K score.

The patient population included 553 patients with childhood-onset lupus from three institutions: Boston Children’s Hospital, Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, and Children’s of Alabama in Birmingham, Alabama. Across the full population, 30% of the patients were Black and 30% were Hispanic, but the distribution of race and ethnicity varied by institution. Most of the Black patients, for example, were at Children’s of Alabama (59%), while 43% of the Hispanic patients were at Lurie. Across all the sites, 14% of the patients’ families preferred a non-English language as their first language, and just over half the patients (52%) had public insurance.

Dr. Chang did not have data yet from the Lurie and Alabama cohorts, so she presented preliminary data from the Boston Children’s cohort of 148 patients. In those results, children living in neighborhoods of low childhood opportunity had four times higher odds of presenting with severe disease than children living in neighborhoods of very high opportunity. Then the researchers factored in the location quotient that represented the magnitude of racial segregation in a residential area. In areas with high levels of Black vs White segregation, children were 2.5 times more likely to have a more severe initial disease presentation. However, there was not a significant difference in areas highly segregated between Hispanic and non-Hispanic residents.

After initial presentation, the data revealed a dose-dependent relationship between childhood opportunity and severity of disease activity based on SLEDAI-2K. After adjustment for insurance status, race, preferred language, age at disease onset, sex, major organ involvement, initial SLEDAI-2K score at presentation, and follow-up time, disease activity incrementally increased as childhood opportunity decreased (P < .001 for the trend).

The findings suggested that even in regions like Boston, where overall childhood opportunity is higher than the national average, “poor relative neighborhood opportunity is still associated with more severe lupus presentation, as well as higher lupus disease activity during follow-up,” Dr. Chang said. “Area-level conditions may drive inequitable outcomes at numerous points,” including initial access to subspecialty care and after establishing that care, she said.

Dr. Soulsby, Dr. Chang, and Dr. Ardoin reported having no disclosures. Dr. Soulsby’s research was funded by CARRA and the Arthritis Foundation, and Dr. Chang’s research was funded by CARRA.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The accumulation of multiple adverse social determinants of health is linked to worse disease at initial presentation and worse disease activity over time in children with rheumatologic conditions, according to findings presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

One study revealed that cumulative factors conferring social disadvantage progressively increased the odds of active disease and functional disability in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Another study similarly found that children with lupus living in neighborhoods with comparatively fewer resources for childhood opportunity had worse disease at presentation and greater disease activity over follow-up.

The findings suggest that exposure to multiple disadvantaging social variables may be linked to worse outcomes than exposure to any single factor, William Daniel Soulsby, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, told attendees in his presentation of data from the JIA study.

“Most prior studies have analyzed such determinants as independent risk factors,” Dr. Soulsby said. “However, individuals experiencing social disadvantage often face multiple social hardships that rarely act in isolation; studying these factors independently may miss underlying disparities.”

Stacy P. Ardoin, MD, MSc, professor of pediatric and adult rheumatology at Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University in Columbus, and vice president of CARRA, did not find the results of Soulsby’s study surprising, but she said they do “provide important confirmation of our growing understanding of the impact of social determinants of health on the outcomes of children and adolescents with chronic disease like juvenile idiopathic arthritis.” She added: “In medicine, we often think about the bench, the bedside, and the clinic, but this study tells us that if we want to improve outcomes for our patients, we also need to think about the ‘backyard,’ too.”
 

Social Disadvantage With JIA

Dr. Soulsby’s team adopted an approach similar to that of a recent National Survey of Children’s Health analysis that used a combined scoring system to calculate cumulative social disadvantage. The researchers used income level, insurance status, and education level to capture individual factors related to disadvantage and then an area deprivation index (ADI) to capture community factors. While they were unable to use any variables specific to societal factors, they included race, which is relevant at all three levels.

The cohort included 9612 patients in the CARRA Registry from July 2015 to January 2022. They included all patients who had a JIA diagnosis with onset before age 16 and at least one visit with a complete clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (JADAS) score. Most of the patients (70%) were female, with an average age at enrollment of 11 and a mean time to diagnosis of 10.6 months.

Most of the patients had oligoarthritis (35.5%) or rheumatoid factor–negative polyarthritis (29.4%), followed by enthesitis-related arthritis (10.5%) and then other forms. A total of 4% of patients had a secondary rheumatologic condition. Most of the patients were White (74.9%), with 3.9% Black, 7.6% Hispanic, and 6.5% of more than one race. ADI data were missing for 17.2% of patients.

The researchers assigned a score to each patient that could add up to a maximum of 3. They received 1 point for an annual household income below $50,000, 1 point for having public insurance or no insurance, and 1 point for their guardian having no more than a high school education. Patients with a score of 0 comprised 60.9% of the patients, while 21.3% had a score of 1, 12.9% had a score of 2, and 4.9% had a score of 3.

Just over a quarter of the patients (26.3%) were underinsured, 19.1% were low income, and 16.4% had caregivers with a high school education or less. However, income level was unknown for 24.6% of patients, and guardians’ education level was unknown for 15.7% of patients.

The primary outcomes were the odds of active disease as based on clinical JADAS (at least a 1.1 score for oligoarticular JIA and more than 2.5 for all other subtypes) and odds of functional disability based on the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ). Adjustments were made for sex, race/ethnicity, age at enrollment, time to diagnosis, ADI, JIA category, presence of secondary rheumatologic disease, and medication (use of a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [DMARD], biologic DMARD, or small molecule drug).

Nearly half (48%) of patients had active disease during follow-up, with an average clinical JADAS score of 4 from the whole cohort. Compared with children with a cumulative disadvantage score of 0, each additional point on the clinical JADAS resulted in significantly increased odds of active disease. Those with the highest score of 3 were twice as likely to have active disease (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.05; P < .001) as those with a score of 0, but those with a score of 1 (aOR, 1.36; P < .001) or 2 (aOR, 1.86; P < .001) were also more likely to have active disease. Other significant independent predictors of active arthritis included being of Black race (aOR, 1.55) or more than one race (aOR, 1.31).

Each of the scored factors also independently increased the likelihood of active disease by similar amounts: 1.69 higher odds for low household income on its own, 1.6 higher odds for public or no insurance, and 1.45 higher odds for high school education or less (all P < .001).

Similarly, odds of functional disability based on CHAQ increased significantly with each additional point. The mean CHAQ score was 0.31, and 46% of patients had functional disability during follow-up. Those with a cumulative social disadvantage score of 3 were three times as likely to have functional disability (aOR, 3.09; P < .001) as those with a score of 0. Those with a score of 1 (aOR, 1.82) or 2 (aOR, 2.81) were also more likely to have functional disability (P < .001). Again, Black individuals (aOR, 2.09) or those of mixed race (aOR, 1.78) had greater odds of functional disability (P < .001).

The independent factor most associated with increased odds of functional disability was a household income below $50,000 a year (OR, 3.03; P < .001), followed by having public or no insurance (OR, 2.57) or a caregiver with no more than a high school education (OR, 1.98). Dr. Soulsby noted that their study was limited by the missing data and may oversimplify the relationships between social determinants of health.

Overall, however, the findings revealed both the importance of social risk screening in the pediatric rheumatology clinic and the coupling of that screening with individual level support for patients, Dr. Soulsby said.

“This study did a great job of harnessing the power of the CARRA Registry,” said Dr. Ardoin, who was not involved in the research. “These findings underscore how important it is for all clinicians, including pediatric rheumatologists, to evaluate every child for social risks of poor outcomes,” she said.

One take-home message from the findings is that once pediatric rheumatologists identify social risks for poor outcomes in their patients, they can “consult with social workers and connect families with community resources in an effort to ameliorate social deprivation.”
 

Childhood Lupus and Reduced Childhood Opportunity

In a similar study looking at children with childhood-onset lupus, researchers similarly identified the way that compounding social determinants of health were linked to greater disease activity.

“We know that structural racism segregates children from historically marginalized groups into different neighborhoods with lower childhood opportunity,” Joyce C. Chang, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, told attendees. “When we talk about child opportunity, we’re really describing all of the resources and conditions that helped to promote healthy childhood development,” including factors related to education, physical health, the built environment, and social and economic security, she said.

Dr. Chang and her colleagues therefore assessed the relationship between a 29-indicator Child Opportunity Index for patients with childhood-onset lupus and the severity of their disease presentation and activity over time. They determined the Child Opportunity Index for different neighborhoods and assessed the amount of racial residential segregation around the three institutions involved in the study. Severity of lupus presentation was based on the need for intensive care unit admission or dialysis or a Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) score of 10 or higher. Disease activity over time was based on the SLEDAI-2K score.

The patient population included 553 patients with childhood-onset lupus from three institutions: Boston Children’s Hospital, Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, and Children’s of Alabama in Birmingham, Alabama. Across the full population, 30% of the patients were Black and 30% were Hispanic, but the distribution of race and ethnicity varied by institution. Most of the Black patients, for example, were at Children’s of Alabama (59%), while 43% of the Hispanic patients were at Lurie. Across all the sites, 14% of the patients’ families preferred a non-English language as their first language, and just over half the patients (52%) had public insurance.

Dr. Chang did not have data yet from the Lurie and Alabama cohorts, so she presented preliminary data from the Boston Children’s cohort of 148 patients. In those results, children living in neighborhoods of low childhood opportunity had four times higher odds of presenting with severe disease than children living in neighborhoods of very high opportunity. Then the researchers factored in the location quotient that represented the magnitude of racial segregation in a residential area. In areas with high levels of Black vs White segregation, children were 2.5 times more likely to have a more severe initial disease presentation. However, there was not a significant difference in areas highly segregated between Hispanic and non-Hispanic residents.

After initial presentation, the data revealed a dose-dependent relationship between childhood opportunity and severity of disease activity based on SLEDAI-2K. After adjustment for insurance status, race, preferred language, age at disease onset, sex, major organ involvement, initial SLEDAI-2K score at presentation, and follow-up time, disease activity incrementally increased as childhood opportunity decreased (P < .001 for the trend).

The findings suggested that even in regions like Boston, where overall childhood opportunity is higher than the national average, “poor relative neighborhood opportunity is still associated with more severe lupus presentation, as well as higher lupus disease activity during follow-up,” Dr. Chang said. “Area-level conditions may drive inequitable outcomes at numerous points,” including initial access to subspecialty care and after establishing that care, she said.

Dr. Soulsby, Dr. Chang, and Dr. Ardoin reported having no disclosures. Dr. Soulsby’s research was funded by CARRA and the Arthritis Foundation, and Dr. Chang’s research was funded by CARRA.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The accumulation of multiple adverse social determinants of health is linked to worse disease at initial presentation and worse disease activity over time in children with rheumatologic conditions, according to findings presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

One study revealed that cumulative factors conferring social disadvantage progressively increased the odds of active disease and functional disability in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Another study similarly found that children with lupus living in neighborhoods with comparatively fewer resources for childhood opportunity had worse disease at presentation and greater disease activity over follow-up.

The findings suggest that exposure to multiple disadvantaging social variables may be linked to worse outcomes than exposure to any single factor, William Daniel Soulsby, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, told attendees in his presentation of data from the JIA study.

“Most prior studies have analyzed such determinants as independent risk factors,” Dr. Soulsby said. “However, individuals experiencing social disadvantage often face multiple social hardships that rarely act in isolation; studying these factors independently may miss underlying disparities.”

Stacy P. Ardoin, MD, MSc, professor of pediatric and adult rheumatology at Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University in Columbus, and vice president of CARRA, did not find the results of Soulsby’s study surprising, but she said they do “provide important confirmation of our growing understanding of the impact of social determinants of health on the outcomes of children and adolescents with chronic disease like juvenile idiopathic arthritis.” She added: “In medicine, we often think about the bench, the bedside, and the clinic, but this study tells us that if we want to improve outcomes for our patients, we also need to think about the ‘backyard,’ too.”
 

Social Disadvantage With JIA

Dr. Soulsby’s team adopted an approach similar to that of a recent National Survey of Children’s Health analysis that used a combined scoring system to calculate cumulative social disadvantage. The researchers used income level, insurance status, and education level to capture individual factors related to disadvantage and then an area deprivation index (ADI) to capture community factors. While they were unable to use any variables specific to societal factors, they included race, which is relevant at all three levels.

The cohort included 9612 patients in the CARRA Registry from July 2015 to January 2022. They included all patients who had a JIA diagnosis with onset before age 16 and at least one visit with a complete clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (JADAS) score. Most of the patients (70%) were female, with an average age at enrollment of 11 and a mean time to diagnosis of 10.6 months.

Most of the patients had oligoarthritis (35.5%) or rheumatoid factor–negative polyarthritis (29.4%), followed by enthesitis-related arthritis (10.5%) and then other forms. A total of 4% of patients had a secondary rheumatologic condition. Most of the patients were White (74.9%), with 3.9% Black, 7.6% Hispanic, and 6.5% of more than one race. ADI data were missing for 17.2% of patients.

The researchers assigned a score to each patient that could add up to a maximum of 3. They received 1 point for an annual household income below $50,000, 1 point for having public insurance or no insurance, and 1 point for their guardian having no more than a high school education. Patients with a score of 0 comprised 60.9% of the patients, while 21.3% had a score of 1, 12.9% had a score of 2, and 4.9% had a score of 3.

Just over a quarter of the patients (26.3%) were underinsured, 19.1% were low income, and 16.4% had caregivers with a high school education or less. However, income level was unknown for 24.6% of patients, and guardians’ education level was unknown for 15.7% of patients.

The primary outcomes were the odds of active disease as based on clinical JADAS (at least a 1.1 score for oligoarticular JIA and more than 2.5 for all other subtypes) and odds of functional disability based on the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ). Adjustments were made for sex, race/ethnicity, age at enrollment, time to diagnosis, ADI, JIA category, presence of secondary rheumatologic disease, and medication (use of a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [DMARD], biologic DMARD, or small molecule drug).

Nearly half (48%) of patients had active disease during follow-up, with an average clinical JADAS score of 4 from the whole cohort. Compared with children with a cumulative disadvantage score of 0, each additional point on the clinical JADAS resulted in significantly increased odds of active disease. Those with the highest score of 3 were twice as likely to have active disease (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.05; P < .001) as those with a score of 0, but those with a score of 1 (aOR, 1.36; P < .001) or 2 (aOR, 1.86; P < .001) were also more likely to have active disease. Other significant independent predictors of active arthritis included being of Black race (aOR, 1.55) or more than one race (aOR, 1.31).

Each of the scored factors also independently increased the likelihood of active disease by similar amounts: 1.69 higher odds for low household income on its own, 1.6 higher odds for public or no insurance, and 1.45 higher odds for high school education or less (all P < .001).

Similarly, odds of functional disability based on CHAQ increased significantly with each additional point. The mean CHAQ score was 0.31, and 46% of patients had functional disability during follow-up. Those with a cumulative social disadvantage score of 3 were three times as likely to have functional disability (aOR, 3.09; P < .001) as those with a score of 0. Those with a score of 1 (aOR, 1.82) or 2 (aOR, 2.81) were also more likely to have functional disability (P < .001). Again, Black individuals (aOR, 2.09) or those of mixed race (aOR, 1.78) had greater odds of functional disability (P < .001).

The independent factor most associated with increased odds of functional disability was a household income below $50,000 a year (OR, 3.03; P < .001), followed by having public or no insurance (OR, 2.57) or a caregiver with no more than a high school education (OR, 1.98). Dr. Soulsby noted that their study was limited by the missing data and may oversimplify the relationships between social determinants of health.

Overall, however, the findings revealed both the importance of social risk screening in the pediatric rheumatology clinic and the coupling of that screening with individual level support for patients, Dr. Soulsby said.

“This study did a great job of harnessing the power of the CARRA Registry,” said Dr. Ardoin, who was not involved in the research. “These findings underscore how important it is for all clinicians, including pediatric rheumatologists, to evaluate every child for social risks of poor outcomes,” she said.

One take-home message from the findings is that once pediatric rheumatologists identify social risks for poor outcomes in their patients, they can “consult with social workers and connect families with community resources in an effort to ameliorate social deprivation.”
 

Childhood Lupus and Reduced Childhood Opportunity

In a similar study looking at children with childhood-onset lupus, researchers similarly identified the way that compounding social determinants of health were linked to greater disease activity.

“We know that structural racism segregates children from historically marginalized groups into different neighborhoods with lower childhood opportunity,” Joyce C. Chang, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, told attendees. “When we talk about child opportunity, we’re really describing all of the resources and conditions that helped to promote healthy childhood development,” including factors related to education, physical health, the built environment, and social and economic security, she said.

Dr. Chang and her colleagues therefore assessed the relationship between a 29-indicator Child Opportunity Index for patients with childhood-onset lupus and the severity of their disease presentation and activity over time. They determined the Child Opportunity Index for different neighborhoods and assessed the amount of racial residential segregation around the three institutions involved in the study. Severity of lupus presentation was based on the need for intensive care unit admission or dialysis or a Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) score of 10 or higher. Disease activity over time was based on the SLEDAI-2K score.

The patient population included 553 patients with childhood-onset lupus from three institutions: Boston Children’s Hospital, Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, and Children’s of Alabama in Birmingham, Alabama. Across the full population, 30% of the patients were Black and 30% were Hispanic, but the distribution of race and ethnicity varied by institution. Most of the Black patients, for example, were at Children’s of Alabama (59%), while 43% of the Hispanic patients were at Lurie. Across all the sites, 14% of the patients’ families preferred a non-English language as their first language, and just over half the patients (52%) had public insurance.

Dr. Chang did not have data yet from the Lurie and Alabama cohorts, so she presented preliminary data from the Boston Children’s cohort of 148 patients. In those results, children living in neighborhoods of low childhood opportunity had four times higher odds of presenting with severe disease than children living in neighborhoods of very high opportunity. Then the researchers factored in the location quotient that represented the magnitude of racial segregation in a residential area. In areas with high levels of Black vs White segregation, children were 2.5 times more likely to have a more severe initial disease presentation. However, there was not a significant difference in areas highly segregated between Hispanic and non-Hispanic residents.

After initial presentation, the data revealed a dose-dependent relationship between childhood opportunity and severity of disease activity based on SLEDAI-2K. After adjustment for insurance status, race, preferred language, age at disease onset, sex, major organ involvement, initial SLEDAI-2K score at presentation, and follow-up time, disease activity incrementally increased as childhood opportunity decreased (P < .001 for the trend).

The findings suggested that even in regions like Boston, where overall childhood opportunity is higher than the national average, “poor relative neighborhood opportunity is still associated with more severe lupus presentation, as well as higher lupus disease activity during follow-up,” Dr. Chang said. “Area-level conditions may drive inequitable outcomes at numerous points,” including initial access to subspecialty care and after establishing that care, she said.

Dr. Soulsby, Dr. Chang, and Dr. Ardoin reported having no disclosures. Dr. Soulsby’s research was funded by CARRA and the Arthritis Foundation, and Dr. Chang’s research was funded by CARRA.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) therapies for patients may need to be briefly halted during treatment for COVID-19, but it does not escalate IBD flares, with prior vaccination for COVID-19 helping reduce complications from the virus.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with IBD who receive immunosuppressive agents are at an increased risk of developing severe SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, the effects of COVID-19 vaccination and treatment on the outcomes in patients with IBD are less known.
• Researchers assessed the effect of COVID-19 medications in 127 patients with IBD (age ≥ 18 years; 54% women) who were diagnosed with COVID-19 after the advent of vaccines and release of antiviral therapies.
• Patients were stratified into those who received treatment for COVID-19 (n = 44), defined as the use of antivirals and/or intravenous antibodies, and those who did not receive treatment for COVID-19 (n = 83).
• The primary outcome was the development of a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (defined by the need for oxygen supplements, corticosteroids and/or antibiotic treatment, or hospitalization).
• The secondary outcomes were the percentage of patients who had their IBD therapy withheld and rates of IBD flare post COVID-19.

TAKEAWAY:

• The likelihood of being treated for COVID-19 was higher in patients on corticosteroids (odds ratio [OR], 4.61; P = .002) or in those undergoing advanced IBD therapies (OR, 2.78; P = .041) prior to infection.
• Advanced age at the time of infection (adjusted OR [aOR], 1.06; P = .018) and corticosteroid treatment prior to contracting COVID-19 (aOR, 9.86; P = .001) were associated with an increased risk for severe infection.
• After adjustment for multiple factors, the likelihood of withholding IBD treatment was higher in patients being treated for COVID-19 (aOR, 6.95; P = .007).

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with IBD on advanced therapies were frequently treated for acute COVID-19. Although COVID-19 treatment was associated with temporary withholding of IBD therapy, it did not result in increased IBD flares,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Laura C. Sahyoun, MD, Section of Digestive Diseases, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was published online in Digestive Diseases and Sciences.

LIMITATIONS:

Owing to the small sample size, the outcomes comparing antivirals to intravenous antibodies and SARS-CoV-2 strain prevalence could not be assessed. This single-center study also may not reflect the different clinical practices pertaining to IBD and COVID-19 treatments.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any specific funding. One author reported receiving speaker fees and being part of advisory boards, and another author received research support and reported being a part of advisory boards.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) therapies for patients may need to be briefly halted during treatment for COVID-19, but it does not escalate IBD flares, with prior vaccination for COVID-19 helping reduce complications from the virus.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with IBD who receive immunosuppressive agents are at an increased risk of developing severe SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, the effects of COVID-19 vaccination and treatment on the outcomes in patients with IBD are less known.
• Researchers assessed the effect of COVID-19 medications in 127 patients with IBD (age ≥ 18 years; 54% women) who were diagnosed with COVID-19 after the advent of vaccines and release of antiviral therapies.
• Patients were stratified into those who received treatment for COVID-19 (n = 44), defined as the use of antivirals and/or intravenous antibodies, and those who did not receive treatment for COVID-19 (n = 83).
• The primary outcome was the development of a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (defined by the need for oxygen supplements, corticosteroids and/or antibiotic treatment, or hospitalization).
• The secondary outcomes were the percentage of patients who had their IBD therapy withheld and rates of IBD flare post COVID-19.

TAKEAWAY:

• The likelihood of being treated for COVID-19 was higher in patients on corticosteroids (odds ratio [OR], 4.61; P = .002) or in those undergoing advanced IBD therapies (OR, 2.78; P = .041) prior to infection.
• Advanced age at the time of infection (adjusted OR [aOR], 1.06; P = .018) and corticosteroid treatment prior to contracting COVID-19 (aOR, 9.86; P = .001) were associated with an increased risk for severe infection.
• After adjustment for multiple factors, the likelihood of withholding IBD treatment was higher in patients being treated for COVID-19 (aOR, 6.95; P = .007).

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with IBD on advanced therapies were frequently treated for acute COVID-19. Although COVID-19 treatment was associated with temporary withholding of IBD therapy, it did not result in increased IBD flares,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Laura C. Sahyoun, MD, Section of Digestive Diseases, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was published online in Digestive Diseases and Sciences.

LIMITATIONS:

Owing to the small sample size, the outcomes comparing antivirals to intravenous antibodies and SARS-CoV-2 strain prevalence could not be assessed. This single-center study also may not reflect the different clinical practices pertaining to IBD and COVID-19 treatments.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any specific funding. One author reported receiving speaker fees and being part of advisory boards, and another author received research support and reported being a part of advisory boards.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) therapies for patients may need to be briefly halted during treatment for COVID-19, but it does not escalate IBD flares, with prior vaccination for COVID-19 helping reduce complications from the virus.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with IBD who receive immunosuppressive agents are at an increased risk of developing severe SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, the effects of COVID-19 vaccination and treatment on the outcomes in patients with IBD are less known.
• Researchers assessed the effect of COVID-19 medications in 127 patients with IBD (age ≥ 18 years; 54% women) who were diagnosed with COVID-19 after the advent of vaccines and release of antiviral therapies.
• Patients were stratified into those who received treatment for COVID-19 (n = 44), defined as the use of antivirals and/or intravenous antibodies, and those who did not receive treatment for COVID-19 (n = 83).
• The primary outcome was the development of a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (defined by the need for oxygen supplements, corticosteroids and/or antibiotic treatment, or hospitalization).
• The secondary outcomes were the percentage of patients who had their IBD therapy withheld and rates of IBD flare post COVID-19.

TAKEAWAY:

• The likelihood of being treated for COVID-19 was higher in patients on corticosteroids (odds ratio [OR], 4.61; P = .002) or in those undergoing advanced IBD therapies (OR, 2.78; P = .041) prior to infection.
• Advanced age at the time of infection (adjusted OR [aOR], 1.06; P = .018) and corticosteroid treatment prior to contracting COVID-19 (aOR, 9.86; P = .001) were associated with an increased risk for severe infection.
• After adjustment for multiple factors, the likelihood of withholding IBD treatment was higher in patients being treated for COVID-19 (aOR, 6.95; P = .007).

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with IBD on advanced therapies were frequently treated for acute COVID-19. Although COVID-19 treatment was associated with temporary withholding of IBD therapy, it did not result in increased IBD flares,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Laura C. Sahyoun, MD, Section of Digestive Diseases, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was published online in Digestive Diseases and Sciences.

LIMITATIONS:

Owing to the small sample size, the outcomes comparing antivirals to intravenous antibodies and SARS-CoV-2 strain prevalence could not be assessed. This single-center study also may not reflect the different clinical practices pertaining to IBD and COVID-19 treatments.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any specific funding. One author reported receiving speaker fees and being part of advisory boards, and another author received research support and reported being a part of advisory boards.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Anti-osteoporosis medications reduce fracture risk similarly, regardless of whether patients are younger or older than 70 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators conducted the study as part of a  to assess bone mineral density as a surrogate marker for fracture risk.
• Analyses used individual patient data from 23 randomized placebo-controlled trials of anti-osteoporosis medications (11 of bisphosphonates, four of selective estrogen receptor modulators, three of anabolic medications, two of hormone replacement therapy, and one each of odanacatib, denosumab, and romosozumab).
• Overall, 43% of the included 123,164 patients were aged 70 years or older.
• The main outcomes were fractures and bone mineral density.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was a similar benefit regardless of age when it came to the reduction in risks for hip fracture (odds ratio, 0.65 vs 0.72; P for interaction = .50) and any fracture (odds ratio, 0.72 vs 0.70; P for interaction = .20).
• Findings were comparable in analyses restricted to bisphosphonate trials, except that the reduction in hip fracture risk was greater among the younger group (hazard ratio, 0.44 vs 0.79; P for interaction = .02).
• The benefit of anti-osteoporosis medication in increasing hip and spine bone mineral density at 24 months was significantly greater among the older patients.

IN PRACTICE:

Taken together, the study results “strongly support treatment in those over age 70,” the authors wrote. “These are important findings with potential impact in patient treatment since it goes against a common misconception that medications are less effective in older people,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Marian Schini, MD, PhD, FHEA, University of Sheffield, England, and was published online in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included a preponderance of female patients (99%), possible residual confounding, a lack of analysis of adverse effects, and potentially different findings using alternate age cutoffs.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the American Society for Bone Mineral Research. Some authors disclosed affiliations with companies that manufacture anti-osteoporosis drugs.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Anti-osteoporosis medications reduce fracture risk similarly, regardless of whether patients are younger or older than 70 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators conducted the study as part of a  to assess bone mineral density as a surrogate marker for fracture risk.
• Analyses used individual patient data from 23 randomized placebo-controlled trials of anti-osteoporosis medications (11 of bisphosphonates, four of selective estrogen receptor modulators, three of anabolic medications, two of hormone replacement therapy, and one each of odanacatib, denosumab, and romosozumab).
• Overall, 43% of the included 123,164 patients were aged 70 years or older.
• The main outcomes were fractures and bone mineral density.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was a similar benefit regardless of age when it came to the reduction in risks for hip fracture (odds ratio, 0.65 vs 0.72; P for interaction = .50) and any fracture (odds ratio, 0.72 vs 0.70; P for interaction = .20).
• Findings were comparable in analyses restricted to bisphosphonate trials, except that the reduction in hip fracture risk was greater among the younger group (hazard ratio, 0.44 vs 0.79; P for interaction = .02).
• The benefit of anti-osteoporosis medication in increasing hip and spine bone mineral density at 24 months was significantly greater among the older patients.

IN PRACTICE:

Taken together, the study results “strongly support treatment in those over age 70,” the authors wrote. “These are important findings with potential impact in patient treatment since it goes against a common misconception that medications are less effective in older people,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Marian Schini, MD, PhD, FHEA, University of Sheffield, England, and was published online in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included a preponderance of female patients (99%), possible residual confounding, a lack of analysis of adverse effects, and potentially different findings using alternate age cutoffs.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the American Society for Bone Mineral Research. Some authors disclosed affiliations with companies that manufacture anti-osteoporosis drugs.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Anti-osteoporosis medications reduce fracture risk similarly, regardless of whether patients are younger or older than 70 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators conducted the study as part of a  to assess bone mineral density as a surrogate marker for fracture risk.
• Analyses used individual patient data from 23 randomized placebo-controlled trials of anti-osteoporosis medications (11 of bisphosphonates, four of selective estrogen receptor modulators, three of anabolic medications, two of hormone replacement therapy, and one each of odanacatib, denosumab, and romosozumab).
• Overall, 43% of the included 123,164 patients were aged 70 years or older.
• The main outcomes were fractures and bone mineral density.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was a similar benefit regardless of age when it came to the reduction in risks for hip fracture (odds ratio, 0.65 vs 0.72; P for interaction = .50) and any fracture (odds ratio, 0.72 vs 0.70; P for interaction = .20).
• Findings were comparable in analyses restricted to bisphosphonate trials, except that the reduction in hip fracture risk was greater among the younger group (hazard ratio, 0.44 vs 0.79; P for interaction = .02).
• The benefit of anti-osteoporosis medication in increasing hip and spine bone mineral density at 24 months was significantly greater among the older patients.

IN PRACTICE:

Taken together, the study results “strongly support treatment in those over age 70,” the authors wrote. “These are important findings with potential impact in patient treatment since it goes against a common misconception that medications are less effective in older people,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Marian Schini, MD, PhD, FHEA, University of Sheffield, England, and was published online in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included a preponderance of female patients (99%), possible residual confounding, a lack of analysis of adverse effects, and potentially different findings using alternate age cutoffs.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the American Society for Bone Mineral Research. Some authors disclosed affiliations with companies that manufacture anti-osteoporosis drugs.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The number of women with perinatal mood and anxiety disorder (PMAD) has spiked sharply in the United States. A new study explores trends by state and time period.

Between 2008 and 2020, in a national cohort of 750,004 commercially insured women with a live birth, nearly 1 in 5 (144,037 [19.2%]) were diagnosed with PMAD, according to a paper published in Health Affairs. PMAD diagnoses among privately insured women increased by 93.3% over those years, wrote lead author Kara Zivin, PhD, of the University of Michigan, Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, and colleagues.

PMAD describes a spectrum of emotional complications with mild to severe symptoms that can affect women while pregnant and through the first year after giving birth.

The total number of perinatal women decreased from a high of 64,842 in 2008 to a low of 52,479 in 2020, a 19.1% decrease, but over the same time, women with diagnosed PMAD increased 56.4% from 9,520 in 2008 to 14,890 in 2020. Prevalence of PMAD doubled from 1,468 per 10,000 deliveries to 2,837 per 10,000 deliveries in 2020, according to the analysis.
 

Differences by State

Increases differed substantially by state. Though average annual changes across all states reached 109 additional PMAD diagnoses per 10,000 deliveries, Iowa had the greatest increase with an additional 163 PMAD diagnoses per 10,000 deliveries annually. New Mexico had the smallest annual growth, at an additional 49 per 10,000 deliveries.

The increases were accompanied by maternal health improvement efforts. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) required insurance companies to cover maternity and preventive services, which likely increased PMAD screening and detection, the researchers noted.

“Diagnosis of PMAD is rising due to increased awareness and in all likelihood, decrease in stigma, but availability of providers is so challenging,” said Lee S. Cohen, MD, who was not part of the study. Dr. Cohen is director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health and Perinatal and Reproductive Psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “The navigation to providers by women who are suffering is beyond challenging,” he said.

The authors reported that all states except Vermont saw increasing rates of PMAD diagnoses post-ACA vs. pre-ACA. The researchers also found that relative to the period from 2008 to 2014, psychotherapy rates continued rising from 2015 to 2020 and suicidality (suicidal ideation or self-harm diagnoses) rates declined.
 

States’ Suicidality Rates Vary Widely

“Overall, access to psychotherapy may have stemmed suicidality despite increasing PMAD diagnoses. But although more PMAD diagnoses may have led to increased psychotherapy, therapy access depends on provider availability, which varies by geographic region and insurance coverage network,” the authors wrote.

Suicidality rates differed greatly by state. Louisiana’s annual rate of increase was greatest, at 22 per 10,000 while Maryland had the greatest negative annual rate of change, at −15 per 10,000 deliveries, the authors explained.

“Observed trends in PMAD diagnoses among privately insured people during 2008-2020 and in associated suicidality and psychotherapy use suggest an increasingly rapid worsening of US maternal mental health,” the authors wrote.

The authors noted that this study did not include those on public insurance, a group that may experience disproportionate maternal morbidity and mortality burden, and urged that future studies include them.
 

Strengths of Study

Kimberly McKee, PhD, MPH, assistant professor in the department of family medicine at University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, who was not part of this research, said this paper gives a broader look than prior work because it includes the year before and after birth, rather than delivery and hospitalization.

“It’s really important to look out at least 12 months postpartum,” she noted.

Another strength is that the study was able to look at use of services such as psychotherapy before and post ACA. She noted the increased use of psychotherapy and the decrease in suicidal ideation was an association, but said, “I think it’s reasonable to assume that there was a benefit.”

She noted that these data go through 2020 and the COVID-19 pandemic has even further stressed the healthcare system, which could affect these numbers.

Primary Care’s Role

“The opportunity for primary care to really be the medical home for reproductive-age women is key here,” Dr. McKee said, adding that primary care can provide the continuity if women go off and on insurance around pregnancy and make sure the women get follow-up care and referrals to specialty care.

Models that integrate behavioral health and primary care are particularly promising, she said. Inclusion of social workers at the point of care can also help meet needs regarding social determinants of health.

Telehealth is another avenue for expansion extending the reach for following perinatal women, she said. “Using every tool we have to reach individuals where they are can allow for more frequent check-ins, which is really important here.”

Dr. McKee said the paper highlights an important reality: Mental health is a leading cause and contributor to maternal mortality, which “is 100% preventable.” Yet, current literature continues to show increases.

“This is a fairly common problem that affects not just women, but the fetus, their children, their families,” she noted.

The authors and Dr. Cohen and Dr. McKee reported no relevant financial relationships.

The number of women with perinatal mood and anxiety disorder (PMAD) has spiked sharply in the United States. A new study explores trends by state and time period.

Between 2008 and 2020, in a national cohort of 750,004 commercially insured women with a live birth, nearly 1 in 5 (144,037 [19.2%]) were diagnosed with PMAD, according to a paper published in Health Affairs. PMAD diagnoses among privately insured women increased by 93.3% over those years, wrote lead author Kara Zivin, PhD, of the University of Michigan, Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, and colleagues.

PMAD describes a spectrum of emotional complications with mild to severe symptoms that can affect women while pregnant and through the first year after giving birth.

The total number of perinatal women decreased from a high of 64,842 in 2008 to a low of 52,479 in 2020, a 19.1% decrease, but over the same time, women with diagnosed PMAD increased 56.4% from 9,520 in 2008 to 14,890 in 2020. Prevalence of PMAD doubled from 1,468 per 10,000 deliveries to 2,837 per 10,000 deliveries in 2020, according to the analysis.
 

Differences by State

Increases differed substantially by state. Though average annual changes across all states reached 109 additional PMAD diagnoses per 10,000 deliveries, Iowa had the greatest increase with an additional 163 PMAD diagnoses per 10,000 deliveries annually. New Mexico had the smallest annual growth, at an additional 49 per 10,000 deliveries.

The increases were accompanied by maternal health improvement efforts. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) required insurance companies to cover maternity and preventive services, which likely increased PMAD screening and detection, the researchers noted.

“Diagnosis of PMAD is rising due to increased awareness and in all likelihood, decrease in stigma, but availability of providers is so challenging,” said Lee S. Cohen, MD, who was not part of the study. Dr. Cohen is director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health and Perinatal and Reproductive Psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “The navigation to providers by women who are suffering is beyond challenging,” he said.

The authors reported that all states except Vermont saw increasing rates of PMAD diagnoses post-ACA vs. pre-ACA. The researchers also found that relative to the period from 2008 to 2014, psychotherapy rates continued rising from 2015 to 2020 and suicidality (suicidal ideation or self-harm diagnoses) rates declined.
 

States’ Suicidality Rates Vary Widely

“Overall, access to psychotherapy may have stemmed suicidality despite increasing PMAD diagnoses. But although more PMAD diagnoses may have led to increased psychotherapy, therapy access depends on provider availability, which varies by geographic region and insurance coverage network,” the authors wrote.

Suicidality rates differed greatly by state. Louisiana’s annual rate of increase was greatest, at 22 per 10,000 while Maryland had the greatest negative annual rate of change, at −15 per 10,000 deliveries, the authors explained.

“Observed trends in PMAD diagnoses among privately insured people during 2008-2020 and in associated suicidality and psychotherapy use suggest an increasingly rapid worsening of US maternal mental health,” the authors wrote.

The authors noted that this study did not include those on public insurance, a group that may experience disproportionate maternal morbidity and mortality burden, and urged that future studies include them.
 

Strengths of Study

Kimberly McKee, PhD, MPH, assistant professor in the department of family medicine at University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, who was not part of this research, said this paper gives a broader look than prior work because it includes the year before and after birth, rather than delivery and hospitalization.

“It’s really important to look out at least 12 months postpartum,” she noted.

Another strength is that the study was able to look at use of services such as psychotherapy before and post ACA. She noted the increased use of psychotherapy and the decrease in suicidal ideation was an association, but said, “I think it’s reasonable to assume that there was a benefit.”

She noted that these data go through 2020 and the COVID-19 pandemic has even further stressed the healthcare system, which could affect these numbers.

Primary Care’s Role

“The opportunity for primary care to really be the medical home for reproductive-age women is key here,” Dr. McKee said, adding that primary care can provide the continuity if women go off and on insurance around pregnancy and make sure the women get follow-up care and referrals to specialty care.

Models that integrate behavioral health and primary care are particularly promising, she said. Inclusion of social workers at the point of care can also help meet needs regarding social determinants of health.

Telehealth is another avenue for expansion extending the reach for following perinatal women, she said. “Using every tool we have to reach individuals where they are can allow for more frequent check-ins, which is really important here.”

Dr. McKee said the paper highlights an important reality: Mental health is a leading cause and contributor to maternal mortality, which “is 100% preventable.” Yet, current literature continues to show increases.

“This is a fairly common problem that affects not just women, but the fetus, their children, their families,” she noted.

The authors and Dr. Cohen and Dr. McKee reported no relevant financial relationships.

The number of women with perinatal mood and anxiety disorder (PMAD) has spiked sharply in the United States. A new study explores trends by state and time period.

Between 2008 and 2020, in a national cohort of 750,004 commercially insured women with a live birth, nearly 1 in 5 (144,037 [19.2%]) were diagnosed with PMAD, according to a paper published in Health Affairs. PMAD diagnoses among privately insured women increased by 93.3% over those years, wrote lead author Kara Zivin, PhD, of the University of Michigan, Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, and colleagues.

PMAD describes a spectrum of emotional complications with mild to severe symptoms that can affect women while pregnant and through the first year after giving birth.

The total number of perinatal women decreased from a high of 64,842 in 2008 to a low of 52,479 in 2020, a 19.1% decrease, but over the same time, women with diagnosed PMAD increased 56.4% from 9,520 in 2008 to 14,890 in 2020. Prevalence of PMAD doubled from 1,468 per 10,000 deliveries to 2,837 per 10,000 deliveries in 2020, according to the analysis.
 

Differences by State

Increases differed substantially by state. Though average annual changes across all states reached 109 additional PMAD diagnoses per 10,000 deliveries, Iowa had the greatest increase with an additional 163 PMAD diagnoses per 10,000 deliveries annually. New Mexico had the smallest annual growth, at an additional 49 per 10,000 deliveries.

The increases were accompanied by maternal health improvement efforts. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) required insurance companies to cover maternity and preventive services, which likely increased PMAD screening and detection, the researchers noted.

“Diagnosis of PMAD is rising due to increased awareness and in all likelihood, decrease in stigma, but availability of providers is so challenging,” said Lee S. Cohen, MD, who was not part of the study. Dr. Cohen is director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health and Perinatal and Reproductive Psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “The navigation to providers by women who are suffering is beyond challenging,” he said.

The authors reported that all states except Vermont saw increasing rates of PMAD diagnoses post-ACA vs. pre-ACA. The researchers also found that relative to the period from 2008 to 2014, psychotherapy rates continued rising from 2015 to 2020 and suicidality (suicidal ideation or self-harm diagnoses) rates declined.
 

States’ Suicidality Rates Vary Widely

“Overall, access to psychotherapy may have stemmed suicidality despite increasing PMAD diagnoses. But although more PMAD diagnoses may have led to increased psychotherapy, therapy access depends on provider availability, which varies by geographic region and insurance coverage network,” the authors wrote.

Suicidality rates differed greatly by state. Louisiana’s annual rate of increase was greatest, at 22 per 10,000 while Maryland had the greatest negative annual rate of change, at −15 per 10,000 deliveries, the authors explained.

“Observed trends in PMAD diagnoses among privately insured people during 2008-2020 and in associated suicidality and psychotherapy use suggest an increasingly rapid worsening of US maternal mental health,” the authors wrote.

The authors noted that this study did not include those on public insurance, a group that may experience disproportionate maternal morbidity and mortality burden, and urged that future studies include them.
 

Strengths of Study

Kimberly McKee, PhD, MPH, assistant professor in the department of family medicine at University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, who was not part of this research, said this paper gives a broader look than prior work because it includes the year before and after birth, rather than delivery and hospitalization.

“It’s really important to look out at least 12 months postpartum,” she noted.

Another strength is that the study was able to look at use of services such as psychotherapy before and post ACA. She noted the increased use of psychotherapy and the decrease in suicidal ideation was an association, but said, “I think it’s reasonable to assume that there was a benefit.”

She noted that these data go through 2020 and the COVID-19 pandemic has even further stressed the healthcare system, which could affect these numbers.

Primary Care’s Role

“The opportunity for primary care to really be the medical home for reproductive-age women is key here,” Dr. McKee said, adding that primary care can provide the continuity if women go off and on insurance around pregnancy and make sure the women get follow-up care and referrals to specialty care.

Models that integrate behavioral health and primary care are particularly promising, she said. Inclusion of social workers at the point of care can also help meet needs regarding social determinants of health.

Telehealth is another avenue for expansion extending the reach for following perinatal women, she said. “Using every tool we have to reach individuals where they are can allow for more frequent check-ins, which is really important here.”

Dr. McKee said the paper highlights an important reality: Mental health is a leading cause and contributor to maternal mortality, which “is 100% preventable.” Yet, current literature continues to show increases.

“This is a fairly common problem that affects not just women, but the fetus, their children, their families,” she noted.

The authors and Dr. Cohen and Dr. McKee reported no relevant financial relationships.

Among diagnostic interventions recommended to manage the common CAR-T cell therapy–associated side effect of immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), only electroencephalogram (EEG) shows significant therapeutic benefit — while magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and lumbar puncture appear to have limited value, new research shows.

“Our results emphasize for the first time the role of EEG in the current guidelines [for ICANS] but question the need for systematic MRI and lumbar puncture,” reported the authors of the study, published in Blood Advances.

The study underscores that “EEG does more that depict insignificant anomalies and plays a key role in patient management in daily practice,” first author Mattéo Mauget, said in an interview. He is a resident in the intensive care unit at the University Hospital of Rennes in France.

ICANS is among the most common of acute neurotoxicities occurring after CAR T-cell therapy, and international guidelines recommend MRI, lumbar puncture, and EEG in the management of the toxicity, which is typically treated with anti-cytokine therapy and steroids.

However, the guidelines widely vary. All recommend the use of MRI for ICANS grade 3 or higher, but fewer recommend the approach for grade 2. Meanwhile, only some recommend the use of lumbar puncture, and even fewer guidelines recommend the use of EEG.

While these measures are expensive — and in the case of lumbar puncture, invasive and burdensome for patients — the recommendations on these measures “rely on empirical practices and are only based on expert opinions with low scientific evidence,” the authors wrote.

To evaluate the interventions in a cohort of real-life patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy, the authors identified 190 consecutive patients receiving the therapy at the University Hospital of Rennes, France, between August 2018 and January 2023.

Of the patients, 62% were male and their median age was 64. Overall, 91 (48%) developed ICANS.

The majority of patients (73%) received CAR-T cell therapy for a refractory/relapsed (R/R) DLBCL (73%), and most (60%) had received the CAR-T product axicabtagene-ciloleucel (axi-cel) after two or more prior therapies.

While MRI was performed in 78% of patients with ICANS, the measure was determined to have had a therapeutic impact in just 4% of patients, despite common observations of abnormal findings.

Lumbar puncture was meanwhile performed in 47% of patients, resulting in preemptive antimicrobial agents in 7% of patients, with no infection detected.

While systematic EEG was performed in 56% of patients, the intervention led to therapeutic modifications among 16% of those patients.

“Our findings highlight some divergences between guidelines and daily practice regarding diagnostic investigations,” the authors noted.

The study “shows that EEG is the diagnostic investigation with the greatest therapeutic impact, while MRI and lumbar puncture appear to have a limited therapeutic impact,” they concluded.
 

EEG Findings

Of note, only 18% of EEGs in the cohort were normal, ranging from 50% of those with ICANS grade 1 to 6% among those with ICANS grade 4.

Encephalopathy was the most common EEG finding, observed in 45% of patients, while 6 EEGs (12%) showed seizures or status epilepticus.

Two patients with ICANS grade 2 and 3 (6% of EEG) developed seizure or status epilepticus on their EEGs, despite the absence of clinical symptoms of epilepsy, while the rate was 4 (33%) among patients with ICANS grade 4.

Among the eight (16%) patients who received therapeutic modification as the result of the EEG, seven were in the severe and life-threatening ICANS (grade 3+) group (24%).

In addition, all EEGs detecting seizure or status epilepticus resulted in an increase in antiepileptic prophylaxis with levetiracetam or the introduction of a new antiepileptics, mainly phenytoin.

Surprisingly, there were no cases of diffuse edema in the entire cohort, even among those with grade 4 ICANS, which is one of the key concerns of treating physicians managing severe ICANS, the authors noted.

A notable caveat is that EEG can be a time- and physician-consuming examination not easily accessed on a 24/7 daily practice level.

With such challenges, “[we] advocate for a close partnership between hematologists and electrophysiologists to make EEG access as easy as possible for this kind of patient, as EEG is a key game changer in patient course,” Mr. Mauget said.

Commenting on the findings, Marcela V. Maus, MD, PhD, director of the Cellular Immunotherapy Program at the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, agreed that the study adds importantly to a topic in need of more data.

“This is a very interesting study that starts to provide data behind the consensus recommendations that were initially made based purely on expert opinion and collective practices,” she said in an interview.

“I think [the EEG findings] are interesting, because EEG is often the most non-specific of these tests, and I would not have predicted this result. I also think that monitoring of cerebral spinal fluid [through lumbar puncture] could have potentially higher impact if there was a way to routinely quantify and detect the CAR-T cells,” Dr. Maus said.

“Although admittedly I think this may be of greater benefit when patients present with neurologic findings outside the typical window of ICANS, such as what can occur with delayed neurologic toxicities such as Parkinsonism after BCMA-directed CAR T cells,” she added.

Senior author Guillaume Manson, MD, a hematologist also with the University Hospital of Rennes, underscored that the results shouldn’t be construed to suggest that MRI or LP should not be used in such cases, but may often not be necessary.

“Every patient’s case is different, and these findings certainly do not say that certain tests should or should not be performed,” he said in a press statement.

“We did this research to generate clinical evidence to inform guidelines that support physicians in making clinical decisions when treating patients with these complex, and sometimes severe conditions,” he added.

Dr. Manson reported relationships with BMS-Celgene, Gilead-Kite, and Takeda. Dr. Maus disclosed ties with Century Therapeutics, TCR2, Kite/Gilead, Novartis, and several other companies in the field of cellular therapies.

Among diagnostic interventions recommended to manage the common CAR-T cell therapy–associated side effect of immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), only electroencephalogram (EEG) shows significant therapeutic benefit — while magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and lumbar puncture appear to have limited value, new research shows.

“Our results emphasize for the first time the role of EEG in the current guidelines [for ICANS] but question the need for systematic MRI and lumbar puncture,” reported the authors of the study, published in Blood Advances.

The study underscores that “EEG does more that depict insignificant anomalies and plays a key role in patient management in daily practice,” first author Mattéo Mauget, said in an interview. He is a resident in the intensive care unit at the University Hospital of Rennes in France.

ICANS is among the most common of acute neurotoxicities occurring after CAR T-cell therapy, and international guidelines recommend MRI, lumbar puncture, and EEG in the management of the toxicity, which is typically treated with anti-cytokine therapy and steroids.

However, the guidelines widely vary. All recommend the use of MRI for ICANS grade 3 or higher, but fewer recommend the approach for grade 2. Meanwhile, only some recommend the use of lumbar puncture, and even fewer guidelines recommend the use of EEG.

While these measures are expensive — and in the case of lumbar puncture, invasive and burdensome for patients — the recommendations on these measures “rely on empirical practices and are only based on expert opinions with low scientific evidence,” the authors wrote.

To evaluate the interventions in a cohort of real-life patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy, the authors identified 190 consecutive patients receiving the therapy at the University Hospital of Rennes, France, between August 2018 and January 2023.

Of the patients, 62% were male and their median age was 64. Overall, 91 (48%) developed ICANS.

The majority of patients (73%) received CAR-T cell therapy for a refractory/relapsed (R/R) DLBCL (73%), and most (60%) had received the CAR-T product axicabtagene-ciloleucel (axi-cel) after two or more prior therapies.

While MRI was performed in 78% of patients with ICANS, the measure was determined to have had a therapeutic impact in just 4% of patients, despite common observations of abnormal findings.

Lumbar puncture was meanwhile performed in 47% of patients, resulting in preemptive antimicrobial agents in 7% of patients, with no infection detected.

While systematic EEG was performed in 56% of patients, the intervention led to therapeutic modifications among 16% of those patients.

“Our findings highlight some divergences between guidelines and daily practice regarding diagnostic investigations,” the authors noted.

The study “shows that EEG is the diagnostic investigation with the greatest therapeutic impact, while MRI and lumbar puncture appear to have a limited therapeutic impact,” they concluded.
 

EEG Findings

Of note, only 18% of EEGs in the cohort were normal, ranging from 50% of those with ICANS grade 1 to 6% among those with ICANS grade 4.

Encephalopathy was the most common EEG finding, observed in 45% of patients, while 6 EEGs (12%) showed seizures or status epilepticus.

Two patients with ICANS grade 2 and 3 (6% of EEG) developed seizure or status epilepticus on their EEGs, despite the absence of clinical symptoms of epilepsy, while the rate was 4 (33%) among patients with ICANS grade 4.

Among the eight (16%) patients who received therapeutic modification as the result of the EEG, seven were in the severe and life-threatening ICANS (grade 3+) group (24%).

In addition, all EEGs detecting seizure or status epilepticus resulted in an increase in antiepileptic prophylaxis with levetiracetam or the introduction of a new antiepileptics, mainly phenytoin.

Surprisingly, there were no cases of diffuse edema in the entire cohort, even among those with grade 4 ICANS, which is one of the key concerns of treating physicians managing severe ICANS, the authors noted.

A notable caveat is that EEG can be a time- and physician-consuming examination not easily accessed on a 24/7 daily practice level.

With such challenges, “[we] advocate for a close partnership between hematologists and electrophysiologists to make EEG access as easy as possible for this kind of patient, as EEG is a key game changer in patient course,” Mr. Mauget said.

Commenting on the findings, Marcela V. Maus, MD, PhD, director of the Cellular Immunotherapy Program at the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, agreed that the study adds importantly to a topic in need of more data.

“This is a very interesting study that starts to provide data behind the consensus recommendations that were initially made based purely on expert opinion and collective practices,” she said in an interview.

“I think [the EEG findings] are interesting, because EEG is often the most non-specific of these tests, and I would not have predicted this result. I also think that monitoring of cerebral spinal fluid [through lumbar puncture] could have potentially higher impact if there was a way to routinely quantify and detect the CAR-T cells,” Dr. Maus said.

“Although admittedly I think this may be of greater benefit when patients present with neurologic findings outside the typical window of ICANS, such as what can occur with delayed neurologic toxicities such as Parkinsonism after BCMA-directed CAR T cells,” she added.

Senior author Guillaume Manson, MD, a hematologist also with the University Hospital of Rennes, underscored that the results shouldn’t be construed to suggest that MRI or LP should not be used in such cases, but may often not be necessary.

“Every patient’s case is different, and these findings certainly do not say that certain tests should or should not be performed,” he said in a press statement.

“We did this research to generate clinical evidence to inform guidelines that support physicians in making clinical decisions when treating patients with these complex, and sometimes severe conditions,” he added.

Dr. Manson reported relationships with BMS-Celgene, Gilead-Kite, and Takeda. Dr. Maus disclosed ties with Century Therapeutics, TCR2, Kite/Gilead, Novartis, and several other companies in the field of cellular therapies.

Among diagnostic interventions recommended to manage the common CAR-T cell therapy–associated side effect of immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), only electroencephalogram (EEG) shows significant therapeutic benefit — while magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and lumbar puncture appear to have limited value, new research shows.

“Our results emphasize for the first time the role of EEG in the current guidelines [for ICANS] but question the need for systematic MRI and lumbar puncture,” reported the authors of the study, published in Blood Advances.

The study underscores that “EEG does more that depict insignificant anomalies and plays a key role in patient management in daily practice,” first author Mattéo Mauget, said in an interview. He is a resident in the intensive care unit at the University Hospital of Rennes in France.

ICANS is among the most common of acute neurotoxicities occurring after CAR T-cell therapy, and international guidelines recommend MRI, lumbar puncture, and EEG in the management of the toxicity, which is typically treated with anti-cytokine therapy and steroids.

However, the guidelines widely vary. All recommend the use of MRI for ICANS grade 3 or higher, but fewer recommend the approach for grade 2. Meanwhile, only some recommend the use of lumbar puncture, and even fewer guidelines recommend the use of EEG.

While these measures are expensive — and in the case of lumbar puncture, invasive and burdensome for patients — the recommendations on these measures “rely on empirical practices and are only based on expert opinions with low scientific evidence,” the authors wrote.

To evaluate the interventions in a cohort of real-life patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy, the authors identified 190 consecutive patients receiving the therapy at the University Hospital of Rennes, France, between August 2018 and January 2023.

Of the patients, 62% were male and their median age was 64. Overall, 91 (48%) developed ICANS.

The majority of patients (73%) received CAR-T cell therapy for a refractory/relapsed (R/R) DLBCL (73%), and most (60%) had received the CAR-T product axicabtagene-ciloleucel (axi-cel) after two or more prior therapies.

While MRI was performed in 78% of patients with ICANS, the measure was determined to have had a therapeutic impact in just 4% of patients, despite common observations of abnormal findings.

Lumbar puncture was meanwhile performed in 47% of patients, resulting in preemptive antimicrobial agents in 7% of patients, with no infection detected.

While systematic EEG was performed in 56% of patients, the intervention led to therapeutic modifications among 16% of those patients.

“Our findings highlight some divergences between guidelines and daily practice regarding diagnostic investigations,” the authors noted.

The study “shows that EEG is the diagnostic investigation with the greatest therapeutic impact, while MRI and lumbar puncture appear to have a limited therapeutic impact,” they concluded.
 

EEG Findings

Of note, only 18% of EEGs in the cohort were normal, ranging from 50% of those with ICANS grade 1 to 6% among those with ICANS grade 4.

Encephalopathy was the most common EEG finding, observed in 45% of patients, while 6 EEGs (12%) showed seizures or status epilepticus.

Two patients with ICANS grade 2 and 3 (6% of EEG) developed seizure or status epilepticus on their EEGs, despite the absence of clinical symptoms of epilepsy, while the rate was 4 (33%) among patients with ICANS grade 4.

Among the eight (16%) patients who received therapeutic modification as the result of the EEG, seven were in the severe and life-threatening ICANS (grade 3+) group (24%).

In addition, all EEGs detecting seizure or status epilepticus resulted in an increase in antiepileptic prophylaxis with levetiracetam or the introduction of a new antiepileptics, mainly phenytoin.

Surprisingly, there were no cases of diffuse edema in the entire cohort, even among those with grade 4 ICANS, which is one of the key concerns of treating physicians managing severe ICANS, the authors noted.

A notable caveat is that EEG can be a time- and physician-consuming examination not easily accessed on a 24/7 daily practice level.

With such challenges, “[we] advocate for a close partnership between hematologists and electrophysiologists to make EEG access as easy as possible for this kind of patient, as EEG is a key game changer in patient course,” Mr. Mauget said.

Commenting on the findings, Marcela V. Maus, MD, PhD, director of the Cellular Immunotherapy Program at the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, agreed that the study adds importantly to a topic in need of more data.

“This is a very interesting study that starts to provide data behind the consensus recommendations that were initially made based purely on expert opinion and collective practices,” she said in an interview.

“I think [the EEG findings] are interesting, because EEG is often the most non-specific of these tests, and I would not have predicted this result. I also think that monitoring of cerebral spinal fluid [through lumbar puncture] could have potentially higher impact if there was a way to routinely quantify and detect the CAR-T cells,” Dr. Maus said.

“Although admittedly I think this may be of greater benefit when patients present with neurologic findings outside the typical window of ICANS, such as what can occur with delayed neurologic toxicities such as Parkinsonism after BCMA-directed CAR T cells,” she added.

Senior author Guillaume Manson, MD, a hematologist also with the University Hospital of Rennes, underscored that the results shouldn’t be construed to suggest that MRI or LP should not be used in such cases, but may often not be necessary.

“Every patient’s case is different, and these findings certainly do not say that certain tests should or should not be performed,” he said in a press statement.

“We did this research to generate clinical evidence to inform guidelines that support physicians in making clinical decisions when treating patients with these complex, and sometimes severe conditions,” he added.

Dr. Manson reported relationships with BMS-Celgene, Gilead-Kite, and Takeda. Dr. Maus disclosed ties with Century Therapeutics, TCR2, Kite/Gilead, Novartis, and several other companies in the field of cellular therapies.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are often not prescribed or accessible to people who could benefit from them, a trio of new studies suggested.

First approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, the indications for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications have now been extended to people with obesity, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease.

The papers were presented at the American Heart Association (AHA) Epidemiology and Prevention | Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Scientific Sessions 2024.

The new data show there is “work to be done in terms of access and equity to these treatments,” Robert H. Eckel, MD, who was not involved in the research, said in a conference statement.

“There is no question that the cost of these medications is high, yet when issues go beyond coverage and include sociodemographic and racial differences that influence treatment, these major issues need to be evaluated and addressed,” said Dr. Eckel, professor emeritus of medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Diabetes, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, and a past president of the AHA.
 

Low Prescription Rates

In one study, researchers analyzed health records for 18,164 adults with obesity (mean age, 51 years; 64% women; mean body mass index [BMI], 36 kg/m2) who had health insurance covering semaglutide and liraglutide (GLP-1 RAs) and tirzepatide (GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide RA). The cohort was 54% White, 35% Black, and 5% Asian.

Only about 3% of eligible adults were prescribed one of these medications, reported Meron Haile, BS, a second-year medical student at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, and colleagues.

The likelihood of prescription was lower among Black patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.76) and men (OR, 0.54) and higher in people with higher BMI (OR, 1.06 per 1-unit higher BMI).

Living in a neighborhood with a higher area deprivation index or lower income was not independently associated with the likelihood of prescription.

Individuals with diabetes or hypertension were more likely to be prescribed one of these medications (OR, 3.52 and 1.36, respectively).

“While prescription rates for new obesity therapies are low among the overall population, we saw pronounced lower accessibility among Black adults, who exhibit a higher burden of severe obesity, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes,” Haile said in a conference statement.

“There is a crucial need for understanding prescription practices for obesity medications and to facilitate similar access among people in all races and ethnic groups,” Haile added.

Similar findings emerged in a separate study, in which researchers analyzed the health records of 687,165 adults with type 2 diabetes treated at six large health systems from 2014 to 2022.

The rate of annual pharmacy dispensing of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications rose during the study period, but there were clear racial and ethnic differences in prescribing.

In fully adjusted models, SGLT2 inhibitors dispensing was lower for American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN; OR, 0.80), Black (OR, 0.89), and Hispanic (OR, 0.87) individuals than for White patients.

Likewise, GLP-1 RA dispensing was also lower for AI/AN (OR, 0.78), Asian (OR, 0.50), Black (OR, 0.86), Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (OR, 0.52), and Hispanic (OR, 0.69) patients than for White patients.

“It’s possible that not all patients have equal access to information about these medications or that not all patients are equally comfortable asking their doctors about them,” lead author Luis A. Rodriguez, PhD, research scientist at Kaiser Permanente’s Northern California Division of Research, Oakland, told this news organization.

“We also don’t know if the cost of the new medications contributed to what we found or if some patients prefer to keep taking a pill rather than switch to some of the GLP-1 receptor agonists that are self-injectable medications. We need to learn more about why this is happening,” Dr. Rodriguez said.
 

‘Concerning’ Data Raise Key Questions

The third study explored how often prescribing recommendations for SGLT2 inhibitors are followed.

“Our study revealed a significant gap between the recommendations for prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors and the actual prescription rates among patients who could benefit from them,” Jung-Im Shin, MD, PhD, with the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“This could have important implications for patient care and outcomes, as SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to be effective for heart and kidney protection in people with high-risk type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure,” Dr. Shin said.

Dr. Shin and colleagues analyzed the health records for more than 700,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and 2.5 million people without type 2 diabetes, who received care in 28 US health systems from 2022 to 2023.

Among people with type 2 diabetes recommended for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment, only 12% received a prescription for a SGLT2 inhibitor, and there was no significant difference in prescription between people who met the criteria for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment vs people who did not meet the criteria.

Among people without type 2 diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitor prescription was substantially lower, with only about 3% of people with conditions that are guideline-recommended for SGLT2 inhibitors receiving a prescription.

SGLT2 inhibitor prescription rates varied across health systems; however, less than 30% of people who met guideline criteria received a SGLT2 inhibitors prescription across all health systems in the study.

“Barriers to SGLT2 inhibitor prescription include limited insurance coverage, prohibitive out-of-pocket costs, formulary restrictions, and lack of physicians’ awareness or familiarity regarding benefits and appropriate indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Shin said.

“Efforts to improve access and affordability of SGLT2 inhibitors along with strategies to educate both patients and providers on the updated guidelines for SGLT2 inhibitors use may increase adoption,” Dr. Shin added.

In a conference recording, Dr. Eckel said he found it “particularly concerning” that among patients with insurance to help pay for these medications, “there were still discrepancies” between prescriptions to Asian and Black vs White patients, “who are being prescribed these important medications.”

“Why these medications are not being offered more regularly by healthcare providers” needs to be addressed, Dr. Eckel said. “I think part of it is ignorance and inadequate education as to their new indications for treatment of diseases that go beyond type 2 diabetes,” he noted.

None of the studies had commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are often not prescribed or accessible to people who could benefit from them, a trio of new studies suggested.

First approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, the indications for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications have now been extended to people with obesity, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease.

The papers were presented at the American Heart Association (AHA) Epidemiology and Prevention | Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Scientific Sessions 2024.

The new data show there is “work to be done in terms of access and equity to these treatments,” Robert H. Eckel, MD, who was not involved in the research, said in a conference statement.

“There is no question that the cost of these medications is high, yet when issues go beyond coverage and include sociodemographic and racial differences that influence treatment, these major issues need to be evaluated and addressed,” said Dr. Eckel, professor emeritus of medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Diabetes, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, and a past president of the AHA.
 

Low Prescription Rates

In one study, researchers analyzed health records for 18,164 adults with obesity (mean age, 51 years; 64% women; mean body mass index [BMI], 36 kg/m2) who had health insurance covering semaglutide and liraglutide (GLP-1 RAs) and tirzepatide (GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide RA). The cohort was 54% White, 35% Black, and 5% Asian.

Only about 3% of eligible adults were prescribed one of these medications, reported Meron Haile, BS, a second-year medical student at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, and colleagues.

The likelihood of prescription was lower among Black patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.76) and men (OR, 0.54) and higher in people with higher BMI (OR, 1.06 per 1-unit higher BMI).

Living in a neighborhood with a higher area deprivation index or lower income was not independently associated with the likelihood of prescription.

Individuals with diabetes or hypertension were more likely to be prescribed one of these medications (OR, 3.52 and 1.36, respectively).

“While prescription rates for new obesity therapies are low among the overall population, we saw pronounced lower accessibility among Black adults, who exhibit a higher burden of severe obesity, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes,” Haile said in a conference statement.

“There is a crucial need for understanding prescription practices for obesity medications and to facilitate similar access among people in all races and ethnic groups,” Haile added.

Similar findings emerged in a separate study, in which researchers analyzed the health records of 687,165 adults with type 2 diabetes treated at six large health systems from 2014 to 2022.

The rate of annual pharmacy dispensing of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications rose during the study period, but there were clear racial and ethnic differences in prescribing.

In fully adjusted models, SGLT2 inhibitors dispensing was lower for American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN; OR, 0.80), Black (OR, 0.89), and Hispanic (OR, 0.87) individuals than for White patients.

Likewise, GLP-1 RA dispensing was also lower for AI/AN (OR, 0.78), Asian (OR, 0.50), Black (OR, 0.86), Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (OR, 0.52), and Hispanic (OR, 0.69) patients than for White patients.

“It’s possible that not all patients have equal access to information about these medications or that not all patients are equally comfortable asking their doctors about them,” lead author Luis A. Rodriguez, PhD, research scientist at Kaiser Permanente’s Northern California Division of Research, Oakland, told this news organization.

“We also don’t know if the cost of the new medications contributed to what we found or if some patients prefer to keep taking a pill rather than switch to some of the GLP-1 receptor agonists that are self-injectable medications. We need to learn more about why this is happening,” Dr. Rodriguez said.
 

‘Concerning’ Data Raise Key Questions

The third study explored how often prescribing recommendations for SGLT2 inhibitors are followed.

“Our study revealed a significant gap between the recommendations for prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors and the actual prescription rates among patients who could benefit from them,” Jung-Im Shin, MD, PhD, with the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“This could have important implications for patient care and outcomes, as SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to be effective for heart and kidney protection in people with high-risk type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure,” Dr. Shin said.

Dr. Shin and colleagues analyzed the health records for more than 700,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and 2.5 million people without type 2 diabetes, who received care in 28 US health systems from 2022 to 2023.

Among people with type 2 diabetes recommended for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment, only 12% received a prescription for a SGLT2 inhibitor, and there was no significant difference in prescription between people who met the criteria for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment vs people who did not meet the criteria.

Among people without type 2 diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitor prescription was substantially lower, with only about 3% of people with conditions that are guideline-recommended for SGLT2 inhibitors receiving a prescription.

SGLT2 inhibitor prescription rates varied across health systems; however, less than 30% of people who met guideline criteria received a SGLT2 inhibitors prescription across all health systems in the study.

“Barriers to SGLT2 inhibitor prescription include limited insurance coverage, prohibitive out-of-pocket costs, formulary restrictions, and lack of physicians’ awareness or familiarity regarding benefits and appropriate indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Shin said.

“Efforts to improve access and affordability of SGLT2 inhibitors along with strategies to educate both patients and providers on the updated guidelines for SGLT2 inhibitors use may increase adoption,” Dr. Shin added.

In a conference recording, Dr. Eckel said he found it “particularly concerning” that among patients with insurance to help pay for these medications, “there were still discrepancies” between prescriptions to Asian and Black vs White patients, “who are being prescribed these important medications.”

“Why these medications are not being offered more regularly by healthcare providers” needs to be addressed, Dr. Eckel said. “I think part of it is ignorance and inadequate education as to their new indications for treatment of diseases that go beyond type 2 diabetes,” he noted.

None of the studies had commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are often not prescribed or accessible to people who could benefit from them, a trio of new studies suggested.

First approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, the indications for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications have now been extended to people with obesity, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease.

The papers were presented at the American Heart Association (AHA) Epidemiology and Prevention | Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Scientific Sessions 2024.

The new data show there is “work to be done in terms of access and equity to these treatments,” Robert H. Eckel, MD, who was not involved in the research, said in a conference statement.

“There is no question that the cost of these medications is high, yet when issues go beyond coverage and include sociodemographic and racial differences that influence treatment, these major issues need to be evaluated and addressed,” said Dr. Eckel, professor emeritus of medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Diabetes, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, and a past president of the AHA.
 

Low Prescription Rates

In one study, researchers analyzed health records for 18,164 adults with obesity (mean age, 51 years; 64% women; mean body mass index [BMI], 36 kg/m2) who had health insurance covering semaglutide and liraglutide (GLP-1 RAs) and tirzepatide (GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide RA). The cohort was 54% White, 35% Black, and 5% Asian.

Only about 3% of eligible adults were prescribed one of these medications, reported Meron Haile, BS, a second-year medical student at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, and colleagues.

The likelihood of prescription was lower among Black patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.76) and men (OR, 0.54) and higher in people with higher BMI (OR, 1.06 per 1-unit higher BMI).

Living in a neighborhood with a higher area deprivation index or lower income was not independently associated with the likelihood of prescription.

Individuals with diabetes or hypertension were more likely to be prescribed one of these medications (OR, 3.52 and 1.36, respectively).

“While prescription rates for new obesity therapies are low among the overall population, we saw pronounced lower accessibility among Black adults, who exhibit a higher burden of severe obesity, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes,” Haile said in a conference statement.

“There is a crucial need for understanding prescription practices for obesity medications and to facilitate similar access among people in all races and ethnic groups,” Haile added.

Similar findings emerged in a separate study, in which researchers analyzed the health records of 687,165 adults with type 2 diabetes treated at six large health systems from 2014 to 2022.

The rate of annual pharmacy dispensing of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications rose during the study period, but there were clear racial and ethnic differences in prescribing.

In fully adjusted models, SGLT2 inhibitors dispensing was lower for American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN; OR, 0.80), Black (OR, 0.89), and Hispanic (OR, 0.87) individuals than for White patients.

Likewise, GLP-1 RA dispensing was also lower for AI/AN (OR, 0.78), Asian (OR, 0.50), Black (OR, 0.86), Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (OR, 0.52), and Hispanic (OR, 0.69) patients than for White patients.

“It’s possible that not all patients have equal access to information about these medications or that not all patients are equally comfortable asking their doctors about them,” lead author Luis A. Rodriguez, PhD, research scientist at Kaiser Permanente’s Northern California Division of Research, Oakland, told this news organization.

“We also don’t know if the cost of the new medications contributed to what we found or if some patients prefer to keep taking a pill rather than switch to some of the GLP-1 receptor agonists that are self-injectable medications. We need to learn more about why this is happening,” Dr. Rodriguez said.
 

‘Concerning’ Data Raise Key Questions

The third study explored how often prescribing recommendations for SGLT2 inhibitors are followed.

“Our study revealed a significant gap between the recommendations for prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors and the actual prescription rates among patients who could benefit from them,” Jung-Im Shin, MD, PhD, with the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“This could have important implications for patient care and outcomes, as SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to be effective for heart and kidney protection in people with high-risk type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure,” Dr. Shin said.

Dr. Shin and colleagues analyzed the health records for more than 700,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and 2.5 million people without type 2 diabetes, who received care in 28 US health systems from 2022 to 2023.

Among people with type 2 diabetes recommended for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment, only 12% received a prescription for a SGLT2 inhibitor, and there was no significant difference in prescription between people who met the criteria for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment vs people who did not meet the criteria.

Among people without type 2 diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitor prescription was substantially lower, with only about 3% of people with conditions that are guideline-recommended for SGLT2 inhibitors receiving a prescription.

SGLT2 inhibitor prescription rates varied across health systems; however, less than 30% of people who met guideline criteria received a SGLT2 inhibitors prescription across all health systems in the study.

“Barriers to SGLT2 inhibitor prescription include limited insurance coverage, prohibitive out-of-pocket costs, formulary restrictions, and lack of physicians’ awareness or familiarity regarding benefits and appropriate indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Shin said.

“Efforts to improve access and affordability of SGLT2 inhibitors along with strategies to educate both patients and providers on the updated guidelines for SGLT2 inhibitors use may increase adoption,” Dr. Shin added.

In a conference recording, Dr. Eckel said he found it “particularly concerning” that among patients with insurance to help pay for these medications, “there were still discrepancies” between prescriptions to Asian and Black vs White patients, “who are being prescribed these important medications.”

“Why these medications are not being offered more regularly by healthcare providers” needs to be addressed, Dr. Eckel said. “I think part of it is ignorance and inadequate education as to their new indications for treatment of diseases that go beyond type 2 diabetes,” he noted.

None of the studies had commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The addition of supervised exercise to obesity pharmacotherapy has shown greater potential for maintaining weight loss and improving body composition after treatment termination than pharmacotherapy alone.

METHODOLOGY:

• Despite significant weight loss achieved with incretin-based obesity pharmacotherapies, their high costs and gastrointestinal adverse events lead to high discontinuation rates with subsequent regaining of weight and body fat.
• Researchers investigated if a strategy involving both exercise and , a -like peptide-1 receptor agonist, was better than either intervention alone in terms of maintaining weight loss and body composition after treatment termination.
• They conducted a 1-year posttreatment analysis of the S-LiTE study, including 109 adults with obesity (age, 18-65 years; body mass index, 32-43) who completed an 8-week low-calorie diet resulting in ≥ 5% weight loss.
• Participants were then randomly allocated to a 52-week weight loss maintenance intervention with either liraglutide or placebo alone or liraglutide or placebo plus supervised exercise.
• The primary outcome was the change in body weight (kg) from randomization to 1 year after the termination of weight maintenance intervention (0-104 weeks), and the secondary outcome was the change in body-fat percentage from 0 to 104 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• From week 0 to week 104, supervised exercise plus liraglutide led to 5.1 kg lower weight gain (P = .040) and a 2.3%-point greater decrease in body-fat percentage (P = .026) than liraglutide alone.
• During the 1 year after treatment termination (52-104 weeks), those in the liraglutide group regained 6 kg (95% CI, 2.1-10.0) more than those who were in the supervised exercise plus placebo group, and 2.5 kg (95% CI, -1.5 to 6.5) more than those who received supervised exercise plus liraglutide.
• After 1 year of treatment termination (week 104), the supervised exercise plus liraglutide group had significantly higher odds of maintaining a weight loss of ≥ 10% of initial body weight than the liraglutide (odds ratio [OR], 4.2; 95% CI, 1.6-10.8) or placebo (OR, 7.2; 95% CI, 2.4-21.3) groups.
• The combination of exercise and liraglutide also improved physical functioning along with energy and fatigue scores.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future lifestyle-based treatments during obesity pharmacotherapy may further improve body weight and composition outcomes, with an additional focus on strategies and tools to maintain healthy physical activity habits after termination of pharmacotherapy,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, with lead author Simon Birk Kjær Jensen, Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, was published online in eClinicalMedicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Fewer participants from the placebo group took part in this posttreatment study. Across all treatment groups, participants who attended the posttreatment study had a better mean treatment response during the active treatment than those who did not attend.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and Helsefonden. Some authors declared participating in advisory boards and receiving research grants and lecture fees from various sources including Novo Nordisk.

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

TOPLINE:

The addition of supervised exercise to obesity pharmacotherapy has shown greater potential for maintaining weight loss and improving body composition after treatment termination than pharmacotherapy alone.

METHODOLOGY:

• Despite significant weight loss achieved with incretin-based obesity pharmacotherapies, their high costs and gastrointestinal adverse events lead to high discontinuation rates with subsequent regaining of weight and body fat.
• Researchers investigated if a strategy involving both exercise and , a -like peptide-1 receptor agonist, was better than either intervention alone in terms of maintaining weight loss and body composition after treatment termination.
• They conducted a 1-year posttreatment analysis of the S-LiTE study, including 109 adults with obesity (age, 18-65 years; body mass index, 32-43) who completed an 8-week low-calorie diet resulting in ≥ 5% weight loss.
• Participants were then randomly allocated to a 52-week weight loss maintenance intervention with either liraglutide or placebo alone or liraglutide or placebo plus supervised exercise.
• The primary outcome was the change in body weight (kg) from randomization to 1 year after the termination of weight maintenance intervention (0-104 weeks), and the secondary outcome was the change in body-fat percentage from 0 to 104 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• From week 0 to week 104, supervised exercise plus liraglutide led to 5.1 kg lower weight gain (P = .040) and a 2.3%-point greater decrease in body-fat percentage (P = .026) than liraglutide alone.
• During the 1 year after treatment termination (52-104 weeks), those in the liraglutide group regained 6 kg (95% CI, 2.1-10.0) more than those who were in the supervised exercise plus placebo group, and 2.5 kg (95% CI, -1.5 to 6.5) more than those who received supervised exercise plus liraglutide.
• After 1 year of treatment termination (week 104), the supervised exercise plus liraglutide group had significantly higher odds of maintaining a weight loss of ≥ 10% of initial body weight than the liraglutide (odds ratio [OR], 4.2; 95% CI, 1.6-10.8) or placebo (OR, 7.2; 95% CI, 2.4-21.3) groups.
• The combination of exercise and liraglutide also improved physical functioning along with energy and fatigue scores.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future lifestyle-based treatments during obesity pharmacotherapy may further improve body weight and composition outcomes, with an additional focus on strategies and tools to maintain healthy physical activity habits after termination of pharmacotherapy,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, with lead author Simon Birk Kjær Jensen, Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, was published online in eClinicalMedicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Fewer participants from the placebo group took part in this posttreatment study. Across all treatment groups, participants who attended the posttreatment study had a better mean treatment response during the active treatment than those who did not attend.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and Helsefonden. Some authors declared participating in advisory boards and receiving research grants and lecture fees from various sources including Novo Nordisk.

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

TOPLINE:

The addition of supervised exercise to obesity pharmacotherapy has shown greater potential for maintaining weight loss and improving body composition after treatment termination than pharmacotherapy alone.

METHODOLOGY:

• Despite significant weight loss achieved with incretin-based obesity pharmacotherapies, their high costs and gastrointestinal adverse events lead to high discontinuation rates with subsequent regaining of weight and body fat.
• Researchers investigated if a strategy involving both exercise and , a -like peptide-1 receptor agonist, was better than either intervention alone in terms of maintaining weight loss and body composition after treatment termination.
• They conducted a 1-year posttreatment analysis of the S-LiTE study, including 109 adults with obesity (age, 18-65 years; body mass index, 32-43) who completed an 8-week low-calorie diet resulting in ≥ 5% weight loss.
• Participants were then randomly allocated to a 52-week weight loss maintenance intervention with either liraglutide or placebo alone or liraglutide or placebo plus supervised exercise.
• The primary outcome was the change in body weight (kg) from randomization to 1 year after the termination of weight maintenance intervention (0-104 weeks), and the secondary outcome was the change in body-fat percentage from 0 to 104 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• From week 0 to week 104, supervised exercise plus liraglutide led to 5.1 kg lower weight gain (P = .040) and a 2.3%-point greater decrease in body-fat percentage (P = .026) than liraglutide alone.
• During the 1 year after treatment termination (52-104 weeks), those in the liraglutide group regained 6 kg (95% CI, 2.1-10.0) more than those who were in the supervised exercise plus placebo group, and 2.5 kg (95% CI, -1.5 to 6.5) more than those who received supervised exercise plus liraglutide.
• After 1 year of treatment termination (week 104), the supervised exercise plus liraglutide group had significantly higher odds of maintaining a weight loss of ≥ 10% of initial body weight than the liraglutide (odds ratio [OR], 4.2; 95% CI, 1.6-10.8) or placebo (OR, 7.2; 95% CI, 2.4-21.3) groups.
• The combination of exercise and liraglutide also improved physical functioning along with energy and fatigue scores.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future lifestyle-based treatments during obesity pharmacotherapy may further improve body weight and composition outcomes, with an additional focus on strategies and tools to maintain healthy physical activity habits after termination of pharmacotherapy,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, with lead author Simon Birk Kjær Jensen, Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, was published online in eClinicalMedicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Fewer participants from the placebo group took part in this posttreatment study. Across all treatment groups, participants who attended the posttreatment study had a better mean treatment response during the active treatment than those who did not attend.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and Helsefonden. Some authors declared participating in advisory boards and receiving research grants and lecture fees from various sources including Novo Nordisk.

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

Nicholas J. Silvestri, MD: Hi there. My name is Dr Nick Silvestri, and I'm at the University of Buffalo. Today, I'd like to answer a few questions that I commonly receive from colleagues about the treatment of myasthenia gravis. As you know, over the past several years, we've had many new treatments approved to treat myasthenia gravis. One of the common questions that I get is, how do these new treatments fit into my treatment paradigm? 

First and foremost, I'd like to say that we've been very successful at treating myasthenia gravis for many years. The mainstay of therapy has typically been acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, corticosteroids, and nonsteroidal immunosuppressants. These medicines by and large have helped control the disease in many, but maybe not all, patients. 

The good news about these treatments is they're very efficacious, and as I said, they are able to treat most patients with myasthenia gravis. But the bad news on these medications is that they can have some serious short- and long-term consequences. So as I think about the treatment paradigm right now in 2024 and treating patients with myasthenia gravis, I typically start with prednisone or corticosteroids and transition patients onto an oral immunosuppressant. 

But because it takes about a year for those oral immunosuppressants to become effective, I'm typically using steroids as a bridge. The goal, really, is to have patients on an oral immunosuppressant alone at the 1-year mark or thereabouts so that we don't have patients on steroids. 

When it comes to the new therapies, one of the things that I'm doing is I'm using them, if a patient does not respond to an oral immunosuppressant or in situations where patients have medical comorbidities that make me not want to use steroids or use steroids at high doses. 

Specifically, FcRn antagonists are often used as next-line therapy after an oral immunosuppressant fails or if I don't feel comfortable using prednisone at the outset and possibly bringing the patient to the oral immunosuppressant. The rationale behind this is that these medications are effective. They've been shown to be effective in clinical trials. They work fairly quickly, usually within 2-4 weeks. They're convenient for patients. And they have a pretty good safety profile. 

The major side effects with the FcRn antagonists tend to be an increased risk for infection, which is true for most medications used to treat myasthenia gravis. One is associated with headache. And they can be associated with joint pains and infusion issues as well. But by and large, they are well tolerated. So again, if a patient is not responding to an oral immunosuppressant or it has toxicity or side effects, or I'm leery of using prednisone, I'll typically use an FcRn antagonist. 

The other main class of medications is complement inhibitors. There are three complement inhibitors approved to use in the United States. Complement inhibitors are also very effective medications. I've used them with success in a number of patients, and I think that the paradigm is shifting. 

I've used complement inhibitors, as with the FcRn antagonists, in patients who aren't responding to the first line of therapy or if they have toxicity. I've also used complement inhibitors in instances where patients have not responded very robustly to FcRn antagonists, which thankfully is the minority of patients, but it's worth noting. 

I view the treatment paradigm for 2024 as oral immunosuppressant first, then FcRn antagonist next, and then complement inhibitor next. But to be truthful, we don't have head-to-head comparisons right now. What works for one patient may not work for another. In myasthenia gravis, it would be great to have biomarkers that allow us to predict who would respond to what form of therapy better. 

In other words, it would be great to be able to send off a test to know whether a patient would respond to an oral immunosuppressant better than perhaps to one of the newer therapies, or whether a patient would respond to an FcRn antagonist better than a complement inhibitor or vice versa. That's really one of the gold standards or holy grails in the treatment of myasthenia gravis. 

Another thing that comes up in relation to the first question has to do with, what patient characteristics do I keep in mind when selecting therapies? There's a couple of things. I think that first and foremost, many of our patients with myasthenia gravis are women of childbearing age. So we want to be mindful that many pregnancies are not planned, and be careful when we're choosing therapies that might have a role or might be deleterious to fetuses. 

This is particularly true with oral immunosuppressants, many of which are contraindicated in pregnancy. But medical comorbidities in general are helpful to understand. Again, using the corticosteroid example, in patients with high blood pressure, diabetes, or osteoporosis, I'm very leery about corticosteroids and may use one of the newer therapies earlier on. 

Another aspect is patient preference. We have oral therapies, we have intravenous therapies, we now have subcutaneous therapies. Route of administration is very important to consider as well, not only for patient comfort — some patients may prefer intravenous routes of administration vs subcutaneous — but also for patient convenience. 

Many of our patients with myasthenia gravis have very busy lives, with full-time jobs and other responsibilities, such as parenting or taking care of parents that are maybe older in age. So I think that tolerability and convenience are very important to getting patients the therapies they need and allowing patients the flexibility and convenience to be able to live their lives as well. 

I hope this was helpful to you. I look forward to speaking with you again at some point in the very near future. Stay well. 

Nicholas J. Silvestri, MD: Hi there. My name is Dr Nick Silvestri, and I'm at the University of Buffalo. Today, I'd like to answer a few questions that I commonly receive from colleagues about the treatment of myasthenia gravis. As you know, over the past several years, we've had many new treatments approved to treat myasthenia gravis. One of the common questions that I get is, how do these new treatments fit into my treatment paradigm? 

First and foremost, I'd like to say that we've been very successful at treating myasthenia gravis for many years. The mainstay of therapy has typically been acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, corticosteroids, and nonsteroidal immunosuppressants. These medicines by and large have helped control the disease in many, but maybe not all, patients. 

The good news about these treatments is they're very efficacious, and as I said, they are able to treat most patients with myasthenia gravis. But the bad news on these medications is that they can have some serious short- and long-term consequences. So as I think about the treatment paradigm right now in 2024 and treating patients with myasthenia gravis, I typically start with prednisone or corticosteroids and transition patients onto an oral immunosuppressant. 

But because it takes about a year for those oral immunosuppressants to become effective, I'm typically using steroids as a bridge. The goal, really, is to have patients on an oral immunosuppressant alone at the 1-year mark or thereabouts so that we don't have patients on steroids. 

When it comes to the new therapies, one of the things that I'm doing is I'm using them, if a patient does not respond to an oral immunosuppressant or in situations where patients have medical comorbidities that make me not want to use steroids or use steroids at high doses. 

Specifically, FcRn antagonists are often used as next-line therapy after an oral immunosuppressant fails or if I don't feel comfortable using prednisone at the outset and possibly bringing the patient to the oral immunosuppressant. The rationale behind this is that these medications are effective. They've been shown to be effective in clinical trials. They work fairly quickly, usually within 2-4 weeks. They're convenient for patients. And they have a pretty good safety profile. 

The major side effects with the FcRn antagonists tend to be an increased risk for infection, which is true for most medications used to treat myasthenia gravis. One is associated with headache. And they can be associated with joint pains and infusion issues as well. But by and large, they are well tolerated. So again, if a patient is not responding to an oral immunosuppressant or it has toxicity or side effects, or I'm leery of using prednisone, I'll typically use an FcRn antagonist. 

The other main class of medications is complement inhibitors. There are three complement inhibitors approved to use in the United States. Complement inhibitors are also very effective medications. I've used them with success in a number of patients, and I think that the paradigm is shifting. 

I've used complement inhibitors, as with the FcRn antagonists, in patients who aren't responding to the first line of therapy or if they have toxicity. I've also used complement inhibitors in instances where patients have not responded very robustly to FcRn antagonists, which thankfully is the minority of patients, but it's worth noting. 

I view the treatment paradigm for 2024 as oral immunosuppressant first, then FcRn antagonist next, and then complement inhibitor next. But to be truthful, we don't have head-to-head comparisons right now. What works for one patient may not work for another. In myasthenia gravis, it would be great to have biomarkers that allow us to predict who would respond to what form of therapy better. 

In other words, it would be great to be able to send off a test to know whether a patient would respond to an oral immunosuppressant better than perhaps to one of the newer therapies, or whether a patient would respond to an FcRn antagonist better than a complement inhibitor or vice versa. That's really one of the gold standards or holy grails in the treatment of myasthenia gravis. 

Another thing that comes up in relation to the first question has to do with, what patient characteristics do I keep in mind when selecting therapies? There's a couple of things. I think that first and foremost, many of our patients with myasthenia gravis are women of childbearing age. So we want to be mindful that many pregnancies are not planned, and be careful when we're choosing therapies that might have a role or might be deleterious to fetuses. 

This is particularly true with oral immunosuppressants, many of which are contraindicated in pregnancy. But medical comorbidities in general are helpful to understand. Again, using the corticosteroid example, in patients with high blood pressure, diabetes, or osteoporosis, I'm very leery about corticosteroids and may use one of the newer therapies earlier on. 

Another aspect is patient preference. We have oral therapies, we have intravenous therapies, we now have subcutaneous therapies. Route of administration is very important to consider as well, not only for patient comfort — some patients may prefer intravenous routes of administration vs subcutaneous — but also for patient convenience. 

Many of our patients with myasthenia gravis have very busy lives, with full-time jobs and other responsibilities, such as parenting or taking care of parents that are maybe older in age. So I think that tolerability and convenience are very important to getting patients the therapies they need and allowing patients the flexibility and convenience to be able to live their lives as well. 

I hope this was helpful to you. I look forward to speaking with you again at some point in the very near future. Stay well. 

Nicholas J. Silvestri, MD: Hi there. My name is Dr Nick Silvestri, and I'm at the University of Buffalo. Today, I'd like to answer a few questions that I commonly receive from colleagues about the treatment of myasthenia gravis. As you know, over the past several years, we've had many new treatments approved to treat myasthenia gravis. One of the common questions that I get is, how do these new treatments fit into my treatment paradigm? 

First and foremost, I'd like to say that we've been very successful at treating myasthenia gravis for many years. The mainstay of therapy has typically been acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, corticosteroids, and nonsteroidal immunosuppressants. These medicines by and large have helped control the disease in many, but maybe not all, patients. 

The good news about these treatments is they're very efficacious, and as I said, they are able to treat most patients with myasthenia gravis. But the bad news on these medications is that they can have some serious short- and long-term consequences. So as I think about the treatment paradigm right now in 2024 and treating patients with myasthenia gravis, I typically start with prednisone or corticosteroids and transition patients onto an oral immunosuppressant. 

But because it takes about a year for those oral immunosuppressants to become effective, I'm typically using steroids as a bridge. The goal, really, is to have patients on an oral immunosuppressant alone at the 1-year mark or thereabouts so that we don't have patients on steroids. 

When it comes to the new therapies, one of the things that I'm doing is I'm using them, if a patient does not respond to an oral immunosuppressant or in situations where patients have medical comorbidities that make me not want to use steroids or use steroids at high doses. 

Specifically, FcRn antagonists are often used as next-line therapy after an oral immunosuppressant fails or if I don't feel comfortable using prednisone at the outset and possibly bringing the patient to the oral immunosuppressant. The rationale behind this is that these medications are effective. They've been shown to be effective in clinical trials. They work fairly quickly, usually within 2-4 weeks. They're convenient for patients. And they have a pretty good safety profile. 

The major side effects with the FcRn antagonists tend to be an increased risk for infection, which is true for most medications used to treat myasthenia gravis. One is associated with headache. And they can be associated with joint pains and infusion issues as well. But by and large, they are well tolerated. So again, if a patient is not responding to an oral immunosuppressant or it has toxicity or side effects, or I'm leery of using prednisone, I'll typically use an FcRn antagonist. 

The other main class of medications is complement inhibitors. There are three complement inhibitors approved to use in the United States. Complement inhibitors are also very effective medications. I've used them with success in a number of patients, and I think that the paradigm is shifting. 

I've used complement inhibitors, as with the FcRn antagonists, in patients who aren't responding to the first line of therapy or if they have toxicity. I've also used complement inhibitors in instances where patients have not responded very robustly to FcRn antagonists, which thankfully is the minority of patients, but it's worth noting. 

I view the treatment paradigm for 2024 as oral immunosuppressant first, then FcRn antagonist next, and then complement inhibitor next. But to be truthful, we don't have head-to-head comparisons right now. What works for one patient may not work for another. In myasthenia gravis, it would be great to have biomarkers that allow us to predict who would respond to what form of therapy better. 

In other words, it would be great to be able to send off a test to know whether a patient would respond to an oral immunosuppressant better than perhaps to one of the newer therapies, or whether a patient would respond to an FcRn antagonist better than a complement inhibitor or vice versa. That's really one of the gold standards or holy grails in the treatment of myasthenia gravis. 

Another thing that comes up in relation to the first question has to do with, what patient characteristics do I keep in mind when selecting therapies? There's a couple of things. I think that first and foremost, many of our patients with myasthenia gravis are women of childbearing age. So we want to be mindful that many pregnancies are not planned, and be careful when we're choosing therapies that might have a role or might be deleterious to fetuses. 

This is particularly true with oral immunosuppressants, many of which are contraindicated in pregnancy. But medical comorbidities in general are helpful to understand. Again, using the corticosteroid example, in patients with high blood pressure, diabetes, or osteoporosis, I'm very leery about corticosteroids and may use one of the newer therapies earlier on. 

Another aspect is patient preference. We have oral therapies, we have intravenous therapies, we now have subcutaneous therapies. Route of administration is very important to consider as well, not only for patient comfort — some patients may prefer intravenous routes of administration vs subcutaneous — but also for patient convenience. 

Many of our patients with myasthenia gravis have very busy lives, with full-time jobs and other responsibilities, such as parenting or taking care of parents that are maybe older in age. So I think that tolerability and convenience are very important to getting patients the therapies they need and allowing patients the flexibility and convenience to be able to live their lives as well. 

I hope this was helpful to you. I look forward to speaking with you again at some point in the very near future. Stay well. 

Use of statin drugs was associated with improved mortality in older nursing home residents, regardless of dementia status, a new study showed.

The study is among the first to explore whether statin use in older nursing home residents offers a mortality benefit, especially among individuals with dementia, a group largely excluded from earlier statin trials.

Investigators’ analysis of 4 years of data on nearly 300,000 nursing home residents revealed that statin use was associated with a 40% lower risk for all-cause mortality than statin nonuse in those without dementia and a 20% lower risk in those with dementia.

“These findings may provide evidence that supports the continued use of statins in older nursing home patients with multiple medical conditions,” wrote lead author Julie Lorraine O’Sullivan, PhD, of the Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, German Center for Mental Health, Berlin, and colleagues.

The study was published online on February 27 in Neurology.
 

Understudied Population

Statins are the first-line treatment for preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but they are also known to carry risks to patients who are frail or care-dependent. Many prior clinical trials excluded older participants with multiple comorbidities, especially those with dementia. So, evidence regarding the drugs’ efficacy in this population was lacking.

Investigators retrospectively examined 5 years of claims data from a German health and long-term care insurance provider on 282,693 nursing home residents (mean age, 83 years) who had used statins consecutively for ≥ 6 months.

Researchers used propensity score matching in 96,162 individuals to adjust for potential imbalances in the distribution of covariates (eg, age, sex, atrial fibrillation, ASCVD, and other conditions, as well as medications) and to reduce bias. Cox regression models were similarly adjusted for these factors, as well as care level. Residents were followed for an average of 2 years.

There were 54,269 recorded deaths during the study period, with most patients requiring a high level of care and 65% with dementia.

Statin use was associated with lower all-cause mortality in residents with dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80, P < .001) and those without dementia (HR, 0.73; P < .001) compared with nonusers. The benefits remained consistent even after excluding participants with a history of ASCVD and across subgroups stratified by age sex, care level, and dementia type.

Limitations included the potential for unknown confounders and a lack of information about previous statin use, smoking and sedentary behavior, and the cause of mortality.

“Although our findings suggest the benefits of statins ... it is vital to acknowledge the need for further research to understand the underlying mechanism and the need for replication of our results to understand the potential risks before making recommendations to clinicians and families regarding statin therapy,” investigators wrote.
 

‘First Step’

In an accompanying editorial, Ariela R. Orkaby, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, called the study a “first step” to a better understanding of statin use in an understudied population.

“These findings build on a limited body of observational evidence for statin use in high-risk older adults, which has generally demonstrated protective associations for statins and mortality, including those with dementia and frailty, although nursing home status has not been specifically explored,” Dr. Orkaby wrote.

Perhaps more important than gaining information about statins’ effect on mortality risk in older people with dementia may be a better understanding of how the drugs might improve quality of life by reducing the risk for stroke or other cardiovascular events.

“It may be time to reconsider the broad recommendations to avoid or deprescribe statins in nursing home residents and rather invest in high-quality evidence to guide the care of this vulnerable population. After all, a lack of evidence does not imply benefit or harm, rather a need for more data,” Dr. Orkaby added.

The research was funded by Stiftung Charité; Dr. O’Sullivan and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Orkaby received funding from a VA CSR&D CDA-2 award.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of statin drugs was associated with improved mortality in older nursing home residents, regardless of dementia status, a new study showed.

The study is among the first to explore whether statin use in older nursing home residents offers a mortality benefit, especially among individuals with dementia, a group largely excluded from earlier statin trials.

Investigators’ analysis of 4 years of data on nearly 300,000 nursing home residents revealed that statin use was associated with a 40% lower risk for all-cause mortality than statin nonuse in those without dementia and a 20% lower risk in those with dementia.

“These findings may provide evidence that supports the continued use of statins in older nursing home patients with multiple medical conditions,” wrote lead author Julie Lorraine O’Sullivan, PhD, of the Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, German Center for Mental Health, Berlin, and colleagues.

The study was published online on February 27 in Neurology.
 

Understudied Population

Statins are the first-line treatment for preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but they are also known to carry risks to patients who are frail or care-dependent. Many prior clinical trials excluded older participants with multiple comorbidities, especially those with dementia. So, evidence regarding the drugs’ efficacy in this population was lacking.

Investigators retrospectively examined 5 years of claims data from a German health and long-term care insurance provider on 282,693 nursing home residents (mean age, 83 years) who had used statins consecutively for ≥ 6 months.

Researchers used propensity score matching in 96,162 individuals to adjust for potential imbalances in the distribution of covariates (eg, age, sex, atrial fibrillation, ASCVD, and other conditions, as well as medications) and to reduce bias. Cox regression models were similarly adjusted for these factors, as well as care level. Residents were followed for an average of 2 years.

There were 54,269 recorded deaths during the study period, with most patients requiring a high level of care and 65% with dementia.

Statin use was associated with lower all-cause mortality in residents with dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80, P < .001) and those without dementia (HR, 0.73; P < .001) compared with nonusers. The benefits remained consistent even after excluding participants with a history of ASCVD and across subgroups stratified by age sex, care level, and dementia type.

Limitations included the potential for unknown confounders and a lack of information about previous statin use, smoking and sedentary behavior, and the cause of mortality.

“Although our findings suggest the benefits of statins ... it is vital to acknowledge the need for further research to understand the underlying mechanism and the need for replication of our results to understand the potential risks before making recommendations to clinicians and families regarding statin therapy,” investigators wrote.
 

‘First Step’

In an accompanying editorial, Ariela R. Orkaby, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, called the study a “first step” to a better understanding of statin use in an understudied population.

“These findings build on a limited body of observational evidence for statin use in high-risk older adults, which has generally demonstrated protective associations for statins and mortality, including those with dementia and frailty, although nursing home status has not been specifically explored,” Dr. Orkaby wrote.

Perhaps more important than gaining information about statins’ effect on mortality risk in older people with dementia may be a better understanding of how the drugs might improve quality of life by reducing the risk for stroke or other cardiovascular events.

“It may be time to reconsider the broad recommendations to avoid or deprescribe statins in nursing home residents and rather invest in high-quality evidence to guide the care of this vulnerable population. After all, a lack of evidence does not imply benefit or harm, rather a need for more data,” Dr. Orkaby added.

The research was funded by Stiftung Charité; Dr. O’Sullivan and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Orkaby received funding from a VA CSR&D CDA-2 award.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of statin drugs was associated with improved mortality in older nursing home residents, regardless of dementia status, a new study showed.

The study is among the first to explore whether statin use in older nursing home residents offers a mortality benefit, especially among individuals with dementia, a group largely excluded from earlier statin trials.

Investigators’ analysis of 4 years of data on nearly 300,000 nursing home residents revealed that statin use was associated with a 40% lower risk for all-cause mortality than statin nonuse in those without dementia and a 20% lower risk in those with dementia.

“These findings may provide evidence that supports the continued use of statins in older nursing home patients with multiple medical conditions,” wrote lead author Julie Lorraine O’Sullivan, PhD, of the Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, German Center for Mental Health, Berlin, and colleagues.

The study was published online on February 27 in Neurology.
 

Understudied Population

Statins are the first-line treatment for preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but they are also known to carry risks to patients who are frail or care-dependent. Many prior clinical trials excluded older participants with multiple comorbidities, especially those with dementia. So, evidence regarding the drugs’ efficacy in this population was lacking.

Investigators retrospectively examined 5 years of claims data from a German health and long-term care insurance provider on 282,693 nursing home residents (mean age, 83 years) who had used statins consecutively for ≥ 6 months.

Researchers used propensity score matching in 96,162 individuals to adjust for potential imbalances in the distribution of covariates (eg, age, sex, atrial fibrillation, ASCVD, and other conditions, as well as medications) and to reduce bias. Cox regression models were similarly adjusted for these factors, as well as care level. Residents were followed for an average of 2 years.

There were 54,269 recorded deaths during the study period, with most patients requiring a high level of care and 65% with dementia.

Statin use was associated with lower all-cause mortality in residents with dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80, P < .001) and those without dementia (HR, 0.73; P < .001) compared with nonusers. The benefits remained consistent even after excluding participants with a history of ASCVD and across subgroups stratified by age sex, care level, and dementia type.

Limitations included the potential for unknown confounders and a lack of information about previous statin use, smoking and sedentary behavior, and the cause of mortality.

“Although our findings suggest the benefits of statins ... it is vital to acknowledge the need for further research to understand the underlying mechanism and the need for replication of our results to understand the potential risks before making recommendations to clinicians and families regarding statin therapy,” investigators wrote.
 

‘First Step’

In an accompanying editorial, Ariela R. Orkaby, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, called the study a “first step” to a better understanding of statin use in an understudied population.

“These findings build on a limited body of observational evidence for statin use in high-risk older adults, which has generally demonstrated protective associations for statins and mortality, including those with dementia and frailty, although nursing home status has not been specifically explored,” Dr. Orkaby wrote.

Perhaps more important than gaining information about statins’ effect on mortality risk in older people with dementia may be a better understanding of how the drugs might improve quality of life by reducing the risk for stroke or other cardiovascular events.

“It may be time to reconsider the broad recommendations to avoid or deprescribe statins in nursing home residents and rather invest in high-quality evidence to guide the care of this vulnerable population. After all, a lack of evidence does not imply benefit or harm, rather a need for more data,” Dr. Orkaby added.

The research was funded by Stiftung Charité; Dr. O’Sullivan and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Orkaby received funding from a VA CSR&D CDA-2 award.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Hospitalization for influenza is linked to a greater risk for subsequent neurologic disorders including migraine, stroke, or epilepsy than is hospitalization for COVID-19, results of a large study show.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used healthcare claims data to compare 77,300 people hospitalized with COVID-19 with 77,300 hospitalized with influenza. The study did not include individuals with long COVID.
• In the final sample of 154,500 participants, the mean age was 51 years, and more than half (58%) were female.
• Investigators followed participants from both cohorts for a year to find out how many of them had medical care for six of the most common neurologic disorders: migraine, epilepsy, stroke, neuropathy, movement disorders, and dementia.
• If participants had one of these neurologic disorders prior to the original hospitalization, the primary outcome involved subsequent healthcare encounters for the neurologic diagnosis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants hospitalized with COVID-19 versus influenza were significantly less likely to require care in the following year for migraine (2% vs 3.2%), epilepsy (1.6% vs 2.1%), neuropathy (1.9% vs 3.6%), movement disorders (1.5% vs 2.5%), stroke (2% vs 2.4%), and dementia (2% vs 2.3%) (all P < .001).
• After adjusting for age, sex, and other health conditions, researchers found that people hospitalized with COVID-19 had a 35% lower risk of receiving care for migraine, a 22% lower risk of receiving care for epilepsy, and a 44% lower risk of receiving care for neuropathy than those with influenza. They also had a 36% lower risk of receiving care for movement disorders, a 10% lower risk for stroke (all P < .001), as well as a 7% lower risk for dementia (P = .0007).
• In participants who did not have a preexisting neurologic condition at the time of hospitalization for either COVID-19 or influenza, 2.8% hospitalized with COVID-19 developed one in the next year compared with 5% of those hospitalized with influenza.

IN PRACTICE:

“While the results were not what we expected to find, they are reassuring in that we found being hospitalized with COVID did not lead to more care for common neurologic conditions when compared to being hospitalized with influenza,” study investigator Brian C. Callaghan, MD, of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

Adam de Havenon, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, led the study, which was published online on March 20 in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on ICD codes in health claims databases, which could introduce misclassification bias. Also, by selecting only individuals who had associated hospital-based care, there may have been a selection bias based on disease severity.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. De Havenon reported receiving consultant fees from Integra and Novo Nordisk and royalty fees from UpToDate and has equity in Titin KM and Certus. Dr. Callaghan has consulted for DynaMed and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Other disclosures were noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Hospitalization for influenza is linked to a greater risk for subsequent neurologic disorders including migraine, stroke, or epilepsy than is hospitalization for COVID-19, results of a large study show.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used healthcare claims data to compare 77,300 people hospitalized with COVID-19 with 77,300 hospitalized with influenza. The study did not include individuals with long COVID.
• In the final sample of 154,500 participants, the mean age was 51 years, and more than half (58%) were female.
• Investigators followed participants from both cohorts for a year to find out how many of them had medical care for six of the most common neurologic disorders: migraine, epilepsy, stroke, neuropathy, movement disorders, and dementia.
• If participants had one of these neurologic disorders prior to the original hospitalization, the primary outcome involved subsequent healthcare encounters for the neurologic diagnosis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants hospitalized with COVID-19 versus influenza were significantly less likely to require care in the following year for migraine (2% vs 3.2%), epilepsy (1.6% vs 2.1%), neuropathy (1.9% vs 3.6%), movement disorders (1.5% vs 2.5%), stroke (2% vs 2.4%), and dementia (2% vs 2.3%) (all P < .001).
• After adjusting for age, sex, and other health conditions, researchers found that people hospitalized with COVID-19 had a 35% lower risk of receiving care for migraine, a 22% lower risk of receiving care for epilepsy, and a 44% lower risk of receiving care for neuropathy than those with influenza. They also had a 36% lower risk of receiving care for movement disorders, a 10% lower risk for stroke (all P < .001), as well as a 7% lower risk for dementia (P = .0007).
• In participants who did not have a preexisting neurologic condition at the time of hospitalization for either COVID-19 or influenza, 2.8% hospitalized with COVID-19 developed one in the next year compared with 5% of those hospitalized with influenza.

IN PRACTICE:

“While the results were not what we expected to find, they are reassuring in that we found being hospitalized with COVID did not lead to more care for common neurologic conditions when compared to being hospitalized with influenza,” study investigator Brian C. Callaghan, MD, of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

Adam de Havenon, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, led the study, which was published online on March 20 in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on ICD codes in health claims databases, which could introduce misclassification bias. Also, by selecting only individuals who had associated hospital-based care, there may have been a selection bias based on disease severity.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. De Havenon reported receiving consultant fees from Integra and Novo Nordisk and royalty fees from UpToDate and has equity in Titin KM and Certus. Dr. Callaghan has consulted for DynaMed and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Other disclosures were noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Hospitalization for influenza is linked to a greater risk for subsequent neurologic disorders including migraine, stroke, or epilepsy than is hospitalization for COVID-19, results of a large study show.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used healthcare claims data to compare 77,300 people hospitalized with COVID-19 with 77,300 hospitalized with influenza. The study did not include individuals with long COVID.
• In the final sample of 154,500 participants, the mean age was 51 years, and more than half (58%) were female.
• Investigators followed participants from both cohorts for a year to find out how many of them had medical care for six of the most common neurologic disorders: migraine, epilepsy, stroke, neuropathy, movement disorders, and dementia.
• If participants had one of these neurologic disorders prior to the original hospitalization, the primary outcome involved subsequent healthcare encounters for the neurologic diagnosis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants hospitalized with COVID-19 versus influenza were significantly less likely to require care in the following year for migraine (2% vs 3.2%), epilepsy (1.6% vs 2.1%), neuropathy (1.9% vs 3.6%), movement disorders (1.5% vs 2.5%), stroke (2% vs 2.4%), and dementia (2% vs 2.3%) (all P < .001).
• After adjusting for age, sex, and other health conditions, researchers found that people hospitalized with COVID-19 had a 35% lower risk of receiving care for migraine, a 22% lower risk of receiving care for epilepsy, and a 44% lower risk of receiving care for neuropathy than those with influenza. They also had a 36% lower risk of receiving care for movement disorders, a 10% lower risk for stroke (all P < .001), as well as a 7% lower risk for dementia (P = .0007).
• In participants who did not have a preexisting neurologic condition at the time of hospitalization for either COVID-19 or influenza, 2.8% hospitalized with COVID-19 developed one in the next year compared with 5% of those hospitalized with influenza.

IN PRACTICE:

“While the results were not what we expected to find, they are reassuring in that we found being hospitalized with COVID did not lead to more care for common neurologic conditions when compared to being hospitalized with influenza,” study investigator Brian C. Callaghan, MD, of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

Adam de Havenon, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, led the study, which was published online on March 20 in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on ICD codes in health claims databases, which could introduce misclassification bias. Also, by selecting only individuals who had associated hospital-based care, there may have been a selection bias based on disease severity.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. De Havenon reported receiving consultant fees from Integra and Novo Nordisk and royalty fees from UpToDate and has equity in Titin KM and Certus. Dr. Callaghan has consulted for DynaMed and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Other disclosures were noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.