The use of a grass-based allergy immunotherapy (AIT) lowered the risk of progression from milder to more severe asthma, according to the results of a large, real-world, industry-sponsored, observational study.

Photo courtesy Oak Ridge National Laboratory

The researchers analyzed a cohort of 1,739,440 patients aged 12 years and older using 2005-2014 data from a statutory health insurance database in Germany. From this population, 39,167 individuals aged 14 years or older were classified as having incident asthma during the observation period and were included in the study.

The severity of asthma was classified according to the treatment steps recommended by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA).

Among these, 4,111 patients (10.5%) received AIT. AIT use was associated with a significantly decreased likelihood of asthma progression from GINA step 1 to step 3 (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.80‐0.95) and GINA step 3 to step 4 (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.60‐0.74).

Medications for GINA step 2 (3.5%) and GINA step 5 (0.03%) were rarely prescribed, so the researchers could not analyze the transition between GINA steps 1 and 2, step 2 and 3, and step 4 and 5.

A total of 8,726 patients had at least one transition between GINA steps 1, 3, or 4, and 1,085 had two transitions, though not all 39,167 patients were under risk of severity progression into all GINA steps, according to the authors.

The findings are consistent with earlier studies that indicate grass-based immunotherapy can effectively treat asthma symptoms and potentially asthma progression (J Allergy Clin Immuno. 2012;129[3];717-25; J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2018;141[2]:529‐38).

“This study indicates that AIT may modify the course of asthma. Our study supports the assumption that treatment with AIT may prevent the progression from mild to more severe asthma,” the authors concluded.

The study was financially supported by ALK‐Abelló; several of the authors were also employees of or received funding from the company.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Schmitt J et al. Allergy. 2019. doi: 10.1111/all.14020.

The use of a grass-based allergy immunotherapy (AIT) lowered the risk of progression from milder to more severe asthma, according to the results of a large, real-world, industry-sponsored, observational study.

Photo courtesy Oak Ridge National Laboratory

The researchers analyzed a cohort of 1,739,440 patients aged 12 years and older using 2005-2014 data from a statutory health insurance database in Germany. From this population, 39,167 individuals aged 14 years or older were classified as having incident asthma during the observation period and were included in the study.

The severity of asthma was classified according to the treatment steps recommended by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA).

Among these, 4,111 patients (10.5%) received AIT. AIT use was associated with a significantly decreased likelihood of asthma progression from GINA step 1 to step 3 (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.80‐0.95) and GINA step 3 to step 4 (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.60‐0.74).

Medications for GINA step 2 (3.5%) and GINA step 5 (0.03%) were rarely prescribed, so the researchers could not analyze the transition between GINA steps 1 and 2, step 2 and 3, and step 4 and 5.

A total of 8,726 patients had at least one transition between GINA steps 1, 3, or 4, and 1,085 had two transitions, though not all 39,167 patients were under risk of severity progression into all GINA steps, according to the authors.

The findings are consistent with earlier studies that indicate grass-based immunotherapy can effectively treat asthma symptoms and potentially asthma progression (J Allergy Clin Immuno. 2012;129[3];717-25; J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2018;141[2]:529‐38).

“This study indicates that AIT may modify the course of asthma. Our study supports the assumption that treatment with AIT may prevent the progression from mild to more severe asthma,” the authors concluded.

The study was financially supported by ALK‐Abelló; several of the authors were also employees of or received funding from the company.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Schmitt J et al. Allergy. 2019. doi: 10.1111/all.14020.

The use of a grass-based allergy immunotherapy (AIT) lowered the risk of progression from milder to more severe asthma, according to the results of a large, real-world, industry-sponsored, observational study.

Photo courtesy Oak Ridge National Laboratory

The researchers analyzed a cohort of 1,739,440 patients aged 12 years and older using 2005-2014 data from a statutory health insurance database in Germany. From this population, 39,167 individuals aged 14 years or older were classified as having incident asthma during the observation period and were included in the study.

The severity of asthma was classified according to the treatment steps recommended by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA).

Among these, 4,111 patients (10.5%) received AIT. AIT use was associated with a significantly decreased likelihood of asthma progression from GINA step 1 to step 3 (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.80‐0.95) and GINA step 3 to step 4 (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.60‐0.74).

Medications for GINA step 2 (3.5%) and GINA step 5 (0.03%) were rarely prescribed, so the researchers could not analyze the transition between GINA steps 1 and 2, step 2 and 3, and step 4 and 5.

A total of 8,726 patients had at least one transition between GINA steps 1, 3, or 4, and 1,085 had two transitions, though not all 39,167 patients were under risk of severity progression into all GINA steps, according to the authors.

The findings are consistent with earlier studies that indicate grass-based immunotherapy can effectively treat asthma symptoms and potentially asthma progression (J Allergy Clin Immuno. 2012;129[3];717-25; J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2018;141[2]:529‐38).

“This study indicates that AIT may modify the course of asthma. Our study supports the assumption that treatment with AIT may prevent the progression from mild to more severe asthma,” the authors concluded.

The study was financially supported by ALK‐Abelló; several of the authors were also employees of or received funding from the company.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Schmitt J et al. Allergy. 2019. doi: 10.1111/all.14020.

A new study has found that a group of four collagen metabolites are promising biomarkers for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) that could potentially distinguish patients without radiographic signs of disease and those with ankylosing spondylitis.

“This current study illustrates the potential of serological metabolites of tissue destruction as novel disease activity biomarkers in axSpA,” wrote Markéta Hušáková, PhD, of the Institute of Rheumatology and Department of Rheumatology at First Faculty of Medicine Charles University in Prague and coauthors. The study was published in Scientific Reports.

To determine if certain collagen metabolites could indicate axSpA disease activity and distinguish nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) from ankylosing spondylitis (AS), the researchers examined 193 recently diagnosed axSpA patients and 100 asymptomatic controls. Of the 193 patients, 121 had nr-axSpA and 72 had AS.

The researchers found that four collagen metabolites occurred at significantly higher serum levels in both subtypes of axSpA patients, compared with controls: for C1M, a mean of 43.4 ng/mL for AS and 34.6 ng/mL for nr-axSpA versus 24.5 ng/mL for controls; for C2M, 0.35 and 0.36 versus 0.26; for C3M, 15.4 and 12.8 versus 7.8; and for C4M2, 27.8 and 22.4 versus 15.2. Mean serum levels of C1M, C3M, and C4M2 were significantly higher in AS patients when compared with nr-axSpA patients. Of the four collagen metabolites, C3M was the best for differentiating between axSpA patients and asymptomatic controls (area under receiver operator characteristics curve, 0.95; specificity, 92.0; sensitivity, 83.4) and between nr-axSpA patients and controls (AUC, 0.93; specificity, 80.0; sensitivity, 92.6) and AS patients (AUC, 0.98; specificity, 92.0; sensitivity, 91.7).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the inability to investigate changes in biomarker levels and disease activity over time. In addition, there was a lack of clinical information about cardiovascular or other systemic complications, as well as no clinical or radiographic examination of the asymptomatic individuals, which could have revealed factors influencing their metabolite levels.

Two of the authors acknowledged being employees of fibrosis biomarker developer Nordic Bioscience; another researcher acknowledged being a stockholder. No additional conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Hušáková M et al. Sci Rep. 2019 Aug 2. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-47502-z.

A new study has found that a group of four collagen metabolites are promising biomarkers for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) that could potentially distinguish patients without radiographic signs of disease and those with ankylosing spondylitis.

“This current study illustrates the potential of serological metabolites of tissue destruction as novel disease activity biomarkers in axSpA,” wrote Markéta Hušáková, PhD, of the Institute of Rheumatology and Department of Rheumatology at First Faculty of Medicine Charles University in Prague and coauthors. The study was published in Scientific Reports.

To determine if certain collagen metabolites could indicate axSpA disease activity and distinguish nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) from ankylosing spondylitis (AS), the researchers examined 193 recently diagnosed axSpA patients and 100 asymptomatic controls. Of the 193 patients, 121 had nr-axSpA and 72 had AS.

The researchers found that four collagen metabolites occurred at significantly higher serum levels in both subtypes of axSpA patients, compared with controls: for C1M, a mean of 43.4 ng/mL for AS and 34.6 ng/mL for nr-axSpA versus 24.5 ng/mL for controls; for C2M, 0.35 and 0.36 versus 0.26; for C3M, 15.4 and 12.8 versus 7.8; and for C4M2, 27.8 and 22.4 versus 15.2. Mean serum levels of C1M, C3M, and C4M2 were significantly higher in AS patients when compared with nr-axSpA patients. Of the four collagen metabolites, C3M was the best for differentiating between axSpA patients and asymptomatic controls (area under receiver operator characteristics curve, 0.95; specificity, 92.0; sensitivity, 83.4) and between nr-axSpA patients and controls (AUC, 0.93; specificity, 80.0; sensitivity, 92.6) and AS patients (AUC, 0.98; specificity, 92.0; sensitivity, 91.7).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the inability to investigate changes in biomarker levels and disease activity over time. In addition, there was a lack of clinical information about cardiovascular or other systemic complications, as well as no clinical or radiographic examination of the asymptomatic individuals, which could have revealed factors influencing their metabolite levels.

Two of the authors acknowledged being employees of fibrosis biomarker developer Nordic Bioscience; another researcher acknowledged being a stockholder. No additional conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Hušáková M et al. Sci Rep. 2019 Aug 2. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-47502-z.

A new study has found that a group of four collagen metabolites are promising biomarkers for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) that could potentially distinguish patients without radiographic signs of disease and those with ankylosing spondylitis.

“This current study illustrates the potential of serological metabolites of tissue destruction as novel disease activity biomarkers in axSpA,” wrote Markéta Hušáková, PhD, of the Institute of Rheumatology and Department of Rheumatology at First Faculty of Medicine Charles University in Prague and coauthors. The study was published in Scientific Reports.

To determine if certain collagen metabolites could indicate axSpA disease activity and distinguish nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) from ankylosing spondylitis (AS), the researchers examined 193 recently diagnosed axSpA patients and 100 asymptomatic controls. Of the 193 patients, 121 had nr-axSpA and 72 had AS.

The researchers found that four collagen metabolites occurred at significantly higher serum levels in both subtypes of axSpA patients, compared with controls: for C1M, a mean of 43.4 ng/mL for AS and 34.6 ng/mL for nr-axSpA versus 24.5 ng/mL for controls; for C2M, 0.35 and 0.36 versus 0.26; for C3M, 15.4 and 12.8 versus 7.8; and for C4M2, 27.8 and 22.4 versus 15.2. Mean serum levels of C1M, C3M, and C4M2 were significantly higher in AS patients when compared with nr-axSpA patients. Of the four collagen metabolites, C3M was the best for differentiating between axSpA patients and asymptomatic controls (area under receiver operator characteristics curve, 0.95; specificity, 92.0; sensitivity, 83.4) and between nr-axSpA patients and controls (AUC, 0.93; specificity, 80.0; sensitivity, 92.6) and AS patients (AUC, 0.98; specificity, 92.0; sensitivity, 91.7).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the inability to investigate changes in biomarker levels and disease activity over time. In addition, there was a lack of clinical information about cardiovascular or other systemic complications, as well as no clinical or radiographic examination of the asymptomatic individuals, which could have revealed factors influencing their metabolite levels.

Two of the authors acknowledged being employees of fibrosis biomarker developer Nordic Bioscience; another researcher acknowledged being a stockholder. No additional conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Hušáková M et al. Sci Rep. 2019 Aug 2. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-47502-z.

EDINBURGH – Consolidation therapy with obinutuzumab after chemoimmunotherapy for B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (B-CLL) was highly effective for eradicating minimal residual disease (MRD) within 6 months following randomization in the seamless phase 2/3 GALACTIC trial.

Of 14 patients who were MRD positive after chemoimmunotherapy and randomized to consolidation with the type II monoclonal antibody targeting the CD20 antigen, 10 achieved MRD negativity in the bone marrow by 6 months, and 13 achieved MRD negativity in the peripheral blood by 6 months, Talha Munir, MD, reported at the International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

“And that translated into [progression-free survival] improvement in the consolidation arm,” said Dr. Munir of St. James’s University, Leeds, England.

The median progression-free survival in that arm was not reached, whereas progression-free survival in 15 MRD-positive patients randomized to the nonconsolidation arm was 16.6 months, he said.

Further, no difference was seen in median progression-free survival, overall survival, or MRD duration between the consolidation arm and 19 patients who were not randomized because of MRD negativity after chemoimmunotherapy, he noted.

Achieving MRD negativity in CLL confers a survival advantage, and obinutuzumab has shown greater efficacy with respect to MRD in CLL when compared with previous anti-CD20 antibodies, and it is less immune suppressive than the anti-CD52 antibody alemtuzumab, he explained.

The GALACTIC trial was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of obinutuzumab consolidation for eradicating MRD and whether its effects would prolong progression-free survival in patients with B-CLL who recently responded to chemoimmunotherapy. Those achieving complete response or partial response at 3-24 months after chemoimmunotherapy, and who remained MRD-positive, were eligible for randomization.

The planned sample size was 188 patients, but the trial was closed early in February 2017 because of poor recruitment; a total of 48 patients were enrolled, including the 19 nonrandomized, MRD-negative patients.

Patients randomized to consolidation received 1,000 mg of obinutuzumab weekly for the first four doses, and then every other week for four additional doses.

Obinutuzumab was well tolerated with minimal infusion-related reactions and toxicity, Dr. Munir said.

Despite the low recruitment, both the phase 2 and 3 endpoints were assessed as positive, because the consolidation strategy was so efficacious, Dr. Munir noted, concluding that the findings provide further evidence of the value of MRD negativity for improving outcomes in CLL.

The GALACTIC trial was developed by the GALACTIC Trial Management Group with the support of the UKCLL/NCRI CLL Clinical Trials Subgroup. The trial is funded by Cancer Research UK and Roche and sponsored by the University of Leeds. Dr. Munir reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

EDINBURGH – Consolidation therapy with obinutuzumab after chemoimmunotherapy for B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (B-CLL) was highly effective for eradicating minimal residual disease (MRD) within 6 months following randomization in the seamless phase 2/3 GALACTIC trial.

Of 14 patients who were MRD positive after chemoimmunotherapy and randomized to consolidation with the type II monoclonal antibody targeting the CD20 antigen, 10 achieved MRD negativity in the bone marrow by 6 months, and 13 achieved MRD negativity in the peripheral blood by 6 months, Talha Munir, MD, reported at the International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

“And that translated into [progression-free survival] improvement in the consolidation arm,” said Dr. Munir of St. James’s University, Leeds, England.

The median progression-free survival in that arm was not reached, whereas progression-free survival in 15 MRD-positive patients randomized to the nonconsolidation arm was 16.6 months, he said.

Further, no difference was seen in median progression-free survival, overall survival, or MRD duration between the consolidation arm and 19 patients who were not randomized because of MRD negativity after chemoimmunotherapy, he noted.

Achieving MRD negativity in CLL confers a survival advantage, and obinutuzumab has shown greater efficacy with respect to MRD in CLL when compared with previous anti-CD20 antibodies, and it is less immune suppressive than the anti-CD52 antibody alemtuzumab, he explained.

The GALACTIC trial was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of obinutuzumab consolidation for eradicating MRD and whether its effects would prolong progression-free survival in patients with B-CLL who recently responded to chemoimmunotherapy. Those achieving complete response or partial response at 3-24 months after chemoimmunotherapy, and who remained MRD-positive, were eligible for randomization.

The planned sample size was 188 patients, but the trial was closed early in February 2017 because of poor recruitment; a total of 48 patients were enrolled, including the 19 nonrandomized, MRD-negative patients.

Patients randomized to consolidation received 1,000 mg of obinutuzumab weekly for the first four doses, and then every other week for four additional doses.

Obinutuzumab was well tolerated with minimal infusion-related reactions and toxicity, Dr. Munir said.

Despite the low recruitment, both the phase 2 and 3 endpoints were assessed as positive, because the consolidation strategy was so efficacious, Dr. Munir noted, concluding that the findings provide further evidence of the value of MRD negativity for improving outcomes in CLL.

The GALACTIC trial was developed by the GALACTIC Trial Management Group with the support of the UKCLL/NCRI CLL Clinical Trials Subgroup. The trial is funded by Cancer Research UK and Roche and sponsored by the University of Leeds. Dr. Munir reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

EDINBURGH – Consolidation therapy with obinutuzumab after chemoimmunotherapy for B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (B-CLL) was highly effective for eradicating minimal residual disease (MRD) within 6 months following randomization in the seamless phase 2/3 GALACTIC trial.

Of 14 patients who were MRD positive after chemoimmunotherapy and randomized to consolidation with the type II monoclonal antibody targeting the CD20 antigen, 10 achieved MRD negativity in the bone marrow by 6 months, and 13 achieved MRD negativity in the peripheral blood by 6 months, Talha Munir, MD, reported at the International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

“And that translated into [progression-free survival] improvement in the consolidation arm,” said Dr. Munir of St. James’s University, Leeds, England.

The median progression-free survival in that arm was not reached, whereas progression-free survival in 15 MRD-positive patients randomized to the nonconsolidation arm was 16.6 months, he said.

Further, no difference was seen in median progression-free survival, overall survival, or MRD duration between the consolidation arm and 19 patients who were not randomized because of MRD negativity after chemoimmunotherapy, he noted.

Achieving MRD negativity in CLL confers a survival advantage, and obinutuzumab has shown greater efficacy with respect to MRD in CLL when compared with previous anti-CD20 antibodies, and it is less immune suppressive than the anti-CD52 antibody alemtuzumab, he explained.

The GALACTIC trial was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of obinutuzumab consolidation for eradicating MRD and whether its effects would prolong progression-free survival in patients with B-CLL who recently responded to chemoimmunotherapy. Those achieving complete response or partial response at 3-24 months after chemoimmunotherapy, and who remained MRD-positive, were eligible for randomization.

The planned sample size was 188 patients, but the trial was closed early in February 2017 because of poor recruitment; a total of 48 patients were enrolled, including the 19 nonrandomized, MRD-negative patients.

Patients randomized to consolidation received 1,000 mg of obinutuzumab weekly for the first four doses, and then every other week for four additional doses.

Obinutuzumab was well tolerated with minimal infusion-related reactions and toxicity, Dr. Munir said.

Despite the low recruitment, both the phase 2 and 3 endpoints were assessed as positive, because the consolidation strategy was so efficacious, Dr. Munir noted, concluding that the findings provide further evidence of the value of MRD negativity for improving outcomes in CLL.

The GALACTIC trial was developed by the GALACTIC Trial Management Group with the support of the UKCLL/NCRI CLL Clinical Trials Subgroup. The trial is funded by Cancer Research UK and Roche and sponsored by the University of Leeds. Dr. Munir reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

Rheumatologist Zachary S. Wallace, MD, knew just how prior authorization requirements were impacting his staff time and work flow when he embarked on a study several years ago. Managing authorizations for infusible medications alone was about to become a full-time job for one of the administrative assistants in the rheumatology unit at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

His research questions concerned patients. “There’s a lot of talk about how much onus prior authorization requirements put on providers and the practice,” Dr. Wallace said. ”I was interested in understanding what impact [these requirements] have on patients themselves.”

Dr. Wallace led a review of the EHRs of 225 patients for whom an infusible medication such as rituximab and infliximab was ordered by 1 of the 16 physicians in the rheumatology unit between July 2016 and June 2018. The findings – that patients who needed prior authorizations for infusible medications had a significantly longer time to treatment initiation and higher prednisone-equivalent glucocorticoid exposure – were reported online in Arthritis Care & Research.

Among patients whose authorizations were initially denied, these differences were “pretty drastic,” Dr. Wallace said. The median time to receiving a first infusion was 50 days, compared with 27 days when permission was not required, and glucocorticoid exposure during the 3 months following the request was 605 mg versus 160 mg.

Among patients whose authorizations were not denied, the median time to first infusion was 31 days, compared with 27 days when authorization was not required, and the mean glucocorticoid exposure over 3 months was 364 mg versus 160 mg.

“I hope that our findings will help facilitate discussions with insurance providers, pharmacy benefit managers, and state and federal legislators about the need to address the impact that prior authorization requirements have on patients and providers,” said Dr. Wallace, also of the clinical epidemiology program in the division of rheumatology, allergy and immunology at Massachusetts General, and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Of the 225 patients for whom an infusible medication was ordered, 71% required preauthorization. Of these, 79% were approved and 21% were denied after the first request. And in a finding that Dr. Wallace called “somewhat surprising,” 82% of the authorizations originally denied were approved after appeal.

All told, prior authorizations for infusible medications were eventually approved in all but a small number of cases. “We go through all this effort to get these prior authorizations approved, and 96% of the time, they were ultimately approved,” he said in an interview.

Christopher Phillips, MD, a community rheumatologist in Paducah, Ky., who serves as chair of the insurance subcommittee of the American College of Rheumatology’s committee on rheumatologic care, said the findings “give further credence” to rheumatologists’ concerns. “We know [from our own experiences] that prior authorizations delay care, and we know that delays can cause harm to patients. We now have hard data backing up this assertion.”

Regarding the high number of authorization approvals, “there’s an argument to be made that for certain treatments and certain conditions where the success rate of appeals is high enough, you shouldn’t be subjecting these treatments to these [preauthorization] policies,” he said.

Calls for prior authorization reform

Most patients in the study (71%) had private insurance. But the findings also have implications for Medicare, Dr. Wallace said, as recent federal policies have expanded Medicare Advantage plans’ authority to use prior authorization in conjunction with step therapy for medications administered under Part B. Step therapy favors primary use of what insurers deem the most cost-effective therapies.

The ACR is one of almost 370 physician, patient, and health care organizations that are urging Congress to pass a bipartisan bill aimed at streamlining and standardizing prior authorization under the Medicare Advantage program. The legislation – Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2019 (H.R. 3107) – was introduced by Reps. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), Mike Kelly (R-Pa.), Roger Marshall, MD (R-Kan.), and Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.).

The bill calls for the creation of an electronic prior authorization program and a “real-time process for items and services that are routinely approved,” as well as greater Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services oversight on how Medicare Advantage plans use prior authorization. Plans would be required to report to the CMS on the extent of their use of prior authorization and the rate of approvals or denials. They would also be held accountable for making timely prior authorization determinations and providing rationales for denials, according to a letter to Congress cosigned by the ACR.

In a press release about the legislation, Paula Marchetta, MD, president of the ACR, said that “the unregulated use of prior authorization has devolved into a time-consuming and obstructive process that often stalls or outright revokes patient access to medically necessary therapies.” She added that “many health care plans now use prior authorization indiscriminately.”

Cathryn Donaldson, director of communications for America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), said in an email that prior authorization is used for less than 15% of covered services, and that, along with step therapy, it “helps ensure that patients receive care that is safe, effective, and necessary.” AHIP “knows that prior authorization can be improved,” she said, and is committed to streamlining the process.

A demonstration project on the automation of various parts of prior authorization is being coordinated with health information technology companies, plans, and providers, she noted.

The federal legislation is based at least partly on a consensus statement drafted by AHIP, the American Medical Association, and four other organizations representing hospitals, medical groups, and health plans on ways to improve the prior authorization process. Among the items mentioned in the statement is that “regular review” of services subject to prior authorization could help identify therapies that “no longer warrant” prior authorization because of low denial rates.

Outside of Medicare Advantage, the AMA is aware of at least 85 bills being introduced in states this year that address utilization management in commercial plans. Nearly all these bills attempt to reform prior authorization programs in some way, according to R. J. Mills, media relations coordinator for the AMA.

Rheumatologic patients hard hit

Off-label medication use was the most common reason (82%) for a prior authorization denial in the Massachusetts General study, even though 78% of the patients for whom infusible medications were prescribed had a condition with no Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment. Having such a condition was associated with 120% or 190% higher odds of having a denial in unadjusted and adjusted (for age and sex) analyses, Dr. Wallace and colleagues reported.

Moreover, nearly half (48%) of the patients with denials had already tried or were currently taking an oral disease-modifying antirheumatic drug, such as methotrexate.

The majority of denials were for the use of rituximab (70%), followed by infliximab (12%) and tocilizumab (12%). Most of the denials (79%) were appealed successfully through a peer-to-peer discussion. In five cases, the insurer’s preferred drug (for example, adalimumab) had to be used rather than the requested infusion (for example, infliximab).

Infused medications, many of which are biologics, are among the most expensive drugs prescribed for patients with rheumatic diseases. They were easiest for Dr. Wallace to study because of the way prior authorizations are handled in his unit, but prior authorization requirements are “widespread” in rheumatology practices across treatment types, he and Dr. Phillips said.

“Some of our relatively inexpensive treatments are subject to prior authorization requirements,” Dr. Phillips said. “We hear stories about prednisone needing a prior authorization sometimes.”

With respect to infusible medications, the insurance subcommittee is hearing from ACR members about seemingly increasing numbers of both clinical coverage reviews – for example, reviews of prior treatments – and site-of-care restrictions, Dr. Phillips noted. “Some carriers are insisting on infusions in non-hospital-based settings, for cost savings, or on home infusions, which are concerning because of [possible] infusion reactions and medical service availability.”

The application of step therapy to rheumatologic patients is troubling because of the “often unique medical circumstances of the patient,” Dr. Phillips said. “There are enough differences among the [tumor necrosis factor] antagonists, for instance, that make one more appropriate for a certain patient than another. Those differences are not brought into consideration with these policies.”

There are other ways in which prior authorization processes “are not well informed medically,” he said, recalling a case brought to the attention of the subcommittee in which a patient prescribed a biologic drug for psoriatic arthritis was denied authorization because “the documentation did not include a [disease activity measure] that is specific to RA and not used for psoriatic arthritis.”

It is not uncommon for authorizations for infusible medications to take 2 weeks or longer to secure – even when initially approved. In the AMA’s 2018 Prior Authorization Physician Survey, 65% reported waiting at least 1 business day for a decision and 26% reported waiting at least 3 business days for responses. “With infusibles, we’re absolutely dealing with a much longer time,” Dr. Phillips said.

In Dr. Wallace’s study, the finding that prior authorizations facilitated greater prednisone-equivalent glucocorticoid exposure is important, he and his colleagues wrote, because these medications may put patients at higher risk of infection, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes – even in low doses and with short-term use. Notably, the median delay to the initiation of treatment was 29 days, regardless of prior authorization requirements. Dr. Wallace said the delays “likely reflect a combination of factors” – including infusion center waiting lists and patient-level factors – and that his team is “thinking about how to facilitate better access [to their practice’s infusion center] for those who are approved for treatment.”

The most common conditions for which infused medication was ordered were inflammatory arthritis (32%), vasculitis (23%), and IgG4-related disease (17%). The 225 patients in the study had an average age of 53 years.

Dr. Wallace reported that he has no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Wallace ZS et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 Sep 10. doi: 10.1002/acr.24062.

Rheumatologist Zachary S. Wallace, MD, knew just how prior authorization requirements were impacting his staff time and work flow when he embarked on a study several years ago. Managing authorizations for infusible medications alone was about to become a full-time job for one of the administrative assistants in the rheumatology unit at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

His research questions concerned patients. “There’s a lot of talk about how much onus prior authorization requirements put on providers and the practice,” Dr. Wallace said. ”I was interested in understanding what impact [these requirements] have on patients themselves.”

Dr. Wallace led a review of the EHRs of 225 patients for whom an infusible medication such as rituximab and infliximab was ordered by 1 of the 16 physicians in the rheumatology unit between July 2016 and June 2018. The findings – that patients who needed prior authorizations for infusible medications had a significantly longer time to treatment initiation and higher prednisone-equivalent glucocorticoid exposure – were reported online in Arthritis Care & Research.

Among patients whose authorizations were initially denied, these differences were “pretty drastic,” Dr. Wallace said. The median time to receiving a first infusion was 50 days, compared with 27 days when permission was not required, and glucocorticoid exposure during the 3 months following the request was 605 mg versus 160 mg.

Among patients whose authorizations were not denied, the median time to first infusion was 31 days, compared with 27 days when authorization was not required, and the mean glucocorticoid exposure over 3 months was 364 mg versus 160 mg.

“I hope that our findings will help facilitate discussions with insurance providers, pharmacy benefit managers, and state and federal legislators about the need to address the impact that prior authorization requirements have on patients and providers,” said Dr. Wallace, also of the clinical epidemiology program in the division of rheumatology, allergy and immunology at Massachusetts General, and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Of the 225 patients for whom an infusible medication was ordered, 71% required preauthorization. Of these, 79% were approved and 21% were denied after the first request. And in a finding that Dr. Wallace called “somewhat surprising,” 82% of the authorizations originally denied were approved after appeal.

All told, prior authorizations for infusible medications were eventually approved in all but a small number of cases. “We go through all this effort to get these prior authorizations approved, and 96% of the time, they were ultimately approved,” he said in an interview.

Christopher Phillips, MD, a community rheumatologist in Paducah, Ky., who serves as chair of the insurance subcommittee of the American College of Rheumatology’s committee on rheumatologic care, said the findings “give further credence” to rheumatologists’ concerns. “We know [from our own experiences] that prior authorizations delay care, and we know that delays can cause harm to patients. We now have hard data backing up this assertion.”

Regarding the high number of authorization approvals, “there’s an argument to be made that for certain treatments and certain conditions where the success rate of appeals is high enough, you shouldn’t be subjecting these treatments to these [preauthorization] policies,” he said.

Calls for prior authorization reform

Most patients in the study (71%) had private insurance. But the findings also have implications for Medicare, Dr. Wallace said, as recent federal policies have expanded Medicare Advantage plans’ authority to use prior authorization in conjunction with step therapy for medications administered under Part B. Step therapy favors primary use of what insurers deem the most cost-effective therapies.

The ACR is one of almost 370 physician, patient, and health care organizations that are urging Congress to pass a bipartisan bill aimed at streamlining and standardizing prior authorization under the Medicare Advantage program. The legislation – Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2019 (H.R. 3107) – was introduced by Reps. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), Mike Kelly (R-Pa.), Roger Marshall, MD (R-Kan.), and Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.).

The bill calls for the creation of an electronic prior authorization program and a “real-time process for items and services that are routinely approved,” as well as greater Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services oversight on how Medicare Advantage plans use prior authorization. Plans would be required to report to the CMS on the extent of their use of prior authorization and the rate of approvals or denials. They would also be held accountable for making timely prior authorization determinations and providing rationales for denials, according to a letter to Congress cosigned by the ACR.

In a press release about the legislation, Paula Marchetta, MD, president of the ACR, said that “the unregulated use of prior authorization has devolved into a time-consuming and obstructive process that often stalls or outright revokes patient access to medically necessary therapies.” She added that “many health care plans now use prior authorization indiscriminately.”

Cathryn Donaldson, director of communications for America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), said in an email that prior authorization is used for less than 15% of covered services, and that, along with step therapy, it “helps ensure that patients receive care that is safe, effective, and necessary.” AHIP “knows that prior authorization can be improved,” she said, and is committed to streamlining the process.

A demonstration project on the automation of various parts of prior authorization is being coordinated with health information technology companies, plans, and providers, she noted.

The federal legislation is based at least partly on a consensus statement drafted by AHIP, the American Medical Association, and four other organizations representing hospitals, medical groups, and health plans on ways to improve the prior authorization process. Among the items mentioned in the statement is that “regular review” of services subject to prior authorization could help identify therapies that “no longer warrant” prior authorization because of low denial rates.

Outside of Medicare Advantage, the AMA is aware of at least 85 bills being introduced in states this year that address utilization management in commercial plans. Nearly all these bills attempt to reform prior authorization programs in some way, according to R. J. Mills, media relations coordinator for the AMA.

Rheumatologic patients hard hit

Off-label medication use was the most common reason (82%) for a prior authorization denial in the Massachusetts General study, even though 78% of the patients for whom infusible medications were prescribed had a condition with no Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment. Having such a condition was associated with 120% or 190% higher odds of having a denial in unadjusted and adjusted (for age and sex) analyses, Dr. Wallace and colleagues reported.

Moreover, nearly half (48%) of the patients with denials had already tried or were currently taking an oral disease-modifying antirheumatic drug, such as methotrexate.

The majority of denials were for the use of rituximab (70%), followed by infliximab (12%) and tocilizumab (12%). Most of the denials (79%) were appealed successfully through a peer-to-peer discussion. In five cases, the insurer’s preferred drug (for example, adalimumab) had to be used rather than the requested infusion (for example, infliximab).

Infused medications, many of which are biologics, are among the most expensive drugs prescribed for patients with rheumatic diseases. They were easiest for Dr. Wallace to study because of the way prior authorizations are handled in his unit, but prior authorization requirements are “widespread” in rheumatology practices across treatment types, he and Dr. Phillips said.

“Some of our relatively inexpensive treatments are subject to prior authorization requirements,” Dr. Phillips said. “We hear stories about prednisone needing a prior authorization sometimes.”

With respect to infusible medications, the insurance subcommittee is hearing from ACR members about seemingly increasing numbers of both clinical coverage reviews – for example, reviews of prior treatments – and site-of-care restrictions, Dr. Phillips noted. “Some carriers are insisting on infusions in non-hospital-based settings, for cost savings, or on home infusions, which are concerning because of [possible] infusion reactions and medical service availability.”

The application of step therapy to rheumatologic patients is troubling because of the “often unique medical circumstances of the patient,” Dr. Phillips said. “There are enough differences among the [tumor necrosis factor] antagonists, for instance, that make one more appropriate for a certain patient than another. Those differences are not brought into consideration with these policies.”

There are other ways in which prior authorization processes “are not well informed medically,” he said, recalling a case brought to the attention of the subcommittee in which a patient prescribed a biologic drug for psoriatic arthritis was denied authorization because “the documentation did not include a [disease activity measure] that is specific to RA and not used for psoriatic arthritis.”

It is not uncommon for authorizations for infusible medications to take 2 weeks or longer to secure – even when initially approved. In the AMA’s 2018 Prior Authorization Physician Survey, 65% reported waiting at least 1 business day for a decision and 26% reported waiting at least 3 business days for responses. “With infusibles, we’re absolutely dealing with a much longer time,” Dr. Phillips said.

In Dr. Wallace’s study, the finding that prior authorizations facilitated greater prednisone-equivalent glucocorticoid exposure is important, he and his colleagues wrote, because these medications may put patients at higher risk of infection, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes – even in low doses and with short-term use. Notably, the median delay to the initiation of treatment was 29 days, regardless of prior authorization requirements. Dr. Wallace said the delays “likely reflect a combination of factors” – including infusion center waiting lists and patient-level factors – and that his team is “thinking about how to facilitate better access [to their practice’s infusion center] for those who are approved for treatment.”

The most common conditions for which infused medication was ordered were inflammatory arthritis (32%), vasculitis (23%), and IgG4-related disease (17%). The 225 patients in the study had an average age of 53 years.

Dr. Wallace reported that he has no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Wallace ZS et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 Sep 10. doi: 10.1002/acr.24062.

Rheumatologist Zachary S. Wallace, MD, knew just how prior authorization requirements were impacting his staff time and work flow when he embarked on a study several years ago. Managing authorizations for infusible medications alone was about to become a full-time job for one of the administrative assistants in the rheumatology unit at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

His research questions concerned patients. “There’s a lot of talk about how much onus prior authorization requirements put on providers and the practice,” Dr. Wallace said. ”I was interested in understanding what impact [these requirements] have on patients themselves.”

Dr. Wallace led a review of the EHRs of 225 patients for whom an infusible medication such as rituximab and infliximab was ordered by 1 of the 16 physicians in the rheumatology unit between July 2016 and June 2018. The findings – that patients who needed prior authorizations for infusible medications had a significantly longer time to treatment initiation and higher prednisone-equivalent glucocorticoid exposure – were reported online in Arthritis Care & Research.

Among patients whose authorizations were initially denied, these differences were “pretty drastic,” Dr. Wallace said. The median time to receiving a first infusion was 50 days, compared with 27 days when permission was not required, and glucocorticoid exposure during the 3 months following the request was 605 mg versus 160 mg.

Among patients whose authorizations were not denied, the median time to first infusion was 31 days, compared with 27 days when authorization was not required, and the mean glucocorticoid exposure over 3 months was 364 mg versus 160 mg.

“I hope that our findings will help facilitate discussions with insurance providers, pharmacy benefit managers, and state and federal legislators about the need to address the impact that prior authorization requirements have on patients and providers,” said Dr. Wallace, also of the clinical epidemiology program in the division of rheumatology, allergy and immunology at Massachusetts General, and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Of the 225 patients for whom an infusible medication was ordered, 71% required preauthorization. Of these, 79% were approved and 21% were denied after the first request. And in a finding that Dr. Wallace called “somewhat surprising,” 82% of the authorizations originally denied were approved after appeal.

All told, prior authorizations for infusible medications were eventually approved in all but a small number of cases. “We go through all this effort to get these prior authorizations approved, and 96% of the time, they were ultimately approved,” he said in an interview.

Christopher Phillips, MD, a community rheumatologist in Paducah, Ky., who serves as chair of the insurance subcommittee of the American College of Rheumatology’s committee on rheumatologic care, said the findings “give further credence” to rheumatologists’ concerns. “We know [from our own experiences] that prior authorizations delay care, and we know that delays can cause harm to patients. We now have hard data backing up this assertion.”

Regarding the high number of authorization approvals, “there’s an argument to be made that for certain treatments and certain conditions where the success rate of appeals is high enough, you shouldn’t be subjecting these treatments to these [preauthorization] policies,” he said.

Calls for prior authorization reform

Most patients in the study (71%) had private insurance. But the findings also have implications for Medicare, Dr. Wallace said, as recent federal policies have expanded Medicare Advantage plans’ authority to use prior authorization in conjunction with step therapy for medications administered under Part B. Step therapy favors primary use of what insurers deem the most cost-effective therapies.

The ACR is one of almost 370 physician, patient, and health care organizations that are urging Congress to pass a bipartisan bill aimed at streamlining and standardizing prior authorization under the Medicare Advantage program. The legislation – Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2019 (H.R. 3107) – was introduced by Reps. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), Mike Kelly (R-Pa.), Roger Marshall, MD (R-Kan.), and Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.).

The bill calls for the creation of an electronic prior authorization program and a “real-time process for items and services that are routinely approved,” as well as greater Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services oversight on how Medicare Advantage plans use prior authorization. Plans would be required to report to the CMS on the extent of their use of prior authorization and the rate of approvals or denials. They would also be held accountable for making timely prior authorization determinations and providing rationales for denials, according to a letter to Congress cosigned by the ACR.

In a press release about the legislation, Paula Marchetta, MD, president of the ACR, said that “the unregulated use of prior authorization has devolved into a time-consuming and obstructive process that often stalls or outright revokes patient access to medically necessary therapies.” She added that “many health care plans now use prior authorization indiscriminately.”

Cathryn Donaldson, director of communications for America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), said in an email that prior authorization is used for less than 15% of covered services, and that, along with step therapy, it “helps ensure that patients receive care that is safe, effective, and necessary.” AHIP “knows that prior authorization can be improved,” she said, and is committed to streamlining the process.

A demonstration project on the automation of various parts of prior authorization is being coordinated with health information technology companies, plans, and providers, she noted.

The federal legislation is based at least partly on a consensus statement drafted by AHIP, the American Medical Association, and four other organizations representing hospitals, medical groups, and health plans on ways to improve the prior authorization process. Among the items mentioned in the statement is that “regular review” of services subject to prior authorization could help identify therapies that “no longer warrant” prior authorization because of low denial rates.

Outside of Medicare Advantage, the AMA is aware of at least 85 bills being introduced in states this year that address utilization management in commercial plans. Nearly all these bills attempt to reform prior authorization programs in some way, according to R. J. Mills, media relations coordinator for the AMA.

Rheumatologic patients hard hit

Off-label medication use was the most common reason (82%) for a prior authorization denial in the Massachusetts General study, even though 78% of the patients for whom infusible medications were prescribed had a condition with no Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment. Having such a condition was associated with 120% or 190% higher odds of having a denial in unadjusted and adjusted (for age and sex) analyses, Dr. Wallace and colleagues reported.

Moreover, nearly half (48%) of the patients with denials had already tried or were currently taking an oral disease-modifying antirheumatic drug, such as methotrexate.

The majority of denials were for the use of rituximab (70%), followed by infliximab (12%) and tocilizumab (12%). Most of the denials (79%) were appealed successfully through a peer-to-peer discussion. In five cases, the insurer’s preferred drug (for example, adalimumab) had to be used rather than the requested infusion (for example, infliximab).

Infused medications, many of which are biologics, are among the most expensive drugs prescribed for patients with rheumatic diseases. They were easiest for Dr. Wallace to study because of the way prior authorizations are handled in his unit, but prior authorization requirements are “widespread” in rheumatology practices across treatment types, he and Dr. Phillips said.

“Some of our relatively inexpensive treatments are subject to prior authorization requirements,” Dr. Phillips said. “We hear stories about prednisone needing a prior authorization sometimes.”

With respect to infusible medications, the insurance subcommittee is hearing from ACR members about seemingly increasing numbers of both clinical coverage reviews – for example, reviews of prior treatments – and site-of-care restrictions, Dr. Phillips noted. “Some carriers are insisting on infusions in non-hospital-based settings, for cost savings, or on home infusions, which are concerning because of [possible] infusion reactions and medical service availability.”

The application of step therapy to rheumatologic patients is troubling because of the “often unique medical circumstances of the patient,” Dr. Phillips said. “There are enough differences among the [tumor necrosis factor] antagonists, for instance, that make one more appropriate for a certain patient than another. Those differences are not brought into consideration with these policies.”

There are other ways in which prior authorization processes “are not well informed medically,” he said, recalling a case brought to the attention of the subcommittee in which a patient prescribed a biologic drug for psoriatic arthritis was denied authorization because “the documentation did not include a [disease activity measure] that is specific to RA and not used for psoriatic arthritis.”

It is not uncommon for authorizations for infusible medications to take 2 weeks or longer to secure – even when initially approved. In the AMA’s 2018 Prior Authorization Physician Survey, 65% reported waiting at least 1 business day for a decision and 26% reported waiting at least 3 business days for responses. “With infusibles, we’re absolutely dealing with a much longer time,” Dr. Phillips said.

In Dr. Wallace’s study, the finding that prior authorizations facilitated greater prednisone-equivalent glucocorticoid exposure is important, he and his colleagues wrote, because these medications may put patients at higher risk of infection, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes – even in low doses and with short-term use. Notably, the median delay to the initiation of treatment was 29 days, regardless of prior authorization requirements. Dr. Wallace said the delays “likely reflect a combination of factors” – including infusion center waiting lists and patient-level factors – and that his team is “thinking about how to facilitate better access [to their practice’s infusion center] for those who are approved for treatment.”

The most common conditions for which infused medication was ordered were inflammatory arthritis (32%), vasculitis (23%), and IgG4-related disease (17%). The 225 patients in the study had an average age of 53 years.

Dr. Wallace reported that he has no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Wallace ZS et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 Sep 10. doi: 10.1002/acr.24062.

MINNEAPOLIS -- When William “Bill” Wachsman, MD, PhD, joined the executive board of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology earlier this decade, the organization revolved around its annual meeting. Now, AVAHO is expanding its horizons, and Dr. Wachsman plans to push for a wider focus and greater impact as its new president.

“We’re a group of like-minded individuals who came together about 15 years ago and said we want to take better care of our patients, coordinate our services, and better educate ourselves,” said Dr. Wachsman, a hematologist/oncologist with US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) San Diego Health Care System, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, and Moores Cancer Center. “We’re still dedicated to this mission. Moving forward, I want to improve educational opportunities, encourage our interest groups to develop initiatives, and utilize our foundation to support medical professionals and improve patient care within the VA.”

Dr. Wachsman took over as AVAHO’s president on the last day of the organization’s annual meeting in Minneapolis. He replaces immediate past president Mark Klein, MD, and will serve for 1 year.

According to Dr. Wachsman, AVAHO is unique among cancer/hematology associations because it’s not limited to physicians. “Everyone who’s involved with the care of patients with hematologic or oncologic disease can be involved. You don’t need to be an employee of the VA.”

Indeed, AVAHO’s approximately 800 members include medical oncologists and hematologists, surgical oncologists, radiation oncologists, pharmacists, nurses, nurse practitioners, advanced practice registered nurses, physician assistants, social workers, cancer registrars, and other allied health professionals.

AVAHO is also unique because it’s not a VA organization. “It’s an association of people are interested in better care for patients at the VA,” Dr. Wachsman said.

Over the next year, Dr. Wachsman hopes to form a community advisory board “that can not only give us advice, but reach out to other associations in the VA and in oncology to spread the word about what we’re doing.” Other forms of outreach can help AVAHO gain influence among policymakers, he said.

As for AVAHO’s foundation, he hopes to bring in funding through grants to support fellowship awards and to help VA sites around the nation develop infrastructure to support clinical trials.

On another national level, he said, AVAHO can improve its relationship with the VA with a goal of promoting honest and productive communication that goes both ways. “You have to get to know each other,” he said, “before you jump into the same pool and begin to swim.”

MINNEAPOLIS -- When William “Bill” Wachsman, MD, PhD, joined the executive board of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology earlier this decade, the organization revolved around its annual meeting. Now, AVAHO is expanding its horizons, and Dr. Wachsman plans to push for a wider focus and greater impact as its new president.

“We’re a group of like-minded individuals who came together about 15 years ago and said we want to take better care of our patients, coordinate our services, and better educate ourselves,” said Dr. Wachsman, a hematologist/oncologist with US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) San Diego Health Care System, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, and Moores Cancer Center. “We’re still dedicated to this mission. Moving forward, I want to improve educational opportunities, encourage our interest groups to develop initiatives, and utilize our foundation to support medical professionals and improve patient care within the VA.”

Dr. Wachsman took over as AVAHO’s president on the last day of the organization’s annual meeting in Minneapolis. He replaces immediate past president Mark Klein, MD, and will serve for 1 year.

According to Dr. Wachsman, AVAHO is unique among cancer/hematology associations because it’s not limited to physicians. “Everyone who’s involved with the care of patients with hematologic or oncologic disease can be involved. You don’t need to be an employee of the VA.”

Indeed, AVAHO’s approximately 800 members include medical oncologists and hematologists, surgical oncologists, radiation oncologists, pharmacists, nurses, nurse practitioners, advanced practice registered nurses, physician assistants, social workers, cancer registrars, and other allied health professionals.

AVAHO is also unique because it’s not a VA organization. “It’s an association of people are interested in better care for patients at the VA,” Dr. Wachsman said.

Over the next year, Dr. Wachsman hopes to form a community advisory board “that can not only give us advice, but reach out to other associations in the VA and in oncology to spread the word about what we’re doing.” Other forms of outreach can help AVAHO gain influence among policymakers, he said.

As for AVAHO’s foundation, he hopes to bring in funding through grants to support fellowship awards and to help VA sites around the nation develop infrastructure to support clinical trials.

On another national level, he said, AVAHO can improve its relationship with the VA with a goal of promoting honest and productive communication that goes both ways. “You have to get to know each other,” he said, “before you jump into the same pool and begin to swim.”

MINNEAPOLIS -- When William “Bill” Wachsman, MD, PhD, joined the executive board of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology earlier this decade, the organization revolved around its annual meeting. Now, AVAHO is expanding its horizons, and Dr. Wachsman plans to push for a wider focus and greater impact as its new president.

“We’re a group of like-minded individuals who came together about 15 years ago and said we want to take better care of our patients, coordinate our services, and better educate ourselves,” said Dr. Wachsman, a hematologist/oncologist with US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) San Diego Health Care System, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, and Moores Cancer Center. “We’re still dedicated to this mission. Moving forward, I want to improve educational opportunities, encourage our interest groups to develop initiatives, and utilize our foundation to support medical professionals and improve patient care within the VA.”

Dr. Wachsman took over as AVAHO’s president on the last day of the organization’s annual meeting in Minneapolis. He replaces immediate past president Mark Klein, MD, and will serve for 1 year.

According to Dr. Wachsman, AVAHO is unique among cancer/hematology associations because it’s not limited to physicians. “Everyone who’s involved with the care of patients with hematologic or oncologic disease can be involved. You don’t need to be an employee of the VA.”

Indeed, AVAHO’s approximately 800 members include medical oncologists and hematologists, surgical oncologists, radiation oncologists, pharmacists, nurses, nurse practitioners, advanced practice registered nurses, physician assistants, social workers, cancer registrars, and other allied health professionals.

AVAHO is also unique because it’s not a VA organization. “It’s an association of people are interested in better care for patients at the VA,” Dr. Wachsman said.

Over the next year, Dr. Wachsman hopes to form a community advisory board “that can not only give us advice, but reach out to other associations in the VA and in oncology to spread the word about what we’re doing.” Other forms of outreach can help AVAHO gain influence among policymakers, he said.

As for AVAHO’s foundation, he hopes to bring in funding through grants to support fellowship awards and to help VA sites around the nation develop infrastructure to support clinical trials.

On another national level, he said, AVAHO can improve its relationship with the VA with a goal of promoting honest and productive communication that goes both ways. “You have to get to know each other,” he said, “before you jump into the same pool and begin to swim.”

Here are 5 articles from the October issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. Bronchiolitis is a feared complication of connective tissue disease

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2klWpRb
Expires April 8, 2020

2. Stress incontinence surgery improves sexual dysfunction

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2m0wb71
Expires April 10, 2020

3. Survey finds psoriasis patients seek relief with alternative therapies

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2lZZDtO
Expires April 10, 2020

4. New data further suggest that stress does a number on the CV system

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2lR31ax
Expires April 11, 2020

5. Rate of objects ingested by young children increased over last two decades

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2mmYptb
Expires April 12, 2020

Here are 5 articles from the October issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. Bronchiolitis is a feared complication of connective tissue disease

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2klWpRb
Expires April 8, 2020

2. Stress incontinence surgery improves sexual dysfunction

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2m0wb71
Expires April 10, 2020

3. Survey finds psoriasis patients seek relief with alternative therapies

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2lZZDtO
Expires April 10, 2020

4. New data further suggest that stress does a number on the CV system

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2lR31ax
Expires April 11, 2020

5. Rate of objects ingested by young children increased over last two decades

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2mmYptb
Expires April 12, 2020

Here are 5 articles from the October issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. Bronchiolitis is a feared complication of connective tissue disease

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2klWpRb
Expires April 8, 2020

2. Stress incontinence surgery improves sexual dysfunction

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2m0wb71
Expires April 10, 2020

3. Survey finds psoriasis patients seek relief with alternative therapies

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2lZZDtO
Expires April 10, 2020

4. New data further suggest that stress does a number on the CV system

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2lR31ax
Expires April 11, 2020

5. Rate of objects ingested by young children increased over last two decades

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2mmYptb
Expires April 12, 2020

MINNEAPOLIS -- Picture this: A patient with cancer wants to get better and needs your help. But he or she refuses to hear the prognosis or understand the treatment options. The patient, in essence, has embraced a personal don’t-ask, don’t-tell policy.

What should you do as a medical professional? Get help from a psychologist and consider the ethics of the situation, advised a VA psychologist in a presentation at the September 2019 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology.

Alyssa Ford, PhD, psychosocial oncology coordinator at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System in Pennsylvania, said she has faced this situation. “We didn’t know the staging yet, but the veteran did not want to know about their prognosis or the treatment options,” she recalled. “They just wanted to fight this cancer.”

At issue in this case, she said, is this question: “What do we do when a patient opts out about receiving sufficient information to make an informed choice?”

As she explained, the key is to understand the person’s capacity—the ability to make an informed decision. “It can be assessed by any licensed health care provider who understands the components of capacity and is able to assess them.”

Ford evaluates a patient’s capacity by analyzing whether he or she can perform 4 tasks: Make decisions, live independently, manage finances, and grant power of attorney.  “Often,” she said, “they have 1 but not all.” 

Other components of capacity include the ability to understand one’s medical situation, an appreciation of the pros and cons of treatment options, the consistency of choices over time, and the ability to reason. “Can the patient consider the risks and benefits of each option and consider quality of life vs quantity of life in light of their own cultural identity and personal values?”

Keep in mind that levels of capacity can change over time, Ford said, and remember that these judgements are not arbitrary or punitive.

When someone doesn’t have capacity, she said, “it doesn’t necessarily tell us why or whether it will come back. But it does say they can’t provide informed consent.”

What happened to the determinedly reluctant patient who simply wanted to “fight” and not make decisions?

“The oncology provider chose to have the psychology provider in the room while staging information and prognosis was shared,” Ford said in an interview following her presentation. “And the psychology provider assisted with ensuring that the veteran received education in simple terms and in promoting active coping.”

In addition, she said, “the psychologist provider also spent several minutes after the visit giving the veteran an opportunity to discuss their feelings. And the provider physically escorted the veteran to the laboratory to ensure that the impact of receiving difficult news did not impair mood or cognition to the point that the veteran left the medical center instead of engaging in the next step of needed medical care.”

Ford reports no relevant disclosures.

MINNEAPOLIS -- Picture this: A patient with cancer wants to get better and needs your help. But he or she refuses to hear the prognosis or understand the treatment options. The patient, in essence, has embraced a personal don’t-ask, don’t-tell policy.

What should you do as a medical professional? Get help from a psychologist and consider the ethics of the situation, advised a VA psychologist in a presentation at the September 2019 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology.

Alyssa Ford, PhD, psychosocial oncology coordinator at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System in Pennsylvania, said she has faced this situation. “We didn’t know the staging yet, but the veteran did not want to know about their prognosis or the treatment options,” she recalled. “They just wanted to fight this cancer.”

At issue in this case, she said, is this question: “What do we do when a patient opts out about receiving sufficient information to make an informed choice?”

As she explained, the key is to understand the person’s capacity—the ability to make an informed decision. “It can be assessed by any licensed health care provider who understands the components of capacity and is able to assess them.”

Ford evaluates a patient’s capacity by analyzing whether he or she can perform 4 tasks: Make decisions, live independently, manage finances, and grant power of attorney.  “Often,” she said, “they have 1 but not all.” 

Other components of capacity include the ability to understand one’s medical situation, an appreciation of the pros and cons of treatment options, the consistency of choices over time, and the ability to reason. “Can the patient consider the risks and benefits of each option and consider quality of life vs quantity of life in light of their own cultural identity and personal values?”

Keep in mind that levels of capacity can change over time, Ford said, and remember that these judgements are not arbitrary or punitive.

When someone doesn’t have capacity, she said, “it doesn’t necessarily tell us why or whether it will come back. But it does say they can’t provide informed consent.”

What happened to the determinedly reluctant patient who simply wanted to “fight” and not make decisions?

“The oncology provider chose to have the psychology provider in the room while staging information and prognosis was shared,” Ford said in an interview following her presentation. “And the psychology provider assisted with ensuring that the veteran received education in simple terms and in promoting active coping.”

In addition, she said, “the psychologist provider also spent several minutes after the visit giving the veteran an opportunity to discuss their feelings. And the provider physically escorted the veteran to the laboratory to ensure that the impact of receiving difficult news did not impair mood or cognition to the point that the veteran left the medical center instead of engaging in the next step of needed medical care.”

Ford reports no relevant disclosures.

MINNEAPOLIS -- Picture this: A patient with cancer wants to get better and needs your help. But he or she refuses to hear the prognosis or understand the treatment options. The patient, in essence, has embraced a personal don’t-ask, don’t-tell policy.

What should you do as a medical professional? Get help from a psychologist and consider the ethics of the situation, advised a VA psychologist in a presentation at the September 2019 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology.

Alyssa Ford, PhD, psychosocial oncology coordinator at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System in Pennsylvania, said she has faced this situation. “We didn’t know the staging yet, but the veteran did not want to know about their prognosis or the treatment options,” she recalled. “They just wanted to fight this cancer.”

At issue in this case, she said, is this question: “What do we do when a patient opts out about receiving sufficient information to make an informed choice?”

As she explained, the key is to understand the person’s capacity—the ability to make an informed decision. “It can be assessed by any licensed health care provider who understands the components of capacity and is able to assess them.”

Ford evaluates a patient’s capacity by analyzing whether he or she can perform 4 tasks: Make decisions, live independently, manage finances, and grant power of attorney.  “Often,” she said, “they have 1 but not all.” 

Other components of capacity include the ability to understand one’s medical situation, an appreciation of the pros and cons of treatment options, the consistency of choices over time, and the ability to reason. “Can the patient consider the risks and benefits of each option and consider quality of life vs quantity of life in light of their own cultural identity and personal values?”

Keep in mind that levels of capacity can change over time, Ford said, and remember that these judgements are not arbitrary or punitive.

When someone doesn’t have capacity, she said, “it doesn’t necessarily tell us why or whether it will come back. But it does say they can’t provide informed consent.”

What happened to the determinedly reluctant patient who simply wanted to “fight” and not make decisions?

“The oncology provider chose to have the psychology provider in the room while staging information and prognosis was shared,” Ford said in an interview following her presentation. “And the psychology provider assisted with ensuring that the veteran received education in simple terms and in promoting active coping.”

In addition, she said, “the psychologist provider also spent several minutes after the visit giving the veteran an opportunity to discuss their feelings. And the provider physically escorted the veteran to the laboratory to ensure that the impact of receiving difficult news did not impair mood or cognition to the point that the veteran left the medical center instead of engaging in the next step of needed medical care.”

Ford reports no relevant disclosures.

The significant increase in developmental disability prevalence in U.S. children from 2009 to 2017 may have been driven by factors such as better identification and availability of services, according to analysis of National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data.

The prevalence of any developmental disability rose from 16% in 2009 to 18% in 2017 in children aged 3-17 years, for an increase of 9.5%, Benjamin Zablotsky, PhD, of the National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, Md., and associates reported in Pediatrics.

Changes among the various conditions were not uniform, however, and most of the increase came from ADHD, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and intellectual disability, which were up by 12.6%, 122.3%, and 25.8%, respectively, they said, based on data for 88,530 children from the NHIS.

Because other studies have shown that the “prevalence of ADHD symptoms and impairment has remained steady over time,” the increase according to NHIS data “could be driven by better identification of children who meet criteria for ADHD, as current estimates of diagnosed prevalence are in line with community-based studies,” Dr. Zablotsky and associates wrote.

Improved identification, “related to increasing parental awareness and changing provider practices” also may account for much of the rise in ASD prevalence, they said.

It also may be related to changes in the survey itself, as “an increase of about 80% was seen in the 2014 NHIS following changes to the wording and ordering of the question capturing ASD.”

The investigators offered a similar explanation for the increase in intellectual disability prevalence, which increased by 72% from 2011 to 2013 when the phrasing of the NHIS question was changed from “mental retardation” to “intellectual disability, also known as mental retardation.”

The other specific conditions – blindness, cerebral palsy, hearing loss, learning disability, seizures, and stuttering/stammering – all saw nonsignificant changes during the study period, with one exception. “Other developmental delay” dropped by a significant 13%. “It is possible that parents have become less likely to select this category because their children have increasingly been diagnosed with another specified condition on the survey,” Dr. Zablotsky and associates said.

“These findings have major implications for pediatric training and workforce needs and more broadly for public health policies and resources to meet the complex medical and educational needs of the rising number of children with disabilities and their families,” Maureen S. Durkin, PhD, DrPH, said in an accompanying editorial.

The trends reported by Dr. Zablotsky and associates, which have been seen in other countries, are the result of improved survival among children, so, “in this sense, a rise in the prevalence of developmental disabilities may be seen as a global indicator of progress in children’s health and pediatric care,” said Dr. Durkin, a epidemiologist in Madison, Wis.

Dr. Zablotsky and coauthors said that there was no external funding for the study and that they had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Durkin said that she had no potential conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCES: Zablotsky B et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Sep 26. 144(4):e20190811. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-0811; Durkin MS. Pediatrics. 2019 Sep 26. 144[4]:e20192005. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2005.

The significant increase in developmental disability prevalence in U.S. children from 2009 to 2017 may have been driven by factors such as better identification and availability of services, according to analysis of National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data.

The prevalence of any developmental disability rose from 16% in 2009 to 18% in 2017 in children aged 3-17 years, for an increase of 9.5%, Benjamin Zablotsky, PhD, of the National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, Md., and associates reported in Pediatrics.

Changes among the various conditions were not uniform, however, and most of the increase came from ADHD, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and intellectual disability, which were up by 12.6%, 122.3%, and 25.8%, respectively, they said, based on data for 88,530 children from the NHIS.

Because other studies have shown that the “prevalence of ADHD symptoms and impairment has remained steady over time,” the increase according to NHIS data “could be driven by better identification of children who meet criteria for ADHD, as current estimates of diagnosed prevalence are in line with community-based studies,” Dr. Zablotsky and associates wrote.

Improved identification, “related to increasing parental awareness and changing provider practices” also may account for much of the rise in ASD prevalence, they said.

It also may be related to changes in the survey itself, as “an increase of about 80% was seen in the 2014 NHIS following changes to the wording and ordering of the question capturing ASD.”

The investigators offered a similar explanation for the increase in intellectual disability prevalence, which increased by 72% from 2011 to 2013 when the phrasing of the NHIS question was changed from “mental retardation” to “intellectual disability, also known as mental retardation.”

The other specific conditions – blindness, cerebral palsy, hearing loss, learning disability, seizures, and stuttering/stammering – all saw nonsignificant changes during the study period, with one exception. “Other developmental delay” dropped by a significant 13%. “It is possible that parents have become less likely to select this category because their children have increasingly been diagnosed with another specified condition on the survey,” Dr. Zablotsky and associates said.

“These findings have major implications for pediatric training and workforce needs and more broadly for public health policies and resources to meet the complex medical and educational needs of the rising number of children with disabilities and their families,” Maureen S. Durkin, PhD, DrPH, said in an accompanying editorial.

The trends reported by Dr. Zablotsky and associates, which have been seen in other countries, are the result of improved survival among children, so, “in this sense, a rise in the prevalence of developmental disabilities may be seen as a global indicator of progress in children’s health and pediatric care,” said Dr. Durkin, a epidemiologist in Madison, Wis.

Dr. Zablotsky and coauthors said that there was no external funding for the study and that they had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Durkin said that she had no potential conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCES: Zablotsky B et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Sep 26. 144(4):e20190811. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-0811; Durkin MS. Pediatrics. 2019 Sep 26. 144[4]:e20192005. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2005.

The significant increase in developmental disability prevalence in U.S. children from 2009 to 2017 may have been driven by factors such as better identification and availability of services, according to analysis of National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data.

The prevalence of any developmental disability rose from 16% in 2009 to 18% in 2017 in children aged 3-17 years, for an increase of 9.5%, Benjamin Zablotsky, PhD, of the National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, Md., and associates reported in Pediatrics.

Changes among the various conditions were not uniform, however, and most of the increase came from ADHD, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and intellectual disability, which were up by 12.6%, 122.3%, and 25.8%, respectively, they said, based on data for 88,530 children from the NHIS.

Because other studies have shown that the “prevalence of ADHD symptoms and impairment has remained steady over time,” the increase according to NHIS data “could be driven by better identification of children who meet criteria for ADHD, as current estimates of diagnosed prevalence are in line with community-based studies,” Dr. Zablotsky and associates wrote.

Improved identification, “related to increasing parental awareness and changing provider practices” also may account for much of the rise in ASD prevalence, they said.

It also may be related to changes in the survey itself, as “an increase of about 80% was seen in the 2014 NHIS following changes to the wording and ordering of the question capturing ASD.”

The investigators offered a similar explanation for the increase in intellectual disability prevalence, which increased by 72% from 2011 to 2013 when the phrasing of the NHIS question was changed from “mental retardation” to “intellectual disability, also known as mental retardation.”

The other specific conditions – blindness, cerebral palsy, hearing loss, learning disability, seizures, and stuttering/stammering – all saw nonsignificant changes during the study period, with one exception. “Other developmental delay” dropped by a significant 13%. “It is possible that parents have become less likely to select this category because their children have increasingly been diagnosed with another specified condition on the survey,” Dr. Zablotsky and associates said.

“These findings have major implications for pediatric training and workforce needs and more broadly for public health policies and resources to meet the complex medical and educational needs of the rising number of children with disabilities and their families,” Maureen S. Durkin, PhD, DrPH, said in an accompanying editorial.

The trends reported by Dr. Zablotsky and associates, which have been seen in other countries, are the result of improved survival among children, so, “in this sense, a rise in the prevalence of developmental disabilities may be seen as a global indicator of progress in children’s health and pediatric care,” said Dr. Durkin, a epidemiologist in Madison, Wis.

Dr. Zablotsky and coauthors said that there was no external funding for the study and that they had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Durkin said that she had no potential conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCES: Zablotsky B et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Sep 26. 144(4):e20190811. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-0811; Durkin MS. Pediatrics. 2019 Sep 26. 144[4]:e20192005. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2005.

A 39-year-old woman presents with red vascular streaks on her upper and lower lips. They have slowly multiplied and become more prominent since she first noticed them several years ago. Although the lesions are asymptomatic, their effect on her appearance bothers the patient.

Her primary care provider tried to resolve the problem with cryotherapy. But the treatment attempt was unsuccessful.

During history-taking, the patient divulges other existing health problems. She has been diagnosed with Raynaud syndrome, which flares several times a year, especially in cold weather or times of exceptional stress. She also has permanent thickening of the skin on her distal fingers, a result of sudden-onset swelling of all 10 fingers several years ago.

She denies any problems with eating, such as heartburn or difficulty swallowing. She also denies any respiratory problems or chronic fatigue.

EXAMINATION
Seven very slender telangiectasias, most aligned vertically, are seen on the upper and lower vermillion surfaces. They range from a pinpoint to 6 mm in length. There are no similar lesions are on the rest of the oral mucosae, the face, or the chest.

The patient’s fingers, from the metacarpals to the tips, are decidedly edematous and firm but not tender. Several fingertips are scarred from past Raynaud episodes.

The patient looks her stated age and is in no distress.

What’s the diagnosis?

DISCUSSION
This patient almost certainly has CREST syndrome, a limited form of systemic sclerosis (or scleroderma). Both represent an autoimmune process in which antibodies attack cell DNA and centromeres (a component of the cell nucleus).

CREST can be difficult to diagnose because it can involve diverse organ systems. The name of the syndrome is an acronym for the symptoms it causes:

Calcinosis is a deposition of calcium triggered by inflammation. It manifests as small subcutaneous nodules, which are usually felt on the hands or seen on radiographs of the hands.

Raynaud syndrome causes intense vasoconstriction of blood vessels, usually in fingertips or toes, which first turn white, then red. The phenomenon is accompanied by pain and can be triggered by cold or stress.

Esophageal dysmotility occurs when atrophy and/or fibrosis of the esophageal lining leads to difficulty swallowing food.

Sclerodactyly is the term for tightening and thickening of the skin on the hands and fingers.

Telangiectasias are dilated capillaries that can worsen with time; they are common on lips, mucosal surfaces, the face, and the chest. They are often associated with vascular disease (eg, pulmonary hypertension).

Any of these signs can be seen with full-blown systemic sclerosis, but CREST is usually much less aggressive and seldom leads to renal or congestive heart failure—the 2 leading causes of death in systemic sclerosis.

Diagnosis is based on recognition of the clinical signs and symptoms, as well as blood work (ie, antinuclear antibody and anti-centromere antibody tests). A skin biopsy is often performed to confirm the diagnosis.

Since there is no effective treatment for the overarching disease, the specific components of CREST are treated separately. For this patient, her lip lesions were treated with light electrodessication. Another option would have been laser treatment.

TAKE-HOME LEARNING POINTS

• CREST syndrome, a limited form of systemic sclerosis, is a rare autoimmune condition caused by antibodies to cellular DNA and nuclear centromeres.
• CREST is an acronym for the symptomatic manifestations of the condition: calcinosis, Raynaud disease, esophageal dysmotility, sclerodactyly, and telangiectasias.
• Diagnosis is based on connecting the clinical dots and taking a thorough history, as well as lab results (for antinuclear antibodies and anti-centromere antibodies) and a skin biopsy.
• CREST is usually treated symptomatically, one system at a time, since no definitive treatment exists for the disease itself.

A 39-year-old woman presents with red vascular streaks on her upper and lower lips. They have slowly multiplied and become more prominent since she first noticed them several years ago. Although the lesions are asymptomatic, their effect on her appearance bothers the patient.

Her primary care provider tried to resolve the problem with cryotherapy. But the treatment attempt was unsuccessful.

During history-taking, the patient divulges other existing health problems. She has been diagnosed with Raynaud syndrome, which flares several times a year, especially in cold weather or times of exceptional stress. She also has permanent thickening of the skin on her distal fingers, a result of sudden-onset swelling of all 10 fingers several years ago.

She denies any problems with eating, such as heartburn or difficulty swallowing. She also denies any respiratory problems or chronic fatigue.

EXAMINATION
Seven very slender telangiectasias, most aligned vertically, are seen on the upper and lower vermillion surfaces. They range from a pinpoint to 6 mm in length. There are no similar lesions are on the rest of the oral mucosae, the face, or the chest.

The patient’s fingers, from the metacarpals to the tips, are decidedly edematous and firm but not tender. Several fingertips are scarred from past Raynaud episodes.

The patient looks her stated age and is in no distress.

What’s the diagnosis?

DISCUSSION
This patient almost certainly has CREST syndrome, a limited form of systemic sclerosis (or scleroderma). Both represent an autoimmune process in which antibodies attack cell DNA and centromeres (a component of the cell nucleus).

CREST can be difficult to diagnose because it can involve diverse organ systems. The name of the syndrome is an acronym for the symptoms it causes:

Calcinosis is a deposition of calcium triggered by inflammation. It manifests as small subcutaneous nodules, which are usually felt on the hands or seen on radiographs of the hands.

Raynaud syndrome causes intense vasoconstriction of blood vessels, usually in fingertips or toes, which first turn white, then red. The phenomenon is accompanied by pain and can be triggered by cold or stress.

Esophageal dysmotility occurs when atrophy and/or fibrosis of the esophageal lining leads to difficulty swallowing food.

Sclerodactyly is the term for tightening and thickening of the skin on the hands and fingers.

Telangiectasias are dilated capillaries that can worsen with time; they are common on lips, mucosal surfaces, the face, and the chest. They are often associated with vascular disease (eg, pulmonary hypertension).

Any of these signs can be seen with full-blown systemic sclerosis, but CREST is usually much less aggressive and seldom leads to renal or congestive heart failure—the 2 leading causes of death in systemic sclerosis.

Diagnosis is based on recognition of the clinical signs and symptoms, as well as blood work (ie, antinuclear antibody and anti-centromere antibody tests). A skin biopsy is often performed to confirm the diagnosis.

Since there is no effective treatment for the overarching disease, the specific components of CREST are treated separately. For this patient, her lip lesions were treated with light electrodessication. Another option would have been laser treatment.

TAKE-HOME LEARNING POINTS

• CREST syndrome, a limited form of systemic sclerosis, is a rare autoimmune condition caused by antibodies to cellular DNA and nuclear centromeres.
• CREST is an acronym for the symptomatic manifestations of the condition: calcinosis, Raynaud disease, esophageal dysmotility, sclerodactyly, and telangiectasias.
• Diagnosis is based on connecting the clinical dots and taking a thorough history, as well as lab results (for antinuclear antibodies and anti-centromere antibodies) and a skin biopsy.
• CREST is usually treated symptomatically, one system at a time, since no definitive treatment exists for the disease itself.

A 39-year-old woman presents with red vascular streaks on her upper and lower lips. They have slowly multiplied and become more prominent since she first noticed them several years ago. Although the lesions are asymptomatic, their effect on her appearance bothers the patient.

Her primary care provider tried to resolve the problem with cryotherapy. But the treatment attempt was unsuccessful.

During history-taking, the patient divulges other existing health problems. She has been diagnosed with Raynaud syndrome, which flares several times a year, especially in cold weather or times of exceptional stress. She also has permanent thickening of the skin on her distal fingers, a result of sudden-onset swelling of all 10 fingers several years ago.

She denies any problems with eating, such as heartburn or difficulty swallowing. She also denies any respiratory problems or chronic fatigue.

EXAMINATION
Seven very slender telangiectasias, most aligned vertically, are seen on the upper and lower vermillion surfaces. They range from a pinpoint to 6 mm in length. There are no similar lesions are on the rest of the oral mucosae, the face, or the chest.

The patient’s fingers, from the metacarpals to the tips, are decidedly edematous and firm but not tender. Several fingertips are scarred from past Raynaud episodes.

The patient looks her stated age and is in no distress.

What’s the diagnosis?

DISCUSSION
This patient almost certainly has CREST syndrome, a limited form of systemic sclerosis (or scleroderma). Both represent an autoimmune process in which antibodies attack cell DNA and centromeres (a component of the cell nucleus).

CREST can be difficult to diagnose because it can involve diverse organ systems. The name of the syndrome is an acronym for the symptoms it causes:

Calcinosis is a deposition of calcium triggered by inflammation. It manifests as small subcutaneous nodules, which are usually felt on the hands or seen on radiographs of the hands.

Raynaud syndrome causes intense vasoconstriction of blood vessels, usually in fingertips or toes, which first turn white, then red. The phenomenon is accompanied by pain and can be triggered by cold or stress.

Esophageal dysmotility occurs when atrophy and/or fibrosis of the esophageal lining leads to difficulty swallowing food.

Sclerodactyly is the term for tightening and thickening of the skin on the hands and fingers.

Telangiectasias are dilated capillaries that can worsen with time; they are common on lips, mucosal surfaces, the face, and the chest. They are often associated with vascular disease (eg, pulmonary hypertension).

Any of these signs can be seen with full-blown systemic sclerosis, but CREST is usually much less aggressive and seldom leads to renal or congestive heart failure—the 2 leading causes of death in systemic sclerosis.

Diagnosis is based on recognition of the clinical signs and symptoms, as well as blood work (ie, antinuclear antibody and anti-centromere antibody tests). A skin biopsy is often performed to confirm the diagnosis.

Since there is no effective treatment for the overarching disease, the specific components of CREST are treated separately. For this patient, her lip lesions were treated with light electrodessication. Another option would have been laser treatment.

TAKE-HOME LEARNING POINTS

• CREST syndrome, a limited form of systemic sclerosis, is a rare autoimmune condition caused by antibodies to cellular DNA and nuclear centromeres.
• CREST is an acronym for the symptomatic manifestations of the condition: calcinosis, Raynaud disease, esophageal dysmotility, sclerodactyly, and telangiectasias.
• Diagnosis is based on connecting the clinical dots and taking a thorough history, as well as lab results (for antinuclear antibodies and anti-centromere antibodies) and a skin biopsy.
• CREST is usually treated symptomatically, one system at a time, since no definitive treatment exists for the disease itself.