TOPLINE:

Exposure to air pollutants is linked to emergency hospital admissions for stroke shortly after the exposure, with the risk being pronounced in men and individuals aged less than 65 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Limited studies have investigated the association between hourly exposure to air pollutants and specific stroke subtypes, especially in regions with moderate to high levels of air pollution.
• The multicenter case-crossover study evaluated the association between hourly exposure to air pollution and stroke among 86,635 emergency admissions for stroke across 10 hospitals in 3 cities.
• Of 86,635 admissions, 79,478 were admitted for ischemic stroke, 3,122 for hemorrhagic stroke, and 4,035 for undetermined type of stroke.
• Hourly levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), respirable PM (PM10), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) were collected from the China National Environmental Monitoring Center.

TAKEAWAY:

• Exposure to NO2 and SO2 increased the risk for emergency admission for stroke shortly after exposure by 3.34% (95% confidence interval, 1.41%-5.31%) and 2.81% (95% CI, 1.15%-4.51%), respectively.
• Among men, exposure to PM2.5 and PM10 increased the risk for emergency admission for stroke by 3.40% (95% CI, 1.21%-5.64%) and 4.33% (95% CI, 2.18%-6.53%), respectively.
• Among patients aged less than 65 years, exposure to PM10 and NO2 increased the risk for emergency admissions for stroke shortly after exposure by 4.88% (95% CI, 2.29%-7.54%) and 5.59% (95% CI, 2.34%-8.93%), respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“These variations in susceptibility highlight the importance of implementing effective health protection measures to reduce exposure to air pollution and mitigate the risk of stroke in younger and male populations,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Xin Lv, MD, department of epidemiology and biostatistics, School of Public Health, Capital Medical University, Beijing. It was published online in the journal Stroke.

LIMITATIONS:

• Using data from the nearest monitoring site to the hospital address may lead to localized variations in pollution concentrations when assessing exposure.
• There may be a possibility of residual confounding resulting from time-varying lifestyle-related factors.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Zhejiang Provincial Project for Medical Research and Health Sciences. No disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Exposure to air pollutants is linked to emergency hospital admissions for stroke shortly after the exposure, with the risk being pronounced in men and individuals aged less than 65 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Limited studies have investigated the association between hourly exposure to air pollutants and specific stroke subtypes, especially in regions with moderate to high levels of air pollution.
• The multicenter case-crossover study evaluated the association between hourly exposure to air pollution and stroke among 86,635 emergency admissions for stroke across 10 hospitals in 3 cities.
• Of 86,635 admissions, 79,478 were admitted for ischemic stroke, 3,122 for hemorrhagic stroke, and 4,035 for undetermined type of stroke.
• Hourly levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), respirable PM (PM10), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) were collected from the China National Environmental Monitoring Center.

TAKEAWAY:

• Exposure to NO2 and SO2 increased the risk for emergency admission for stroke shortly after exposure by 3.34% (95% confidence interval, 1.41%-5.31%) and 2.81% (95% CI, 1.15%-4.51%), respectively.
• Among men, exposure to PM2.5 and PM10 increased the risk for emergency admission for stroke by 3.40% (95% CI, 1.21%-5.64%) and 4.33% (95% CI, 2.18%-6.53%), respectively.
• Among patients aged less than 65 years, exposure to PM10 and NO2 increased the risk for emergency admissions for stroke shortly after exposure by 4.88% (95% CI, 2.29%-7.54%) and 5.59% (95% CI, 2.34%-8.93%), respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“These variations in susceptibility highlight the importance of implementing effective health protection measures to reduce exposure to air pollution and mitigate the risk of stroke in younger and male populations,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Xin Lv, MD, department of epidemiology and biostatistics, School of Public Health, Capital Medical University, Beijing. It was published online in the journal Stroke.

LIMITATIONS:

• Using data from the nearest monitoring site to the hospital address may lead to localized variations in pollution concentrations when assessing exposure.
• There may be a possibility of residual confounding resulting from time-varying lifestyle-related factors.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Zhejiang Provincial Project for Medical Research and Health Sciences. No disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Exposure to air pollutants is linked to emergency hospital admissions for stroke shortly after the exposure, with the risk being pronounced in men and individuals aged less than 65 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Limited studies have investigated the association between hourly exposure to air pollutants and specific stroke subtypes, especially in regions with moderate to high levels of air pollution.
• The multicenter case-crossover study evaluated the association between hourly exposure to air pollution and stroke among 86,635 emergency admissions for stroke across 10 hospitals in 3 cities.
• Of 86,635 admissions, 79,478 were admitted for ischemic stroke, 3,122 for hemorrhagic stroke, and 4,035 for undetermined type of stroke.
• Hourly levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), respirable PM (PM10), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) were collected from the China National Environmental Monitoring Center.

TAKEAWAY:

• Exposure to NO2 and SO2 increased the risk for emergency admission for stroke shortly after exposure by 3.34% (95% confidence interval, 1.41%-5.31%) and 2.81% (95% CI, 1.15%-4.51%), respectively.
• Among men, exposure to PM2.5 and PM10 increased the risk for emergency admission for stroke by 3.40% (95% CI, 1.21%-5.64%) and 4.33% (95% CI, 2.18%-6.53%), respectively.
• Among patients aged less than 65 years, exposure to PM10 and NO2 increased the risk for emergency admissions for stroke shortly after exposure by 4.88% (95% CI, 2.29%-7.54%) and 5.59% (95% CI, 2.34%-8.93%), respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“These variations in susceptibility highlight the importance of implementing effective health protection measures to reduce exposure to air pollution and mitigate the risk of stroke in younger and male populations,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Xin Lv, MD, department of epidemiology and biostatistics, School of Public Health, Capital Medical University, Beijing. It was published online in the journal Stroke.

LIMITATIONS:

• Using data from the nearest monitoring site to the hospital address may lead to localized variations in pollution concentrations when assessing exposure.
• There may be a possibility of residual confounding resulting from time-varying lifestyle-related factors.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Zhejiang Provincial Project for Medical Research and Health Sciences. No disclosures were reported.

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

A 49-year-old woman, previously recuperating from COVID-19, was found unconscious at her workplace, setting off a chain of events that would ultimately lead to an unexpected diagnosis.

This case report was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Noting the patient’s confusion and aphasia, emergency medical services were alerted, and she was taken to the emergency department of Massachusetts General Hospital. Initial examination revealed aphasia and coordination difficulties. However, imaging studies, including CT angiography, showed no signs of stroke or other neurological abnormalities.

The patient’s coworkers had observed that she appeared “unwell.” Her medical history included hypertension, which was managed with amlodipine, and there was no known family history of neurologic disorders.

During the examination, her vital signs were within normal ranges.

The patient’s potassium level of 2.5 mmol/L was noteworthy, indicating hypokalemia. Additionally, the patient presented with anemia and thrombocytopenia. Additional laboratory results unveiled thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP), a rare blood disorder characterized by microangiopathic hemolytic anemia. The microscopic examination of a peripheral blood smear confirmed the extent of thrombocytopenia and was particularly notable for the increased number of schistocytes. The patient’s peripheral blood smear revealed five or six schistocytes per high-power field, constituting approximately 5% of the red cells. This significant number of schistocytes aligned with the severity of anemia and thrombocytopenia, confirming the diagnosis of microangiopathic hemolytic anemia.

Acquired TTP is an autoimmune condition driven by antibody-mediated clearance of the plasma enzyme ADAMTS13 (a disintegrin and metalloproteinase with thrombospondin motif 13). Confirmatory laboratory testing for ADAMTS13 takes 1-3 days; therefore, therapeutic plasma exchange with glucocorticoid therapy and rituximab was initiated, which promptly improved her condition.

In this patient, the ADAMTS13 activity level was severely reduced (< 5%; reference value > 67%), and the inhibitor was present (1.4 inhibitor units; reference value ≤ 0.4).

Rectal cancer was diagnosed in this patient 2 months after the diagnosis of acquired TTP.

After undergoing four weekly infusions of rituximab and a 2-month tapering course of glucocorticoids, the patient experienced a relapse, approximately 6 months following the acquired TTP diagnosis. In response, therapeutic plasma exchange and glucocorticoid therapy were administered. There is a possibility that the underlying cancer played a role in the relapse. To minimize the risk for recurrence, the patient also received a second round of rituximab.

While establishing a clear cause is difficult, acquired TTP often appears to arise in connection with either an immune trigger, such as a viral infection, or immune dysregulation associated with another autoimmune disease or ongoing cancer. In this case, 4 weeks before the acquired TTP diagnosis, the patient had experienced COVID-19, which was likely to be the most probable trigger. However, rectal cancer was also identified in the patient, and whether these conditions are directly linked remains unclear.

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

A 49-year-old woman, previously recuperating from COVID-19, was found unconscious at her workplace, setting off a chain of events that would ultimately lead to an unexpected diagnosis.

This case report was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Noting the patient’s confusion and aphasia, emergency medical services were alerted, and she was taken to the emergency department of Massachusetts General Hospital. Initial examination revealed aphasia and coordination difficulties. However, imaging studies, including CT angiography, showed no signs of stroke or other neurological abnormalities.

The patient’s coworkers had observed that she appeared “unwell.” Her medical history included hypertension, which was managed with amlodipine, and there was no known family history of neurologic disorders.

During the examination, her vital signs were within normal ranges.

The patient’s potassium level of 2.5 mmol/L was noteworthy, indicating hypokalemia. Additionally, the patient presented with anemia and thrombocytopenia. Additional laboratory results unveiled thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP), a rare blood disorder characterized by microangiopathic hemolytic anemia. The microscopic examination of a peripheral blood smear confirmed the extent of thrombocytopenia and was particularly notable for the increased number of schistocytes. The patient’s peripheral blood smear revealed five or six schistocytes per high-power field, constituting approximately 5% of the red cells. This significant number of schistocytes aligned with the severity of anemia and thrombocytopenia, confirming the diagnosis of microangiopathic hemolytic anemia.

Acquired TTP is an autoimmune condition driven by antibody-mediated clearance of the plasma enzyme ADAMTS13 (a disintegrin and metalloproteinase with thrombospondin motif 13). Confirmatory laboratory testing for ADAMTS13 takes 1-3 days; therefore, therapeutic plasma exchange with glucocorticoid therapy and rituximab was initiated, which promptly improved her condition.

In this patient, the ADAMTS13 activity level was severely reduced (< 5%; reference value > 67%), and the inhibitor was present (1.4 inhibitor units; reference value ≤ 0.4).

Rectal cancer was diagnosed in this patient 2 months after the diagnosis of acquired TTP.

After undergoing four weekly infusions of rituximab and a 2-month tapering course of glucocorticoids, the patient experienced a relapse, approximately 6 months following the acquired TTP diagnosis. In response, therapeutic plasma exchange and glucocorticoid therapy were administered. There is a possibility that the underlying cancer played a role in the relapse. To minimize the risk for recurrence, the patient also received a second round of rituximab.

While establishing a clear cause is difficult, acquired TTP often appears to arise in connection with either an immune trigger, such as a viral infection, or immune dysregulation associated with another autoimmune disease or ongoing cancer. In this case, 4 weeks before the acquired TTP diagnosis, the patient had experienced COVID-19, which was likely to be the most probable trigger. However, rectal cancer was also identified in the patient, and whether these conditions are directly linked remains unclear.

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

A 49-year-old woman, previously recuperating from COVID-19, was found unconscious at her workplace, setting off a chain of events that would ultimately lead to an unexpected diagnosis.

This case report was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Noting the patient’s confusion and aphasia, emergency medical services were alerted, and she was taken to the emergency department of Massachusetts General Hospital. Initial examination revealed aphasia and coordination difficulties. However, imaging studies, including CT angiography, showed no signs of stroke or other neurological abnormalities.

The patient’s coworkers had observed that she appeared “unwell.” Her medical history included hypertension, which was managed with amlodipine, and there was no known family history of neurologic disorders.

During the examination, her vital signs were within normal ranges.

The patient’s potassium level of 2.5 mmol/L was noteworthy, indicating hypokalemia. Additionally, the patient presented with anemia and thrombocytopenia. Additional laboratory results unveiled thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP), a rare blood disorder characterized by microangiopathic hemolytic anemia. The microscopic examination of a peripheral blood smear confirmed the extent of thrombocytopenia and was particularly notable for the increased number of schistocytes. The patient’s peripheral blood smear revealed five or six schistocytes per high-power field, constituting approximately 5% of the red cells. This significant number of schistocytes aligned with the severity of anemia and thrombocytopenia, confirming the diagnosis of microangiopathic hemolytic anemia.

Acquired TTP is an autoimmune condition driven by antibody-mediated clearance of the plasma enzyme ADAMTS13 (a disintegrin and metalloproteinase with thrombospondin motif 13). Confirmatory laboratory testing for ADAMTS13 takes 1-3 days; therefore, therapeutic plasma exchange with glucocorticoid therapy and rituximab was initiated, which promptly improved her condition.

In this patient, the ADAMTS13 activity level was severely reduced (< 5%; reference value > 67%), and the inhibitor was present (1.4 inhibitor units; reference value ≤ 0.4).

Rectal cancer was diagnosed in this patient 2 months after the diagnosis of acquired TTP.

After undergoing four weekly infusions of rituximab and a 2-month tapering course of glucocorticoids, the patient experienced a relapse, approximately 6 months following the acquired TTP diagnosis. In response, therapeutic plasma exchange and glucocorticoid therapy were administered. There is a possibility that the underlying cancer played a role in the relapse. To minimize the risk for recurrence, the patient also received a second round of rituximab.

While establishing a clear cause is difficult, acquired TTP often appears to arise in connection with either an immune trigger, such as a viral infection, or immune dysregulation associated with another autoimmune disease or ongoing cancer. In this case, 4 weeks before the acquired TTP diagnosis, the patient had experienced COVID-19, which was likely to be the most probable trigger. However, rectal cancer was also identified in the patient, and whether these conditions are directly linked remains unclear.

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

TOPLINE:

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is associated with increased odds of fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study to investigate the prevalence and predictors of fibromyalgia and CFS in patients hospitalized with IBS vs people without IBS.
• The researchers used ICD-10 codes to analyze U.S. National Inpatient Sample (NIS) data from 2016-2019.
• A subgroup analysis investigated associations with IBS-diarrhea (IBS-D), IBS-constipation (IBS-C), and IBS-mixed types.
• Variables included patient age, sex, ethnicity, race, household income, insurance status, and hospital-level characteristics (including location, bed size, and teaching status).

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 1.2 million patients with IBS included in the study, 10.7% also had fibromyalgia and 0.4% had CFS. The majority of fibromyalgia (96.5%) and CFS (89.9%) patients were female and White (86.5%). CFS prevalence also was highest among White persons (90.7%).
• The prevalence of fibromyalgia and CFS was significantly higher in patients with IBS compared to those without IBS (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 5.33 for fibromyalgia and AOR, 5.4 for CFS).
• IBS-D, IBS-C, and IBS-mixed types were independently associated with increased odds of fibromyalgia and CFS.
• Independent predictors of increased odds of fibromyalgia and CFS, respectively, were increasing age (AOR, 1.02 for both), female sex (AOR, 11.2; AOR, 1.86) and White race (AOR, 2.04; AOR, 1.69).
• Overall, White race, lower socioeconomic status, smoking, alcohol use, obesity, and hyperlipidemia were associated with increased odds of fibromyalgia. For CFS, increased odds were associated with White race, higher socioeconomic status, smoking, obesity, and hyperlipidemia.

IN PRACTICE:

“In current clinical practice, there is a high risk of neglecting multi-syndromic patients. We as clinicians should integrate in our practice with regular screening for other somatic disorders in the IBS population and determine the need to consult other specialties like rheumatology and psychiatry to improve the overall health outcome in IBS patients,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Zahid Ijaz Tarar, MD, University of Missouri, Columbia, led the study, which was published online in Biomedicines.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design of the study can only show associations, not a causal relationship. Lack of blinding and randomization in the data creates bias. The NIS database does not provide medication and laboratory data, so the effect of pharmaceutical therapies cannot be measured.

DISCLOSURES:

The research received no external funding. The authors declare no potential conflict of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

TOPLINE:

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is associated with increased odds of fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study to investigate the prevalence and predictors of fibromyalgia and CFS in patients hospitalized with IBS vs people without IBS.
• The researchers used ICD-10 codes to analyze U.S. National Inpatient Sample (NIS) data from 2016-2019.
• A subgroup analysis investigated associations with IBS-diarrhea (IBS-D), IBS-constipation (IBS-C), and IBS-mixed types.
• Variables included patient age, sex, ethnicity, race, household income, insurance status, and hospital-level characteristics (including location, bed size, and teaching status).

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 1.2 million patients with IBS included in the study, 10.7% also had fibromyalgia and 0.4% had CFS. The majority of fibromyalgia (96.5%) and CFS (89.9%) patients were female and White (86.5%). CFS prevalence also was highest among White persons (90.7%).
• The prevalence of fibromyalgia and CFS was significantly higher in patients with IBS compared to those without IBS (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 5.33 for fibromyalgia and AOR, 5.4 for CFS).
• IBS-D, IBS-C, and IBS-mixed types were independently associated with increased odds of fibromyalgia and CFS.
• Independent predictors of increased odds of fibromyalgia and CFS, respectively, were increasing age (AOR, 1.02 for both), female sex (AOR, 11.2; AOR, 1.86) and White race (AOR, 2.04; AOR, 1.69).
• Overall, White race, lower socioeconomic status, smoking, alcohol use, obesity, and hyperlipidemia were associated with increased odds of fibromyalgia. For CFS, increased odds were associated with White race, higher socioeconomic status, smoking, obesity, and hyperlipidemia.

IN PRACTICE:

“In current clinical practice, there is a high risk of neglecting multi-syndromic patients. We as clinicians should integrate in our practice with regular screening for other somatic disorders in the IBS population and determine the need to consult other specialties like rheumatology and psychiatry to improve the overall health outcome in IBS patients,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Zahid Ijaz Tarar, MD, University of Missouri, Columbia, led the study, which was published online in Biomedicines.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design of the study can only show associations, not a causal relationship. Lack of blinding and randomization in the data creates bias. The NIS database does not provide medication and laboratory data, so the effect of pharmaceutical therapies cannot be measured.

DISCLOSURES:

The research received no external funding. The authors declare no potential conflict of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

TOPLINE:

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is associated with increased odds of fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study to investigate the prevalence and predictors of fibromyalgia and CFS in patients hospitalized with IBS vs people without IBS.
• The researchers used ICD-10 codes to analyze U.S. National Inpatient Sample (NIS) data from 2016-2019.
• A subgroup analysis investigated associations with IBS-diarrhea (IBS-D), IBS-constipation (IBS-C), and IBS-mixed types.
• Variables included patient age, sex, ethnicity, race, household income, insurance status, and hospital-level characteristics (including location, bed size, and teaching status).

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 1.2 million patients with IBS included in the study, 10.7% also had fibromyalgia and 0.4% had CFS. The majority of fibromyalgia (96.5%) and CFS (89.9%) patients were female and White (86.5%). CFS prevalence also was highest among White persons (90.7%).
• The prevalence of fibromyalgia and CFS was significantly higher in patients with IBS compared to those without IBS (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 5.33 for fibromyalgia and AOR, 5.4 for CFS).
• IBS-D, IBS-C, and IBS-mixed types were independently associated with increased odds of fibromyalgia and CFS.
• Independent predictors of increased odds of fibromyalgia and CFS, respectively, were increasing age (AOR, 1.02 for both), female sex (AOR, 11.2; AOR, 1.86) and White race (AOR, 2.04; AOR, 1.69).
• Overall, White race, lower socioeconomic status, smoking, alcohol use, obesity, and hyperlipidemia were associated with increased odds of fibromyalgia. For CFS, increased odds were associated with White race, higher socioeconomic status, smoking, obesity, and hyperlipidemia.

IN PRACTICE:

“In current clinical practice, there is a high risk of neglecting multi-syndromic patients. We as clinicians should integrate in our practice with regular screening for other somatic disorders in the IBS population and determine the need to consult other specialties like rheumatology and psychiatry to improve the overall health outcome in IBS patients,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Zahid Ijaz Tarar, MD, University of Missouri, Columbia, led the study, which was published online in Biomedicines.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design of the study can only show associations, not a causal relationship. Lack of blinding and randomization in the data creates bias. The NIS database does not provide medication and laboratory data, so the effect of pharmaceutical therapies cannot be measured.

DISCLOSURES:

The research received no external funding. The authors declare no potential conflict of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

BOSTON – Patients with metabolic-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD, formerly NAFLD) without cirrhosis who took daily low-dose aspirin in a double-blind randomized trial demonstrated significant reductions in liver fat content over 6 months compared with similar patients who took a placebo, study results show.

“In MASLD without cirrhosis, low-dose aspirin, 81 milligrams daily, led to decreases in liver fat and improved markers of hepatic inflammation and fibrosis,” reported Robert M. Wilechansky, MD, a transplant hepatology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“It was safe and well tolerated in this study, but we would like to see larger, longer-term clinical trials to test the efficacy of aspirin for improving histology and preventing adverse outcomes in MASLD,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

“We don’t have current plans, to my knowledge, to test full-dose aspirin,” he said in an interview. “I’m encouraged by the results with low-dose aspirin, and I think that, given the risk profile, using a lower dose is preferable.”
 

Reduction in inflammation

Although promising therapies for MASLD are in development, none are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration, prompting Dr. Wilechansky and colleagues to investigate aspirin, with its anti-inflammatory properties, as a potential treatment.

In preclinical studies, aspirin has been shown to have both anti-inflammatory and antitumor effects in the liver through inhibition of cycloxygenase-2 and platelet-derived growth factor signaling, as well as through modulation of bioactive lipids, Dr. Wilechansky said.

In observational studies, use of aspirin was associated with a reduction in the prevalence of hepatic steatosis and fibrosis progression in patients with MASLD, and there was a decrease in the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma and liver-related mortality among patients with viral hepatitis, he noted.

As for the potential mechanism of action of aspirin for patients with MASLD, Dr. Wilechansky noted that there may be some reduction in steatosis, and “if there is a reduction in inflammation, we may see some reduction in steatohepatitis.”
 

Study details

To see whether the so-called “wonder drug” could work wonders for patients with MASLD without cirrhosis, the researchers recruited 80 adults with MASLD and randomly assigned them to receive either aspirin 81 mg once daily or placebo for 6 months.

Patients with baseline cirrhosis or other liver disease, heavy drinkers, those who had used aspirin within 6 months, or those who used other antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents were excluded, as were patients with severe renal or cardiovascular disease, active cancer, pregnancy, were breastfeeding, had thrombocytopenia, or had undergone bariatric surgery within the past 2 years.

At baseline, 36.3% of all patients had F2-F3 fibrosis, as determined by vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE), and of 44 patients who had previously undergone liver biopsy, 37 (84.1%) were confirmed to have steatohepatitis.

At 6 months, the absolute change in hepatic fat fraction (HFF) from baseline, the primary endpoint, was a decline of 6.1% for patients taking aspirin, compared with a 4.2% increase for patients taking placebo, which translates into a 10.3% difference in favor of aspirin (P = .009).

The relative change in HFF, a secondary endpoint, for aspirin versus placebo was –59.2% (P = .003).

In addition, the use of aspirin was associated with a relative reduction in HFF of at least 30% among 16 of the 40 patients who received it.

Aspirin was significantly better than placebo for the secondary endpoints of absolute change in hepatic fat by MRI proton-density fat fraction, with –2.9% versus placebo (P = .018), and the relative change in hepatic fat by MRI-PDFF, with a difference of –24.8% versus placebo (P = .009).

Aspirin was also associated with significantly greater reductions in liver transaminase levels and liver stiffness by VCTE.

About one-third of patients in each study arm had at least one adverse event. There was only one aspirin-related adverse event (heartburn) that led to discontinuation. There were no serious bleeding events in either arm.

“We’re going to have to consider stratifying by aspirin use now in our trials,” said Mark Hartman, MD, from Eli Lilly in Indianapolis.
 

Significant weight gain in placebo group

Mary E. McCarthy Rinella, MD, FAASLD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, commented that the 4% increase in liver fat in the control arm “is kind of a lot for a placebo, and I’m wondering how much that accounts for the [difference] that you saw.” Dr. Rinella served as a comoderator of the session.

Dr. Wilechansky said that there were a few outliers in the placebo group who experienced significant weight gain during the study, including one patient who gained 15 kg over 6 months.

A post hoc analysis suggested that most of the increase in hepatic fat among patients who took placebo could have been among that handful of patients, he added. When those patients were removed in an adjusted analysis, the difference between the aspirin and placebo groups was smaller but remained significant.

The trial was sponsored by Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr. Wilechansky, Dr. Rinella, and Dr. Hartman had no relevant disclosures.

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

BOSTON – Patients with metabolic-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD, formerly NAFLD) without cirrhosis who took daily low-dose aspirin in a double-blind randomized trial demonstrated significant reductions in liver fat content over 6 months compared with similar patients who took a placebo, study results show.

“In MASLD without cirrhosis, low-dose aspirin, 81 milligrams daily, led to decreases in liver fat and improved markers of hepatic inflammation and fibrosis,” reported Robert M. Wilechansky, MD, a transplant hepatology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“It was safe and well tolerated in this study, but we would like to see larger, longer-term clinical trials to test the efficacy of aspirin for improving histology and preventing adverse outcomes in MASLD,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

“We don’t have current plans, to my knowledge, to test full-dose aspirin,” he said in an interview. “I’m encouraged by the results with low-dose aspirin, and I think that, given the risk profile, using a lower dose is preferable.”
 

Reduction in inflammation

Although promising therapies for MASLD are in development, none are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration, prompting Dr. Wilechansky and colleagues to investigate aspirin, with its anti-inflammatory properties, as a potential treatment.

In preclinical studies, aspirin has been shown to have both anti-inflammatory and antitumor effects in the liver through inhibition of cycloxygenase-2 and platelet-derived growth factor signaling, as well as through modulation of bioactive lipids, Dr. Wilechansky said.

In observational studies, use of aspirin was associated with a reduction in the prevalence of hepatic steatosis and fibrosis progression in patients with MASLD, and there was a decrease in the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma and liver-related mortality among patients with viral hepatitis, he noted.

As for the potential mechanism of action of aspirin for patients with MASLD, Dr. Wilechansky noted that there may be some reduction in steatosis, and “if there is a reduction in inflammation, we may see some reduction in steatohepatitis.”
 

Study details

To see whether the so-called “wonder drug” could work wonders for patients with MASLD without cirrhosis, the researchers recruited 80 adults with MASLD and randomly assigned them to receive either aspirin 81 mg once daily or placebo for 6 months.

Patients with baseline cirrhosis or other liver disease, heavy drinkers, those who had used aspirin within 6 months, or those who used other antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents were excluded, as were patients with severe renal or cardiovascular disease, active cancer, pregnancy, were breastfeeding, had thrombocytopenia, or had undergone bariatric surgery within the past 2 years.

At baseline, 36.3% of all patients had F2-F3 fibrosis, as determined by vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE), and of 44 patients who had previously undergone liver biopsy, 37 (84.1%) were confirmed to have steatohepatitis.

At 6 months, the absolute change in hepatic fat fraction (HFF) from baseline, the primary endpoint, was a decline of 6.1% for patients taking aspirin, compared with a 4.2% increase for patients taking placebo, which translates into a 10.3% difference in favor of aspirin (P = .009).

The relative change in HFF, a secondary endpoint, for aspirin versus placebo was –59.2% (P = .003).

In addition, the use of aspirin was associated with a relative reduction in HFF of at least 30% among 16 of the 40 patients who received it.

Aspirin was significantly better than placebo for the secondary endpoints of absolute change in hepatic fat by MRI proton-density fat fraction, with –2.9% versus placebo (P = .018), and the relative change in hepatic fat by MRI-PDFF, with a difference of –24.8% versus placebo (P = .009).

Aspirin was also associated with significantly greater reductions in liver transaminase levels and liver stiffness by VCTE.

About one-third of patients in each study arm had at least one adverse event. There was only one aspirin-related adverse event (heartburn) that led to discontinuation. There were no serious bleeding events in either arm.

“We’re going to have to consider stratifying by aspirin use now in our trials,” said Mark Hartman, MD, from Eli Lilly in Indianapolis.
 

Significant weight gain in placebo group

Mary E. McCarthy Rinella, MD, FAASLD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, commented that the 4% increase in liver fat in the control arm “is kind of a lot for a placebo, and I’m wondering how much that accounts for the [difference] that you saw.” Dr. Rinella served as a comoderator of the session.

Dr. Wilechansky said that there were a few outliers in the placebo group who experienced significant weight gain during the study, including one patient who gained 15 kg over 6 months.

A post hoc analysis suggested that most of the increase in hepatic fat among patients who took placebo could have been among that handful of patients, he added. When those patients were removed in an adjusted analysis, the difference between the aspirin and placebo groups was smaller but remained significant.

The trial was sponsored by Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr. Wilechansky, Dr. Rinella, and Dr. Hartman had no relevant disclosures.

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

BOSTON – Patients with metabolic-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD, formerly NAFLD) without cirrhosis who took daily low-dose aspirin in a double-blind randomized trial demonstrated significant reductions in liver fat content over 6 months compared with similar patients who took a placebo, study results show.

“In MASLD without cirrhosis, low-dose aspirin, 81 milligrams daily, led to decreases in liver fat and improved markers of hepatic inflammation and fibrosis,” reported Robert M. Wilechansky, MD, a transplant hepatology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“It was safe and well tolerated in this study, but we would like to see larger, longer-term clinical trials to test the efficacy of aspirin for improving histology and preventing adverse outcomes in MASLD,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

“We don’t have current plans, to my knowledge, to test full-dose aspirin,” he said in an interview. “I’m encouraged by the results with low-dose aspirin, and I think that, given the risk profile, using a lower dose is preferable.”
 

Reduction in inflammation

Although promising therapies for MASLD are in development, none are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration, prompting Dr. Wilechansky and colleagues to investigate aspirin, with its anti-inflammatory properties, as a potential treatment.

In preclinical studies, aspirin has been shown to have both anti-inflammatory and antitumor effects in the liver through inhibition of cycloxygenase-2 and platelet-derived growth factor signaling, as well as through modulation of bioactive lipids, Dr. Wilechansky said.

In observational studies, use of aspirin was associated with a reduction in the prevalence of hepatic steatosis and fibrosis progression in patients with MASLD, and there was a decrease in the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma and liver-related mortality among patients with viral hepatitis, he noted.

As for the potential mechanism of action of aspirin for patients with MASLD, Dr. Wilechansky noted that there may be some reduction in steatosis, and “if there is a reduction in inflammation, we may see some reduction in steatohepatitis.”
 

Study details

To see whether the so-called “wonder drug” could work wonders for patients with MASLD without cirrhosis, the researchers recruited 80 adults with MASLD and randomly assigned them to receive either aspirin 81 mg once daily or placebo for 6 months.

Patients with baseline cirrhosis or other liver disease, heavy drinkers, those who had used aspirin within 6 months, or those who used other antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents were excluded, as were patients with severe renal or cardiovascular disease, active cancer, pregnancy, were breastfeeding, had thrombocytopenia, or had undergone bariatric surgery within the past 2 years.

At baseline, 36.3% of all patients had F2-F3 fibrosis, as determined by vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE), and of 44 patients who had previously undergone liver biopsy, 37 (84.1%) were confirmed to have steatohepatitis.

At 6 months, the absolute change in hepatic fat fraction (HFF) from baseline, the primary endpoint, was a decline of 6.1% for patients taking aspirin, compared with a 4.2% increase for patients taking placebo, which translates into a 10.3% difference in favor of aspirin (P = .009).

The relative change in HFF, a secondary endpoint, for aspirin versus placebo was –59.2% (P = .003).

In addition, the use of aspirin was associated with a relative reduction in HFF of at least 30% among 16 of the 40 patients who received it.

Aspirin was significantly better than placebo for the secondary endpoints of absolute change in hepatic fat by MRI proton-density fat fraction, with –2.9% versus placebo (P = .018), and the relative change in hepatic fat by MRI-PDFF, with a difference of –24.8% versus placebo (P = .009).

Aspirin was also associated with significantly greater reductions in liver transaminase levels and liver stiffness by VCTE.

About one-third of patients in each study arm had at least one adverse event. There was only one aspirin-related adverse event (heartburn) that led to discontinuation. There were no serious bleeding events in either arm.

“We’re going to have to consider stratifying by aspirin use now in our trials,” said Mark Hartman, MD, from Eli Lilly in Indianapolis.
 

Significant weight gain in placebo group

Mary E. McCarthy Rinella, MD, FAASLD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, commented that the 4% increase in liver fat in the control arm “is kind of a lot for a placebo, and I’m wondering how much that accounts for the [difference] that you saw.” Dr. Rinella served as a comoderator of the session.

Dr. Wilechansky said that there were a few outliers in the placebo group who experienced significant weight gain during the study, including one patient who gained 15 kg over 6 months.

A post hoc analysis suggested that most of the increase in hepatic fat among patients who took placebo could have been among that handful of patients, he added. When those patients were removed in an adjusted analysis, the difference between the aspirin and placebo groups was smaller but remained significant.

The trial was sponsored by Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr. Wilechansky, Dr. Rinella, and Dr. Hartman had no relevant disclosures.

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

Use of a standard algorithm significantly reduced the time from decision to incision in urgent, unscheduled cesarean deliveries, based on data from more than 600 procedures.

No specific recommended decision-to-incision time exists for cases of unscheduled, nonemergent cesarean deliveries, although a target of 30 minutes is recommended for emergent deliveries, Lina T. Bernal, MD, of Boston University and colleagues wrote.

The researchers developed a quality improvement project in which a multidisciplinary team defined which unscheduled cesarean deliveries should qualify as urgent, and identified a goal of 40 minutes or less for decision-to-incision time in these cases.

“We defined urgent, unscheduled cesarean delivery as cesarean delivery in patients with the following diagnoses: active phase arrest at 6 cm or greater, category II fetal heart rate tracing during labor requiring delivery per the Shields algorithm, but not meeting emergent category III criteria, any unscheduled cesarean delivery complicated by chorioamnionitis, and failed trial of labor after cesarean,” they wrote.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers compared times from decision to incision before and after the implementation of a multidisciplinary algorithm. The study included 199 urgent, unscheduled deliveries in a single center between May 2019 and November 2019, and implementation period with 283 deliveries from December 2019 to September 2020, and a postimplementation period with 160 deliveries between October 2020 and May 2021.

The primary outcome was the mean time from decision to incision; secondary outcomes were neonatal status based on 5-minute Apgar score and quantitative blood loss during delivery.

Overall, the mean decision-to-incision time improved from 88 minutes during the preimplementation period to 50 minutes in the postimplementation period.

For Black non-Hispanic patients, the mean decision-to-incision time improved from 98 minutes during the preimplementation period to 50 minutes in the postimplementation period. Similarly, mean times among Hispanic patients decreased from 84 minutes to 49 minutes during the pre- and postimplementation periods, respectively.

No significant improvement in decision-to-incision time was noted among patients in other racial and ethnic groups.

In cases of cesarean delivery for fetal indications, 5-minute Apgar scores were significantly higher in the postimplementation period compared with the preimplementation period (8.5 vs. 8.8, P < .01).

No significant associations appeared between maternal quantitative blood loss and the implementation of the algorithm across treatment periods.

Over the course of the study, adjustments to the algorithm included clarification of the criteria, streamlined communication, and expanded use of resources. “There are no prior studies regarding the effects of creation of an urgent category on decision-to-incision time or maternal or neonatal outcomes,” the researchers wrote. “As a result of improved outcomes and appreciation of a standardized approach, the urgent cesarean delivery designation has been incorporated into the labor unit work flow.”

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, use of data from a single medical center, and the inability to address confounding variables such as age, parity, body mass index, time of delivery, and staffing, the researchers noted. Other limitations include a lack of data on measures of maternal morbidity beyond quantitative blood loss and other neonatal morbidities, and lack of data on patient satisfaction.

However, the results support the use of a standard algorithm to successfully reduce decision-to-incision time in urgent and unscheduled cesarean deliveries, and next steps for further improvement of care should identify which patients are most likely to benefit from a more rapid delivery, the researchers concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of a standard algorithm significantly reduced the time from decision to incision in urgent, unscheduled cesarean deliveries, based on data from more than 600 procedures.

No specific recommended decision-to-incision time exists for cases of unscheduled, nonemergent cesarean deliveries, although a target of 30 minutes is recommended for emergent deliveries, Lina T. Bernal, MD, of Boston University and colleagues wrote.

The researchers developed a quality improvement project in which a multidisciplinary team defined which unscheduled cesarean deliveries should qualify as urgent, and identified a goal of 40 minutes or less for decision-to-incision time in these cases.

“We defined urgent, unscheduled cesarean delivery as cesarean delivery in patients with the following diagnoses: active phase arrest at 6 cm or greater, category II fetal heart rate tracing during labor requiring delivery per the Shields algorithm, but not meeting emergent category III criteria, any unscheduled cesarean delivery complicated by chorioamnionitis, and failed trial of labor after cesarean,” they wrote.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers compared times from decision to incision before and after the implementation of a multidisciplinary algorithm. The study included 199 urgent, unscheduled deliveries in a single center between May 2019 and November 2019, and implementation period with 283 deliveries from December 2019 to September 2020, and a postimplementation period with 160 deliveries between October 2020 and May 2021.

The primary outcome was the mean time from decision to incision; secondary outcomes were neonatal status based on 5-minute Apgar score and quantitative blood loss during delivery.

Overall, the mean decision-to-incision time improved from 88 minutes during the preimplementation period to 50 minutes in the postimplementation period.

For Black non-Hispanic patients, the mean decision-to-incision time improved from 98 minutes during the preimplementation period to 50 minutes in the postimplementation period. Similarly, mean times among Hispanic patients decreased from 84 minutes to 49 minutes during the pre- and postimplementation periods, respectively.

No significant improvement in decision-to-incision time was noted among patients in other racial and ethnic groups.

In cases of cesarean delivery for fetal indications, 5-minute Apgar scores were significantly higher in the postimplementation period compared with the preimplementation period (8.5 vs. 8.8, P < .01).

No significant associations appeared between maternal quantitative blood loss and the implementation of the algorithm across treatment periods.

Over the course of the study, adjustments to the algorithm included clarification of the criteria, streamlined communication, and expanded use of resources. “There are no prior studies regarding the effects of creation of an urgent category on decision-to-incision time or maternal or neonatal outcomes,” the researchers wrote. “As a result of improved outcomes and appreciation of a standardized approach, the urgent cesarean delivery designation has been incorporated into the labor unit work flow.”

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, use of data from a single medical center, and the inability to address confounding variables such as age, parity, body mass index, time of delivery, and staffing, the researchers noted. Other limitations include a lack of data on measures of maternal morbidity beyond quantitative blood loss and other neonatal morbidities, and lack of data on patient satisfaction.

However, the results support the use of a standard algorithm to successfully reduce decision-to-incision time in urgent and unscheduled cesarean deliveries, and next steps for further improvement of care should identify which patients are most likely to benefit from a more rapid delivery, the researchers concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of a standard algorithm significantly reduced the time from decision to incision in urgent, unscheduled cesarean deliveries, based on data from more than 600 procedures.

No specific recommended decision-to-incision time exists for cases of unscheduled, nonemergent cesarean deliveries, although a target of 30 minutes is recommended for emergent deliveries, Lina T. Bernal, MD, of Boston University and colleagues wrote.

The researchers developed a quality improvement project in which a multidisciplinary team defined which unscheduled cesarean deliveries should qualify as urgent, and identified a goal of 40 minutes or less for decision-to-incision time in these cases.

“We defined urgent, unscheduled cesarean delivery as cesarean delivery in patients with the following diagnoses: active phase arrest at 6 cm or greater, category II fetal heart rate tracing during labor requiring delivery per the Shields algorithm, but not meeting emergent category III criteria, any unscheduled cesarean delivery complicated by chorioamnionitis, and failed trial of labor after cesarean,” they wrote.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers compared times from decision to incision before and after the implementation of a multidisciplinary algorithm. The study included 199 urgent, unscheduled deliveries in a single center between May 2019 and November 2019, and implementation period with 283 deliveries from December 2019 to September 2020, and a postimplementation period with 160 deliveries between October 2020 and May 2021.

The primary outcome was the mean time from decision to incision; secondary outcomes were neonatal status based on 5-minute Apgar score and quantitative blood loss during delivery.

Overall, the mean decision-to-incision time improved from 88 minutes during the preimplementation period to 50 minutes in the postimplementation period.

For Black non-Hispanic patients, the mean decision-to-incision time improved from 98 minutes during the preimplementation period to 50 minutes in the postimplementation period. Similarly, mean times among Hispanic patients decreased from 84 minutes to 49 minutes during the pre- and postimplementation periods, respectively.

No significant improvement in decision-to-incision time was noted among patients in other racial and ethnic groups.

In cases of cesarean delivery for fetal indications, 5-minute Apgar scores were significantly higher in the postimplementation period compared with the preimplementation period (8.5 vs. 8.8, P < .01).

No significant associations appeared between maternal quantitative blood loss and the implementation of the algorithm across treatment periods.

Over the course of the study, adjustments to the algorithm included clarification of the criteria, streamlined communication, and expanded use of resources. “There are no prior studies regarding the effects of creation of an urgent category on decision-to-incision time or maternal or neonatal outcomes,” the researchers wrote. “As a result of improved outcomes and appreciation of a standardized approach, the urgent cesarean delivery designation has been incorporated into the labor unit work flow.”

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, use of data from a single medical center, and the inability to address confounding variables such as age, parity, body mass index, time of delivery, and staffing, the researchers noted. Other limitations include a lack of data on measures of maternal morbidity beyond quantitative blood loss and other neonatal morbidities, and lack of data on patient satisfaction.

However, the results support the use of a standard algorithm to successfully reduce decision-to-incision time in urgent and unscheduled cesarean deliveries, and next steps for further improvement of care should identify which patients are most likely to benefit from a more rapid delivery, the researchers concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Making medications more accessible to those who need them is the focus of attention in the media and in all levels of government. For a drug to be accessible, it must be affordable and available. Something may be affordable, but if it isn’t available, no one will have access to it. Think of toilet paper in the first year of the COVID pandemic. The opposite is also true. An item may be available, but if it isn’t affordable, access is lost. While medication affordability is viewed as the major problem for patients, lack of availability has begun to creep into our drug supply chain. We are now experiencing drug shortages for medications that are very affordable. The perverse incentives, inherent in formulary construction, favor higher-priced medications, which decreases the availability of lower-priced – yet still expensive – drugs, thus increasing patient cost share. Formulary placement and patient cost share, important determinants of accessibility, are controlled by health plans and differ considerably even from the same payer. And yet, the price of drugs remains the target of most approaches to increasing patients’ access. And now price negotiations and drug affordability boards enter into the picture.

What are prescription drug affordability boards?

Both state and federal legislatures have placed the affordability of medications front and center on their agendas. However, neither are considering how formulary construction affects patient’s access to medications. The Inflation Reduction Act is Congress’s foray into price setting/negotiation of expensive drugs. Over the last few years, states are also attempting to make drugs more affordable by creating prescription drug affordability boards (PDABs). Governors (or other state leaders) appoint PDAB members who are charged with the task of evaluating the affordability of certain drugs for both the state and its residents. How to do it, and what the limitations are, vary from state to state. In 2019, Maryland was first state to establish a PDAB, charging its members to study commercial insurance and drug pricing and make recommendations on how to make drugs more affordable for Maryland residents. Other states that have passed PDAB legislation are Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, and Washington.

Colorado, Minnesota, and Washington – and soon Maryland and Oregon – hope to make drugs more affordable for patients by allowing their PDABs to set an upper payment limit (UPL). A UPL serves as a cap on the sales price and reimbursement for a drug. The Michigan legislature is actively debating legislation that would establish a PDAB and allow it to set UPLs. On the surface, this may appear to be a potential solution to the affordability issue. However, as always, there are many questions as to how this will work and what are the unintended consequences of price setting and establishing UPLs for medications. UPLs have the potential to harm access to provider-administered drugs. With the help of advocacy from the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO), Washington’s PDAB statute potentially has a carve-out for provider-administered drugs.
 

Possible unintended consequences for provider-administered drugs

CSRO asked for a meeting with the Colorado PDAB after they announced their list of drugs for which UPLs would be set. We spoke with the PDAB in October, hoping to point out some of the unintended consequences that needed to be considered. One of the big questions we have revolves around the “buy and bill” provider-administered drugs. According to the language of the Colorado statute, providers would not be paid any more than the UPL for a drug administered in their office. CSRO is concerned that this would leave providers uncompensated for the service of administering the drug and associated overhead. This is not to mention that providers may not be able to find a group purchasing organization that would even sell the drug at the UPL, much less a lower price than the UPL. And even if a provider could buy it at the UPL, that would mean there would be no margin to cover the overhead for their infusion suite. Interestingly, while Colorado’s rules for the UPL state that pharmacies can be paid an additional reasonable dispensing fee beyond the UPL, no such allowance is made for providers administering one of these medications. In fact, the Colorado PDAB specifically indicated that the goal of the state’s UPL methodology was to ensure that there was no “delta” between what is paid for the drug by the provider and what is reimbursed to a provider for the drug by the payer. This may cause some providers to be unable to “afford” to administer those drugs with UPLs, which ultimately reduces access for residents of Colorado to that particular medication. This is the exact opposite of what the PDAB is supposed to accomplish.

There are still many questions. What impact will UPLs have on a medication’s placement on a formulary? As we know, preferred formulary placement is often given to drugs with the highest price concession from the manufacturers. Will setting a UPL on payment for specialty pharmacy drugs to pharmacy benefit manager-owned specialty pharmacies affect that drug’s ability to be on the formulary? And again, how will the PDAB resolve the issue of compensating the provider for overhead costs associated with administering the medication?

Even more confusing questions remain. How will the UPL be enforced when a “purchase” or “sale” of the drug is made by an out-of-state entity somewhere along the supply chain? When ultimately the drug is purchased and delivered to a Colorado consumer by a Colorado provider/pharmacy, there are multiple points of the supply chain that may be outside of the jurisdiction of Colorado to enforce the UPL. This would create a misalignment in pricing among various supply chain entities.

While the sentiment behind creating PDABs is noble, it may end up having the unintended consequence of patients losing access to these drugs because of the perverse incentives involved in formulary construction or providers’ inability to afford to offer provider-administered drugs with UPLs.

Remember, expensive specialty pharmacy medications are already discounted greatly by manufacturers, often more than 50% to pharmacy benefit managers; and yet those cost savings are not passed on to the patients. Also, there is no oversight of 340B hospital contracted pharmacies to make sure that they pass those savings on to needy patients. Perhaps PDABs should address those issues, as well, if patient access to expensive medications is the goal.

Clearly, there are no easy answers. But with so many variables in the drug supply chain affecting patient access, concentrating only on one aspect may end up causing more harm than good. If your state is thinking of passing a PDAB, please let your legislators know that there are issues with this type of legislation that perhaps should be worked out before the bill is passed.
 

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

Making medications more accessible to those who need them is the focus of attention in the media and in all levels of government. For a drug to be accessible, it must be affordable and available. Something may be affordable, but if it isn’t available, no one will have access to it. Think of toilet paper in the first year of the COVID pandemic. The opposite is also true. An item may be available, but if it isn’t affordable, access is lost. While medication affordability is viewed as the major problem for patients, lack of availability has begun to creep into our drug supply chain. We are now experiencing drug shortages for medications that are very affordable. The perverse incentives, inherent in formulary construction, favor higher-priced medications, which decreases the availability of lower-priced – yet still expensive – drugs, thus increasing patient cost share. Formulary placement and patient cost share, important determinants of accessibility, are controlled by health plans and differ considerably even from the same payer. And yet, the price of drugs remains the target of most approaches to increasing patients’ access. And now price negotiations and drug affordability boards enter into the picture.

What are prescription drug affordability boards?

Both state and federal legislatures have placed the affordability of medications front and center on their agendas. However, neither are considering how formulary construction affects patient’s access to medications. The Inflation Reduction Act is Congress’s foray into price setting/negotiation of expensive drugs. Over the last few years, states are also attempting to make drugs more affordable by creating prescription drug affordability boards (PDABs). Governors (or other state leaders) appoint PDAB members who are charged with the task of evaluating the affordability of certain drugs for both the state and its residents. How to do it, and what the limitations are, vary from state to state. In 2019, Maryland was first state to establish a PDAB, charging its members to study commercial insurance and drug pricing and make recommendations on how to make drugs more affordable for Maryland residents. Other states that have passed PDAB legislation are Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, and Washington.

Colorado, Minnesota, and Washington – and soon Maryland and Oregon – hope to make drugs more affordable for patients by allowing their PDABs to set an upper payment limit (UPL). A UPL serves as a cap on the sales price and reimbursement for a drug. The Michigan legislature is actively debating legislation that would establish a PDAB and allow it to set UPLs. On the surface, this may appear to be a potential solution to the affordability issue. However, as always, there are many questions as to how this will work and what are the unintended consequences of price setting and establishing UPLs for medications. UPLs have the potential to harm access to provider-administered drugs. With the help of advocacy from the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO), Washington’s PDAB statute potentially has a carve-out for provider-administered drugs.
 

Possible unintended consequences for provider-administered drugs

CSRO asked for a meeting with the Colorado PDAB after they announced their list of drugs for which UPLs would be set. We spoke with the PDAB in October, hoping to point out some of the unintended consequences that needed to be considered. One of the big questions we have revolves around the “buy and bill” provider-administered drugs. According to the language of the Colorado statute, providers would not be paid any more than the UPL for a drug administered in their office. CSRO is concerned that this would leave providers uncompensated for the service of administering the drug and associated overhead. This is not to mention that providers may not be able to find a group purchasing organization that would even sell the drug at the UPL, much less a lower price than the UPL. And even if a provider could buy it at the UPL, that would mean there would be no margin to cover the overhead for their infusion suite. Interestingly, while Colorado’s rules for the UPL state that pharmacies can be paid an additional reasonable dispensing fee beyond the UPL, no such allowance is made for providers administering one of these medications. In fact, the Colorado PDAB specifically indicated that the goal of the state’s UPL methodology was to ensure that there was no “delta” between what is paid for the drug by the provider and what is reimbursed to a provider for the drug by the payer. This may cause some providers to be unable to “afford” to administer those drugs with UPLs, which ultimately reduces access for residents of Colorado to that particular medication. This is the exact opposite of what the PDAB is supposed to accomplish.

There are still many questions. What impact will UPLs have on a medication’s placement on a formulary? As we know, preferred formulary placement is often given to drugs with the highest price concession from the manufacturers. Will setting a UPL on payment for specialty pharmacy drugs to pharmacy benefit manager-owned specialty pharmacies affect that drug’s ability to be on the formulary? And again, how will the PDAB resolve the issue of compensating the provider for overhead costs associated with administering the medication?

Even more confusing questions remain. How will the UPL be enforced when a “purchase” or “sale” of the drug is made by an out-of-state entity somewhere along the supply chain? When ultimately the drug is purchased and delivered to a Colorado consumer by a Colorado provider/pharmacy, there are multiple points of the supply chain that may be outside of the jurisdiction of Colorado to enforce the UPL. This would create a misalignment in pricing among various supply chain entities.

While the sentiment behind creating PDABs is noble, it may end up having the unintended consequence of patients losing access to these drugs because of the perverse incentives involved in formulary construction or providers’ inability to afford to offer provider-administered drugs with UPLs.

Remember, expensive specialty pharmacy medications are already discounted greatly by manufacturers, often more than 50% to pharmacy benefit managers; and yet those cost savings are not passed on to the patients. Also, there is no oversight of 340B hospital contracted pharmacies to make sure that they pass those savings on to needy patients. Perhaps PDABs should address those issues, as well, if patient access to expensive medications is the goal.

Clearly, there are no easy answers. But with so many variables in the drug supply chain affecting patient access, concentrating only on one aspect may end up causing more harm than good. If your state is thinking of passing a PDAB, please let your legislators know that there are issues with this type of legislation that perhaps should be worked out before the bill is passed.
 

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

Making medications more accessible to those who need them is the focus of attention in the media and in all levels of government. For a drug to be accessible, it must be affordable and available. Something may be affordable, but if it isn’t available, no one will have access to it. Think of toilet paper in the first year of the COVID pandemic. The opposite is also true. An item may be available, but if it isn’t affordable, access is lost. While medication affordability is viewed as the major problem for patients, lack of availability has begun to creep into our drug supply chain. We are now experiencing drug shortages for medications that are very affordable. The perverse incentives, inherent in formulary construction, favor higher-priced medications, which decreases the availability of lower-priced – yet still expensive – drugs, thus increasing patient cost share. Formulary placement and patient cost share, important determinants of accessibility, are controlled by health plans and differ considerably even from the same payer. And yet, the price of drugs remains the target of most approaches to increasing patients’ access. And now price negotiations and drug affordability boards enter into the picture.

What are prescription drug affordability boards?

Both state and federal legislatures have placed the affordability of medications front and center on their agendas. However, neither are considering how formulary construction affects patient’s access to medications. The Inflation Reduction Act is Congress’s foray into price setting/negotiation of expensive drugs. Over the last few years, states are also attempting to make drugs more affordable by creating prescription drug affordability boards (PDABs). Governors (or other state leaders) appoint PDAB members who are charged with the task of evaluating the affordability of certain drugs for both the state and its residents. How to do it, and what the limitations are, vary from state to state. In 2019, Maryland was first state to establish a PDAB, charging its members to study commercial insurance and drug pricing and make recommendations on how to make drugs more affordable for Maryland residents. Other states that have passed PDAB legislation are Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, and Washington.

Colorado, Minnesota, and Washington – and soon Maryland and Oregon – hope to make drugs more affordable for patients by allowing their PDABs to set an upper payment limit (UPL). A UPL serves as a cap on the sales price and reimbursement for a drug. The Michigan legislature is actively debating legislation that would establish a PDAB and allow it to set UPLs. On the surface, this may appear to be a potential solution to the affordability issue. However, as always, there are many questions as to how this will work and what are the unintended consequences of price setting and establishing UPLs for medications. UPLs have the potential to harm access to provider-administered drugs. With the help of advocacy from the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO), Washington’s PDAB statute potentially has a carve-out for provider-administered drugs.
 

Possible unintended consequences for provider-administered drugs

CSRO asked for a meeting with the Colorado PDAB after they announced their list of drugs for which UPLs would be set. We spoke with the PDAB in October, hoping to point out some of the unintended consequences that needed to be considered. One of the big questions we have revolves around the “buy and bill” provider-administered drugs. According to the language of the Colorado statute, providers would not be paid any more than the UPL for a drug administered in their office. CSRO is concerned that this would leave providers uncompensated for the service of administering the drug and associated overhead. This is not to mention that providers may not be able to find a group purchasing organization that would even sell the drug at the UPL, much less a lower price than the UPL. And even if a provider could buy it at the UPL, that would mean there would be no margin to cover the overhead for their infusion suite. Interestingly, while Colorado’s rules for the UPL state that pharmacies can be paid an additional reasonable dispensing fee beyond the UPL, no such allowance is made for providers administering one of these medications. In fact, the Colorado PDAB specifically indicated that the goal of the state’s UPL methodology was to ensure that there was no “delta” between what is paid for the drug by the provider and what is reimbursed to a provider for the drug by the payer. This may cause some providers to be unable to “afford” to administer those drugs with UPLs, which ultimately reduces access for residents of Colorado to that particular medication. This is the exact opposite of what the PDAB is supposed to accomplish.

There are still many questions. What impact will UPLs have on a medication’s placement on a formulary? As we know, preferred formulary placement is often given to drugs with the highest price concession from the manufacturers. Will setting a UPL on payment for specialty pharmacy drugs to pharmacy benefit manager-owned specialty pharmacies affect that drug’s ability to be on the formulary? And again, how will the PDAB resolve the issue of compensating the provider for overhead costs associated with administering the medication?

Even more confusing questions remain. How will the UPL be enforced when a “purchase” or “sale” of the drug is made by an out-of-state entity somewhere along the supply chain? When ultimately the drug is purchased and delivered to a Colorado consumer by a Colorado provider/pharmacy, there are multiple points of the supply chain that may be outside of the jurisdiction of Colorado to enforce the UPL. This would create a misalignment in pricing among various supply chain entities.

While the sentiment behind creating PDABs is noble, it may end up having the unintended consequence of patients losing access to these drugs because of the perverse incentives involved in formulary construction or providers’ inability to afford to offer provider-administered drugs with UPLs.

Remember, expensive specialty pharmacy medications are already discounted greatly by manufacturers, often more than 50% to pharmacy benefit managers; and yet those cost savings are not passed on to the patients. Also, there is no oversight of 340B hospital contracted pharmacies to make sure that they pass those savings on to needy patients. Perhaps PDABs should address those issues, as well, if patient access to expensive medications is the goal.

Clearly, there are no easy answers. But with so many variables in the drug supply chain affecting patient access, concentrating only on one aspect may end up causing more harm than good. If your state is thinking of passing a PDAB, please let your legislators know that there are issues with this type of legislation that perhaps should be worked out before the bill is passed.
 

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

PHILADELPHIA – Reducing albuminuria is a key mediator of the way finerenone (Kerendia, Bayer) reduces adverse renal and cardiovascular events in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), based on findings from two novel mediation analyses run on data from more than 12,000 people included in the two finerenone pivotal trials.

Results from these analyses showed that the reduction in urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) linked to finerenone treatment mediated 84% of the kidney protection and 37% of the cardiovascular event protection that finerenone treatment produced in the FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD phase 3 trials. FIDELIO-DKD, which had protection against adverse kidney outcomes as its primary endpoint, supplied the data that led to finerenone’s approval in 2021 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating people with type 2 diabetes and CKD.

The findings of the mediation analyses underscore the important role that albuminuria plays in the nephropathy and related comorbidities associated with type 2 diabetes and CKD and highlight the importance of ongoing monitoring of albuminuria to guide treatments aimed at minimizing this pathology, said Rajiv Agarwal, MD, who presented a poster on the mediation analyses at Kidney Week 2023, organized by the American Society of Nephrology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“My hope is that this [report] heightens awareness of UACR” as an important marker of both CKD and of the response by patients with CKD to their treatment, said Dr. Agarwal, a nephrologist and professor at Indiana University in Indianapolis.

“Only about half of people with type 2 diabetes get their UACR measured even though every guideline says measure UACR in people with diabetes. Our findings say that UACR is important not just for CKD diagnosis but also to give feedback” on whether management is working, Dr. Agarwal said in an interview.
 

Incorporate UACR into clinical decision-making

“My hope is that clinicians will look at UACR as something they should incorporate into clinical decision-making. I measure UACR in my patients [with CKD and type 2 diabetes] at every visit; it’s so inexpensive. Albuminuria is not a good sign. If it’s not reduced in a patient by at least 30% [the recommended minimum reduction by the American Diabetes Association for people who start with a UACR of at least 300 mg/g] clinicians should think of what else they could do to lower albuminuria”: Reduce salt intake, improve blood pressure control, make sure the patient is adherent to treatments, and add additional treatments, Dr. Agarwal advised.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Multiple efforts are now underway or will soon start to boost the rate at which at-risk people get their UACR measured, noted Leslie A. Inker, MD, in a separate talk during Kidney Week. These efforts include the National Kidney Foundation’s CKD Learning Collaborative, which aims to improve clinician awareness of CKD and improve routine testing for CKD. Early results during 2023 from this program in Missouri showed a nearly 8–percentage point increase in the screening rate for UACR levels in at-risk people, said Dr. Inker, professor and director of the Kidney and Blood Pressure Center at Tufts Medical Center in Boston.

A second advance was introduction in 2018 of the “kidney profile” lab order by the American College of Clinical Pathology that allows clinicians to order as a single test both an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and a UACR.

Also, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the National Committee for Quality Assurance have both taken steps to encourage UACR ordering. The NCQA established a new Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set performance measure for U.S. physicians starting in 2023 that will track measurement of UACR and eGFR in people with diabetes. CMS also has made assessment of kidney health a measure of care quality in programs effective in 2023 and 2024, Dr. Inker noted.
 

Most subjects had elevated UACRs

The study run by Dr. Agarwal and his associates used data from 12,512 of the more than 13,000 people enrolled in either FIDELITY-DKD or FIGARO-DKD who had UACR measurements recorded at baseline, at 4 months into either study, or both. Their median UACR at the time they began on finerenone or placebo was 514 mg/g, with 67% having a UACR of at least 300 mg/g (macroalbuminuria) and 31% having a UACR of 30-299 mg/g (microalbuminuria). By design, virtually all patients in these two trials were on a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin-receptor blocker), but given the time period when the two trials enrolled participants (during 2015-2018) only 7% of those enrolled were on a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor and only 7% were on a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist.

Four months after treatment began, 53% of those randomized to finerenone treatment and 27% of those in the placebo arm had their UACR reduced by at least 30% from baseline, the cutpoint chosen by Dr. Agarwal based on the American Diabetes Association guideline.

Kaplan-Meier analyses showed that the incidence of the primary kidney outcome – kidney failure, a sustained ≥ 57% decrease in eGFR from baseline, or kidney death – showed close correlation with at least a 30% reduction in UACR regardless of whether the patients in this subgroup received finerenone or placebo.

A different correlation was found in those with a less than 30% reduction in their UACR from baseline to 4 months, regardless of whether this happened on finerenone or placebo. People in the two finerenone trials who had a lesser reduction from baseline in their UACR also had a significantly higher rate of adverse kidney outcomes whether they received finerenone or placebo.

84% of finerenone’s kidney benefit linked to lowering of UACR

The causal-mediation analysis run by Dr. Agarwal quantified this observation, showing that 84% of finerenone’s effect on the kidney outcome was mediated by the reduction in UACR.

“It seems like the kidney benefit [from finerenone] travels through the level of albuminuria. This has broad implications for treatment of people with type 2 diabetes and CKD,” he said.

The link with reduction in albuminuria was weaker for the primary cardiovascular disease outcome: CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure. The strongest effect on this outcome was only seen in Kaplan-Meier analysis in those on finerenone who had at least a 30% reduction in their UACR. Those on placebo and with a similarly robust 4-month reduction in UACR showed a much more modest cardiovascular benefit that resembled those on either finerenone or placebo who had a smaller, less than 30% UACR reduction. The mediation analysis of these data showed that UACR reduction accounted for about 37% of the observed cardiovascular benefit seen during the trials.

“The effect of UACR is much stronger for the kidney outcomes,” summed up Dr. Agarwal. The results suggest that for cardiovascular outcomes finerenone works through factors other than lowering of UACR, but he admitted that no one currently knows what those other factors might be.
 

Treat aggressively to lower UACR by 30%

“I wouldn’t stop finerenone treatment in people who do not get a 30% reduction in their UACR” because these analyses suggest that a portion of the overall benefits from finerenone occurs via other mechanisms, he said. But in patients whose UACR is not reduced by at least 30% “be more aggressive on other measures to reduce UACR,” he advised.

The mediation analyses he ran are “the first time this has been done in nephrology,” producing a “groundbreaking” analysis and finding, Dr. Agarwal said. He also highlighted that the findings primarily relate to the importance of controlling UACR rather than an endorsement of finerenone as the best way to achieve this.

“All I care about is that people think about UACR as a modifiable risk factor. It doesn’t have to be treated with finerenone. It could be a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, it could be chlorthalidone [a thiazide diuretic]. It just happened that we had a large dataset of people treated with finerenone or placebo.”

He said that future mediation analyses should look at the link between outcomes and UACR reductions produced by agents from the classes of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists.

FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD were both sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone. Dr. Agarwal has received personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bayer. He has also received personal fees and nonfinancial support from Akebia Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Vifor Pharma, and he is a member of data safety monitoring committees for Chinook and Vertex. Dr. Inker is a consultant to Diamtrix, and her department receives research funding from Chinook, Omeros, Reata, and Tricida.

PHILADELPHIA – Reducing albuminuria is a key mediator of the way finerenone (Kerendia, Bayer) reduces adverse renal and cardiovascular events in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), based on findings from two novel mediation analyses run on data from more than 12,000 people included in the two finerenone pivotal trials.

Results from these analyses showed that the reduction in urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) linked to finerenone treatment mediated 84% of the kidney protection and 37% of the cardiovascular event protection that finerenone treatment produced in the FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD phase 3 trials. FIDELIO-DKD, which had protection against adverse kidney outcomes as its primary endpoint, supplied the data that led to finerenone’s approval in 2021 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating people with type 2 diabetes and CKD.

The findings of the mediation analyses underscore the important role that albuminuria plays in the nephropathy and related comorbidities associated with type 2 diabetes and CKD and highlight the importance of ongoing monitoring of albuminuria to guide treatments aimed at minimizing this pathology, said Rajiv Agarwal, MD, who presented a poster on the mediation analyses at Kidney Week 2023, organized by the American Society of Nephrology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“My hope is that this [report] heightens awareness of UACR” as an important marker of both CKD and of the response by patients with CKD to their treatment, said Dr. Agarwal, a nephrologist and professor at Indiana University in Indianapolis.

“Only about half of people with type 2 diabetes get their UACR measured even though every guideline says measure UACR in people with diabetes. Our findings say that UACR is important not just for CKD diagnosis but also to give feedback” on whether management is working, Dr. Agarwal said in an interview.
 

Incorporate UACR into clinical decision-making

“My hope is that clinicians will look at UACR as something they should incorporate into clinical decision-making. I measure UACR in my patients [with CKD and type 2 diabetes] at every visit; it’s so inexpensive. Albuminuria is not a good sign. If it’s not reduced in a patient by at least 30% [the recommended minimum reduction by the American Diabetes Association for people who start with a UACR of at least 300 mg/g] clinicians should think of what else they could do to lower albuminuria”: Reduce salt intake, improve blood pressure control, make sure the patient is adherent to treatments, and add additional treatments, Dr. Agarwal advised.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Multiple efforts are now underway or will soon start to boost the rate at which at-risk people get their UACR measured, noted Leslie A. Inker, MD, in a separate talk during Kidney Week. These efforts include the National Kidney Foundation’s CKD Learning Collaborative, which aims to improve clinician awareness of CKD and improve routine testing for CKD. Early results during 2023 from this program in Missouri showed a nearly 8–percentage point increase in the screening rate for UACR levels in at-risk people, said Dr. Inker, professor and director of the Kidney and Blood Pressure Center at Tufts Medical Center in Boston.

A second advance was introduction in 2018 of the “kidney profile” lab order by the American College of Clinical Pathology that allows clinicians to order as a single test both an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and a UACR.

Also, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the National Committee for Quality Assurance have both taken steps to encourage UACR ordering. The NCQA established a new Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set performance measure for U.S. physicians starting in 2023 that will track measurement of UACR and eGFR in people with diabetes. CMS also has made assessment of kidney health a measure of care quality in programs effective in 2023 and 2024, Dr. Inker noted.
 

Most subjects had elevated UACRs

The study run by Dr. Agarwal and his associates used data from 12,512 of the more than 13,000 people enrolled in either FIDELITY-DKD or FIGARO-DKD who had UACR measurements recorded at baseline, at 4 months into either study, or both. Their median UACR at the time they began on finerenone or placebo was 514 mg/g, with 67% having a UACR of at least 300 mg/g (macroalbuminuria) and 31% having a UACR of 30-299 mg/g (microalbuminuria). By design, virtually all patients in these two trials were on a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin-receptor blocker), but given the time period when the two trials enrolled participants (during 2015-2018) only 7% of those enrolled were on a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor and only 7% were on a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist.

Four months after treatment began, 53% of those randomized to finerenone treatment and 27% of those in the placebo arm had their UACR reduced by at least 30% from baseline, the cutpoint chosen by Dr. Agarwal based on the American Diabetes Association guideline.

Kaplan-Meier analyses showed that the incidence of the primary kidney outcome – kidney failure, a sustained ≥ 57% decrease in eGFR from baseline, or kidney death – showed close correlation with at least a 30% reduction in UACR regardless of whether the patients in this subgroup received finerenone or placebo.

A different correlation was found in those with a less than 30% reduction in their UACR from baseline to 4 months, regardless of whether this happened on finerenone or placebo. People in the two finerenone trials who had a lesser reduction from baseline in their UACR also had a significantly higher rate of adverse kidney outcomes whether they received finerenone or placebo.

84% of finerenone’s kidney benefit linked to lowering of UACR

The causal-mediation analysis run by Dr. Agarwal quantified this observation, showing that 84% of finerenone’s effect on the kidney outcome was mediated by the reduction in UACR.

“It seems like the kidney benefit [from finerenone] travels through the level of albuminuria. This has broad implications for treatment of people with type 2 diabetes and CKD,” he said.

The link with reduction in albuminuria was weaker for the primary cardiovascular disease outcome: CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure. The strongest effect on this outcome was only seen in Kaplan-Meier analysis in those on finerenone who had at least a 30% reduction in their UACR. Those on placebo and with a similarly robust 4-month reduction in UACR showed a much more modest cardiovascular benefit that resembled those on either finerenone or placebo who had a smaller, less than 30% UACR reduction. The mediation analysis of these data showed that UACR reduction accounted for about 37% of the observed cardiovascular benefit seen during the trials.

“The effect of UACR is much stronger for the kidney outcomes,” summed up Dr. Agarwal. The results suggest that for cardiovascular outcomes finerenone works through factors other than lowering of UACR, but he admitted that no one currently knows what those other factors might be.
 

Treat aggressively to lower UACR by 30%

“I wouldn’t stop finerenone treatment in people who do not get a 30% reduction in their UACR” because these analyses suggest that a portion of the overall benefits from finerenone occurs via other mechanisms, he said. But in patients whose UACR is not reduced by at least 30% “be more aggressive on other measures to reduce UACR,” he advised.

The mediation analyses he ran are “the first time this has been done in nephrology,” producing a “groundbreaking” analysis and finding, Dr. Agarwal said. He also highlighted that the findings primarily relate to the importance of controlling UACR rather than an endorsement of finerenone as the best way to achieve this.

“All I care about is that people think about UACR as a modifiable risk factor. It doesn’t have to be treated with finerenone. It could be a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, it could be chlorthalidone [a thiazide diuretic]. It just happened that we had a large dataset of people treated with finerenone or placebo.”

He said that future mediation analyses should look at the link between outcomes and UACR reductions produced by agents from the classes of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists.

FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD were both sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone. Dr. Agarwal has received personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bayer. He has also received personal fees and nonfinancial support from Akebia Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Vifor Pharma, and he is a member of data safety monitoring committees for Chinook and Vertex. Dr. Inker is a consultant to Diamtrix, and her department receives research funding from Chinook, Omeros, Reata, and Tricida.

PHILADELPHIA – Reducing albuminuria is a key mediator of the way finerenone (Kerendia, Bayer) reduces adverse renal and cardiovascular events in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), based on findings from two novel mediation analyses run on data from more than 12,000 people included in the two finerenone pivotal trials.

Results from these analyses showed that the reduction in urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) linked to finerenone treatment mediated 84% of the kidney protection and 37% of the cardiovascular event protection that finerenone treatment produced in the FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD phase 3 trials. FIDELIO-DKD, which had protection against adverse kidney outcomes as its primary endpoint, supplied the data that led to finerenone’s approval in 2021 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating people with type 2 diabetes and CKD.

The findings of the mediation analyses underscore the important role that albuminuria plays in the nephropathy and related comorbidities associated with type 2 diabetes and CKD and highlight the importance of ongoing monitoring of albuminuria to guide treatments aimed at minimizing this pathology, said Rajiv Agarwal, MD, who presented a poster on the mediation analyses at Kidney Week 2023, organized by the American Society of Nephrology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“My hope is that this [report] heightens awareness of UACR” as an important marker of both CKD and of the response by patients with CKD to their treatment, said Dr. Agarwal, a nephrologist and professor at Indiana University in Indianapolis.

“Only about half of people with type 2 diabetes get their UACR measured even though every guideline says measure UACR in people with diabetes. Our findings say that UACR is important not just for CKD diagnosis but also to give feedback” on whether management is working, Dr. Agarwal said in an interview.
 

Incorporate UACR into clinical decision-making

“My hope is that clinicians will look at UACR as something they should incorporate into clinical decision-making. I measure UACR in my patients [with CKD and type 2 diabetes] at every visit; it’s so inexpensive. Albuminuria is not a good sign. If it’s not reduced in a patient by at least 30% [the recommended minimum reduction by the American Diabetes Association for people who start with a UACR of at least 300 mg/g] clinicians should think of what else they could do to lower albuminuria”: Reduce salt intake, improve blood pressure control, make sure the patient is adherent to treatments, and add additional treatments, Dr. Agarwal advised.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Multiple efforts are now underway or will soon start to boost the rate at which at-risk people get their UACR measured, noted Leslie A. Inker, MD, in a separate talk during Kidney Week. These efforts include the National Kidney Foundation’s CKD Learning Collaborative, which aims to improve clinician awareness of CKD and improve routine testing for CKD. Early results during 2023 from this program in Missouri showed a nearly 8–percentage point increase in the screening rate for UACR levels in at-risk people, said Dr. Inker, professor and director of the Kidney and Blood Pressure Center at Tufts Medical Center in Boston.

A second advance was introduction in 2018 of the “kidney profile” lab order by the American College of Clinical Pathology that allows clinicians to order as a single test both an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and a UACR.

Also, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the National Committee for Quality Assurance have both taken steps to encourage UACR ordering. The NCQA established a new Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set performance measure for U.S. physicians starting in 2023 that will track measurement of UACR and eGFR in people with diabetes. CMS also has made assessment of kidney health a measure of care quality in programs effective in 2023 and 2024, Dr. Inker noted.
 

Most subjects had elevated UACRs

The study run by Dr. Agarwal and his associates used data from 12,512 of the more than 13,000 people enrolled in either FIDELITY-DKD or FIGARO-DKD who had UACR measurements recorded at baseline, at 4 months into either study, or both. Their median UACR at the time they began on finerenone or placebo was 514 mg/g, with 67% having a UACR of at least 300 mg/g (macroalbuminuria) and 31% having a UACR of 30-299 mg/g (microalbuminuria). By design, virtually all patients in these two trials were on a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin-receptor blocker), but given the time period when the two trials enrolled participants (during 2015-2018) only 7% of those enrolled were on a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor and only 7% were on a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist.

Four months after treatment began, 53% of those randomized to finerenone treatment and 27% of those in the placebo arm had their UACR reduced by at least 30% from baseline, the cutpoint chosen by Dr. Agarwal based on the American Diabetes Association guideline.

Kaplan-Meier analyses showed that the incidence of the primary kidney outcome – kidney failure, a sustained ≥ 57% decrease in eGFR from baseline, or kidney death – showed close correlation with at least a 30% reduction in UACR regardless of whether the patients in this subgroup received finerenone or placebo.

A different correlation was found in those with a less than 30% reduction in their UACR from baseline to 4 months, regardless of whether this happened on finerenone or placebo. People in the two finerenone trials who had a lesser reduction from baseline in their UACR also had a significantly higher rate of adverse kidney outcomes whether they received finerenone or placebo.

84% of finerenone’s kidney benefit linked to lowering of UACR

The causal-mediation analysis run by Dr. Agarwal quantified this observation, showing that 84% of finerenone’s effect on the kidney outcome was mediated by the reduction in UACR.

“It seems like the kidney benefit [from finerenone] travels through the level of albuminuria. This has broad implications for treatment of people with type 2 diabetes and CKD,” he said.

The link with reduction in albuminuria was weaker for the primary cardiovascular disease outcome: CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure. The strongest effect on this outcome was only seen in Kaplan-Meier analysis in those on finerenone who had at least a 30% reduction in their UACR. Those on placebo and with a similarly robust 4-month reduction in UACR showed a much more modest cardiovascular benefit that resembled those on either finerenone or placebo who had a smaller, less than 30% UACR reduction. The mediation analysis of these data showed that UACR reduction accounted for about 37% of the observed cardiovascular benefit seen during the trials.

“The effect of UACR is much stronger for the kidney outcomes,” summed up Dr. Agarwal. The results suggest that for cardiovascular outcomes finerenone works through factors other than lowering of UACR, but he admitted that no one currently knows what those other factors might be.
 

Treat aggressively to lower UACR by 30%

“I wouldn’t stop finerenone treatment in people who do not get a 30% reduction in their UACR” because these analyses suggest that a portion of the overall benefits from finerenone occurs via other mechanisms, he said. But in patients whose UACR is not reduced by at least 30% “be more aggressive on other measures to reduce UACR,” he advised.

The mediation analyses he ran are “the first time this has been done in nephrology,” producing a “groundbreaking” analysis and finding, Dr. Agarwal said. He also highlighted that the findings primarily relate to the importance of controlling UACR rather than an endorsement of finerenone as the best way to achieve this.

“All I care about is that people think about UACR as a modifiable risk factor. It doesn’t have to be treated with finerenone. It could be a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, it could be chlorthalidone [a thiazide diuretic]. It just happened that we had a large dataset of people treated with finerenone or placebo.”

He said that future mediation analyses should look at the link between outcomes and UACR reductions produced by agents from the classes of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists.

FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD were both sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone. Dr. Agarwal has received personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bayer. He has also received personal fees and nonfinancial support from Akebia Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Vifor Pharma, and he is a member of data safety monitoring committees for Chinook and Vertex. Dr. Inker is a consultant to Diamtrix, and her department receives research funding from Chinook, Omeros, Reata, and Tricida.

Key clinical point: In patients with psoriasis, the German Psoriasis Arthritis Diagnostic (GEPARD) questionnaire followed by a dermatological assessment can detect psoriatic arthritis (PsA) risk almost accurately, and entheseal ultrasound by dermatologists shows no additional benefits in this regard.

Major finding: PsA was diagnosed in 6 out of 40 patients, with a sensitivity of 100%; however, dermatologic ultrasound evaluation of the entheses alone was unable to confirm these findings. Of the remaining 34 patients with psoriasis, 8 were deemed by dermatologists as possibly having PsA based on the ultrasound examination although rheumatologists detected ultrasound abnormalities in only 3 patients.

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional study including 40 patients with psoriasis who completed the GEPARD questionnaire and subsequently underwent an assessment for PsA by a dermatologist and an ultrasound examination.

Disclosures: This study was supported by a conditional research grant from Rheumazentrum Erlangen-Nuremberg e.V. and AGJR Verbundprojekt. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Bartsch V et al. Screening for psoriatic arthritis in dermatological settings—Are handheld ultrasound devices the gamechangers we hoped for? Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Nov 3). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead592

Key clinical point: In patients with psoriasis, the German Psoriasis Arthritis Diagnostic (GEPARD) questionnaire followed by a dermatological assessment can detect psoriatic arthritis (PsA) risk almost accurately, and entheseal ultrasound by dermatologists shows no additional benefits in this regard.

Major finding: PsA was diagnosed in 6 out of 40 patients, with a sensitivity of 100%; however, dermatologic ultrasound evaluation of the entheses alone was unable to confirm these findings. Of the remaining 34 patients with psoriasis, 8 were deemed by dermatologists as possibly having PsA based on the ultrasound examination although rheumatologists detected ultrasound abnormalities in only 3 patients.

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional study including 40 patients with psoriasis who completed the GEPARD questionnaire and subsequently underwent an assessment for PsA by a dermatologist and an ultrasound examination.

Disclosures: This study was supported by a conditional research grant from Rheumazentrum Erlangen-Nuremberg e.V. and AGJR Verbundprojekt. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Bartsch V et al. Screening for psoriatic arthritis in dermatological settings—Are handheld ultrasound devices the gamechangers we hoped for? Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Nov 3). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead592

Key clinical point: In patients with psoriasis, the German Psoriasis Arthritis Diagnostic (GEPARD) questionnaire followed by a dermatological assessment can detect psoriatic arthritis (PsA) risk almost accurately, and entheseal ultrasound by dermatologists shows no additional benefits in this regard.

Major finding: PsA was diagnosed in 6 out of 40 patients, with a sensitivity of 100%; however, dermatologic ultrasound evaluation of the entheses alone was unable to confirm these findings. Of the remaining 34 patients with psoriasis, 8 were deemed by dermatologists as possibly having PsA based on the ultrasound examination although rheumatologists detected ultrasound abnormalities in only 3 patients.

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional study including 40 patients with psoriasis who completed the GEPARD questionnaire and subsequently underwent an assessment for PsA by a dermatologist and an ultrasound examination.

Disclosures: This study was supported by a conditional research grant from Rheumazentrum Erlangen-Nuremberg e.V. and AGJR Verbundprojekt. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Bartsch V et al. Screening for psoriatic arthritis in dermatological settings—Are handheld ultrasound devices the gamechangers we hoped for? Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Nov 3). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead592

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), except those with elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels (≥10 mg/L) and radiographic sacroiliac involvement, generally had a very low likelihood of developing syndesmophytes.

Major finding: At 2 years of follow-up, the majority (~90%) of patients showed no new syndesmophyte development, with syndesmophyte development being reported in only 11 patients. The probability of developing vs not developing syndesmophytes increased numerically by 3 and 14 times in patients with radiographic sacroiliitis and in those with radiographic sacroiliitis plus elevated CRP levels, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of the data of 150 patients with PsA from the Belgian Epidemiological Psoriatic Arthritis Study (BEPAS) trial who had baseline and 2-year follow-up radiographs available.

Disclosures: The BEPAS trial was funded by MSD Belgium. Some authors declared receiving consultancy fees, speaker fees, or research grants from or having other ties with various sources, including MSD.

Source: de Hooge M et al. Specific descriptions of axial involvement are associated with radiographic damage development after 2 years in psoriatic arthritis patients. Ann Rheum Dis. 2023 (Nov 2). doi: 10.1136/ard-2023-224501

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), except those with elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels (≥10 mg/L) and radiographic sacroiliac involvement, generally had a very low likelihood of developing syndesmophytes.

Major finding: At 2 years of follow-up, the majority (~90%) of patients showed no new syndesmophyte development, with syndesmophyte development being reported in only 11 patients. The probability of developing vs not developing syndesmophytes increased numerically by 3 and 14 times in patients with radiographic sacroiliitis and in those with radiographic sacroiliitis plus elevated CRP levels, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of the data of 150 patients with PsA from the Belgian Epidemiological Psoriatic Arthritis Study (BEPAS) trial who had baseline and 2-year follow-up radiographs available.

Disclosures: The BEPAS trial was funded by MSD Belgium. Some authors declared receiving consultancy fees, speaker fees, or research grants from or having other ties with various sources, including MSD.

Source: de Hooge M et al. Specific descriptions of axial involvement are associated with radiographic damage development after 2 years in psoriatic arthritis patients. Ann Rheum Dis. 2023 (Nov 2). doi: 10.1136/ard-2023-224501

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), except those with elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels (≥10 mg/L) and radiographic sacroiliac involvement, generally had a very low likelihood of developing syndesmophytes.

Major finding: At 2 years of follow-up, the majority (~90%) of patients showed no new syndesmophyte development, with syndesmophyte development being reported in only 11 patients. The probability of developing vs not developing syndesmophytes increased numerically by 3 and 14 times in patients with radiographic sacroiliitis and in those with radiographic sacroiliitis plus elevated CRP levels, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of the data of 150 patients with PsA from the Belgian Epidemiological Psoriatic Arthritis Study (BEPAS) trial who had baseline and 2-year follow-up radiographs available.

Disclosures: The BEPAS trial was funded by MSD Belgium. Some authors declared receiving consultancy fees, speaker fees, or research grants from or having other ties with various sources, including MSD.

Source: de Hooge M et al. Specific descriptions of axial involvement are associated with radiographic damage development after 2 years in psoriatic arthritis patients. Ann Rheum Dis. 2023 (Nov 2). doi: 10.1136/ard-2023-224501

Key clinical point: Improvement in the Disease Activity Index in PsA (DAPSA) scores as early as week 8 was associated with a lower progression of structural joint damage at 2 years in biologic-naive patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were treated with guselkumab.

Major finding: A greater improvement in DAPSA scores as early as week 8 (parameter estimate [β] −0.03, P = .0096) and the achievement of DAPSA low disease activity at week 8 (least squares mean difference −1.44; P = .0151) were associated with a significantly lower radiographic progression of joint damage through week 100.

Study details: This post hoc analysis included 449 biologic-naive patients with PsA from the DISCOVER-2 trial who received 100 mg guselkumab every 4 or 8 weeks.

Disclosures: The DISCOVER-2 trial was funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC. Five authors declared being employees of Janssen or owning stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson. The other authors declared ties with various sources, including Janssen.

Source: Mease PJ et al. Earlier clinical response predicts low rates of radiographic progression in biologic-naïve patients with active psoriatic arthritis receiving guselkumab treatment. Clin Rheumatol. 2023 (Oct 3). doi: 10.1007/s10067-023-06745-y

Key clinical point: Improvement in the Disease Activity Index in PsA (DAPSA) scores as early as week 8 was associated with a lower progression of structural joint damage at 2 years in biologic-naive patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were treated with guselkumab.

Major finding: A greater improvement in DAPSA scores as early as week 8 (parameter estimate [β] −0.03, P = .0096) and the achievement of DAPSA low disease activity at week 8 (least squares mean difference −1.44; P = .0151) were associated with a significantly lower radiographic progression of joint damage through week 100.

Study details: This post hoc analysis included 449 biologic-naive patients with PsA from the DISCOVER-2 trial who received 100 mg guselkumab every 4 or 8 weeks.

Disclosures: The DISCOVER-2 trial was funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC. Five authors declared being employees of Janssen or owning stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson. The other authors declared ties with various sources, including Janssen.

Source: Mease PJ et al. Earlier clinical response predicts low rates of radiographic progression in biologic-naïve patients with active psoriatic arthritis receiving guselkumab treatment. Clin Rheumatol. 2023 (Oct 3). doi: 10.1007/s10067-023-06745-y

Key clinical point: Improvement in the Disease Activity Index in PsA (DAPSA) scores as early as week 8 was associated with a lower progression of structural joint damage at 2 years in biologic-naive patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were treated with guselkumab.

Major finding: A greater improvement in DAPSA scores as early as week 8 (parameter estimate [β] −0.03, P = .0096) and the achievement of DAPSA low disease activity at week 8 (least squares mean difference −1.44; P = .0151) were associated with a significantly lower radiographic progression of joint damage through week 100.

Study details: This post hoc analysis included 449 biologic-naive patients with PsA from the DISCOVER-2 trial who received 100 mg guselkumab every 4 or 8 weeks.

Disclosures: The DISCOVER-2 trial was funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC. Five authors declared being employees of Janssen or owning stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson. The other authors declared ties with various sources, including Janssen.

Source: Mease PJ et al. Earlier clinical response predicts low rates of radiographic progression in biologic-naïve patients with active psoriatic arthritis receiving guselkumab treatment. Clin Rheumatol. 2023 (Oct 3). doi: 10.1007/s10067-023-06745-y