MDedge Rheumatology

A CDC advisory panel recommended on Jan. 5 that 12- to 17-year-olds in the U.S. should get the Pfizer COVID-19 booster shot 5 months after a primary series of vaccinations.

The CDC had already said 16- and 17-year-olds “may” receive a Pfizer booster but the new recommendation adds the 12- to 15-year-old group and strengthens the “may” to “should” for 16- and 17-year-olds.

The committee voted 13-1 to recommend the booster for ages 12-17. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, must still approve the recommendation for it to take effect.

The vote comes after the FDA on Jan. 3 authorized the Pfizer vaccine booster dose for 12- to 15-year-olds.

The FDA action updated the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, and the agency also shortened the recommended time between a second dose and the booster to 5 months or more (from 6 months). A third primary series dose is also now authorized for certain immunocompromised children between 5 and 11 years old. Full details are available in an FDA news release.

The CDC on Jan. 4 also backed the shortened time frame and a third primary series dose for some immunocompromised children 5-11 years old. But the CDC delayed a decision on a booster for 12- to 15-year-olds until it heard from its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Jan. 5.

The decision came as school districts nationwide are wrestling with decisions of whether to keep schools open or revert to a virtual format as cases surge, and as pediatric COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reach new highs.

The only dissenting vote came from Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.

She said after the vote, “I am just fine with kids getting a booster. This is not me against all boosters. I just really want the U.S. to move forward with all kids.”

Dr. Talbot said earlier in the comment period, “If we divert our public health from the unvaccinated to the vaccinated, we are not going to make a big impact. Boosters are incredibly important but they won’t solve this problem of the crowded hospitals.”

She said vaccinating the unvaccinated must be the priority.

“If you are a parent out there who has not yet vaccinated your child because you have questions, please, please talk to a health care provider,” she said.

Among the 13 supporters of the recommendation was Oliver Brooks, MD, chief medical officer of Watts HealthCare Corporation in Los Angeles.

Dr. Brooks said extending the population for boosters is another tool in the toolbox.

“If it’s a hammer, we should hit that nail hard,” he said.

Sara Oliver, MD, ACIP’s lead for the COVID-19 work group, presented the case behind the recommendation.

She noted the soaring Omicron cases.

“As of Jan. 3, the 7-day average had reached an all-time high of nearly 500,000 cases,” Dr. Oliver noted.

Since this summer, she said, adolescents have had a higher rate of incidence than that of adults.

“The majority of COVID cases continue to occur among the unvaccinated,” she said, “with unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds having a 7-times-higher risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds. Unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds have around 11 times higher risk of hospitalization than vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds.

“Vaccine effectiveness in adolescents 12-15 years old remains high,” Dr. Oliver said, but evidence shows there may be “some waning over time.”

Discussion of risk centered on myocarditis.

Dr. Oliver said myocarditis rates reported after the Pfizer vaccine in Israel across all populations as of Dec. 15 show that “the rates of myocarditis after a third dose are lower than what is seen after the second dose.”

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

A CDC advisory panel recommended on Jan. 5 that 12- to 17-year-olds in the U.S. should get the Pfizer COVID-19 booster shot 5 months after a primary series of vaccinations.

The CDC had already said 16- and 17-year-olds “may” receive a Pfizer booster but the new recommendation adds the 12- to 15-year-old group and strengthens the “may” to “should” for 16- and 17-year-olds.

The committee voted 13-1 to recommend the booster for ages 12-17. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, must still approve the recommendation for it to take effect.

The vote comes after the FDA on Jan. 3 authorized the Pfizer vaccine booster dose for 12- to 15-year-olds.

The FDA action updated the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, and the agency also shortened the recommended time between a second dose and the booster to 5 months or more (from 6 months). A third primary series dose is also now authorized for certain immunocompromised children between 5 and 11 years old. Full details are available in an FDA news release.

The CDC on Jan. 4 also backed the shortened time frame and a third primary series dose for some immunocompromised children 5-11 years old. But the CDC delayed a decision on a booster for 12- to 15-year-olds until it heard from its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Jan. 5.

The decision came as school districts nationwide are wrestling with decisions of whether to keep schools open or revert to a virtual format as cases surge, and as pediatric COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reach new highs.

The only dissenting vote came from Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.

She said after the vote, “I am just fine with kids getting a booster. This is not me against all boosters. I just really want the U.S. to move forward with all kids.”

Dr. Talbot said earlier in the comment period, “If we divert our public health from the unvaccinated to the vaccinated, we are not going to make a big impact. Boosters are incredibly important but they won’t solve this problem of the crowded hospitals.”

She said vaccinating the unvaccinated must be the priority.

“If you are a parent out there who has not yet vaccinated your child because you have questions, please, please talk to a health care provider,” she said.

Among the 13 supporters of the recommendation was Oliver Brooks, MD, chief medical officer of Watts HealthCare Corporation in Los Angeles.

Dr. Brooks said extending the population for boosters is another tool in the toolbox.

“If it’s a hammer, we should hit that nail hard,” he said.

Sara Oliver, MD, ACIP’s lead for the COVID-19 work group, presented the case behind the recommendation.

She noted the soaring Omicron cases.

“As of Jan. 3, the 7-day average had reached an all-time high of nearly 500,000 cases,” Dr. Oliver noted.

Since this summer, she said, adolescents have had a higher rate of incidence than that of adults.

“The majority of COVID cases continue to occur among the unvaccinated,” she said, “with unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds having a 7-times-higher risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds. Unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds have around 11 times higher risk of hospitalization than vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds.

“Vaccine effectiveness in adolescents 12-15 years old remains high,” Dr. Oliver said, but evidence shows there may be “some waning over time.”

Discussion of risk centered on myocarditis.

Dr. Oliver said myocarditis rates reported after the Pfizer vaccine in Israel across all populations as of Dec. 15 show that “the rates of myocarditis after a third dose are lower than what is seen after the second dose.”

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

A CDC advisory panel recommended on Jan. 5 that 12- to 17-year-olds in the U.S. should get the Pfizer COVID-19 booster shot 5 months after a primary series of vaccinations.

The CDC had already said 16- and 17-year-olds “may” receive a Pfizer booster but the new recommendation adds the 12- to 15-year-old group and strengthens the “may” to “should” for 16- and 17-year-olds.

The committee voted 13-1 to recommend the booster for ages 12-17. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, must still approve the recommendation for it to take effect.

The vote comes after the FDA on Jan. 3 authorized the Pfizer vaccine booster dose for 12- to 15-year-olds.

The FDA action updated the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, and the agency also shortened the recommended time between a second dose and the booster to 5 months or more (from 6 months). A third primary series dose is also now authorized for certain immunocompromised children between 5 and 11 years old. Full details are available in an FDA news release.

The CDC on Jan. 4 also backed the shortened time frame and a third primary series dose for some immunocompromised children 5-11 years old. But the CDC delayed a decision on a booster for 12- to 15-year-olds until it heard from its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Jan. 5.

The decision came as school districts nationwide are wrestling with decisions of whether to keep schools open or revert to a virtual format as cases surge, and as pediatric COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reach new highs.

The only dissenting vote came from Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.

She said after the vote, “I am just fine with kids getting a booster. This is not me against all boosters. I just really want the U.S. to move forward with all kids.”

Dr. Talbot said earlier in the comment period, “If we divert our public health from the unvaccinated to the vaccinated, we are not going to make a big impact. Boosters are incredibly important but they won’t solve this problem of the crowded hospitals.”

She said vaccinating the unvaccinated must be the priority.

“If you are a parent out there who has not yet vaccinated your child because you have questions, please, please talk to a health care provider,” she said.

Among the 13 supporters of the recommendation was Oliver Brooks, MD, chief medical officer of Watts HealthCare Corporation in Los Angeles.

Dr. Brooks said extending the population for boosters is another tool in the toolbox.

“If it’s a hammer, we should hit that nail hard,” he said.

Sara Oliver, MD, ACIP’s lead for the COVID-19 work group, presented the case behind the recommendation.

She noted the soaring Omicron cases.

“As of Jan. 3, the 7-day average had reached an all-time high of nearly 500,000 cases,” Dr. Oliver noted.

Since this summer, she said, adolescents have had a higher rate of incidence than that of adults.

“The majority of COVID cases continue to occur among the unvaccinated,” she said, “with unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds having a 7-times-higher risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds. Unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds have around 11 times higher risk of hospitalization than vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds.

“Vaccine effectiveness in adolescents 12-15 years old remains high,” Dr. Oliver said, but evidence shows there may be “some waning over time.”

Discussion of risk centered on myocarditis.

Dr. Oliver said myocarditis rates reported after the Pfizer vaccine in Israel across all populations as of Dec. 15 show that “the rates of myocarditis after a third dose are lower than what is seen after the second dose.”

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

If a fish can drive …

Have you ever seen a sparrow swim? Have you ever seen an elephant fly? How about a goldfish driving a car? Well, one of these is not just something out of a children’s book.

In a recent study, investigators from Ben-Gurion University did the impossible and got a fish to drive a robotic car on land. How?

PxHere

No, there wasn’t a tiny steering wheel inside the tank. The researchers created a tank with video recognition ability to sync with the fish. This video shows that the car, on which the tank sat, would navigate in the direction that the fish swam. The goal was to get the fish to “drive” toward a visual target, and with a little training the fish was successful regardless of start point, the researchers explained.

So what does that tell us about the brain and behavior? Shachar Givon, who was part of the research team, said the “study hints that navigational ability is universal rather than specific to the environment.”

The study’s domain transfer methodology (putting one species in the environment of another and have them cope with an unfamiliar task) shows that other animals also have the cognitive ability to transfer skills from one terrestrial environment to another.

That leads us to lesson two. Goldfish are much smarter than we think. So please don’t tap on the glass.
 

We prefer ‘It’s not writing a funny LOTME article’!

So many medical journals spend all their time grappling with such silly dilemmas as curing cancer or beating COVID-19. Boring! Fortunately, the BMJ dares to stand above the rest by dedicating its Christmas issue to answering the real issues in medicine. And what was the biggest question? Which is the more accurate idiom: “It’s not rocket science,” or “It’s not brain surgery”?

Tumisu/Pixabay

English researchers collected data from 329 aerospace engineers and 72 neurosurgeons who took the Great British Intelligence Test and compared the results against 18,000 people in the general public.

The engineers and neurosurgeons were basically identical in four of the six domains, but neurosurgeons had the advantage when it came to semantic problem solving and engineers had an edge at mental manipulation and attention. The aerospace engineers were identical to the public in all domains, but neurosurgeons held an advantage in problem-solving speed and a disadvantage in memory recall speed.

The researchers noted that exposure to Latin and Greek etymologies during their education gave neurosurgeons the advantage in semantic problem solving, while the aerospace engineers’ advantage in mental manipulation stems from skills taught during engineering training.

But is there a definitive answer to the question? If you’ve got an easy task in front of you, which is more accurate to say: “It’s not rocket science” or “It’s not brain surgery”? Can we get a drum roll?

It’s not brain surgery! At least, as long as the task doesn’t involve rapid problem solving. The investigators hedged further by saying that “It’s a walk in the park” is probably more accurate. Plus, “other specialties might deserve to be on that pedestal, and future work should aim to determine the most deserving profession,” they wrote. Well, at least we’ve got something to look forward to in BMJ’s next Christmas issue.
 

For COVID-19, a syringe is the sheep of things to come

The logical approach to fighting COVID-19 hasn’t really worked with a lot of people, so how about something more emotional?

ChiemSeherin/Pixabay

People love animals, so they might be a good way to promote the use of vaccines and masks. Puppies are awfully cute, and so are koalas and pandas. And who can say no to a sea otter?

Well, forget it. Instead, we’ve got elephants … and sheep … and goats. Oh my.

First, elephant Santas. The Jirasartwitthaya school in Ayutthaya, Thailand, was recently visited by five elephants in Santa Claus costumes who handed out hand sanitizer and face masks to the students, Reuters said.

“I’m so glad that I got a balloon from the elephant. My heart is pounding very fast,” student Biuon Greham said. And balloons. The elephants handed out sanitizer and masks and balloons. There’s a sentence we never thought we’d write.

And those sheep and goats we mentioned? That was a different party.

Hanspeter Etzold, who “works with shepherds, companies, and animals to run team-building events in the northern German town of Schneverdingen,” according to Reuters, had an idea to promote the use of the COVID-19 vaccine. And yes, it involved sheep and goats.

Mr. Etzold worked with shepherd Wiebke Schmidt-Kochan, who arranged her 700 goats and sheep into the shape of a 100-meter-long syringe using bits of bread laying on the ground. “Sheep are such likable animals – maybe they can get the message over better,” Mr. Etzold told AP.

If those are the carrots in an animals-as-carrots-and-sticks approach, then maybe this golf-club-chomping crab could be the stick. We’re certainly not going to argue with it.
 

To be or not to be … seen

Increased Zoom meetings have been another side effect of the COVID-19 pandemic as more and more people have been working and learning from home.

filadendron/E+

If a fish can drive …

Have you ever seen a sparrow swim? Have you ever seen an elephant fly? How about a goldfish driving a car? Well, one of these is not just something out of a children’s book.

In a recent study, investigators from Ben-Gurion University did the impossible and got a fish to drive a robotic car on land. How?

PxHere

No, there wasn’t a tiny steering wheel inside the tank. The researchers created a tank with video recognition ability to sync with the fish. This video shows that the car, on which the tank sat, would navigate in the direction that the fish swam. The goal was to get the fish to “drive” toward a visual target, and with a little training the fish was successful regardless of start point, the researchers explained.

So what does that tell us about the brain and behavior? Shachar Givon, who was part of the research team, said the “study hints that navigational ability is universal rather than specific to the environment.”

The study’s domain transfer methodology (putting one species in the environment of another and have them cope with an unfamiliar task) shows that other animals also have the cognitive ability to transfer skills from one terrestrial environment to another.

That leads us to lesson two. Goldfish are much smarter than we think. So please don’t tap on the glass.
 

We prefer ‘It’s not writing a funny LOTME article’!

So many medical journals spend all their time grappling with such silly dilemmas as curing cancer or beating COVID-19. Boring! Fortunately, the BMJ dares to stand above the rest by dedicating its Christmas issue to answering the real issues in medicine. And what was the biggest question? Which is the more accurate idiom: “It’s not rocket science,” or “It’s not brain surgery”?

Tumisu/Pixabay

English researchers collected data from 329 aerospace engineers and 72 neurosurgeons who took the Great British Intelligence Test and compared the results against 18,000 people in the general public.

The engineers and neurosurgeons were basically identical in four of the six domains, but neurosurgeons had the advantage when it came to semantic problem solving and engineers had an edge at mental manipulation and attention. The aerospace engineers were identical to the public in all domains, but neurosurgeons held an advantage in problem-solving speed and a disadvantage in memory recall speed.

The researchers noted that exposure to Latin and Greek etymologies during their education gave neurosurgeons the advantage in semantic problem solving, while the aerospace engineers’ advantage in mental manipulation stems from skills taught during engineering training.

But is there a definitive answer to the question? If you’ve got an easy task in front of you, which is more accurate to say: “It’s not rocket science” or “It’s not brain surgery”? Can we get a drum roll?

It’s not brain surgery! At least, as long as the task doesn’t involve rapid problem solving. The investigators hedged further by saying that “It’s a walk in the park” is probably more accurate. Plus, “other specialties might deserve to be on that pedestal, and future work should aim to determine the most deserving profession,” they wrote. Well, at least we’ve got something to look forward to in BMJ’s next Christmas issue.
 

For COVID-19, a syringe is the sheep of things to come

The logical approach to fighting COVID-19 hasn’t really worked with a lot of people, so how about something more emotional?

ChiemSeherin/Pixabay

People love animals, so they might be a good way to promote the use of vaccines and masks. Puppies are awfully cute, and so are koalas and pandas. And who can say no to a sea otter?

Well, forget it. Instead, we’ve got elephants … and sheep … and goats. Oh my.

First, elephant Santas. The Jirasartwitthaya school in Ayutthaya, Thailand, was recently visited by five elephants in Santa Claus costumes who handed out hand sanitizer and face masks to the students, Reuters said.

“I’m so glad that I got a balloon from the elephant. My heart is pounding very fast,” student Biuon Greham said. And balloons. The elephants handed out sanitizer and masks and balloons. There’s a sentence we never thought we’d write.

And those sheep and goats we mentioned? That was a different party.

Hanspeter Etzold, who “works with shepherds, companies, and animals to run team-building events in the northern German town of Schneverdingen,” according to Reuters, had an idea to promote the use of the COVID-19 vaccine. And yes, it involved sheep and goats.

Mr. Etzold worked with shepherd Wiebke Schmidt-Kochan, who arranged her 700 goats and sheep into the shape of a 100-meter-long syringe using bits of bread laying on the ground. “Sheep are such likable animals – maybe they can get the message over better,” Mr. Etzold told AP.

If those are the carrots in an animals-as-carrots-and-sticks approach, then maybe this golf-club-chomping crab could be the stick. We’re certainly not going to argue with it.
 

To be or not to be … seen

Increased Zoom meetings have been another side effect of the COVID-19 pandemic as more and more people have been working and learning from home.

filadendron/E+

If a fish can drive …

Have you ever seen a sparrow swim? Have you ever seen an elephant fly? How about a goldfish driving a car? Well, one of these is not just something out of a children’s book.

In a recent study, investigators from Ben-Gurion University did the impossible and got a fish to drive a robotic car on land. How?

PxHere

No, there wasn’t a tiny steering wheel inside the tank. The researchers created a tank with video recognition ability to sync with the fish. This video shows that the car, on which the tank sat, would navigate in the direction that the fish swam. The goal was to get the fish to “drive” toward a visual target, and with a little training the fish was successful regardless of start point, the researchers explained.

So what does that tell us about the brain and behavior? Shachar Givon, who was part of the research team, said the “study hints that navigational ability is universal rather than specific to the environment.”

The study’s domain transfer methodology (putting one species in the environment of another and have them cope with an unfamiliar task) shows that other animals also have the cognitive ability to transfer skills from one terrestrial environment to another.

That leads us to lesson two. Goldfish are much smarter than we think. So please don’t tap on the glass.
 

We prefer ‘It’s not writing a funny LOTME article’!

So many medical journals spend all their time grappling with such silly dilemmas as curing cancer or beating COVID-19. Boring! Fortunately, the BMJ dares to stand above the rest by dedicating its Christmas issue to answering the real issues in medicine. And what was the biggest question? Which is the more accurate idiom: “It’s not rocket science,” or “It’s not brain surgery”?

Tumisu/Pixabay

English researchers collected data from 329 aerospace engineers and 72 neurosurgeons who took the Great British Intelligence Test and compared the results against 18,000 people in the general public.

The engineers and neurosurgeons were basically identical in four of the six domains, but neurosurgeons had the advantage when it came to semantic problem solving and engineers had an edge at mental manipulation and attention. The aerospace engineers were identical to the public in all domains, but neurosurgeons held an advantage in problem-solving speed and a disadvantage in memory recall speed.

The researchers noted that exposure to Latin and Greek etymologies during their education gave neurosurgeons the advantage in semantic problem solving, while the aerospace engineers’ advantage in mental manipulation stems from skills taught during engineering training.

But is there a definitive answer to the question? If you’ve got an easy task in front of you, which is more accurate to say: “It’s not rocket science” or “It’s not brain surgery”? Can we get a drum roll?

It’s not brain surgery! At least, as long as the task doesn’t involve rapid problem solving. The investigators hedged further by saying that “It’s a walk in the park” is probably more accurate. Plus, “other specialties might deserve to be on that pedestal, and future work should aim to determine the most deserving profession,” they wrote. Well, at least we’ve got something to look forward to in BMJ’s next Christmas issue.
 

For COVID-19, a syringe is the sheep of things to come

The logical approach to fighting COVID-19 hasn’t really worked with a lot of people, so how about something more emotional?

ChiemSeherin/Pixabay

People love animals, so they might be a good way to promote the use of vaccines and masks. Puppies are awfully cute, and so are koalas and pandas. And who can say no to a sea otter?

Well, forget it. Instead, we’ve got elephants … and sheep … and goats. Oh my.

First, elephant Santas. The Jirasartwitthaya school in Ayutthaya, Thailand, was recently visited by five elephants in Santa Claus costumes who handed out hand sanitizer and face masks to the students, Reuters said.

“I’m so glad that I got a balloon from the elephant. My heart is pounding very fast,” student Biuon Greham said. And balloons. The elephants handed out sanitizer and masks and balloons. There’s a sentence we never thought we’d write.

And those sheep and goats we mentioned? That was a different party.

Hanspeter Etzold, who “works with shepherds, companies, and animals to run team-building events in the northern German town of Schneverdingen,” according to Reuters, had an idea to promote the use of the COVID-19 vaccine. And yes, it involved sheep and goats.

Mr. Etzold worked with shepherd Wiebke Schmidt-Kochan, who arranged her 700 goats and sheep into the shape of a 100-meter-long syringe using bits of bread laying on the ground. “Sheep are such likable animals – maybe they can get the message over better,” Mr. Etzold told AP.

If those are the carrots in an animals-as-carrots-and-sticks approach, then maybe this golf-club-chomping crab could be the stick. We’re certainly not going to argue with it.
 

To be or not to be … seen

Increased Zoom meetings have been another side effect of the COVID-19 pandemic as more and more people have been working and learning from home.

filadendron/E+

A small, open-label, randomized trial of patients with chronic pain from hip and knee osteoarthritis in the Netherlands shows that adding duloxetine to usual care doesn’t significantly improve clinical outcomes.

The results, published on Jan. 6 in Arthritis & Rheumatology, also showed duloxetine did not affect outcomes for a subgroup of patients who had symptoms of centrally sensitized pain, according to Jacoline J. van den Driest, MD, of the department of general practice at Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues.

The researchers acknowledged their findings contrast with other studies that showed a “small to moderate effect of duloxetine” for patients with chronic pain from hip and knee OA. There was also a higher rate of discontinuation of duloxetine around 3 months in the current trial, compared with previous studies, the authors said, which they attributed to the fact that clinicians were asked to discontinue treatment at 3 months if patients saw no effect or increased side effects.

“This difference in outcome can be due to the fact that we studied the effectiveness of duloxetine in primary care, while the other studies examined the efficacy in placebo-controlled trials in secondary care,” the researchers wrote. Patients in the current trial were also older, had more comorbidities, and had been living with OA symptoms “for a longer time” than patients in other trials, they explained.

“It is known that, in these more ‘real-life’ primary care populations and in effectiveness studies, smaller effects are found than in highly controlled efficacy trials,” they noted.

Dr. van den Driest and colleagues evaluated 132 patients with hip or knee OA between January 2016 and February 2019 who were cluster randomized at 66 general practitioner practice sites to receive duloxetine (30 mg/day in the first week, 60 mg/day in the second week and beyond) in addition to usual care that consisted of analgesics, physiotherapy, patient education, diet, and lifestyle advice. Patients were included in the study if they were at least 18 years old, met the American College of Rheumatology criteria for hip or knee OA, and experienced chronic pain for “most days” over 3 months that was not improved through use of NSAIDs or acetaminophen or were unable to use NSAIDs because of contraindications or adverse effects. They were excluded if taking duloxetine was contraindicated for them, if they were taking an antidepressant or neuropathic pain medication, and if they had rheumatoid arthritis or were scheduled for total hip or total knee replacement.

The researchers assessed patients’ Western Ontario McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index pain scores at 3 months, compared with baseline, as a primary outcome, with secondary outcomes of WOMAC pain and function at 1 year, and cost-effectiveness as measured by the EQ-5D-5L. A modified painDETECT questionnaire was also used at baseline to identify a subset of patients with presence of centralized pain, which was defined as a score >12.

At 12 months, 80.3% of patients in both groups completed follow-up. Patient characteristics differed in duloxetine and usual-care groups, with the duloxetine group being younger (63.2 years vs. 65.4 years) and having fewer women (59.1% vs. 75.8%). The duloxetine group also had a lower percentage of patients with knee OA (77.3% vs. 86.4%) and a lower percentage of patients with two or more comorbidities (15.2% vs. 33.2%).

Duloxetine led to a nonsignificant improvement in WOMAC-measured pain at 3 months, compared with usual care (adjusted difference, –0.58; 95% confidence interval, –1.80 to 0.63), and at 12 months (adjusted difference, –0.26; 95% CI, –1.86 to 1.34). Among a subgroup of patients with central sensitization symptoms, there was a nonsignificant improvement in WOMAC-measured pain at 3 months (adjusted difference, –0.32; 95% CI, –2.32 to 1.67) and 12 months (adjusted difference, 1.02; 95% CI, –1.22 to 3.27).

Duloxetine also did not significantly improve WOMAC-measured function at 3 months (adjusted difference, –2.10; 95% CI, –6.39 to 2.20) or 12 months (adjusted difference, –1.79; 95% CI, –7.22 to 3.64).

For other secondary outcomes of quality of life, patient satisfaction, and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT)-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) responder criteria, Dr. van den Driest and colleagues noted that “none of the differences between the two groups were clinically relevant or statistically significant.”

Some patients may likely still benefit from duloxetine
Commenting on the results, Joshua F. Baker, MD, MSCE, associate professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania and Philadelphia VA Medical Center, said the study by van den Driest and colleagues is pragmatic and demonstrates the “ ‘real-world’ benefits of trying duloxetine” – one of the study’s strengths.

“As we would probably expect, the benefits are small, and somewhat smaller in this setting than what was observed in more standard clinical trials evaluating this question,” he said, noting that the study is limited by a small sample size and loss to follow-up, as well as its open-label design and the fact that most patients stopped treatment during follow-up.

Dr. Baker also explained that while patients on average did not have a meaningful effect after taking duloxetine, “that doesn’t mean that the therapy didn’t have a meaningful effect for some people.” 

“In fact, though most people didn’t receive a meaningful benefit in this study, some did,” he said. “[A]ccording to these data, treating 8 people would be expected to result in 1 person achieving an [OMERACT-OARSI] response. That’s pretty good for a disease with few things that work.”

Future study of duloxetine should focus on who is most likely to benefit from treatment “since while most probably don’t benefit a lot, some probably do,” he said.

Dr. Baker also called attention to the questions surrounding use of antidepressants. “Use of antidepressants has been questioned by some, since the average clinical benefit is low, even for conditions like depression,” he explained. “However, some would argue that even small benefits may be important since there are few things that do work very well, and because a multimodal approach that provides multiple small benefits to patients can add up to a meaningful benefit.”

This study was funded by The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development. One author reported receiving grants from The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, the European Union, FOREUM, and the Dutch Arthritis Association, as well as personal fees from OARSI and Pfizer. The other authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

* This story was updated 1/6/22.

A small, open-label, randomized trial of patients with chronic pain from hip and knee osteoarthritis in the Netherlands shows that adding duloxetine to usual care doesn’t significantly improve clinical outcomes.

The results, published on Jan. 6 in Arthritis & Rheumatology, also showed duloxetine did not affect outcomes for a subgroup of patients who had symptoms of centrally sensitized pain, according to Jacoline J. van den Driest, MD, of the department of general practice at Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues.

The researchers acknowledged their findings contrast with other studies that showed a “small to moderate effect of duloxetine” for patients with chronic pain from hip and knee OA. There was also a higher rate of discontinuation of duloxetine around 3 months in the current trial, compared with previous studies, the authors said, which they attributed to the fact that clinicians were asked to discontinue treatment at 3 months if patients saw no effect or increased side effects.

“This difference in outcome can be due to the fact that we studied the effectiveness of duloxetine in primary care, while the other studies examined the efficacy in placebo-controlled trials in secondary care,” the researchers wrote. Patients in the current trial were also older, had more comorbidities, and had been living with OA symptoms “for a longer time” than patients in other trials, they explained.

“It is known that, in these more ‘real-life’ primary care populations and in effectiveness studies, smaller effects are found than in highly controlled efficacy trials,” they noted.

Dr. van den Driest and colleagues evaluated 132 patients with hip or knee OA between January 2016 and February 2019 who were cluster randomized at 66 general practitioner practice sites to receive duloxetine (30 mg/day in the first week, 60 mg/day in the second week and beyond) in addition to usual care that consisted of analgesics, physiotherapy, patient education, diet, and lifestyle advice. Patients were included in the study if they were at least 18 years old, met the American College of Rheumatology criteria for hip or knee OA, and experienced chronic pain for “most days” over 3 months that was not improved through use of NSAIDs or acetaminophen or were unable to use NSAIDs because of contraindications or adverse effects. They were excluded if taking duloxetine was contraindicated for them, if they were taking an antidepressant or neuropathic pain medication, and if they had rheumatoid arthritis or were scheduled for total hip or total knee replacement.

The researchers assessed patients’ Western Ontario McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index pain scores at 3 months, compared with baseline, as a primary outcome, with secondary outcomes of WOMAC pain and function at 1 year, and cost-effectiveness as measured by the EQ-5D-5L. A modified painDETECT questionnaire was also used at baseline to identify a subset of patients with presence of centralized pain, which was defined as a score >12.

At 12 months, 80.3% of patients in both groups completed follow-up. Patient characteristics differed in duloxetine and usual-care groups, with the duloxetine group being younger (63.2 years vs. 65.4 years) and having fewer women (59.1% vs. 75.8%). The duloxetine group also had a lower percentage of patients with knee OA (77.3% vs. 86.4%) and a lower percentage of patients with two or more comorbidities (15.2% vs. 33.2%).

Duloxetine led to a nonsignificant improvement in WOMAC-measured pain at 3 months, compared with usual care (adjusted difference, –0.58; 95% confidence interval, –1.80 to 0.63), and at 12 months (adjusted difference, –0.26; 95% CI, –1.86 to 1.34). Among a subgroup of patients with central sensitization symptoms, there was a nonsignificant improvement in WOMAC-measured pain at 3 months (adjusted difference, –0.32; 95% CI, –2.32 to 1.67) and 12 months (adjusted difference, 1.02; 95% CI, –1.22 to 3.27).

Duloxetine also did not significantly improve WOMAC-measured function at 3 months (adjusted difference, –2.10; 95% CI, –6.39 to 2.20) or 12 months (adjusted difference, –1.79; 95% CI, –7.22 to 3.64).

For other secondary outcomes of quality of life, patient satisfaction, and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT)-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) responder criteria, Dr. van den Driest and colleagues noted that “none of the differences between the two groups were clinically relevant or statistically significant.”

Some patients may likely still benefit from duloxetine
Commenting on the results, Joshua F. Baker, MD, MSCE, associate professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania and Philadelphia VA Medical Center, said the study by van den Driest and colleagues is pragmatic and demonstrates the “ ‘real-world’ benefits of trying duloxetine” – one of the study’s strengths.

“As we would probably expect, the benefits are small, and somewhat smaller in this setting than what was observed in more standard clinical trials evaluating this question,” he said, noting that the study is limited by a small sample size and loss to follow-up, as well as its open-label design and the fact that most patients stopped treatment during follow-up.

Dr. Baker also explained that while patients on average did not have a meaningful effect after taking duloxetine, “that doesn’t mean that the therapy didn’t have a meaningful effect for some people.” 

“In fact, though most people didn’t receive a meaningful benefit in this study, some did,” he said. “[A]ccording to these data, treating 8 people would be expected to result in 1 person achieving an [OMERACT-OARSI] response. That’s pretty good for a disease with few things that work.”

Future study of duloxetine should focus on who is most likely to benefit from treatment “since while most probably don’t benefit a lot, some probably do,” he said.

Dr. Baker also called attention to the questions surrounding use of antidepressants. “Use of antidepressants has been questioned by some, since the average clinical benefit is low, even for conditions like depression,” he explained. “However, some would argue that even small benefits may be important since there are few things that do work very well, and because a multimodal approach that provides multiple small benefits to patients can add up to a meaningful benefit.”

This study was funded by The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development. One author reported receiving grants from The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, the European Union, FOREUM, and the Dutch Arthritis Association, as well as personal fees from OARSI and Pfizer. The other authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

* This story was updated 1/6/22.

A small, open-label, randomized trial of patients with chronic pain from hip and knee osteoarthritis in the Netherlands shows that adding duloxetine to usual care doesn’t significantly improve clinical outcomes.

The results, published on Jan. 6 in Arthritis & Rheumatology, also showed duloxetine did not affect outcomes for a subgroup of patients who had symptoms of centrally sensitized pain, according to Jacoline J. van den Driest, MD, of the department of general practice at Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues.

The researchers acknowledged their findings contrast with other studies that showed a “small to moderate effect of duloxetine” for patients with chronic pain from hip and knee OA. There was also a higher rate of discontinuation of duloxetine around 3 months in the current trial, compared with previous studies, the authors said, which they attributed to the fact that clinicians were asked to discontinue treatment at 3 months if patients saw no effect or increased side effects.

“This difference in outcome can be due to the fact that we studied the effectiveness of duloxetine in primary care, while the other studies examined the efficacy in placebo-controlled trials in secondary care,” the researchers wrote. Patients in the current trial were also older, had more comorbidities, and had been living with OA symptoms “for a longer time” than patients in other trials, they explained.

“It is known that, in these more ‘real-life’ primary care populations and in effectiveness studies, smaller effects are found than in highly controlled efficacy trials,” they noted.

Dr. van den Driest and colleagues evaluated 132 patients with hip or knee OA between January 2016 and February 2019 who were cluster randomized at 66 general practitioner practice sites to receive duloxetine (30 mg/day in the first week, 60 mg/day in the second week and beyond) in addition to usual care that consisted of analgesics, physiotherapy, patient education, diet, and lifestyle advice. Patients were included in the study if they were at least 18 years old, met the American College of Rheumatology criteria for hip or knee OA, and experienced chronic pain for “most days” over 3 months that was not improved through use of NSAIDs or acetaminophen or were unable to use NSAIDs because of contraindications or adverse effects. They were excluded if taking duloxetine was contraindicated for them, if they were taking an antidepressant or neuropathic pain medication, and if they had rheumatoid arthritis or were scheduled for total hip or total knee replacement.

The researchers assessed patients’ Western Ontario McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index pain scores at 3 months, compared with baseline, as a primary outcome, with secondary outcomes of WOMAC pain and function at 1 year, and cost-effectiveness as measured by the EQ-5D-5L. A modified painDETECT questionnaire was also used at baseline to identify a subset of patients with presence of centralized pain, which was defined as a score >12.

At 12 months, 80.3% of patients in both groups completed follow-up. Patient characteristics differed in duloxetine and usual-care groups, with the duloxetine group being younger (63.2 years vs. 65.4 years) and having fewer women (59.1% vs. 75.8%). The duloxetine group also had a lower percentage of patients with knee OA (77.3% vs. 86.4%) and a lower percentage of patients with two or more comorbidities (15.2% vs. 33.2%).

Duloxetine led to a nonsignificant improvement in WOMAC-measured pain at 3 months, compared with usual care (adjusted difference, –0.58; 95% confidence interval, –1.80 to 0.63), and at 12 months (adjusted difference, –0.26; 95% CI, –1.86 to 1.34). Among a subgroup of patients with central sensitization symptoms, there was a nonsignificant improvement in WOMAC-measured pain at 3 months (adjusted difference, –0.32; 95% CI, –2.32 to 1.67) and 12 months (adjusted difference, 1.02; 95% CI, –1.22 to 3.27).

Duloxetine also did not significantly improve WOMAC-measured function at 3 months (adjusted difference, –2.10; 95% CI, –6.39 to 2.20) or 12 months (adjusted difference, –1.79; 95% CI, –7.22 to 3.64).

For other secondary outcomes of quality of life, patient satisfaction, and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT)-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) responder criteria, Dr. van den Driest and colleagues noted that “none of the differences between the two groups were clinically relevant or statistically significant.”

Some patients may likely still benefit from duloxetine
Commenting on the results, Joshua F. Baker, MD, MSCE, associate professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania and Philadelphia VA Medical Center, said the study by van den Driest and colleagues is pragmatic and demonstrates the “ ‘real-world’ benefits of trying duloxetine” – one of the study’s strengths.

“As we would probably expect, the benefits are small, and somewhat smaller in this setting than what was observed in more standard clinical trials evaluating this question,” he said, noting that the study is limited by a small sample size and loss to follow-up, as well as its open-label design and the fact that most patients stopped treatment during follow-up.

Dr. Baker also explained that while patients on average did not have a meaningful effect after taking duloxetine, “that doesn’t mean that the therapy didn’t have a meaningful effect for some people.” 

“In fact, though most people didn’t receive a meaningful benefit in this study, some did,” he said. “[A]ccording to these data, treating 8 people would be expected to result in 1 person achieving an [OMERACT-OARSI] response. That’s pretty good for a disease with few things that work.”

Future study of duloxetine should focus on who is most likely to benefit from treatment “since while most probably don’t benefit a lot, some probably do,” he said.

Dr. Baker also called attention to the questions surrounding use of antidepressants. “Use of antidepressants has been questioned by some, since the average clinical benefit is low, even for conditions like depression,” he explained. “However, some would argue that even small benefits may be important since there are few things that do work very well, and because a multimodal approach that provides multiple small benefits to patients can add up to a meaningful benefit.”

This study was funded by The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development. One author reported receiving grants from The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, the European Union, FOREUM, and the Dutch Arthritis Association, as well as personal fees from OARSI and Pfizer. The other authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

* This story was updated 1/6/22.

The volume of prescription opioids dispensed at retail pharmacies in the United States dropped by 21% in recent years amid efforts to reduce unnecessary use of the painkillers, but the rate of decline varied greatly among types of patients and by type of clinician, a study found.

In a brief report published by Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers from the nonprofit RAND Corp reported an analysis of opioid prescriptions from two periods, 2008-2009 and 2017-2018.

The researchers sought to assess total opioid use rather than simply track the number of pills dispensed. So they used days’ supply and total daily dose to calculate per capita morphine milligram equivalents (MME) for opioid prescriptions, write Bradley D. Stein, MD, PhD, MPH, the study’s lead author and a senior physician researcher at RAND Corp, and his coauthors in their paper.

For the study, the researchers used data from the consulting firm IQVIA, which they say covers about 90% of U.S. prescriptions. Total opioid volume per capita by prescriptions filled in retail pharmacies decreased from 951.4 MME in 2008-2009 to 749.3 MME in 2017-2018, Dr. Stein’s group found.

(In 2020, IQVIA separately said that prescription opioid use per adult in this country rose from an average of 16 pills, or 134 MMEs, in 1992 to a peak of about 55 pills a person, or 790 MMEs, in 2011. By 2019, opioid use per adult had declined to 29 pills and 366 MMEs per capita.)

The RAND report found substantial variation in opioid volume by type of insurance, including a 41.5% decline (636.5 MME to 372.6 MME) among people covered by commercial health plans. That exceeded the 27.7% drop seen for people enrolled in Medicaid (646.8 MME to 467.7 MME). The decline was smaller (17.5%; 2,780.2 MME to 2,294.2 MME) for those on Medicare, who as a group used the most opioids.

‘Almost functions as a Rorschach test’

The causes of the decline are easy to guess, although definitive conclusions are impossible, Dr. Stein told this news organization.

Significant work has been done in recent years to change attitudes about opioid prescriptions by physicians, researchers, and lawmakers. Aggressive promotion of prescription painkillers, particularly Purdue Pharma’s OxyContin, in the 1990s, is widely cited as the triggering event for the national opioid crisis.

In response, states created databases known as prescription drug monitoring programs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2016 issued guidelines intended to curb unnecessary use of opioids. The guidelines noted that other medicines could treat chronic pain without raising the risk of addiction. The Choosing Wisely campaign, run by a foundation of the American Board of Internal Medicine, also offered recommendations about limiting use of opioids. And insurers have restricted access to opioids through the prior authorization process. As a result, researchers will make their own guesses at the causes of the decline in opioid prescriptions, based on their own experiences and research interests, Dr. Stein said.

“It almost functions as a Rorschach test,” he said.

Dr. Stein’s group also looked at trends among medical specialties. They found the largest reduction between 2008-2009 and 2017-2018 among emergency physicians (70.5% drop from 99,254.5 MME to 29,234.3 MME), psychiatrists (67.2% drop from 50,464.3 MME to 16,533.0 MME) and oncologists (59.5% drop from 51,731.2 MME to 20,941.4).

Among surgeons, the RAND researchers found a drop of 49.3% from 220,764.6 to 111,904.4. Among dentists, they found a drop of 41.3% from 22,345.3 to 13,126.1.

Among pain specialists, they found a drop of 15.4% from 1,020,808.4 MME to 863,140.7 MME.

Among adult primary care clinicians, Dr. Stein and his colleagues found a drop of 40% from 651,489.4 MME in 2008-2009 to 390,841.0 MME in 2017-2018.

However, one of the groups tracked in the study increased the volume of opioid prescriptions written: advanced practice providers, among whom scripts for the drugs rose 22.7%, from 112,873.9 MME to 138,459.3 MME.

Dr. Stein said he suspects that this gain reflects a change in the nature of the practice of primary care, with nurse practitioners and physician assistants taking more active roles in treatment of patients. Some of the reduction seen among primary care clinicians who treat adults may reflect a shift in which medical personnel in a practice write the opioid prescriptions.

Still, the trends in general seen by Dr. Stein and coauthors are encouraging, even if further study of these patterns is needed, he said.

“This is one of those papers that I think potentially raises as many questions as it provides answers for,” he said.

What’s missing

Maya Hambright, MD, a family medicine physician in New York’s Hudson Valley, who has been working mainly in addiction in response to the opioid overdose crisis, observed that the drop in total prescribed volume of prescription painkillers does not necessarily translate into a reduction in use of opioids

“No one is taking fewer opioids,” Dr. Hambright told this news organization. “I can say that comfortably. They are just getting them from other sources.”

CDC data support Dr. Hambright’s view.

An estimated 100,306 people in the United States died of a drug overdose in the 12 months that ended in April 2021, an increase of 28.5% from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year before, according to the CDC.

Dr. Hambright said more physicians need to be involved in prescribing medication-assisted treatment (MAT).

The federal government has in the past year loosened restrictions on a requirement, known as an X waiver. Certain clinicians have been exempted from training requirements, as explained in the frequently asked questions page on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration website.

SAMHSA says legislation is required to eliminate the waiver. As of Dec. 30, 2021, more than half of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives were listed as sponsors of the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act (HR 1384), which would end the need for X waivers. The bill has the backing of 187 Democrats and 43 Republicans.

At this time, too many physicians shy away from offering MAT, Dr. Hambright said.

“People are still scared of it,” she said. “People don’t want to deal with addicts.”

But Dr. Hambright said it’s well worth the initial time invested in having the needed conversations with patients about MAT.

“Afterwards, it’s so straightforward. People feel better. They’re healthier. It’s amazing,” she said. “You’re changing lives.”

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Stein and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The volume of prescription opioids dispensed at retail pharmacies in the United States dropped by 21% in recent years amid efforts to reduce unnecessary use of the painkillers, but the rate of decline varied greatly among types of patients and by type of clinician, a study found.

In a brief report published by Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers from the nonprofit RAND Corp reported an analysis of opioid prescriptions from two periods, 2008-2009 and 2017-2018.

The researchers sought to assess total opioid use rather than simply track the number of pills dispensed. So they used days’ supply and total daily dose to calculate per capita morphine milligram equivalents (MME) for opioid prescriptions, write Bradley D. Stein, MD, PhD, MPH, the study’s lead author and a senior physician researcher at RAND Corp, and his coauthors in their paper.

For the study, the researchers used data from the consulting firm IQVIA, which they say covers about 90% of U.S. prescriptions. Total opioid volume per capita by prescriptions filled in retail pharmacies decreased from 951.4 MME in 2008-2009 to 749.3 MME in 2017-2018, Dr. Stein’s group found.

(In 2020, IQVIA separately said that prescription opioid use per adult in this country rose from an average of 16 pills, or 134 MMEs, in 1992 to a peak of about 55 pills a person, or 790 MMEs, in 2011. By 2019, opioid use per adult had declined to 29 pills and 366 MMEs per capita.)

The RAND report found substantial variation in opioid volume by type of insurance, including a 41.5% decline (636.5 MME to 372.6 MME) among people covered by commercial health plans. That exceeded the 27.7% drop seen for people enrolled in Medicaid (646.8 MME to 467.7 MME). The decline was smaller (17.5%; 2,780.2 MME to 2,294.2 MME) for those on Medicare, who as a group used the most opioids.

‘Almost functions as a Rorschach test’

The causes of the decline are easy to guess, although definitive conclusions are impossible, Dr. Stein told this news organization.

Significant work has been done in recent years to change attitudes about opioid prescriptions by physicians, researchers, and lawmakers. Aggressive promotion of prescription painkillers, particularly Purdue Pharma’s OxyContin, in the 1990s, is widely cited as the triggering event for the national opioid crisis.

In response, states created databases known as prescription drug monitoring programs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2016 issued guidelines intended to curb unnecessary use of opioids. The guidelines noted that other medicines could treat chronic pain without raising the risk of addiction. The Choosing Wisely campaign, run by a foundation of the American Board of Internal Medicine, also offered recommendations about limiting use of opioids. And insurers have restricted access to opioids through the prior authorization process. As a result, researchers will make their own guesses at the causes of the decline in opioid prescriptions, based on their own experiences and research interests, Dr. Stein said.

“It almost functions as a Rorschach test,” he said.

Dr. Stein’s group also looked at trends among medical specialties. They found the largest reduction between 2008-2009 and 2017-2018 among emergency physicians (70.5% drop from 99,254.5 MME to 29,234.3 MME), psychiatrists (67.2% drop from 50,464.3 MME to 16,533.0 MME) and oncologists (59.5% drop from 51,731.2 MME to 20,941.4).

Among surgeons, the RAND researchers found a drop of 49.3% from 220,764.6 to 111,904.4. Among dentists, they found a drop of 41.3% from 22,345.3 to 13,126.1.

Among pain specialists, they found a drop of 15.4% from 1,020,808.4 MME to 863,140.7 MME.

Among adult primary care clinicians, Dr. Stein and his colleagues found a drop of 40% from 651,489.4 MME in 2008-2009 to 390,841.0 MME in 2017-2018.

However, one of the groups tracked in the study increased the volume of opioid prescriptions written: advanced practice providers, among whom scripts for the drugs rose 22.7%, from 112,873.9 MME to 138,459.3 MME.

Dr. Stein said he suspects that this gain reflects a change in the nature of the practice of primary care, with nurse practitioners and physician assistants taking more active roles in treatment of patients. Some of the reduction seen among primary care clinicians who treat adults may reflect a shift in which medical personnel in a practice write the opioid prescriptions.

Still, the trends in general seen by Dr. Stein and coauthors are encouraging, even if further study of these patterns is needed, he said.

“This is one of those papers that I think potentially raises as many questions as it provides answers for,” he said.

What’s missing

Maya Hambright, MD, a family medicine physician in New York’s Hudson Valley, who has been working mainly in addiction in response to the opioid overdose crisis, observed that the drop in total prescribed volume of prescription painkillers does not necessarily translate into a reduction in use of opioids

“No one is taking fewer opioids,” Dr. Hambright told this news organization. “I can say that comfortably. They are just getting them from other sources.”

CDC data support Dr. Hambright’s view.

An estimated 100,306 people in the United States died of a drug overdose in the 12 months that ended in April 2021, an increase of 28.5% from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year before, according to the CDC.

Dr. Hambright said more physicians need to be involved in prescribing medication-assisted treatment (MAT).

The federal government has in the past year loosened restrictions on a requirement, known as an X waiver. Certain clinicians have been exempted from training requirements, as explained in the frequently asked questions page on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration website.

SAMHSA says legislation is required to eliminate the waiver. As of Dec. 30, 2021, more than half of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives were listed as sponsors of the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act (HR 1384), which would end the need for X waivers. The bill has the backing of 187 Democrats and 43 Republicans.

At this time, too many physicians shy away from offering MAT, Dr. Hambright said.

“People are still scared of it,” she said. “People don’t want to deal with addicts.”

But Dr. Hambright said it’s well worth the initial time invested in having the needed conversations with patients about MAT.

“Afterwards, it’s so straightforward. People feel better. They’re healthier. It’s amazing,” she said. “You’re changing lives.”

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Stein and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The volume of prescription opioids dispensed at retail pharmacies in the United States dropped by 21% in recent years amid efforts to reduce unnecessary use of the painkillers, but the rate of decline varied greatly among types of patients and by type of clinician, a study found.

In a brief report published by Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers from the nonprofit RAND Corp reported an analysis of opioid prescriptions from two periods, 2008-2009 and 2017-2018.

The researchers sought to assess total opioid use rather than simply track the number of pills dispensed. So they used days’ supply and total daily dose to calculate per capita morphine milligram equivalents (MME) for opioid prescriptions, write Bradley D. Stein, MD, PhD, MPH, the study’s lead author and a senior physician researcher at RAND Corp, and his coauthors in their paper.

For the study, the researchers used data from the consulting firm IQVIA, which they say covers about 90% of U.S. prescriptions. Total opioid volume per capita by prescriptions filled in retail pharmacies decreased from 951.4 MME in 2008-2009 to 749.3 MME in 2017-2018, Dr. Stein’s group found.

(In 2020, IQVIA separately said that prescription opioid use per adult in this country rose from an average of 16 pills, or 134 MMEs, in 1992 to a peak of about 55 pills a person, or 790 MMEs, in 2011. By 2019, opioid use per adult had declined to 29 pills and 366 MMEs per capita.)

The RAND report found substantial variation in opioid volume by type of insurance, including a 41.5% decline (636.5 MME to 372.6 MME) among people covered by commercial health plans. That exceeded the 27.7% drop seen for people enrolled in Medicaid (646.8 MME to 467.7 MME). The decline was smaller (17.5%; 2,780.2 MME to 2,294.2 MME) for those on Medicare, who as a group used the most opioids.

‘Almost functions as a Rorschach test’

The causes of the decline are easy to guess, although definitive conclusions are impossible, Dr. Stein told this news organization.

Significant work has been done in recent years to change attitudes about opioid prescriptions by physicians, researchers, and lawmakers. Aggressive promotion of prescription painkillers, particularly Purdue Pharma’s OxyContin, in the 1990s, is widely cited as the triggering event for the national opioid crisis.

In response, states created databases known as prescription drug monitoring programs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2016 issued guidelines intended to curb unnecessary use of opioids. The guidelines noted that other medicines could treat chronic pain without raising the risk of addiction. The Choosing Wisely campaign, run by a foundation of the American Board of Internal Medicine, also offered recommendations about limiting use of opioids. And insurers have restricted access to opioids through the prior authorization process. As a result, researchers will make their own guesses at the causes of the decline in opioid prescriptions, based on their own experiences and research interests, Dr. Stein said.

“It almost functions as a Rorschach test,” he said.

Dr. Stein’s group also looked at trends among medical specialties. They found the largest reduction between 2008-2009 and 2017-2018 among emergency physicians (70.5% drop from 99,254.5 MME to 29,234.3 MME), psychiatrists (67.2% drop from 50,464.3 MME to 16,533.0 MME) and oncologists (59.5% drop from 51,731.2 MME to 20,941.4).

Among surgeons, the RAND researchers found a drop of 49.3% from 220,764.6 to 111,904.4. Among dentists, they found a drop of 41.3% from 22,345.3 to 13,126.1.

Among pain specialists, they found a drop of 15.4% from 1,020,808.4 MME to 863,140.7 MME.

Among adult primary care clinicians, Dr. Stein and his colleagues found a drop of 40% from 651,489.4 MME in 2008-2009 to 390,841.0 MME in 2017-2018.

However, one of the groups tracked in the study increased the volume of opioid prescriptions written: advanced practice providers, among whom scripts for the drugs rose 22.7%, from 112,873.9 MME to 138,459.3 MME.

Dr. Stein said he suspects that this gain reflects a change in the nature of the practice of primary care, with nurse practitioners and physician assistants taking more active roles in treatment of patients. Some of the reduction seen among primary care clinicians who treat adults may reflect a shift in which medical personnel in a practice write the opioid prescriptions.

Still, the trends in general seen by Dr. Stein and coauthors are encouraging, even if further study of these patterns is needed, he said.

“This is one of those papers that I think potentially raises as many questions as it provides answers for,” he said.

What’s missing

Maya Hambright, MD, a family medicine physician in New York’s Hudson Valley, who has been working mainly in addiction in response to the opioid overdose crisis, observed that the drop in total prescribed volume of prescription painkillers does not necessarily translate into a reduction in use of opioids

“No one is taking fewer opioids,” Dr. Hambright told this news organization. “I can say that comfortably. They are just getting them from other sources.”

CDC data support Dr. Hambright’s view.

An estimated 100,306 people in the United States died of a drug overdose in the 12 months that ended in April 2021, an increase of 28.5% from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year before, according to the CDC.

Dr. Hambright said more physicians need to be involved in prescribing medication-assisted treatment (MAT).

The federal government has in the past year loosened restrictions on a requirement, known as an X waiver. Certain clinicians have been exempted from training requirements, as explained in the frequently asked questions page on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration website.

SAMHSA says legislation is required to eliminate the waiver. As of Dec. 30, 2021, more than half of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives were listed as sponsors of the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act (HR 1384), which would end the need for X waivers. The bill has the backing of 187 Democrats and 43 Republicans.

At this time, too many physicians shy away from offering MAT, Dr. Hambright said.

“People are still scared of it,” she said. “People don’t want to deal with addicts.”

But Dr. Hambright said it’s well worth the initial time invested in having the needed conversations with patients about MAT.

“Afterwards, it’s so straightforward. People feel better. They’re healthier. It’s amazing,” she said. “You’re changing lives.”

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Stein and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recently updated guidance on isolating and testing were tied to the public’s increased interest in testing, Director Rochelle Walenksy, MD, said during a White House briefing Jan. 5.

Health officials recently shortened the recommended COVID-19 isolation and quarantine period from 10 days to 5, creating confusion amid an outbreak of the highly transmissible Omicron variant, which now accounts for 95% of cases in the United States.

Then, in slightly updated guidance, the CDC recommended using an at-home antigen test after 5 days of isolation if possible, even though these tests having aren’t as sensitive to the Omicron variant, according to the FDA.

“After we released our recs early last week, it became very clear people were interested in using the rapid test, though not authorized for this purpose after the end of their isolation period,” Dr. Walensky said. “We then provided guidance on how they should be used.”

“If that test is negative, people really do need to understand they must continue to wear their mask for those 5 days,” Dr. Walensky said.

But for many, the CDC guidelines are murky and seem to always change.

“Nearly 2 years into this pandemic, with Omicron cases surging across the country, the American people should be able to count on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for timely, accurate, clear guidance to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their communities,” American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, said in a statement. “Instead, the new recommendations on quarantine and isolation are not only confusing, but are risking further spread of the virus.”

About 31% of people remain infectious 5 days after a positive COVID-19 test, Dr. Harmon said, quoting the CDC’s own rationale for changing its guidance.

“With hundreds of thousands of new cases daily and more than a million positive reported cases on January 3, tens of thousands – potentially hundreds of thousands of people – could return to work and school infectious if they follow the CDC’s new guidance on ending isolation after 5 days without a negative test,” he said. “Physicians are concerned that these recommendations put our patients at risk and could further overwhelm our health care system.”

Instead, Dr. Harmon said a negative test should be required for ending isolation.

“Reemerging without knowing one’s status unnecessarily risks further transmission of the virus,” he said.

Meanwhile, also during the White House briefing, officials said that early data continue to show that Omicron infections are less severe than those from other variants, but skyrocketing cases will still put a strain on the health care system.

“The big caveat is we should not be complacent,” presidential Chief Medical Adviser Anthony Fauci, MD, said a White House briefing Jan. 5.

He added that Omicron “could still stress our hospital system because a certain proportion of a large volume of cases, no matter what, are going to be severe.”

Cases continue to increase greatly. This week’s 7-day daily average of infections is 491,700 -- an increase of 98% over last week, Dr. Walensky said. Hospitalizations, while lagging behind case numbers, are still rising significantly: The daily average is 14,800 admissions, up 63% from last week. Daily deaths this week are 1,200, an increase of only 5%.

Dr. Walensky continues to encourage vaccinations, boosters, and other precautions.

“Vaccines and boosters are protecting people from the severe and tragic outcomes that can occur from COVID-19 infection,” she said. “Get vaccinated and get boosted if eligible, wear a mask, stay home when you’re sick, and take a test if you have symptoms or are looking for greater reassurance before you gather with others.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recently updated guidance on isolating and testing were tied to the public’s increased interest in testing, Director Rochelle Walenksy, MD, said during a White House briefing Jan. 5.

Health officials recently shortened the recommended COVID-19 isolation and quarantine period from 10 days to 5, creating confusion amid an outbreak of the highly transmissible Omicron variant, which now accounts for 95% of cases in the United States.

Then, in slightly updated guidance, the CDC recommended using an at-home antigen test after 5 days of isolation if possible, even though these tests having aren’t as sensitive to the Omicron variant, according to the FDA.

“After we released our recs early last week, it became very clear people were interested in using the rapid test, though not authorized for this purpose after the end of their isolation period,” Dr. Walensky said. “We then provided guidance on how they should be used.”

“If that test is negative, people really do need to understand they must continue to wear their mask for those 5 days,” Dr. Walensky said.

But for many, the CDC guidelines are murky and seem to always change.

“Nearly 2 years into this pandemic, with Omicron cases surging across the country, the American people should be able to count on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for timely, accurate, clear guidance to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their communities,” American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, said in a statement. “Instead, the new recommendations on quarantine and isolation are not only confusing, but are risking further spread of the virus.”

About 31% of people remain infectious 5 days after a positive COVID-19 test, Dr. Harmon said, quoting the CDC’s own rationale for changing its guidance.

“With hundreds of thousands of new cases daily and more than a million positive reported cases on January 3, tens of thousands – potentially hundreds of thousands of people – could return to work and school infectious if they follow the CDC’s new guidance on ending isolation after 5 days without a negative test,” he said. “Physicians are concerned that these recommendations put our patients at risk and could further overwhelm our health care system.”

Instead, Dr. Harmon said a negative test should be required for ending isolation.

“Reemerging without knowing one’s status unnecessarily risks further transmission of the virus,” he said.

Meanwhile, also during the White House briefing, officials said that early data continue to show that Omicron infections are less severe than those from other variants, but skyrocketing cases will still put a strain on the health care system.

“The big caveat is we should not be complacent,” presidential Chief Medical Adviser Anthony Fauci, MD, said a White House briefing Jan. 5.

He added that Omicron “could still stress our hospital system because a certain proportion of a large volume of cases, no matter what, are going to be severe.”

Cases continue to increase greatly. This week’s 7-day daily average of infections is 491,700 -- an increase of 98% over last week, Dr. Walensky said. Hospitalizations, while lagging behind case numbers, are still rising significantly: The daily average is 14,800 admissions, up 63% from last week. Daily deaths this week are 1,200, an increase of only 5%.

Dr. Walensky continues to encourage vaccinations, boosters, and other precautions.

“Vaccines and boosters are protecting people from the severe and tragic outcomes that can occur from COVID-19 infection,” she said. “Get vaccinated and get boosted if eligible, wear a mask, stay home when you’re sick, and take a test if you have symptoms or are looking for greater reassurance before you gather with others.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recently updated guidance on isolating and testing were tied to the public’s increased interest in testing, Director Rochelle Walenksy, MD, said during a White House briefing Jan. 5.

Health officials recently shortened the recommended COVID-19 isolation and quarantine period from 10 days to 5, creating confusion amid an outbreak of the highly transmissible Omicron variant, which now accounts for 95% of cases in the United States.

Then, in slightly updated guidance, the CDC recommended using an at-home antigen test after 5 days of isolation if possible, even though these tests having aren’t as sensitive to the Omicron variant, according to the FDA.

“After we released our recs early last week, it became very clear people were interested in using the rapid test, though not authorized for this purpose after the end of their isolation period,” Dr. Walensky said. “We then provided guidance on how they should be used.”

“If that test is negative, people really do need to understand they must continue to wear their mask for those 5 days,” Dr. Walensky said.

But for many, the CDC guidelines are murky and seem to always change.

“Nearly 2 years into this pandemic, with Omicron cases surging across the country, the American people should be able to count on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for timely, accurate, clear guidance to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their communities,” American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, said in a statement. “Instead, the new recommendations on quarantine and isolation are not only confusing, but are risking further spread of the virus.”

About 31% of people remain infectious 5 days after a positive COVID-19 test, Dr. Harmon said, quoting the CDC’s own rationale for changing its guidance.

“With hundreds of thousands of new cases daily and more than a million positive reported cases on January 3, tens of thousands – potentially hundreds of thousands of people – could return to work and school infectious if they follow the CDC’s new guidance on ending isolation after 5 days without a negative test,” he said. “Physicians are concerned that these recommendations put our patients at risk and could further overwhelm our health care system.”

Instead, Dr. Harmon said a negative test should be required for ending isolation.

“Reemerging without knowing one’s status unnecessarily risks further transmission of the virus,” he said.

Meanwhile, also during the White House briefing, officials said that early data continue to show that Omicron infections are less severe than those from other variants, but skyrocketing cases will still put a strain on the health care system.

“The big caveat is we should not be complacent,” presidential Chief Medical Adviser Anthony Fauci, MD, said a White House briefing Jan. 5.

He added that Omicron “could still stress our hospital system because a certain proportion of a large volume of cases, no matter what, are going to be severe.”

Cases continue to increase greatly. This week’s 7-day daily average of infections is 491,700 -- an increase of 98% over last week, Dr. Walensky said. Hospitalizations, while lagging behind case numbers, are still rising significantly: The daily average is 14,800 admissions, up 63% from last week. Daily deaths this week are 1,200, an increase of only 5%.

Dr. Walensky continues to encourage vaccinations, boosters, and other precautions.

“Vaccines and boosters are protecting people from the severe and tragic outcomes that can occur from COVID-19 infection,” she said. “Get vaccinated and get boosted if eligible, wear a mask, stay home when you’re sick, and take a test if you have symptoms or are looking for greater reassurance before you gather with others.”

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

Along with long-standing concerns about immunodeficiency and use of immunosuppressive medication in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are juxtaposed concerns about their additional risk of COVID-19 during the pandemic. Several studies have reported a high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in people with rheumatic disease, though few have compared this risk to the general population. This cohort study by Wang et al.¹ examines the risk of COVID-19 in people with RA compared to people with OA and the general population based on an electronic medical record database in the UK. The rate of COVID-19 was higher among people with RA than the general population, with a hazard ratio of 1.42 for confirmed COVID-19 cases, while the rate among people with OA was not increased. This finding confirms suspicions, though, due to the study design, it does not lend additional insight into nuances given the lack of information about RA treatment and activity as in prior studies.

Also of concern in the midst of the pandemic is the effect of RA and its treatment on response to vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. The rapid development of mRNA vaccines has been a boon, but research on vaccine response in people with rheumatic disease has suggested that certain medications can impact antibody formation. Iancovici et al.² examined antibody and B cell responses after vaccination in people with RA being treated with Janus kinase (JAK)-inhibitors or tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors and in healthy volunteers. Though the study is flawed as responses were not assessed at the same timepoint after vaccination in all subjects and limited due to the heterogeneity of treatment and small numbers of subjects, antibody production and other assays were decreased in RA subjects, suggesting reduced humoral immunity. Whether a pause in JAK inhibitor treatment, as recommended by the American College of Rheumatology, makes an appreciable difference in these assessments of vaccine response is as yet unknown. Further, given the limited data, it is unclear whether having RA on its own, rather than the treatments involved, was the causative factor. Research is already underway on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine response in people with RA and other rheumatic diseases, but studies such as these also imply a relative immunodeficiency due to the diseases and their treatment that could extend to other vaccines or infections.

In addition to impacts on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine response, treatment with JAK inhibitors is known to increase risk of herpes zoster (HZ). A post hoc analysis of pooled data from 21 RA and 3 psoriatic arthritis (PsA) tofacitinib trials by Winthrop et al.³ evaluated the number and severity of HZ infections. Interestingly, HZ infections occurred more frequently in participants in the RA clinical trials, with about 11% having an infection compared to 5% in the PsA studies, once again highlighting a potential immunodeficiency particular to people with RA. Most patients had mild to moderate infections, but a small proportion of patients (<5%) had severe infections. Given the possibility of a reduced vaccine response, though unknown, after HZ vaccination in people with RA, consideration should be given not only to vaccination prior to initiation of JAK inhibitor therapy, but to assessment of vaccine efficacy and the ideal dosing schedules in these patients.

References

1. Wang Y et al. Increased risk of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a general population-based cohort study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2021(Dec 7). 
2. Iancovici L et al. Rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with Janus kinase inhibitors show reduced humoral immune responses following BNT162b2 vaccination. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021:keab879 (Nov 25).
3. Winthrop KL et al. Clinical management of herpes zoster in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis receiving tofacitinib treatment. Rheumatol Ther. 2021 (Dec 6).

Along with long-standing concerns about immunodeficiency and use of immunosuppressive medication in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are juxtaposed concerns about their additional risk of COVID-19 during the pandemic. Several studies have reported a high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in people with rheumatic disease, though few have compared this risk to the general population. This cohort study by Wang et al.¹ examines the risk of COVID-19 in people with RA compared to people with OA and the general population based on an electronic medical record database in the UK. The rate of COVID-19 was higher among people with RA than the general population, with a hazard ratio of 1.42 for confirmed COVID-19 cases, while the rate among people with OA was not increased. This finding confirms suspicions, though, due to the study design, it does not lend additional insight into nuances given the lack of information about RA treatment and activity as in prior studies.

Also of concern in the midst of the pandemic is the effect of RA and its treatment on response to vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. The rapid development of mRNA vaccines has been a boon, but research on vaccine response in people with rheumatic disease has suggested that certain medications can impact antibody formation. Iancovici et al.² examined antibody and B cell responses after vaccination in people with RA being treated with Janus kinase (JAK)-inhibitors or tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors and in healthy volunteers. Though the study is flawed as responses were not assessed at the same timepoint after vaccination in all subjects and limited due to the heterogeneity of treatment and small numbers of subjects, antibody production and other assays were decreased in RA subjects, suggesting reduced humoral immunity. Whether a pause in JAK inhibitor treatment, as recommended by the American College of Rheumatology, makes an appreciable difference in these assessments of vaccine response is as yet unknown. Further, given the limited data, it is unclear whether having RA on its own, rather than the treatments involved, was the causative factor. Research is already underway on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine response in people with RA and other rheumatic diseases, but studies such as these also imply a relative immunodeficiency due to the diseases and their treatment that could extend to other vaccines or infections.

In addition to impacts on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine response, treatment with JAK inhibitors is known to increase risk of herpes zoster (HZ). A post hoc analysis of pooled data from 21 RA and 3 psoriatic arthritis (PsA) tofacitinib trials by Winthrop et al.³ evaluated the number and severity of HZ infections. Interestingly, HZ infections occurred more frequently in participants in the RA clinical trials, with about 11% having an infection compared to 5% in the PsA studies, once again highlighting a potential immunodeficiency particular to people with RA. Most patients had mild to moderate infections, but a small proportion of patients (<5%) had severe infections. Given the possibility of a reduced vaccine response, though unknown, after HZ vaccination in people with RA, consideration should be given not only to vaccination prior to initiation of JAK inhibitor therapy, but to assessment of vaccine efficacy and the ideal dosing schedules in these patients.

References

1. Wang Y et al. Increased risk of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a general population-based cohort study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2021(Dec 7). 
2. Iancovici L et al. Rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with Janus kinase inhibitors show reduced humoral immune responses following BNT162b2 vaccination. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021:keab879 (Nov 25).
3. Winthrop KL et al. Clinical management of herpes zoster in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis receiving tofacitinib treatment. Rheumatol Ther. 2021 (Dec 6).

Along with long-standing concerns about immunodeficiency and use of immunosuppressive medication in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are juxtaposed concerns about their additional risk of COVID-19 during the pandemic. Several studies have reported a high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in people with rheumatic disease, though few have compared this risk to the general population. This cohort study by Wang et al.¹ examines the risk of COVID-19 in people with RA compared to people with OA and the general population based on an electronic medical record database in the UK. The rate of COVID-19 was higher among people with RA than the general population, with a hazard ratio of 1.42 for confirmed COVID-19 cases, while the rate among people with OA was not increased. This finding confirms suspicions, though, due to the study design, it does not lend additional insight into nuances given the lack of information about RA treatment and activity as in prior studies.

Also of concern in the midst of the pandemic is the effect of RA and its treatment on response to vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. The rapid development of mRNA vaccines has been a boon, but research on vaccine response in people with rheumatic disease has suggested that certain medications can impact antibody formation. Iancovici et al.² examined antibody and B cell responses after vaccination in people with RA being treated with Janus kinase (JAK)-inhibitors or tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors and in healthy volunteers. Though the study is flawed as responses were not assessed at the same timepoint after vaccination in all subjects and limited due to the heterogeneity of treatment and small numbers of subjects, antibody production and other assays were decreased in RA subjects, suggesting reduced humoral immunity. Whether a pause in JAK inhibitor treatment, as recommended by the American College of Rheumatology, makes an appreciable difference in these assessments of vaccine response is as yet unknown. Further, given the limited data, it is unclear whether having RA on its own, rather than the treatments involved, was the causative factor. Research is already underway on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine response in people with RA and other rheumatic diseases, but studies such as these also imply a relative immunodeficiency due to the diseases and their treatment that could extend to other vaccines or infections.

In addition to impacts on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine response, treatment with JAK inhibitors is known to increase risk of herpes zoster (HZ). A post hoc analysis of pooled data from 21 RA and 3 psoriatic arthritis (PsA) tofacitinib trials by Winthrop et al.³ evaluated the number and severity of HZ infections. Interestingly, HZ infections occurred more frequently in participants in the RA clinical trials, with about 11% having an infection compared to 5% in the PsA studies, once again highlighting a potential immunodeficiency particular to people with RA. Most patients had mild to moderate infections, but a small proportion of patients (<5%) had severe infections. Given the possibility of a reduced vaccine response, though unknown, after HZ vaccination in people with RA, consideration should be given not only to vaccination prior to initiation of JAK inhibitor therapy, but to assessment of vaccine efficacy and the ideal dosing schedules in these patients.

References

1. Wang Y et al. Increased risk of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a general population-based cohort study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2021(Dec 7). 
2. Iancovici L et al. Rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with Janus kinase inhibitors show reduced humoral immune responses following BNT162b2 vaccination. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021:keab879 (Nov 25).
3. Winthrop KL et al. Clinical management of herpes zoster in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis receiving tofacitinib treatment. Rheumatol Ther. 2021 (Dec 6).

It’s a true Goldilocks debate: A week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its COVID-19 isolation and quarantine guidelines – lowering isolation time – health care experts continued to debate the changes, with some calling them suitable, some saying they’re “reckless,” and at least one expert saying they’re “right in the middle.”

The controversy may lead to more updates. On Jan. 2, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser, said on CNN’s State of the Union that he anticipates further clarification of the guidelines soon.

Sparking the most debate: Infected people are not told to test before leaving isolation, the vaccinated and unvaccinated who are exposed are given some of the same advice, and the mask advice is not specific enough.

As issued on Dec. 27, the guidelines for the general public recommend:

• Anyone who tests positive should stay home and isolate for 5 days (instead of 10) and if the person has no symptoms or the symptoms resolve after 5 days, leaving the house is okay. A mask should be worn around others for 5 more days. In the event of a fever, the person must stay home until it resolves.
• If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they have been boosted, finished the primary series of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within the past 6 months, or finished the primary series of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine within the past 2 months, they should wear a mask around others for 10 days and, if possible, test on day 5. However, if symptoms develop, they should get a test and stay home.
• If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they are unvaccinated or are more than 6 months out from their second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine (or more than 2 months after the J&J vaccine) and not boosted, they should quarantine for 5 days and then wear a mask for 5 more days. If quarantine is impossible, a mask should be worn for 10 days. A test on day 5 is suggested if possible. If symptoms occur, they should quarantine and test.

On social media and in interviews with this news organization, public health experts expressed an array of opinions.

A tweet from Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, posted the day after the new guidelines came out, had an empty box and this: “The data that support the new @CDCgov 5 day isolation period without a negative test.”

In a tweet on Jan. 2, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, said: “Hearing that CDC considering adding testing to isolation guidelines. That would be great. I’ve been arguing for a while that serial negative antigen tests provide a lot of confidence that someone is not contagious.”

Michael Mina, MD, PhD, chief science officer of eMed, a digital point-of-care platform enabling at-home diagnostic testing, tweeted: “CDC’s new guidance to drop isolation of positives to 5 days without a negative test is reckless. Some [people] stay infectious 3 days, some 12. I absolutely don’t want to sit next to someone who turned [positive] 5 days ago and hasn’t tested Neg. Test Neg to leave isolation early is just smart.”

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and an infectious disease specialist, disagrees. Typically, he said, an infected person sheds virus for 7 days. 

“If you are asymptomatic, the chances that you are shedding a significant amount of virus is very, very small,” he said in an interview.
 

Under debate

Testing: While many public health experts say a recommendation to test before leaving isolation is needed, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, explained testing was not recommended before leaving isolation because PCR testing can stay positive up to 12 weeks after a person is first infected with COVID-19.

Asked why there was not a recommendation for a rapid antigen test before leaving isolation, Dr. Walensky told CNN that it is not known how these tests perform at the end of infection and that the tests are not Food and Drug Administration–authorized for that purpose.

And while the guidelines suggest that those exposed – whether they are boosted, vaccinated, or not – should test on day 5 if possible, that recommendation should be stronger, some said. “At the very least recommend a test in those who can get it done,” said Dr. Topol.

However, making that recommendation is difficult when experts know how difficult it is for people to obtain tests now, William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.

“I am sure this was intensely debated,” Dr. Schaffner said of the recommendation on testing.

Vaccination status categories: Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, questioned the scientific basis behind treating the fully vaccinated (with two mRNA or one J&J vaccine) who are exposed ‘’as the equivalent of the unvaccinated when it comes to the quarantine requirement since the fully vaccinated are protected against what matters.”

Dr. Topol agreed: Guidelines “should be different for vaccinated versus unvaccinated.”

The recommendations for the exposed should definitely be simpler, Dr. Offit said. “I think it would be much simpler to just say, ‘If you are exposed, mask for 10 days,’ “ regardless of vaccination status.

Masks: The guidelines should also be more specific about the type of masks, Dr. Topol said. They should spell out that the masks need to be N95 or KN95, he said.

Science-driven or economy-driven? Was the guidance changed due more to concerns about the economy than to scientific information about infection and transmission? “It was,” Dr. Topol said.

Dr. Adalja sees it differently. “While it is true that this updated guidance will help the economy, it is based on a scientific foundation and should have been issued much earlier than it was.”
 

Tough decisions

The agency is walking a tightrope, Dr. Schaffner said, adding that he is in general agreement with what the CDC is trying to do. “The tightrope is between the public health ideal and trying to determine what will be acceptable,’’ he said.

The revised guidelines are more practical than before, others said. “The goal is harm reduction and many people just don’t do any isolation if they are faced with a 10-day period,” Dr. Adalja said.

Before issuing the new guidance, the CDC looked at the accumulating science and also took into account stresses on the health care system and other factors, Dr. Schaffner said. “Is it perfect?” Dr. Schaffner said of the new guideline. “No. Is it carefree? No. It’s right in the middle.”

Dr. Schaffner does think the messages about the new recommendations and how they were decided upon could have been communicated better, and in a more understandable manner. Some experts, for instance, led with the economy and the need for people to return to work and school when explaining the guidelines and then brought up the science behind the revisions.

That order should have been reversed, Dr. Schaffner said.

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

It’s a true Goldilocks debate: A week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its COVID-19 isolation and quarantine guidelines – lowering isolation time – health care experts continued to debate the changes, with some calling them suitable, some saying they’re “reckless,” and at least one expert saying they’re “right in the middle.”

The controversy may lead to more updates. On Jan. 2, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser, said on CNN’s State of the Union that he anticipates further clarification of the guidelines soon.

Sparking the most debate: Infected people are not told to test before leaving isolation, the vaccinated and unvaccinated who are exposed are given some of the same advice, and the mask advice is not specific enough.

As issued on Dec. 27, the guidelines for the general public recommend:

• Anyone who tests positive should stay home and isolate for 5 days (instead of 10) and if the person has no symptoms or the symptoms resolve after 5 days, leaving the house is okay. A mask should be worn around others for 5 more days. In the event of a fever, the person must stay home until it resolves.
• If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they have been boosted, finished the primary series of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within the past 6 months, or finished the primary series of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine within the past 2 months, they should wear a mask around others for 10 days and, if possible, test on day 5. However, if symptoms develop, they should get a test and stay home.
• If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they are unvaccinated or are more than 6 months out from their second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine (or more than 2 months after the J&J vaccine) and not boosted, they should quarantine for 5 days and then wear a mask for 5 more days. If quarantine is impossible, a mask should be worn for 10 days. A test on day 5 is suggested if possible. If symptoms occur, they should quarantine and test.

On social media and in interviews with this news organization, public health experts expressed an array of opinions.

A tweet from Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, posted the day after the new guidelines came out, had an empty box and this: “The data that support the new @CDCgov 5 day isolation period without a negative test.”

In a tweet on Jan. 2, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, said: “Hearing that CDC considering adding testing to isolation guidelines. That would be great. I’ve been arguing for a while that serial negative antigen tests provide a lot of confidence that someone is not contagious.”

Michael Mina, MD, PhD, chief science officer of eMed, a digital point-of-care platform enabling at-home diagnostic testing, tweeted: “CDC’s new guidance to drop isolation of positives to 5 days without a negative test is reckless. Some [people] stay infectious 3 days, some 12. I absolutely don’t want to sit next to someone who turned [positive] 5 days ago and hasn’t tested Neg. Test Neg to leave isolation early is just smart.”

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and an infectious disease specialist, disagrees. Typically, he said, an infected person sheds virus for 7 days. 

“If you are asymptomatic, the chances that you are shedding a significant amount of virus is very, very small,” he said in an interview.
 

Under debate

Testing: While many public health experts say a recommendation to test before leaving isolation is needed, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, explained testing was not recommended before leaving isolation because PCR testing can stay positive up to 12 weeks after a person is first infected with COVID-19.

Asked why there was not a recommendation for a rapid antigen test before leaving isolation, Dr. Walensky told CNN that it is not known how these tests perform at the end of infection and that the tests are not Food and Drug Administration–authorized for that purpose.

And while the guidelines suggest that those exposed – whether they are boosted, vaccinated, or not – should test on day 5 if possible, that recommendation should be stronger, some said. “At the very least recommend a test in those who can get it done,” said Dr. Topol.

However, making that recommendation is difficult when experts know how difficult it is for people to obtain tests now, William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.

“I am sure this was intensely debated,” Dr. Schaffner said of the recommendation on testing.

Vaccination status categories: Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, questioned the scientific basis behind treating the fully vaccinated (with two mRNA or one J&J vaccine) who are exposed ‘’as the equivalent of the unvaccinated when it comes to the quarantine requirement since the fully vaccinated are protected against what matters.”

Dr. Topol agreed: Guidelines “should be different for vaccinated versus unvaccinated.”

The recommendations for the exposed should definitely be simpler, Dr. Offit said. “I think it would be much simpler to just say, ‘If you are exposed, mask for 10 days,’ “ regardless of vaccination status.

Masks: The guidelines should also be more specific about the type of masks, Dr. Topol said. They should spell out that the masks need to be N95 or KN95, he said.

Science-driven or economy-driven? Was the guidance changed due more to concerns about the economy than to scientific information about infection and transmission? “It was,” Dr. Topol said.

Dr. Adalja sees it differently. “While it is true that this updated guidance will help the economy, it is based on a scientific foundation and should have been issued much earlier than it was.”
 

Tough decisions

The agency is walking a tightrope, Dr. Schaffner said, adding that he is in general agreement with what the CDC is trying to do. “The tightrope is between the public health ideal and trying to determine what will be acceptable,’’ he said.

The revised guidelines are more practical than before, others said. “The goal is harm reduction and many people just don’t do any isolation if they are faced with a 10-day period,” Dr. Adalja said.

Before issuing the new guidance, the CDC looked at the accumulating science and also took into account stresses on the health care system and other factors, Dr. Schaffner said. “Is it perfect?” Dr. Schaffner said of the new guideline. “No. Is it carefree? No. It’s right in the middle.”

Dr. Schaffner does think the messages about the new recommendations and how they were decided upon could have been communicated better, and in a more understandable manner. Some experts, for instance, led with the economy and the need for people to return to work and school when explaining the guidelines and then brought up the science behind the revisions.

That order should have been reversed, Dr. Schaffner said.

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

It’s a true Goldilocks debate: A week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its COVID-19 isolation and quarantine guidelines – lowering isolation time – health care experts continued to debate the changes, with some calling them suitable, some saying they’re “reckless,” and at least one expert saying they’re “right in the middle.”

The controversy may lead to more updates. On Jan. 2, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser, said on CNN’s State of the Union that he anticipates further clarification of the guidelines soon.

Sparking the most debate: Infected people are not told to test before leaving isolation, the vaccinated and unvaccinated who are exposed are given some of the same advice, and the mask advice is not specific enough.

As issued on Dec. 27, the guidelines for the general public recommend:

• Anyone who tests positive should stay home and isolate for 5 days (instead of 10) and if the person has no symptoms or the symptoms resolve after 5 days, leaving the house is okay. A mask should be worn around others for 5 more days. In the event of a fever, the person must stay home until it resolves.
• If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they have been boosted, finished the primary series of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within the past 6 months, or finished the primary series of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine within the past 2 months, they should wear a mask around others for 10 days and, if possible, test on day 5. However, if symptoms develop, they should get a test and stay home.
• If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they are unvaccinated or are more than 6 months out from their second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine (or more than 2 months after the J&J vaccine) and not boosted, they should quarantine for 5 days and then wear a mask for 5 more days. If quarantine is impossible, a mask should be worn for 10 days. A test on day 5 is suggested if possible. If symptoms occur, they should quarantine and test.

On social media and in interviews with this news organization, public health experts expressed an array of opinions.

A tweet from Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, posted the day after the new guidelines came out, had an empty box and this: “The data that support the new @CDCgov 5 day isolation period without a negative test.”

In a tweet on Jan. 2, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, said: “Hearing that CDC considering adding testing to isolation guidelines. That would be great. I’ve been arguing for a while that serial negative antigen tests provide a lot of confidence that someone is not contagious.”

Michael Mina, MD, PhD, chief science officer of eMed, a digital point-of-care platform enabling at-home diagnostic testing, tweeted: “CDC’s new guidance to drop isolation of positives to 5 days without a negative test is reckless. Some [people] stay infectious 3 days, some 12. I absolutely don’t want to sit next to someone who turned [positive] 5 days ago and hasn’t tested Neg. Test Neg to leave isolation early is just smart.”

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and an infectious disease specialist, disagrees. Typically, he said, an infected person sheds virus for 7 days. 

“If you are asymptomatic, the chances that you are shedding a significant amount of virus is very, very small,” he said in an interview.
 

Under debate

Testing: While many public health experts say a recommendation to test before leaving isolation is needed, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, explained testing was not recommended before leaving isolation because PCR testing can stay positive up to 12 weeks after a person is first infected with COVID-19.

Asked why there was not a recommendation for a rapid antigen test before leaving isolation, Dr. Walensky told CNN that it is not known how these tests perform at the end of infection and that the tests are not Food and Drug Administration–authorized for that purpose.

And while the guidelines suggest that those exposed – whether they are boosted, vaccinated, or not – should test on day 5 if possible, that recommendation should be stronger, some said. “At the very least recommend a test in those who can get it done,” said Dr. Topol.

However, making that recommendation is difficult when experts know how difficult it is for people to obtain tests now, William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.

“I am sure this was intensely debated,” Dr. Schaffner said of the recommendation on testing.

Vaccination status categories: Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, questioned the scientific basis behind treating the fully vaccinated (with two mRNA or one J&J vaccine) who are exposed ‘’as the equivalent of the unvaccinated when it comes to the quarantine requirement since the fully vaccinated are protected against what matters.”

Dr. Topol agreed: Guidelines “should be different for vaccinated versus unvaccinated.”

The recommendations for the exposed should definitely be simpler, Dr. Offit said. “I think it would be much simpler to just say, ‘If you are exposed, mask for 10 days,’ “ regardless of vaccination status.

Masks: The guidelines should also be more specific about the type of masks, Dr. Topol said. They should spell out that the masks need to be N95 or KN95, he said.

Science-driven or economy-driven? Was the guidance changed due more to concerns about the economy than to scientific information about infection and transmission? “It was,” Dr. Topol said.

Dr. Adalja sees it differently. “While it is true that this updated guidance will help the economy, it is based on a scientific foundation and should have been issued much earlier than it was.”
 

Tough decisions

The agency is walking a tightrope, Dr. Schaffner said, adding that he is in general agreement with what the CDC is trying to do. “The tightrope is between the public health ideal and trying to determine what will be acceptable,’’ he said.

The revised guidelines are more practical than before, others said. “The goal is harm reduction and many people just don’t do any isolation if they are faced with a 10-day period,” Dr. Adalja said.

Before issuing the new guidance, the CDC looked at the accumulating science and also took into account stresses on the health care system and other factors, Dr. Schaffner said. “Is it perfect?” Dr. Schaffner said of the new guideline. “No. Is it carefree? No. It’s right in the middle.”

Dr. Schaffner does think the messages about the new recommendations and how they were decided upon could have been communicated better, and in a more understandable manner. Some experts, for instance, led with the economy and the need for people to return to work and school when explaining the guidelines and then brought up the science behind the revisions.

That order should have been reversed, Dr. Schaffner said.

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

A low body mass index (BMI) indicative of being underweight as well as a weight loss of 2 kg or more over the course of 1 year were both independently associated with a higher mortality risk in the following year in patients with fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD). In contrast, being both overweight and obese appeared to be protective against mortality at the same 1-year endpoint, according to the results of an observational, retrospective cohort study.

Compared with patients with a normal BMI, patients who were underweight at a BMI of less than 18.5 kg/m² were over three times more likely to die at 1 year, at a hazard ratio of 3.19 (P < .001), senior author Christopher Ryerson, MD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues reported in the journal Chest.

In contrast, patients who were overweight with a BMI of 25-29 had roughly half the mortality risk as those who were underweight, at an HR of 0.52 (P < .001). Results were roughly similar among the patients with obesity with a BMI in excess of 30, among whom the HR for mortality at 1 year was 0.55 (P < .001), compared with those who were underweight.

“All patients with fibrotic ILD should still engage in exercise and eat an appropriate diet and it is still okay if you are obese and lose weight as a consequence of these lifestyle choices,” Dr. Ryerson told this news organization. “But physicians should be concerned about patients who have severe ILD and who start to lose weight unintentionally since this often represents end-stage fibrosis or some other major comorbidity such as cancer.”
 

Two large cohorts

Patients from two large cohorts, including the six-center Canadian Registry for Pulmonary Fibrosis (CARE-PF) and the ILD registry at the University of California, San Francisco, were enrolled in the study. A total of 1,786 patients were included from the CARE-PF registry, which served as the derivation cohort, while another 1,779 patients from the UCSF registry served as the validation cohort. In the CARE-PF cohort, 21% of all ILD patients experienced a weight loss of at least 1 kg in the first year of follow-up, including 31% of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).

“Fewer patients experienced a weight loss of at least 1 kg during the first year of the study period in the UCSF cohort,” the authors noted, at only 12% of all ILD patients, some 14% of those with IPF losing at least 1 kg of weight over the course of the year. At 2 years’ follow-up, 35% of all ILD patients had lost at least 1 kg, as had 46% of all IPF patients. Looking at BMI, “a higher value was associated with decreased 1-year mortality in both cohorts on unadjusted analysis,” the investigators observed.

In the CARE-PF cohort, the HR for 1-year mortality was 0.96 per unit difference in BMI (P < .001), while in the UCSF cohort, the HR for 1-year mortality was exactly the same, at 0.96 per unit difference in BMI (P < .001). The authors then adjusted findings for the ILD-GAP index, which included gender, age, and physiology index. After adjusting for this index, the HR for 1-year mortality in the CARE-PF cohort was 0.93 per unit change in BMI (95% CI, 0.90-0.967; P < .001), while in the UCSF cohort, the HR was 0.96 per unit change in BMI (95% CI, 0.94-0.98; P = .001).

Indeed, each 1-kg change above a BMI of 30, adjusted for the ILD-GAP index, was associated with a reduced risk of mortality at 1 year in both cohorts, at an HR of 0.98 (P = .001) in the CARE-PF cohort and an HR of 0.98 (P < .001) in the UCSF cohort. In contrast, patients who experienced a BMI weight loss of 2 kg or more within 1 year had a 41% increased risk of death in the subsequent year after adjusting for the ILD-GAP index and baseline BMI category, at an HR of 1.41 (P = .04). “The absolute change in mortality is much smaller than this,” Dr. Ryerson acknowledged.

“However, the magnitude [in mortality risk] did impress us and this illustrates how weight loss is a frequent consequence of end-stage disease which is something that we have all observed clinically as well,” he added.

Mortality risk plateaued in patients with a greater weight loss, the investigators observed, and there was no association between weight and subsequent 1-year mortality in either cohort on unadjusted analysis.

On the other hand, being underweight was associated with between a 13% and 16% higher mortality risk at 1 year after adjusting for the ILD-GAP, at an HR of 0.84 per 10 kg (P = .001) in the CARE-PF cohort and an HR of 0.87 per 10 kg (P < .001) in the UCSF cohort. “Results were similar in the two studied cohorts, suggesting a robust and generalizable association of both low BMI and weight loss with mortality,” the authors emphasized.

“Together these studies highlight the potential link between obesity and ILD pathogenesis and further suggest the possibility that nutritional support may have a more specific and important role in the management of fibrotic ILD,” the authors wrote. Dr. Ryerson in turn noted that being able to determine mortality risk more accurately than current mortality risk prediction models are able to do is very helpful when dealing with what are sometimes life-and-death decisions.

He also said that having more insight into a patient’s prognosis can change how physicians manage patients with respect to either transplantation or palliation and potentially the need to be more aggressive with pharmacotherapy as well.
 

Addressing weight loss

Asked to comment on the findings, Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, associate professor of medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, said that this was a very important study and something that she feels does not get adequate attention in clinical practice.

“Weight loss and malnutrition occur in many patients with ILD due to various factors such as gastrointestinal side effects from antifibrotic therapies, decreased oral intake due to psychosocial issues including depression, and increased caloric requirements due to increased work of breathing,” she said in an interview. That said, weight loss and malnutrition are still often underaddressed during clinical encounters for patients with ILD where the focus is on lung health.

“This study illuminates the importance of addressing weight loss in all patients with ILD as it can contribute to heightened risk of mortality,” Dr. Volkmann reemphasized. Dr. Volkmann and colleagues themselves recently reported that radiographic progression of scleroderma lung disease over the course of 1-2 years is associated with an increased risk of long-term mortality, based on two independent studies of systemic sclerosis–interstitial lung disease with extensive follow-up.

Over 8 years of follow-up, patients in the Scleroderma Lung Study II who exhibited an increase of 2% or more in the QILD score – a score that reflects the sum of all abnormally classified scores, including those for fibrosis, ground glass opacity, and honeycombing – for the whole lung at 24 months had an almost fourfold increased risk in mortality, which was significant (P = .014).

The association of an increase in the QILD of at least 2% at 12 months was suggestive in its association with mortality in the SLS I cohort at 12 years of follow-up, a finding that suggests that radiographic progression measured at 2 years is a better predictor of long-term mortality than at 1 year, as the authors concluded.

The CARR-PF is funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Ryerson reported receiving personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Volkmann consults or has received speaker fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and has received grant support from Kadmon and Horizon Therapeutics.

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

A low body mass index (BMI) indicative of being underweight as well as a weight loss of 2 kg or more over the course of 1 year were both independently associated with a higher mortality risk in the following year in patients with fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD). In contrast, being both overweight and obese appeared to be protective against mortality at the same 1-year endpoint, according to the results of an observational, retrospective cohort study.

Compared with patients with a normal BMI, patients who were underweight at a BMI of less than 18.5 kg/m² were over three times more likely to die at 1 year, at a hazard ratio of 3.19 (P < .001), senior author Christopher Ryerson, MD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues reported in the journal Chest.

In contrast, patients who were overweight with a BMI of 25-29 had roughly half the mortality risk as those who were underweight, at an HR of 0.52 (P < .001). Results were roughly similar among the patients with obesity with a BMI in excess of 30, among whom the HR for mortality at 1 year was 0.55 (P < .001), compared with those who were underweight.

“All patients with fibrotic ILD should still engage in exercise and eat an appropriate diet and it is still okay if you are obese and lose weight as a consequence of these lifestyle choices,” Dr. Ryerson told this news organization. “But physicians should be concerned about patients who have severe ILD and who start to lose weight unintentionally since this often represents end-stage fibrosis or some other major comorbidity such as cancer.”
 

Two large cohorts

Patients from two large cohorts, including the six-center Canadian Registry for Pulmonary Fibrosis (CARE-PF) and the ILD registry at the University of California, San Francisco, were enrolled in the study. A total of 1,786 patients were included from the CARE-PF registry, which served as the derivation cohort, while another 1,779 patients from the UCSF registry served as the validation cohort. In the CARE-PF cohort, 21% of all ILD patients experienced a weight loss of at least 1 kg in the first year of follow-up, including 31% of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).

“Fewer patients experienced a weight loss of at least 1 kg during the first year of the study period in the UCSF cohort,” the authors noted, at only 12% of all ILD patients, some 14% of those with IPF losing at least 1 kg of weight over the course of the year. At 2 years’ follow-up, 35% of all ILD patients had lost at least 1 kg, as had 46% of all IPF patients. Looking at BMI, “a higher value was associated with decreased 1-year mortality in both cohorts on unadjusted analysis,” the investigators observed.

In the CARE-PF cohort, the HR for 1-year mortality was 0.96 per unit difference in BMI (P < .001), while in the UCSF cohort, the HR for 1-year mortality was exactly the same, at 0.96 per unit difference in BMI (P < .001). The authors then adjusted findings for the ILD-GAP index, which included gender, age, and physiology index. After adjusting for this index, the HR for 1-year mortality in the CARE-PF cohort was 0.93 per unit change in BMI (95% CI, 0.90-0.967; P < .001), while in the UCSF cohort, the HR was 0.96 per unit change in BMI (95% CI, 0.94-0.98; P = .001).

Indeed, each 1-kg change above a BMI of 30, adjusted for the ILD-GAP index, was associated with a reduced risk of mortality at 1 year in both cohorts, at an HR of 0.98 (P = .001) in the CARE-PF cohort and an HR of 0.98 (P < .001) in the UCSF cohort. In contrast, patients who experienced a BMI weight loss of 2 kg or more within 1 year had a 41% increased risk of death in the subsequent year after adjusting for the ILD-GAP index and baseline BMI category, at an HR of 1.41 (P = .04). “The absolute change in mortality is much smaller than this,” Dr. Ryerson acknowledged.

“However, the magnitude [in mortality risk] did impress us and this illustrates how weight loss is a frequent consequence of end-stage disease which is something that we have all observed clinically as well,” he added.

Mortality risk plateaued in patients with a greater weight loss, the investigators observed, and there was no association between weight and subsequent 1-year mortality in either cohort on unadjusted analysis.

On the other hand, being underweight was associated with between a 13% and 16% higher mortality risk at 1 year after adjusting for the ILD-GAP, at an HR of 0.84 per 10 kg (P = .001) in the CARE-PF cohort and an HR of 0.87 per 10 kg (P < .001) in the UCSF cohort. “Results were similar in the two studied cohorts, suggesting a robust and generalizable association of both low BMI and weight loss with mortality,” the authors emphasized.

“Together these studies highlight the potential link between obesity and ILD pathogenesis and further suggest the possibility that nutritional support may have a more specific and important role in the management of fibrotic ILD,” the authors wrote. Dr. Ryerson in turn noted that being able to determine mortality risk more accurately than current mortality risk prediction models are able to do is very helpful when dealing with what are sometimes life-and-death decisions.

He also said that having more insight into a patient’s prognosis can change how physicians manage patients with respect to either transplantation or palliation and potentially the need to be more aggressive with pharmacotherapy as well.
 

Addressing weight loss

Asked to comment on the findings, Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, associate professor of medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, said that this was a very important study and something that she feels does not get adequate attention in clinical practice.

“Weight loss and malnutrition occur in many patients with ILD due to various factors such as gastrointestinal side effects from antifibrotic therapies, decreased oral intake due to psychosocial issues including depression, and increased caloric requirements due to increased work of breathing,” she said in an interview. That said, weight loss and malnutrition are still often underaddressed during clinical encounters for patients with ILD where the focus is on lung health.

“This study illuminates the importance of addressing weight loss in all patients with ILD as it can contribute to heightened risk of mortality,” Dr. Volkmann reemphasized. Dr. Volkmann and colleagues themselves recently reported that radiographic progression of scleroderma lung disease over the course of 1-2 years is associated with an increased risk of long-term mortality, based on two independent studies of systemic sclerosis–interstitial lung disease with extensive follow-up.

Over 8 years of follow-up, patients in the Scleroderma Lung Study II who exhibited an increase of 2% or more in the QILD score – a score that reflects the sum of all abnormally classified scores, including those for fibrosis, ground glass opacity, and honeycombing – for the whole lung at 24 months had an almost fourfold increased risk in mortality, which was significant (P = .014).

The association of an increase in the QILD of at least 2% at 12 months was suggestive in its association with mortality in the SLS I cohort at 12 years of follow-up, a finding that suggests that radiographic progression measured at 2 years is a better predictor of long-term mortality than at 1 year, as the authors concluded.

The CARR-PF is funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Ryerson reported receiving personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Volkmann consults or has received speaker fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and has received grant support from Kadmon and Horizon Therapeutics.

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

A low body mass index (BMI) indicative of being underweight as well as a weight loss of 2 kg or more over the course of 1 year were both independently associated with a higher mortality risk in the following year in patients with fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD). In contrast, being both overweight and obese appeared to be protective against mortality at the same 1-year endpoint, according to the results of an observational, retrospective cohort study.

Compared with patients with a normal BMI, patients who were underweight at a BMI of less than 18.5 kg/m² were over three times more likely to die at 1 year, at a hazard ratio of 3.19 (P < .001), senior author Christopher Ryerson, MD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues reported in the journal Chest.

In contrast, patients who were overweight with a BMI of 25-29 had roughly half the mortality risk as those who were underweight, at an HR of 0.52 (P < .001). Results were roughly similar among the patients with obesity with a BMI in excess of 30, among whom the HR for mortality at 1 year was 0.55 (P < .001), compared with those who were underweight.

“All patients with fibrotic ILD should still engage in exercise and eat an appropriate diet and it is still okay if you are obese and lose weight as a consequence of these lifestyle choices,” Dr. Ryerson told this news organization. “But physicians should be concerned about patients who have severe ILD and who start to lose weight unintentionally since this often represents end-stage fibrosis or some other major comorbidity such as cancer.”
 

Two large cohorts

Patients from two large cohorts, including the six-center Canadian Registry for Pulmonary Fibrosis (CARE-PF) and the ILD registry at the University of California, San Francisco, were enrolled in the study. A total of 1,786 patients were included from the CARE-PF registry, which served as the derivation cohort, while another 1,779 patients from the UCSF registry served as the validation cohort. In the CARE-PF cohort, 21% of all ILD patients experienced a weight loss of at least 1 kg in the first year of follow-up, including 31% of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).

“Fewer patients experienced a weight loss of at least 1 kg during the first year of the study period in the UCSF cohort,” the authors noted, at only 12% of all ILD patients, some 14% of those with IPF losing at least 1 kg of weight over the course of the year. At 2 years’ follow-up, 35% of all ILD patients had lost at least 1 kg, as had 46% of all IPF patients. Looking at BMI, “a higher value was associated with decreased 1-year mortality in both cohorts on unadjusted analysis,” the investigators observed.

In the CARE-PF cohort, the HR for 1-year mortality was 0.96 per unit difference in BMI (P < .001), while in the UCSF cohort, the HR for 1-year mortality was exactly the same, at 0.96 per unit difference in BMI (P < .001). The authors then adjusted findings for the ILD-GAP index, which included gender, age, and physiology index. After adjusting for this index, the HR for 1-year mortality in the CARE-PF cohort was 0.93 per unit change in BMI (95% CI, 0.90-0.967; P < .001), while in the UCSF cohort, the HR was 0.96 per unit change in BMI (95% CI, 0.94-0.98; P = .001).

Indeed, each 1-kg change above a BMI of 30, adjusted for the ILD-GAP index, was associated with a reduced risk of mortality at 1 year in both cohorts, at an HR of 0.98 (P = .001) in the CARE-PF cohort and an HR of 0.98 (P < .001) in the UCSF cohort. In contrast, patients who experienced a BMI weight loss of 2 kg or more within 1 year had a 41% increased risk of death in the subsequent year after adjusting for the ILD-GAP index and baseline BMI category, at an HR of 1.41 (P = .04). “The absolute change in mortality is much smaller than this,” Dr. Ryerson acknowledged.

“However, the magnitude [in mortality risk] did impress us and this illustrates how weight loss is a frequent consequence of end-stage disease which is something that we have all observed clinically as well,” he added.

Mortality risk plateaued in patients with a greater weight loss, the investigators observed, and there was no association between weight and subsequent 1-year mortality in either cohort on unadjusted analysis.

On the other hand, being underweight was associated with between a 13% and 16% higher mortality risk at 1 year after adjusting for the ILD-GAP, at an HR of 0.84 per 10 kg (P = .001) in the CARE-PF cohort and an HR of 0.87 per 10 kg (P < .001) in the UCSF cohort. “Results were similar in the two studied cohorts, suggesting a robust and generalizable association of both low BMI and weight loss with mortality,” the authors emphasized.

“Together these studies highlight the potential link between obesity and ILD pathogenesis and further suggest the possibility that nutritional support may have a more specific and important role in the management of fibrotic ILD,” the authors wrote. Dr. Ryerson in turn noted that being able to determine mortality risk more accurately than current mortality risk prediction models are able to do is very helpful when dealing with what are sometimes life-and-death decisions.

He also said that having more insight into a patient’s prognosis can change how physicians manage patients with respect to either transplantation or palliation and potentially the need to be more aggressive with pharmacotherapy as well.
 

Addressing weight loss

Asked to comment on the findings, Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, associate professor of medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, said that this was a very important study and something that she feels does not get adequate attention in clinical practice.

“Weight loss and malnutrition occur in many patients with ILD due to various factors such as gastrointestinal side effects from antifibrotic therapies, decreased oral intake due to psychosocial issues including depression, and increased caloric requirements due to increased work of breathing,” she said in an interview. That said, weight loss and malnutrition are still often underaddressed during clinical encounters for patients with ILD where the focus is on lung health.

“This study illuminates the importance of addressing weight loss in all patients with ILD as it can contribute to heightened risk of mortality,” Dr. Volkmann reemphasized. Dr. Volkmann and colleagues themselves recently reported that radiographic progression of scleroderma lung disease over the course of 1-2 years is associated with an increased risk of long-term mortality, based on two independent studies of systemic sclerosis–interstitial lung disease with extensive follow-up.

Over 8 years of follow-up, patients in the Scleroderma Lung Study II who exhibited an increase of 2% or more in the QILD score – a score that reflects the sum of all abnormally classified scores, including those for fibrosis, ground glass opacity, and honeycombing – for the whole lung at 24 months had an almost fourfold increased risk in mortality, which was significant (P = .014).

The association of an increase in the QILD of at least 2% at 12 months was suggestive in its association with mortality in the SLS I cohort at 12 years of follow-up, a finding that suggests that radiographic progression measured at 2 years is a better predictor of long-term mortality than at 1 year, as the authors concluded.

The CARR-PF is funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Ryerson reported receiving personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Volkmann consults or has received speaker fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and has received grant support from Kadmon and Horizon Therapeutics.

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

A wide range of treatments are being used to manage patients with palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) and generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP), according to the results of two case series that evaluated the characteristics and course of the disease in patients diagnosed with PPP or GPP.

“These case series confirm the rarity of both generalized pustular psoriasis and palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) and highlight the persistence of symptoms over time and the lack of effective treatment options available to patients,” Megan H. Noe, MD, MPH, MSCE, first author of both case series and assistant professor of dermatology, Harvard Medical School, and a dermatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview. In both studies, she added, “more than 20 different therapies were utilized, demonstrating a lack of consensus regarding effective treatment.”
 

The two case series were published in JAMA Dermatology.

Palmoplantar pustulosis

In the case series of 197 patients with PPP , data were obtained from a retrospective review at 20 academic dermatology practices in the United States between January 2007 and December 2018. The patients were mostly women (73.6%) who were White (60.9%), with a mean age of 53 years; 38.1% were current smokers, and 27.4% were former smokers, and the mean follow-up time was 22.1 months. About half (48.2%) of patients who presented to their respective centers had skin pain, 19.8% had problems using their hands and feet, 12.7% had arthralgias, and 2% had myalgias. Clinicians who examined these patients found pustules on the palms (80.2%), soles (76.7%), and both palms and soles (59.9%); some nail unit involvement was reported in 10.2%.

Patients were treated with a variety of topical therapies, systemic steroids, systemic anti-infectives, and systemic psoriasis therapies, Dr. Noe and colleagues said. The most common initial treatments included a topical steroid (84.8%), with the vast majority of clinicians using a high-potency topical steroid (153 of 167 patients; 91.6%), or topical therapy only (64.5%).

Other initial treatments used were other types of topical medications in 34 of the patients in the series (17.3%), such as a vitamin D analogue in 27 patients (79.4%); oral systemic treatments such as acitretin in 27 patients (13.7%) or methotrexate in 22 patients (11.2%); narrowband UVB phototherapy in 15 patients (7.7%); systemic steroids in 10 patients (5.1%); or systemic antibiotics in 9 patients (4.6%). Less commonly used were biologic agents like adalimumab, used in 6 patients (3.1%).

The researchers also examined health care utilization in 128 patients and found that 82% had at least one follow-up visit, 31.3% required two to three follow-up visits, and 18.8% had five or more follow-up visits. When adjusted to account for age and sex, there was a decreased risk of requiring five or more healthcare visits per year for women (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.95)

Generalized pustular psoriasis

Dr. Noe and colleagues also evaluated 95 patients with GPP in a retrospective longitudinal case series of patients treated at 20 academic dermatology practices in the United States between January 2007 and December 2018. As in the PPP group, most patients in the GPP case series were women (70.5%), and over half were White (53.7%); the mean age was 50.3 years old, and the mean follow-up time was 19.8 months. A majority of patients with GPP were never-smokers (52.6%) or former smokers (20%). When patients with GPP initially presented to the study sites, 36.8% were admitted as inpatients, 9.5% presented in the emergency department, and 53.7% presented in an outpatient or ambulatory dermatology setting.

GPP commonly appeared on the trunk and extremities, but was “also reported on the scalp, face, genitals, nail unit, and mucous membranes in a minority of patients,” the researchers said. Overall, 62.1% of patients had skin pain, 26.2% had joint pain, 16.8% reported tachycardia, and 9.5% reported fever. Hypertension, depression, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and hypothyroidism were common comorbidities of GPP, the researchers noted.

Clinicians reported treating GPP with topical steroids (86.3%) and topical treatments alone (32.3%). Oral systemic treatments such as acitretin (24.2%), cyclosporine (22.1%), and methotrexate (13.7%) were also used, as well as systemic steroids (20%). Other treatments used were narrowband UVB phototherapy (5.3%) and biologic agents like adalimumab (4.2%) and infliximab (4.2%).

For 53 patients with follow-up data of at least 6 months, 19 (35.8%) had been hospitalized because of their symptoms, and 8 patients were hospitalized for further GPP-specific concerns. Patients with GPP had a median 3.2 dermatology visits per year and a maximum of 18 visits. A model that was adjusted for age and sex showed women were at a decreased risk for being admitted to the hospital or emergency department in the follow-up period (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.83).

PPP and GPP in practice

Sylvia Hsu, MD, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, who was not involved with the research, noted that most dermatologists will see few, if any, cases of PPP and GPP in a year. At her center, she estimated that she sees about one PPP case per week, and one or two cases of GPP a year. In general, she said that her clinical experience matched what was found by the authors of both case series.

For patients with PPP, “I would say the average dermatologist would probably start out with a superpotent topical steroid like clobetasol or halobetasol ointment,” Dr. Hsu said.

If they are not of childbearing age, she added, she would also prescribe acitretin, which she avoids giving to patients of childbearing age because of its teratogenicity. “Acitretin has the reputation that it doesn’t work well or fast for psoriasis. It doesn’t work well or fast for plaque-type psoriasis, but it works well and fast for pustular psoriasis,” she said.

In place of acitretin, Dr. Hsu recommended cyclosporine for a patient of childbearing age as a short-term solution to resolve symptoms before transitioning them to another therapy. “A woman of childbearing age, you put on cyclosporine, you’ve got to transition to something else,” she said. “And so many times you wean them off, the pustular psoriasis comes back because the topical steroid doesn’t work that well.”

One possible option is the interluekin-23 inhibitor guselkumab (approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis) but cost and effectiveness can be a factor. Although studies have shown efficacy, biologics as treatments for PPP are “hit or miss,” Dr. Hsu said.

Regarding use of systemic therapies, Dr. Hsu cautioned against using them to treat plaque-type psoriasis. “We always learn, don’t use a systemic steroid like prednisone to treat psoriasis because it helps, but it comes back with a vengeance,” she said. “Sometimes when you treat plaque-type psoriasis with prednisone, it could come back with a vengeance, and it can come back as generalized pustular psoriasis.”

For patients with GPP, “you need a quick fix” because of the painful symptoms associated with the disease, Dr. Hsu said. In this case, she recommended cyclosporine and said she would avoid prescribing topical medications. “You’re going to have to give an oral drug because usually when we’re seeing somebody with GPP, they’re either a hospital consult or they just walked in the door,” she said. After prescribing cyclosporine, you would transition to another treatment like a biologic “as quickly as you can” with the knowledge that the biologic “may or may not work.”

New treatment options needed

Commenting on both case series in a related editorial, Edward W. Cowen, MD, MHSc, senior clinician and head of the dermatology consultation service in the dermatology branch of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, Bethesda, Md., said that “much of the clinical presentation of pustular disease remains a mystery,” including why tobacco use is a risk factor for developing pustular psoriasis, and why tumor necrosis factor inhibitors “induce pustular disease in a small number of patients” with psoriasis vulgaris.

“Most importantly, we still do not know if localized and generalized pustular psoriasis all truly represent different variants of the same disease process, and if not, which biologic treatment represents the best option for a given clinical variant,” he wrote.

Dr. Cowen noted that the multi-institutional approach to collecting the retrospective data in these case series could be used as a “basic framework to build on for future clinical trials for rare skin diseases such as pustular psoriasis.”

In the interview, Dr. Noe said that she hoped that the “Pustular Psoriasis in the US Research Group” she and her coauthors created for the case series could help with the development of prospective clinical trials. “For pustular psoriasis and other rare diseases in dermatology, multi-institutional collaborations are necessary to conduct prospective research,” she said.

“While not directly studied in our research, I think it is important to consider the negative impact on quality of life, experienced by patients with pustular psoriasis. In our study, many patients experienced exacerbations of their disease over time, and it is important to consider the impact this has on patients,” she said in the interview. “Continued research on pustular psoriasis is necessary to decrease the negative impact of these diseases on the lives of our patients.”

The case series were funded in part by an institutional grant from Boehringer Ingelheim. The authors report relationships with various pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical companies, technology companies, medical publishing companies, medical journals, and medical societies with connections to the topic area in the form of serving in roles as a chief medical editor, consultant, data safety monitoring board member, deputy editor, principal investigator, research investigator, scientific adviser, or speaker; or having received grants, honoraria, personal fees, or research funding. Dr. Cowen has no disclosures. Dr. Hsu reports serving on a Boehringer Ingelheim advisory board for a product being evaluated as a potential treatment for GPP.

A wide range of treatments are being used to manage patients with palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) and generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP), according to the results of two case series that evaluated the characteristics and course of the disease in patients diagnosed with PPP or GPP.

“These case series confirm the rarity of both generalized pustular psoriasis and palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) and highlight the persistence of symptoms over time and the lack of effective treatment options available to patients,” Megan H. Noe, MD, MPH, MSCE, first author of both case series and assistant professor of dermatology, Harvard Medical School, and a dermatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview. In both studies, she added, “more than 20 different therapies were utilized, demonstrating a lack of consensus regarding effective treatment.”
 

The two case series were published in JAMA Dermatology.

Palmoplantar pustulosis

In the case series of 197 patients with PPP , data were obtained from a retrospective review at 20 academic dermatology practices in the United States between January 2007 and December 2018. The patients were mostly women (73.6%) who were White (60.9%), with a mean age of 53 years; 38.1% were current smokers, and 27.4% were former smokers, and the mean follow-up time was 22.1 months. About half (48.2%) of patients who presented to their respective centers had skin pain, 19.8% had problems using their hands and feet, 12.7% had arthralgias, and 2% had myalgias. Clinicians who examined these patients found pustules on the palms (80.2%), soles (76.7%), and both palms and soles (59.9%); some nail unit involvement was reported in 10.2%.

Patients were treated with a variety of topical therapies, systemic steroids, systemic anti-infectives, and systemic psoriasis therapies, Dr. Noe and colleagues said. The most common initial treatments included a topical steroid (84.8%), with the vast majority of clinicians using a high-potency topical steroid (153 of 167 patients; 91.6%), or topical therapy only (64.5%).

Other initial treatments used were other types of topical medications in 34 of the patients in the series (17.3%), such as a vitamin D analogue in 27 patients (79.4%); oral systemic treatments such as acitretin in 27 patients (13.7%) or methotrexate in 22 patients (11.2%); narrowband UVB phototherapy in 15 patients (7.7%); systemic steroids in 10 patients (5.1%); or systemic antibiotics in 9 patients (4.6%). Less commonly used were biologic agents like adalimumab, used in 6 patients (3.1%).

The researchers also examined health care utilization in 128 patients and found that 82% had at least one follow-up visit, 31.3% required two to three follow-up visits, and 18.8% had five or more follow-up visits. When adjusted to account for age and sex, there was a decreased risk of requiring five or more healthcare visits per year for women (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.95)

Generalized pustular psoriasis

Dr. Noe and colleagues also evaluated 95 patients with GPP in a retrospective longitudinal case series of patients treated at 20 academic dermatology practices in the United States between January 2007 and December 2018. As in the PPP group, most patients in the GPP case series were women (70.5%), and over half were White (53.7%); the mean age was 50.3 years old, and the mean follow-up time was 19.8 months. A majority of patients with GPP were never-smokers (52.6%) or former smokers (20%). When patients with GPP initially presented to the study sites, 36.8% were admitted as inpatients, 9.5% presented in the emergency department, and 53.7% presented in an outpatient or ambulatory dermatology setting.

GPP commonly appeared on the trunk and extremities, but was “also reported on the scalp, face, genitals, nail unit, and mucous membranes in a minority of patients,” the researchers said. Overall, 62.1% of patients had skin pain, 26.2% had joint pain, 16.8% reported tachycardia, and 9.5% reported fever. Hypertension, depression, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and hypothyroidism were common comorbidities of GPP, the researchers noted.

Clinicians reported treating GPP with topical steroids (86.3%) and topical treatments alone (32.3%). Oral systemic treatments such as acitretin (24.2%), cyclosporine (22.1%), and methotrexate (13.7%) were also used, as well as systemic steroids (20%). Other treatments used were narrowband UVB phototherapy (5.3%) and biologic agents like adalimumab (4.2%) and infliximab (4.2%).

For 53 patients with follow-up data of at least 6 months, 19 (35.8%) had been hospitalized because of their symptoms, and 8 patients were hospitalized for further GPP-specific concerns. Patients with GPP had a median 3.2 dermatology visits per year and a maximum of 18 visits. A model that was adjusted for age and sex showed women were at a decreased risk for being admitted to the hospital or emergency department in the follow-up period (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.83).

PPP and GPP in practice

Sylvia Hsu, MD, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, who was not involved with the research, noted that most dermatologists will see few, if any, cases of PPP and GPP in a year. At her center, she estimated that she sees about one PPP case per week, and one or two cases of GPP a year. In general, she said that her clinical experience matched what was found by the authors of both case series.

For patients with PPP, “I would say the average dermatologist would probably start out with a superpotent topical steroid like clobetasol or halobetasol ointment,” Dr. Hsu said.

If they are not of childbearing age, she added, she would also prescribe acitretin, which she avoids giving to patients of childbearing age because of its teratogenicity. “Acitretin has the reputation that it doesn’t work well or fast for psoriasis. It doesn’t work well or fast for plaque-type psoriasis, but it works well and fast for pustular psoriasis,” she said.

In place of acitretin, Dr. Hsu recommended cyclosporine for a patient of childbearing age as a short-term solution to resolve symptoms before transitioning them to another therapy. “A woman of childbearing age, you put on cyclosporine, you’ve got to transition to something else,” she said. “And so many times you wean them off, the pustular psoriasis comes back because the topical steroid doesn’t work that well.”

One possible option is the interluekin-23 inhibitor guselkumab (approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis) but cost and effectiveness can be a factor. Although studies have shown efficacy, biologics as treatments for PPP are “hit or miss,” Dr. Hsu said.

Regarding use of systemic therapies, Dr. Hsu cautioned against using them to treat plaque-type psoriasis. “We always learn, don’t use a systemic steroid like prednisone to treat psoriasis because it helps, but it comes back with a vengeance,” she said. “Sometimes when you treat plaque-type psoriasis with prednisone, it could come back with a vengeance, and it can come back as generalized pustular psoriasis.”

For patients with GPP, “you need a quick fix” because of the painful symptoms associated with the disease, Dr. Hsu said. In this case, she recommended cyclosporine and said she would avoid prescribing topical medications. “You’re going to have to give an oral drug because usually when we’re seeing somebody with GPP, they’re either a hospital consult or they just walked in the door,” she said. After prescribing cyclosporine, you would transition to another treatment like a biologic “as quickly as you can” with the knowledge that the biologic “may or may not work.”

New treatment options needed

Commenting on both case series in a related editorial, Edward W. Cowen, MD, MHSc, senior clinician and head of the dermatology consultation service in the dermatology branch of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, Bethesda, Md., said that “much of the clinical presentation of pustular disease remains a mystery,” including why tobacco use is a risk factor for developing pustular psoriasis, and why tumor necrosis factor inhibitors “induce pustular disease in a small number of patients” with psoriasis vulgaris.

“Most importantly, we still do not know if localized and generalized pustular psoriasis all truly represent different variants of the same disease process, and if not, which biologic treatment represents the best option for a given clinical variant,” he wrote.

Dr. Cowen noted that the multi-institutional approach to collecting the retrospective data in these case series could be used as a “basic framework to build on for future clinical trials for rare skin diseases such as pustular psoriasis.”

In the interview, Dr. Noe said that she hoped that the “Pustular Psoriasis in the US Research Group” she and her coauthors created for the case series could help with the development of prospective clinical trials. “For pustular psoriasis and other rare diseases in dermatology, multi-institutional collaborations are necessary to conduct prospective research,” she said.

“While not directly studied in our research, I think it is important to consider the negative impact on quality of life, experienced by patients with pustular psoriasis. In our study, many patients experienced exacerbations of their disease over time, and it is important to consider the impact this has on patients,” she said in the interview. “Continued research on pustular psoriasis is necessary to decrease the negative impact of these diseases on the lives of our patients.”

The case series were funded in part by an institutional grant from Boehringer Ingelheim. The authors report relationships with various pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical companies, technology companies, medical publishing companies, medical journals, and medical societies with connections to the topic area in the form of serving in roles as a chief medical editor, consultant, data safety monitoring board member, deputy editor, principal investigator, research investigator, scientific adviser, or speaker; or having received grants, honoraria, personal fees, or research funding. Dr. Cowen has no disclosures. Dr. Hsu reports serving on a Boehringer Ingelheim advisory board for a product being evaluated as a potential treatment for GPP.

A wide range of treatments are being used to manage patients with palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) and generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP), according to the results of two case series that evaluated the characteristics and course of the disease in patients diagnosed with PPP or GPP.

“These case series confirm the rarity of both generalized pustular psoriasis and palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) and highlight the persistence of symptoms over time and the lack of effective treatment options available to patients,” Megan H. Noe, MD, MPH, MSCE, first author of both case series and assistant professor of dermatology, Harvard Medical School, and a dermatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview. In both studies, she added, “more than 20 different therapies were utilized, demonstrating a lack of consensus regarding effective treatment.”
 

The two case series were published in JAMA Dermatology.

Palmoplantar pustulosis

In the case series of 197 patients with PPP , data were obtained from a retrospective review at 20 academic dermatology practices in the United States between January 2007 and December 2018. The patients were mostly women (73.6%) who were White (60.9%), with a mean age of 53 years; 38.1% were current smokers, and 27.4% were former smokers, and the mean follow-up time was 22.1 months. About half (48.2%) of patients who presented to their respective centers had skin pain, 19.8% had problems using their hands and feet, 12.7% had arthralgias, and 2% had myalgias. Clinicians who examined these patients found pustules on the palms (80.2%), soles (76.7%), and both palms and soles (59.9%); some nail unit involvement was reported in 10.2%.

Patients were treated with a variety of topical therapies, systemic steroids, systemic anti-infectives, and systemic psoriasis therapies, Dr. Noe and colleagues said. The most common initial treatments included a topical steroid (84.8%), with the vast majority of clinicians using a high-potency topical steroid (153 of 167 patients; 91.6%), or topical therapy only (64.5%).

Other initial treatments used were other types of topical medications in 34 of the patients in the series (17.3%), such as a vitamin D analogue in 27 patients (79.4%); oral systemic treatments such as acitretin in 27 patients (13.7%) or methotrexate in 22 patients (11.2%); narrowband UVB phototherapy in 15 patients (7.7%); systemic steroids in 10 patients (5.1%); or systemic antibiotics in 9 patients (4.6%). Less commonly used were biologic agents like adalimumab, used in 6 patients (3.1%).

The researchers also examined health care utilization in 128 patients and found that 82% had at least one follow-up visit, 31.3% required two to three follow-up visits, and 18.8% had five or more follow-up visits. When adjusted to account for age and sex, there was a decreased risk of requiring five or more healthcare visits per year for women (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.95)

Generalized pustular psoriasis

Dr. Noe and colleagues also evaluated 95 patients with GPP in a retrospective longitudinal case series of patients treated at 20 academic dermatology practices in the United States between January 2007 and December 2018. As in the PPP group, most patients in the GPP case series were women (70.5%), and over half were White (53.7%); the mean age was 50.3 years old, and the mean follow-up time was 19.8 months. A majority of patients with GPP were never-smokers (52.6%) or former smokers (20%). When patients with GPP initially presented to the study sites, 36.8% were admitted as inpatients, 9.5% presented in the emergency department, and 53.7% presented in an outpatient or ambulatory dermatology setting.

GPP commonly appeared on the trunk and extremities, but was “also reported on the scalp, face, genitals, nail unit, and mucous membranes in a minority of patients,” the researchers said. Overall, 62.1% of patients had skin pain, 26.2% had joint pain, 16.8% reported tachycardia, and 9.5% reported fever. Hypertension, depression, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and hypothyroidism were common comorbidities of GPP, the researchers noted.

Clinicians reported treating GPP with topical steroids (86.3%) and topical treatments alone (32.3%). Oral systemic treatments such as acitretin (24.2%), cyclosporine (22.1%), and methotrexate (13.7%) were also used, as well as systemic steroids (20%). Other treatments used were narrowband UVB phototherapy (5.3%) and biologic agents like adalimumab (4.2%) and infliximab (4.2%).

For 53 patients with follow-up data of at least 6 months, 19 (35.8%) had been hospitalized because of their symptoms, and 8 patients were hospitalized for further GPP-specific concerns. Patients with GPP had a median 3.2 dermatology visits per year and a maximum of 18 visits. A model that was adjusted for age and sex showed women were at a decreased risk for being admitted to the hospital or emergency department in the follow-up period (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.83).

PPP and GPP in practice

Sylvia Hsu, MD, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, who was not involved with the research, noted that most dermatologists will see few, if any, cases of PPP and GPP in a year. At her center, she estimated that she sees about one PPP case per week, and one or two cases of GPP a year. In general, she said that her clinical experience matched what was found by the authors of both case series.

For patients with PPP, “I would say the average dermatologist would probably start out with a superpotent topical steroid like clobetasol or halobetasol ointment,” Dr. Hsu said.

If they are not of childbearing age, she added, she would also prescribe acitretin, which she avoids giving to patients of childbearing age because of its teratogenicity. “Acitretin has the reputation that it doesn’t work well or fast for psoriasis. It doesn’t work well or fast for plaque-type psoriasis, but it works well and fast for pustular psoriasis,” she said.

In place of acitretin, Dr. Hsu recommended cyclosporine for a patient of childbearing age as a short-term solution to resolve symptoms before transitioning them to another therapy. “A woman of childbearing age, you put on cyclosporine, you’ve got to transition to something else,” she said. “And so many times you wean them off, the pustular psoriasis comes back because the topical steroid doesn’t work that well.”

One possible option is the interluekin-23 inhibitor guselkumab (approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis) but cost and effectiveness can be a factor. Although studies have shown efficacy, biologics as treatments for PPP are “hit or miss,” Dr. Hsu said.

Regarding use of systemic therapies, Dr. Hsu cautioned against using them to treat plaque-type psoriasis. “We always learn, don’t use a systemic steroid like prednisone to treat psoriasis because it helps, but it comes back with a vengeance,” she said. “Sometimes when you treat plaque-type psoriasis with prednisone, it could come back with a vengeance, and it can come back as generalized pustular psoriasis.”

For patients with GPP, “you need a quick fix” because of the painful symptoms associated with the disease, Dr. Hsu said. In this case, she recommended cyclosporine and said she would avoid prescribing topical medications. “You’re going to have to give an oral drug because usually when we’re seeing somebody with GPP, they’re either a hospital consult or they just walked in the door,” she said. After prescribing cyclosporine, you would transition to another treatment like a biologic “as quickly as you can” with the knowledge that the biologic “may or may not work.”

New treatment options needed

Commenting on both case series in a related editorial, Edward W. Cowen, MD, MHSc, senior clinician and head of the dermatology consultation service in the dermatology branch of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, Bethesda, Md., said that “much of the clinical presentation of pustular disease remains a mystery,” including why tobacco use is a risk factor for developing pustular psoriasis, and why tumor necrosis factor inhibitors “induce pustular disease in a small number of patients” with psoriasis vulgaris.

“Most importantly, we still do not know if localized and generalized pustular psoriasis all truly represent different variants of the same disease process, and if not, which biologic treatment represents the best option for a given clinical variant,” he wrote.

Dr. Cowen noted that the multi-institutional approach to collecting the retrospective data in these case series could be used as a “basic framework to build on for future clinical trials for rare skin diseases such as pustular psoriasis.”

In the interview, Dr. Noe said that she hoped that the “Pustular Psoriasis in the US Research Group” she and her coauthors created for the case series could help with the development of prospective clinical trials. “For pustular psoriasis and other rare diseases in dermatology, multi-institutional collaborations are necessary to conduct prospective research,” she said.

“While not directly studied in our research, I think it is important to consider the negative impact on quality of life, experienced by patients with pustular psoriasis. In our study, many patients experienced exacerbations of their disease over time, and it is important to consider the impact this has on patients,” she said in the interview. “Continued research on pustular psoriasis is necessary to decrease the negative impact of these diseases on the lives of our patients.”

The case series were funded in part by an institutional grant from Boehringer Ingelheim. The authors report relationships with various pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical companies, technology companies, medical publishing companies, medical journals, and medical societies with connections to the topic area in the form of serving in roles as a chief medical editor, consultant, data safety monitoring board member, deputy editor, principal investigator, research investigator, scientific adviser, or speaker; or having received grants, honoraria, personal fees, or research funding. Dr. Cowen has no disclosures. Dr. Hsu reports serving on a Boehringer Ingelheim advisory board for a product being evaluated as a potential treatment for GPP.

A COVID-19 outbreak has occurred at one of the most remote places on earth – the Princess Elisabeth Polar Station in Antarctica.

Two-thirds of the 25 workers have tested positive at the station, despite all of them being fully vaccinated and going through several testing stages before being allowed entrance, the Belgium publication Le Soir reported.

So far, all the cases are mild at the station, which is owned by Belgium and operated by a private group: the International Polar Foundation.

The first case was discovered Dec. 14 among a group that arrived a week earlier in Antarctica, Le Soir reported. The first three people to test positive evacuated Dec. 23, Le Soir said, but the virus continued to spread among the remaining workers at the base.

Le Soir, citing a virologist, said the Omicron variant probably caused the outbreak, because the crew made its last stop in South Africa before arriving in Antarctica.

New arrivals to the station have been put on hold until the outbreak is brought under control, and one of the missions planned for the base has been postponed, Le Soir said.

“The situation isn’t dramatic,” Joseph Cheek, a project manager for the International Polar Foundation, told the BBC. “While it has been an inconvenience to have to quarantine certain members of the staff who caught the virus, it hasn’t significantly affected our work at the station overall.”

The BBC said there was another COVID outbreak in Antarctica about a year ago at the Bernardo O’Higgins research station operated by Chile.

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

A COVID-19 outbreak has occurred at one of the most remote places on earth – the Princess Elisabeth Polar Station in Antarctica.

Two-thirds of the 25 workers have tested positive at the station, despite all of them being fully vaccinated and going through several testing stages before being allowed entrance, the Belgium publication Le Soir reported.

So far, all the cases are mild at the station, which is owned by Belgium and operated by a private group: the International Polar Foundation.

The first case was discovered Dec. 14 among a group that arrived a week earlier in Antarctica, Le Soir reported. The first three people to test positive evacuated Dec. 23, Le Soir said, but the virus continued to spread among the remaining workers at the base.

Le Soir, citing a virologist, said the Omicron variant probably caused the outbreak, because the crew made its last stop in South Africa before arriving in Antarctica.

New arrivals to the station have been put on hold until the outbreak is brought under control, and one of the missions planned for the base has been postponed, Le Soir said.

“The situation isn’t dramatic,” Joseph Cheek, a project manager for the International Polar Foundation, told the BBC. “While it has been an inconvenience to have to quarantine certain members of the staff who caught the virus, it hasn’t significantly affected our work at the station overall.”

The BBC said there was another COVID outbreak in Antarctica about a year ago at the Bernardo O’Higgins research station operated by Chile.

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

A COVID-19 outbreak has occurred at one of the most remote places on earth – the Princess Elisabeth Polar Station in Antarctica.

Two-thirds of the 25 workers have tested positive at the station, despite all of them being fully vaccinated and going through several testing stages before being allowed entrance, the Belgium publication Le Soir reported.

So far, all the cases are mild at the station, which is owned by Belgium and operated by a private group: the International Polar Foundation.

The first case was discovered Dec. 14 among a group that arrived a week earlier in Antarctica, Le Soir reported. The first three people to test positive evacuated Dec. 23, Le Soir said, but the virus continued to spread among the remaining workers at the base.

Le Soir, citing a virologist, said the Omicron variant probably caused the outbreak, because the crew made its last stop in South Africa before arriving in Antarctica.

New arrivals to the station have been put on hold until the outbreak is brought under control, and one of the missions planned for the base has been postponed, Le Soir said.

“The situation isn’t dramatic,” Joseph Cheek, a project manager for the International Polar Foundation, told the BBC. “While it has been an inconvenience to have to quarantine certain members of the staff who caught the virus, it hasn’t significantly affected our work at the station overall.”

The BBC said there was another COVID outbreak in Antarctica about a year ago at the Bernardo O’Higgins research station operated by Chile.

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