MDedge Rheumatology

The rate of U.S. hospitalizations for three types of serious infections in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) appears to have declined from 2012 to 2017, according to research presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Several of the standard treatments for PsA have an increased risk of infections, but the rates vary amongst conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), glucocorticoids, biologics, and other therapies.

“Given the uptake of biological therapies has increased over recent years, we sought to investigate the national trends in serious infections in patients with psoriatic arthritis from the years 2012 to 2017,” Vagishwari Murugesan, MBBS, a psoriatic arthritis clinical fellow at the University of Toronto, told attendees in a prerecorded poster presentation. Dr. Murugesan was a fellow at Boston University when she conducted the research.

The researchers analyzed data from 2012 to 2017 in the U.S. National Inpatient Sample (NIS), which includes approximately 20% of all discharges from U.S. community hospitals except rehabilitation and long-term acute care institutions. Using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes, the researchers identified all discharge records containing a diagnosis of PsA as well as pneumonia, sepsis, urinary tract infection (UTI), and skin and soft-tissue infections. After making adjustments to match U.S. population age distributions over the years, they examined trends in serious infections among patients with PsA for that 6-year period.

Demographics over those years changed little: The average age of discharged patients was 59.5 in 2012 and 60.8 in 2017. Similarly, the patient population was 56% women and 88.5% Whites in 2012 and 57.7% women and 88.4% Whites in 2017. The average length of stay was also similar: 4.7 days in 2012, compared with 4.9 days in 2017.

Among 50,700 discharges of patients with PsA in 2012, the researchers identified 125 with pneumonia, 230 with sepsis, 312 with skin and soft-tissue infections, and 174 with a UTI. Among the 179,400 discharges in 2017 of patients with PsA, 344 had pneumonia, 374 had sepsis, 681 had skin and soft-tissue infections, and 348 had a UTI. After statistical analysis, the researchers found no significant differences in pneumonia diagnoses during the years studied, but they did find a statistically significant decline in sepsis, skin and soft tissue infections, and UTI discharges (P < .001).

A notable limitation of the study is the NIS database’s lack of data on treatments or outpatient data, making it impossible to determine if more infections were occurring but simply being treated in outpatient settings, although it’s not clear why such a substantial shift would occur in just 5 years. It’s also possible that coding practices differ across hospital, but, presumably, the ways they might differ in 2012 would be similar to any differences in 2017.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, a professor of medicine and director of the Center for Innovative Therapy at the University of California, San Diego, found the results interesting for what he considers an important topic.

“What makes these data interesting is the same thing that limits their reliability: The authors note that infections decreased ‘despite the increase in use of biologics over this time,’ ” Dr. Kavanaugh said in an interview. “These are claims data, so there is no way to support any association between those serious infections and biologic use. Indeed, multiple factors could have also impacted these data. It is not possible to tell from claims data.”

Dr. Kavanaugh said the question is worth investigating further with data from other sources.

The research was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One study coauthor reported ties to UCB; Dr. Murugesan and her other coauthors reported no disclosures. Dr. Kavanaugh had no disclosures.

The rate of U.S. hospitalizations for three types of serious infections in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) appears to have declined from 2012 to 2017, according to research presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Several of the standard treatments for PsA have an increased risk of infections, but the rates vary amongst conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), glucocorticoids, biologics, and other therapies.

“Given the uptake of biological therapies has increased over recent years, we sought to investigate the national trends in serious infections in patients with psoriatic arthritis from the years 2012 to 2017,” Vagishwari Murugesan, MBBS, a psoriatic arthritis clinical fellow at the University of Toronto, told attendees in a prerecorded poster presentation. Dr. Murugesan was a fellow at Boston University when she conducted the research.

The researchers analyzed data from 2012 to 2017 in the U.S. National Inpatient Sample (NIS), which includes approximately 20% of all discharges from U.S. community hospitals except rehabilitation and long-term acute care institutions. Using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes, the researchers identified all discharge records containing a diagnosis of PsA as well as pneumonia, sepsis, urinary tract infection (UTI), and skin and soft-tissue infections. After making adjustments to match U.S. population age distributions over the years, they examined trends in serious infections among patients with PsA for that 6-year period.

Demographics over those years changed little: The average age of discharged patients was 59.5 in 2012 and 60.8 in 2017. Similarly, the patient population was 56% women and 88.5% Whites in 2012 and 57.7% women and 88.4% Whites in 2017. The average length of stay was also similar: 4.7 days in 2012, compared with 4.9 days in 2017.

Among 50,700 discharges of patients with PsA in 2012, the researchers identified 125 with pneumonia, 230 with sepsis, 312 with skin and soft-tissue infections, and 174 with a UTI. Among the 179,400 discharges in 2017 of patients with PsA, 344 had pneumonia, 374 had sepsis, 681 had skin and soft-tissue infections, and 348 had a UTI. After statistical analysis, the researchers found no significant differences in pneumonia diagnoses during the years studied, but they did find a statistically significant decline in sepsis, skin and soft tissue infections, and UTI discharges (P < .001).

A notable limitation of the study is the NIS database’s lack of data on treatments or outpatient data, making it impossible to determine if more infections were occurring but simply being treated in outpatient settings, although it’s not clear why such a substantial shift would occur in just 5 years. It’s also possible that coding practices differ across hospital, but, presumably, the ways they might differ in 2012 would be similar to any differences in 2017.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, a professor of medicine and director of the Center for Innovative Therapy at the University of California, San Diego, found the results interesting for what he considers an important topic.

“What makes these data interesting is the same thing that limits their reliability: The authors note that infections decreased ‘despite the increase in use of biologics over this time,’ ” Dr. Kavanaugh said in an interview. “These are claims data, so there is no way to support any association between those serious infections and biologic use. Indeed, multiple factors could have also impacted these data. It is not possible to tell from claims data.”

Dr. Kavanaugh said the question is worth investigating further with data from other sources.

The research was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One study coauthor reported ties to UCB; Dr. Murugesan and her other coauthors reported no disclosures. Dr. Kavanaugh had no disclosures.

The rate of U.S. hospitalizations for three types of serious infections in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) appears to have declined from 2012 to 2017, according to research presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Several of the standard treatments for PsA have an increased risk of infections, but the rates vary amongst conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), glucocorticoids, biologics, and other therapies.

“Given the uptake of biological therapies has increased over recent years, we sought to investigate the national trends in serious infections in patients with psoriatic arthritis from the years 2012 to 2017,” Vagishwari Murugesan, MBBS, a psoriatic arthritis clinical fellow at the University of Toronto, told attendees in a prerecorded poster presentation. Dr. Murugesan was a fellow at Boston University when she conducted the research.

The researchers analyzed data from 2012 to 2017 in the U.S. National Inpatient Sample (NIS), which includes approximately 20% of all discharges from U.S. community hospitals except rehabilitation and long-term acute care institutions. Using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes, the researchers identified all discharge records containing a diagnosis of PsA as well as pneumonia, sepsis, urinary tract infection (UTI), and skin and soft-tissue infections. After making adjustments to match U.S. population age distributions over the years, they examined trends in serious infections among patients with PsA for that 6-year period.

Demographics over those years changed little: The average age of discharged patients was 59.5 in 2012 and 60.8 in 2017. Similarly, the patient population was 56% women and 88.5% Whites in 2012 and 57.7% women and 88.4% Whites in 2017. The average length of stay was also similar: 4.7 days in 2012, compared with 4.9 days in 2017.

Among 50,700 discharges of patients with PsA in 2012, the researchers identified 125 with pneumonia, 230 with sepsis, 312 with skin and soft-tissue infections, and 174 with a UTI. Among the 179,400 discharges in 2017 of patients with PsA, 344 had pneumonia, 374 had sepsis, 681 had skin and soft-tissue infections, and 348 had a UTI. After statistical analysis, the researchers found no significant differences in pneumonia diagnoses during the years studied, but they did find a statistically significant decline in sepsis, skin and soft tissue infections, and UTI discharges (P < .001).

A notable limitation of the study is the NIS database’s lack of data on treatments or outpatient data, making it impossible to determine if more infections were occurring but simply being treated in outpatient settings, although it’s not clear why such a substantial shift would occur in just 5 years. It’s also possible that coding practices differ across hospital, but, presumably, the ways they might differ in 2012 would be similar to any differences in 2017.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, a professor of medicine and director of the Center for Innovative Therapy at the University of California, San Diego, found the results interesting for what he considers an important topic.

“What makes these data interesting is the same thing that limits their reliability: The authors note that infections decreased ‘despite the increase in use of biologics over this time,’ ” Dr. Kavanaugh said in an interview. “These are claims data, so there is no way to support any association between those serious infections and biologic use. Indeed, multiple factors could have also impacted these data. It is not possible to tell from claims data.”

Dr. Kavanaugh said the question is worth investigating further with data from other sources.

The research was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One study coauthor reported ties to UCB; Dr. Murugesan and her other coauthors reported no disclosures. Dr. Kavanaugh had no disclosures.

Some 30% of health care personnel who worked at the thousands of hospitals in the United States were still not fully vaccinated against COVID-19 as of mid-September, according to a new survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The snapshot in time – Jan. 20, 2021 to Sept. 15, 2021 – is based on voluntary weekly reports from hospitals. Only about 48% of the 5,085 hospitals in the U.S. Health and Human Services department’s Unified Hospital Data Surveillance System reported data on vaccination coverage during the period, and, after validation checks, the study included reports from 2,086 facilities, or just 41% of all hospitals, covering 3.35 million workers.

Overall, the number who were fully vaccinated rose from 36.1% in Jan. 2021 to 60.2% in April 2021, and then crept slowly up to 70% by Sept. 15, the CDC researchers reported in the American Journal of Infection Control.

The slowdown among hospital workers seems to mirror the same decline as in the general population.  

Arjun Srinivasan, MD, associate director for health care–associated infection prevention programs at the CDC, said the decline in part may be the result of misinformation.

Health care personnel “are not fully immune from vaccine misinformation,” he said, adding that such misinformation “is contributing to decreased vaccine uptake among non–health care personnel.”

“The take-home message is that there is a lot of work to do in health care settings in order to get all of our health care personnel vaccinated,” Dr. Srinivasan told this news organization. “We need them to be vaccinated to protect themselves. It is also really important that we as health care personnel get vaccinated to protect our patients.”
 

Vaccine mandates

The analysis shows that workers were more likely to be vaccinated if they worked at a children’s hospital (77%), lived in metropolitan counties (71%), or worked in a hospital with lower cumulative admissions of COVID-19 patients, or lower cumulative COVID-19 cases.

The odds of being fully vaccinated were lower if the surrounding community had lower vaccination coverage. Workers in non-metropolitan counties (63.3%) and in rural counties (65.1%) were also less likely to be fully vaccinated, as well as those who were in critical access hospitals (64%) or long-term acute care hospitals (68.8%).

Surveys have shown that health care personnel who are vaccine-hesitant cited concerns they had about vaccine efficacy, adverse effects, the speed of vaccine development, and lack of full Food and Drug Administration approval, the study authors noted. In addition, many reported low trust in the government.

A Medscape survey this past April found that 25% of health care workers said they did not plan to be fully vaccinated. Some 40% of the 9,349 workers who responded said that employers should never require a COVID-19 vaccine for clinicians.

But the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is attempting to require all health care facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid payment to vaccinate workers. All eligible staff must receive the first dose of a two-dose COVID-19 vaccine or a one-dose vaccine by Dec. 6, and a second dose by Jan. 4, 2022. The policy allows exemptions based on recognized medical conditions or religious beliefs.

Some hospitals and health systems and various states and cities have already begun implementing vaccine mandates. Northwell Health in New York, for instance, lost 1,400 workers (evenly split between clinical and nonclinical staff), or 2% of its 77,000 employees, as a result of the state’s mandate.

Northwell’s workforce is now considered 100% vaccinated, a hospital spokesman said in an interview. In addition, “we have allowed for team members who changed their minds and presented proof of vaccination to return,” said the spokesman, adding that “a couple of hundred employees have done just that.”

Ten states sued the Biden administration recently, aiming to stop the health care worker vaccine mandate. Other challenges to vaccine mandates have generally been unsuccessful. The U.S. Supreme Court, for example, in October declined to hear a challenge to Maine’s mandate for health care workers, even though it did not allow religious exemptions, according to the Washington Post.

“The courts seem to agree that health care personnel are different, and could be subject to these mandates,” said Dr. Srinivasan.

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

Some 30% of health care personnel who worked at the thousands of hospitals in the United States were still not fully vaccinated against COVID-19 as of mid-September, according to a new survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The snapshot in time – Jan. 20, 2021 to Sept. 15, 2021 – is based on voluntary weekly reports from hospitals. Only about 48% of the 5,085 hospitals in the U.S. Health and Human Services department’s Unified Hospital Data Surveillance System reported data on vaccination coverage during the period, and, after validation checks, the study included reports from 2,086 facilities, or just 41% of all hospitals, covering 3.35 million workers.

Overall, the number who were fully vaccinated rose from 36.1% in Jan. 2021 to 60.2% in April 2021, and then crept slowly up to 70% by Sept. 15, the CDC researchers reported in the American Journal of Infection Control.

The slowdown among hospital workers seems to mirror the same decline as in the general population.  

Arjun Srinivasan, MD, associate director for health care–associated infection prevention programs at the CDC, said the decline in part may be the result of misinformation.

Health care personnel “are not fully immune from vaccine misinformation,” he said, adding that such misinformation “is contributing to decreased vaccine uptake among non–health care personnel.”

“The take-home message is that there is a lot of work to do in health care settings in order to get all of our health care personnel vaccinated,” Dr. Srinivasan told this news organization. “We need them to be vaccinated to protect themselves. It is also really important that we as health care personnel get vaccinated to protect our patients.”
 

Vaccine mandates

The analysis shows that workers were more likely to be vaccinated if they worked at a children’s hospital (77%), lived in metropolitan counties (71%), or worked in a hospital with lower cumulative admissions of COVID-19 patients, or lower cumulative COVID-19 cases.

The odds of being fully vaccinated were lower if the surrounding community had lower vaccination coverage. Workers in non-metropolitan counties (63.3%) and in rural counties (65.1%) were also less likely to be fully vaccinated, as well as those who were in critical access hospitals (64%) or long-term acute care hospitals (68.8%).

Surveys have shown that health care personnel who are vaccine-hesitant cited concerns they had about vaccine efficacy, adverse effects, the speed of vaccine development, and lack of full Food and Drug Administration approval, the study authors noted. In addition, many reported low trust in the government.

A Medscape survey this past April found that 25% of health care workers said they did not plan to be fully vaccinated. Some 40% of the 9,349 workers who responded said that employers should never require a COVID-19 vaccine for clinicians.

But the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is attempting to require all health care facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid payment to vaccinate workers. All eligible staff must receive the first dose of a two-dose COVID-19 vaccine or a one-dose vaccine by Dec. 6, and a second dose by Jan. 4, 2022. The policy allows exemptions based on recognized medical conditions or religious beliefs.

Some hospitals and health systems and various states and cities have already begun implementing vaccine mandates. Northwell Health in New York, for instance, lost 1,400 workers (evenly split between clinical and nonclinical staff), or 2% of its 77,000 employees, as a result of the state’s mandate.

Northwell’s workforce is now considered 100% vaccinated, a hospital spokesman said in an interview. In addition, “we have allowed for team members who changed their minds and presented proof of vaccination to return,” said the spokesman, adding that “a couple of hundred employees have done just that.”

Ten states sued the Biden administration recently, aiming to stop the health care worker vaccine mandate. Other challenges to vaccine mandates have generally been unsuccessful. The U.S. Supreme Court, for example, in October declined to hear a challenge to Maine’s mandate for health care workers, even though it did not allow religious exemptions, according to the Washington Post.

“The courts seem to agree that health care personnel are different, and could be subject to these mandates,” said Dr. Srinivasan.

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

Some 30% of health care personnel who worked at the thousands of hospitals in the United States were still not fully vaccinated against COVID-19 as of mid-September, according to a new survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The snapshot in time – Jan. 20, 2021 to Sept. 15, 2021 – is based on voluntary weekly reports from hospitals. Only about 48% of the 5,085 hospitals in the U.S. Health and Human Services department’s Unified Hospital Data Surveillance System reported data on vaccination coverage during the period, and, after validation checks, the study included reports from 2,086 facilities, or just 41% of all hospitals, covering 3.35 million workers.

Overall, the number who were fully vaccinated rose from 36.1% in Jan. 2021 to 60.2% in April 2021, and then crept slowly up to 70% by Sept. 15, the CDC researchers reported in the American Journal of Infection Control.

The slowdown among hospital workers seems to mirror the same decline as in the general population.  

Arjun Srinivasan, MD, associate director for health care–associated infection prevention programs at the CDC, said the decline in part may be the result of misinformation.

Health care personnel “are not fully immune from vaccine misinformation,” he said, adding that such misinformation “is contributing to decreased vaccine uptake among non–health care personnel.”

“The take-home message is that there is a lot of work to do in health care settings in order to get all of our health care personnel vaccinated,” Dr. Srinivasan told this news organization. “We need them to be vaccinated to protect themselves. It is also really important that we as health care personnel get vaccinated to protect our patients.”
 

Vaccine mandates

The analysis shows that workers were more likely to be vaccinated if they worked at a children’s hospital (77%), lived in metropolitan counties (71%), or worked in a hospital with lower cumulative admissions of COVID-19 patients, or lower cumulative COVID-19 cases.

The odds of being fully vaccinated were lower if the surrounding community had lower vaccination coverage. Workers in non-metropolitan counties (63.3%) and in rural counties (65.1%) were also less likely to be fully vaccinated, as well as those who were in critical access hospitals (64%) or long-term acute care hospitals (68.8%).

Surveys have shown that health care personnel who are vaccine-hesitant cited concerns they had about vaccine efficacy, adverse effects, the speed of vaccine development, and lack of full Food and Drug Administration approval, the study authors noted. In addition, many reported low trust in the government.

A Medscape survey this past April found that 25% of health care workers said they did not plan to be fully vaccinated. Some 40% of the 9,349 workers who responded said that employers should never require a COVID-19 vaccine for clinicians.

But the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is attempting to require all health care facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid payment to vaccinate workers. All eligible staff must receive the first dose of a two-dose COVID-19 vaccine or a one-dose vaccine by Dec. 6, and a second dose by Jan. 4, 2022. The policy allows exemptions based on recognized medical conditions or religious beliefs.

Some hospitals and health systems and various states and cities have already begun implementing vaccine mandates. Northwell Health in New York, for instance, lost 1,400 workers (evenly split between clinical and nonclinical staff), or 2% of its 77,000 employees, as a result of the state’s mandate.

Northwell’s workforce is now considered 100% vaccinated, a hospital spokesman said in an interview. In addition, “we have allowed for team members who changed their minds and presented proof of vaccination to return,” said the spokesman, adding that “a couple of hundred employees have done just that.”

Ten states sued the Biden administration recently, aiming to stop the health care worker vaccine mandate. Other challenges to vaccine mandates have generally been unsuccessful. The U.S. Supreme Court, for example, in October declined to hear a challenge to Maine’s mandate for health care workers, even though it did not allow religious exemptions, according to the Washington Post.

“The courts seem to agree that health care personnel are different, and could be subject to these mandates,” said Dr. Srinivasan.

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

Medical practices will likely have to confront a doctor at some point who treats staff badly or is too impaired to practice safely. Knowing what to say and do can lead to a positive outcome for the physician involved and the organization.

Misbehaving and impaired physicians put their organizations at risk, which can lead to malpractice/patient injury lawsuits, labor law and harassment claims, and a damaged reputation through negative social media reviews, said Debra Phairas, MBA, president of Practice and Liability Consultants LLC, at the annual meeting of the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) .

“Verbal harassment or bullying claims can result in large dollar awards against the organizations that knew about the behavior and did nothing to stop it. Organizations can be sued for that,” says Ms. Phairas.

She recalls a doctor who called a female doctor “an entitled bitch” and the administrator “incompetent” in front of other staff. “He would pick on one department manager at every meeting and humiliate them in front of the others,” says Ms. Phairas.

After working with a human resources (HR) attorney and conducting independent reviews, they used a strategy Ms. Phairas calls her “3 C’s” for dealing with disruptive doctors.
 

Confront, correct, and/or counsel

The three C’s can work individually or together, depending on the doctor’s situation. Confronting a physician can start with an informal discussion; correcting can involve seeking a written apology that directly addresses the problem or sending a letter of admonition; and coaching or counseling can be offered. If the doctor resists those efforts, practice administrators can issue a final letter of warning and then suspend or terminate the physician, says Ms. Phairas.

Sometimes having a conversation with a disruptive doctor about the risks and consequences is enough to change the offending behavior, says Ms. Phairas.

She recalled being asked by a medical group to meet with a physician who she says was “snapping the bra straps of medical assistants in the hall — everyone there was horrified. I told him that’s not appropriate, that he was placing everyone at risk and they will terminate him if he didn’t stop. I asked for his commitment to stop, and he agreed,” says Ms. Phairas.

She also recommends implementing these strategies to prevent and deal with disruptive physicians:

• Implement a code of conduct and share it during interviews;
• Have zero tolerance policies and procedures for documenting behavior;
• Get advice from a good employment attorney;
• Implement written performance improvement plans;
• Provide resources to change the behavior;
• Follow through with suspension and termination; and
• Add to shareholder agreements a clause stating that partners/shareholders can gently ask or insist that the physician obtain counseling or help.

Getting impaired doctors help

Doctors can be impaired through substance abuse, a serious medical illness, mental illness, or age-related deterioration.

Life events such as divorce or the death of a spouse, child, or a physician partner can affect a doctor’s mental health. “In those cases, you need to have the courage to say you’re really depressed and we all agree you need to get help,” says Ms. Phairas.

She recalls one occasion in which a practice administration staff member could not locate a doctor whose patients were waiting to be seen. “He was so devastated from his divorce that he had crawled into a ball beneath his desk. She had to coax him out and tell him that they were worried about him and he needed to get help.”

Another reason doctors may not be performing well may be because of an undiagnosed medical illness. Doctors in an orthopedic group were mad at another partner who had slowed down and couldn’t help pay the expenses. “They were ready to terminate him when he went to the doctor and learned he had colon cancer,” says Ms. Phairas.

Ms. Phairas recommends that practices update their partner shareholder agreements regularly with the following:

• Include “fit for duty” examinations, especially after age 65.
• Insist that a physician be evaluated by a doctor outside the practice. The doctor may be one that they agree upon or one chosen by the local medical society president.
• Include in the agreement the clause, “Partners and employees will be subject to review for impairment due to matters including but not limited to age-related, physical, or mental conditions.”
• Establish a voting mechanism for terminating a physician.

Aging doctors who won’t retire

Some doctors have retired early because of COVID, whereas others are staying on because they are feeling financial pressures — they lost a lot of money last year and need to make up for it, says Ms. Phairas.

She warned that administrators have to be careful in dealing with older doctors because of age discrimination laws.

Doctors may not notice they are declining mentally until it becomes a problem. Ms. Phairas recalls an internist senior partner who started behaving erratically when he was 78 years old. “He wrote himself a $25,000 check from the organization’s funds without telling his partners, left a patient he should have been watching and she fell over and sued the practice, and the staff started noticing that he was forgetting or not doing things,” says Ms. Phairas.

She sought guidance from a good HR attorney and involved a malpractice attorney. She then met with the senior partner. “I reminded him of his Hippocratic Oath that he took when he became a doctor and told him that his actions were harming patients. I pleaded with him that it was time to retire. He didn’t.”

Because this physician wouldn’t retire, the practice referred to their updated shareholder agreement, which stated that they could insist that the physician undergo a neuropsychiatric assessment from a certified specialist. He didn’t pass the evaluation, which then provided evidence of his declining cognitive skills.

“All the doctors, myself, and the HR attorney talked to him about this and laid out all the facts. It was hard to say these things, but he listened and left. We went through the termination process to protect the practice and avoid litigation. The malpractice insurer also refused to renew his policy,” says Ms. Phairas.

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

Medical practices will likely have to confront a doctor at some point who treats staff badly or is too impaired to practice safely. Knowing what to say and do can lead to a positive outcome for the physician involved and the organization.

Misbehaving and impaired physicians put their organizations at risk, which can lead to malpractice/patient injury lawsuits, labor law and harassment claims, and a damaged reputation through negative social media reviews, said Debra Phairas, MBA, president of Practice and Liability Consultants LLC, at the annual meeting of the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) .

“Verbal harassment or bullying claims can result in large dollar awards against the organizations that knew about the behavior and did nothing to stop it. Organizations can be sued for that,” says Ms. Phairas.

She recalls a doctor who called a female doctor “an entitled bitch” and the administrator “incompetent” in front of other staff. “He would pick on one department manager at every meeting and humiliate them in front of the others,” says Ms. Phairas.

After working with a human resources (HR) attorney and conducting independent reviews, they used a strategy Ms. Phairas calls her “3 C’s” for dealing with disruptive doctors.
 

Confront, correct, and/or counsel

The three C’s can work individually or together, depending on the doctor’s situation. Confronting a physician can start with an informal discussion; correcting can involve seeking a written apology that directly addresses the problem or sending a letter of admonition; and coaching or counseling can be offered. If the doctor resists those efforts, practice administrators can issue a final letter of warning and then suspend or terminate the physician, says Ms. Phairas.

Sometimes having a conversation with a disruptive doctor about the risks and consequences is enough to change the offending behavior, says Ms. Phairas.

She recalled being asked by a medical group to meet with a physician who she says was “snapping the bra straps of medical assistants in the hall — everyone there was horrified. I told him that’s not appropriate, that he was placing everyone at risk and they will terminate him if he didn’t stop. I asked for his commitment to stop, and he agreed,” says Ms. Phairas.

She also recommends implementing these strategies to prevent and deal with disruptive physicians:

• Implement a code of conduct and share it during interviews;
• Have zero tolerance policies and procedures for documenting behavior;
• Get advice from a good employment attorney;
• Implement written performance improvement plans;
• Provide resources to change the behavior;
• Follow through with suspension and termination; and
• Add to shareholder agreements a clause stating that partners/shareholders can gently ask or insist that the physician obtain counseling or help.

Getting impaired doctors help

Doctors can be impaired through substance abuse, a serious medical illness, mental illness, or age-related deterioration.

Life events such as divorce or the death of a spouse, child, or a physician partner can affect a doctor’s mental health. “In those cases, you need to have the courage to say you’re really depressed and we all agree you need to get help,” says Ms. Phairas.

She recalls one occasion in which a practice administration staff member could not locate a doctor whose patients were waiting to be seen. “He was so devastated from his divorce that he had crawled into a ball beneath his desk. She had to coax him out and tell him that they were worried about him and he needed to get help.”

Another reason doctors may not be performing well may be because of an undiagnosed medical illness. Doctors in an orthopedic group were mad at another partner who had slowed down and couldn’t help pay the expenses. “They were ready to terminate him when he went to the doctor and learned he had colon cancer,” says Ms. Phairas.

Ms. Phairas recommends that practices update their partner shareholder agreements regularly with the following:

• Include “fit for duty” examinations, especially after age 65.
• Insist that a physician be evaluated by a doctor outside the practice. The doctor may be one that they agree upon or one chosen by the local medical society president.
• Include in the agreement the clause, “Partners and employees will be subject to review for impairment due to matters including but not limited to age-related, physical, or mental conditions.”
• Establish a voting mechanism for terminating a physician.

Aging doctors who won’t retire

Some doctors have retired early because of COVID, whereas others are staying on because they are feeling financial pressures — they lost a lot of money last year and need to make up for it, says Ms. Phairas.

She warned that administrators have to be careful in dealing with older doctors because of age discrimination laws.

Doctors may not notice they are declining mentally until it becomes a problem. Ms. Phairas recalls an internist senior partner who started behaving erratically when he was 78 years old. “He wrote himself a $25,000 check from the organization’s funds without telling his partners, left a patient he should have been watching and she fell over and sued the practice, and the staff started noticing that he was forgetting or not doing things,” says Ms. Phairas.

She sought guidance from a good HR attorney and involved a malpractice attorney. She then met with the senior partner. “I reminded him of his Hippocratic Oath that he took when he became a doctor and told him that his actions were harming patients. I pleaded with him that it was time to retire. He didn’t.”

Because this physician wouldn’t retire, the practice referred to their updated shareholder agreement, which stated that they could insist that the physician undergo a neuropsychiatric assessment from a certified specialist. He didn’t pass the evaluation, which then provided evidence of his declining cognitive skills.

“All the doctors, myself, and the HR attorney talked to him about this and laid out all the facts. It was hard to say these things, but he listened and left. We went through the termination process to protect the practice and avoid litigation. The malpractice insurer also refused to renew his policy,” says Ms. Phairas.

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

Medical practices will likely have to confront a doctor at some point who treats staff badly or is too impaired to practice safely. Knowing what to say and do can lead to a positive outcome for the physician involved and the organization.

Misbehaving and impaired physicians put their organizations at risk, which can lead to malpractice/patient injury lawsuits, labor law and harassment claims, and a damaged reputation through negative social media reviews, said Debra Phairas, MBA, president of Practice and Liability Consultants LLC, at the annual meeting of the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) .

“Verbal harassment or bullying claims can result in large dollar awards against the organizations that knew about the behavior and did nothing to stop it. Organizations can be sued for that,” says Ms. Phairas.

She recalls a doctor who called a female doctor “an entitled bitch” and the administrator “incompetent” in front of other staff. “He would pick on one department manager at every meeting and humiliate them in front of the others,” says Ms. Phairas.

After working with a human resources (HR) attorney and conducting independent reviews, they used a strategy Ms. Phairas calls her “3 C’s” for dealing with disruptive doctors.
 

Confront, correct, and/or counsel

The three C’s can work individually or together, depending on the doctor’s situation. Confronting a physician can start with an informal discussion; correcting can involve seeking a written apology that directly addresses the problem or sending a letter of admonition; and coaching or counseling can be offered. If the doctor resists those efforts, practice administrators can issue a final letter of warning and then suspend or terminate the physician, says Ms. Phairas.

Sometimes having a conversation with a disruptive doctor about the risks and consequences is enough to change the offending behavior, says Ms. Phairas.

She recalled being asked by a medical group to meet with a physician who she says was “snapping the bra straps of medical assistants in the hall — everyone there was horrified. I told him that’s not appropriate, that he was placing everyone at risk and they will terminate him if he didn’t stop. I asked for his commitment to stop, and he agreed,” says Ms. Phairas.

She also recommends implementing these strategies to prevent and deal with disruptive physicians:

• Implement a code of conduct and share it during interviews;
• Have zero tolerance policies and procedures for documenting behavior;
• Get advice from a good employment attorney;
• Implement written performance improvement plans;
• Provide resources to change the behavior;
• Follow through with suspension and termination; and
• Add to shareholder agreements a clause stating that partners/shareholders can gently ask or insist that the physician obtain counseling or help.

Getting impaired doctors help

Doctors can be impaired through substance abuse, a serious medical illness, mental illness, or age-related deterioration.

Life events such as divorce or the death of a spouse, child, or a physician partner can affect a doctor’s mental health. “In those cases, you need to have the courage to say you’re really depressed and we all agree you need to get help,” says Ms. Phairas.

She recalls one occasion in which a practice administration staff member could not locate a doctor whose patients were waiting to be seen. “He was so devastated from his divorce that he had crawled into a ball beneath his desk. She had to coax him out and tell him that they were worried about him and he needed to get help.”

Another reason doctors may not be performing well may be because of an undiagnosed medical illness. Doctors in an orthopedic group were mad at another partner who had slowed down and couldn’t help pay the expenses. “They were ready to terminate him when he went to the doctor and learned he had colon cancer,” says Ms. Phairas.

Ms. Phairas recommends that practices update their partner shareholder agreements regularly with the following:

• Include “fit for duty” examinations, especially after age 65.
• Insist that a physician be evaluated by a doctor outside the practice. The doctor may be one that they agree upon or one chosen by the local medical society president.
• Include in the agreement the clause, “Partners and employees will be subject to review for impairment due to matters including but not limited to age-related, physical, or mental conditions.”
• Establish a voting mechanism for terminating a physician.

Aging doctors who won’t retire

Some doctors have retired early because of COVID, whereas others are staying on because they are feeling financial pressures — they lost a lot of money last year and need to make up for it, says Ms. Phairas.

She warned that administrators have to be careful in dealing with older doctors because of age discrimination laws.

Doctors may not notice they are declining mentally until it becomes a problem. Ms. Phairas recalls an internist senior partner who started behaving erratically when he was 78 years old. “He wrote himself a $25,000 check from the organization’s funds without telling his partners, left a patient he should have been watching and she fell over and sued the practice, and the staff started noticing that he was forgetting or not doing things,” says Ms. Phairas.

She sought guidance from a good HR attorney and involved a malpractice attorney. She then met with the senior partner. “I reminded him of his Hippocratic Oath that he took when he became a doctor and told him that his actions were harming patients. I pleaded with him that it was time to retire. He didn’t.”

Because this physician wouldn’t retire, the practice referred to their updated shareholder agreement, which stated that they could insist that the physician undergo a neuropsychiatric assessment from a certified specialist. He didn’t pass the evaluation, which then provided evidence of his declining cognitive skills.

“All the doctors, myself, and the HR attorney talked to him about this and laid out all the facts. It was hard to say these things, but he listened and left. We went through the termination process to protect the practice and avoid litigation. The malpractice insurer also refused to renew his policy,” says Ms. Phairas.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has given the green light to third, or booster doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for everyone over the age of 18, ahead of the busy winter holiday season.

“Authorizing the use of a single booster dose of either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for individuals 18 years of age and older helps to provide continued protection against COVID-19, including the serious consequences that can occur, such as hospitalization and death,” said acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, in an FDA press statement.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet on Nov. 19 to review the science supporting a more widespread need for booster doses, and is expected to vote on official recommendations for their use in the United States. The CDC director must then sign off on the panel’s recommendations.

“As soon as the FDA reviews those data and provides an authorization, we at CDC will act swiftly,” Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH, said at a recent White House briefing.

Several states – including Louisiana, Maine, and Colorado – have already authorized boosters for all adults as cases rise in Europe and across the Western and Northeastern regions of the United States.

FDA officials said they hoped that widening eligibility for boosters would cut down on confusion for people and hopefully speed uptake of the shots.

“Streamlining the eligibility criteria and making booster doses available to all individuals 18 years of age and older will also help to eliminate confusion about who may receive a booster dose and ensure booster doses are available to all who may need one,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, who heads the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has given the green light to third, or booster doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for everyone over the age of 18, ahead of the busy winter holiday season.

“Authorizing the use of a single booster dose of either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for individuals 18 years of age and older helps to provide continued protection against COVID-19, including the serious consequences that can occur, such as hospitalization and death,” said acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, in an FDA press statement.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet on Nov. 19 to review the science supporting a more widespread need for booster doses, and is expected to vote on official recommendations for their use in the United States. The CDC director must then sign off on the panel’s recommendations.

“As soon as the FDA reviews those data and provides an authorization, we at CDC will act swiftly,” Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH, said at a recent White House briefing.

Several states – including Louisiana, Maine, and Colorado – have already authorized boosters for all adults as cases rise in Europe and across the Western and Northeastern regions of the United States.

FDA officials said they hoped that widening eligibility for boosters would cut down on confusion for people and hopefully speed uptake of the shots.

“Streamlining the eligibility criteria and making booster doses available to all individuals 18 years of age and older will also help to eliminate confusion about who may receive a booster dose and ensure booster doses are available to all who may need one,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, who heads the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has given the green light to third, or booster doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for everyone over the age of 18, ahead of the busy winter holiday season.

“Authorizing the use of a single booster dose of either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for individuals 18 years of age and older helps to provide continued protection against COVID-19, including the serious consequences that can occur, such as hospitalization and death,” said acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, in an FDA press statement.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet on Nov. 19 to review the science supporting a more widespread need for booster doses, and is expected to vote on official recommendations for their use in the United States. The CDC director must then sign off on the panel’s recommendations.

“As soon as the FDA reviews those data and provides an authorization, we at CDC will act swiftly,” Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH, said at a recent White House briefing.

Several states – including Louisiana, Maine, and Colorado – have already authorized boosters for all adults as cases rise in Europe and across the Western and Northeastern regions of the United States.

FDA officials said they hoped that widening eligibility for boosters would cut down on confusion for people and hopefully speed uptake of the shots.

“Streamlining the eligibility criteria and making booster doses available to all individuals 18 years of age and older will also help to eliminate confusion about who may receive a booster dose and ensure booster doses are available to all who may need one,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, who heads the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

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

When people wear face masks to reduce the spread of the coronavirus, the number of new COVID-19 infections drops by 53%, according to a new study published Nov. 18 in the British Medical Journal.

Social distancing and handwashing were also effective at lowering the number of cases, but wearing masks was the most effective tool against the coronavirus.

“Personal and social measures, including handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing are effective at reducing the incidence of COVID-19,” the study authors wrote.

The research team, which included public health and infectious disease specialists in Australia, China, and the U.K., evaluated 72 studies of COVID-19 precautions during the pandemic. They later looked at eight studies that focused on handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing.

Among six studies that looked at mask wearing, the researchers found a 53% reduction in COVID-19 cases. In the broader analysis with additional studies, wearing a mask reduced coronavirus transmission, cases, and deaths.

In one study across 200 countries, mandatory mask wearing resulted in nearly 46% fewer negative outcomes from COVID-19. In another study in the U.S., coronavirus transmission was reduced 29% in states where masks were mandatory.

But the research team couldn’t analyze the impact of the type of face mask used, the frequency of mask wearing, or the overall compliance with wearing face masks.

Among five studies that looked at physical distancing, the researchers found a 25% reduction in the rate of COVID-19. A study in the U.S. showed a 12% decrease in coronavirus transmission, while another study in Iran reported a reduction in COVID-19 mortality.

Handwashing interventions also suggested a substantial reduction of COVID-19 cases up to 53%, the researchers wrote. But in adjusted models, the results weren’t statistically significant due to the small number of studies included.

Other studies found significant decreases related to other public health measures, such as quarantines, broad lockdowns, border closures, school closures, business closures, and travel restrictions. Still, the research team couldn’t analyze the overall effectiveness of these measures due to the different ways the studies were conducted.

The study lines up with other research conducted so far during the pandemic, the research team wrote, which indicates that wearing masks and physical distancing can reduce transmission, cases, and deaths.

That said, more studies are needed, particularly now that vaccinations are available and contagious coronavirus variants have become prevalent.

“Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness of public health measures after adequate vaccination coverage has been achieved,” they wrote.

“It is likely that further control of the COVID-19 pandemic depends not only on high vaccination coverage and its effectiveness but also on ongoing adherence to effective and sustainable public health measures,” they concluded.

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

When people wear face masks to reduce the spread of the coronavirus, the number of new COVID-19 infections drops by 53%, according to a new study published Nov. 18 in the British Medical Journal.

Social distancing and handwashing were also effective at lowering the number of cases, but wearing masks was the most effective tool against the coronavirus.

“Personal and social measures, including handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing are effective at reducing the incidence of COVID-19,” the study authors wrote.

The research team, which included public health and infectious disease specialists in Australia, China, and the U.K., evaluated 72 studies of COVID-19 precautions during the pandemic. They later looked at eight studies that focused on handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing.

Among six studies that looked at mask wearing, the researchers found a 53% reduction in COVID-19 cases. In the broader analysis with additional studies, wearing a mask reduced coronavirus transmission, cases, and deaths.

In one study across 200 countries, mandatory mask wearing resulted in nearly 46% fewer negative outcomes from COVID-19. In another study in the U.S., coronavirus transmission was reduced 29% in states where masks were mandatory.

But the research team couldn’t analyze the impact of the type of face mask used, the frequency of mask wearing, or the overall compliance with wearing face masks.

Among five studies that looked at physical distancing, the researchers found a 25% reduction in the rate of COVID-19. A study in the U.S. showed a 12% decrease in coronavirus transmission, while another study in Iran reported a reduction in COVID-19 mortality.

Handwashing interventions also suggested a substantial reduction of COVID-19 cases up to 53%, the researchers wrote. But in adjusted models, the results weren’t statistically significant due to the small number of studies included.

Other studies found significant decreases related to other public health measures, such as quarantines, broad lockdowns, border closures, school closures, business closures, and travel restrictions. Still, the research team couldn’t analyze the overall effectiveness of these measures due to the different ways the studies were conducted.

The study lines up with other research conducted so far during the pandemic, the research team wrote, which indicates that wearing masks and physical distancing can reduce transmission, cases, and deaths.

That said, more studies are needed, particularly now that vaccinations are available and contagious coronavirus variants have become prevalent.

“Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness of public health measures after adequate vaccination coverage has been achieved,” they wrote.

“It is likely that further control of the COVID-19 pandemic depends not only on high vaccination coverage and its effectiveness but also on ongoing adherence to effective and sustainable public health measures,” they concluded.

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

When people wear face masks to reduce the spread of the coronavirus, the number of new COVID-19 infections drops by 53%, according to a new study published Nov. 18 in the British Medical Journal.

Social distancing and handwashing were also effective at lowering the number of cases, but wearing masks was the most effective tool against the coronavirus.

“Personal and social measures, including handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing are effective at reducing the incidence of COVID-19,” the study authors wrote.

The research team, which included public health and infectious disease specialists in Australia, China, and the U.K., evaluated 72 studies of COVID-19 precautions during the pandemic. They later looked at eight studies that focused on handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing.

Among six studies that looked at mask wearing, the researchers found a 53% reduction in COVID-19 cases. In the broader analysis with additional studies, wearing a mask reduced coronavirus transmission, cases, and deaths.

In one study across 200 countries, mandatory mask wearing resulted in nearly 46% fewer negative outcomes from COVID-19. In another study in the U.S., coronavirus transmission was reduced 29% in states where masks were mandatory.

But the research team couldn’t analyze the impact of the type of face mask used, the frequency of mask wearing, or the overall compliance with wearing face masks.

Among five studies that looked at physical distancing, the researchers found a 25% reduction in the rate of COVID-19. A study in the U.S. showed a 12% decrease in coronavirus transmission, while another study in Iran reported a reduction in COVID-19 mortality.

Handwashing interventions also suggested a substantial reduction of COVID-19 cases up to 53%, the researchers wrote. But in adjusted models, the results weren’t statistically significant due to the small number of studies included.

Other studies found significant decreases related to other public health measures, such as quarantines, broad lockdowns, border closures, school closures, business closures, and travel restrictions. Still, the research team couldn’t analyze the overall effectiveness of these measures due to the different ways the studies were conducted.

The study lines up with other research conducted so far during the pandemic, the research team wrote, which indicates that wearing masks and physical distancing can reduce transmission, cases, and deaths.

That said, more studies are needed, particularly now that vaccinations are available and contagious coronavirus variants have become prevalent.

“Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness of public health measures after adequate vaccination coverage has been achieved,” they wrote.

“It is likely that further control of the COVID-19 pandemic depends not only on high vaccination coverage and its effectiveness but also on ongoing adherence to effective and sustainable public health measures,” they concluded.

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

Rituximab doses as low as 200 mg reduced disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis to an extent that’s similar to the standard 1,000-mg dose during more than 3 years of follow-up, according to results from an extension study of a clinical trial in the Netherlands.

“We could not formally statistically show that the lower doses were less effective than the higher dose,” study leader Nathan den Broeder, MSc, a PhD candidate at St. Maarten Clinic and the Radboud Institute for Health Sciences in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in a presentation at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. “We concluded at this time that only 6% of patients needed to switch to another biologic or targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drug and that mean disease activity remained very low,” he said of the patients treated with 200- and 500-mg doses of rituximab.

The extension study included 118 of 142 patients in the REDO trial, following them from the start of the trial in 2017-2018 through April 2021. They were randomized to three treatment arms: the standard 1,000-mg dose (24 patients), a 500-mg dose (n = 48), and the 200-mg dose (n = 46). The mean follow-up was 3.2 years.

The study evaluated disease activity by mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), which during follow-up were 2.2-2.3 in the groups. Seven patients in the study cohort switched to a different DMARD, he said.

“On average, we saw a DAS28-CRP 0.15 points lower per 1,000 mg rituximab used in the past year,” Mr. den Broeder said in an interview. “For context, this is compared to a measurement error of about 0.6. A good response to a drug would be a reduction in DAS28-CRP of 1.2. This means we can just about get an effect that is bigger than the measurement error if we compare the highest dose in our study to the lowest one.” 

After a year, the median yearly rituximab dose was 978 mg, with an interquartile range of 704-1,425 mg. At the end of the study, 31% of patients took 200 mg every 6 months, 40% took 500 mg every 6.2 months, and 29% took 1,000 mg every 6.4 months.

“It’s important to note, though, this is in a situation where patients are given a dose based on disease activity,” Mr. den Broeder said. “That is, we try one dose; if the patient does well, we try a lower one; if not, we might go back up to a higher dose. We could expect somewhat larger differences if all patients were to be switched to a lower dose, regardless of whether that works well for them.”

The results were achieved without a high reliance on glucocorticoids (GCs), he said. Use of comedication in the extension study population was 0.38 GC injections per patient-year and starting or increasing an oral GC occurred at a rate of only 0.05 per patient-year.

“As a result of this study, we are now implementing a strategy of rituximab dose reduction in clinical practice at our center,” Mr. den Broeder said. Patients with RA start on a 1,000-mg dose for 6 months, and if they respond well they’re put on a 500-mg dose. If they respond well after 6 months on the 500-mg dose, they’re then moved to the 200-mg dose. “With this, we hope to gain that patients have fewer side effects,” he said. “We hope to reduce the cost of treatment, and also, what we instantly gain is that the infusion time for patients is also reduced.”

Future research considerations include evaluating the 200-mg dose as a subcutaneous injection. “Another thing you might think of as well: Are even lower doses possible?” he said.

Session moderator Maya Buch, MD, professor of rheumatology and director of Experimental Medicine at the Centre for Musculoskeletal Research at the University of Manchester (England), asked if the investigators used CD19 testing to measure B-cell levels or immunoglobulin G levels to determine dose escalation.

Mr. den Broeder said that CD19 wasn’t used in clinical practice but was used in the original trial. However, it wasn’t found to have any predictive ability, while immunoglobulin G levels were measured in patients who had multiple infections. “Sporadically, a lower dose might have been initiated because of that, but not systematically,” he said.

Mr. den Broeder had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Buch reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Merck-Serono, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB.

Rituximab doses as low as 200 mg reduced disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis to an extent that’s similar to the standard 1,000-mg dose during more than 3 years of follow-up, according to results from an extension study of a clinical trial in the Netherlands.

“We could not formally statistically show that the lower doses were less effective than the higher dose,” study leader Nathan den Broeder, MSc, a PhD candidate at St. Maarten Clinic and the Radboud Institute for Health Sciences in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in a presentation at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. “We concluded at this time that only 6% of patients needed to switch to another biologic or targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drug and that mean disease activity remained very low,” he said of the patients treated with 200- and 500-mg doses of rituximab.

The extension study included 118 of 142 patients in the REDO trial, following them from the start of the trial in 2017-2018 through April 2021. They were randomized to three treatment arms: the standard 1,000-mg dose (24 patients), a 500-mg dose (n = 48), and the 200-mg dose (n = 46). The mean follow-up was 3.2 years.

The study evaluated disease activity by mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), which during follow-up were 2.2-2.3 in the groups. Seven patients in the study cohort switched to a different DMARD, he said.

“On average, we saw a DAS28-CRP 0.15 points lower per 1,000 mg rituximab used in the past year,” Mr. den Broeder said in an interview. “For context, this is compared to a measurement error of about 0.6. A good response to a drug would be a reduction in DAS28-CRP of 1.2. This means we can just about get an effect that is bigger than the measurement error if we compare the highest dose in our study to the lowest one.” 

After a year, the median yearly rituximab dose was 978 mg, with an interquartile range of 704-1,425 mg. At the end of the study, 31% of patients took 200 mg every 6 months, 40% took 500 mg every 6.2 months, and 29% took 1,000 mg every 6.4 months.

“It’s important to note, though, this is in a situation where patients are given a dose based on disease activity,” Mr. den Broeder said. “That is, we try one dose; if the patient does well, we try a lower one; if not, we might go back up to a higher dose. We could expect somewhat larger differences if all patients were to be switched to a lower dose, regardless of whether that works well for them.”

The results were achieved without a high reliance on glucocorticoids (GCs), he said. Use of comedication in the extension study population was 0.38 GC injections per patient-year and starting or increasing an oral GC occurred at a rate of only 0.05 per patient-year.

“As a result of this study, we are now implementing a strategy of rituximab dose reduction in clinical practice at our center,” Mr. den Broeder said. Patients with RA start on a 1,000-mg dose for 6 months, and if they respond well they’re put on a 500-mg dose. If they respond well after 6 months on the 500-mg dose, they’re then moved to the 200-mg dose. “With this, we hope to gain that patients have fewer side effects,” he said. “We hope to reduce the cost of treatment, and also, what we instantly gain is that the infusion time for patients is also reduced.”

Future research considerations include evaluating the 200-mg dose as a subcutaneous injection. “Another thing you might think of as well: Are even lower doses possible?” he said.

Session moderator Maya Buch, MD, professor of rheumatology and director of Experimental Medicine at the Centre for Musculoskeletal Research at the University of Manchester (England), asked if the investigators used CD19 testing to measure B-cell levels or immunoglobulin G levels to determine dose escalation.

Mr. den Broeder said that CD19 wasn’t used in clinical practice but was used in the original trial. However, it wasn’t found to have any predictive ability, while immunoglobulin G levels were measured in patients who had multiple infections. “Sporadically, a lower dose might have been initiated because of that, but not systematically,” he said.

Mr. den Broeder had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Buch reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Merck-Serono, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB.

Rituximab doses as low as 200 mg reduced disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis to an extent that’s similar to the standard 1,000-mg dose during more than 3 years of follow-up, according to results from an extension study of a clinical trial in the Netherlands.

“We could not formally statistically show that the lower doses were less effective than the higher dose,” study leader Nathan den Broeder, MSc, a PhD candidate at St. Maarten Clinic and the Radboud Institute for Health Sciences in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in a presentation at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. “We concluded at this time that only 6% of patients needed to switch to another biologic or targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drug and that mean disease activity remained very low,” he said of the patients treated with 200- and 500-mg doses of rituximab.

The extension study included 118 of 142 patients in the REDO trial, following them from the start of the trial in 2017-2018 through April 2021. They were randomized to three treatment arms: the standard 1,000-mg dose (24 patients), a 500-mg dose (n = 48), and the 200-mg dose (n = 46). The mean follow-up was 3.2 years.

The study evaluated disease activity by mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), which during follow-up were 2.2-2.3 in the groups. Seven patients in the study cohort switched to a different DMARD, he said.

“On average, we saw a DAS28-CRP 0.15 points lower per 1,000 mg rituximab used in the past year,” Mr. den Broeder said in an interview. “For context, this is compared to a measurement error of about 0.6. A good response to a drug would be a reduction in DAS28-CRP of 1.2. This means we can just about get an effect that is bigger than the measurement error if we compare the highest dose in our study to the lowest one.” 

After a year, the median yearly rituximab dose was 978 mg, with an interquartile range of 704-1,425 mg. At the end of the study, 31% of patients took 200 mg every 6 months, 40% took 500 mg every 6.2 months, and 29% took 1,000 mg every 6.4 months.

“It’s important to note, though, this is in a situation where patients are given a dose based on disease activity,” Mr. den Broeder said. “That is, we try one dose; if the patient does well, we try a lower one; if not, we might go back up to a higher dose. We could expect somewhat larger differences if all patients were to be switched to a lower dose, regardless of whether that works well for them.”

The results were achieved without a high reliance on glucocorticoids (GCs), he said. Use of comedication in the extension study population was 0.38 GC injections per patient-year and starting or increasing an oral GC occurred at a rate of only 0.05 per patient-year.

“As a result of this study, we are now implementing a strategy of rituximab dose reduction in clinical practice at our center,” Mr. den Broeder said. Patients with RA start on a 1,000-mg dose for 6 months, and if they respond well they’re put on a 500-mg dose. If they respond well after 6 months on the 500-mg dose, they’re then moved to the 200-mg dose. “With this, we hope to gain that patients have fewer side effects,” he said. “We hope to reduce the cost of treatment, and also, what we instantly gain is that the infusion time for patients is also reduced.”

Future research considerations include evaluating the 200-mg dose as a subcutaneous injection. “Another thing you might think of as well: Are even lower doses possible?” he said.

Session moderator Maya Buch, MD, professor of rheumatology and director of Experimental Medicine at the Centre for Musculoskeletal Research at the University of Manchester (England), asked if the investigators used CD19 testing to measure B-cell levels or immunoglobulin G levels to determine dose escalation.

Mr. den Broeder said that CD19 wasn’t used in clinical practice but was used in the original trial. However, it wasn’t found to have any predictive ability, while immunoglobulin G levels were measured in patients who had multiple infections. “Sporadically, a lower dose might have been initiated because of that, but not systematically,” he said.

Mr. den Broeder had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Buch reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Merck-Serono, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB.

On this occasion of writing our last of a decade of tech columns, we want to take the time to emphasize that our collective excitement about medical technology should never eclipse the reason for which it is created: to facilitate high-quality care.

Indeed, science and technology provide opportunities to improve outcomes in ways not even imagined 100 years ago, yet we must acknowledge that technology also threatens to erect barriers between us and our patients. We can be easily tempted to confuse new care delivery tools with the actual care itself.

Courtesy Dr. Christopher Notte

Threats to the physician-patient relationship

Medical history provides many examples of how our zeal to innovate can have untoward consequences to the physician-patient relationship.

In the late 1800s, for example, to convey a sense of science, purity of intent, and trust, the medical community began wearing white coats. Those white coats have been discussed as creating emotional distance between physicians and their patients.¹

Even when we in the medical community are slow and reluctant to change, the external forces propelling us forward often seem unstoppable; kinetic aspirations to innovate electronic information systems and new applications seem suddenly to revolutionize care delivery when we least expect it. The rapidity of change in technology can sometimes be dizzying but can at the same time can occur so swiftly we don’t even notice it.

After René Laennec invented the stethoscope in the early 1800s, clinicians no longer needed to physically lean in and place an ear directly onto patients to hear their hearts beating. This created a distance from patients that was still lamented 50 years later, when a professor of medicine is reported to have said, “he that hath ears to hear, let him use his ears and not a stethoscope.” Still, while the stethoscope has literally distanced us from patients, it is such an important tool that we no longer think about this distancing. We have adapted over time to remain close to our patients, to sincerely listen to their thoughts and reassure them that we hear them without the need to feel our ears on their chests.

Francis Peabody, the eminent Harvard physician, wrote an essay in 1927 titled, “The Care of the Patient.” At the end of the first paragraph, he states: “The most common criticism made at present by older practitioners is that young graduates ... are too “scientific” and do not know how to take care of patients.” He goes on to say that “one of the essential qualities of the clinician is interest in humanity, for the secret of the care of the patient is in caring for the patient.”²

We agree with Dr. Peabody. As we embrace science and technology that can change health outcomes, our patients’ needs to feel understood and cared for will not diminish. Instead, that need will continue to be an important aspect of our struggle and joy in providing holistic, humane, competent care into the future.

Twenty-first century physicians have access to an ever-growing trove of data, yet our ability to truly know our patients seems somehow less accessible. Home health devices have begun to provide a flow of information about parameters, ranging from continuous glucose readings to home blood pressures, weights, and inspiratory flow readings. These data can provide much more accurate insight into patients than what we can glean from one point in time during an office visit. Yet we need to remember that behind the data are people with dreams and desires, not just table entries in an electronic health record.

In 1923, the German philosopher Martin Buber published the book for which he is best known, “I and Thou.” In that book, Mr. Buber says that there are two ways we can approach relationships: “I-Thou” or “I-It.” In I-It relationships, we view the other person as an “it” to be used to accomplish a purpose, or to be experienced without his or her full involvement. In an I-Thou relationship, we appreciate the other people for all their complexity, in their full humanness. We must consciously remind ourselves amid the rush of technology that there are real people behind those data. We must acknowledge and approach each person as a unique individual who has dreams, goals, fears, and wishes that may be different from ours but to which we can still relate.

‘From the Beating End of the Stethoscope’

John Ciardi, an American poet, said the following in a poem titled, “Lines From the Beating End of the Stethoscope”:

I speak, as I say, the patient’s point of view.

But, given time, doctors are patients, too.

And there’s our bond: beyond anatomy,

Or in it, through it, to the mystery

Medicine takes the pulse of and lets go

Forever unexplained. It’s art, we know,

Not science at the heart. Doctor be whole,

I won’t insist the patient is a soul,

But he’s a something, possibly laughable,

Or possibly sublime, but not quite graphable.

Not quite containable on a bed chart.

Where science touches man it turns to art.³

This poem is a reminder of the subtle needs of patients during their encounters with doctors, especially around many of the most important decisions and events in their lives. Patients’ needs are varied, complex, difficult to discern, and not able to be fully explained or understood through math and science.

Einstein warned us that the modern age would be characterized by a perfection of means and a confusion of goals.⁴ As clinicians, we should strive to clarify and align our goals with those of our patients, providing care that is real, compassionate, and personal, not just an optimized means to achieve standardized metrics. While technology can assist us in this pursuit, we’ll need be careful that our enchantment with innovation does not cloud our actual goal: truly caring for our patients.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. Jones VA. The white coat: Why not follow suit? JAMA. 1999;281(5):478. doi: 10.1001/jama.281.5.478-JMS0203-5-1

2. Peabody, Francis (1927). “The care of the patient.” JAMA. 88(12):877-82. doi: 10.1001/jama.1927.02680380001001.

3. Ciardi, John. Lines from the Beating End of the Stethoscope. Saturday Review, Nov. 18, 1968.

4. Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years, 1950.

On this occasion of writing our last of a decade of tech columns, we want to take the time to emphasize that our collective excitement about medical technology should never eclipse the reason for which it is created: to facilitate high-quality care.

Indeed, science and technology provide opportunities to improve outcomes in ways not even imagined 100 years ago, yet we must acknowledge that technology also threatens to erect barriers between us and our patients. We can be easily tempted to confuse new care delivery tools with the actual care itself.

Courtesy Dr. Christopher Notte

Threats to the physician-patient relationship

Medical history provides many examples of how our zeal to innovate can have untoward consequences to the physician-patient relationship.

In the late 1800s, for example, to convey a sense of science, purity of intent, and trust, the medical community began wearing white coats. Those white coats have been discussed as creating emotional distance between physicians and their patients.¹

Even when we in the medical community are slow and reluctant to change, the external forces propelling us forward often seem unstoppable; kinetic aspirations to innovate electronic information systems and new applications seem suddenly to revolutionize care delivery when we least expect it. The rapidity of change in technology can sometimes be dizzying but can at the same time can occur so swiftly we don’t even notice it.

After René Laennec invented the stethoscope in the early 1800s, clinicians no longer needed to physically lean in and place an ear directly onto patients to hear their hearts beating. This created a distance from patients that was still lamented 50 years later, when a professor of medicine is reported to have said, “he that hath ears to hear, let him use his ears and not a stethoscope.” Still, while the stethoscope has literally distanced us from patients, it is such an important tool that we no longer think about this distancing. We have adapted over time to remain close to our patients, to sincerely listen to their thoughts and reassure them that we hear them without the need to feel our ears on their chests.

Francis Peabody, the eminent Harvard physician, wrote an essay in 1927 titled, “The Care of the Patient.” At the end of the first paragraph, he states: “The most common criticism made at present by older practitioners is that young graduates ... are too “scientific” and do not know how to take care of patients.” He goes on to say that “one of the essential qualities of the clinician is interest in humanity, for the secret of the care of the patient is in caring for the patient.”²

We agree with Dr. Peabody. As we embrace science and technology that can change health outcomes, our patients’ needs to feel understood and cared for will not diminish. Instead, that need will continue to be an important aspect of our struggle and joy in providing holistic, humane, competent care into the future.

Twenty-first century physicians have access to an ever-growing trove of data, yet our ability to truly know our patients seems somehow less accessible. Home health devices have begun to provide a flow of information about parameters, ranging from continuous glucose readings to home blood pressures, weights, and inspiratory flow readings. These data can provide much more accurate insight into patients than what we can glean from one point in time during an office visit. Yet we need to remember that behind the data are people with dreams and desires, not just table entries in an electronic health record.

In 1923, the German philosopher Martin Buber published the book for which he is best known, “I and Thou.” In that book, Mr. Buber says that there are two ways we can approach relationships: “I-Thou” or “I-It.” In I-It relationships, we view the other person as an “it” to be used to accomplish a purpose, or to be experienced without his or her full involvement. In an I-Thou relationship, we appreciate the other people for all their complexity, in their full humanness. We must consciously remind ourselves amid the rush of technology that there are real people behind those data. We must acknowledge and approach each person as a unique individual who has dreams, goals, fears, and wishes that may be different from ours but to which we can still relate.

‘From the Beating End of the Stethoscope’

John Ciardi, an American poet, said the following in a poem titled, “Lines From the Beating End of the Stethoscope”:

I speak, as I say, the patient’s point of view.

But, given time, doctors are patients, too.

And there’s our bond: beyond anatomy,

Or in it, through it, to the mystery

Medicine takes the pulse of and lets go

Forever unexplained. It’s art, we know,

Not science at the heart. Doctor be whole,

I won’t insist the patient is a soul,

But he’s a something, possibly laughable,

Or possibly sublime, but not quite graphable.

Not quite containable on a bed chart.

Where science touches man it turns to art.³

This poem is a reminder of the subtle needs of patients during their encounters with doctors, especially around many of the most important decisions and events in their lives. Patients’ needs are varied, complex, difficult to discern, and not able to be fully explained or understood through math and science.

Einstein warned us that the modern age would be characterized by a perfection of means and a confusion of goals.⁴ As clinicians, we should strive to clarify and align our goals with those of our patients, providing care that is real, compassionate, and personal, not just an optimized means to achieve standardized metrics. While technology can assist us in this pursuit, we’ll need be careful that our enchantment with innovation does not cloud our actual goal: truly caring for our patients.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. Jones VA. The white coat: Why not follow suit? JAMA. 1999;281(5):478. doi: 10.1001/jama.281.5.478-JMS0203-5-1

2. Peabody, Francis (1927). “The care of the patient.” JAMA. 88(12):877-82. doi: 10.1001/jama.1927.02680380001001.

3. Ciardi, John. Lines from the Beating End of the Stethoscope. Saturday Review, Nov. 18, 1968.

4. Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years, 1950.

On this occasion of writing our last of a decade of tech columns, we want to take the time to emphasize that our collective excitement about medical technology should never eclipse the reason for which it is created: to facilitate high-quality care.

Indeed, science and technology provide opportunities to improve outcomes in ways not even imagined 100 years ago, yet we must acknowledge that technology also threatens to erect barriers between us and our patients. We can be easily tempted to confuse new care delivery tools with the actual care itself.

Courtesy Dr. Christopher Notte

Threats to the physician-patient relationship

Medical history provides many examples of how our zeal to innovate can have untoward consequences to the physician-patient relationship.

In the late 1800s, for example, to convey a sense of science, purity of intent, and trust, the medical community began wearing white coats. Those white coats have been discussed as creating emotional distance between physicians and their patients.¹

Even when we in the medical community are slow and reluctant to change, the external forces propelling us forward often seem unstoppable; kinetic aspirations to innovate electronic information systems and new applications seem suddenly to revolutionize care delivery when we least expect it. The rapidity of change in technology can sometimes be dizzying but can at the same time can occur so swiftly we don’t even notice it.

After René Laennec invented the stethoscope in the early 1800s, clinicians no longer needed to physically lean in and place an ear directly onto patients to hear their hearts beating. This created a distance from patients that was still lamented 50 years later, when a professor of medicine is reported to have said, “he that hath ears to hear, let him use his ears and not a stethoscope.” Still, while the stethoscope has literally distanced us from patients, it is such an important tool that we no longer think about this distancing. We have adapted over time to remain close to our patients, to sincerely listen to their thoughts and reassure them that we hear them without the need to feel our ears on their chests.

Francis Peabody, the eminent Harvard physician, wrote an essay in 1927 titled, “The Care of the Patient.” At the end of the first paragraph, he states: “The most common criticism made at present by older practitioners is that young graduates ... are too “scientific” and do not know how to take care of patients.” He goes on to say that “one of the essential qualities of the clinician is interest in humanity, for the secret of the care of the patient is in caring for the patient.”²

We agree with Dr. Peabody. As we embrace science and technology that can change health outcomes, our patients’ needs to feel understood and cared for will not diminish. Instead, that need will continue to be an important aspect of our struggle and joy in providing holistic, humane, competent care into the future.

Twenty-first century physicians have access to an ever-growing trove of data, yet our ability to truly know our patients seems somehow less accessible. Home health devices have begun to provide a flow of information about parameters, ranging from continuous glucose readings to home blood pressures, weights, and inspiratory flow readings. These data can provide much more accurate insight into patients than what we can glean from one point in time during an office visit. Yet we need to remember that behind the data are people with dreams and desires, not just table entries in an electronic health record.

In 1923, the German philosopher Martin Buber published the book for which he is best known, “I and Thou.” In that book, Mr. Buber says that there are two ways we can approach relationships: “I-Thou” or “I-It.” In I-It relationships, we view the other person as an “it” to be used to accomplish a purpose, or to be experienced without his or her full involvement. In an I-Thou relationship, we appreciate the other people for all their complexity, in their full humanness. We must consciously remind ourselves amid the rush of technology that there are real people behind those data. We must acknowledge and approach each person as a unique individual who has dreams, goals, fears, and wishes that may be different from ours but to which we can still relate.

‘From the Beating End of the Stethoscope’

John Ciardi, an American poet, said the following in a poem titled, “Lines From the Beating End of the Stethoscope”:

I speak, as I say, the patient’s point of view.

But, given time, doctors are patients, too.

And there’s our bond: beyond anatomy,

Or in it, through it, to the mystery

Medicine takes the pulse of and lets go

Forever unexplained. It’s art, we know,

Not science at the heart. Doctor be whole,

I won’t insist the patient is a soul,

But he’s a something, possibly laughable,

Or possibly sublime, but not quite graphable.

Not quite containable on a bed chart.

Where science touches man it turns to art.³

This poem is a reminder of the subtle needs of patients during their encounters with doctors, especially around many of the most important decisions and events in their lives. Patients’ needs are varied, complex, difficult to discern, and not able to be fully explained or understood through math and science.

Einstein warned us that the modern age would be characterized by a perfection of means and a confusion of goals.⁴ As clinicians, we should strive to clarify and align our goals with those of our patients, providing care that is real, compassionate, and personal, not just an optimized means to achieve standardized metrics. While technology can assist us in this pursuit, we’ll need be careful that our enchantment with innovation does not cloud our actual goal: truly caring for our patients.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. Jones VA. The white coat: Why not follow suit? JAMA. 1999;281(5):478. doi: 10.1001/jama.281.5.478-JMS0203-5-1

2. Peabody, Francis (1927). “The care of the patient.” JAMA. 88(12):877-82. doi: 10.1001/jama.1927.02680380001001.

3. Ciardi, John. Lines from the Beating End of the Stethoscope. Saturday Review, Nov. 18, 1968.

4. Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years, 1950.

Deer, COVID, how?

Usually humans cannot get close enough to a deer to really be face-to-face, so it’s easy to question how on Earth deer are contracting COVID-19. Well, stranger things have happened, and honestly, we’ve just stopped questioning most of them.

petemeade/PxHere

Exhibit A comes to us from a Penn State University study: Eighty percent of deer sampled in Iowa in December 2020 and January 2021 – as part of the state’s chronic wasting disease surveillance program – were found to be positive for COVID-19.

A statement from the university said that “white-tailed deer may be a reservoir for the virus to continually circulate and raise concerns about the emergence of new strains that may prove a threat to wildlife and, possibly, to humans.” The investigators also suggested that deer probably caught the virus from humans and then transmitted it to other deer.

If you or someone you know is a hunter or a white-tailed deer, it’s best to proceed with caution. There’s no evidence that COVID-19 has jumped from deer to humans, but hunters should wear masks and gloves while working with deer, worrying not just about the deer’s face, but also … you know, the gastrointestinal parts, Robert Salata, MD, of University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, told Syracuse.com. It also shouldn’t be too risky to eat venison, he said, just make sure the meat is cooked thoroughly.

The more you know!
 

The neurological super powers of grandma are real

What is it about grandmothers that makes them seem almost magical at times? They somehow always know how you feel. And they can almost always tell when something is wrong. They also seem to be the biggest ally a child will have against his or her parents.

Mark Edward Atkinson/Tracey Lee

So what makes these super matriarchs? The answer is in the brain.

Apparently there’s a function in the brains of grandmothers geared toward “emotional empathy.” James Rilling, PhD, of Emory University, lead author of a recent study focused on looking at the brain function of grandmothers, suggested that they’re neurologically tapped into feeling how their grandchildren feel: “If their grandchild is smiling, they’re feeling the child’s joy. And if their grandchild is crying, they’re feeling the child’s pain and distress.”

And then there’s the cute factor. Never underestimate a child’s ability to manipulate his or her grandmother’s brain.

So how do the researchers know this? Functional MRI showed more brain activity in the parts of the brain that deal with emotional empathy and movement in the participating grandmas when shown pictures of their grandchildren. Images of their own adult children lit up areas more associated with cognitive empathy. So less emotional and more mental/logical understanding.

Kids, don’t tell Mom about the secret midnight snacks with grandma. She wouldn’t get it.

Then there’s the grandmother hypothesis, which suggests that women tend to live longer to provide some kind of evolutionary benefit to their children and grandchildren. Evidence also exists that children with positive engagement from their grandmothers tend to have better social and academic outcomes, behavior, and physical health.

A lot of credit on how children turn out, of course, goes to parents, but more can be said about grandmas. Don’t let the age and freshly baked cookies fool you. They have neurologic superpowers within.
 

Brain cleanup on aisle 5

You’ve got your local grocery store down. You know the ins and outs; you know where everything is. Last week you did your trip in record time. This week, however, you have to stop at a different store. Same chain, but a different location. You stroll in, confidently walk toward the first aisle for your fruits and veggies, and ... it’s all ice cream. Oops.

Max Pixel

There’s a lot we don’t understand about the brain, including how it remembers familiar environments to avoid confusion. Or why it fails to do so, as with our grocery store example. However, thanks to a study from the University of Arizona, we may have an answer.

For the experiment, a group of participants watched a video tour of three virtual cities. Those cities were very similar, being laid out in basically identical fashion. Stores could be found in the same places, but the identity of those stores varied. Some stores were in all three cities, some were in two, and some were unique. Participants were asked to memorize the layouts, and those who got things more than 80% correct ran through the test again, only this time their brain activity was monitored through MRI.

In general, brain activity was similar for the participants; after all, they were recalling similar environments. However, when asked about stores that appeared in multiple cities, brain activity varied dramatically. This indicated to the researchers that the brain was recalling shared stores as if they were more dissimilar than two completely disparate and unique stores, a concept often known to brain scientists as “repulsion.” It also indicates that the memories regarding shared environments are stored in the prefrontal cortex, not the hippocampus, which typically handles memory.

The researchers plan to apply this information to questions about diseases such as Alzheimer’s, so the next time you get turned around in a weirdly unfamiliar grocery store, just think: “It’s okay, I’m helping to solve a terrible brain disease.”
 

The real endgame: Friction is the winner

Spoiler alert! If you haven’t seen “Avengers: Infinity War” yet, we’re about to ruin it for you.

Georgia Tech

For those still with us, here’s the spoiler: Thanos would not have been able to snap his fingers while wearing the Infinity Gauntlet.

Saad Bhamla, PhD, of Georgia Tech University’s school of chemical and biomolecular engineering, had been studying powerful and ultrafast motions in living organisms along with several colleagues before the movie came out in 2018, and when they saw the finger-snapping scene it got them wondering.

Being scientists of course, they had no choice. They got out their high-speed imaging equipment, automated image processing software, and dynamic force sensors and analyzed finger snaps, paying close attention to friction by covering fingers with “different materials, including metallic thimbles to simulate the effects of trying to snap while wearing a metallic gauntlet, much like Thanos,” according to a statement on Eurekalert.

With finger snaps, it’s all about the rotational velocity. The angular acceleration involved is the fastest ever measured in a human, with a professional baseball pitcher’s throwing arm a distant second.

Dr. Bhamla’s reaction to their work explains why scientists are the ones doing science. “When I first saw the data, I jumped out of my chair,” he said in the written statement.

Rotational velocities dropped dramatically when the friction-reducing thimbles were used, so there was no snap. Which means that billions and billions of fictional lives could have been saved if the filmmakers had just talked to the right scientist.

That scientist, clearly, is Dr. Bhamla, who said that “this is the only scientific project in my lab in which we could snap our fingers and get data.”

Deer, COVID, how?

Usually humans cannot get close enough to a deer to really be face-to-face, so it’s easy to question how on Earth deer are contracting COVID-19. Well, stranger things have happened, and honestly, we’ve just stopped questioning most of them.

petemeade/PxHere

Exhibit A comes to us from a Penn State University study: Eighty percent of deer sampled in Iowa in December 2020 and January 2021 – as part of the state’s chronic wasting disease surveillance program – were found to be positive for COVID-19.

A statement from the university said that “white-tailed deer may be a reservoir for the virus to continually circulate and raise concerns about the emergence of new strains that may prove a threat to wildlife and, possibly, to humans.” The investigators also suggested that deer probably caught the virus from humans and then transmitted it to other deer.

If you or someone you know is a hunter or a white-tailed deer, it’s best to proceed with caution. There’s no evidence that COVID-19 has jumped from deer to humans, but hunters should wear masks and gloves while working with deer, worrying not just about the deer’s face, but also … you know, the gastrointestinal parts, Robert Salata, MD, of University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, told Syracuse.com. It also shouldn’t be too risky to eat venison, he said, just make sure the meat is cooked thoroughly.

The more you know!
 

The neurological super powers of grandma are real

What is it about grandmothers that makes them seem almost magical at times? They somehow always know how you feel. And they can almost always tell when something is wrong. They also seem to be the biggest ally a child will have against his or her parents.

Mark Edward Atkinson/Tracey Lee

So what makes these super matriarchs? The answer is in the brain.

Apparently there’s a function in the brains of grandmothers geared toward “emotional empathy.” James Rilling, PhD, of Emory University, lead author of a recent study focused on looking at the brain function of grandmothers, suggested that they’re neurologically tapped into feeling how their grandchildren feel: “If their grandchild is smiling, they’re feeling the child’s joy. And if their grandchild is crying, they’re feeling the child’s pain and distress.”

And then there’s the cute factor. Never underestimate a child’s ability to manipulate his or her grandmother’s brain.

So how do the researchers know this? Functional MRI showed more brain activity in the parts of the brain that deal with emotional empathy and movement in the participating grandmas when shown pictures of their grandchildren. Images of their own adult children lit up areas more associated with cognitive empathy. So less emotional and more mental/logical understanding.

Kids, don’t tell Mom about the secret midnight snacks with grandma. She wouldn’t get it.

Then there’s the grandmother hypothesis, which suggests that women tend to live longer to provide some kind of evolutionary benefit to their children and grandchildren. Evidence also exists that children with positive engagement from their grandmothers tend to have better social and academic outcomes, behavior, and physical health.

A lot of credit on how children turn out, of course, goes to parents, but more can be said about grandmas. Don’t let the age and freshly baked cookies fool you. They have neurologic superpowers within.
 

Brain cleanup on aisle 5

You’ve got your local grocery store down. You know the ins and outs; you know where everything is. Last week you did your trip in record time. This week, however, you have to stop at a different store. Same chain, but a different location. You stroll in, confidently walk toward the first aisle for your fruits and veggies, and ... it’s all ice cream. Oops.

Max Pixel

There’s a lot we don’t understand about the brain, including how it remembers familiar environments to avoid confusion. Or why it fails to do so, as with our grocery store example. However, thanks to a study from the University of Arizona, we may have an answer.

For the experiment, a group of participants watched a video tour of three virtual cities. Those cities were very similar, being laid out in basically identical fashion. Stores could be found in the same places, but the identity of those stores varied. Some stores were in all three cities, some were in two, and some were unique. Participants were asked to memorize the layouts, and those who got things more than 80% correct ran through the test again, only this time their brain activity was monitored through MRI.

In general, brain activity was similar for the participants; after all, they were recalling similar environments. However, when asked about stores that appeared in multiple cities, brain activity varied dramatically. This indicated to the researchers that the brain was recalling shared stores as if they were more dissimilar than two completely disparate and unique stores, a concept often known to brain scientists as “repulsion.” It also indicates that the memories regarding shared environments are stored in the prefrontal cortex, not the hippocampus, which typically handles memory.

The researchers plan to apply this information to questions about diseases such as Alzheimer’s, so the next time you get turned around in a weirdly unfamiliar grocery store, just think: “It’s okay, I’m helping to solve a terrible brain disease.”
 

The real endgame: Friction is the winner

Spoiler alert! If you haven’t seen “Avengers: Infinity War” yet, we’re about to ruin it for you.

Georgia Tech

For those still with us, here’s the spoiler: Thanos would not have been able to snap his fingers while wearing the Infinity Gauntlet.

Saad Bhamla, PhD, of Georgia Tech University’s school of chemical and biomolecular engineering, had been studying powerful and ultrafast motions in living organisms along with several colleagues before the movie came out in 2018, and when they saw the finger-snapping scene it got them wondering.

Being scientists of course, they had no choice. They got out their high-speed imaging equipment, automated image processing software, and dynamic force sensors and analyzed finger snaps, paying close attention to friction by covering fingers with “different materials, including metallic thimbles to simulate the effects of trying to snap while wearing a metallic gauntlet, much like Thanos,” according to a statement on Eurekalert.

With finger snaps, it’s all about the rotational velocity. The angular acceleration involved is the fastest ever measured in a human, with a professional baseball pitcher’s throwing arm a distant second.

Dr. Bhamla’s reaction to their work explains why scientists are the ones doing science. “When I first saw the data, I jumped out of my chair,” he said in the written statement.

Rotational velocities dropped dramatically when the friction-reducing thimbles were used, so there was no snap. Which means that billions and billions of fictional lives could have been saved if the filmmakers had just talked to the right scientist.

That scientist, clearly, is Dr. Bhamla, who said that “this is the only scientific project in my lab in which we could snap our fingers and get data.”

Deer, COVID, how?

Usually humans cannot get close enough to a deer to really be face-to-face, so it’s easy to question how on Earth deer are contracting COVID-19. Well, stranger things have happened, and honestly, we’ve just stopped questioning most of them.

petemeade/PxHere

Exhibit A comes to us from a Penn State University study: Eighty percent of deer sampled in Iowa in December 2020 and January 2021 – as part of the state’s chronic wasting disease surveillance program – were found to be positive for COVID-19.

A statement from the university said that “white-tailed deer may be a reservoir for the virus to continually circulate and raise concerns about the emergence of new strains that may prove a threat to wildlife and, possibly, to humans.” The investigators also suggested that deer probably caught the virus from humans and then transmitted it to other deer.

If you or someone you know is a hunter or a white-tailed deer, it’s best to proceed with caution. There’s no evidence that COVID-19 has jumped from deer to humans, but hunters should wear masks and gloves while working with deer, worrying not just about the deer’s face, but also … you know, the gastrointestinal parts, Robert Salata, MD, of University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, told Syracuse.com. It also shouldn’t be too risky to eat venison, he said, just make sure the meat is cooked thoroughly.

The more you know!
 

The neurological super powers of grandma are real

What is it about grandmothers that makes them seem almost magical at times? They somehow always know how you feel. And they can almost always tell when something is wrong. They also seem to be the biggest ally a child will have against his or her parents.

Mark Edward Atkinson/Tracey Lee

So what makes these super matriarchs? The answer is in the brain.

Apparently there’s a function in the brains of grandmothers geared toward “emotional empathy.” James Rilling, PhD, of Emory University, lead author of a recent study focused on looking at the brain function of grandmothers, suggested that they’re neurologically tapped into feeling how their grandchildren feel: “If their grandchild is smiling, they’re feeling the child’s joy. And if their grandchild is crying, they’re feeling the child’s pain and distress.”

And then there’s the cute factor. Never underestimate a child’s ability to manipulate his or her grandmother’s brain.

So how do the researchers know this? Functional MRI showed more brain activity in the parts of the brain that deal with emotional empathy and movement in the participating grandmas when shown pictures of their grandchildren. Images of their own adult children lit up areas more associated with cognitive empathy. So less emotional and more mental/logical understanding.

Kids, don’t tell Mom about the secret midnight snacks with grandma. She wouldn’t get it.

Then there’s the grandmother hypothesis, which suggests that women tend to live longer to provide some kind of evolutionary benefit to their children and grandchildren. Evidence also exists that children with positive engagement from their grandmothers tend to have better social and academic outcomes, behavior, and physical health.

A lot of credit on how children turn out, of course, goes to parents, but more can be said about grandmas. Don’t let the age and freshly baked cookies fool you. They have neurologic superpowers within.
 

Brain cleanup on aisle 5

You’ve got your local grocery store down. You know the ins and outs; you know where everything is. Last week you did your trip in record time. This week, however, you have to stop at a different store. Same chain, but a different location. You stroll in, confidently walk toward the first aisle for your fruits and veggies, and ... it’s all ice cream. Oops.

Max Pixel

There’s a lot we don’t understand about the brain, including how it remembers familiar environments to avoid confusion. Or why it fails to do so, as with our grocery store example. However, thanks to a study from the University of Arizona, we may have an answer.

For the experiment, a group of participants watched a video tour of three virtual cities. Those cities were very similar, being laid out in basically identical fashion. Stores could be found in the same places, but the identity of those stores varied. Some stores were in all three cities, some were in two, and some were unique. Participants were asked to memorize the layouts, and those who got things more than 80% correct ran through the test again, only this time their brain activity was monitored through MRI.

In general, brain activity was similar for the participants; after all, they were recalling similar environments. However, when asked about stores that appeared in multiple cities, brain activity varied dramatically. This indicated to the researchers that the brain was recalling shared stores as if they were more dissimilar than two completely disparate and unique stores, a concept often known to brain scientists as “repulsion.” It also indicates that the memories regarding shared environments are stored in the prefrontal cortex, not the hippocampus, which typically handles memory.

The researchers plan to apply this information to questions about diseases such as Alzheimer’s, so the next time you get turned around in a weirdly unfamiliar grocery store, just think: “It’s okay, I’m helping to solve a terrible brain disease.”
 

The real endgame: Friction is the winner

Spoiler alert! If you haven’t seen “Avengers: Infinity War” yet, we’re about to ruin it for you.

Georgia Tech

For those still with us, here’s the spoiler: Thanos would not have been able to snap his fingers while wearing the Infinity Gauntlet.

Saad Bhamla, PhD, of Georgia Tech University’s school of chemical and biomolecular engineering, had been studying powerful and ultrafast motions in living organisms along with several colleagues before the movie came out in 2018, and when they saw the finger-snapping scene it got them wondering.

Being scientists of course, they had no choice. They got out their high-speed imaging equipment, automated image processing software, and dynamic force sensors and analyzed finger snaps, paying close attention to friction by covering fingers with “different materials, including metallic thimbles to simulate the effects of trying to snap while wearing a metallic gauntlet, much like Thanos,” according to a statement on Eurekalert.

With finger snaps, it’s all about the rotational velocity. The angular acceleration involved is the fastest ever measured in a human, with a professional baseball pitcher’s throwing arm a distant second.

Dr. Bhamla’s reaction to their work explains why scientists are the ones doing science. “When I first saw the data, I jumped out of my chair,” he said in the written statement.

Rotational velocities dropped dramatically when the friction-reducing thimbles were used, so there was no snap. Which means that billions and billions of fictional lives could have been saved if the filmmakers had just talked to the right scientist.

That scientist, clearly, is Dr. Bhamla, who said that “this is the only scientific project in my lab in which we could snap our fingers and get data.”

Drinking coffee or tea is associated with reduced risk for stroke and dementia, with the biggest benefit associated with consuming both beverages, new research suggests.

amenic181/Getty Images

Investigators found that individuals who drank two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day had a 30% decrease in incidence of stroke and a 28% lower risk for dementia compared with those who did not.

“From a public health perspective, because regular tea and coffee drinkers comprise such a large proportion of the population and because these beverages tend to be consumed habitually throughout adult life, even small potential health benefits or risks associated with tea and coffee intake may have important public health implications,” the investigators wrote.

The study was published online Nov. 16 in PLOS Medicine.
 

Synergistic effect?

Whereas earlier studies have shown significant health benefits from moderate coffee and tea intake separately, few have examined the effect of drinking both.

Researchers enrolled 365,682 participants from the UK Biobank for the analysis of coffee and tea consumption and stroke and dementia risk and 13,352 participants for the analysis of poststroke dementia.

During a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 2.8% of participants experienced a stroke and 1.4% developed dementia.

After adjustment for confounders, stroke risk was 10% lower in those who drank a half-cup to a cup of coffee per day (P < .001) and 8% lower in those who had more than two cups a day (P = .009). Tea drinkers who had more than two cups a day saw a 16% reduction in stroke (P < .001).

Those who drank both coffee and tea during the day saw the greatest benefit. Drinking two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea lowered stroke risk by 32% (P < .001) and dementia risk by 28% (P = .002).

Drinking both beverages offered significantly greater benefits than drinking just coffee or tea alone, with an 11% lower risk for stroke (P < .001), an 8% lower risk for dementia (P = .001), and 18% lower risk for vascular dementia (P = .001).

Among those participants who experienced a stroke during the follow-up period, drinking two to three cups of coffee was associated with 20% lower risk for poststroke dementia (P = .044), and for those who drank both coffee and tea (half to one cup of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day) the risk for poststroke dementia was lowered by 50% (P =.006).

There was no significant association between coffee and tea consumption and risk for hemorrhagic stroke or Alzheimer’s disease.

The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Drinking coffee or tea is associated with reduced risk for stroke and dementia, with the biggest benefit associated with consuming both beverages, new research suggests.

amenic181/Getty Images

Investigators found that individuals who drank two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day had a 30% decrease in incidence of stroke and a 28% lower risk for dementia compared with those who did not.

“From a public health perspective, because regular tea and coffee drinkers comprise such a large proportion of the population and because these beverages tend to be consumed habitually throughout adult life, even small potential health benefits or risks associated with tea and coffee intake may have important public health implications,” the investigators wrote.

The study was published online Nov. 16 in PLOS Medicine.
 

Synergistic effect?

Whereas earlier studies have shown significant health benefits from moderate coffee and tea intake separately, few have examined the effect of drinking both.

Researchers enrolled 365,682 participants from the UK Biobank for the analysis of coffee and tea consumption and stroke and dementia risk and 13,352 participants for the analysis of poststroke dementia.

During a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 2.8% of participants experienced a stroke and 1.4% developed dementia.

After adjustment for confounders, stroke risk was 10% lower in those who drank a half-cup to a cup of coffee per day (P < .001) and 8% lower in those who had more than two cups a day (P = .009). Tea drinkers who had more than two cups a day saw a 16% reduction in stroke (P < .001).

Those who drank both coffee and tea during the day saw the greatest benefit. Drinking two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea lowered stroke risk by 32% (P < .001) and dementia risk by 28% (P = .002).

Drinking both beverages offered significantly greater benefits than drinking just coffee or tea alone, with an 11% lower risk for stroke (P < .001), an 8% lower risk for dementia (P = .001), and 18% lower risk for vascular dementia (P = .001).

Among those participants who experienced a stroke during the follow-up period, drinking two to three cups of coffee was associated with 20% lower risk for poststroke dementia (P = .044), and for those who drank both coffee and tea (half to one cup of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day) the risk for poststroke dementia was lowered by 50% (P =.006).

There was no significant association between coffee and tea consumption and risk for hemorrhagic stroke or Alzheimer’s disease.

The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Drinking coffee or tea is associated with reduced risk for stroke and dementia, with the biggest benefit associated with consuming both beverages, new research suggests.

amenic181/Getty Images

Investigators found that individuals who drank two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day had a 30% decrease in incidence of stroke and a 28% lower risk for dementia compared with those who did not.

“From a public health perspective, because regular tea and coffee drinkers comprise such a large proportion of the population and because these beverages tend to be consumed habitually throughout adult life, even small potential health benefits or risks associated with tea and coffee intake may have important public health implications,” the investigators wrote.

The study was published online Nov. 16 in PLOS Medicine.
 

Synergistic effect?

Whereas earlier studies have shown significant health benefits from moderate coffee and tea intake separately, few have examined the effect of drinking both.

Researchers enrolled 365,682 participants from the UK Biobank for the analysis of coffee and tea consumption and stroke and dementia risk and 13,352 participants for the analysis of poststroke dementia.

During a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 2.8% of participants experienced a stroke and 1.4% developed dementia.

After adjustment for confounders, stroke risk was 10% lower in those who drank a half-cup to a cup of coffee per day (P < .001) and 8% lower in those who had more than two cups a day (P = .009). Tea drinkers who had more than two cups a day saw a 16% reduction in stroke (P < .001).

Those who drank both coffee and tea during the day saw the greatest benefit. Drinking two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea lowered stroke risk by 32% (P < .001) and dementia risk by 28% (P = .002).

Drinking both beverages offered significantly greater benefits than drinking just coffee or tea alone, with an 11% lower risk for stroke (P < .001), an 8% lower risk for dementia (P = .001), and 18% lower risk for vascular dementia (P = .001).

Among those participants who experienced a stroke during the follow-up period, drinking two to three cups of coffee was associated with 20% lower risk for poststroke dementia (P = .044), and for those who drank both coffee and tea (half to one cup of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day) the risk for poststroke dementia was lowered by 50% (P =.006).

There was no significant association between coffee and tea consumption and risk for hemorrhagic stroke or Alzheimer’s disease.

The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treatment of antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis and renal disease with the oral C5a receptor inhibitor avacopan (Tavneos, ChemoCentryx) provides significant recovery of kidney function, compared with prednisone, particularly in patients with severe kidney disease, novel research indicates.

The new analysis underscores that “the real value of avacopan is that we can now expect to get our patients steroid free,” said first author David R.W. Jayne, MD, a professor of clinical autoimmunity at the University of Cambridge (England), when presenting the findings at the American Society of Nephrology’s Kidney Week 2021.

“Whether or not we’re brave enough to initiate treatment without steroids, I think that will perhaps come with some patient experience,” he added.

The findings are from a subanalysis of renal effects in the phase 3 ADVOCATE trial, which was published in February 2021 in the New England Journal of Medicine and included 330 patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis.

The trial in large part led to the U.S. approval of avacopan by the Food and Drug Administration in October as an adjunctive treatment for adults with severe active ANCA-associated vasculitis in combination with standard therapy including glucocorticoids.

The approval was greeted with enthusiasm as suggesting a much-needed option to help reduce, or even potentially eliminate, the need for glucocorticoids and their side effects. Other agents included in treatment regimens for ANCA-associated vasculitis include cyclophosphamide and rituximab.

Dr. Jayne emphasized that, before avacopan, treatment options had been limited.

“There is nothing else new in the clinic apart from rituximab, which we have now been using for almost 20 years,” he said in an interview. “Avacopan is new, the mode of action is different from any drugs in use at the moment, and the speed of action is very quick.”

The need to more closely investigate the trial’s renal outcomes in this new analysis was important because the high mortality rates in ANCA-associated vasculitis – a rare systemic autoimmune disease causing overactivation of complement resulting in inflammation of small blood vessels – is largely driven by those with MPO and PR3 autoantibody renal vasculitis, Dr. Jayne explained.

Commenting on the study, J. Charles Jennette, MD, a professor of pathology and laboratory medicine and professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said the new findings on renal outcomes, such as proteinuria, may offer key insights on avacopan’s efficacy.

“To me, the most impressive outcome of the ADVOCATE Phase 3 trial was the more rapid reduction in hematuria and proteinuria with avacopan compared to conventional prednisone therapy,” he said in an interview.
 

Recovery of eGFR with avacopan best in those with severe renal disease

In the trial, patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis were randomized 1:1 to treatment with oral avacopan 30 mg twice daily or oral prednisone on a tapering schedule.

All patients also received background immunosuppression – about two-thirds received rituximab and a third received cyclophosphamide – followed by azathioprine.

The main study results showed similar rates of remission in both groups at week 26 and a superior remission rate with avacopan, in terms of sustained remission, at week 52 (65.7% vs. 54.9%; P < .001).

Approximately 80% of patients in the trial had renal involvement of ANCA vasculitis, the focus of the new analysis, and they had a baseline mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 45 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

Among those with renal involvement, patients treated with avacopan had a significantly greater eGFR recovery, compared with the prednisone group at week 26 (P = .046) and week 52 (P < .029).

The strongest improvements were observed among patients with moderate to severe kidney damage, who had a mean eGFR of 21 mL/min per 1.73 m2 at baseline. Among those patients, the mean increase in eGFR was 13.7 mL/min per 1.73 m² in the avacopan-treated group (n = 52) versus 8.2 mL/min per 1.73 m² in the prednisone group (n = 48; P < .01) by week 52.

Improvements in urinary albumin:creatinine ratios (UACR) of as much as 40% were also observed in the avacopan group within the first 4 weeks of treatment, while no changes were observed in the same period in the prednisone group.

In other findings, the study also showed more rapid declines in proteinuria within 4 weeks in the avacopan group, and fewer patients had hematuria and there were greater reductions in MCP-1 in avacopan-treated patients at week 52, Dr. Jayne reported.

In terms of safety, there were no differences between the groups, with trends of fewer deaths and severe adverse events in the avacopan group.

“We found that the improved recovery of eGFR with avacopan was accentuated among those with more severe renal disease,” Dr. Jayne said.

He noted that, while the study’s aim was for the avacopan group to be steroid free, the patients received brief, reduced doses of about a third of the normal oral steroid dose early in the trial. However, using a Glucocorticoid Toxicity Index, the authors found those in the avacopan group did have fewer glucocorticoid-related adverse events.

Future issues to be examined include what happens when avacopan is discontinued and whether there will be a high relapse rate, Dr. Jayne noted.

Overall, however, “we anticipate that with longer-term follow-up, this better eGFR recovery will have a [favorable] effect on kidney failure and potentially mortality risk in these patients,” he concluded.

Targeted therapy is good for patients and doctors

Expanding upon his comments regarding the new drug, Dr. Jennette said it implies “that the C5a receptor inhibitor was targeting an event that blocks injury more quickly and effectively than prednisone.”

“This may be because prednisone has more complex pharmacodynamics and less targeted effects than a C5a receptor inhibitor,” he said.

Overall, the findings bode well for a potentially beneficial therapy, he added. “We have entered a new era of more targeted therapies, for example, targeted B-cell therapy using an anti-CD20 antibody, and targeted complement-mediated injury therapy using C5a receptor inhibitor.”

“The validation of this targeted therapy to block complement-mediated autoimmune inflammatory injury is another advance toward targeted precision therapy versus empirical therapy. This will be good for the doctors and good for the patients,” Dr. Jennette concluded.

The study was funded by ChemoCentryx. Dr. Jayne has reported receiving grants and/or consulting for AstraZeneca, ChemoCentryx, GlaxoSmithKline, MiroBio, Vifor, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Jennette has received funding from ChemoCentryx for preclinical validation studies of avacopan in a mouse model of ANCA glomerulonephritis.

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

Treatment of antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis and renal disease with the oral C5a receptor inhibitor avacopan (Tavneos, ChemoCentryx) provides significant recovery of kidney function, compared with prednisone, particularly in patients with severe kidney disease, novel research indicates.

The new analysis underscores that “the real value of avacopan is that we can now expect to get our patients steroid free,” said first author David R.W. Jayne, MD, a professor of clinical autoimmunity at the University of Cambridge (England), when presenting the findings at the American Society of Nephrology’s Kidney Week 2021.

“Whether or not we’re brave enough to initiate treatment without steroids, I think that will perhaps come with some patient experience,” he added.

The findings are from a subanalysis of renal effects in the phase 3 ADVOCATE trial, which was published in February 2021 in the New England Journal of Medicine and included 330 patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis.

The trial in large part led to the U.S. approval of avacopan by the Food and Drug Administration in October as an adjunctive treatment for adults with severe active ANCA-associated vasculitis in combination with standard therapy including glucocorticoids.

The approval was greeted with enthusiasm as suggesting a much-needed option to help reduce, or even potentially eliminate, the need for glucocorticoids and their side effects. Other agents included in treatment regimens for ANCA-associated vasculitis include cyclophosphamide and rituximab.

Dr. Jayne emphasized that, before avacopan, treatment options had been limited.

“There is nothing else new in the clinic apart from rituximab, which we have now been using for almost 20 years,” he said in an interview. “Avacopan is new, the mode of action is different from any drugs in use at the moment, and the speed of action is very quick.”

The need to more closely investigate the trial’s renal outcomes in this new analysis was important because the high mortality rates in ANCA-associated vasculitis – a rare systemic autoimmune disease causing overactivation of complement resulting in inflammation of small blood vessels – is largely driven by those with MPO and PR3 autoantibody renal vasculitis, Dr. Jayne explained.

Commenting on the study, J. Charles Jennette, MD, a professor of pathology and laboratory medicine and professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said the new findings on renal outcomes, such as proteinuria, may offer key insights on avacopan’s efficacy.

“To me, the most impressive outcome of the ADVOCATE Phase 3 trial was the more rapid reduction in hematuria and proteinuria with avacopan compared to conventional prednisone therapy,” he said in an interview.
 

Recovery of eGFR with avacopan best in those with severe renal disease

In the trial, patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis were randomized 1:1 to treatment with oral avacopan 30 mg twice daily or oral prednisone on a tapering schedule.

All patients also received background immunosuppression – about two-thirds received rituximab and a third received cyclophosphamide – followed by azathioprine.

The main study results showed similar rates of remission in both groups at week 26 and a superior remission rate with avacopan, in terms of sustained remission, at week 52 (65.7% vs. 54.9%; P < .001).

Approximately 80% of patients in the trial had renal involvement of ANCA vasculitis, the focus of the new analysis, and they had a baseline mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 45 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

Among those with renal involvement, patients treated with avacopan had a significantly greater eGFR recovery, compared with the prednisone group at week 26 (P = .046) and week 52 (P < .029).

The strongest improvements were observed among patients with moderate to severe kidney damage, who had a mean eGFR of 21 mL/min per 1.73 m2 at baseline. Among those patients, the mean increase in eGFR was 13.7 mL/min per 1.73 m² in the avacopan-treated group (n = 52) versus 8.2 mL/min per 1.73 m² in the prednisone group (n = 48; P < .01) by week 52.

Improvements in urinary albumin:creatinine ratios (UACR) of as much as 40% were also observed in the avacopan group within the first 4 weeks of treatment, while no changes were observed in the same period in the prednisone group.

In other findings, the study also showed more rapid declines in proteinuria within 4 weeks in the avacopan group, and fewer patients had hematuria and there were greater reductions in MCP-1 in avacopan-treated patients at week 52, Dr. Jayne reported.

In terms of safety, there were no differences between the groups, with trends of fewer deaths and severe adverse events in the avacopan group.

“We found that the improved recovery of eGFR with avacopan was accentuated among those with more severe renal disease,” Dr. Jayne said.

He noted that, while the study’s aim was for the avacopan group to be steroid free, the patients received brief, reduced doses of about a third of the normal oral steroid dose early in the trial. However, using a Glucocorticoid Toxicity Index, the authors found those in the avacopan group did have fewer glucocorticoid-related adverse events.

Future issues to be examined include what happens when avacopan is discontinued and whether there will be a high relapse rate, Dr. Jayne noted.

Overall, however, “we anticipate that with longer-term follow-up, this better eGFR recovery will have a [favorable] effect on kidney failure and potentially mortality risk in these patients,” he concluded.

Targeted therapy is good for patients and doctors

Expanding upon his comments regarding the new drug, Dr. Jennette said it implies “that the C5a receptor inhibitor was targeting an event that blocks injury more quickly and effectively than prednisone.”

“This may be because prednisone has more complex pharmacodynamics and less targeted effects than a C5a receptor inhibitor,” he said.

Overall, the findings bode well for a potentially beneficial therapy, he added. “We have entered a new era of more targeted therapies, for example, targeted B-cell therapy using an anti-CD20 antibody, and targeted complement-mediated injury therapy using C5a receptor inhibitor.”

“The validation of this targeted therapy to block complement-mediated autoimmune inflammatory injury is another advance toward targeted precision therapy versus empirical therapy. This will be good for the doctors and good for the patients,” Dr. Jennette concluded.

The study was funded by ChemoCentryx. Dr. Jayne has reported receiving grants and/or consulting for AstraZeneca, ChemoCentryx, GlaxoSmithKline, MiroBio, Vifor, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Jennette has received funding from ChemoCentryx for preclinical validation studies of avacopan in a mouse model of ANCA glomerulonephritis.

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

Treatment of antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis and renal disease with the oral C5a receptor inhibitor avacopan (Tavneos, ChemoCentryx) provides significant recovery of kidney function, compared with prednisone, particularly in patients with severe kidney disease, novel research indicates.

The new analysis underscores that “the real value of avacopan is that we can now expect to get our patients steroid free,” said first author David R.W. Jayne, MD, a professor of clinical autoimmunity at the University of Cambridge (England), when presenting the findings at the American Society of Nephrology’s Kidney Week 2021.

“Whether or not we’re brave enough to initiate treatment without steroids, I think that will perhaps come with some patient experience,” he added.

The findings are from a subanalysis of renal effects in the phase 3 ADVOCATE trial, which was published in February 2021 in the New England Journal of Medicine and included 330 patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis.

The trial in large part led to the U.S. approval of avacopan by the Food and Drug Administration in October as an adjunctive treatment for adults with severe active ANCA-associated vasculitis in combination with standard therapy including glucocorticoids.

The approval was greeted with enthusiasm as suggesting a much-needed option to help reduce, or even potentially eliminate, the need for glucocorticoids and their side effects. Other agents included in treatment regimens for ANCA-associated vasculitis include cyclophosphamide and rituximab.

Dr. Jayne emphasized that, before avacopan, treatment options had been limited.

“There is nothing else new in the clinic apart from rituximab, which we have now been using for almost 20 years,” he said in an interview. “Avacopan is new, the mode of action is different from any drugs in use at the moment, and the speed of action is very quick.”

The need to more closely investigate the trial’s renal outcomes in this new analysis was important because the high mortality rates in ANCA-associated vasculitis – a rare systemic autoimmune disease causing overactivation of complement resulting in inflammation of small blood vessels – is largely driven by those with MPO and PR3 autoantibody renal vasculitis, Dr. Jayne explained.

Commenting on the study, J. Charles Jennette, MD, a professor of pathology and laboratory medicine and professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said the new findings on renal outcomes, such as proteinuria, may offer key insights on avacopan’s efficacy.

“To me, the most impressive outcome of the ADVOCATE Phase 3 trial was the more rapid reduction in hematuria and proteinuria with avacopan compared to conventional prednisone therapy,” he said in an interview.
 

Recovery of eGFR with avacopan best in those with severe renal disease

In the trial, patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis were randomized 1:1 to treatment with oral avacopan 30 mg twice daily or oral prednisone on a tapering schedule.

All patients also received background immunosuppression – about two-thirds received rituximab and a third received cyclophosphamide – followed by azathioprine.

The main study results showed similar rates of remission in both groups at week 26 and a superior remission rate with avacopan, in terms of sustained remission, at week 52 (65.7% vs. 54.9%; P < .001).

Approximately 80% of patients in the trial had renal involvement of ANCA vasculitis, the focus of the new analysis, and they had a baseline mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 45 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

Among those with renal involvement, patients treated with avacopan had a significantly greater eGFR recovery, compared with the prednisone group at week 26 (P = .046) and week 52 (P < .029).

The strongest improvements were observed among patients with moderate to severe kidney damage, who had a mean eGFR of 21 mL/min per 1.73 m2 at baseline. Among those patients, the mean increase in eGFR was 13.7 mL/min per 1.73 m² in the avacopan-treated group (n = 52) versus 8.2 mL/min per 1.73 m² in the prednisone group (n = 48; P < .01) by week 52.

Improvements in urinary albumin:creatinine ratios (UACR) of as much as 40% were also observed in the avacopan group within the first 4 weeks of treatment, while no changes were observed in the same period in the prednisone group.

In other findings, the study also showed more rapid declines in proteinuria within 4 weeks in the avacopan group, and fewer patients had hematuria and there were greater reductions in MCP-1 in avacopan-treated patients at week 52, Dr. Jayne reported.

In terms of safety, there were no differences between the groups, with trends of fewer deaths and severe adverse events in the avacopan group.

“We found that the improved recovery of eGFR with avacopan was accentuated among those with more severe renal disease,” Dr. Jayne said.

He noted that, while the study’s aim was for the avacopan group to be steroid free, the patients received brief, reduced doses of about a third of the normal oral steroid dose early in the trial. However, using a Glucocorticoid Toxicity Index, the authors found those in the avacopan group did have fewer glucocorticoid-related adverse events.

Future issues to be examined include what happens when avacopan is discontinued and whether there will be a high relapse rate, Dr. Jayne noted.

Overall, however, “we anticipate that with longer-term follow-up, this better eGFR recovery will have a [favorable] effect on kidney failure and potentially mortality risk in these patients,” he concluded.

Targeted therapy is good for patients and doctors

Expanding upon his comments regarding the new drug, Dr. Jennette said it implies “that the C5a receptor inhibitor was targeting an event that blocks injury more quickly and effectively than prednisone.”

“This may be because prednisone has more complex pharmacodynamics and less targeted effects than a C5a receptor inhibitor,” he said.

Overall, the findings bode well for a potentially beneficial therapy, he added. “We have entered a new era of more targeted therapies, for example, targeted B-cell therapy using an anti-CD20 antibody, and targeted complement-mediated injury therapy using C5a receptor inhibitor.”

“The validation of this targeted therapy to block complement-mediated autoimmune inflammatory injury is another advance toward targeted precision therapy versus empirical therapy. This will be good for the doctors and good for the patients,” Dr. Jennette concluded.

The study was funded by ChemoCentryx. Dr. Jayne has reported receiving grants and/or consulting for AstraZeneca, ChemoCentryx, GlaxoSmithKline, MiroBio, Vifor, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Jennette has received funding from ChemoCentryx for preclinical validation studies of avacopan in a mouse model of ANCA glomerulonephritis.

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