MDedge Rheumatology

In almost 80% of cases, cutaneous psoriasis predates the onset of arthritic psoriasis. Therefore, identifying risk factors for the development of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with skin psoriasis is of significant clinical and research interest. One such risk factor that has previous been described is the severity of psoriasis. In a prospective population-based cohort study performed within The Health Improvement Network in the UK, Ogdie et al demonstrated that in a cohort of 8881 patients aged 25–60 years with a code for psoriasis randomly selected between 2008 and 2011, the extent of psoriasis as measured by the body surface area affected (BSA) was a strong predictor of developing PsA. Comorbidities, such as obesity and depression, were additive risk factors. In this cohort, after a mean follow-up time of 4.2 years (SD 2.1), the incidence of PsA was 5.4 cases per 1000 person-years. After adjusting for age and sex, BSA > 10% [hazard ratio (HR) 2.01, 95% CI 1.29, 3.13], BSA 3–10% (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.02, 2.03), obesity (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.19, 2.26) and depression (HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.21, 2.33) were associated with incident PsA. Thus, patients with these risk factors should be carefully evaluated at each visit for signs of PsA.

One important question is whether treatment of psoriasis with targeted therapies reduces the risk of incident PsA. In a retrospective cohort study using the electronic medical records of the Maccabi Healthcare Services in Israel, Rosenthal et al, using propensity score matching compared patients who had received biological treatment for psoriasis and were not diagnosed with PsA before or at the time of biologic treatment initiation to controls not on such treatment. Patients were matched by age at diagnosis, gender, time until treatment initiation, maximum body mass index (BMI), and smoking. Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that the control group had a significantly higher risk for PsA compared to patients treated with biologics (adjusted HR 1.39; 95%CI 1.03-1.87). Thus, there is increasing evidence that biologic therapy may decrease the risk of developing PsA.

Management of comorbidities remain an ongoing challenge in the management of psoriatic disease. In a cross-sectional multi-center study conducted by the Turkish League Against Rheumatism involving 1033 patients with PsA, 383 (37.1%) of whom were obese, Gok et al report that obesity was significantly associated with higher disease activity, lower quality of life scores, anxiety, depression, and fatigue. Comorbidities including obesity must be addressed for holistic management of PsA.

But counseling about modifiable risk factors remains low. Taylor et al reported that counseling or education for modifiable lifestyle risk factors were rare during psoriatic disease outpatient visits. Using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2002-2016) and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2002-2011) conducted in the United States, they demonstrate low rates of counseling for any modifiable lifestyle risk factor (11.1%; 95% CI 7.9%-15.3%), tobacco (4.8%; 95% CI 2.8%-8.0%), and obesity (2.8%; 95% CI 1.7%-4.5%). Thus, in addition to counseling about medications, an effort must be made to counsel about modifiable risk factors and comorbidities to improve quality of life of patients with psoriatic disease.

References

Ogdie A, Shin DB, Love TJ, Gelfand JM. Body surface area affected by psoriasis and the risk for psoriatic arthritis: a prospective population-based cohort study. Rheumatology (Oxf). 2021:Sep 11:keab622 (in press). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab622 PMID: 34508558.

Shalev Rosenthal Y, Schwartz N, Sagy I, Pavlovsky L. Psoriatic arthritis incidence among patients receiving biologic medications for psoriasis: A nested case control study. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021:Aug 23. doi: 10.1002/art.41946. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34423909.

Shalev Rosenthal Y, Schwartz N, Sagy I, Pavlovsky L. Psoriatic arthritis incidence among patients receiving biologic medications for psoriasis: A nested case control study. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021:Aug 23. doi: 10.1002/art.41946. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34423909.

Gok K, Nas K, Tekeoglu I, Sunar I, Keskin Y, Kilic E, Sargin B, Acer Kasman S, Alkan H, Sahin N, Cengiz G, Cuzdan N, Albayrak Gezer İ, Keskin D, Mulkoglu C, Resorlu H, Bal A, Duruoz MT, Kucukakkas O, Yurdakul OV, Alkan Melikoglu M, Aydin Y, Ayhan FF, Bodur H, Calis M, Capkin E, Devrimsel G, Ecesoy H, Hizmetli S, Kamanli A, Kutluk O, Sen N, Sendur OF, Tolu S, Toprak M, Tuncer T. Impact of obesity on quality of life, psychological status, and disease activity in psoriatic arthritis: a multi‑center study. Rheumatol Int. 2021:Aug 28. doi: 10.1007/s00296-021-04971-8. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34453579.

Taylor MT, Keller M, Barbieri JS. Lifestyle risk factor counseling at visits for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in the United States. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021:Aug 25:S0190-9622(21)02376-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.08.034. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34450204

In almost 80% of cases, cutaneous psoriasis predates the onset of arthritic psoriasis. Therefore, identifying risk factors for the development of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with skin psoriasis is of significant clinical and research interest. One such risk factor that has previous been described is the severity of psoriasis. In a prospective population-based cohort study performed within The Health Improvement Network in the UK, Ogdie et al demonstrated that in a cohort of 8881 patients aged 25–60 years with a code for psoriasis randomly selected between 2008 and 2011, the extent of psoriasis as measured by the body surface area affected (BSA) was a strong predictor of developing PsA. Comorbidities, such as obesity and depression, were additive risk factors. In this cohort, after a mean follow-up time of 4.2 years (SD 2.1), the incidence of PsA was 5.4 cases per 1000 person-years. After adjusting for age and sex, BSA > 10% [hazard ratio (HR) 2.01, 95% CI 1.29, 3.13], BSA 3–10% (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.02, 2.03), obesity (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.19, 2.26) and depression (HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.21, 2.33) were associated with incident PsA. Thus, patients with these risk factors should be carefully evaluated at each visit for signs of PsA.

One important question is whether treatment of psoriasis with targeted therapies reduces the risk of incident PsA. In a retrospective cohort study using the electronic medical records of the Maccabi Healthcare Services in Israel, Rosenthal et al, using propensity score matching compared patients who had received biological treatment for psoriasis and were not diagnosed with PsA before or at the time of biologic treatment initiation to controls not on such treatment. Patients were matched by age at diagnosis, gender, time until treatment initiation, maximum body mass index (BMI), and smoking. Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that the control group had a significantly higher risk for PsA compared to patients treated with biologics (adjusted HR 1.39; 95%CI 1.03-1.87). Thus, there is increasing evidence that biologic therapy may decrease the risk of developing PsA.

Management of comorbidities remain an ongoing challenge in the management of psoriatic disease. In a cross-sectional multi-center study conducted by the Turkish League Against Rheumatism involving 1033 patients with PsA, 383 (37.1%) of whom were obese, Gok et al report that obesity was significantly associated with higher disease activity, lower quality of life scores, anxiety, depression, and fatigue. Comorbidities including obesity must be addressed for holistic management of PsA.

But counseling about modifiable risk factors remains low. Taylor et al reported that counseling or education for modifiable lifestyle risk factors were rare during psoriatic disease outpatient visits. Using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2002-2016) and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2002-2011) conducted in the United States, they demonstrate low rates of counseling for any modifiable lifestyle risk factor (11.1%; 95% CI 7.9%-15.3%), tobacco (4.8%; 95% CI 2.8%-8.0%), and obesity (2.8%; 95% CI 1.7%-4.5%). Thus, in addition to counseling about medications, an effort must be made to counsel about modifiable risk factors and comorbidities to improve quality of life of patients with psoriatic disease.

References

Ogdie A, Shin DB, Love TJ, Gelfand JM. Body surface area affected by psoriasis and the risk for psoriatic arthritis: a prospective population-based cohort study. Rheumatology (Oxf). 2021:Sep 11:keab622 (in press). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab622 PMID: 34508558.

Shalev Rosenthal Y, Schwartz N, Sagy I, Pavlovsky L. Psoriatic arthritis incidence among patients receiving biologic medications for psoriasis: A nested case control study. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021:Aug 23. doi: 10.1002/art.41946. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34423909.

Shalev Rosenthal Y, Schwartz N, Sagy I, Pavlovsky L. Psoriatic arthritis incidence among patients receiving biologic medications for psoriasis: A nested case control study. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021:Aug 23. doi: 10.1002/art.41946. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34423909.

Gok K, Nas K, Tekeoglu I, Sunar I, Keskin Y, Kilic E, Sargin B, Acer Kasman S, Alkan H, Sahin N, Cengiz G, Cuzdan N, Albayrak Gezer İ, Keskin D, Mulkoglu C, Resorlu H, Bal A, Duruoz MT, Kucukakkas O, Yurdakul OV, Alkan Melikoglu M, Aydin Y, Ayhan FF, Bodur H, Calis M, Capkin E, Devrimsel G, Ecesoy H, Hizmetli S, Kamanli A, Kutluk O, Sen N, Sendur OF, Tolu S, Toprak M, Tuncer T. Impact of obesity on quality of life, psychological status, and disease activity in psoriatic arthritis: a multi‑center study. Rheumatol Int. 2021:Aug 28. doi: 10.1007/s00296-021-04971-8. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34453579.

Taylor MT, Keller M, Barbieri JS. Lifestyle risk factor counseling at visits for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in the United States. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021:Aug 25:S0190-9622(21)02376-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.08.034. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34450204

In almost 80% of cases, cutaneous psoriasis predates the onset of arthritic psoriasis. Therefore, identifying risk factors for the development of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with skin psoriasis is of significant clinical and research interest. One such risk factor that has previous been described is the severity of psoriasis. In a prospective population-based cohort study performed within The Health Improvement Network in the UK, Ogdie et al demonstrated that in a cohort of 8881 patients aged 25–60 years with a code for psoriasis randomly selected between 2008 and 2011, the extent of psoriasis as measured by the body surface area affected (BSA) was a strong predictor of developing PsA. Comorbidities, such as obesity and depression, were additive risk factors. In this cohort, after a mean follow-up time of 4.2 years (SD 2.1), the incidence of PsA was 5.4 cases per 1000 person-years. After adjusting for age and sex, BSA > 10% [hazard ratio (HR) 2.01, 95% CI 1.29, 3.13], BSA 3–10% (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.02, 2.03), obesity (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.19, 2.26) and depression (HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.21, 2.33) were associated with incident PsA. Thus, patients with these risk factors should be carefully evaluated at each visit for signs of PsA.

One important question is whether treatment of psoriasis with targeted therapies reduces the risk of incident PsA. In a retrospective cohort study using the electronic medical records of the Maccabi Healthcare Services in Israel, Rosenthal et al, using propensity score matching compared patients who had received biological treatment for psoriasis and were not diagnosed with PsA before or at the time of biologic treatment initiation to controls not on such treatment. Patients were matched by age at diagnosis, gender, time until treatment initiation, maximum body mass index (BMI), and smoking. Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that the control group had a significantly higher risk for PsA compared to patients treated with biologics (adjusted HR 1.39; 95%CI 1.03-1.87). Thus, there is increasing evidence that biologic therapy may decrease the risk of developing PsA.

Management of comorbidities remain an ongoing challenge in the management of psoriatic disease. In a cross-sectional multi-center study conducted by the Turkish League Against Rheumatism involving 1033 patients with PsA, 383 (37.1%) of whom were obese, Gok et al report that obesity was significantly associated with higher disease activity, lower quality of life scores, anxiety, depression, and fatigue. Comorbidities including obesity must be addressed for holistic management of PsA.

But counseling about modifiable risk factors remains low. Taylor et al reported that counseling or education for modifiable lifestyle risk factors were rare during psoriatic disease outpatient visits. Using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2002-2016) and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2002-2011) conducted in the United States, they demonstrate low rates of counseling for any modifiable lifestyle risk factor (11.1%; 95% CI 7.9%-15.3%), tobacco (4.8%; 95% CI 2.8%-8.0%), and obesity (2.8%; 95% CI 1.7%-4.5%). Thus, in addition to counseling about medications, an effort must be made to counsel about modifiable risk factors and comorbidities to improve quality of life of patients with psoriatic disease.

References

Ogdie A, Shin DB, Love TJ, Gelfand JM. Body surface area affected by psoriasis and the risk for psoriatic arthritis: a prospective population-based cohort study. Rheumatology (Oxf). 2021:Sep 11:keab622 (in press). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab622 PMID: 34508558.

Shalev Rosenthal Y, Schwartz N, Sagy I, Pavlovsky L. Psoriatic arthritis incidence among patients receiving biologic medications for psoriasis: A nested case control study. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021:Aug 23. doi: 10.1002/art.41946. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34423909.

Shalev Rosenthal Y, Schwartz N, Sagy I, Pavlovsky L. Psoriatic arthritis incidence among patients receiving biologic medications for psoriasis: A nested case control study. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021:Aug 23. doi: 10.1002/art.41946. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34423909.

Gok K, Nas K, Tekeoglu I, Sunar I, Keskin Y, Kilic E, Sargin B, Acer Kasman S, Alkan H, Sahin N, Cengiz G, Cuzdan N, Albayrak Gezer İ, Keskin D, Mulkoglu C, Resorlu H, Bal A, Duruoz MT, Kucukakkas O, Yurdakul OV, Alkan Melikoglu M, Aydin Y, Ayhan FF, Bodur H, Calis M, Capkin E, Devrimsel G, Ecesoy H, Hizmetli S, Kamanli A, Kutluk O, Sen N, Sendur OF, Tolu S, Toprak M, Tuncer T. Impact of obesity on quality of life, psychological status, and disease activity in psoriatic arthritis: a multi‑center study. Rheumatol Int. 2021:Aug 28. doi: 10.1007/s00296-021-04971-8. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34453579.

Taylor MT, Keller M, Barbieri JS. Lifestyle risk factor counseling at visits for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in the United States. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021:Aug 25:S0190-9622(21)02376-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.08.034. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34450204

Avanos medical to pay $22 million to resolve criminal charge for fraudulent misbranding of PPE

A U.S.-based multinational medical device corporation will pay more than $22 million to resolve a criminal charge regarding fraudulent misbranding of their surgical gowns.

Avanos Medical Inc, which as its U.S. headquarters in Alpharetta, Georgia, is charged with one count of introducing misbranded surgical gowns into interstate commerce with the intent to defraud and mislead.

According to the Department of Justice, the company knowingly falsely labeled its MicroCool surgical gowns as providing AAMI Level 4 protection (the highest level) against fluid and virus penetration. Under the standards set by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI), the highest protection level for surgical gowns is reserved for gowns intended to be used in surgeries and other high-risk medical procedures on patients suspected of having infectious diseases.

Avanos admitted to selling hundreds of thousands of MicroCool gowns that were falsely labeled as AAMI Level 4 between late 2014 and early 2015, as well as directly lying to customers about the gowns’ protective capacities. In total, Avanos sold almost $9 million of misbranded MicroCool gowns.

“The last thing health care workers should have to worry about is whether their personal protective equipment lives up to manufacturers’ claims,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Prerak Shah for the Northern District of Texas. “Misbranded PPE can pose serious risks to medical professionals and patients alike.”
 

Company pays $38.75 million to settle allegations of knowingly selling defective devices 

Medical device manufacturers Alere and Alere San Diego (collectively, Alere) have agreed to pay almost $39 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by billing, and causing others to bill, the Medicare program for defective rapid point-of-care testing devices. 

From 2008 to 2016, the Department of Justice alleges, Alere knowingly sold defective INRatio blood coagulation monitors used by Medicare beneficiaries who were taking anticoagulants. The software algorithms in the monitors contained a material defect, which Alere had found in their research, to cause inaccurate readings. Blood coagulation monitoring is essential for the safety of these patients, enabling them to maintain a safe dosage of their medications. Taking too much of an anticoagulant can cause major bleeding, while taking too little can cause blood clots that lead to strokes. 

While Alere was aware that these devices were linked to over a dozen deaths and hundreds of injuries, the company continued to conceal the defect and billed Medicare for the devices.

In 2016, the product was taken off the market at the request of the FDA.
 

Mass. doctor, wife charged in international money laundering, fraud scheme

Massachusetts psychiatrist Rahim Shafa, MD, and his wife and office manager, Nahid Tormosi Shafa, are charged in connection to an international money laundering scheme involving importing illegal and misbranded drugs. 

Through Shafa’s company, Novel Psychopharmacology, the two allegedly filed false and fraudulent Medicare reimbursement claims from 2016-2019, then deposited the money in their bank accounts, according to federal officials. From 2008-2018, the couple also engaged in an international money laundering scheme to purchase naltrexone pellet implants, disulfiram pellet implants, and injections from Hong Kong that were not approved by the FDA. According to officials, they falsified shipping documents, disguising the naltrexone pellet implants as “plastic beads in plastic tubes” to receive the drugs. They then offered to sell these drugs to patients of Novel Psychopharmacology. 

Rahim Shafa was indicted on conspiracies of international money laundering, health care fraud, and defrauding the United States, as well as illegally importing merchandise and purposely delivering misbranded drugs. His wife was indicted on one count each of health care fraud conspiracy and international money laundering conspiracy.
 

Jury convicts medical equipment company owners of $27 million fraud

A federal jury in Texas convicted the owners of two durable medical equipment (DME) companies linked to a scheme to defraud Medicare.

Leah Hagen, 49, and Michael Hagen, 54, were convicted of one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to pay and receive health care kickbacks and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. The defendants owned and operated Metro DME Supply and Ortho Pain Solutions. 

Ms. Hagen and Mr. Hagen paid a fixed rate per DME item in exchange for prescriptions and paperwork completed by telemedicine doctors that were used to submit false claims to Medicare, which totaled about $59 million. They were paid $27 million, and wired millions to their personal bank accounts. The defendants paid illegal bribes and kickbacks and wired money to their co-conspirator’s call center in the Philippines that provided signed doctor’s orders for orthotic braces. 

At trial, evidence showed emails between Leah and Michael Hagen and their co-conspirators outlining a per-product pricing structure for orthotic braces, but not disclosing their agreement as one for marketing and other services.

At sentencing, the Hagens each face a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison.

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

Avanos medical to pay $22 million to resolve criminal charge for fraudulent misbranding of PPE

A U.S.-based multinational medical device corporation will pay more than $22 million to resolve a criminal charge regarding fraudulent misbranding of their surgical gowns.

Avanos Medical Inc, which as its U.S. headquarters in Alpharetta, Georgia, is charged with one count of introducing misbranded surgical gowns into interstate commerce with the intent to defraud and mislead.

According to the Department of Justice, the company knowingly falsely labeled its MicroCool surgical gowns as providing AAMI Level 4 protection (the highest level) against fluid and virus penetration. Under the standards set by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI), the highest protection level for surgical gowns is reserved for gowns intended to be used in surgeries and other high-risk medical procedures on patients suspected of having infectious diseases.

Avanos admitted to selling hundreds of thousands of MicroCool gowns that were falsely labeled as AAMI Level 4 between late 2014 and early 2015, as well as directly lying to customers about the gowns’ protective capacities. In total, Avanos sold almost $9 million of misbranded MicroCool gowns.

“The last thing health care workers should have to worry about is whether their personal protective equipment lives up to manufacturers’ claims,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Prerak Shah for the Northern District of Texas. “Misbranded PPE can pose serious risks to medical professionals and patients alike.”
 

Company pays $38.75 million to settle allegations of knowingly selling defective devices 

Medical device manufacturers Alere and Alere San Diego (collectively, Alere) have agreed to pay almost $39 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by billing, and causing others to bill, the Medicare program for defective rapid point-of-care testing devices. 

From 2008 to 2016, the Department of Justice alleges, Alere knowingly sold defective INRatio blood coagulation monitors used by Medicare beneficiaries who were taking anticoagulants. The software algorithms in the monitors contained a material defect, which Alere had found in their research, to cause inaccurate readings. Blood coagulation monitoring is essential for the safety of these patients, enabling them to maintain a safe dosage of their medications. Taking too much of an anticoagulant can cause major bleeding, while taking too little can cause blood clots that lead to strokes. 

While Alere was aware that these devices were linked to over a dozen deaths and hundreds of injuries, the company continued to conceal the defect and billed Medicare for the devices.

In 2016, the product was taken off the market at the request of the FDA.
 

Mass. doctor, wife charged in international money laundering, fraud scheme

Massachusetts psychiatrist Rahim Shafa, MD, and his wife and office manager, Nahid Tormosi Shafa, are charged in connection to an international money laundering scheme involving importing illegal and misbranded drugs. 

Through Shafa’s company, Novel Psychopharmacology, the two allegedly filed false and fraudulent Medicare reimbursement claims from 2016-2019, then deposited the money in their bank accounts, according to federal officials. From 2008-2018, the couple also engaged in an international money laundering scheme to purchase naltrexone pellet implants, disulfiram pellet implants, and injections from Hong Kong that were not approved by the FDA. According to officials, they falsified shipping documents, disguising the naltrexone pellet implants as “plastic beads in plastic tubes” to receive the drugs. They then offered to sell these drugs to patients of Novel Psychopharmacology. 

Rahim Shafa was indicted on conspiracies of international money laundering, health care fraud, and defrauding the United States, as well as illegally importing merchandise and purposely delivering misbranded drugs. His wife was indicted on one count each of health care fraud conspiracy and international money laundering conspiracy.
 

Jury convicts medical equipment company owners of $27 million fraud

A federal jury in Texas convicted the owners of two durable medical equipment (DME) companies linked to a scheme to defraud Medicare.

Leah Hagen, 49, and Michael Hagen, 54, were convicted of one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to pay and receive health care kickbacks and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. The defendants owned and operated Metro DME Supply and Ortho Pain Solutions. 

Ms. Hagen and Mr. Hagen paid a fixed rate per DME item in exchange for prescriptions and paperwork completed by telemedicine doctors that were used to submit false claims to Medicare, which totaled about $59 million. They were paid $27 million, and wired millions to their personal bank accounts. The defendants paid illegal bribes and kickbacks and wired money to their co-conspirator’s call center in the Philippines that provided signed doctor’s orders for orthotic braces. 

At trial, evidence showed emails between Leah and Michael Hagen and their co-conspirators outlining a per-product pricing structure for orthotic braces, but not disclosing their agreement as one for marketing and other services.

At sentencing, the Hagens each face a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison.

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

Avanos medical to pay $22 million to resolve criminal charge for fraudulent misbranding of PPE

A U.S.-based multinational medical device corporation will pay more than $22 million to resolve a criminal charge regarding fraudulent misbranding of their surgical gowns.

Avanos Medical Inc, which as its U.S. headquarters in Alpharetta, Georgia, is charged with one count of introducing misbranded surgical gowns into interstate commerce with the intent to defraud and mislead.

According to the Department of Justice, the company knowingly falsely labeled its MicroCool surgical gowns as providing AAMI Level 4 protection (the highest level) against fluid and virus penetration. Under the standards set by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI), the highest protection level for surgical gowns is reserved for gowns intended to be used in surgeries and other high-risk medical procedures on patients suspected of having infectious diseases.

Avanos admitted to selling hundreds of thousands of MicroCool gowns that were falsely labeled as AAMI Level 4 between late 2014 and early 2015, as well as directly lying to customers about the gowns’ protective capacities. In total, Avanos sold almost $9 million of misbranded MicroCool gowns.

“The last thing health care workers should have to worry about is whether their personal protective equipment lives up to manufacturers’ claims,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Prerak Shah for the Northern District of Texas. “Misbranded PPE can pose serious risks to medical professionals and patients alike.”
 

Company pays $38.75 million to settle allegations of knowingly selling defective devices 

Medical device manufacturers Alere and Alere San Diego (collectively, Alere) have agreed to pay almost $39 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by billing, and causing others to bill, the Medicare program for defective rapid point-of-care testing devices. 

From 2008 to 2016, the Department of Justice alleges, Alere knowingly sold defective INRatio blood coagulation monitors used by Medicare beneficiaries who were taking anticoagulants. The software algorithms in the monitors contained a material defect, which Alere had found in their research, to cause inaccurate readings. Blood coagulation monitoring is essential for the safety of these patients, enabling them to maintain a safe dosage of their medications. Taking too much of an anticoagulant can cause major bleeding, while taking too little can cause blood clots that lead to strokes. 

While Alere was aware that these devices were linked to over a dozen deaths and hundreds of injuries, the company continued to conceal the defect and billed Medicare for the devices.

In 2016, the product was taken off the market at the request of the FDA.
 

Mass. doctor, wife charged in international money laundering, fraud scheme

Massachusetts psychiatrist Rahim Shafa, MD, and his wife and office manager, Nahid Tormosi Shafa, are charged in connection to an international money laundering scheme involving importing illegal and misbranded drugs. 

Through Shafa’s company, Novel Psychopharmacology, the two allegedly filed false and fraudulent Medicare reimbursement claims from 2016-2019, then deposited the money in their bank accounts, according to federal officials. From 2008-2018, the couple also engaged in an international money laundering scheme to purchase naltrexone pellet implants, disulfiram pellet implants, and injections from Hong Kong that were not approved by the FDA. According to officials, they falsified shipping documents, disguising the naltrexone pellet implants as “plastic beads in plastic tubes” to receive the drugs. They then offered to sell these drugs to patients of Novel Psychopharmacology. 

Rahim Shafa was indicted on conspiracies of international money laundering, health care fraud, and defrauding the United States, as well as illegally importing merchandise and purposely delivering misbranded drugs. His wife was indicted on one count each of health care fraud conspiracy and international money laundering conspiracy.
 

Jury convicts medical equipment company owners of $27 million fraud

A federal jury in Texas convicted the owners of two durable medical equipment (DME) companies linked to a scheme to defraud Medicare.

Leah Hagen, 49, and Michael Hagen, 54, were convicted of one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to pay and receive health care kickbacks and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. The defendants owned and operated Metro DME Supply and Ortho Pain Solutions. 

Ms. Hagen and Mr. Hagen paid a fixed rate per DME item in exchange for prescriptions and paperwork completed by telemedicine doctors that were used to submit false claims to Medicare, which totaled about $59 million. They were paid $27 million, and wired millions to their personal bank accounts. The defendants paid illegal bribes and kickbacks and wired money to their co-conspirator’s call center in the Philippines that provided signed doctor’s orders for orthotic braces. 

At trial, evidence showed emails between Leah and Michael Hagen and their co-conspirators outlining a per-product pricing structure for orthotic braces, but not disclosing their agreement as one for marketing and other services.

At sentencing, the Hagens each face a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison.

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

A common inert ingredient may be the culprit behind the rare allergic reactions reported among individuals who have received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, according to investigators at a large regional health center that was among the first to administer the shots.

Blood samples from 10 of 11 individuals with suspected allergic reactions reacted to polyethylene glycol (PEG), a component of both the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA  vaccines, according to a report in JAMA Network Open.

In total, only 22 individuals had suspected allergic reactions out of nearly 39,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, the investigators reported, noting that the reactions were generally mild and all fully resolved.

Those findings should be reassuring to individuals who are reticent to sign up for a COVID-19 vaccine because of fear of an allergic reaction, said study senior author Kari Nadeau, MD, PhD, director of the Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University.

“We’re hoping that this word will get out and then that the companies could also think about making vaccines that have other products in them that don’t include polyethylene glycol,” Dr. Nadeau said in an interview.

PEG is a compound used in many products, including pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and food. In the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, PEG serves to stabilize the lipid nanoparticles that help protect and transport mRNA. However, its use in this setting has been linked to allergic reactions in this and previous studies.

No immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies to PEG were detected among the 22 individuals with suspected allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, but PEG immunoglobulin G (IgG) was present. That suggests non-IgE mediated allergic reactions to PEG may be implicated for the majority of cases, Dr. Nadeau said.

This case series provides interesting new evidence to confirm previous reports that a mechanism other than the classic IgE-mediated allergic response is behind the suspected allergic reactions that are occurring after mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, said Aleena Banerji, MD, associate professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and clinical director of the Drug Allergy Program at Massachusetts General Hospital.

“We need to further understand the mechanism of these reactions, but what we know is that IGE mediated allergy to excipients like PEG is probably not the main cause,” Dr. Banerji, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

In a recent research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Dr. Banerji and coauthors reported that all individuals with immediate suspected allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine went on to tolerate the second dose, with mild symptoms reported in the minority of patients (32 out of 159, or about 20%).

“Again, that is very consistent with not having an IgE-mediated allergy, so it seems to all be fitting with that picture,” Dr. Banerji said.

The case series by Dr. Nadeau and coauthors was based on review of nearly 39,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses administered between December 18, 2020 and January 26, 2021. Most mRNA vaccine recipients were Stanford-affiliated health care workers, according to the report.

Among recipients of those doses, they identified 148 individuals who had anaphylaxis-related ICD-10 codes recorded over the same time period. In a review of medical records, investigators pinpointed 22 individuals as having suspected allergy and invited them to participate in follow-up allergy testing.

A total of 11 individuals underwent skin prick testing, but none of them tested positive to PEG or to polysorbate 80, another excipient that has been linked to vaccine-related allergic reactions. One of the patients tested positive to the same mRNA vaccine they had previously received, according to the report.

Those same 11 individuals also underwent basophil activation testing (BAT). In contrast to the skin testing results, BAT results were positive for PEG in 10 of 11 cases (or 91%) and positive for their administered vaccine in all 11 cases, the report shows.

High levels of IgG to PEG were identified in blood samples of individuals with an allergy to the vaccine. Investigators said it’s possible that the BAT results were activated due to IgG via complement activation–related pseudoallergy, or CARPA, as has been hypothesized by some other investigators.

The negative skin prick testing results for PEG, which contrast with the positive BAT results to PEG, suggest that the former may not be appropriate for use as a predictive marker of potential vaccine allergy, according to Dr. Nadeau.

“The take-home message for doctors is to be careful,” she said. “Don’t assume that just because the person skin-tests negative to PEG or to the vaccine itself that you’re out of the woods, because the skin test would be often negative in those scenarios.”

The study was supported by a grants from the Asthma and Allergic Diseases Cooperative Research Centers, a grant from the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease SARS Vaccine study, the Parker Foundation, the Crown Foundation, and the Sunshine Foundation. Dr. Nadeau reports numerous conflicts with various sources in the industry. Dr. Banerji has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A common inert ingredient may be the culprit behind the rare allergic reactions reported among individuals who have received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, according to investigators at a large regional health center that was among the first to administer the shots.

Blood samples from 10 of 11 individuals with suspected allergic reactions reacted to polyethylene glycol (PEG), a component of both the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA  vaccines, according to a report in JAMA Network Open.

In total, only 22 individuals had suspected allergic reactions out of nearly 39,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, the investigators reported, noting that the reactions were generally mild and all fully resolved.

Those findings should be reassuring to individuals who are reticent to sign up for a COVID-19 vaccine because of fear of an allergic reaction, said study senior author Kari Nadeau, MD, PhD, director of the Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University.

“We’re hoping that this word will get out and then that the companies could also think about making vaccines that have other products in them that don’t include polyethylene glycol,” Dr. Nadeau said in an interview.

PEG is a compound used in many products, including pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and food. In the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, PEG serves to stabilize the lipid nanoparticles that help protect and transport mRNA. However, its use in this setting has been linked to allergic reactions in this and previous studies.

No immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies to PEG were detected among the 22 individuals with suspected allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, but PEG immunoglobulin G (IgG) was present. That suggests non-IgE mediated allergic reactions to PEG may be implicated for the majority of cases, Dr. Nadeau said.

This case series provides interesting new evidence to confirm previous reports that a mechanism other than the classic IgE-mediated allergic response is behind the suspected allergic reactions that are occurring after mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, said Aleena Banerji, MD, associate professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and clinical director of the Drug Allergy Program at Massachusetts General Hospital.

“We need to further understand the mechanism of these reactions, but what we know is that IGE mediated allergy to excipients like PEG is probably not the main cause,” Dr. Banerji, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

In a recent research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Dr. Banerji and coauthors reported that all individuals with immediate suspected allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine went on to tolerate the second dose, with mild symptoms reported in the minority of patients (32 out of 159, or about 20%).

“Again, that is very consistent with not having an IgE-mediated allergy, so it seems to all be fitting with that picture,” Dr. Banerji said.

The case series by Dr. Nadeau and coauthors was based on review of nearly 39,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses administered between December 18, 2020 and January 26, 2021. Most mRNA vaccine recipients were Stanford-affiliated health care workers, according to the report.

Among recipients of those doses, they identified 148 individuals who had anaphylaxis-related ICD-10 codes recorded over the same time period. In a review of medical records, investigators pinpointed 22 individuals as having suspected allergy and invited them to participate in follow-up allergy testing.

A total of 11 individuals underwent skin prick testing, but none of them tested positive to PEG or to polysorbate 80, another excipient that has been linked to vaccine-related allergic reactions. One of the patients tested positive to the same mRNA vaccine they had previously received, according to the report.

Those same 11 individuals also underwent basophil activation testing (BAT). In contrast to the skin testing results, BAT results were positive for PEG in 10 of 11 cases (or 91%) and positive for their administered vaccine in all 11 cases, the report shows.

High levels of IgG to PEG were identified in blood samples of individuals with an allergy to the vaccine. Investigators said it’s possible that the BAT results were activated due to IgG via complement activation–related pseudoallergy, or CARPA, as has been hypothesized by some other investigators.

The negative skin prick testing results for PEG, which contrast with the positive BAT results to PEG, suggest that the former may not be appropriate for use as a predictive marker of potential vaccine allergy, according to Dr. Nadeau.

“The take-home message for doctors is to be careful,” she said. “Don’t assume that just because the person skin-tests negative to PEG or to the vaccine itself that you’re out of the woods, because the skin test would be often negative in those scenarios.”

The study was supported by a grants from the Asthma and Allergic Diseases Cooperative Research Centers, a grant from the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease SARS Vaccine study, the Parker Foundation, the Crown Foundation, and the Sunshine Foundation. Dr. Nadeau reports numerous conflicts with various sources in the industry. Dr. Banerji has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A common inert ingredient may be the culprit behind the rare allergic reactions reported among individuals who have received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, according to investigators at a large regional health center that was among the first to administer the shots.

Blood samples from 10 of 11 individuals with suspected allergic reactions reacted to polyethylene glycol (PEG), a component of both the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA  vaccines, according to a report in JAMA Network Open.

In total, only 22 individuals had suspected allergic reactions out of nearly 39,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, the investigators reported, noting that the reactions were generally mild and all fully resolved.

Those findings should be reassuring to individuals who are reticent to sign up for a COVID-19 vaccine because of fear of an allergic reaction, said study senior author Kari Nadeau, MD, PhD, director of the Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University.

“We’re hoping that this word will get out and then that the companies could also think about making vaccines that have other products in them that don’t include polyethylene glycol,” Dr. Nadeau said in an interview.

PEG is a compound used in many products, including pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and food. In the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, PEG serves to stabilize the lipid nanoparticles that help protect and transport mRNA. However, its use in this setting has been linked to allergic reactions in this and previous studies.

No immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies to PEG were detected among the 22 individuals with suspected allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, but PEG immunoglobulin G (IgG) was present. That suggests non-IgE mediated allergic reactions to PEG may be implicated for the majority of cases, Dr. Nadeau said.

This case series provides interesting new evidence to confirm previous reports that a mechanism other than the classic IgE-mediated allergic response is behind the suspected allergic reactions that are occurring after mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, said Aleena Banerji, MD, associate professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and clinical director of the Drug Allergy Program at Massachusetts General Hospital.

“We need to further understand the mechanism of these reactions, but what we know is that IGE mediated allergy to excipients like PEG is probably not the main cause,” Dr. Banerji, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

In a recent research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Dr. Banerji and coauthors reported that all individuals with immediate suspected allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine went on to tolerate the second dose, with mild symptoms reported in the minority of patients (32 out of 159, or about 20%).

“Again, that is very consistent with not having an IgE-mediated allergy, so it seems to all be fitting with that picture,” Dr. Banerji said.

The case series by Dr. Nadeau and coauthors was based on review of nearly 39,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses administered between December 18, 2020 and January 26, 2021. Most mRNA vaccine recipients were Stanford-affiliated health care workers, according to the report.

Among recipients of those doses, they identified 148 individuals who had anaphylaxis-related ICD-10 codes recorded over the same time period. In a review of medical records, investigators pinpointed 22 individuals as having suspected allergy and invited them to participate in follow-up allergy testing.

A total of 11 individuals underwent skin prick testing, but none of them tested positive to PEG or to polysorbate 80, another excipient that has been linked to vaccine-related allergic reactions. One of the patients tested positive to the same mRNA vaccine they had previously received, according to the report.

Those same 11 individuals also underwent basophil activation testing (BAT). In contrast to the skin testing results, BAT results were positive for PEG in 10 of 11 cases (or 91%) and positive for their administered vaccine in all 11 cases, the report shows.

High levels of IgG to PEG were identified in blood samples of individuals with an allergy to the vaccine. Investigators said it’s possible that the BAT results were activated due to IgG via complement activation–related pseudoallergy, or CARPA, as has been hypothesized by some other investigators.

The negative skin prick testing results for PEG, which contrast with the positive BAT results to PEG, suggest that the former may not be appropriate for use as a predictive marker of potential vaccine allergy, according to Dr. Nadeau.

“The take-home message for doctors is to be careful,” she said. “Don’t assume that just because the person skin-tests negative to PEG or to the vaccine itself that you’re out of the woods, because the skin test would be often negative in those scenarios.”

The study was supported by a grants from the Asthma and Allergic Diseases Cooperative Research Centers, a grant from the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease SARS Vaccine study, the Parker Foundation, the Crown Foundation, and the Sunshine Foundation. Dr. Nadeau reports numerous conflicts with various sources in the industry. Dr. Banerji has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The risk of developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) may increase as the severity of psoriasis increases, results from a large analysis of U.S. medical records demonstrated.

Factors that predict the development of psoriasis in patients with psoriasis include nail, inverse, and scalp psoriasis; family history of PsA; as well as severity of skin disease. And like psoriasis, “PsA is associated with a multitude of comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, Crohn’s disease, obesity, diabetes, uveitis, anxiety, and depression, with correspondingly higher healthcare utilization and direct healthcare costs,” wrote corresponding author Joseph F. Merola, MD, MMSc, and colleagues. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “Timely and accurate diagnosis of PsA is important for improved patient outcomes and appropriate disease management and may prevent prolonged inflammation that leads to structural joint damage and worsening physical function,” they added.

The mean time of onset of PsA among patients with psoriasis who develop PsA is 10 years after the first signs of psoriasis appear. An estimated 20%-30% of patients with psoriasis have a concurrent diagnosis of PsA, and the annual incidence of PsA has been reported to be 2.7 cases per 100 patients with psoriasis. While previous studies have suggested that a higher incidence of PsA is associated with greater disease severity, there are limited data in the United States on the topic.

For the study, Dr. Merola, a dermatologist and rheumatologist who directs the Center for Skin and Related Musculoskeletal Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and his colleagues drew from the Optum EHR database to identify adult patients newly diagnosed with psoriasis between Jan. 1, 2009, and March 31, 2019. Patients diagnosed with psoriasis or PsA prior to the index date were excluded from the analysis for evaluation of incidence but included for evaluation of prevalence. The patients were followed from the index date until the earliest PsA event, death, or end of study or follow-up, whichever came first. The researchers calculated the incidence of PsA among adults with psoriasis as the number of incident PsA events divided by the number of patient-years (PY) at risk, which was reported as the raw incidence per 100 psoriasis PY. They calculated the prevalence of PsA among adults with psoriasis as “the number of prevalent PsA events divided by the number of eligible patients with [psoriasis] and reported by years in the follow-up period,” which was a median of 3.7 years.

A total of 114,868 patients were included in the analysis. At baseline, their mean age was 54 years, 53% were female, 89% were White, and 39% were obese. Most patients (102,553) were on nonsystemic agents during the year after their psoriasis diagnosis, while 6,345 were on nonbiologic systemic therapies (NBSTs) and 5,970 were on biologics. The researchers classified patients as having mild psoriasis if they were taking nonsystemic agents, moderate disease if they were taking NBSTs, or severe disease if they were taking biologics.

The overall incidence rate of PsA was 2.9 events per 100 PY and increased by severity of disease. When calculated by severity, the incidence was 2.1 events per 100 PY for patients with mild psoriasis, 9.9 events per 100 PY for those with moderate psoriasis, and 17.6 events per 100 PY for those with severe psoriasis.

When the researchers excluded patients diagnosed with PsA up to 1 year after being diagnosed with psoriasis, the overall incidence was lower (1.7 events per 100 PY), with similar trends for categories of treatment severity. Specifically, the incidence was 1.5, 3.1, and 4.7 events per 100 PY among those with mild, moderate, and severe psoriasis, based on their treatment groups, respectively.

Among the 120,523 patients with psoriasis who were eligible for the assessment of prevalence of PsA, the overall 5-year prevalence of PsA was 14.2% and rose with severity of disease: 9.9% in patients with mild psoriasis, 35% in patients with moderate psoriasis, and 54.9% in patients with severe psoriasis.

Other predictors of PsA onset for both index-date cohorts included weight of 90 kg or greater, female gender, age group 25-65 years (compared with the age group over 65 years), and rheumatic risk factors such as wrist pain and unspecified rheumatism.

“To ensure timely diagnosis and treatment for management and prevention of PsA, patients with [psoriasis] should be routinely screened, especially those with more severe disease and other PsA risk factors,” the authors advised.

Dr. Merola and colleagues acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, including the potential for selection bias and its reliance on EHR data which “lacked clinical measures of disease severity such as the PASI, and data on BSA were not available for all study participants; therefore, treatment groups were used as a surrogate for disease severity,” they wrote. “As a result, some patients may have been miscategorized, especially patients with severe disease who were untreated.”

The study was sponsored by Novartis. Dr. Merola disclosed that he is a consultant and/or investigator for Merck, AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Celgene, Sanofi, Regeneron, Arena, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Biogen, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Avotres, and LEO Pharma. Four authors are Novartis employees, or employees of a consulting company that provides services to Novartis; and another author disclosed serving as an investigator or consultant for several pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

[email protected]

The risk of developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) may increase as the severity of psoriasis increases, results from a large analysis of U.S. medical records demonstrated.

Factors that predict the development of psoriasis in patients with psoriasis include nail, inverse, and scalp psoriasis; family history of PsA; as well as severity of skin disease. And like psoriasis, “PsA is associated with a multitude of comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, Crohn’s disease, obesity, diabetes, uveitis, anxiety, and depression, with correspondingly higher healthcare utilization and direct healthcare costs,” wrote corresponding author Joseph F. Merola, MD, MMSc, and colleagues. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “Timely and accurate diagnosis of PsA is important for improved patient outcomes and appropriate disease management and may prevent prolonged inflammation that leads to structural joint damage and worsening physical function,” they added.

The mean time of onset of PsA among patients with psoriasis who develop PsA is 10 years after the first signs of psoriasis appear. An estimated 20%-30% of patients with psoriasis have a concurrent diagnosis of PsA, and the annual incidence of PsA has been reported to be 2.7 cases per 100 patients with psoriasis. While previous studies have suggested that a higher incidence of PsA is associated with greater disease severity, there are limited data in the United States on the topic.

For the study, Dr. Merola, a dermatologist and rheumatologist who directs the Center for Skin and Related Musculoskeletal Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and his colleagues drew from the Optum EHR database to identify adult patients newly diagnosed with psoriasis between Jan. 1, 2009, and March 31, 2019. Patients diagnosed with psoriasis or PsA prior to the index date were excluded from the analysis for evaluation of incidence but included for evaluation of prevalence. The patients were followed from the index date until the earliest PsA event, death, or end of study or follow-up, whichever came first. The researchers calculated the incidence of PsA among adults with psoriasis as the number of incident PsA events divided by the number of patient-years (PY) at risk, which was reported as the raw incidence per 100 psoriasis PY. They calculated the prevalence of PsA among adults with psoriasis as “the number of prevalent PsA events divided by the number of eligible patients with [psoriasis] and reported by years in the follow-up period,” which was a median of 3.7 years.

A total of 114,868 patients were included in the analysis. At baseline, their mean age was 54 years, 53% were female, 89% were White, and 39% were obese. Most patients (102,553) were on nonsystemic agents during the year after their psoriasis diagnosis, while 6,345 were on nonbiologic systemic therapies (NBSTs) and 5,970 were on biologics. The researchers classified patients as having mild psoriasis if they were taking nonsystemic agents, moderate disease if they were taking NBSTs, or severe disease if they were taking biologics.

The overall incidence rate of PsA was 2.9 events per 100 PY and increased by severity of disease. When calculated by severity, the incidence was 2.1 events per 100 PY for patients with mild psoriasis, 9.9 events per 100 PY for those with moderate psoriasis, and 17.6 events per 100 PY for those with severe psoriasis.

When the researchers excluded patients diagnosed with PsA up to 1 year after being diagnosed with psoriasis, the overall incidence was lower (1.7 events per 100 PY), with similar trends for categories of treatment severity. Specifically, the incidence was 1.5, 3.1, and 4.7 events per 100 PY among those with mild, moderate, and severe psoriasis, based on their treatment groups, respectively.

Among the 120,523 patients with psoriasis who were eligible for the assessment of prevalence of PsA, the overall 5-year prevalence of PsA was 14.2% and rose with severity of disease: 9.9% in patients with mild psoriasis, 35% in patients with moderate psoriasis, and 54.9% in patients with severe psoriasis.

Other predictors of PsA onset for both index-date cohorts included weight of 90 kg or greater, female gender, age group 25-65 years (compared with the age group over 65 years), and rheumatic risk factors such as wrist pain and unspecified rheumatism.

“To ensure timely diagnosis and treatment for management and prevention of PsA, patients with [psoriasis] should be routinely screened, especially those with more severe disease and other PsA risk factors,” the authors advised.

Dr. Merola and colleagues acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, including the potential for selection bias and its reliance on EHR data which “lacked clinical measures of disease severity such as the PASI, and data on BSA were not available for all study participants; therefore, treatment groups were used as a surrogate for disease severity,” they wrote. “As a result, some patients may have been miscategorized, especially patients with severe disease who were untreated.”

The study was sponsored by Novartis. Dr. Merola disclosed that he is a consultant and/or investigator for Merck, AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Celgene, Sanofi, Regeneron, Arena, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Biogen, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Avotres, and LEO Pharma. Four authors are Novartis employees, or employees of a consulting company that provides services to Novartis; and another author disclosed serving as an investigator or consultant for several pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

[email protected]

The risk of developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) may increase as the severity of psoriasis increases, results from a large analysis of U.S. medical records demonstrated.

Factors that predict the development of psoriasis in patients with psoriasis include nail, inverse, and scalp psoriasis; family history of PsA; as well as severity of skin disease. And like psoriasis, “PsA is associated with a multitude of comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, Crohn’s disease, obesity, diabetes, uveitis, anxiety, and depression, with correspondingly higher healthcare utilization and direct healthcare costs,” wrote corresponding author Joseph F. Merola, MD, MMSc, and colleagues. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “Timely and accurate diagnosis of PsA is important for improved patient outcomes and appropriate disease management and may prevent prolonged inflammation that leads to structural joint damage and worsening physical function,” they added.

The mean time of onset of PsA among patients with psoriasis who develop PsA is 10 years after the first signs of psoriasis appear. An estimated 20%-30% of patients with psoriasis have a concurrent diagnosis of PsA, and the annual incidence of PsA has been reported to be 2.7 cases per 100 patients with psoriasis. While previous studies have suggested that a higher incidence of PsA is associated with greater disease severity, there are limited data in the United States on the topic.

For the study, Dr. Merola, a dermatologist and rheumatologist who directs the Center for Skin and Related Musculoskeletal Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and his colleagues drew from the Optum EHR database to identify adult patients newly diagnosed with psoriasis between Jan. 1, 2009, and March 31, 2019. Patients diagnosed with psoriasis or PsA prior to the index date were excluded from the analysis for evaluation of incidence but included for evaluation of prevalence. The patients were followed from the index date until the earliest PsA event, death, or end of study or follow-up, whichever came first. The researchers calculated the incidence of PsA among adults with psoriasis as the number of incident PsA events divided by the number of patient-years (PY) at risk, which was reported as the raw incidence per 100 psoriasis PY. They calculated the prevalence of PsA among adults with psoriasis as “the number of prevalent PsA events divided by the number of eligible patients with [psoriasis] and reported by years in the follow-up period,” which was a median of 3.7 years.

A total of 114,868 patients were included in the analysis. At baseline, their mean age was 54 years, 53% were female, 89% were White, and 39% were obese. Most patients (102,553) were on nonsystemic agents during the year after their psoriasis diagnosis, while 6,345 were on nonbiologic systemic therapies (NBSTs) and 5,970 were on biologics. The researchers classified patients as having mild psoriasis if they were taking nonsystemic agents, moderate disease if they were taking NBSTs, or severe disease if they were taking biologics.

The overall incidence rate of PsA was 2.9 events per 100 PY and increased by severity of disease. When calculated by severity, the incidence was 2.1 events per 100 PY for patients with mild psoriasis, 9.9 events per 100 PY for those with moderate psoriasis, and 17.6 events per 100 PY for those with severe psoriasis.

When the researchers excluded patients diagnosed with PsA up to 1 year after being diagnosed with psoriasis, the overall incidence was lower (1.7 events per 100 PY), with similar trends for categories of treatment severity. Specifically, the incidence was 1.5, 3.1, and 4.7 events per 100 PY among those with mild, moderate, and severe psoriasis, based on their treatment groups, respectively.

Among the 120,523 patients with psoriasis who were eligible for the assessment of prevalence of PsA, the overall 5-year prevalence of PsA was 14.2% and rose with severity of disease: 9.9% in patients with mild psoriasis, 35% in patients with moderate psoriasis, and 54.9% in patients with severe psoriasis.

Other predictors of PsA onset for both index-date cohorts included weight of 90 kg or greater, female gender, age group 25-65 years (compared with the age group over 65 years), and rheumatic risk factors such as wrist pain and unspecified rheumatism.

“To ensure timely diagnosis and treatment for management and prevention of PsA, patients with [psoriasis] should be routinely screened, especially those with more severe disease and other PsA risk factors,” the authors advised.

Dr. Merola and colleagues acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, including the potential for selection bias and its reliance on EHR data which “lacked clinical measures of disease severity such as the PASI, and data on BSA were not available for all study participants; therefore, treatment groups were used as a surrogate for disease severity,” they wrote. “As a result, some patients may have been miscategorized, especially patients with severe disease who were untreated.”

The study was sponsored by Novartis. Dr. Merola disclosed that he is a consultant and/or investigator for Merck, AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Celgene, Sanofi, Regeneron, Arena, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Biogen, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Avotres, and LEO Pharma. Four authors are Novartis employees, or employees of a consulting company that provides services to Novartis; and another author disclosed serving as an investigator or consultant for several pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

[email protected]

Cigarette smoking is a well-known modifiable risk factor for the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Studies have suggested not only an elevated risk but possible pathogenetic role in the development of autoantibodies, as well as effects on disease outcomes. Passive cigarette smoking has also been proposed as a potential risk factor for RA, though studies are harder to evaluate. This review of prospective data from the Nurses Health Study (NHS) by Yoshida et al looks at incident RA among women enrolled in the study and the influence of in utero, childhood, and adulthood exposure to cigarettes. Childhood exposure to parental smoking was associated with seropositive RA (hazard ratio 1.75) even after controlling for adult personal smoking, and maternal smoking during pregnancy was associated with RA, though the latter effect was not seen after controlling for subsequent smoking exposure. As the authors point out, verifiable prospective data is difficult to obtain regarding exposure to smoking in utero or in childhood and recall bias is possible in obtaining historical information in this prospective study given the use of questionnaires, though it remains plausible given prior studies on the association of personal smoking with RA.

The involvement of gut microbiota in development of autoimmunity has also been postulated but not well-explained. Several recent studies have examined the impact of antibiotic use on the development of RA, including a recent large UK-based case-control study suggesting an increase in RA incidence in people with antibiotic exposure. While a systematic review is ongoing, this prospective cohort study by Liu et al also examines data from NHSI and NHSII and RA risk in patients exposed to antibiotics, stratified by duration of use (none, ≤14 days, ≥15 days). It is reassuring that in this study neither short term (≤14 days) nor long term (≥15 days) antibiotic use was associated with RA risk. Comparison with prior studies with prescription data, however, is limited given the use of questionnaires to establish duration of recent antibiotic exposure.

Fatigue is a common symptom of RA and has a high impact on quality of life in terms of function. The study by Holten et al examines data from the ARCTIC trial in terms of associations between disease activity and fatigue in early RA, as well as change in fatigue with therapy for RA. Fatigue was measured via a visual analog scale (VAS) and did decrease with therapy from baseline; 80% of patients in the study had moderate or high disease activity based on disease activity score (DAS) at baseline and 69% of patients reported fatigue, while 9% of patients had moderate or high disease activity based on DAS at  24 months and 38% reported fatigue. Interestingly, patients who were in remission (per DAS) at 6 months had a reduced risk of fatigue at 24 months. It is hard to interpret this information in a granular way as fatigue is not measured in a standardized way across clinical studies and the only instrument of measure in the ARCTIC trial was the VAS. An alternate view, for example examining the impact of baseline fatigue on response to therapy, may also be reasonable, or fatigue may be a residual symptom similar to chronic myofascial or “non-inflammatory” pain not responsive to treatment in RA.

Finally, another associated extra-articular manifestation of RA is bronchiectasis. Martin et al performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature and found that the prevalence of bronchiectasis was about 18% in RA patients, suggesting that it is more common than previously thought. However, inclusion of CT imaging may detect subclinical bronchiectasis and other secondary causes were not determined. Still, given the effects on quality of life and mortality, further research into causes and risk factors for bronchiectasis in RA is warranted.

Cigarette smoking is a well-known modifiable risk factor for the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Studies have suggested not only an elevated risk but possible pathogenetic role in the development of autoantibodies, as well as effects on disease outcomes. Passive cigarette smoking has also been proposed as a potential risk factor for RA, though studies are harder to evaluate. This review of prospective data from the Nurses Health Study (NHS) by Yoshida et al looks at incident RA among women enrolled in the study and the influence of in utero, childhood, and adulthood exposure to cigarettes. Childhood exposure to parental smoking was associated with seropositive RA (hazard ratio 1.75) even after controlling for adult personal smoking, and maternal smoking during pregnancy was associated with RA, though the latter effect was not seen after controlling for subsequent smoking exposure. As the authors point out, verifiable prospective data is difficult to obtain regarding exposure to smoking in utero or in childhood and recall bias is possible in obtaining historical information in this prospective study given the use of questionnaires, though it remains plausible given prior studies on the association of personal smoking with RA.

The involvement of gut microbiota in development of autoimmunity has also been postulated but not well-explained. Several recent studies have examined the impact of antibiotic use on the development of RA, including a recent large UK-based case-control study suggesting an increase in RA incidence in people with antibiotic exposure. While a systematic review is ongoing, this prospective cohort study by Liu et al also examines data from NHSI and NHSII and RA risk in patients exposed to antibiotics, stratified by duration of use (none, ≤14 days, ≥15 days). It is reassuring that in this study neither short term (≤14 days) nor long term (≥15 days) antibiotic use was associated with RA risk. Comparison with prior studies with prescription data, however, is limited given the use of questionnaires to establish duration of recent antibiotic exposure.

Fatigue is a common symptom of RA and has a high impact on quality of life in terms of function. The study by Holten et al examines data from the ARCTIC trial in terms of associations between disease activity and fatigue in early RA, as well as change in fatigue with therapy for RA. Fatigue was measured via a visual analog scale (VAS) and did decrease with therapy from baseline; 80% of patients in the study had moderate or high disease activity based on disease activity score (DAS) at baseline and 69% of patients reported fatigue, while 9% of patients had moderate or high disease activity based on DAS at  24 months and 38% reported fatigue. Interestingly, patients who were in remission (per DAS) at 6 months had a reduced risk of fatigue at 24 months. It is hard to interpret this information in a granular way as fatigue is not measured in a standardized way across clinical studies and the only instrument of measure in the ARCTIC trial was the VAS. An alternate view, for example examining the impact of baseline fatigue on response to therapy, may also be reasonable, or fatigue may be a residual symptom similar to chronic myofascial or “non-inflammatory” pain not responsive to treatment in RA.

Finally, another associated extra-articular manifestation of RA is bronchiectasis. Martin et al performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature and found that the prevalence of bronchiectasis was about 18% in RA patients, suggesting that it is more common than previously thought. However, inclusion of CT imaging may detect subclinical bronchiectasis and other secondary causes were not determined. Still, given the effects on quality of life and mortality, further research into causes and risk factors for bronchiectasis in RA is warranted.

Cigarette smoking is a well-known modifiable risk factor for the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Studies have suggested not only an elevated risk but possible pathogenetic role in the development of autoantibodies, as well as effects on disease outcomes. Passive cigarette smoking has also been proposed as a potential risk factor for RA, though studies are harder to evaluate. This review of prospective data from the Nurses Health Study (NHS) by Yoshida et al looks at incident RA among women enrolled in the study and the influence of in utero, childhood, and adulthood exposure to cigarettes. Childhood exposure to parental smoking was associated with seropositive RA (hazard ratio 1.75) even after controlling for adult personal smoking, and maternal smoking during pregnancy was associated with RA, though the latter effect was not seen after controlling for subsequent smoking exposure. As the authors point out, verifiable prospective data is difficult to obtain regarding exposure to smoking in utero or in childhood and recall bias is possible in obtaining historical information in this prospective study given the use of questionnaires, though it remains plausible given prior studies on the association of personal smoking with RA.

The involvement of gut microbiota in development of autoimmunity has also been postulated but not well-explained. Several recent studies have examined the impact of antibiotic use on the development of RA, including a recent large UK-based case-control study suggesting an increase in RA incidence in people with antibiotic exposure. While a systematic review is ongoing, this prospective cohort study by Liu et al also examines data from NHSI and NHSII and RA risk in patients exposed to antibiotics, stratified by duration of use (none, ≤14 days, ≥15 days). It is reassuring that in this study neither short term (≤14 days) nor long term (≥15 days) antibiotic use was associated with RA risk. Comparison with prior studies with prescription data, however, is limited given the use of questionnaires to establish duration of recent antibiotic exposure.

Fatigue is a common symptom of RA and has a high impact on quality of life in terms of function. The study by Holten et al examines data from the ARCTIC trial in terms of associations between disease activity and fatigue in early RA, as well as change in fatigue with therapy for RA. Fatigue was measured via a visual analog scale (VAS) and did decrease with therapy from baseline; 80% of patients in the study had moderate or high disease activity based on disease activity score (DAS) at baseline and 69% of patients reported fatigue, while 9% of patients had moderate or high disease activity based on DAS at  24 months and 38% reported fatigue. Interestingly, patients who were in remission (per DAS) at 6 months had a reduced risk of fatigue at 24 months. It is hard to interpret this information in a granular way as fatigue is not measured in a standardized way across clinical studies and the only instrument of measure in the ARCTIC trial was the VAS. An alternate view, for example examining the impact of baseline fatigue on response to therapy, may also be reasonable, or fatigue may be a residual symptom similar to chronic myofascial or “non-inflammatory” pain not responsive to treatment in RA.

Finally, another associated extra-articular manifestation of RA is bronchiectasis. Martin et al performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature and found that the prevalence of bronchiectasis was about 18% in RA patients, suggesting that it is more common than previously thought. However, inclusion of CT imaging may detect subclinical bronchiectasis and other secondary causes were not determined. Still, given the effects on quality of life and mortality, further research into causes and risk factors for bronchiectasis in RA is warranted.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has issued a public safety alert over an “alarming” increase in fake prescription pills laced with the synthetic opioid fentanyl or the stimulant methamphetamine.

“The United States is facing an unprecedented crisis of overdose deaths fueled by illegally manufactured fentanyl and methamphetamine,” DEA Administrator Anne Milgram said in the alert.

“Counterfeit pills that contain these dangerous and extremely addictive drugs are more lethal and more accessible than ever before. DEA is focusing resources on taking down the violent drug traffickers causing the greatest harm and posing the greatest threat to the safety and health of Americans,” Ms. Milgram said.

Criminal drug networks are mass-producing fake fentanyl- and methamphetamine-laced pills and deceptively marketing them as legitimate prescription pills, the DEA warns.

These lethal counterfeit pills are made to look like legitimate prescription opioid medications such as oxycodone (Oxycontin, Percocet), hydrocodone (Vicodin), and alprazolam (Xanax); or stimulants like amphetamines (Adderall).

The agency has seized fake pills in every U.S. state. More than 9.5 million fake pills have been seized so far this year – more than the last 2 years combined.

The number of seized counterfeit pills with fentanyl has jumped nearly 430% since 2019. DEA lab tests reveal that two out of every five pills with fentanyl contain a potentially lethal dose.

These deadly pills are widely accessible and often sold on social media and e-commerce platforms – making them available to anyone with a smartphone, including minors, the DEA warns.

More than 93,000 people died of a drug overdose in the United States last year, according to federal statistics, and fentanyl is the primary driver of this alarming increase in overdose deaths, the DEA says.

The agency has launched a “One Pill Can Kill” public awareness campaign to educate the public of the dangers of counterfeit pills purchased outside of a licensed pharmacy. These pills are “illegal, dangerous, and potentially lethal,” the DEA warns.

This alert does not apply to legitimate pharmaceutical medications prescribed by doctors and dispensed by licensed pharmacists, the DEA says.

“The legitimate prescription supply chain is not impacted. Anyone filling a prescription at a licensed pharmacy can be confident that the medications they receive are safe when taken as directed by a medical professional,” the agency says.

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

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has issued a public safety alert over an “alarming” increase in fake prescription pills laced with the synthetic opioid fentanyl or the stimulant methamphetamine.

“The United States is facing an unprecedented crisis of overdose deaths fueled by illegally manufactured fentanyl and methamphetamine,” DEA Administrator Anne Milgram said in the alert.

“Counterfeit pills that contain these dangerous and extremely addictive drugs are more lethal and more accessible than ever before. DEA is focusing resources on taking down the violent drug traffickers causing the greatest harm and posing the greatest threat to the safety and health of Americans,” Ms. Milgram said.

Criminal drug networks are mass-producing fake fentanyl- and methamphetamine-laced pills and deceptively marketing them as legitimate prescription pills, the DEA warns.

These lethal counterfeit pills are made to look like legitimate prescription opioid medications such as oxycodone (Oxycontin, Percocet), hydrocodone (Vicodin), and alprazolam (Xanax); or stimulants like amphetamines (Adderall).

The agency has seized fake pills in every U.S. state. More than 9.5 million fake pills have been seized so far this year – more than the last 2 years combined.

The number of seized counterfeit pills with fentanyl has jumped nearly 430% since 2019. DEA lab tests reveal that two out of every five pills with fentanyl contain a potentially lethal dose.

These deadly pills are widely accessible and often sold on social media and e-commerce platforms – making them available to anyone with a smartphone, including minors, the DEA warns.

More than 93,000 people died of a drug overdose in the United States last year, according to federal statistics, and fentanyl is the primary driver of this alarming increase in overdose deaths, the DEA says.

The agency has launched a “One Pill Can Kill” public awareness campaign to educate the public of the dangers of counterfeit pills purchased outside of a licensed pharmacy. These pills are “illegal, dangerous, and potentially lethal,” the DEA warns.

This alert does not apply to legitimate pharmaceutical medications prescribed by doctors and dispensed by licensed pharmacists, the DEA says.

“The legitimate prescription supply chain is not impacted. Anyone filling a prescription at a licensed pharmacy can be confident that the medications they receive are safe when taken as directed by a medical professional,” the agency says.

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

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has issued a public safety alert over an “alarming” increase in fake prescription pills laced with the synthetic opioid fentanyl or the stimulant methamphetamine.

“The United States is facing an unprecedented crisis of overdose deaths fueled by illegally manufactured fentanyl and methamphetamine,” DEA Administrator Anne Milgram said in the alert.

“Counterfeit pills that contain these dangerous and extremely addictive drugs are more lethal and more accessible than ever before. DEA is focusing resources on taking down the violent drug traffickers causing the greatest harm and posing the greatest threat to the safety and health of Americans,” Ms. Milgram said.

Criminal drug networks are mass-producing fake fentanyl- and methamphetamine-laced pills and deceptively marketing them as legitimate prescription pills, the DEA warns.

These lethal counterfeit pills are made to look like legitimate prescription opioid medications such as oxycodone (Oxycontin, Percocet), hydrocodone (Vicodin), and alprazolam (Xanax); or stimulants like amphetamines (Adderall).

The agency has seized fake pills in every U.S. state. More than 9.5 million fake pills have been seized so far this year – more than the last 2 years combined.

The number of seized counterfeit pills with fentanyl has jumped nearly 430% since 2019. DEA lab tests reveal that two out of every five pills with fentanyl contain a potentially lethal dose.

These deadly pills are widely accessible and often sold on social media and e-commerce platforms – making them available to anyone with a smartphone, including minors, the DEA warns.

More than 93,000 people died of a drug overdose in the United States last year, according to federal statistics, and fentanyl is the primary driver of this alarming increase in overdose deaths, the DEA says.

The agency has launched a “One Pill Can Kill” public awareness campaign to educate the public of the dangers of counterfeit pills purchased outside of a licensed pharmacy. These pills are “illegal, dangerous, and potentially lethal,” the DEA warns.

This alert does not apply to legitimate pharmaceutical medications prescribed by doctors and dispensed by licensed pharmacists, the DEA says.

“The legitimate prescription supply chain is not impacted. Anyone filling a prescription at a licensed pharmacy can be confident that the medications they receive are safe when taken as directed by a medical professional,” the agency says.

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

Confusion continues to circulate in the wake of decisions on booster doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, all announced within 1 week. Many people – including those now eligible and those who officially have to wait for their shot at a third dose – have questions.

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

Multiple agencies are involved in the booster decisions, and they have put out multiple – and sometimes conflicting – messages about booster doses, leaving more questions than answers for many people.

On Sept. 22, the Food and Drug Administration granted an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a booster dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for those 65 and older and those at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers whose jobs increase their risk for infection – such as frontline health care workers.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, then overruled advice from the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to recommend boosters for essential workers such as those working on the front lines during the pandemic.

As it stands now, the CDC recommends that the following groups should get a third dose of the Pfizer vaccine:

• People aged 65 years and older.
• People aged 18 years and older in long-term care settings.
• People aged 50-64 years with underlying medical conditions.

The CDC also recommends that the following groups may receive a booster shot of the Pfizer vaccine, based on their individual benefits and risks:

• People aged 18-49 years with underlying medical conditions.
• People aged 18-64 years at increased risk for COVID-19 exposure and transmission because of occupational or institutional setting.

The CDC currently considers the following groups at increased risk for COVID-19:

• First responders (health care workers, firefighters, police, congregate care staff).
• Education staff (teachers, support staff, day care workers).
• Food and agriculture workers.
• Manufacturing workers.
• Corrections workers.
• U.S. Postal Service workers.
• Public transit workers.
• Grocery store workers.

Health care professionals, among the most trusted sources of COVID-19 information, are likely to encounter a number of patients wondering how all this will work.

“It’s fantastic that boosters will be available for those who the data supports need [them],” Rachael Piltch-Loeb, PhD, said during a media briefing on Sept. 23, held between the FDA and CDC decisions.

“But we’re really in a place where we have a lot more questions and answers about what the next phase of the vaccine availability and updates are going to be in the United States,” added Dr. Piltch-Loeb, preparedness fellow in the division of policy translation and leadership development and a research associate in the department of biostatistics at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

To provide some initial answers, this news organization spoke with multiple COVID-19 experts.

1. What is the biggest concern you are hearing from patients about getting a booster?

“The biggest concerns are that everyone wants it and they don’t know where to get it. In health care’s defense, the CDC just figured out what to do,” said Janet Englund, MD, professor of pediatric infectious diseases and an infectious disease and virology expert at Seattle Children’s Hospital in Washington.

“Everyone thinks they should be eligible for a booster ... people in their 50s who are not yet 65+, people with young grandchildren, etc.,” she added. “I’m at Seattle Children’s Hospital, so people are asking about booster shots and about getting their children vaccinated.”

Boosters for all COVID-19 vaccines are completely free.

“All COVID-19 vaccines, including booster doses, will be provided free of charge to the U.S. population,” the CDC has said.

2. Will patients need to prove they meet eligibility criteria for a booster shot or will it be the honor system?

“No, patients will only need to attest that they fall into one of the high-risk groups for whom a booster vaccine is authorized,” said Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

Dr. Piltch-Loeb agreed. “It is likely to be an honor system. It is very unlikely that there will be punishments or other ramifications ... if doses are administered, beyond the approved usage.”

3. If a patient who had the Moderna or the Johnson and Johnson vaccination requests a booster, can health care workers give them Pfizer? 

The short answer is no. “This only applies to individuals who have received the Pfizer vaccine,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said.

More data will be needed before other vaccine boosters are authorized, she added.

“My understanding is the Moderna people have just recently submitted their information, all of their data to the FDA and J&J is in line to do that very shortly,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “I would hope that within the next month to 6 weeks, we will get information about both of those vaccines,” Dr. Schaffner said.

4. When are the “mix-and-match” vaccine study results expected to come out?

“We expect that data from the study will be available in the coming weeks,” said Dr. Atmar, who is the national co-principal investigator of a mix-and-match booster trial launched in June 2021.

5. Are side effects of a booster vaccine expected to be about the same as what people experienced during their first or second immunization? 

“I’m expecting the side effects will be similar to the second dose,” Dr. Englund said.

“The data presented ... at ACIP suggests that the side effects from the third shot are either the same or actually less than the first two shots,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, distinguished professor of medicine, epidemiology, and global health, and executive associate dean of Emory University School of Medicine at Grady Health System in Atlanta.

”Everyone reacts very differently to vaccines, regardless of vaccine type,” said Eric Ascher, MD, a family medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. “I have had patients (as well as personal experience) where there were none to minimal symptoms, and others who felt they had a mild flu for 24 hours.”

“I expect no side effects greater than what was felt with you prior doses,” he said. “The vaccine is very safe and the benefit of vaccination outweighs the risks of any mild side effects.”

6. Is it unethical to give a booster to someone outside the approved groups if there are doses remaining at the end of the day in an open vial? 

“Offering a booster shot to someone outside of approved groups if remaining doses will go to waste at the end of the day seems like a prudent decision, and relatively harmless action,” said Faith Fletcher, PhD, assistant professor at the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine.

“However, if doses continue to fall in the laps of unapproved groups, we must evaluate the vaccine systems and structures that advantage some groups and disadvantage others,” she added. “We know that the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines has not been equitable – and some groups have been left behind.”

“I am not an ethicist and there are many competing concerns that this question addresses,” Dr. Atmar said. For example, “there is not a limitation of vaccine supply in the U.S., so that using leftover vaccine to prevent waste is no longer a major concern in the U.S.”

It could be more of a legal than ethical question, Dr. Atmar said. For an individual outside the authorized groups, legally, the FDA’s EUA for boosting does not allow the vaccine to be administered to this person, he said.

“The rationale for the restricted use in the EUA is that at this time the safety and risks associated with such administration are not known, and the benefits also have not been determined,” Dr. Atmar said. “Members of the ACIP raised concerns about other individuals who may potentially benefit from a booster but are not eligible and the importance of making boosters available to them, but from a legal standpoint – I am also not a lawyer, so this is my understanding – administration of the vaccine is limited to those identified in the EUA.”

7. What is the likelihood that one shot will combine COVID and flu protection in the near future? 

It is not likely, Dr. Englund said. “The reason is that the flu vaccine changes so much, and it already has four different antigens. This is assuming we keep the same method of making the flu vaccine – the answer could be different if the flu vaccine becomes an mRNA vaccine in the future.”

Companies such as Moderna and Novavax are testing single-dose shots for COVID-19 and influenza, but they are still far from having anything ready for this flu season in the United States.

8. Is there any chance a booster shot distributed now will need to be redesigned for a future variant? 

“Absolutely,” Dr. Englund said. “And a booster dose is the time we may want to consider re-engineering a vaccine.”

9. Do you think the FDA/CDC limitations on who is eligible for a booster was in any way influenced by the World Health Organization call for prioritizing shots for the unvaccinated in lower-resource countries?

“This is absolutely still a global problem,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said. “We need to get more vaccine to more countries and more people as soon as possible, because if there’s anything we’ve seen about the variants it is that ... they can come from all different places.”

“That being said, I think that it is unlikely to change the course of action in the U.S.,” she added, when it comes to comparing the global need with the domestic policy priorities of the administration.

Dr. Atmar was more direct. “No,” he said. “The WHO recommends against boosting of anyone. The U.S. decisions about boosting those in this country who are eligible are aimed toward addressing perceived needs domestically at the same time that vaccines are being provided to other countries.

“The philosophy is to address both ‘needs’ at the same time,” Dr. Atmar said.

10. What does the future hold for booster shots?

“Predicting the future is really hard, especially when it involves COVID,” Dr. del Rio said. 

“Having said that, COVID is not the flu, so I doubt there will be need for annual boosters. I think the population eligible for boosters will be expanded ... and the major population not addressed at this point is the people that received either Moderna or J&J [vaccines].”
 

Kelly Davis contributed to this feature. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Confusion continues to circulate in the wake of decisions on booster doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, all announced within 1 week. Many people – including those now eligible and those who officially have to wait for their shot at a third dose – have questions.

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

Multiple agencies are involved in the booster decisions, and they have put out multiple – and sometimes conflicting – messages about booster doses, leaving more questions than answers for many people.

On Sept. 22, the Food and Drug Administration granted an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a booster dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for those 65 and older and those at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers whose jobs increase their risk for infection – such as frontline health care workers.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, then overruled advice from the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to recommend boosters for essential workers such as those working on the front lines during the pandemic.

As it stands now, the CDC recommends that the following groups should get a third dose of the Pfizer vaccine:

• People aged 65 years and older.
• People aged 18 years and older in long-term care settings.
• People aged 50-64 years with underlying medical conditions.

The CDC also recommends that the following groups may receive a booster shot of the Pfizer vaccine, based on their individual benefits and risks:

• People aged 18-49 years with underlying medical conditions.
• People aged 18-64 years at increased risk for COVID-19 exposure and transmission because of occupational or institutional setting.

The CDC currently considers the following groups at increased risk for COVID-19:

• First responders (health care workers, firefighters, police, congregate care staff).
• Education staff (teachers, support staff, day care workers).
• Food and agriculture workers.
• Manufacturing workers.
• Corrections workers.
• U.S. Postal Service workers.
• Public transit workers.
• Grocery store workers.

Health care professionals, among the most trusted sources of COVID-19 information, are likely to encounter a number of patients wondering how all this will work.

“It’s fantastic that boosters will be available for those who the data supports need [them],” Rachael Piltch-Loeb, PhD, said during a media briefing on Sept. 23, held between the FDA and CDC decisions.

“But we’re really in a place where we have a lot more questions and answers about what the next phase of the vaccine availability and updates are going to be in the United States,” added Dr. Piltch-Loeb, preparedness fellow in the division of policy translation and leadership development and a research associate in the department of biostatistics at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

To provide some initial answers, this news organization spoke with multiple COVID-19 experts.

1. What is the biggest concern you are hearing from patients about getting a booster?

“The biggest concerns are that everyone wants it and they don’t know where to get it. In health care’s defense, the CDC just figured out what to do,” said Janet Englund, MD, professor of pediatric infectious diseases and an infectious disease and virology expert at Seattle Children’s Hospital in Washington.

“Everyone thinks they should be eligible for a booster ... people in their 50s who are not yet 65+, people with young grandchildren, etc.,” she added. “I’m at Seattle Children’s Hospital, so people are asking about booster shots and about getting their children vaccinated.”

Boosters for all COVID-19 vaccines are completely free.

“All COVID-19 vaccines, including booster doses, will be provided free of charge to the U.S. population,” the CDC has said.

2. Will patients need to prove they meet eligibility criteria for a booster shot or will it be the honor system?

“No, patients will only need to attest that they fall into one of the high-risk groups for whom a booster vaccine is authorized,” said Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

Dr. Piltch-Loeb agreed. “It is likely to be an honor system. It is very unlikely that there will be punishments or other ramifications ... if doses are administered, beyond the approved usage.”

3. If a patient who had the Moderna or the Johnson and Johnson vaccination requests a booster, can health care workers give them Pfizer? 

The short answer is no. “This only applies to individuals who have received the Pfizer vaccine,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said.

More data will be needed before other vaccine boosters are authorized, she added.

“My understanding is the Moderna people have just recently submitted their information, all of their data to the FDA and J&J is in line to do that very shortly,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “I would hope that within the next month to 6 weeks, we will get information about both of those vaccines,” Dr. Schaffner said.

4. When are the “mix-and-match” vaccine study results expected to come out?

“We expect that data from the study will be available in the coming weeks,” said Dr. Atmar, who is the national co-principal investigator of a mix-and-match booster trial launched in June 2021.

5. Are side effects of a booster vaccine expected to be about the same as what people experienced during their first or second immunization? 

“I’m expecting the side effects will be similar to the second dose,” Dr. Englund said.

“The data presented ... at ACIP suggests that the side effects from the third shot are either the same or actually less than the first two shots,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, distinguished professor of medicine, epidemiology, and global health, and executive associate dean of Emory University School of Medicine at Grady Health System in Atlanta.

”Everyone reacts very differently to vaccines, regardless of vaccine type,” said Eric Ascher, MD, a family medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. “I have had patients (as well as personal experience) where there were none to minimal symptoms, and others who felt they had a mild flu for 24 hours.”

“I expect no side effects greater than what was felt with you prior doses,” he said. “The vaccine is very safe and the benefit of vaccination outweighs the risks of any mild side effects.”

6. Is it unethical to give a booster to someone outside the approved groups if there are doses remaining at the end of the day in an open vial? 

“Offering a booster shot to someone outside of approved groups if remaining doses will go to waste at the end of the day seems like a prudent decision, and relatively harmless action,” said Faith Fletcher, PhD, assistant professor at the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine.

“However, if doses continue to fall in the laps of unapproved groups, we must evaluate the vaccine systems and structures that advantage some groups and disadvantage others,” she added. “We know that the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines has not been equitable – and some groups have been left behind.”

“I am not an ethicist and there are many competing concerns that this question addresses,” Dr. Atmar said. For example, “there is not a limitation of vaccine supply in the U.S., so that using leftover vaccine to prevent waste is no longer a major concern in the U.S.”

It could be more of a legal than ethical question, Dr. Atmar said. For an individual outside the authorized groups, legally, the FDA’s EUA for boosting does not allow the vaccine to be administered to this person, he said.

“The rationale for the restricted use in the EUA is that at this time the safety and risks associated with such administration are not known, and the benefits also have not been determined,” Dr. Atmar said. “Members of the ACIP raised concerns about other individuals who may potentially benefit from a booster but are not eligible and the importance of making boosters available to them, but from a legal standpoint – I am also not a lawyer, so this is my understanding – administration of the vaccine is limited to those identified in the EUA.”

7. What is the likelihood that one shot will combine COVID and flu protection in the near future? 

It is not likely, Dr. Englund said. “The reason is that the flu vaccine changes so much, and it already has four different antigens. This is assuming we keep the same method of making the flu vaccine – the answer could be different if the flu vaccine becomes an mRNA vaccine in the future.”

Companies such as Moderna and Novavax are testing single-dose shots for COVID-19 and influenza, but they are still far from having anything ready for this flu season in the United States.

8. Is there any chance a booster shot distributed now will need to be redesigned for a future variant? 

“Absolutely,” Dr. Englund said. “And a booster dose is the time we may want to consider re-engineering a vaccine.”

9. Do you think the FDA/CDC limitations on who is eligible for a booster was in any way influenced by the World Health Organization call for prioritizing shots for the unvaccinated in lower-resource countries?

“This is absolutely still a global problem,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said. “We need to get more vaccine to more countries and more people as soon as possible, because if there’s anything we’ve seen about the variants it is that ... they can come from all different places.”

“That being said, I think that it is unlikely to change the course of action in the U.S.,” she added, when it comes to comparing the global need with the domestic policy priorities of the administration.

Dr. Atmar was more direct. “No,” he said. “The WHO recommends against boosting of anyone. The U.S. decisions about boosting those in this country who are eligible are aimed toward addressing perceived needs domestically at the same time that vaccines are being provided to other countries.

“The philosophy is to address both ‘needs’ at the same time,” Dr. Atmar said.

10. What does the future hold for booster shots?

“Predicting the future is really hard, especially when it involves COVID,” Dr. del Rio said. 

“Having said that, COVID is not the flu, so I doubt there will be need for annual boosters. I think the population eligible for boosters will be expanded ... and the major population not addressed at this point is the people that received either Moderna or J&J [vaccines].”
 

Kelly Davis contributed to this feature. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Confusion continues to circulate in the wake of decisions on booster doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, all announced within 1 week. Many people – including those now eligible and those who officially have to wait for their shot at a third dose – have questions.

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

Multiple agencies are involved in the booster decisions, and they have put out multiple – and sometimes conflicting – messages about booster doses, leaving more questions than answers for many people.

On Sept. 22, the Food and Drug Administration granted an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a booster dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for those 65 and older and those at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers whose jobs increase their risk for infection – such as frontline health care workers.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, then overruled advice from the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to recommend boosters for essential workers such as those working on the front lines during the pandemic.

As it stands now, the CDC recommends that the following groups should get a third dose of the Pfizer vaccine:

• People aged 65 years and older.
• People aged 18 years and older in long-term care settings.
• People aged 50-64 years with underlying medical conditions.

The CDC also recommends that the following groups may receive a booster shot of the Pfizer vaccine, based on their individual benefits and risks:

• People aged 18-49 years with underlying medical conditions.
• People aged 18-64 years at increased risk for COVID-19 exposure and transmission because of occupational or institutional setting.

The CDC currently considers the following groups at increased risk for COVID-19:

• First responders (health care workers, firefighters, police, congregate care staff).
• Education staff (teachers, support staff, day care workers).
• Food and agriculture workers.
• Manufacturing workers.
• Corrections workers.
• U.S. Postal Service workers.
• Public transit workers.
• Grocery store workers.

Health care professionals, among the most trusted sources of COVID-19 information, are likely to encounter a number of patients wondering how all this will work.

“It’s fantastic that boosters will be available for those who the data supports need [them],” Rachael Piltch-Loeb, PhD, said during a media briefing on Sept. 23, held between the FDA and CDC decisions.

“But we’re really in a place where we have a lot more questions and answers about what the next phase of the vaccine availability and updates are going to be in the United States,” added Dr. Piltch-Loeb, preparedness fellow in the division of policy translation and leadership development and a research associate in the department of biostatistics at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

To provide some initial answers, this news organization spoke with multiple COVID-19 experts.

1. What is the biggest concern you are hearing from patients about getting a booster?

“The biggest concerns are that everyone wants it and they don’t know where to get it. In health care’s defense, the CDC just figured out what to do,” said Janet Englund, MD, professor of pediatric infectious diseases and an infectious disease and virology expert at Seattle Children’s Hospital in Washington.

“Everyone thinks they should be eligible for a booster ... people in their 50s who are not yet 65+, people with young grandchildren, etc.,” she added. “I’m at Seattle Children’s Hospital, so people are asking about booster shots and about getting their children vaccinated.”

Boosters for all COVID-19 vaccines are completely free.

“All COVID-19 vaccines, including booster doses, will be provided free of charge to the U.S. population,” the CDC has said.

2. Will patients need to prove they meet eligibility criteria for a booster shot or will it be the honor system?

“No, patients will only need to attest that they fall into one of the high-risk groups for whom a booster vaccine is authorized,” said Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

Dr. Piltch-Loeb agreed. “It is likely to be an honor system. It is very unlikely that there will be punishments or other ramifications ... if doses are administered, beyond the approved usage.”

3. If a patient who had the Moderna or the Johnson and Johnson vaccination requests a booster, can health care workers give them Pfizer? 

The short answer is no. “This only applies to individuals who have received the Pfizer vaccine,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said.

More data will be needed before other vaccine boosters are authorized, she added.

“My understanding is the Moderna people have just recently submitted their information, all of their data to the FDA and J&J is in line to do that very shortly,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “I would hope that within the next month to 6 weeks, we will get information about both of those vaccines,” Dr. Schaffner said.

4. When are the “mix-and-match” vaccine study results expected to come out?

“We expect that data from the study will be available in the coming weeks,” said Dr. Atmar, who is the national co-principal investigator of a mix-and-match booster trial launched in June 2021.

5. Are side effects of a booster vaccine expected to be about the same as what people experienced during their first or second immunization? 

“I’m expecting the side effects will be similar to the second dose,” Dr. Englund said.

“The data presented ... at ACIP suggests that the side effects from the third shot are either the same or actually less than the first two shots,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, distinguished professor of medicine, epidemiology, and global health, and executive associate dean of Emory University School of Medicine at Grady Health System in Atlanta.

”Everyone reacts very differently to vaccines, regardless of vaccine type,” said Eric Ascher, MD, a family medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. “I have had patients (as well as personal experience) where there were none to minimal symptoms, and others who felt they had a mild flu for 24 hours.”

“I expect no side effects greater than what was felt with you prior doses,” he said. “The vaccine is very safe and the benefit of vaccination outweighs the risks of any mild side effects.”

6. Is it unethical to give a booster to someone outside the approved groups if there are doses remaining at the end of the day in an open vial? 

“Offering a booster shot to someone outside of approved groups if remaining doses will go to waste at the end of the day seems like a prudent decision, and relatively harmless action,” said Faith Fletcher, PhD, assistant professor at the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine.

“However, if doses continue to fall in the laps of unapproved groups, we must evaluate the vaccine systems and structures that advantage some groups and disadvantage others,” she added. “We know that the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines has not been equitable – and some groups have been left behind.”

“I am not an ethicist and there are many competing concerns that this question addresses,” Dr. Atmar said. For example, “there is not a limitation of vaccine supply in the U.S., so that using leftover vaccine to prevent waste is no longer a major concern in the U.S.”

It could be more of a legal than ethical question, Dr. Atmar said. For an individual outside the authorized groups, legally, the FDA’s EUA for boosting does not allow the vaccine to be administered to this person, he said.

“The rationale for the restricted use in the EUA is that at this time the safety and risks associated with such administration are not known, and the benefits also have not been determined,” Dr. Atmar said. “Members of the ACIP raised concerns about other individuals who may potentially benefit from a booster but are not eligible and the importance of making boosters available to them, but from a legal standpoint – I am also not a lawyer, so this is my understanding – administration of the vaccine is limited to those identified in the EUA.”

7. What is the likelihood that one shot will combine COVID and flu protection in the near future? 

It is not likely, Dr. Englund said. “The reason is that the flu vaccine changes so much, and it already has four different antigens. This is assuming we keep the same method of making the flu vaccine – the answer could be different if the flu vaccine becomes an mRNA vaccine in the future.”

Companies such as Moderna and Novavax are testing single-dose shots for COVID-19 and influenza, but they are still far from having anything ready for this flu season in the United States.

8. Is there any chance a booster shot distributed now will need to be redesigned for a future variant? 

“Absolutely,” Dr. Englund said. “And a booster dose is the time we may want to consider re-engineering a vaccine.”

9. Do you think the FDA/CDC limitations on who is eligible for a booster was in any way influenced by the World Health Organization call for prioritizing shots for the unvaccinated in lower-resource countries?

“This is absolutely still a global problem,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said. “We need to get more vaccine to more countries and more people as soon as possible, because if there’s anything we’ve seen about the variants it is that ... they can come from all different places.”

“That being said, I think that it is unlikely to change the course of action in the U.S.,” she added, when it comes to comparing the global need with the domestic policy priorities of the administration.

Dr. Atmar was more direct. “No,” he said. “The WHO recommends against boosting of anyone. The U.S. decisions about boosting those in this country who are eligible are aimed toward addressing perceived needs domestically at the same time that vaccines are being provided to other countries.

“The philosophy is to address both ‘needs’ at the same time,” Dr. Atmar said.

10. What does the future hold for booster shots?

“Predicting the future is really hard, especially when it involves COVID,” Dr. del Rio said. 

“Having said that, COVID is not the flu, so I doubt there will be need for annual boosters. I think the population eligible for boosters will be expanded ... and the major population not addressed at this point is the people that received either Moderna or J&J [vaccines].”
 

Kelly Davis contributed to this feature. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were taking glucocorticoids and received short-term denosumab (Prolia) had lost any gains in bone mineral density at the spine or hip as well as any improvements in bone turnover markers a year later, according to findings from a post-hoc analysis of a phase 2 trial.

That is, stopping denosumab after a 12-month course resulted in a gradual increase in bone turnover markers and a concurrent return to baseline lumbar spine and total hip bone mineral density, Kenneth G. Saag, MD, professor of medicine and division director of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues reported in an article published online Sept. 17, 2021 in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“These results provide further support for recommendations that patients discontinuing denosumab should transition to follow-on osteoporosis therapy to prevent or minimize remodeling-induced bone loss,” they concluded.

Like all nonbisphosphonate medications for osteoporosis, Dr. Saag and colleagues wrote, the pharmacologic effects of denosumab are readily reversible after discontinuation.

The current findings in glucocorticoid-treated patients are consistent with those observed in postmenopausal women 2 years after discontinuing denosumab therapy for osteoporosis. Denosumab is typically given for a longer time in such patients, compared with patients receiving glucocorticoids.

Invited to comment, Karen E. Hansen, MD, a rheumatologist and associate professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who was not involved with the study, agreed that the results “highlight the need to prescribe another osteoporosis medication after stopping denosumab, in hopes of preventing loss of bone mineral density.”

Dr. Hansen, a coauthor of a review and meta-analysis of denosumab in the treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, noted that the American College of Rheumatology guideline for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis suggests the use of denosumab as fourth-line therapy, after oral bisphosphonates, intravenous bisphosphonates, and teriparatide (Forteo).

“Its use is particularly relevant in patients who have contraindications or side effects from bisphosphonates or anabolic therapy, or when patient compliance must be ensured,” she said in an interview.

“The type, timing, and effect of therapy after denosumab discontinuation, however, remain controversial,” Dr. Saag and colleagues noted.

However, ongoing trials that are investigating the optimal medication and dosing needed to prevent such losses in bone mineral density after stopping denosumab should provide greater insight, Dr. Hansen said.

Bone health after stopping denosumab

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis often have bone loss that can be worsened by their frequent use of glucocorticoids, leading to an increased risk of fragility fractures.

Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits receptor activator of nuclear factor kappaB ligand (RANKL), was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for treating patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis and a high risk of fracture.

Dr. Saag and colleagues performed a post-hoc analysis of a subgroup of 82 patients receiving glucocorticoids who were part of a larger phase 2 clinical trial of 218 patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

The patients had been randomized to receive placebo (n = 26), 60 mg denosumab (the approved dose, n = 27), or 180 mg denosumab (n = 29), given as two subcutaneous 6-month injections at baseline and 6 months, followed by 12 months without any bone-loss prevention therapy.

The patients had a mean age of 55, and 62% were women.

While receiving denosumab, their serum levels of the bone resorption marker C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX) and the bone formation marker procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (P1NP) decreased significantly from baseline.

In patients who received the 60-mg dose of denosumab, CTX levels had returned to baseline levels 6 months and 12 months after denosumab was discontinued.

Median levels of P1NP in these patients were 0.16% lower than baseline and 15% higher than baseline at 6 months and 12 months after denosumab was stopped, respectively.

In patients who received the 180-mg dose of denosumab, CTX levels also had returned to baseline levels 6 months and 12 months after denosumab was discontinued.

Median levels of P1NP in these patients were 9% and 76% higher than baseline levels, at 6 months and 12 months after denosumab was stopped, respectively.

Bone mineral density at the lumbar spine and total hip increased during the 12 months of denosumab treatment and then returned to baseline after 12 months of discontinuation of both doses of denosumab.

No osteoporotic fractures were reported during the 12-month denosumab treatment or the 12-month follow-up.

The study was funded by Amgen, which markets denosumab. Dr. Saag is an investigator with Amgen, Mereo, and Radius, and a consultant for Amgen and Roche. Four coauthors are employees of Amgen. The other six coauthors all reported a financial relationship with Amgen.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were taking glucocorticoids and received short-term denosumab (Prolia) had lost any gains in bone mineral density at the spine or hip as well as any improvements in bone turnover markers a year later, according to findings from a post-hoc analysis of a phase 2 trial.

That is, stopping denosumab after a 12-month course resulted in a gradual increase in bone turnover markers and a concurrent return to baseline lumbar spine and total hip bone mineral density, Kenneth G. Saag, MD, professor of medicine and division director of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues reported in an article published online Sept. 17, 2021 in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“These results provide further support for recommendations that patients discontinuing denosumab should transition to follow-on osteoporosis therapy to prevent or minimize remodeling-induced bone loss,” they concluded.

Like all nonbisphosphonate medications for osteoporosis, Dr. Saag and colleagues wrote, the pharmacologic effects of denosumab are readily reversible after discontinuation.

The current findings in glucocorticoid-treated patients are consistent with those observed in postmenopausal women 2 years after discontinuing denosumab therapy for osteoporosis. Denosumab is typically given for a longer time in such patients, compared with patients receiving glucocorticoids.

Invited to comment, Karen E. Hansen, MD, a rheumatologist and associate professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who was not involved with the study, agreed that the results “highlight the need to prescribe another osteoporosis medication after stopping denosumab, in hopes of preventing loss of bone mineral density.”

Dr. Hansen, a coauthor of a review and meta-analysis of denosumab in the treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, noted that the American College of Rheumatology guideline for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis suggests the use of denosumab as fourth-line therapy, after oral bisphosphonates, intravenous bisphosphonates, and teriparatide (Forteo).

“Its use is particularly relevant in patients who have contraindications or side effects from bisphosphonates or anabolic therapy, or when patient compliance must be ensured,” she said in an interview.

“The type, timing, and effect of therapy after denosumab discontinuation, however, remain controversial,” Dr. Saag and colleagues noted.

However, ongoing trials that are investigating the optimal medication and dosing needed to prevent such losses in bone mineral density after stopping denosumab should provide greater insight, Dr. Hansen said.

Bone health after stopping denosumab

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis often have bone loss that can be worsened by their frequent use of glucocorticoids, leading to an increased risk of fragility fractures.

Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits receptor activator of nuclear factor kappaB ligand (RANKL), was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for treating patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis and a high risk of fracture.

Dr. Saag and colleagues performed a post-hoc analysis of a subgroup of 82 patients receiving glucocorticoids who were part of a larger phase 2 clinical trial of 218 patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

The patients had been randomized to receive placebo (n = 26), 60 mg denosumab (the approved dose, n = 27), or 180 mg denosumab (n = 29), given as two subcutaneous 6-month injections at baseline and 6 months, followed by 12 months without any bone-loss prevention therapy.

The patients had a mean age of 55, and 62% were women.

While receiving denosumab, their serum levels of the bone resorption marker C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX) and the bone formation marker procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (P1NP) decreased significantly from baseline.

In patients who received the 60-mg dose of denosumab, CTX levels had returned to baseline levels 6 months and 12 months after denosumab was discontinued.

Median levels of P1NP in these patients were 0.16% lower than baseline and 15% higher than baseline at 6 months and 12 months after denosumab was stopped, respectively.

In patients who received the 180-mg dose of denosumab, CTX levels also had returned to baseline levels 6 months and 12 months after denosumab was discontinued.

Median levels of P1NP in these patients were 9% and 76% higher than baseline levels, at 6 months and 12 months after denosumab was stopped, respectively.

Bone mineral density at the lumbar spine and total hip increased during the 12 months of denosumab treatment and then returned to baseline after 12 months of discontinuation of both doses of denosumab.

No osteoporotic fractures were reported during the 12-month denosumab treatment or the 12-month follow-up.

The study was funded by Amgen, which markets denosumab. Dr. Saag is an investigator with Amgen, Mereo, and Radius, and a consultant for Amgen and Roche. Four coauthors are employees of Amgen. The other six coauthors all reported a financial relationship with Amgen.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were taking glucocorticoids and received short-term denosumab (Prolia) had lost any gains in bone mineral density at the spine or hip as well as any improvements in bone turnover markers a year later, according to findings from a post-hoc analysis of a phase 2 trial.

That is, stopping denosumab after a 12-month course resulted in a gradual increase in bone turnover markers and a concurrent return to baseline lumbar spine and total hip bone mineral density, Kenneth G. Saag, MD, professor of medicine and division director of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues reported in an article published online Sept. 17, 2021 in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“These results provide further support for recommendations that patients discontinuing denosumab should transition to follow-on osteoporosis therapy to prevent or minimize remodeling-induced bone loss,” they concluded.

Like all nonbisphosphonate medications for osteoporosis, Dr. Saag and colleagues wrote, the pharmacologic effects of denosumab are readily reversible after discontinuation.

The current findings in glucocorticoid-treated patients are consistent with those observed in postmenopausal women 2 years after discontinuing denosumab therapy for osteoporosis. Denosumab is typically given for a longer time in such patients, compared with patients receiving glucocorticoids.

Invited to comment, Karen E. Hansen, MD, a rheumatologist and associate professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who was not involved with the study, agreed that the results “highlight the need to prescribe another osteoporosis medication after stopping denosumab, in hopes of preventing loss of bone mineral density.”

Dr. Hansen, a coauthor of a review and meta-analysis of denosumab in the treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, noted that the American College of Rheumatology guideline for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis suggests the use of denosumab as fourth-line therapy, after oral bisphosphonates, intravenous bisphosphonates, and teriparatide (Forteo).

“Its use is particularly relevant in patients who have contraindications or side effects from bisphosphonates or anabolic therapy, or when patient compliance must be ensured,” she said in an interview.

“The type, timing, and effect of therapy after denosumab discontinuation, however, remain controversial,” Dr. Saag and colleagues noted.

However, ongoing trials that are investigating the optimal medication and dosing needed to prevent such losses in bone mineral density after stopping denosumab should provide greater insight, Dr. Hansen said.

Bone health after stopping denosumab

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis often have bone loss that can be worsened by their frequent use of glucocorticoids, leading to an increased risk of fragility fractures.

Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits receptor activator of nuclear factor kappaB ligand (RANKL), was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for treating patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis and a high risk of fracture.

Dr. Saag and colleagues performed a post-hoc analysis of a subgroup of 82 patients receiving glucocorticoids who were part of a larger phase 2 clinical trial of 218 patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

The patients had been randomized to receive placebo (n = 26), 60 mg denosumab (the approved dose, n = 27), or 180 mg denosumab (n = 29), given as two subcutaneous 6-month injections at baseline and 6 months, followed by 12 months without any bone-loss prevention therapy.

The patients had a mean age of 55, and 62% were women.

While receiving denosumab, their serum levels of the bone resorption marker C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX) and the bone formation marker procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (P1NP) decreased significantly from baseline.

In patients who received the 60-mg dose of denosumab, CTX levels had returned to baseline levels 6 months and 12 months after denosumab was discontinued.

Median levels of P1NP in these patients were 0.16% lower than baseline and 15% higher than baseline at 6 months and 12 months after denosumab was stopped, respectively.

In patients who received the 180-mg dose of denosumab, CTX levels also had returned to baseline levels 6 months and 12 months after denosumab was discontinued.

Median levels of P1NP in these patients were 9% and 76% higher than baseline levels, at 6 months and 12 months after denosumab was stopped, respectively.

Bone mineral density at the lumbar spine and total hip increased during the 12 months of denosumab treatment and then returned to baseline after 12 months of discontinuation of both doses of denosumab.

No osteoporotic fractures were reported during the 12-month denosumab treatment or the 12-month follow-up.

The study was funded by Amgen, which markets denosumab. Dr. Saag is an investigator with Amgen, Mereo, and Radius, and a consultant for Amgen and Roche. Four coauthors are employees of Amgen. The other six coauthors all reported a financial relationship with Amgen.

Key clinical point: In patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in clinical remission, treat-to-target-based treatment escalations to biologics were more effective than escalation to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) in improving magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) inflammation, physical function, and clinical disease activity.

Major finding: Escalation to first biologic vs. csDMARD escalation effectively reduced MRI osteitis (difference between least squares means [∆LSM] 1.8; 95% CI 1.0-2.6), Health Assessment Questionnaire score (∆LSM 0.08; 95% CI 0.03-0.1), MRI combined inflammation (∆LSM 2.5; 95% CI 0.9-4.1), and Simplified Disease Activity Index scores (∆LSM 2.7; 95% CI 1.9-3.5).

Study details: This study evaluated the impact of treatment intensification with csDMARDs and biologics in 100 patients with established RA in clinical remission from the IMAGINE-RA trial, who were randomly assigned to MRI treat-to-target strategy.

Disclosures: This research was funded by AbbVie. Some of the authors reported receiving grants and personal fees from various sources including AbbVie.

Source: Møller-Bisgaard S et al. Scand J Rheumatol. 2021 Sep 2. doi: 10.1080/03009742.2021.1935312.

Key clinical point: In patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in clinical remission, treat-to-target-based treatment escalations to biologics were more effective than escalation to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) in improving magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) inflammation, physical function, and clinical disease activity.

Major finding: Escalation to first biologic vs. csDMARD escalation effectively reduced MRI osteitis (difference between least squares means [∆LSM] 1.8; 95% CI 1.0-2.6), Health Assessment Questionnaire score (∆LSM 0.08; 95% CI 0.03-0.1), MRI combined inflammation (∆LSM 2.5; 95% CI 0.9-4.1), and Simplified Disease Activity Index scores (∆LSM 2.7; 95% CI 1.9-3.5).

Study details: This study evaluated the impact of treatment intensification with csDMARDs and biologics in 100 patients with established RA in clinical remission from the IMAGINE-RA trial, who were randomly assigned to MRI treat-to-target strategy.

Disclosures: This research was funded by AbbVie. Some of the authors reported receiving grants and personal fees from various sources including AbbVie.

Source: Møller-Bisgaard S et al. Scand J Rheumatol. 2021 Sep 2. doi: 10.1080/03009742.2021.1935312.

Key clinical point: In patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in clinical remission, treat-to-target-based treatment escalations to biologics were more effective than escalation to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) in improving magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) inflammation, physical function, and clinical disease activity.

Major finding: Escalation to first biologic vs. csDMARD escalation effectively reduced MRI osteitis (difference between least squares means [∆LSM] 1.8; 95% CI 1.0-2.6), Health Assessment Questionnaire score (∆LSM 0.08; 95% CI 0.03-0.1), MRI combined inflammation (∆LSM 2.5; 95% CI 0.9-4.1), and Simplified Disease Activity Index scores (∆LSM 2.7; 95% CI 1.9-3.5).

Study details: This study evaluated the impact of treatment intensification with csDMARDs and biologics in 100 patients with established RA in clinical remission from the IMAGINE-RA trial, who were randomly assigned to MRI treat-to-target strategy.

Disclosures: This research was funded by AbbVie. Some of the authors reported receiving grants and personal fees from various sources including AbbVie.

Source: Møller-Bisgaard S et al. Scand J Rheumatol. 2021 Sep 2. doi: 10.1080/03009742.2021.1935312.

Key clinical point: Abatacept appeared to be more efficacious and safer than adding or switching to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) of any age who were refractory to csDMARDs.

Major finding: At 24 weeks, European League Against Rheumatism good or moderate response was achieved by a significantly higher proportion of older patients aged 65 years or above (odds ratio [OR] 7.770; P < .0001) and younger patients (OR 4.089; P = .005) receiving abatacept vs. csDMARDs. Few serious adverse events were reported.

Study details: This was a prospective, multicenter study involving 202 bio-naive, csDMARD-refractory patients with RA. The patients were categorized into older (n=67) and younger (n=47) patients receiving abatacept and older (n=48) and younger (n=40) patients receiving csDMARDs.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Bristol Myers Squibb K.K. and Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. The authors including the lead author reported receiving grants and personal/consultancy/speakers’ fees from various sources including Bristol Myers Squibb K.K. and Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

Source: Muraoka S et al. Rheumatol Ther. 2021 Aug 26. doi: 10.1007/s40744-021-00356-2.

Key clinical point: Abatacept appeared to be more efficacious and safer than adding or switching to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) of any age who were refractory to csDMARDs.

Major finding: At 24 weeks, European League Against Rheumatism good or moderate response was achieved by a significantly higher proportion of older patients aged 65 years or above (odds ratio [OR] 7.770; P < .0001) and younger patients (OR 4.089; P = .005) receiving abatacept vs. csDMARDs. Few serious adverse events were reported.

Study details: This was a prospective, multicenter study involving 202 bio-naive, csDMARD-refractory patients with RA. The patients were categorized into older (n=67) and younger (n=47) patients receiving abatacept and older (n=48) and younger (n=40) patients receiving csDMARDs.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Bristol Myers Squibb K.K. and Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. The authors including the lead author reported receiving grants and personal/consultancy/speakers’ fees from various sources including Bristol Myers Squibb K.K. and Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

Source: Muraoka S et al. Rheumatol Ther. 2021 Aug 26. doi: 10.1007/s40744-021-00356-2.

Key clinical point: Abatacept appeared to be more efficacious and safer than adding or switching to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) of any age who were refractory to csDMARDs.

Major finding: At 24 weeks, European League Against Rheumatism good or moderate response was achieved by a significantly higher proportion of older patients aged 65 years or above (odds ratio [OR] 7.770; P < .0001) and younger patients (OR 4.089; P = .005) receiving abatacept vs. csDMARDs. Few serious adverse events were reported.

Study details: This was a prospective, multicenter study involving 202 bio-naive, csDMARD-refractory patients with RA. The patients were categorized into older (n=67) and younger (n=47) patients receiving abatacept and older (n=48) and younger (n=40) patients receiving csDMARDs.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Bristol Myers Squibb K.K. and Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. The authors including the lead author reported receiving grants and personal/consultancy/speakers’ fees from various sources including Bristol Myers Squibb K.K. and Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

Source: Muraoka S et al. Rheumatol Ther. 2021 Aug 26. doi: 10.1007/s40744-021-00356-2.