Rheumatology News

As we come to a close on 2022, let’s take a look at the celebrations and frustrations of the past year’s health policies so that they may act as a catalyst, encouraging us to engage with our representatives. Some of these policies include actions by major companies that rule our health care system, as well as the regulations and legislation passed (or not passed) by our governmental entities. And of course, we must consider how profits and politics influence these policies and often rule the roost!

Insurance

Once again, we are facing increased nonmedical switching of stable patients to different medications through ever-increasing formulary exclusions and higher tiering of less profitable drugs. There are some reports of patients being whipsawed back and forth yearly between reference infliximab and various biosimilars, depending on which is the most profitable to the health plan at the time. And now it’s not just the copay accumulator or maximizer programs that are abusing patient assistance programs, there are new “alternative funding companies” that are carving out expensive and specialty drugs from coverage of employers’ funded health plans. These alternative funding companies then obtain medications – sometimes from other countries – and other forms of assistance from manufacturers and foundations. There have been reports that they make the patient assign power of attorney to them and even pretend to be the patient to obtain the drug, assistance, and copay cards and then bill the employer for getting the free drug or assistance. This abuse of the system, along with copay maximizers, are causing drug manufacturers to rethink their assistance policies, with middlemen reaping the advantages of the assistance plans and not the truly needy patient.

Legislation and regulation

Substantive progress continues to be made on access issues in the states. A total of 5 states signed step-therapy legislation into law, 3 states have new copay accumulator program bans, 13 states began to debate the issue of white bagging, and 16 states began to consider the next stage of pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) reform with rebate-pass-through legislation.

At the federal level, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA; H.R. 5376) was enacted in August and, like all major pieces of legislation, there are pros and cons. On the positive side, the legislation reforms Medicare Part D cost-sharing, including – for the first time – the creation of an annual cap on cost-sharing by beneficiaries. That will especially help patients with high, ongoing prescription drug needs. On the negative side, despite its extensive drug-pricing provisions, the IRA did not include any reform of PBM practices. In fact, Congress has delayed implementation of the so-called “rebate rule” for 10 years. That rule would have essentially ended payments from drug companies to PBMs in exchange for formulary placement by removing safe harbor protection from antikickback law for these payments, allowing patients to benefit from these payments.

Finally, the IRA included extensive provisions applicable to drug manufacturers, including a mechanism for Medicare to set prices directly for medications that have been on the market for a certain number of years but are still without a biosimilar or generic. This will apply fully to selected Part B drugs as of 2028. The key for rheumatologists and our patients in the next few years will be to engage with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services as it implements this provision to ensure that rheumatologists are not underwater financially on the acquisition of medications subject to the new pricing mechanism.

With regard to utilization management reform at the federal level, the Ensuring Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R. 3173) would reform prior authorization in Medicare Advantage, but after passing in the House on Sept. 14, the bill has slowed down in the Senate. In some part, that may be because of a surprising score from the Congressional Budget Office, which projected that the bill would cost $16 billion. However, this is not insurmountable: The legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support in the Senate, and its sponsors remain committed to enactment before the end of the year. Additionally, the Safe Step Act (S. 464) would reform step therapy practices in employer-based coverage, but that legislation has not passed either chamber of Congress despite bipartisan support and is unlikely to be enacted before the end of this congressional session.

As noted above, PBMs escaped meaningful scrutiny or reform in the IRA, but the Federal Trade Commission took a different approach when it announced earlier in 2022 that it would conduct an investigation into the business practices of several major PBMs. That study is ongoing and, when finished, will likely result in some additional ideas for meaningful legislative reform.

Finally, there’s the frustration of the egregious Medicare Physician Fee Schedule that has decreased physicians’ reimbursement in a time of accelerated inflation in the cost of running a practice. At the same time, Medicare Advantage plans and everyone else in the government-reimbursed health system are getting at least an inflationary raise. This has created an ire among all physicians that we have not seen in quite a while and which we are leveraging into grassroots outreach.

The problems in the Fee Schedule result from a combination of factors, but one overarching issue is the concept of “budget neutrality,” which essentially requires CMS to make up for any new spending over a certain amount by a commensurate reduction across the whole Fee Schedule. This has the effect of turning the Fee Schedule into a fixed pie: If someone’s slice gets bigger, someone else’s slice must get smaller, but the pie itself never gets bigger. To make matters worse, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 has not resulted in advancing value-driven care as the Congress had envisioned when it enacted that legislation. The good news is that there is widespread recognition in Congress that a system built on temporary legislative “patches” to avoid deep payment reductions is unsustainable and must be fixed. The Supporting Medicare Providers Act of 2022 (H.R. 8800) that’s currently pending in the House to offset the looming 2023 Fee Schedule cuts also includes a Sense of the Congress, or nonbinding resolution, establishing the need for administrative and legislative actions for long-term, meaningful reform of Medicare physician payment, along three principles: ensuring financial stability and predictability, promoting and rewarding value-based care innovation, and safeguarding timely access to high-quality care by advancing health equity and reducing disparities.

Turning frustration into action

Much of the frustration for those of us who take care of patients is that many actions and policies are based on profits and politics and not on patient care.

It is unfortunate that money plays such an important role in politics. We are all aware of the power of the well-heeled lobbyist and how money can lead to legislation that is more beneficial to one for-profit company versus another in the health care sector. But then there is the party politics of health care legislation. We see examples of great legislation offered by one party being buried because it might be beneficial to the “other side” in the next election, in spite of the fact that both sides agree on the issue. Here is where we must fight our cynicism and remember our patients. Building and maintaining a relationship with our representatives, whether we agree with them are not, is a very important part of advocacy.

As we come off the recent elections, it is important that we acquaint ourselves with our newly elected representatives and reacquaint ourselves with our re-elected officials. Recently, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations had an advocacy day asking rheumatologists to invite their legislator (city, state, or federal) to their office to witness first-hand the practice of rheumatology. The importance of asking your representative to visit your office cannot be overemphasized. First, you get to know the staffer who arranges these visits. Having a good relationship with your representative’s staff is important in maintaining future communications. Having your legislator tour your office, while you share the daily challenges of getting the right medication for patients, is invaluable to their understanding of how the delay in care that utilization management tools such as prior authorizations and step therapy can cause. It is also helpful for you or your office manager to highlight how independent practices are small businesses that must be run efficiently to ensure they can stay open. Building a relationship with and educating your representatives on issues they may not be familiar with will encourage them to use you as a resource in the future.

CSRO has a legislator invitation template, and we can provide talking points if the invitation is accepted. Many state legislative sessions begin in January, so now is the time to get to know your legislator.

Let’s celebrate the wins of 2022 and not let the frustrations with the system diminish our passion – that’s the hard part! Onward to 2023 as “Rheums for Action!”

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

As we come to a close on 2022, let’s take a look at the celebrations and frustrations of the past year’s health policies so that they may act as a catalyst, encouraging us to engage with our representatives. Some of these policies include actions by major companies that rule our health care system, as well as the regulations and legislation passed (or not passed) by our governmental entities. And of course, we must consider how profits and politics influence these policies and often rule the roost!

Insurance

Once again, we are facing increased nonmedical switching of stable patients to different medications through ever-increasing formulary exclusions and higher tiering of less profitable drugs. There are some reports of patients being whipsawed back and forth yearly between reference infliximab and various biosimilars, depending on which is the most profitable to the health plan at the time. And now it’s not just the copay accumulator or maximizer programs that are abusing patient assistance programs, there are new “alternative funding companies” that are carving out expensive and specialty drugs from coverage of employers’ funded health plans. These alternative funding companies then obtain medications – sometimes from other countries – and other forms of assistance from manufacturers and foundations. There have been reports that they make the patient assign power of attorney to them and even pretend to be the patient to obtain the drug, assistance, and copay cards and then bill the employer for getting the free drug or assistance. This abuse of the system, along with copay maximizers, are causing drug manufacturers to rethink their assistance policies, with middlemen reaping the advantages of the assistance plans and not the truly needy patient.

Legislation and regulation

Substantive progress continues to be made on access issues in the states. A total of 5 states signed step-therapy legislation into law, 3 states have new copay accumulator program bans, 13 states began to debate the issue of white bagging, and 16 states began to consider the next stage of pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) reform with rebate-pass-through legislation.

At the federal level, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA; H.R. 5376) was enacted in August and, like all major pieces of legislation, there are pros and cons. On the positive side, the legislation reforms Medicare Part D cost-sharing, including – for the first time – the creation of an annual cap on cost-sharing by beneficiaries. That will especially help patients with high, ongoing prescription drug needs. On the negative side, despite its extensive drug-pricing provisions, the IRA did not include any reform of PBM practices. In fact, Congress has delayed implementation of the so-called “rebate rule” for 10 years. That rule would have essentially ended payments from drug companies to PBMs in exchange for formulary placement by removing safe harbor protection from antikickback law for these payments, allowing patients to benefit from these payments.

Finally, the IRA included extensive provisions applicable to drug manufacturers, including a mechanism for Medicare to set prices directly for medications that have been on the market for a certain number of years but are still without a biosimilar or generic. This will apply fully to selected Part B drugs as of 2028. The key for rheumatologists and our patients in the next few years will be to engage with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services as it implements this provision to ensure that rheumatologists are not underwater financially on the acquisition of medications subject to the new pricing mechanism.

With regard to utilization management reform at the federal level, the Ensuring Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R. 3173) would reform prior authorization in Medicare Advantage, but after passing in the House on Sept. 14, the bill has slowed down in the Senate. In some part, that may be because of a surprising score from the Congressional Budget Office, which projected that the bill would cost $16 billion. However, this is not insurmountable: The legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support in the Senate, and its sponsors remain committed to enactment before the end of the year. Additionally, the Safe Step Act (S. 464) would reform step therapy practices in employer-based coverage, but that legislation has not passed either chamber of Congress despite bipartisan support and is unlikely to be enacted before the end of this congressional session.

As noted above, PBMs escaped meaningful scrutiny or reform in the IRA, but the Federal Trade Commission took a different approach when it announced earlier in 2022 that it would conduct an investigation into the business practices of several major PBMs. That study is ongoing and, when finished, will likely result in some additional ideas for meaningful legislative reform.

Finally, there’s the frustration of the egregious Medicare Physician Fee Schedule that has decreased physicians’ reimbursement in a time of accelerated inflation in the cost of running a practice. At the same time, Medicare Advantage plans and everyone else in the government-reimbursed health system are getting at least an inflationary raise. This has created an ire among all physicians that we have not seen in quite a while and which we are leveraging into grassroots outreach.

The problems in the Fee Schedule result from a combination of factors, but one overarching issue is the concept of “budget neutrality,” which essentially requires CMS to make up for any new spending over a certain amount by a commensurate reduction across the whole Fee Schedule. This has the effect of turning the Fee Schedule into a fixed pie: If someone’s slice gets bigger, someone else’s slice must get smaller, but the pie itself never gets bigger. To make matters worse, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 has not resulted in advancing value-driven care as the Congress had envisioned when it enacted that legislation. The good news is that there is widespread recognition in Congress that a system built on temporary legislative “patches” to avoid deep payment reductions is unsustainable and must be fixed. The Supporting Medicare Providers Act of 2022 (H.R. 8800) that’s currently pending in the House to offset the looming 2023 Fee Schedule cuts also includes a Sense of the Congress, or nonbinding resolution, establishing the need for administrative and legislative actions for long-term, meaningful reform of Medicare physician payment, along three principles: ensuring financial stability and predictability, promoting and rewarding value-based care innovation, and safeguarding timely access to high-quality care by advancing health equity and reducing disparities.

Turning frustration into action

Much of the frustration for those of us who take care of patients is that many actions and policies are based on profits and politics and not on patient care.

It is unfortunate that money plays such an important role in politics. We are all aware of the power of the well-heeled lobbyist and how money can lead to legislation that is more beneficial to one for-profit company versus another in the health care sector. But then there is the party politics of health care legislation. We see examples of great legislation offered by one party being buried because it might be beneficial to the “other side” in the next election, in spite of the fact that both sides agree on the issue. Here is where we must fight our cynicism and remember our patients. Building and maintaining a relationship with our representatives, whether we agree with them are not, is a very important part of advocacy.

As we come off the recent elections, it is important that we acquaint ourselves with our newly elected representatives and reacquaint ourselves with our re-elected officials. Recently, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations had an advocacy day asking rheumatologists to invite their legislator (city, state, or federal) to their office to witness first-hand the practice of rheumatology. The importance of asking your representative to visit your office cannot be overemphasized. First, you get to know the staffer who arranges these visits. Having a good relationship with your representative’s staff is important in maintaining future communications. Having your legislator tour your office, while you share the daily challenges of getting the right medication for patients, is invaluable to their understanding of how the delay in care that utilization management tools such as prior authorizations and step therapy can cause. It is also helpful for you or your office manager to highlight how independent practices are small businesses that must be run efficiently to ensure they can stay open. Building a relationship with and educating your representatives on issues they may not be familiar with will encourage them to use you as a resource in the future.

CSRO has a legislator invitation template, and we can provide talking points if the invitation is accepted. Many state legislative sessions begin in January, so now is the time to get to know your legislator.

Let’s celebrate the wins of 2022 and not let the frustrations with the system diminish our passion – that’s the hard part! Onward to 2023 as “Rheums for Action!”

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

As we come to a close on 2022, let’s take a look at the celebrations and frustrations of the past year’s health policies so that they may act as a catalyst, encouraging us to engage with our representatives. Some of these policies include actions by major companies that rule our health care system, as well as the regulations and legislation passed (or not passed) by our governmental entities. And of course, we must consider how profits and politics influence these policies and often rule the roost!

Insurance

Once again, we are facing increased nonmedical switching of stable patients to different medications through ever-increasing formulary exclusions and higher tiering of less profitable drugs. There are some reports of patients being whipsawed back and forth yearly between reference infliximab and various biosimilars, depending on which is the most profitable to the health plan at the time. And now it’s not just the copay accumulator or maximizer programs that are abusing patient assistance programs, there are new “alternative funding companies” that are carving out expensive and specialty drugs from coverage of employers’ funded health plans. These alternative funding companies then obtain medications – sometimes from other countries – and other forms of assistance from manufacturers and foundations. There have been reports that they make the patient assign power of attorney to them and even pretend to be the patient to obtain the drug, assistance, and copay cards and then bill the employer for getting the free drug or assistance. This abuse of the system, along with copay maximizers, are causing drug manufacturers to rethink their assistance policies, with middlemen reaping the advantages of the assistance plans and not the truly needy patient.

Legislation and regulation

Substantive progress continues to be made on access issues in the states. A total of 5 states signed step-therapy legislation into law, 3 states have new copay accumulator program bans, 13 states began to debate the issue of white bagging, and 16 states began to consider the next stage of pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) reform with rebate-pass-through legislation.

At the federal level, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA; H.R. 5376) was enacted in August and, like all major pieces of legislation, there are pros and cons. On the positive side, the legislation reforms Medicare Part D cost-sharing, including – for the first time – the creation of an annual cap on cost-sharing by beneficiaries. That will especially help patients with high, ongoing prescription drug needs. On the negative side, despite its extensive drug-pricing provisions, the IRA did not include any reform of PBM practices. In fact, Congress has delayed implementation of the so-called “rebate rule” for 10 years. That rule would have essentially ended payments from drug companies to PBMs in exchange for formulary placement by removing safe harbor protection from antikickback law for these payments, allowing patients to benefit from these payments.

Finally, the IRA included extensive provisions applicable to drug manufacturers, including a mechanism for Medicare to set prices directly for medications that have been on the market for a certain number of years but are still without a biosimilar or generic. This will apply fully to selected Part B drugs as of 2028. The key for rheumatologists and our patients in the next few years will be to engage with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services as it implements this provision to ensure that rheumatologists are not underwater financially on the acquisition of medications subject to the new pricing mechanism.

With regard to utilization management reform at the federal level, the Ensuring Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R. 3173) would reform prior authorization in Medicare Advantage, but after passing in the House on Sept. 14, the bill has slowed down in the Senate. In some part, that may be because of a surprising score from the Congressional Budget Office, which projected that the bill would cost $16 billion. However, this is not insurmountable: The legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support in the Senate, and its sponsors remain committed to enactment before the end of the year. Additionally, the Safe Step Act (S. 464) would reform step therapy practices in employer-based coverage, but that legislation has not passed either chamber of Congress despite bipartisan support and is unlikely to be enacted before the end of this congressional session.

As noted above, PBMs escaped meaningful scrutiny or reform in the IRA, but the Federal Trade Commission took a different approach when it announced earlier in 2022 that it would conduct an investigation into the business practices of several major PBMs. That study is ongoing and, when finished, will likely result in some additional ideas for meaningful legislative reform.

Finally, there’s the frustration of the egregious Medicare Physician Fee Schedule that has decreased physicians’ reimbursement in a time of accelerated inflation in the cost of running a practice. At the same time, Medicare Advantage plans and everyone else in the government-reimbursed health system are getting at least an inflationary raise. This has created an ire among all physicians that we have not seen in quite a while and which we are leveraging into grassroots outreach.

The problems in the Fee Schedule result from a combination of factors, but one overarching issue is the concept of “budget neutrality,” which essentially requires CMS to make up for any new spending over a certain amount by a commensurate reduction across the whole Fee Schedule. This has the effect of turning the Fee Schedule into a fixed pie: If someone’s slice gets bigger, someone else’s slice must get smaller, but the pie itself never gets bigger. To make matters worse, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 has not resulted in advancing value-driven care as the Congress had envisioned when it enacted that legislation. The good news is that there is widespread recognition in Congress that a system built on temporary legislative “patches” to avoid deep payment reductions is unsustainable and must be fixed. The Supporting Medicare Providers Act of 2022 (H.R. 8800) that’s currently pending in the House to offset the looming 2023 Fee Schedule cuts also includes a Sense of the Congress, or nonbinding resolution, establishing the need for administrative and legislative actions for long-term, meaningful reform of Medicare physician payment, along three principles: ensuring financial stability and predictability, promoting and rewarding value-based care innovation, and safeguarding timely access to high-quality care by advancing health equity and reducing disparities.

Turning frustration into action

Much of the frustration for those of us who take care of patients is that many actions and policies are based on profits and politics and not on patient care.

It is unfortunate that money plays such an important role in politics. We are all aware of the power of the well-heeled lobbyist and how money can lead to legislation that is more beneficial to one for-profit company versus another in the health care sector. But then there is the party politics of health care legislation. We see examples of great legislation offered by one party being buried because it might be beneficial to the “other side” in the next election, in spite of the fact that both sides agree on the issue. Here is where we must fight our cynicism and remember our patients. Building and maintaining a relationship with our representatives, whether we agree with them are not, is a very important part of advocacy.

As we come off the recent elections, it is important that we acquaint ourselves with our newly elected representatives and reacquaint ourselves with our re-elected officials. Recently, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations had an advocacy day asking rheumatologists to invite their legislator (city, state, or federal) to their office to witness first-hand the practice of rheumatology. The importance of asking your representative to visit your office cannot be overemphasized. First, you get to know the staffer who arranges these visits. Having a good relationship with your representative’s staff is important in maintaining future communications. Having your legislator tour your office, while you share the daily challenges of getting the right medication for patients, is invaluable to their understanding of how the delay in care that utilization management tools such as prior authorizations and step therapy can cause. It is also helpful for you or your office manager to highlight how independent practices are small businesses that must be run efficiently to ensure they can stay open. Building a relationship with and educating your representatives on issues they may not be familiar with will encourage them to use you as a resource in the future.

CSRO has a legislator invitation template, and we can provide talking points if the invitation is accepted. Many state legislative sessions begin in January, so now is the time to get to know your legislator.

Let’s celebrate the wins of 2022 and not let the frustrations with the system diminish our passion – that’s the hard part! Onward to 2023 as “Rheums for Action!”

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

PHILADELPHIA – In the first controlled clinical trial to compare the two drugs, rituximab and cyclophosphamide were similarly effective in improving lung function in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) associated with idiopathic inflammatory myositis and mixed connective tissue disease (CTD). The findings also revealed some nuanced findings that could help clarify which drug to use in specific patients.

“We feel that rituximab is a reasonable alternative to cyclophosphamide as a treatment in patients with these diseases,” said Toby Maher, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who presented results of an analysis of three disease subgroups from the RECITAL (Rituximab versus Cyclophosphamide for the Treatment of Connective Tissue Disease Associated Interstitial Lung Disease) study at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“We didn’t show it to be better, so I think you can reasonably choose between the two, but rituximab almost certainly has the advantage of being safer and better tolerated than cyclophosphamide,” Dr. Maher said in an interview. The findings were published simultaneously in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
 

Double-blind, double-dummy

RECITAL is a phase 2b, randomized, controlled trial to test the hypothesis that intravenous rituximab would be superior to cyclophosphamide for ILD-associated CTD.

The study included adults with three separate diagnoses: myositis (n = 44), mixed CTD (n = 16), and systemic sclerosis (SSc, n = 37). The study was done in the United Kingdom when Dr. Maher was with Imperial College London.

Patients in the rituximab group received 1,000 mg of IV treatment at baseline and 2 weeks, then placebo treatment every 4 weeks to week 20. Cyclophosphamide patients received 600 mg/m² of body surface area intravenously every 4 weeks for six doses.

“When we designed this study there was limited evidence for any treatment for any disease associated with ILD,” Dr. Maher said. “But cyclophosphamide brings with it many challenges. It can be poorly tolerated and carries issues like infertility and risk of bladder cancer.”
 

Improved lung function

While the study failed to meet its primary endpoint – superiority of rituximab versus cyclophosphamide – it did show that both drugs led to improvement in lung function, measured by the rate of change in forced vital capacity (FVC), as well as quality of life measures, Dr. Maher said.

“Overall by week 48, we saw about a 5% improvement in FVC in the cyclophosphamide group and approximately a 4% improvement in FVC from baseline in the rituximab group, suggesting that both drugs almost certainly had a positive benefit in this patient group,” he said.

But secondary outcomes varied somewhat across the different disease groups. Patients with SSc saw a slight deterioration with cyclophosphamide in the modified Rodnan skin score at 24 weeks (1.6 ± 5.7 units) but an improvement with rituximab (–3.4 ± 8.1 units).

“One area where we did see a difference was in the number of adverse events,” Dr. Maher said. “They were fewer in the rituximab arm – namely gastrointestinal disorders [and] nausea, which we saw quite frequently following cyclophosphamide. Also, they had fewer headaches, which we saw quite frequently following cyclophosphamide.”

Rituximab patients also had fewer infusion reactions, but the number of infections was similar between the two treatment groups, he said.

“The patient group that responded best to treatment was the myositis group,” Dr. Maher said in his presentation. “Cyclophosphamide actually appears to be more effective than rituximab in improving their disease. By the end of 48 weeks, the cyclophosphamide group actually gained about 400 mL in FVC, so a close to 20% improvement.”

The rituximab group had “a little bit of a drop-off” in efficacy from weeks 24 to 48, although the trial didn’t repeat dosing at 6 months, “which is what perhaps one might do in clinical practice,” he said.

Oliver Distler, MD, chair of rheumatology at the University Hospital Zürich, raised questions about concurrent corticosteroid use in study patients that may have caused a “spillover” in the study’s efficacy analysis. But Dr. Maher noted that steroid use was balanced in all treatment arms. Patients in the cyclophosphamide arm averaged 42.9 mg of hydrocortisone daily versus 37.6 mg daily in the rituximab arm. That represents a 12.3% reduction in steroid exposure for the latter.

Dr. Distler noted that the myositis population represented the bulk of those study patients on steroids. “So in the myositis subanalysis we do see a combination of high-dose steroid plus cyclophosphamide and rituximab.”

Dr. Maher disclosed relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Trevi, CSL Behring, Pliant and Veracyte. Dr. Distler disclosed relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.






 

PHILADELPHIA – In the first controlled clinical trial to compare the two drugs, rituximab and cyclophosphamide were similarly effective in improving lung function in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) associated with idiopathic inflammatory myositis and mixed connective tissue disease (CTD). The findings also revealed some nuanced findings that could help clarify which drug to use in specific patients.

“We feel that rituximab is a reasonable alternative to cyclophosphamide as a treatment in patients with these diseases,” said Toby Maher, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who presented results of an analysis of three disease subgroups from the RECITAL (Rituximab versus Cyclophosphamide for the Treatment of Connective Tissue Disease Associated Interstitial Lung Disease) study at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“We didn’t show it to be better, so I think you can reasonably choose between the two, but rituximab almost certainly has the advantage of being safer and better tolerated than cyclophosphamide,” Dr. Maher said in an interview. The findings were published simultaneously in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
 

Double-blind, double-dummy

RECITAL is a phase 2b, randomized, controlled trial to test the hypothesis that intravenous rituximab would be superior to cyclophosphamide for ILD-associated CTD.

The study included adults with three separate diagnoses: myositis (n = 44), mixed CTD (n = 16), and systemic sclerosis (SSc, n = 37). The study was done in the United Kingdom when Dr. Maher was with Imperial College London.

Patients in the rituximab group received 1,000 mg of IV treatment at baseline and 2 weeks, then placebo treatment every 4 weeks to week 20. Cyclophosphamide patients received 600 mg/m² of body surface area intravenously every 4 weeks for six doses.

“When we designed this study there was limited evidence for any treatment for any disease associated with ILD,” Dr. Maher said. “But cyclophosphamide brings with it many challenges. It can be poorly tolerated and carries issues like infertility and risk of bladder cancer.”
 

Improved lung function

While the study failed to meet its primary endpoint – superiority of rituximab versus cyclophosphamide – it did show that both drugs led to improvement in lung function, measured by the rate of change in forced vital capacity (FVC), as well as quality of life measures, Dr. Maher said.

“Overall by week 48, we saw about a 5% improvement in FVC in the cyclophosphamide group and approximately a 4% improvement in FVC from baseline in the rituximab group, suggesting that both drugs almost certainly had a positive benefit in this patient group,” he said.

But secondary outcomes varied somewhat across the different disease groups. Patients with SSc saw a slight deterioration with cyclophosphamide in the modified Rodnan skin score at 24 weeks (1.6 ± 5.7 units) but an improvement with rituximab (–3.4 ± 8.1 units).

“One area where we did see a difference was in the number of adverse events,” Dr. Maher said. “They were fewer in the rituximab arm – namely gastrointestinal disorders [and] nausea, which we saw quite frequently following cyclophosphamide. Also, they had fewer headaches, which we saw quite frequently following cyclophosphamide.”

Rituximab patients also had fewer infusion reactions, but the number of infections was similar between the two treatment groups, he said.

“The patient group that responded best to treatment was the myositis group,” Dr. Maher said in his presentation. “Cyclophosphamide actually appears to be more effective than rituximab in improving their disease. By the end of 48 weeks, the cyclophosphamide group actually gained about 400 mL in FVC, so a close to 20% improvement.”

The rituximab group had “a little bit of a drop-off” in efficacy from weeks 24 to 48, although the trial didn’t repeat dosing at 6 months, “which is what perhaps one might do in clinical practice,” he said.

Oliver Distler, MD, chair of rheumatology at the University Hospital Zürich, raised questions about concurrent corticosteroid use in study patients that may have caused a “spillover” in the study’s efficacy analysis. But Dr. Maher noted that steroid use was balanced in all treatment arms. Patients in the cyclophosphamide arm averaged 42.9 mg of hydrocortisone daily versus 37.6 mg daily in the rituximab arm. That represents a 12.3% reduction in steroid exposure for the latter.

Dr. Distler noted that the myositis population represented the bulk of those study patients on steroids. “So in the myositis subanalysis we do see a combination of high-dose steroid plus cyclophosphamide and rituximab.”

Dr. Maher disclosed relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Trevi, CSL Behring, Pliant and Veracyte. Dr. Distler disclosed relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.






 

PHILADELPHIA – In the first controlled clinical trial to compare the two drugs, rituximab and cyclophosphamide were similarly effective in improving lung function in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) associated with idiopathic inflammatory myositis and mixed connective tissue disease (CTD). The findings also revealed some nuanced findings that could help clarify which drug to use in specific patients.

“We feel that rituximab is a reasonable alternative to cyclophosphamide as a treatment in patients with these diseases,” said Toby Maher, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who presented results of an analysis of three disease subgroups from the RECITAL (Rituximab versus Cyclophosphamide for the Treatment of Connective Tissue Disease Associated Interstitial Lung Disease) study at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“We didn’t show it to be better, so I think you can reasonably choose between the two, but rituximab almost certainly has the advantage of being safer and better tolerated than cyclophosphamide,” Dr. Maher said in an interview. The findings were published simultaneously in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
 

Double-blind, double-dummy

RECITAL is a phase 2b, randomized, controlled trial to test the hypothesis that intravenous rituximab would be superior to cyclophosphamide for ILD-associated CTD.

The study included adults with three separate diagnoses: myositis (n = 44), mixed CTD (n = 16), and systemic sclerosis (SSc, n = 37). The study was done in the United Kingdom when Dr. Maher was with Imperial College London.

Patients in the rituximab group received 1,000 mg of IV treatment at baseline and 2 weeks, then placebo treatment every 4 weeks to week 20. Cyclophosphamide patients received 600 mg/m² of body surface area intravenously every 4 weeks for six doses.

“When we designed this study there was limited evidence for any treatment for any disease associated with ILD,” Dr. Maher said. “But cyclophosphamide brings with it many challenges. It can be poorly tolerated and carries issues like infertility and risk of bladder cancer.”
 

Improved lung function

While the study failed to meet its primary endpoint – superiority of rituximab versus cyclophosphamide – it did show that both drugs led to improvement in lung function, measured by the rate of change in forced vital capacity (FVC), as well as quality of life measures, Dr. Maher said.

“Overall by week 48, we saw about a 5% improvement in FVC in the cyclophosphamide group and approximately a 4% improvement in FVC from baseline in the rituximab group, suggesting that both drugs almost certainly had a positive benefit in this patient group,” he said.

But secondary outcomes varied somewhat across the different disease groups. Patients with SSc saw a slight deterioration with cyclophosphamide in the modified Rodnan skin score at 24 weeks (1.6 ± 5.7 units) but an improvement with rituximab (–3.4 ± 8.1 units).

“One area where we did see a difference was in the number of adverse events,” Dr. Maher said. “They were fewer in the rituximab arm – namely gastrointestinal disorders [and] nausea, which we saw quite frequently following cyclophosphamide. Also, they had fewer headaches, which we saw quite frequently following cyclophosphamide.”

Rituximab patients also had fewer infusion reactions, but the number of infections was similar between the two treatment groups, he said.

“The patient group that responded best to treatment was the myositis group,” Dr. Maher said in his presentation. “Cyclophosphamide actually appears to be more effective than rituximab in improving their disease. By the end of 48 weeks, the cyclophosphamide group actually gained about 400 mL in FVC, so a close to 20% improvement.”

The rituximab group had “a little bit of a drop-off” in efficacy from weeks 24 to 48, although the trial didn’t repeat dosing at 6 months, “which is what perhaps one might do in clinical practice,” he said.

Oliver Distler, MD, chair of rheumatology at the University Hospital Zürich, raised questions about concurrent corticosteroid use in study patients that may have caused a “spillover” in the study’s efficacy analysis. But Dr. Maher noted that steroid use was balanced in all treatment arms. Patients in the cyclophosphamide arm averaged 42.9 mg of hydrocortisone daily versus 37.6 mg daily in the rituximab arm. That represents a 12.3% reduction in steroid exposure for the latter.

Dr. Distler noted that the myositis population represented the bulk of those study patients on steroids. “So in the myositis subanalysis we do see a combination of high-dose steroid plus cyclophosphamide and rituximab.”

Dr. Maher disclosed relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Trevi, CSL Behring, Pliant and Veracyte. Dr. Distler disclosed relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.






 

Researchers have found a link between age of diagnosis and various clinical characteristics and outcomes in patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis (AAV).

The findings, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, may have implications for research and treatment, especially in children.

AAV is a group of conditions characterized by the development of autoantibodies to the neutrophil proteins proteinase 3 (PR3-ANCA) or myeloperoxidase (MPO-ANCA).

The rare autoimmune condition can cause systemic inflammation and damage, sometimes permanent, to small- and medium-sized arteries. Clinical presentations vary and can include several organs, including skin, stomach, intestines, lung, and kidney, as well as airways in ear, nose, and throat.
 

Data limited on child vs. adult characteristics

AAV can be diagnosed in any decade of life, but clinical characteristics and outcomes often differ between children and adults, and data are limited. Studies often exclude children.

Lead author Jessica Bloom, MD, MSCS, a pediatric rheumatologist and assistant professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues performed an analysis of patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) who were enrolled in the Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium Longitudinal Studies from 2013 to 2021.

Patients with eosinophilic GPA (EGPA) were analyzed separately. Children and young adults with EGPA were combined because of the small sample size (n = 87).

The groups were sorted by the age they were diagnosed: under 18 years old, 18-40, 40-65, and older than 65.
 

More than 1,000 patients included

Dr. Bloom’s team analyzed data from 1,020 patients: 61 diagnosed as children, 240 as young adults, 560 as middle-aged adults, and 159 diagnosed as older adults. At all ages, about nine out of 10 patients were White.

They found 852 (84%) had GPA and 165 (16%) had MPA. The analysis also showed 893 (92%) of patients with ANCA results were ANCA positive: 637 (65%) with PR3-ANCA, 247 (25%) with MPO-ANCA, and 9 (1%) with both.

Differences between age groups included:

• Children experienced more subglottic stenosis and alveolar hemorrhage than adults with the condition.
• About half of patients diagnosed in childhood received both cyclophosphamide and rituximab. That rate decreased with increasing age of diagnosis to as low as 14% for those diagnosed in older adulthood. 
• More females than males in all age groups were diagnosed with AAV, but the difference was most pronounced when diagnosed in childhood, and female predominance declined as age increased.
• Older adults experienced more neurologic disease and less musculoskeletal and sinus involvement.

Additionally, for those diagnosed after age 65, after adjusting for disease length and whether they were taking cyclophosphamide and/or rituximab, the Vasculitis Damage Index (VDI) and ANCA Vasculitis Index of Damage (AVID) scores were higher than for those diagnosed in childhood.

“However, these differences are no longer significant when medication toxicity and comorbidity-related items are excluded. Thus, differences in the VDI and AVID scores are driven by non–disease-specific damage,” Dr. Bloom said.
 

Bringing children into the clinical discussion

Dr. Bloom said in an interview that many pediatric rheumatologists believe kids with vasculitis are like small adults and should be treated similarly, but she said the picture may be more complex than that.

For example, the findings that children have more subglottic stenosis and alveolar hemorrhage than adults “may warrant more aggressive therapy,” she said. Children also have different growth and psychosocial risk factors during their disease course and may live longer with the disease than those in older age groups.

“Our study helps to point out these differences and bring children into the discussion,” Dr. Bloom said. “It also recognizes that damage scores used in studies and care may not adequately assess disease across the lifespan, as they are largely influenced by items not specific to the disease but rather medication toxicity and comorbidities, such as osteoporosis, cataracts, and malignancy.”

Robert Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, said in an interview that the work highlights interesting information about the fact that disease features are skewed differently in children – “in particular the higher likelihood of upper airway [subglottic] disease, and potentially severe lower airway disease [alveolar hemorrhage].”

However, from a practical standpoint, Dr. Spiera said, “I am not sure that this will change our clinical approach to different patients, but the differences in disease features and even the sex differences in terms of who are afflicted with GPA [more often children and more likely to be female] may offer insights into disease pathogenesis.”

Dr. Bloom received funding from the Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium and Vasculitis Foundation to conduct this work as a VCRC-VF fellow. Several coauthors reported various conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Spiera declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers have found a link between age of diagnosis and various clinical characteristics and outcomes in patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis (AAV).

The findings, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, may have implications for research and treatment, especially in children.

AAV is a group of conditions characterized by the development of autoantibodies to the neutrophil proteins proteinase 3 (PR3-ANCA) or myeloperoxidase (MPO-ANCA).

The rare autoimmune condition can cause systemic inflammation and damage, sometimes permanent, to small- and medium-sized arteries. Clinical presentations vary and can include several organs, including skin, stomach, intestines, lung, and kidney, as well as airways in ear, nose, and throat.
 

Data limited on child vs. adult characteristics

AAV can be diagnosed in any decade of life, but clinical characteristics and outcomes often differ between children and adults, and data are limited. Studies often exclude children.

Lead author Jessica Bloom, MD, MSCS, a pediatric rheumatologist and assistant professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues performed an analysis of patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) who were enrolled in the Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium Longitudinal Studies from 2013 to 2021.

Patients with eosinophilic GPA (EGPA) were analyzed separately. Children and young adults with EGPA were combined because of the small sample size (n = 87).

The groups were sorted by the age they were diagnosed: under 18 years old, 18-40, 40-65, and older than 65.
 

More than 1,000 patients included

Dr. Bloom’s team analyzed data from 1,020 patients: 61 diagnosed as children, 240 as young adults, 560 as middle-aged adults, and 159 diagnosed as older adults. At all ages, about nine out of 10 patients were White.

They found 852 (84%) had GPA and 165 (16%) had MPA. The analysis also showed 893 (92%) of patients with ANCA results were ANCA positive: 637 (65%) with PR3-ANCA, 247 (25%) with MPO-ANCA, and 9 (1%) with both.

Differences between age groups included:

• Children experienced more subglottic stenosis and alveolar hemorrhage than adults with the condition.
• About half of patients diagnosed in childhood received both cyclophosphamide and rituximab. That rate decreased with increasing age of diagnosis to as low as 14% for those diagnosed in older adulthood. 
• More females than males in all age groups were diagnosed with AAV, but the difference was most pronounced when diagnosed in childhood, and female predominance declined as age increased.
• Older adults experienced more neurologic disease and less musculoskeletal and sinus involvement.

Additionally, for those diagnosed after age 65, after adjusting for disease length and whether they were taking cyclophosphamide and/or rituximab, the Vasculitis Damage Index (VDI) and ANCA Vasculitis Index of Damage (AVID) scores were higher than for those diagnosed in childhood.

“However, these differences are no longer significant when medication toxicity and comorbidity-related items are excluded. Thus, differences in the VDI and AVID scores are driven by non–disease-specific damage,” Dr. Bloom said.
 

Bringing children into the clinical discussion

Dr. Bloom said in an interview that many pediatric rheumatologists believe kids with vasculitis are like small adults and should be treated similarly, but she said the picture may be more complex than that.

For example, the findings that children have more subglottic stenosis and alveolar hemorrhage than adults “may warrant more aggressive therapy,” she said. Children also have different growth and psychosocial risk factors during their disease course and may live longer with the disease than those in older age groups.

“Our study helps to point out these differences and bring children into the discussion,” Dr. Bloom said. “It also recognizes that damage scores used in studies and care may not adequately assess disease across the lifespan, as they are largely influenced by items not specific to the disease but rather medication toxicity and comorbidities, such as osteoporosis, cataracts, and malignancy.”

Robert Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, said in an interview that the work highlights interesting information about the fact that disease features are skewed differently in children – “in particular the higher likelihood of upper airway [subglottic] disease, and potentially severe lower airway disease [alveolar hemorrhage].”

However, from a practical standpoint, Dr. Spiera said, “I am not sure that this will change our clinical approach to different patients, but the differences in disease features and even the sex differences in terms of who are afflicted with GPA [more often children and more likely to be female] may offer insights into disease pathogenesis.”

Dr. Bloom received funding from the Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium and Vasculitis Foundation to conduct this work as a VCRC-VF fellow. Several coauthors reported various conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Spiera declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers have found a link between age of diagnosis and various clinical characteristics and outcomes in patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis (AAV).

The findings, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, may have implications for research and treatment, especially in children.

AAV is a group of conditions characterized by the development of autoantibodies to the neutrophil proteins proteinase 3 (PR3-ANCA) or myeloperoxidase (MPO-ANCA).

The rare autoimmune condition can cause systemic inflammation and damage, sometimes permanent, to small- and medium-sized arteries. Clinical presentations vary and can include several organs, including skin, stomach, intestines, lung, and kidney, as well as airways in ear, nose, and throat.
 

Data limited on child vs. adult characteristics

AAV can be diagnosed in any decade of life, but clinical characteristics and outcomes often differ between children and adults, and data are limited. Studies often exclude children.

Lead author Jessica Bloom, MD, MSCS, a pediatric rheumatologist and assistant professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues performed an analysis of patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) who were enrolled in the Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium Longitudinal Studies from 2013 to 2021.

Patients with eosinophilic GPA (EGPA) were analyzed separately. Children and young adults with EGPA were combined because of the small sample size (n = 87).

The groups were sorted by the age they were diagnosed: under 18 years old, 18-40, 40-65, and older than 65.
 

More than 1,000 patients included

Dr. Bloom’s team analyzed data from 1,020 patients: 61 diagnosed as children, 240 as young adults, 560 as middle-aged adults, and 159 diagnosed as older adults. At all ages, about nine out of 10 patients were White.

They found 852 (84%) had GPA and 165 (16%) had MPA. The analysis also showed 893 (92%) of patients with ANCA results were ANCA positive: 637 (65%) with PR3-ANCA, 247 (25%) with MPO-ANCA, and 9 (1%) with both.

Differences between age groups included:

• Children experienced more subglottic stenosis and alveolar hemorrhage than adults with the condition.
• About half of patients diagnosed in childhood received both cyclophosphamide and rituximab. That rate decreased with increasing age of diagnosis to as low as 14% for those diagnosed in older adulthood. 
• More females than males in all age groups were diagnosed with AAV, but the difference was most pronounced when diagnosed in childhood, and female predominance declined as age increased.
• Older adults experienced more neurologic disease and less musculoskeletal and sinus involvement.

Additionally, for those diagnosed after age 65, after adjusting for disease length and whether they were taking cyclophosphamide and/or rituximab, the Vasculitis Damage Index (VDI) and ANCA Vasculitis Index of Damage (AVID) scores were higher than for those diagnosed in childhood.

“However, these differences are no longer significant when medication toxicity and comorbidity-related items are excluded. Thus, differences in the VDI and AVID scores are driven by non–disease-specific damage,” Dr. Bloom said.
 

Bringing children into the clinical discussion

Dr. Bloom said in an interview that many pediatric rheumatologists believe kids with vasculitis are like small adults and should be treated similarly, but she said the picture may be more complex than that.

For example, the findings that children have more subglottic stenosis and alveolar hemorrhage than adults “may warrant more aggressive therapy,” she said. Children also have different growth and psychosocial risk factors during their disease course and may live longer with the disease than those in older age groups.

“Our study helps to point out these differences and bring children into the discussion,” Dr. Bloom said. “It also recognizes that damage scores used in studies and care may not adequately assess disease across the lifespan, as they are largely influenced by items not specific to the disease but rather medication toxicity and comorbidities, such as osteoporosis, cataracts, and malignancy.”

Robert Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, said in an interview that the work highlights interesting information about the fact that disease features are skewed differently in children – “in particular the higher likelihood of upper airway [subglottic] disease, and potentially severe lower airway disease [alveolar hemorrhage].”

However, from a practical standpoint, Dr. Spiera said, “I am not sure that this will change our clinical approach to different patients, but the differences in disease features and even the sex differences in terms of who are afflicted with GPA [more often children and more likely to be female] may offer insights into disease pathogenesis.”

Dr. Bloom received funding from the Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium and Vasculitis Foundation to conduct this work as a VCRC-VF fellow. Several coauthors reported various conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Spiera declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

AT ACR 2022

PHILADELPHIA – The first consensus screening guidelines for patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM) provide recommendations on risk stratification for individuals, basic and enhanced screening protocols, and screening frequency.

The recommendations, issued by the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS), stratify cancer risk for individual patients into low, intermediate, or high categories based on the IIM disease subtype, autoantibody status, and clinical features, reported Alexander Oldroyd, PhD, MSc, MBChB of the University of Manchester, England.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“There’s a big unmet need for cancer screening. One in four adults with myositis has cancer, either 3 years before or after a diagnosis of myositis. It’s one of the leading causes of death in these patients, and they’re overwhelmingly diagnosed at a late stage, so we need standardized approaches to get early diagnosis,” he said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Sharon Kolasinski, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, said in an interview that the guideline is a welcome development for rheumatologists. Dr. Kolasinski moderated the session where Dr. Oldroyd described the guideline, but she was not involved in its formulation.

“I think that we all have wondered for a very long time: What is the optimal cancer screening for myositis patients? We all worry that the onset of their diseases is associated with a coincident cancer, or that they will develop it soon,” she said.

Dr. Oldroyd emphasized that all patients with myositis have elevated risk for cancer compared with the general population and that the guideline categories of low, intermediate, and high are relative only to patients with IIM.
 

International consensus

The data on which the recommendations are based come from a systematic review and meta-analysis by Dr. Oldroyd and colleagues of 69 studies on cancer risk factors and 9 on IIM-specific cancer screening.

The authors of that paper found that the dermatomyositis subtype, older age, male sex, dysphagia, cutaneous ulceration and antitranscriptional intermediary factor-1 gamma (anti-TIF1-gamma) positivity were associated with significantly increased risk of cancer.

In contrast, polymyositis and clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis subtypes, Raynaud’s phenomenon, interstitial lung disease, very high serum creatine kinase or lactate dehydrogenase levels, and positivity for anti-Jo1 or anti-EJ antibodies were associated with significantly reduced risk of cancer.

The consensus recommendations were developed with anonymous contributions from 75 expert participants in 22 countries, with additional input from 3 patient partners.
 

Do this

The guideline lists 18 recommendations, of which 13 are strong and 5 are conditional.

An example of a strong recommendation is number 3, based on a moderate level of evidences:

“All adult IIM patients, irrespective of cancer risk, should continue to participate in country/region-specific age and sex appropriate cancer screening programs,” the guideline recommends.

Patients with verified inclusion body myositis or juvenile-onset IIM do not, however, require routine screening for myositis-associated cancer, the guideline says (recommendations 1 and 2).

There are also recommendations that all adults with new-onset IIM be tested for myositis-specific and myositis-associated autoantibodies to assist in stratifying patients by risk category.

The guideline divides screening recommendations into basic and enhanced. The basic screening should include a comprehensive history and physical exam, complete blood count, liver functions tests, erythrocyte sedimentation rates/plasma viscosity, serum protein electrophoresis, urinalysis, and chest x-ray.

Adults with IIM who are determined to be at low risk for IIM-related cancer should have basic cancer screening at the time of IIM diagnosis. Adults with intermediate risk should undergo both basic and enhanced screening at the time of IIM diagnosis, and those with high risk should undergo enhanced screening at the time of myositis diagnosis, with basic screening annually for 3 years, the recommendations say.
 

Consider doing this

Conditional recommendations (“clinicians should consider ...”) include the use of PET/CT for adults at high risk for cancer when an underlying cancer has not been detected at the time of IIM diagnosis. They also include a single screening test for anti-TIF1-gamma positive dermatomyositis patients whose disease onset was after age 40 and who have at least one additional risk factor.

Also conditionally recommended are upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for patients at high risk when an underlying cancer is not found at the time of IIM diagnosis, nasoendoscopy in geographical regions with elevated risk for nasopharyngeal cancers, and screening for all IIM patients with red-flag symptoms or clinical features of cancer, including unexplained weight loss, family history of cancer, smoking, unexplained fever, or night sweats.
 

Guided steps

“I think clinicians have a lot of questions such as, ‘well, what should I do, when should I do it?’ These are important clinical questions, and we need guidance about this. We need to balance comprehensiveness with cost-effectiveness, and we need expert opinion about what steps we should take now and which should we take later,” Dr. Kolasinski said.

The guideline development process was supported by the University of Manchester, IMACS, National Institute for Health Research (United Kingdom), National Institutes of Health, National Health Service Northern Care Alliance, The Myositis Association, Myositis UK, University of Pittsburgh, Versus Arthritis, and the Center for Musculoskeletal Research. Dr. Oldroyd and Dr. Kolasinski reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

AT ACR 2022

PHILADELPHIA – The first consensus screening guidelines for patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM) provide recommendations on risk stratification for individuals, basic and enhanced screening protocols, and screening frequency.

The recommendations, issued by the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS), stratify cancer risk for individual patients into low, intermediate, or high categories based on the IIM disease subtype, autoantibody status, and clinical features, reported Alexander Oldroyd, PhD, MSc, MBChB of the University of Manchester, England.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“There’s a big unmet need for cancer screening. One in four adults with myositis has cancer, either 3 years before or after a diagnosis of myositis. It’s one of the leading causes of death in these patients, and they’re overwhelmingly diagnosed at a late stage, so we need standardized approaches to get early diagnosis,” he said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Sharon Kolasinski, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, said in an interview that the guideline is a welcome development for rheumatologists. Dr. Kolasinski moderated the session where Dr. Oldroyd described the guideline, but she was not involved in its formulation.

“I think that we all have wondered for a very long time: What is the optimal cancer screening for myositis patients? We all worry that the onset of their diseases is associated with a coincident cancer, or that they will develop it soon,” she said.

Dr. Oldroyd emphasized that all patients with myositis have elevated risk for cancer compared with the general population and that the guideline categories of low, intermediate, and high are relative only to patients with IIM.
 

International consensus

The data on which the recommendations are based come from a systematic review and meta-analysis by Dr. Oldroyd and colleagues of 69 studies on cancer risk factors and 9 on IIM-specific cancer screening.

The authors of that paper found that the dermatomyositis subtype, older age, male sex, dysphagia, cutaneous ulceration and antitranscriptional intermediary factor-1 gamma (anti-TIF1-gamma) positivity were associated with significantly increased risk of cancer.

In contrast, polymyositis and clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis subtypes, Raynaud’s phenomenon, interstitial lung disease, very high serum creatine kinase or lactate dehydrogenase levels, and positivity for anti-Jo1 or anti-EJ antibodies were associated with significantly reduced risk of cancer.

The consensus recommendations were developed with anonymous contributions from 75 expert participants in 22 countries, with additional input from 3 patient partners.
 

Do this

The guideline lists 18 recommendations, of which 13 are strong and 5 are conditional.

An example of a strong recommendation is number 3, based on a moderate level of evidences:

“All adult IIM patients, irrespective of cancer risk, should continue to participate in country/region-specific age and sex appropriate cancer screening programs,” the guideline recommends.

Patients with verified inclusion body myositis or juvenile-onset IIM do not, however, require routine screening for myositis-associated cancer, the guideline says (recommendations 1 and 2).

There are also recommendations that all adults with new-onset IIM be tested for myositis-specific and myositis-associated autoantibodies to assist in stratifying patients by risk category.

The guideline divides screening recommendations into basic and enhanced. The basic screening should include a comprehensive history and physical exam, complete blood count, liver functions tests, erythrocyte sedimentation rates/plasma viscosity, serum protein electrophoresis, urinalysis, and chest x-ray.

Adults with IIM who are determined to be at low risk for IIM-related cancer should have basic cancer screening at the time of IIM diagnosis. Adults with intermediate risk should undergo both basic and enhanced screening at the time of IIM diagnosis, and those with high risk should undergo enhanced screening at the time of myositis diagnosis, with basic screening annually for 3 years, the recommendations say.
 

Consider doing this

Conditional recommendations (“clinicians should consider ...”) include the use of PET/CT for adults at high risk for cancer when an underlying cancer has not been detected at the time of IIM diagnosis. They also include a single screening test for anti-TIF1-gamma positive dermatomyositis patients whose disease onset was after age 40 and who have at least one additional risk factor.

Also conditionally recommended are upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for patients at high risk when an underlying cancer is not found at the time of IIM diagnosis, nasoendoscopy in geographical regions with elevated risk for nasopharyngeal cancers, and screening for all IIM patients with red-flag symptoms or clinical features of cancer, including unexplained weight loss, family history of cancer, smoking, unexplained fever, or night sweats.
 

Guided steps

“I think clinicians have a lot of questions such as, ‘well, what should I do, when should I do it?’ These are important clinical questions, and we need guidance about this. We need to balance comprehensiveness with cost-effectiveness, and we need expert opinion about what steps we should take now and which should we take later,” Dr. Kolasinski said.

The guideline development process was supported by the University of Manchester, IMACS, National Institute for Health Research (United Kingdom), National Institutes of Health, National Health Service Northern Care Alliance, The Myositis Association, Myositis UK, University of Pittsburgh, Versus Arthritis, and the Center for Musculoskeletal Research. Dr. Oldroyd and Dr. Kolasinski reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

AT ACR 2022

PHILADELPHIA – The first consensus screening guidelines for patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM) provide recommendations on risk stratification for individuals, basic and enhanced screening protocols, and screening frequency.

The recommendations, issued by the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS), stratify cancer risk for individual patients into low, intermediate, or high categories based on the IIM disease subtype, autoantibody status, and clinical features, reported Alexander Oldroyd, PhD, MSc, MBChB of the University of Manchester, England.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“There’s a big unmet need for cancer screening. One in four adults with myositis has cancer, either 3 years before or after a diagnosis of myositis. It’s one of the leading causes of death in these patients, and they’re overwhelmingly diagnosed at a late stage, so we need standardized approaches to get early diagnosis,” he said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Sharon Kolasinski, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, said in an interview that the guideline is a welcome development for rheumatologists. Dr. Kolasinski moderated the session where Dr. Oldroyd described the guideline, but she was not involved in its formulation.

“I think that we all have wondered for a very long time: What is the optimal cancer screening for myositis patients? We all worry that the onset of their diseases is associated with a coincident cancer, or that they will develop it soon,” she said.

Dr. Oldroyd emphasized that all patients with myositis have elevated risk for cancer compared with the general population and that the guideline categories of low, intermediate, and high are relative only to patients with IIM.
 

International consensus

The data on which the recommendations are based come from a systematic review and meta-analysis by Dr. Oldroyd and colleagues of 69 studies on cancer risk factors and 9 on IIM-specific cancer screening.

The authors of that paper found that the dermatomyositis subtype, older age, male sex, dysphagia, cutaneous ulceration and antitranscriptional intermediary factor-1 gamma (anti-TIF1-gamma) positivity were associated with significantly increased risk of cancer.

In contrast, polymyositis and clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis subtypes, Raynaud’s phenomenon, interstitial lung disease, very high serum creatine kinase or lactate dehydrogenase levels, and positivity for anti-Jo1 or anti-EJ antibodies were associated with significantly reduced risk of cancer.

The consensus recommendations were developed with anonymous contributions from 75 expert participants in 22 countries, with additional input from 3 patient partners.
 

Do this

The guideline lists 18 recommendations, of which 13 are strong and 5 are conditional.

An example of a strong recommendation is number 3, based on a moderate level of evidences:

“All adult IIM patients, irrespective of cancer risk, should continue to participate in country/region-specific age and sex appropriate cancer screening programs,” the guideline recommends.

Patients with verified inclusion body myositis or juvenile-onset IIM do not, however, require routine screening for myositis-associated cancer, the guideline says (recommendations 1 and 2).

There are also recommendations that all adults with new-onset IIM be tested for myositis-specific and myositis-associated autoantibodies to assist in stratifying patients by risk category.

The guideline divides screening recommendations into basic and enhanced. The basic screening should include a comprehensive history and physical exam, complete blood count, liver functions tests, erythrocyte sedimentation rates/plasma viscosity, serum protein electrophoresis, urinalysis, and chest x-ray.

Adults with IIM who are determined to be at low risk for IIM-related cancer should have basic cancer screening at the time of IIM diagnosis. Adults with intermediate risk should undergo both basic and enhanced screening at the time of IIM diagnosis, and those with high risk should undergo enhanced screening at the time of myositis diagnosis, with basic screening annually for 3 years, the recommendations say.
 

Consider doing this

Conditional recommendations (“clinicians should consider ...”) include the use of PET/CT for adults at high risk for cancer when an underlying cancer has not been detected at the time of IIM diagnosis. They also include a single screening test for anti-TIF1-gamma positive dermatomyositis patients whose disease onset was after age 40 and who have at least one additional risk factor.

Also conditionally recommended are upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for patients at high risk when an underlying cancer is not found at the time of IIM diagnosis, nasoendoscopy in geographical regions with elevated risk for nasopharyngeal cancers, and screening for all IIM patients with red-flag symptoms or clinical features of cancer, including unexplained weight loss, family history of cancer, smoking, unexplained fever, or night sweats.
 

Guided steps

“I think clinicians have a lot of questions such as, ‘well, what should I do, when should I do it?’ These are important clinical questions, and we need guidance about this. We need to balance comprehensiveness with cost-effectiveness, and we need expert opinion about what steps we should take now and which should we take later,” Dr. Kolasinski said.

The guideline development process was supported by the University of Manchester, IMACS, National Institute for Health Research (United Kingdom), National Institutes of Health, National Health Service Northern Care Alliance, The Myositis Association, Myositis UK, University of Pittsburgh, Versus Arthritis, and the Center for Musculoskeletal Research. Dr. Oldroyd and Dr. Kolasinski reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

A new U.S. randomized trial has failed to show benefit of a 35-day course of oral anticoagulation with rivaroxaban for the prevention of thrombotic events in outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19.

The PREVENT-HD trial was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Gregory Piazza, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“With the caveat that the trial was underpowered to provide a definitive conclusion, these data do not support routine antithrombotic prophylaxis in nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19,” Dr. Piazza concluded.

PREVENT-HD is the largest randomized study to look at anticoagulation in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients and joins a long list of smaller trials that have also shown no benefit with this approach.

However, anticoagulation is recommended in patients who are hospitalized with COVID-19.

Dr. Piazza noted that the issue of anticoagulation in COVID-19 has focused mainly on hospitalized patients, but most COVID-19 cases are treated as outpatients, who are also suspected to be at risk for venous and arterial thrombotic events, especially if they have additional risk factors. Histopathological evidence also suggests that at least part of the deterioration in lung function leading to hospitalization may be attributable to in situ pulmonary artery thrombosis.

The PREVENT-HD trial explored the question of whether early initiation of thromboprophylaxis dosing of rivaroxaban in higher-risk outpatients with COVID-19 may lower the incidence of venous and arterial thrombotic events, reduce in situ pulmonary thrombosis and the worsening of pulmonary function that may lead to hospitalization, and reduce all-cause mortality.

The trial included 1,284 outpatients with a positive test for COVID-19 and who were within 14 days of symptom onset. They also had to have at least one of the following additional risk factors: age over 60 years; prior history of venous thromboembolism (VTE), thrombophilia, coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, cardiovascular disease or ischemic stroke, cancer, diabetes, heart failure, obesity (body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m²) or D-dimer > upper limit of normal. Around 35% of the study population had two or more of these risk factors.

Patients were randomized to rivaroxaban 10 mg daily for 35 days or placebo.

The primary efficacy endpoint was time to first occurrence of a composite of symptomatic VTE, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia, non–central nervous system systemic embolization, all-cause hospitalization, and all-cause mortality up to day 35.

The primary safety endpoint was time to first occurrence of International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) critical-site and fatal bleeding.

A modified intention-to-treat analysis (all participants taking at least one dose of study intervention) was also planned.

The trial was stopped early in April this year because of a lower than expected event incidence (3.2%), compared with the planned rate (8.5%), giving a very low likelihood of being able to achieve the required number of events.

Dr. Piazza said reasons contributing to the low event rate included a falling COVID-19 death and hospitalization rate nationwide, and increased use of effective vaccines.

Results of the main intention-to-treat analysis (in 1,284 patients) showed no significant difference in the primary efficacy composite endpoint, which occurred in 3.4% of the rivaroxaban group versus 3.0% of the placebo group.

In the modified intention-to-treat analysis (which included 1,197 patients who actually took at least one dose of the study medication) there was shift in the directionality of the point estimate (rivaroxaban 2.0% vs. placebo 2.7%), which Dr. Piazza said was related to a higher number of patients hospitalized before receiving study drug in the rivaroxaban group. However, the difference was still nonsignificant. 

The first major secondary outcome of symptomatic VTE, arterial thrombotic events, and all-cause mortality occurred in 0.3% of rivaroxaban patients versus 1.1% of placebo patients, but this difference did not reach statistical significance.

However, a post hoc exploratory analysis did show a significant reduction in the outcome of symptomatic VTE and arterial thrombotic events. 

In terms of safety, there were no fatal critical-site bleeding events, and there was no difference in ISTH major bleeding, which occurred in one patient in the rivaroxaban group versus no patients in the placebo group.

There was, however, a significant increase in nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding with rivaroxaban, which occurred in nine patients (1.5%) versus one patient (0.2%) in the placebo group.

Trivial bleeding was also increased in the rivaroxaban group, occurring in 17 patients (2.8%) versus 5 patients (0.8%) in the placebo group.

Discussant for the study, Renato Lopes, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., noted that the relationship between COVID-19 and thrombosis has been an important issue since the beginning of the pandemic, with many proposed mechanisms to explain the COVID-19–associated coagulopathy, which is a major cause of death and disability.

While observational data at the beginning of the pandemic suggested patients with COVID-19 might benefit from anticoagulation, looking at all the different randomized trials that have tested anticoagulation in COVID-19 outpatients, there is no treatment effect on the various different primary outcomes in those studies and also no effect on all-cause mortality, Dr. Lopes said. 

He pointed out that PREVENT-HD was stopped prematurely with only about one-third of the planned number of patients enrolled, “just like every other outpatient COVID-19 trial.”

He also drew attention to the low rates of vaccination in the trial population, which does not reflect the current vaccination rate in the United States, and said the different direction of the results between the main intention-to-treat and modified intention-to-treat analyses deserve further investigation.

However, Dr. Lopes concluded, “The results of this trial, in line with the body of evidence in this field, do not support the routine use of any antithrombotic therapy for outpatients with COVID-19.”

The PREVENT-HD trial was sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Piazza has reported receiving research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Bayer, Janssen, Alexion, Amgen, and Boston Scientific, and consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Boston Scientific, Janssen, NAMSA, Prairie Education and Research Cooperative, Boston Clinical Research Institute, and Amgen.

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

A new U.S. randomized trial has failed to show benefit of a 35-day course of oral anticoagulation with rivaroxaban for the prevention of thrombotic events in outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19.

The PREVENT-HD trial was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Gregory Piazza, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“With the caveat that the trial was underpowered to provide a definitive conclusion, these data do not support routine antithrombotic prophylaxis in nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19,” Dr. Piazza concluded.

PREVENT-HD is the largest randomized study to look at anticoagulation in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients and joins a long list of smaller trials that have also shown no benefit with this approach.

However, anticoagulation is recommended in patients who are hospitalized with COVID-19.

Dr. Piazza noted that the issue of anticoagulation in COVID-19 has focused mainly on hospitalized patients, but most COVID-19 cases are treated as outpatients, who are also suspected to be at risk for venous and arterial thrombotic events, especially if they have additional risk factors. Histopathological evidence also suggests that at least part of the deterioration in lung function leading to hospitalization may be attributable to in situ pulmonary artery thrombosis.

The PREVENT-HD trial explored the question of whether early initiation of thromboprophylaxis dosing of rivaroxaban in higher-risk outpatients with COVID-19 may lower the incidence of venous and arterial thrombotic events, reduce in situ pulmonary thrombosis and the worsening of pulmonary function that may lead to hospitalization, and reduce all-cause mortality.

The trial included 1,284 outpatients with a positive test for COVID-19 and who were within 14 days of symptom onset. They also had to have at least one of the following additional risk factors: age over 60 years; prior history of venous thromboembolism (VTE), thrombophilia, coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, cardiovascular disease or ischemic stroke, cancer, diabetes, heart failure, obesity (body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m²) or D-dimer > upper limit of normal. Around 35% of the study population had two or more of these risk factors.

Patients were randomized to rivaroxaban 10 mg daily for 35 days or placebo.

The primary efficacy endpoint was time to first occurrence of a composite of symptomatic VTE, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia, non–central nervous system systemic embolization, all-cause hospitalization, and all-cause mortality up to day 35.

The primary safety endpoint was time to first occurrence of International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) critical-site and fatal bleeding.

A modified intention-to-treat analysis (all participants taking at least one dose of study intervention) was also planned.

The trial was stopped early in April this year because of a lower than expected event incidence (3.2%), compared with the planned rate (8.5%), giving a very low likelihood of being able to achieve the required number of events.

Dr. Piazza said reasons contributing to the low event rate included a falling COVID-19 death and hospitalization rate nationwide, and increased use of effective vaccines.

Results of the main intention-to-treat analysis (in 1,284 patients) showed no significant difference in the primary efficacy composite endpoint, which occurred in 3.4% of the rivaroxaban group versus 3.0% of the placebo group.

In the modified intention-to-treat analysis (which included 1,197 patients who actually took at least one dose of the study medication) there was shift in the directionality of the point estimate (rivaroxaban 2.0% vs. placebo 2.7%), which Dr. Piazza said was related to a higher number of patients hospitalized before receiving study drug in the rivaroxaban group. However, the difference was still nonsignificant. 

The first major secondary outcome of symptomatic VTE, arterial thrombotic events, and all-cause mortality occurred in 0.3% of rivaroxaban patients versus 1.1% of placebo patients, but this difference did not reach statistical significance.

However, a post hoc exploratory analysis did show a significant reduction in the outcome of symptomatic VTE and arterial thrombotic events. 

In terms of safety, there were no fatal critical-site bleeding events, and there was no difference in ISTH major bleeding, which occurred in one patient in the rivaroxaban group versus no patients in the placebo group.

There was, however, a significant increase in nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding with rivaroxaban, which occurred in nine patients (1.5%) versus one patient (0.2%) in the placebo group.

Trivial bleeding was also increased in the rivaroxaban group, occurring in 17 patients (2.8%) versus 5 patients (0.8%) in the placebo group.

Discussant for the study, Renato Lopes, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., noted that the relationship between COVID-19 and thrombosis has been an important issue since the beginning of the pandemic, with many proposed mechanisms to explain the COVID-19–associated coagulopathy, which is a major cause of death and disability.

While observational data at the beginning of the pandemic suggested patients with COVID-19 might benefit from anticoagulation, looking at all the different randomized trials that have tested anticoagulation in COVID-19 outpatients, there is no treatment effect on the various different primary outcomes in those studies and also no effect on all-cause mortality, Dr. Lopes said. 

He pointed out that PREVENT-HD was stopped prematurely with only about one-third of the planned number of patients enrolled, “just like every other outpatient COVID-19 trial.”

He also drew attention to the low rates of vaccination in the trial population, which does not reflect the current vaccination rate in the United States, and said the different direction of the results between the main intention-to-treat and modified intention-to-treat analyses deserve further investigation.

However, Dr. Lopes concluded, “The results of this trial, in line with the body of evidence in this field, do not support the routine use of any antithrombotic therapy for outpatients with COVID-19.”

The PREVENT-HD trial was sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Piazza has reported receiving research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Bayer, Janssen, Alexion, Amgen, and Boston Scientific, and consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Boston Scientific, Janssen, NAMSA, Prairie Education and Research Cooperative, Boston Clinical Research Institute, and Amgen.

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

A new U.S. randomized trial has failed to show benefit of a 35-day course of oral anticoagulation with rivaroxaban for the prevention of thrombotic events in outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19.

The PREVENT-HD trial was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Gregory Piazza, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“With the caveat that the trial was underpowered to provide a definitive conclusion, these data do not support routine antithrombotic prophylaxis in nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19,” Dr. Piazza concluded.

PREVENT-HD is the largest randomized study to look at anticoagulation in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients and joins a long list of smaller trials that have also shown no benefit with this approach.

However, anticoagulation is recommended in patients who are hospitalized with COVID-19.

Dr. Piazza noted that the issue of anticoagulation in COVID-19 has focused mainly on hospitalized patients, but most COVID-19 cases are treated as outpatients, who are also suspected to be at risk for venous and arterial thrombotic events, especially if they have additional risk factors. Histopathological evidence also suggests that at least part of the deterioration in lung function leading to hospitalization may be attributable to in situ pulmonary artery thrombosis.

The PREVENT-HD trial explored the question of whether early initiation of thromboprophylaxis dosing of rivaroxaban in higher-risk outpatients with COVID-19 may lower the incidence of venous and arterial thrombotic events, reduce in situ pulmonary thrombosis and the worsening of pulmonary function that may lead to hospitalization, and reduce all-cause mortality.

The trial included 1,284 outpatients with a positive test for COVID-19 and who were within 14 days of symptom onset. They also had to have at least one of the following additional risk factors: age over 60 years; prior history of venous thromboembolism (VTE), thrombophilia, coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, cardiovascular disease or ischemic stroke, cancer, diabetes, heart failure, obesity (body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m²) or D-dimer > upper limit of normal. Around 35% of the study population had two or more of these risk factors.

Patients were randomized to rivaroxaban 10 mg daily for 35 days or placebo.

The primary efficacy endpoint was time to first occurrence of a composite of symptomatic VTE, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia, non–central nervous system systemic embolization, all-cause hospitalization, and all-cause mortality up to day 35.

The primary safety endpoint was time to first occurrence of International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) critical-site and fatal bleeding.

A modified intention-to-treat analysis (all participants taking at least one dose of study intervention) was also planned.

The trial was stopped early in April this year because of a lower than expected event incidence (3.2%), compared with the planned rate (8.5%), giving a very low likelihood of being able to achieve the required number of events.

Dr. Piazza said reasons contributing to the low event rate included a falling COVID-19 death and hospitalization rate nationwide, and increased use of effective vaccines.

Results of the main intention-to-treat analysis (in 1,284 patients) showed no significant difference in the primary efficacy composite endpoint, which occurred in 3.4% of the rivaroxaban group versus 3.0% of the placebo group.

In the modified intention-to-treat analysis (which included 1,197 patients who actually took at least one dose of the study medication) there was shift in the directionality of the point estimate (rivaroxaban 2.0% vs. placebo 2.7%), which Dr. Piazza said was related to a higher number of patients hospitalized before receiving study drug in the rivaroxaban group. However, the difference was still nonsignificant. 

The first major secondary outcome of symptomatic VTE, arterial thrombotic events, and all-cause mortality occurred in 0.3% of rivaroxaban patients versus 1.1% of placebo patients, but this difference did not reach statistical significance.

However, a post hoc exploratory analysis did show a significant reduction in the outcome of symptomatic VTE and arterial thrombotic events. 

In terms of safety, there were no fatal critical-site bleeding events, and there was no difference in ISTH major bleeding, which occurred in one patient in the rivaroxaban group versus no patients in the placebo group.

There was, however, a significant increase in nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding with rivaroxaban, which occurred in nine patients (1.5%) versus one patient (0.2%) in the placebo group.

Trivial bleeding was also increased in the rivaroxaban group, occurring in 17 patients (2.8%) versus 5 patients (0.8%) in the placebo group.

Discussant for the study, Renato Lopes, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., noted that the relationship between COVID-19 and thrombosis has been an important issue since the beginning of the pandemic, with many proposed mechanisms to explain the COVID-19–associated coagulopathy, which is a major cause of death and disability.

While observational data at the beginning of the pandemic suggested patients with COVID-19 might benefit from anticoagulation, looking at all the different randomized trials that have tested anticoagulation in COVID-19 outpatients, there is no treatment effect on the various different primary outcomes in those studies and also no effect on all-cause mortality, Dr. Lopes said. 

He pointed out that PREVENT-HD was stopped prematurely with only about one-third of the planned number of patients enrolled, “just like every other outpatient COVID-19 trial.”

He also drew attention to the low rates of vaccination in the trial population, which does not reflect the current vaccination rate in the United States, and said the different direction of the results between the main intention-to-treat and modified intention-to-treat analyses deserve further investigation.

However, Dr. Lopes concluded, “The results of this trial, in line with the body of evidence in this field, do not support the routine use of any antithrombotic therapy for outpatients with COVID-19.”

The PREVENT-HD trial was sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Piazza has reported receiving research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Bayer, Janssen, Alexion, Amgen, and Boston Scientific, and consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Boston Scientific, Janssen, NAMSA, Prairie Education and Research Cooperative, Boston Clinical Research Institute, and Amgen.

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

Who watches the ED staff?

We heard a really great joke recently, one we simply have to share.

A man in Seattle went to a therapist. “I’m depressed,” he says. “Depressed, overworked, and lonely.”

Chinnapong/iStock/Getty Images

“Oh dear, that sounds quite serious,” the therapist replies. “Tell me all about it.”

“Life just seems so harsh and cruel,” the man explains. “The pandemic has caused 300,000 health care workers across the country to leave the industry.”

“Such as the doctor typically filling this role in the joke,” the therapist, who is not licensed to prescribe medicine, nods.

“Exactly! And with so many respiratory viruses circulating and COVID still hanging around, emergency departments all over the country are facing massive backups. People are waiting outside the hospital for hours, hoping a bed will open up. Things got so bad at a hospital near Seattle in October that a nurse called 911 on her own ED. Told the 911 operator to send the fire department to help out, since they were ‘drowning’ and ‘in dire straits.’ They had 45 patients waiting and only five nurses to take care of them.”

“That is quite serious,” the therapist says, scribbling down unseen notes.

“The fire chief did send a crew out, and they cleaned rooms, changed beds, and took vitals for 90 minutes until the crisis passed,” the man says. “But it’s only a matter of time before it happens again. The hospital president said they have 300 open positions, and literally no one has applied to work in the emergency department. Not one person.”

“And how does all this make you feel?” the therapist asks.

“I feel all alone,” the man says. “This world feels so threatening, like no one cares, and I have no idea what will come next. It’s so vague and uncertain.”

“Ah, I think I have a solution for you,” the therapist says. “Go to the emergency department at St. Michael Medical Center in Silverdale, near Seattle. They’ll get your bad mood all settled, and they’ll prescribe you the medicine you need to relax.”

The man bursts into tears. “You don’t understand,” he says. “I am the emergency department at St. Michael Medical Center.”

Good joke. Everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum. Curtains.

Myth buster: Supplements for cholesterol lowering

When it comes to that nasty low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, some people swear by supplements over statins as a holistic approach. Well, we’re busting the myth that those heart-healthy supplements are even effective in comparison.

Sally Kubetin/MDedge News

Which supplements are we talking about? These six are always on sale at the pharmacy: fish oil, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, plant sterols, and red yeast rice.

In a study presented at the recent American Heart Association scientific sessions, researchers compared these supplements’ effectiveness in lowering LDL cholesterol with low-dose rosuvastatin or placebo among 199 adults aged 40-75 years who didn’t have a personal history of cardiovascular disease.

Participants who took the statin for 28 days had an average of 24% decrease in total cholesterol and a 38% reduction in LDL cholesterol, while 28 days’ worth of the supplements did no better than the placebo in either measure. Compared with placebo, the plant sterols supplement notably lowered HDL cholesterol and the garlic supplement notably increased LDL cholesterol.

Even though there are other studies showing the validity of plant sterols and red yeast rice to lower LDL cholesterol, author Luke J. Laffin, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic noted that this study shows how supplement results can vary and that more research is needed to see the effect they truly have on cholesterol over time.

So, should you stop taking or recommending supplements for heart health or healthy cholesterol levels? Well, we’re not going to come to your house and raid your medicine cabinet, but the authors of this study are definitely not saying that you should rely on them.

Consider this myth mostly busted.
 

COVID dept. of unintended consequences, part 2

The surveillance testing programs conducted in the first year of the pandemic were, in theory, meant to keep everyone safer. Someone, apparently, forgot to explain that to the students of the University of Wyoming and the University of Idaho.

Luis Alvarez/Getty Images

We’re all familiar with the drill: Students at the two schools had to undergo frequent COVID screening to keep the virus from spreading, thereby making everyone safer. Duck your head now, because here comes the unintended consequence.

The students who didn’t get COVID eventually, and perhaps not so surprisingly, “perceived that the mandatory testing policy decreased their risk of contracting COVID-19, and … this perception led to higher participation in COVID-risky events,” Chian Jones Ritten, PhD, and associates said in PNAS Nexus.

They surveyed 757 students from the Univ. of Washington and 517 from the Univ. of Idaho and found that those who were tested more frequently perceived that they were less likely to contract the virus. Those respondents also more frequently attended indoor gatherings, both small and large, and spent more time in restaurants and bars.

The investigators did not mince words: “From a public health standpoint, such behavior is problematic.”

Current parents/participants in the workforce might have other ideas about an appropriate response to COVID.

At this point, we probably should mention that appropriation is the second-most sincere form of flattery.

Who watches the ED staff?

We heard a really great joke recently, one we simply have to share.

A man in Seattle went to a therapist. “I’m depressed,” he says. “Depressed, overworked, and lonely.”

Chinnapong/iStock/Getty Images

“Oh dear, that sounds quite serious,” the therapist replies. “Tell me all about it.”

“Life just seems so harsh and cruel,” the man explains. “The pandemic has caused 300,000 health care workers across the country to leave the industry.”

“Such as the doctor typically filling this role in the joke,” the therapist, who is not licensed to prescribe medicine, nods.

“Exactly! And with so many respiratory viruses circulating and COVID still hanging around, emergency departments all over the country are facing massive backups. People are waiting outside the hospital for hours, hoping a bed will open up. Things got so bad at a hospital near Seattle in October that a nurse called 911 on her own ED. Told the 911 operator to send the fire department to help out, since they were ‘drowning’ and ‘in dire straits.’ They had 45 patients waiting and only five nurses to take care of them.”

“That is quite serious,” the therapist says, scribbling down unseen notes.

“The fire chief did send a crew out, and they cleaned rooms, changed beds, and took vitals for 90 minutes until the crisis passed,” the man says. “But it’s only a matter of time before it happens again. The hospital president said they have 300 open positions, and literally no one has applied to work in the emergency department. Not one person.”

“And how does all this make you feel?” the therapist asks.

“I feel all alone,” the man says. “This world feels so threatening, like no one cares, and I have no idea what will come next. It’s so vague and uncertain.”

“Ah, I think I have a solution for you,” the therapist says. “Go to the emergency department at St. Michael Medical Center in Silverdale, near Seattle. They’ll get your bad mood all settled, and they’ll prescribe you the medicine you need to relax.”

The man bursts into tears. “You don’t understand,” he says. “I am the emergency department at St. Michael Medical Center.”

Good joke. Everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum. Curtains.

Myth buster: Supplements for cholesterol lowering

When it comes to that nasty low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, some people swear by supplements over statins as a holistic approach. Well, we’re busting the myth that those heart-healthy supplements are even effective in comparison.

Sally Kubetin/MDedge News

Which supplements are we talking about? These six are always on sale at the pharmacy: fish oil, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, plant sterols, and red yeast rice.

In a study presented at the recent American Heart Association scientific sessions, researchers compared these supplements’ effectiveness in lowering LDL cholesterol with low-dose rosuvastatin or placebo among 199 adults aged 40-75 years who didn’t have a personal history of cardiovascular disease.

Participants who took the statin for 28 days had an average of 24% decrease in total cholesterol and a 38% reduction in LDL cholesterol, while 28 days’ worth of the supplements did no better than the placebo in either measure. Compared with placebo, the plant sterols supplement notably lowered HDL cholesterol and the garlic supplement notably increased LDL cholesterol.

Even though there are other studies showing the validity of plant sterols and red yeast rice to lower LDL cholesterol, author Luke J. Laffin, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic noted that this study shows how supplement results can vary and that more research is needed to see the effect they truly have on cholesterol over time.

So, should you stop taking or recommending supplements for heart health or healthy cholesterol levels? Well, we’re not going to come to your house and raid your medicine cabinet, but the authors of this study are definitely not saying that you should rely on them.

Consider this myth mostly busted.
 

COVID dept. of unintended consequences, part 2

The surveillance testing programs conducted in the first year of the pandemic were, in theory, meant to keep everyone safer. Someone, apparently, forgot to explain that to the students of the University of Wyoming and the University of Idaho.

Luis Alvarez/Getty Images

We’re all familiar with the drill: Students at the two schools had to undergo frequent COVID screening to keep the virus from spreading, thereby making everyone safer. Duck your head now, because here comes the unintended consequence.

The students who didn’t get COVID eventually, and perhaps not so surprisingly, “perceived that the mandatory testing policy decreased their risk of contracting COVID-19, and … this perception led to higher participation in COVID-risky events,” Chian Jones Ritten, PhD, and associates said in PNAS Nexus.

They surveyed 757 students from the Univ. of Washington and 517 from the Univ. of Idaho and found that those who were tested more frequently perceived that they were less likely to contract the virus. Those respondents also more frequently attended indoor gatherings, both small and large, and spent more time in restaurants and bars.

The investigators did not mince words: “From a public health standpoint, such behavior is problematic.”

Current parents/participants in the workforce might have other ideas about an appropriate response to COVID.

At this point, we probably should mention that appropriation is the second-most sincere form of flattery.

Who watches the ED staff?

We heard a really great joke recently, one we simply have to share.

A man in Seattle went to a therapist. “I’m depressed,” he says. “Depressed, overworked, and lonely.”

Chinnapong/iStock/Getty Images

“Oh dear, that sounds quite serious,” the therapist replies. “Tell me all about it.”

“Life just seems so harsh and cruel,” the man explains. “The pandemic has caused 300,000 health care workers across the country to leave the industry.”

“Such as the doctor typically filling this role in the joke,” the therapist, who is not licensed to prescribe medicine, nods.

“Exactly! And with so many respiratory viruses circulating and COVID still hanging around, emergency departments all over the country are facing massive backups. People are waiting outside the hospital for hours, hoping a bed will open up. Things got so bad at a hospital near Seattle in October that a nurse called 911 on her own ED. Told the 911 operator to send the fire department to help out, since they were ‘drowning’ and ‘in dire straits.’ They had 45 patients waiting and only five nurses to take care of them.”

“That is quite serious,” the therapist says, scribbling down unseen notes.

“The fire chief did send a crew out, and they cleaned rooms, changed beds, and took vitals for 90 minutes until the crisis passed,” the man says. “But it’s only a matter of time before it happens again. The hospital president said they have 300 open positions, and literally no one has applied to work in the emergency department. Not one person.”

“And how does all this make you feel?” the therapist asks.

“I feel all alone,” the man says. “This world feels so threatening, like no one cares, and I have no idea what will come next. It’s so vague and uncertain.”

“Ah, I think I have a solution for you,” the therapist says. “Go to the emergency department at St. Michael Medical Center in Silverdale, near Seattle. They’ll get your bad mood all settled, and they’ll prescribe you the medicine you need to relax.”

The man bursts into tears. “You don’t understand,” he says. “I am the emergency department at St. Michael Medical Center.”

Good joke. Everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum. Curtains.

Myth buster: Supplements for cholesterol lowering

When it comes to that nasty low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, some people swear by supplements over statins as a holistic approach. Well, we’re busting the myth that those heart-healthy supplements are even effective in comparison.

Sally Kubetin/MDedge News

Which supplements are we talking about? These six are always on sale at the pharmacy: fish oil, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, plant sterols, and red yeast rice.

In a study presented at the recent American Heart Association scientific sessions, researchers compared these supplements’ effectiveness in lowering LDL cholesterol with low-dose rosuvastatin or placebo among 199 adults aged 40-75 years who didn’t have a personal history of cardiovascular disease.

Participants who took the statin for 28 days had an average of 24% decrease in total cholesterol and a 38% reduction in LDL cholesterol, while 28 days’ worth of the supplements did no better than the placebo in either measure. Compared with placebo, the plant sterols supplement notably lowered HDL cholesterol and the garlic supplement notably increased LDL cholesterol.

Even though there are other studies showing the validity of plant sterols and red yeast rice to lower LDL cholesterol, author Luke J. Laffin, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic noted that this study shows how supplement results can vary and that more research is needed to see the effect they truly have on cholesterol over time.

So, should you stop taking or recommending supplements for heart health or healthy cholesterol levels? Well, we’re not going to come to your house and raid your medicine cabinet, but the authors of this study are definitely not saying that you should rely on them.

Consider this myth mostly busted.
 

COVID dept. of unintended consequences, part 2

The surveillance testing programs conducted in the first year of the pandemic were, in theory, meant to keep everyone safer. Someone, apparently, forgot to explain that to the students of the University of Wyoming and the University of Idaho.

Luis Alvarez/Getty Images

We’re all familiar with the drill: Students at the two schools had to undergo frequent COVID screening to keep the virus from spreading, thereby making everyone safer. Duck your head now, because here comes the unintended consequence.

The students who didn’t get COVID eventually, and perhaps not so surprisingly, “perceived that the mandatory testing policy decreased their risk of contracting COVID-19, and … this perception led to higher participation in COVID-risky events,” Chian Jones Ritten, PhD, and associates said in PNAS Nexus.

They surveyed 757 students from the Univ. of Washington and 517 from the Univ. of Idaho and found that those who were tested more frequently perceived that they were less likely to contract the virus. Those respondents also more frequently attended indoor gatherings, both small and large, and spent more time in restaurants and bars.

The investigators did not mince words: “From a public health standpoint, such behavior is problematic.”

Current parents/participants in the workforce might have other ideas about an appropriate response to COVID.

At this point, we probably should mention that appropriation is the second-most sincere form of flattery.

This year Medscape surveyed more than 2,300 physicians about how they prioritized various social issues. Around half of them rated climate change among their five most important issues. Slightly lower percentages of doctors prioritized domestic violence and immigration/refugee policies that highly, and about 40% did so regarding reproductive rights in the United States.

Survey responses and comments left on the Physicians’ Views on Today’s Divisive Social Issues 2022 report provide insights into doctors’ attitudes and thinking about these four social challenges.
 

Relevance of climate change to health care

In the Medscape report, 61% of physicians described themselves as “very concerned” or “concerned” about climate change, and about 7 in 10 agreed with the statement that it should be a top worldwide priority. “Climate change is the most pressing issue of this century,” a psychiatrist respondent wrote.

What about direct effects on patients’ health? An internist worried that rising temperatures will cause “pathogens to spread and infect disadvantaged people who do not have health access and have immunocompromised conditions.” A family medicine physician predicted “more weather disasters, more asthma, more hormonal changes, and more obesity.”

However, physician viewpoints ran the gamut with an issue that has become politically and emotionally charged. Descriptions such as “overblown,” “hysteria,” “hoax,” and “farce” were used. “Climate change is a natural phenomenon under God’s purview,” an emergency medicine physician said.

And there was some middle-ground thinking. “It’s overstated but quite real,” a pediatrician respondent wrote. Added an ophthalmologist: “It has gone on for ages. We must work to decrease man-made conditions that affect climate change, but it must be done in an intelligent fashion.”
 

Domestic violence: What physicians can do

About 7 in 10 physicians surveyed by Medscape said they don’t think the United States is adequately tackling domestic violence. “It is underrecognized and ignored,” a psychiatrist respondent argued. The problem is “rampant and unacceptable, pushed into a closet and normalized, with associated shame,” an emergency medicine doctor wrote.

Many respondents noted that physicians are under a mandate to report abuse of or a suspicious injury to a patient. Some shared anecdotes about how they reported action they had taken when they suspected it. “I’ve told patients who may be in dangerous situations that I’m a safe person and provide a safe space,” a radiologist added. An internist said, “I’ve recently started to ask about safety at home during triage on every patient.”

Other doctors bemoaned a lack of adequate education on detecting and managing domestic violence and abuse. “Domestic violence is often not recognized by health care providers,” a psychiatrist respondent observed.
 

Expanding legal immigration

In the Medscape report, 34% of physicians felt U.S. immigration/refugee policies need to be tougher, while 28% said they are too restrictive, and about a fifth saw them as appropriate.

“As an immigrant, I can tell you that the system is flawed and needs a complete overhaul, which will take a bipartisan effort,” an endocrinologist respondent wrote.

A number of respondents argued that it’s critical to simplify the process of obtaining U.S. citizenship so that fewer will feel forced to enter the country illegally. “For a country that relies very heavily on immigrants to sustain our health care system, we behave like idiots in denying safe harbor,” a nephrologist asserted.

A neurologist concurred. “Legal immigration needs to be encouraged. It should be easier to exchange visitor or student visa to immigrant visa in order to retain talent in the health care and technology fields, which would alleviate the shortage of workers in health care.”
 

Reproductive rights: No easy answers

Medscape’s survey was conducted before the U.S. Supreme Court in June reversed Roe v. Wade. In the report, 71% of physicians described themselves as very to somewhat concerned about women’s reproductive rights, but their viewpoints became nuanced after that. “There is a big disparity among physicians on this topic,” an oncologist respondent wrote.

At one end of the spectrum, 3% of doctors felt that abortions should never be permitted. “The human baby in the womb is an independent person with the right to life,” a pathologist said. At the other end, nearly one-fourth of physicians believed abortion should be accessible under all circumstances, regardless of trimester or reason. “I am just here to support the woman and make her decision a reality,” an internist said.

While saying an abortion should be granted after “fetal viability” only “in extenuating circumstances,” an ob.gyn. respondent said she is “extremely concerned” about attacks on abortion rights. “Some of us are old enough to remember women coming to the ER in extremis after illegal procedures, prior to Roe v. Wade.”

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

This year Medscape surveyed more than 2,300 physicians about how they prioritized various social issues. Around half of them rated climate change among their five most important issues. Slightly lower percentages of doctors prioritized domestic violence and immigration/refugee policies that highly, and about 40% did so regarding reproductive rights in the United States.

Survey responses and comments left on the Physicians’ Views on Today’s Divisive Social Issues 2022 report provide insights into doctors’ attitudes and thinking about these four social challenges.
 

Relevance of climate change to health care

In the Medscape report, 61% of physicians described themselves as “very concerned” or “concerned” about climate change, and about 7 in 10 agreed with the statement that it should be a top worldwide priority. “Climate change is the most pressing issue of this century,” a psychiatrist respondent wrote.

What about direct effects on patients’ health? An internist worried that rising temperatures will cause “pathogens to spread and infect disadvantaged people who do not have health access and have immunocompromised conditions.” A family medicine physician predicted “more weather disasters, more asthma, more hormonal changes, and more obesity.”

However, physician viewpoints ran the gamut with an issue that has become politically and emotionally charged. Descriptions such as “overblown,” “hysteria,” “hoax,” and “farce” were used. “Climate change is a natural phenomenon under God’s purview,” an emergency medicine physician said.

And there was some middle-ground thinking. “It’s overstated but quite real,” a pediatrician respondent wrote. Added an ophthalmologist: “It has gone on for ages. We must work to decrease man-made conditions that affect climate change, but it must be done in an intelligent fashion.”
 

Domestic violence: What physicians can do

About 7 in 10 physicians surveyed by Medscape said they don’t think the United States is adequately tackling domestic violence. “It is underrecognized and ignored,” a psychiatrist respondent argued. The problem is “rampant and unacceptable, pushed into a closet and normalized, with associated shame,” an emergency medicine doctor wrote.

Many respondents noted that physicians are under a mandate to report abuse of or a suspicious injury to a patient. Some shared anecdotes about how they reported action they had taken when they suspected it. “I’ve told patients who may be in dangerous situations that I’m a safe person and provide a safe space,” a radiologist added. An internist said, “I’ve recently started to ask about safety at home during triage on every patient.”

Other doctors bemoaned a lack of adequate education on detecting and managing domestic violence and abuse. “Domestic violence is often not recognized by health care providers,” a psychiatrist respondent observed.
 

Expanding legal immigration

In the Medscape report, 34% of physicians felt U.S. immigration/refugee policies need to be tougher, while 28% said they are too restrictive, and about a fifth saw them as appropriate.

“As an immigrant, I can tell you that the system is flawed and needs a complete overhaul, which will take a bipartisan effort,” an endocrinologist respondent wrote.

A number of respondents argued that it’s critical to simplify the process of obtaining U.S. citizenship so that fewer will feel forced to enter the country illegally. “For a country that relies very heavily on immigrants to sustain our health care system, we behave like idiots in denying safe harbor,” a nephrologist asserted.

A neurologist concurred. “Legal immigration needs to be encouraged. It should be easier to exchange visitor or student visa to immigrant visa in order to retain talent in the health care and technology fields, which would alleviate the shortage of workers in health care.”
 

Reproductive rights: No easy answers

Medscape’s survey was conducted before the U.S. Supreme Court in June reversed Roe v. Wade. In the report, 71% of physicians described themselves as very to somewhat concerned about women’s reproductive rights, but their viewpoints became nuanced after that. “There is a big disparity among physicians on this topic,” an oncologist respondent wrote.

At one end of the spectrum, 3% of doctors felt that abortions should never be permitted. “The human baby in the womb is an independent person with the right to life,” a pathologist said. At the other end, nearly one-fourth of physicians believed abortion should be accessible under all circumstances, regardless of trimester or reason. “I am just here to support the woman and make her decision a reality,” an internist said.

While saying an abortion should be granted after “fetal viability” only “in extenuating circumstances,” an ob.gyn. respondent said she is “extremely concerned” about attacks on abortion rights. “Some of us are old enough to remember women coming to the ER in extremis after illegal procedures, prior to Roe v. Wade.”

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

This year Medscape surveyed more than 2,300 physicians about how they prioritized various social issues. Around half of them rated climate change among their five most important issues. Slightly lower percentages of doctors prioritized domestic violence and immigration/refugee policies that highly, and about 40% did so regarding reproductive rights in the United States.

Survey responses and comments left on the Physicians’ Views on Today’s Divisive Social Issues 2022 report provide insights into doctors’ attitudes and thinking about these four social challenges.
 

Relevance of climate change to health care

In the Medscape report, 61% of physicians described themselves as “very concerned” or “concerned” about climate change, and about 7 in 10 agreed with the statement that it should be a top worldwide priority. “Climate change is the most pressing issue of this century,” a psychiatrist respondent wrote.

What about direct effects on patients’ health? An internist worried that rising temperatures will cause “pathogens to spread and infect disadvantaged people who do not have health access and have immunocompromised conditions.” A family medicine physician predicted “more weather disasters, more asthma, more hormonal changes, and more obesity.”

However, physician viewpoints ran the gamut with an issue that has become politically and emotionally charged. Descriptions such as “overblown,” “hysteria,” “hoax,” and “farce” were used. “Climate change is a natural phenomenon under God’s purview,” an emergency medicine physician said.

And there was some middle-ground thinking. “It’s overstated but quite real,” a pediatrician respondent wrote. Added an ophthalmologist: “It has gone on for ages. We must work to decrease man-made conditions that affect climate change, but it must be done in an intelligent fashion.”
 

Domestic violence: What physicians can do

About 7 in 10 physicians surveyed by Medscape said they don’t think the United States is adequately tackling domestic violence. “It is underrecognized and ignored,” a psychiatrist respondent argued. The problem is “rampant and unacceptable, pushed into a closet and normalized, with associated shame,” an emergency medicine doctor wrote.

Many respondents noted that physicians are under a mandate to report abuse of or a suspicious injury to a patient. Some shared anecdotes about how they reported action they had taken when they suspected it. “I’ve told patients who may be in dangerous situations that I’m a safe person and provide a safe space,” a radiologist added. An internist said, “I’ve recently started to ask about safety at home during triage on every patient.”

Other doctors bemoaned a lack of adequate education on detecting and managing domestic violence and abuse. “Domestic violence is often not recognized by health care providers,” a psychiatrist respondent observed.
 

Expanding legal immigration

In the Medscape report, 34% of physicians felt U.S. immigration/refugee policies need to be tougher, while 28% said they are too restrictive, and about a fifth saw them as appropriate.

“As an immigrant, I can tell you that the system is flawed and needs a complete overhaul, which will take a bipartisan effort,” an endocrinologist respondent wrote.

A number of respondents argued that it’s critical to simplify the process of obtaining U.S. citizenship so that fewer will feel forced to enter the country illegally. “For a country that relies very heavily on immigrants to sustain our health care system, we behave like idiots in denying safe harbor,” a nephrologist asserted.

A neurologist concurred. “Legal immigration needs to be encouraged. It should be easier to exchange visitor or student visa to immigrant visa in order to retain talent in the health care and technology fields, which would alleviate the shortage of workers in health care.”
 

Reproductive rights: No easy answers

Medscape’s survey was conducted before the U.S. Supreme Court in June reversed Roe v. Wade. In the report, 71% of physicians described themselves as very to somewhat concerned about women’s reproductive rights, but their viewpoints became nuanced after that. “There is a big disparity among physicians on this topic,” an oncologist respondent wrote.

At one end of the spectrum, 3% of doctors felt that abortions should never be permitted. “The human baby in the womb is an independent person with the right to life,” a pathologist said. At the other end, nearly one-fourth of physicians believed abortion should be accessible under all circumstances, regardless of trimester or reason. “I am just here to support the woman and make her decision a reality,” an internist said.

While saying an abortion should be granted after “fetal viability” only “in extenuating circumstances,” an ob.gyn. respondent said she is “extremely concerned” about attacks on abortion rights. “Some of us are old enough to remember women coming to the ER in extremis after illegal procedures, prior to Roe v. Wade.”

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

Exercise tops the list of 28 recommendations in a guideline for integrative interventions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis developed by the American College of Rheumatology.

The guideline is specific to RA and presents integrative interventions to accompany treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), according to a summary statement issued by the ACR. The summary was approved by the ACR Board of Directors on Oct. 31, and the recommendations are part of a manuscript that will be submitted for publication in both Arthritis & Rheumatology and Arthritis Care & Research.

Consistent engagement in exercise earned the only strong recommendation; the other 27 were conditional. In the exercise category, the authors offered conditional recommendations for aerobic exercise, aquatic exercise, resistance exercise, and mind-body exercise.

Three recommendations focused on diet. Notably, the recommended diet is Mediterranean style. Two other recommendations were specifically against any other formal diet and against the use of dietary supplements. “The conditional recommendation for adhering to a Mediterranean-style diet, but not other formally defined diets, to improve RA-specific outcomes may be surprising to some clinicians,” said Bryant R. England, MD, PhD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and one of the guideline’s coprincipal investigators, in a press release. “The voting panel acknowledged, however, that other health indications may exist for alternative diet and dietary supplements, which makes it crucial for clinicians and patients to engage in shared decision-making,” Dr. England said.

Nearly half of the 28 recommendations (13) focused on rehabilitation, but all were conditional. These included comprehensive occupational and physical therapy and hand therapy, as well as the use of splinting, orthoses, compression, bracing, and taping of affected areas. Other conditional recommendations supported the use of joint protection techniques, assistive devices, adaptive equipment, and/or environmental adaptations. The authors also included a conditional recommendation for vocational rehabilitation and work-site evaluations and/or modifications.

A category of additional integrative interventions included recommendations against both electrotherapy and chiropractic care. However, conditional recommendations were positive for acupuncture, massage therapy, and thermal modalities. Conditional recommendations also supported cognitive-behavioral therapy and/or mind-body strategies, and a standardized self-management program.

The guideline was developed by an interprofessional voting panel of 20 individuals with expertise in epidemiology, exercise physiology, GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology, integrative medicine, nursing, nutrition, occupational therapy, physical therapy, rheumatology, and social work, as well as three individuals who have RA. The panel developed questions, conducted a literature review, and used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence.

“These recommendations are specific to RA management, understanding that other medical indications and general health benefits may exist for many of these interventions,” the authors write in the summary statement.

The range of interventions shows both the importance of an interprofessional team–based approach to RA management and the need to engage patients in shared decision-making, they said.

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

Exercise tops the list of 28 recommendations in a guideline for integrative interventions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis developed by the American College of Rheumatology.

The guideline is specific to RA and presents integrative interventions to accompany treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), according to a summary statement issued by the ACR. The summary was approved by the ACR Board of Directors on Oct. 31, and the recommendations are part of a manuscript that will be submitted for publication in both Arthritis & Rheumatology and Arthritis Care & Research.

Consistent engagement in exercise earned the only strong recommendation; the other 27 were conditional. In the exercise category, the authors offered conditional recommendations for aerobic exercise, aquatic exercise, resistance exercise, and mind-body exercise.

Three recommendations focused on diet. Notably, the recommended diet is Mediterranean style. Two other recommendations were specifically against any other formal diet and against the use of dietary supplements. “The conditional recommendation for adhering to a Mediterranean-style diet, but not other formally defined diets, to improve RA-specific outcomes may be surprising to some clinicians,” said Bryant R. England, MD, PhD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and one of the guideline’s coprincipal investigators, in a press release. “The voting panel acknowledged, however, that other health indications may exist for alternative diet and dietary supplements, which makes it crucial for clinicians and patients to engage in shared decision-making,” Dr. England said.

Nearly half of the 28 recommendations (13) focused on rehabilitation, but all were conditional. These included comprehensive occupational and physical therapy and hand therapy, as well as the use of splinting, orthoses, compression, bracing, and taping of affected areas. Other conditional recommendations supported the use of joint protection techniques, assistive devices, adaptive equipment, and/or environmental adaptations. The authors also included a conditional recommendation for vocational rehabilitation and work-site evaluations and/or modifications.

A category of additional integrative interventions included recommendations against both electrotherapy and chiropractic care. However, conditional recommendations were positive for acupuncture, massage therapy, and thermal modalities. Conditional recommendations also supported cognitive-behavioral therapy and/or mind-body strategies, and a standardized self-management program.

The guideline was developed by an interprofessional voting panel of 20 individuals with expertise in epidemiology, exercise physiology, GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology, integrative medicine, nursing, nutrition, occupational therapy, physical therapy, rheumatology, and social work, as well as three individuals who have RA. The panel developed questions, conducted a literature review, and used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence.

“These recommendations are specific to RA management, understanding that other medical indications and general health benefits may exist for many of these interventions,” the authors write in the summary statement.

The range of interventions shows both the importance of an interprofessional team–based approach to RA management and the need to engage patients in shared decision-making, they said.

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

Exercise tops the list of 28 recommendations in a guideline for integrative interventions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis developed by the American College of Rheumatology.

The guideline is specific to RA and presents integrative interventions to accompany treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), according to a summary statement issued by the ACR. The summary was approved by the ACR Board of Directors on Oct. 31, and the recommendations are part of a manuscript that will be submitted for publication in both Arthritis & Rheumatology and Arthritis Care & Research.

Consistent engagement in exercise earned the only strong recommendation; the other 27 were conditional. In the exercise category, the authors offered conditional recommendations for aerobic exercise, aquatic exercise, resistance exercise, and mind-body exercise.

Three recommendations focused on diet. Notably, the recommended diet is Mediterranean style. Two other recommendations were specifically against any other formal diet and against the use of dietary supplements. “The conditional recommendation for adhering to a Mediterranean-style diet, but not other formally defined diets, to improve RA-specific outcomes may be surprising to some clinicians,” said Bryant R. England, MD, PhD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and one of the guideline’s coprincipal investigators, in a press release. “The voting panel acknowledged, however, that other health indications may exist for alternative diet and dietary supplements, which makes it crucial for clinicians and patients to engage in shared decision-making,” Dr. England said.

Nearly half of the 28 recommendations (13) focused on rehabilitation, but all were conditional. These included comprehensive occupational and physical therapy and hand therapy, as well as the use of splinting, orthoses, compression, bracing, and taping of affected areas. Other conditional recommendations supported the use of joint protection techniques, assistive devices, adaptive equipment, and/or environmental adaptations. The authors also included a conditional recommendation for vocational rehabilitation and work-site evaluations and/or modifications.

A category of additional integrative interventions included recommendations against both electrotherapy and chiropractic care. However, conditional recommendations were positive for acupuncture, massage therapy, and thermal modalities. Conditional recommendations also supported cognitive-behavioral therapy and/or mind-body strategies, and a standardized self-management program.

The guideline was developed by an interprofessional voting panel of 20 individuals with expertise in epidemiology, exercise physiology, GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology, integrative medicine, nursing, nutrition, occupational therapy, physical therapy, rheumatology, and social work, as well as three individuals who have RA. The panel developed questions, conducted a literature review, and used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence.

“These recommendations are specific to RA management, understanding that other medical indications and general health benefits may exist for many of these interventions,” the authors write in the summary statement.

The range of interventions shows both the importance of an interprofessional team–based approach to RA management and the need to engage patients in shared decision-making, they said.

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