Rheumatology News

Two-year follow-up data from an international, multicenter, randomized trial of ixekizumab in pediatric patients with moderate to severe psoriasis demonstrate prolonged efficacy and no new safety signals with the interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor, investigators reported.

In addition, findings of a substudy, which evaluated randomized withdrawal of treatment after 60 weeks, suggest patients were able to regain benefit after not being treated for a period.

Ixekizumab (Taltz) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating pediatric psoriasis in March 2020 for patients aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.

The trial (IXORA-PEDS) involved 171 patients aged 6-17 years (mean age, 13.5 years; 99 females and 72 males), who were randomly assigned to receive ixekizumab via subcutaneous administration every 4 weeks (115) or placebo for 12 weeks (56). Thereafter, 166 patients continued in an open-label maintenance period in which they were treated every 4 weeks for 12-60 weeks. This was followed by an extension period of up to 108 weeks, which was completed by 139 patients (83.7%). At baseline, the patients’ Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score was 12 or higher, the static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score was 3 or higher, and 10% or more of body surface area was affected.

In the study, at 12 weeks, treatment with ixekizumab was superior to placebo, with sustained responses through 48 weeks. In the follow-up phase, primary and secondary endpoints were sustained through week 108, with patients achieving or maintaining PASI 75 (91.7%), PASI 90 (79%), PASI 100 (55.1%), sPGA 0 or 1 (78.3%), and sPGA 0 (52.4%). Significant improvements in itch were seen at 12 weeks and were sustained with “meaningful improvements in itch for 78.5% of these patients at week 108,” the investigators report.

Among the patients who received ixekizumab, clearance rates in areas that are difficult to treat increased from week 12 to week 108 among those affected. During this time, clearance of nail psoriasis increased from 22.8% to 68.1%, clearance of palmoplantar psoriasis increased from 46.2% to 90%, clearance of scalp psoriasis increased from 70.7% to 76.2%, and clearance of genital psoriasis increased from 83.3% to 87.5%.

No new safety findings during weeks 48-108 of the trial were reported, including no new cases of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) or Candida infections. The results were reported in JAMA Dermatology.

“Safety is really what we think of most when we are talking about pediatric patients, especially since they may be on these for decades and ... since they most commonly start these therapies in adolescence,” said Amy Paller, MD, the study’s lead author, in an interview. “To be able to take this out 108 weeks, 2 years, is starting to get to a point where we are getting more comfortable with safety. Clearly, no new signals arose.” Dr. Paller is chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics, Northwestern University, Chicago.

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

Two-year follow-up data from an international, multicenter, randomized trial of ixekizumab in pediatric patients with moderate to severe psoriasis demonstrate prolonged efficacy and no new safety signals with the interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor, investigators reported.

In addition, findings of a substudy, which evaluated randomized withdrawal of treatment after 60 weeks, suggest patients were able to regain benefit after not being treated for a period.

Ixekizumab (Taltz) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating pediatric psoriasis in March 2020 for patients aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.

The trial (IXORA-PEDS) involved 171 patients aged 6-17 years (mean age, 13.5 years; 99 females and 72 males), who were randomly assigned to receive ixekizumab via subcutaneous administration every 4 weeks (115) or placebo for 12 weeks (56). Thereafter, 166 patients continued in an open-label maintenance period in which they were treated every 4 weeks for 12-60 weeks. This was followed by an extension period of up to 108 weeks, which was completed by 139 patients (83.7%). At baseline, the patients’ Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score was 12 or higher, the static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score was 3 or higher, and 10% or more of body surface area was affected.

In the study, at 12 weeks, treatment with ixekizumab was superior to placebo, with sustained responses through 48 weeks. In the follow-up phase, primary and secondary endpoints were sustained through week 108, with patients achieving or maintaining PASI 75 (91.7%), PASI 90 (79%), PASI 100 (55.1%), sPGA 0 or 1 (78.3%), and sPGA 0 (52.4%). Significant improvements in itch were seen at 12 weeks and were sustained with “meaningful improvements in itch for 78.5% of these patients at week 108,” the investigators report.

Among the patients who received ixekizumab, clearance rates in areas that are difficult to treat increased from week 12 to week 108 among those affected. During this time, clearance of nail psoriasis increased from 22.8% to 68.1%, clearance of palmoplantar psoriasis increased from 46.2% to 90%, clearance of scalp psoriasis increased from 70.7% to 76.2%, and clearance of genital psoriasis increased from 83.3% to 87.5%.

No new safety findings during weeks 48-108 of the trial were reported, including no new cases of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) or Candida infections. The results were reported in JAMA Dermatology.

“Safety is really what we think of most when we are talking about pediatric patients, especially since they may be on these for decades and ... since they most commonly start these therapies in adolescence,” said Amy Paller, MD, the study’s lead author, in an interview. “To be able to take this out 108 weeks, 2 years, is starting to get to a point where we are getting more comfortable with safety. Clearly, no new signals arose.” Dr. Paller is chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics, Northwestern University, Chicago.

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

Two-year follow-up data from an international, multicenter, randomized trial of ixekizumab in pediatric patients with moderate to severe psoriasis demonstrate prolonged efficacy and no new safety signals with the interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor, investigators reported.

In addition, findings of a substudy, which evaluated randomized withdrawal of treatment after 60 weeks, suggest patients were able to regain benefit after not being treated for a period.

Ixekizumab (Taltz) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating pediatric psoriasis in March 2020 for patients aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.

The trial (IXORA-PEDS) involved 171 patients aged 6-17 years (mean age, 13.5 years; 99 females and 72 males), who were randomly assigned to receive ixekizumab via subcutaneous administration every 4 weeks (115) or placebo for 12 weeks (56). Thereafter, 166 patients continued in an open-label maintenance period in which they were treated every 4 weeks for 12-60 weeks. This was followed by an extension period of up to 108 weeks, which was completed by 139 patients (83.7%). At baseline, the patients’ Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score was 12 or higher, the static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score was 3 or higher, and 10% or more of body surface area was affected.

In the study, at 12 weeks, treatment with ixekizumab was superior to placebo, with sustained responses through 48 weeks. In the follow-up phase, primary and secondary endpoints were sustained through week 108, with patients achieving or maintaining PASI 75 (91.7%), PASI 90 (79%), PASI 100 (55.1%), sPGA 0 or 1 (78.3%), and sPGA 0 (52.4%). Significant improvements in itch were seen at 12 weeks and were sustained with “meaningful improvements in itch for 78.5% of these patients at week 108,” the investigators report.

Among the patients who received ixekizumab, clearance rates in areas that are difficult to treat increased from week 12 to week 108 among those affected. During this time, clearance of nail psoriasis increased from 22.8% to 68.1%, clearance of palmoplantar psoriasis increased from 46.2% to 90%, clearance of scalp psoriasis increased from 70.7% to 76.2%, and clearance of genital psoriasis increased from 83.3% to 87.5%.

No new safety findings during weeks 48-108 of the trial were reported, including no new cases of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) or Candida infections. The results were reported in JAMA Dermatology.

“Safety is really what we think of most when we are talking about pediatric patients, especially since they may be on these for decades and ... since they most commonly start these therapies in adolescence,” said Amy Paller, MD, the study’s lead author, in an interview. “To be able to take this out 108 weeks, 2 years, is starting to get to a point where we are getting more comfortable with safety. Clearly, no new signals arose.” Dr. Paller is chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics, Northwestern University, Chicago.

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

COVID-19 was the third-leading cause of death in the United States in 2021 for the second straight year, with only heart disease and cancer causing more deaths, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said April 22.

About 693,000 people died of heart disease in 2021, with 605,000 dying of cancer and 415,000 of COVID, the CDC said, citing provisional data that might be updated later.

Unintentional injuries were the fourth-leading cause of death, increasing to 219,000 in 2021 from 201,000 in 2020. Influenza and pneumonia dropped out of the top 10 leading causes of death and suicide moved into 10th place.

Overall, about 3,458,697 deaths were reported in the United States in 2021. The age-adjusted death rate was 841.6 deaths per 100,000 people, an increase of 0.7% from 2020. The 2021 death rate was the highest since 2003, the CDC said.

The overall number of COVID deaths in 2021 increased around 20% over 2020, when around 384,000 people died from the virus, the CDC said. COVID deaths in 2021 peaked for the weeks ending Jan. 16 and Sept. 11, following holiday periods.

The demographics of COVID mortality changed slightly, the CDC said in a second report.

Blacks accounted for 13.3% of COVID deaths in 2021 and Hispanics 16.5%, down several percentage points from 2020, the CDC said. Asians made up 3.1% of COVID deaths for 2021, a drop from 3.6% in 2020. White people accounted for 65.2% of COVID deaths in 2021, an increase from 59.6% in 2020.

Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaskan Native and non-Hispanic Black or African American had the highest overall death rates for COVID, the CDC said.

Breaking the data down by age, the number of COVID deaths among people aged 75 years and older dropped to 178,000 in 2021 from around 207,000 in 2020. The numbers went up in other age groups. Among people aged 65-75, about 101,000 died of COVID in 2021, up from around 76,000 in 2020.

“The results of both studies highlight the need for greater effort to implement effective interventions,” the CDC said in a statement. “We must work to ensure equal treatment in all communities in proportion to their need for effective interventions that can prevent excess COVID-19 deaths.”

Since the pandemic began, about 991,000 people in the United States have died from COVID-related causes, the most among all nations in the world.
 

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

COVID-19 was the third-leading cause of death in the United States in 2021 for the second straight year, with only heart disease and cancer causing more deaths, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said April 22.

About 693,000 people died of heart disease in 2021, with 605,000 dying of cancer and 415,000 of COVID, the CDC said, citing provisional data that might be updated later.

Unintentional injuries were the fourth-leading cause of death, increasing to 219,000 in 2021 from 201,000 in 2020. Influenza and pneumonia dropped out of the top 10 leading causes of death and suicide moved into 10th place.

Overall, about 3,458,697 deaths were reported in the United States in 2021. The age-adjusted death rate was 841.6 deaths per 100,000 people, an increase of 0.7% from 2020. The 2021 death rate was the highest since 2003, the CDC said.

The overall number of COVID deaths in 2021 increased around 20% over 2020, when around 384,000 people died from the virus, the CDC said. COVID deaths in 2021 peaked for the weeks ending Jan. 16 and Sept. 11, following holiday periods.

The demographics of COVID mortality changed slightly, the CDC said in a second report.

Blacks accounted for 13.3% of COVID deaths in 2021 and Hispanics 16.5%, down several percentage points from 2020, the CDC said. Asians made up 3.1% of COVID deaths for 2021, a drop from 3.6% in 2020. White people accounted for 65.2% of COVID deaths in 2021, an increase from 59.6% in 2020.

Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaskan Native and non-Hispanic Black or African American had the highest overall death rates for COVID, the CDC said.

Breaking the data down by age, the number of COVID deaths among people aged 75 years and older dropped to 178,000 in 2021 from around 207,000 in 2020. The numbers went up in other age groups. Among people aged 65-75, about 101,000 died of COVID in 2021, up from around 76,000 in 2020.

“The results of both studies highlight the need for greater effort to implement effective interventions,” the CDC said in a statement. “We must work to ensure equal treatment in all communities in proportion to their need for effective interventions that can prevent excess COVID-19 deaths.”

Since the pandemic began, about 991,000 people in the United States have died from COVID-related causes, the most among all nations in the world.
 

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

COVID-19 was the third-leading cause of death in the United States in 2021 for the second straight year, with only heart disease and cancer causing more deaths, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said April 22.

About 693,000 people died of heart disease in 2021, with 605,000 dying of cancer and 415,000 of COVID, the CDC said, citing provisional data that might be updated later.

Unintentional injuries were the fourth-leading cause of death, increasing to 219,000 in 2021 from 201,000 in 2020. Influenza and pneumonia dropped out of the top 10 leading causes of death and suicide moved into 10th place.

Overall, about 3,458,697 deaths were reported in the United States in 2021. The age-adjusted death rate was 841.6 deaths per 100,000 people, an increase of 0.7% from 2020. The 2021 death rate was the highest since 2003, the CDC said.

The overall number of COVID deaths in 2021 increased around 20% over 2020, when around 384,000 people died from the virus, the CDC said. COVID deaths in 2021 peaked for the weeks ending Jan. 16 and Sept. 11, following holiday periods.

The demographics of COVID mortality changed slightly, the CDC said in a second report.

Blacks accounted for 13.3% of COVID deaths in 2021 and Hispanics 16.5%, down several percentage points from 2020, the CDC said. Asians made up 3.1% of COVID deaths for 2021, a drop from 3.6% in 2020. White people accounted for 65.2% of COVID deaths in 2021, an increase from 59.6% in 2020.

Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaskan Native and non-Hispanic Black or African American had the highest overall death rates for COVID, the CDC said.

Breaking the data down by age, the number of COVID deaths among people aged 75 years and older dropped to 178,000 in 2021 from around 207,000 in 2020. The numbers went up in other age groups. Among people aged 65-75, about 101,000 died of COVID in 2021, up from around 76,000 in 2020.

“The results of both studies highlight the need for greater effort to implement effective interventions,” the CDC said in a statement. “We must work to ensure equal treatment in all communities in proportion to their need for effective interventions that can prevent excess COVID-19 deaths.”

Since the pandemic began, about 991,000 people in the United States have died from COVID-related causes, the most among all nations in the world.
 

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

Marcus Welby, MD, was a fictitious hometown doctor featured in a TV drama with the same name that was shown on ABC from 1969 to 1976. Played by actor Robert Young, Dr. Welby treated his patients through their bouts with breast cancer, impotence, and Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. Welby likely wouldn’t recognize the practice of medicine today, where nearly three quarters (73.9%) of physicians are employed by hospitals, health systems, or corporate entities, according to a recent report sponsored by the Physicians Advocacy Institute and prepared by consulting firm Avalere Health.

“COVID-19 drove physicians to leave private practice for employment at an even more rapid pace than we’ve seen in recent years, and these trends continued to accelerate in 2021,” Kelly Kenney, chief executive officer of Physicians Advocacy Institute, said in an announcement. “This study underscores the fact that physicians across the nation are facing severe burnout and strain. The pressures of the pandemic forced many independent physicians to make difficult decisions to sell their practices, health insurers, or other corporate entities.”

Corporate entities are defined in the report as health insurers, private equity firms, and umbrella corporate entities that own multiple physician practices.

“The pandemic has been just brutal ... for nurses and physicians who are caring for patients,” Ms. Kenney told this news organization. “Between the financial stress that the pandemic certainly had on practices, because they certainly had little revenue for a while, and then also we know that the stress that physicians have felt mentally, you can’t overstate that.”

More than half of physician practices owned by hospitals, corporate entities

The Physicians Advocacy Institute has tracked changes in physician employment consistently since 2012, said Ms. Kenney. In 2012, 25% of physicians were employed; that has jumped to nearly 74%, which means the past decade has brought a world of change to the nation’s physicians.

“These are essentially small-business people ... and they were primarily trained to care for patients,” said Ms. Kenney, referring to physicians in independent practice. Still, she understands why physicians would seek employment in the face of “the crushing kind of pressure of having to deal with 20 different payers, pay overhead, and keep the lights on [at the practice].”

According to the report, 108,700 physicians left independent practice to enter employment with hospitals or other corporate entities in the 3-year period that ended in 2021. Seventy-six percent of that shift to employed status among physicians has occurred since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.

From a regional perspective, the report found continued growth among employed physicians across all U.S. regions in the last half of 2020. Hospital- or corporate-owned physician practices increased between 28% and 44%, while the percentage of hospital- or corporate-employed physicians increased between 13% and 24%.

Eighty percent of physicians in the Midwest are employed by hospitals or corporations, which leads the rest of the country, per the report. That’s followed by the Northeast, the West, and the South. Overall, the number of physicians working for such entities increased in all regions.

The report revealed that physician employment by corporations such as health insurers and venture capital firms grew from 92,400 in January 2019 to 142,900 in January 2022.

Hospitals and corporate entities acquired 36,200 physician practices (representing 38% growth) between 2019 and 2021, and the majority of these moves occurred since the pandemic’s start, according to the report.

Value-based care, venture capital firms driving change

Ms. Kenney pointed to value-based care as driving much of this activity by hospitals. “We all embrace [value-based payment], because we need to get a handle on cost, and we want better quality [but] those trends tend to favor integrated systems and systems that can handle a lot of risk and populations of patients.”

Still, the moves by private equity firms and health insurers in this space is relatively new, said Ms. Kenney, who added that her organization started tracking this trend 3 years ago. She pointed to a “marked acceleration” in the trend toward employing physicians and the sale of practices in the 18 months following the pandemic’s start; nonhospital corporate entities drove that steep increase, she said.

Ms. Kenney calls for further study and “guardrails” to respond to “that force in the health care system,” referring to the acquisition of practices by entities such as private equity firms. “Are these big [health care] systems going to continue to see patients in underserved areas, rural areas, and Medicaid patients if it doesn’t make sense financially to do so?

“That’s what we’re teeing up with this research,” added Ms. Kenney. “We are providing information that starts some conversations around what we might want to think about in terms of policies to ensure that we don’t impact patients’ access to care.”

The Physicians Advocacy Institute represents more than 170,000 physicians and medical students. Avalere Health used the IQVIA OneKey database for the report. The researchers studied the 3-year period from Jan. 1, 2019, to Jan. 1, 2022.

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

Marcus Welby, MD, was a fictitious hometown doctor featured in a TV drama with the same name that was shown on ABC from 1969 to 1976. Played by actor Robert Young, Dr. Welby treated his patients through their bouts with breast cancer, impotence, and Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. Welby likely wouldn’t recognize the practice of medicine today, where nearly three quarters (73.9%) of physicians are employed by hospitals, health systems, or corporate entities, according to a recent report sponsored by the Physicians Advocacy Institute and prepared by consulting firm Avalere Health.

“COVID-19 drove physicians to leave private practice for employment at an even more rapid pace than we’ve seen in recent years, and these trends continued to accelerate in 2021,” Kelly Kenney, chief executive officer of Physicians Advocacy Institute, said in an announcement. “This study underscores the fact that physicians across the nation are facing severe burnout and strain. The pressures of the pandemic forced many independent physicians to make difficult decisions to sell their practices, health insurers, or other corporate entities.”

Corporate entities are defined in the report as health insurers, private equity firms, and umbrella corporate entities that own multiple physician practices.

“The pandemic has been just brutal ... for nurses and physicians who are caring for patients,” Ms. Kenney told this news organization. “Between the financial stress that the pandemic certainly had on practices, because they certainly had little revenue for a while, and then also we know that the stress that physicians have felt mentally, you can’t overstate that.”

More than half of physician practices owned by hospitals, corporate entities

The Physicians Advocacy Institute has tracked changes in physician employment consistently since 2012, said Ms. Kenney. In 2012, 25% of physicians were employed; that has jumped to nearly 74%, which means the past decade has brought a world of change to the nation’s physicians.

“These are essentially small-business people ... and they were primarily trained to care for patients,” said Ms. Kenney, referring to physicians in independent practice. Still, she understands why physicians would seek employment in the face of “the crushing kind of pressure of having to deal with 20 different payers, pay overhead, and keep the lights on [at the practice].”

According to the report, 108,700 physicians left independent practice to enter employment with hospitals or other corporate entities in the 3-year period that ended in 2021. Seventy-six percent of that shift to employed status among physicians has occurred since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.

From a regional perspective, the report found continued growth among employed physicians across all U.S. regions in the last half of 2020. Hospital- or corporate-owned physician practices increased between 28% and 44%, while the percentage of hospital- or corporate-employed physicians increased between 13% and 24%.

Eighty percent of physicians in the Midwest are employed by hospitals or corporations, which leads the rest of the country, per the report. That’s followed by the Northeast, the West, and the South. Overall, the number of physicians working for such entities increased in all regions.

The report revealed that physician employment by corporations such as health insurers and venture capital firms grew from 92,400 in January 2019 to 142,900 in January 2022.

Hospitals and corporate entities acquired 36,200 physician practices (representing 38% growth) between 2019 and 2021, and the majority of these moves occurred since the pandemic’s start, according to the report.

Value-based care, venture capital firms driving change

Ms. Kenney pointed to value-based care as driving much of this activity by hospitals. “We all embrace [value-based payment], because we need to get a handle on cost, and we want better quality [but] those trends tend to favor integrated systems and systems that can handle a lot of risk and populations of patients.”

Still, the moves by private equity firms and health insurers in this space is relatively new, said Ms. Kenney, who added that her organization started tracking this trend 3 years ago. She pointed to a “marked acceleration” in the trend toward employing physicians and the sale of practices in the 18 months following the pandemic’s start; nonhospital corporate entities drove that steep increase, she said.

Ms. Kenney calls for further study and “guardrails” to respond to “that force in the health care system,” referring to the acquisition of practices by entities such as private equity firms. “Are these big [health care] systems going to continue to see patients in underserved areas, rural areas, and Medicaid patients if it doesn’t make sense financially to do so?

“That’s what we’re teeing up with this research,” added Ms. Kenney. “We are providing information that starts some conversations around what we might want to think about in terms of policies to ensure that we don’t impact patients’ access to care.”

The Physicians Advocacy Institute represents more than 170,000 physicians and medical students. Avalere Health used the IQVIA OneKey database for the report. The researchers studied the 3-year period from Jan. 1, 2019, to Jan. 1, 2022.

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

Marcus Welby, MD, was a fictitious hometown doctor featured in a TV drama with the same name that was shown on ABC from 1969 to 1976. Played by actor Robert Young, Dr. Welby treated his patients through their bouts with breast cancer, impotence, and Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. Welby likely wouldn’t recognize the practice of medicine today, where nearly three quarters (73.9%) of physicians are employed by hospitals, health systems, or corporate entities, according to a recent report sponsored by the Physicians Advocacy Institute and prepared by consulting firm Avalere Health.

“COVID-19 drove physicians to leave private practice for employment at an even more rapid pace than we’ve seen in recent years, and these trends continued to accelerate in 2021,” Kelly Kenney, chief executive officer of Physicians Advocacy Institute, said in an announcement. “This study underscores the fact that physicians across the nation are facing severe burnout and strain. The pressures of the pandemic forced many independent physicians to make difficult decisions to sell their practices, health insurers, or other corporate entities.”

Corporate entities are defined in the report as health insurers, private equity firms, and umbrella corporate entities that own multiple physician practices.

“The pandemic has been just brutal ... for nurses and physicians who are caring for patients,” Ms. Kenney told this news organization. “Between the financial stress that the pandemic certainly had on practices, because they certainly had little revenue for a while, and then also we know that the stress that physicians have felt mentally, you can’t overstate that.”

More than half of physician practices owned by hospitals, corporate entities

The Physicians Advocacy Institute has tracked changes in physician employment consistently since 2012, said Ms. Kenney. In 2012, 25% of physicians were employed; that has jumped to nearly 74%, which means the past decade has brought a world of change to the nation’s physicians.

“These are essentially small-business people ... and they were primarily trained to care for patients,” said Ms. Kenney, referring to physicians in independent practice. Still, she understands why physicians would seek employment in the face of “the crushing kind of pressure of having to deal with 20 different payers, pay overhead, and keep the lights on [at the practice].”

According to the report, 108,700 physicians left independent practice to enter employment with hospitals or other corporate entities in the 3-year period that ended in 2021. Seventy-six percent of that shift to employed status among physicians has occurred since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.

From a regional perspective, the report found continued growth among employed physicians across all U.S. regions in the last half of 2020. Hospital- or corporate-owned physician practices increased between 28% and 44%, while the percentage of hospital- or corporate-employed physicians increased between 13% and 24%.

Eighty percent of physicians in the Midwest are employed by hospitals or corporations, which leads the rest of the country, per the report. That’s followed by the Northeast, the West, and the South. Overall, the number of physicians working for such entities increased in all regions.

The report revealed that physician employment by corporations such as health insurers and venture capital firms grew from 92,400 in January 2019 to 142,900 in January 2022.

Hospitals and corporate entities acquired 36,200 physician practices (representing 38% growth) between 2019 and 2021, and the majority of these moves occurred since the pandemic’s start, according to the report.

Value-based care, venture capital firms driving change

Ms. Kenney pointed to value-based care as driving much of this activity by hospitals. “We all embrace [value-based payment], because we need to get a handle on cost, and we want better quality [but] those trends tend to favor integrated systems and systems that can handle a lot of risk and populations of patients.”

Still, the moves by private equity firms and health insurers in this space is relatively new, said Ms. Kenney, who added that her organization started tracking this trend 3 years ago. She pointed to a “marked acceleration” in the trend toward employing physicians and the sale of practices in the 18 months following the pandemic’s start; nonhospital corporate entities drove that steep increase, she said.

Ms. Kenney calls for further study and “guardrails” to respond to “that force in the health care system,” referring to the acquisition of practices by entities such as private equity firms. “Are these big [health care] systems going to continue to see patients in underserved areas, rural areas, and Medicaid patients if it doesn’t make sense financially to do so?

“That’s what we’re teeing up with this research,” added Ms. Kenney. “We are providing information that starts some conversations around what we might want to think about in terms of policies to ensure that we don’t impact patients’ access to care.”

The Physicians Advocacy Institute represents more than 170,000 physicians and medical students. Avalere Health used the IQVIA OneKey database for the report. The researchers studied the 3-year period from Jan. 1, 2019, to Jan. 1, 2022.

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

Remote gait assessment in people with knee osteoarthritis using wearable sensors appears reliable but yields results slightly different from those achieved in the laboratory, researchers from Boston University have found.

As reported at the OARSI 2022 World Congress, there was “good to excellent reliability” in repeated measures collected by patients at home while being instructed via video teleconferencing.

Agreement was “moderate to excellent” when the findings were compared with those recorded in the lab, Michael J. Rose of Boston University reported at the congress, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

“People walked faster and stood up faster in the lab,” Mr. Rose said. “Later we found that the difference in gait speed was statistically significant between the lab and home environment.”

This has been suggested previously and implies that data collected at home may have “greater ecological validity,” he observed.
 

Accelerated adoption of telehealth

Assessing how well someone walks or can stand from a seated position are well known and important assessments in knee OA, but these have but have traditionally only been done in large and expensive gait labs, Mr. Rose said.

Wearable technologies, such as the ones used in the study he presented, could help move these assessments out into the community. This is particularly timely considering the increased adoption of telehealth practices during the COVID-19 pandemic.

To look at the reliability measurements obtained via wearable sensors versus lab assessments, Mr. Rose and associates set up a substudy within a larger ongoing, single-arm trial looking at the use of digital assessments to measure the efficacy of an exercise intervention in reducing knee pain and improving knee function.

For inclusion in the main trial (n = 60), and hence the substudy (n = 20), participants had to have physician-diagnosed knee OA, be 50 years of age or older, have a body mass index of 40 kg/m² or lower, be able to walk at for a least 20 minutes, and have a score of three or higher on the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale for weight-bearing items.

Acceptance of in-lab versus home testing

The substudy participants (mean age, 70.5 years) all underwent in-person lab visits in which a wearable sensor was placed on each foot and one around the lower back and the participant asked to perform walking and chair stand tests. The latter involved standing from a seated position as quickly as possible without using the arms five times, while the former involved walking 28 meters in two laps of a 7-meter path defined by two cones. These tests were repeated twice.

Participants were then given the equipment to repeat these tests at home; this included the three sensors, a tablet computer, and chair and cones. The home assessments were conducted via video conferencing, with the researchers reminding how to place the sensors correctly. The walking and chair stand tests were then each performed four times: Twice in a row and then a 15-minute rest period before being performed twice in a row again.

The researchers collected participants’ feedback about the process on questionnaires and Likert scales that showed an overall positive experience for the remote home visit, with the median rating being “very likely” to participate in another home visit and that the time commitment required was “very manageable.”
 

Good correlation found

To determine the correlation and the test-retest reliability of the data obtained during the repeated home tasks, Mr. Rose and collaborators used Pearson’s correlation R² and the intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC).

ICCs for various gait and chair stand variables obtained with the sensors were between 0.85 and 0.96 for the test-retest reliability during the remote home visit, and R² ranged between 0.81 and 0.95. Variables include stance, cadence (steps per minute), step duration and length, speed, and chair stand duration.

With regard to the agreement between the home versus lab results, ICCs ranged between 0.63 and 0.9.

“There were some logistical and technological challenges with the approach,” Mr. Rose conceded. “Despite written and verbal instructions, 2 of the 20 participants ended up having gait data that was unusable in the home visit.”

Another limitation is that the study population, while “representative,” contained a higher number of individuals than the general population who identified as being White (95%) and female (85%), and 90% had a college degree.

“Individuals typically representative of an OA population were generally accepting and willing to participate in remote visits showing the feasibility of our approach,” Mr. Rose said.

“We need to determine the responsiveness of gait and chair stand outcomes from wearable sensors at home to change over time.”

The study was sponsored by Boston University with funding from Pfizer and Eli Lilly. The researchers used the OPAL inertial sensor (APDM Wearable Technologies) in the study. Mr. Rose made no personal disclosures. Four of his collaborators were employees of Pfizer and one is an employee of Eli Lilly & Company, all with stock or stock options.

Remote gait assessment in people with knee osteoarthritis using wearable sensors appears reliable but yields results slightly different from those achieved in the laboratory, researchers from Boston University have found.

As reported at the OARSI 2022 World Congress, there was “good to excellent reliability” in repeated measures collected by patients at home while being instructed via video teleconferencing.

Agreement was “moderate to excellent” when the findings were compared with those recorded in the lab, Michael J. Rose of Boston University reported at the congress, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

“People walked faster and stood up faster in the lab,” Mr. Rose said. “Later we found that the difference in gait speed was statistically significant between the lab and home environment.”

This has been suggested previously and implies that data collected at home may have “greater ecological validity,” he observed.
 

Accelerated adoption of telehealth

Assessing how well someone walks or can stand from a seated position are well known and important assessments in knee OA, but these have but have traditionally only been done in large and expensive gait labs, Mr. Rose said.

Wearable technologies, such as the ones used in the study he presented, could help move these assessments out into the community. This is particularly timely considering the increased adoption of telehealth practices during the COVID-19 pandemic.

To look at the reliability measurements obtained via wearable sensors versus lab assessments, Mr. Rose and associates set up a substudy within a larger ongoing, single-arm trial looking at the use of digital assessments to measure the efficacy of an exercise intervention in reducing knee pain and improving knee function.

For inclusion in the main trial (n = 60), and hence the substudy (n = 20), participants had to have physician-diagnosed knee OA, be 50 years of age or older, have a body mass index of 40 kg/m² or lower, be able to walk at for a least 20 minutes, and have a score of three or higher on the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale for weight-bearing items.

Acceptance of in-lab versus home testing

The substudy participants (mean age, 70.5 years) all underwent in-person lab visits in which a wearable sensor was placed on each foot and one around the lower back and the participant asked to perform walking and chair stand tests. The latter involved standing from a seated position as quickly as possible without using the arms five times, while the former involved walking 28 meters in two laps of a 7-meter path defined by two cones. These tests were repeated twice.

Participants were then given the equipment to repeat these tests at home; this included the three sensors, a tablet computer, and chair and cones. The home assessments were conducted via video conferencing, with the researchers reminding how to place the sensors correctly. The walking and chair stand tests were then each performed four times: Twice in a row and then a 15-minute rest period before being performed twice in a row again.

The researchers collected participants’ feedback about the process on questionnaires and Likert scales that showed an overall positive experience for the remote home visit, with the median rating being “very likely” to participate in another home visit and that the time commitment required was “very manageable.”
 

Good correlation found

To determine the correlation and the test-retest reliability of the data obtained during the repeated home tasks, Mr. Rose and collaborators used Pearson’s correlation R² and the intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC).

ICCs for various gait and chair stand variables obtained with the sensors were between 0.85 and 0.96 for the test-retest reliability during the remote home visit, and R² ranged between 0.81 and 0.95. Variables include stance, cadence (steps per minute), step duration and length, speed, and chair stand duration.

With regard to the agreement between the home versus lab results, ICCs ranged between 0.63 and 0.9.

“There were some logistical and technological challenges with the approach,” Mr. Rose conceded. “Despite written and verbal instructions, 2 of the 20 participants ended up having gait data that was unusable in the home visit.”

Another limitation is that the study population, while “representative,” contained a higher number of individuals than the general population who identified as being White (95%) and female (85%), and 90% had a college degree.

“Individuals typically representative of an OA population were generally accepting and willing to participate in remote visits showing the feasibility of our approach,” Mr. Rose said.

“We need to determine the responsiveness of gait and chair stand outcomes from wearable sensors at home to change over time.”

The study was sponsored by Boston University with funding from Pfizer and Eli Lilly. The researchers used the OPAL inertial sensor (APDM Wearable Technologies) in the study. Mr. Rose made no personal disclosures. Four of his collaborators were employees of Pfizer and one is an employee of Eli Lilly & Company, all with stock or stock options.

Remote gait assessment in people with knee osteoarthritis using wearable sensors appears reliable but yields results slightly different from those achieved in the laboratory, researchers from Boston University have found.

As reported at the OARSI 2022 World Congress, there was “good to excellent reliability” in repeated measures collected by patients at home while being instructed via video teleconferencing.

Agreement was “moderate to excellent” when the findings were compared with those recorded in the lab, Michael J. Rose of Boston University reported at the congress, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

“People walked faster and stood up faster in the lab,” Mr. Rose said. “Later we found that the difference in gait speed was statistically significant between the lab and home environment.”

This has been suggested previously and implies that data collected at home may have “greater ecological validity,” he observed.
 

Accelerated adoption of telehealth

Assessing how well someone walks or can stand from a seated position are well known and important assessments in knee OA, but these have but have traditionally only been done in large and expensive gait labs, Mr. Rose said.

Wearable technologies, such as the ones used in the study he presented, could help move these assessments out into the community. This is particularly timely considering the increased adoption of telehealth practices during the COVID-19 pandemic.

To look at the reliability measurements obtained via wearable sensors versus lab assessments, Mr. Rose and associates set up a substudy within a larger ongoing, single-arm trial looking at the use of digital assessments to measure the efficacy of an exercise intervention in reducing knee pain and improving knee function.

For inclusion in the main trial (n = 60), and hence the substudy (n = 20), participants had to have physician-diagnosed knee OA, be 50 years of age or older, have a body mass index of 40 kg/m² or lower, be able to walk at for a least 20 minutes, and have a score of three or higher on the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale for weight-bearing items.

Acceptance of in-lab versus home testing

The substudy participants (mean age, 70.5 years) all underwent in-person lab visits in which a wearable sensor was placed on each foot and one around the lower back and the participant asked to perform walking and chair stand tests. The latter involved standing from a seated position as quickly as possible without using the arms five times, while the former involved walking 28 meters in two laps of a 7-meter path defined by two cones. These tests were repeated twice.

Participants were then given the equipment to repeat these tests at home; this included the three sensors, a tablet computer, and chair and cones. The home assessments were conducted via video conferencing, with the researchers reminding how to place the sensors correctly. The walking and chair stand tests were then each performed four times: Twice in a row and then a 15-minute rest period before being performed twice in a row again.

The researchers collected participants’ feedback about the process on questionnaires and Likert scales that showed an overall positive experience for the remote home visit, with the median rating being “very likely” to participate in another home visit and that the time commitment required was “very manageable.”
 

Good correlation found

To determine the correlation and the test-retest reliability of the data obtained during the repeated home tasks, Mr. Rose and collaborators used Pearson’s correlation R² and the intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC).

ICCs for various gait and chair stand variables obtained with the sensors were between 0.85 and 0.96 for the test-retest reliability during the remote home visit, and R² ranged between 0.81 and 0.95. Variables include stance, cadence (steps per minute), step duration and length, speed, and chair stand duration.

With regard to the agreement between the home versus lab results, ICCs ranged between 0.63 and 0.9.

“There were some logistical and technological challenges with the approach,” Mr. Rose conceded. “Despite written and verbal instructions, 2 of the 20 participants ended up having gait data that was unusable in the home visit.”

Another limitation is that the study population, while “representative,” contained a higher number of individuals than the general population who identified as being White (95%) and female (85%), and 90% had a college degree.

“Individuals typically representative of an OA population were generally accepting and willing to participate in remote visits showing the feasibility of our approach,” Mr. Rose said.

“We need to determine the responsiveness of gait and chair stand outcomes from wearable sensors at home to change over time.”

The study was sponsored by Boston University with funding from Pfizer and Eli Lilly. The researchers used the OPAL inertial sensor (APDM Wearable Technologies) in the study. Mr. Rose made no personal disclosures. Four of his collaborators were employees of Pfizer and one is an employee of Eli Lilly & Company, all with stock or stock options.

American patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and psoriasis who received the interleukin-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) as their first biologic treatment achieved the best response rate with a 300-mg dose regimen when compared with placebo, and those who up-titrated to 300 mg from the lower approved dose of 150 mg also saw benefits obtained at that level.

Researchers conducted a postmarketing trial of secukinumab in patients at U.S. centers, called CHOICE, after it was approved for psoriasis and PsA in 2015 and 2016 based on trials mainly conducted outside of the United States. The American patients in those studies “had a baseline clinical profile indicating harder-to-treat disease than the total study population, including higher body mass index (BMI), higher tender and swollen joint counts, increased prevalence of enthesitis and dactylitis, and more tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) experience,” Tien Q. Nguyen, MD, a dermatologist in private practice in Irvine, Calif., and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Rheumatology.

In order to get a better sense of how secukinumab performs in U.S. patients who have not been treated with biologics, the researchers conducted the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 4 CHOICE trial. It recruited patients for about 26 months at 67 U.S. centers during 2016-2018. The 258 patients randomized in the study to 300 mg (n = 103), 150 mg secukinumab (n = 103), or placebo (n = 52) had a mean time since PsA diagnosis of 3.0-3.9 years and all had a mean BMI of greater than 30 kg/m², with dactylitis present in 48% and enthesitis in 73%. About one-third were taking methotrexate at baseline.

At week 16, patients taking secukinumab 300 mg were about 3.5 times more likely to have 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria than with placebo (51.5% vs. 23.1%), whereas the response rate with 150 mg was not significantly different from placebo (36.9%). Rates of achieving ACR50 were significantly greater for both 300- and 150-mg doses versus placebo (28.2% and 24.3% vs. 5.8%), but only 300 mg led to a statistically significant difference in the rate of ACR70 responses, compared with placebo (17.5% vs. 1.9%).

In general, efficacy based on ACR20/50/70 responses and either remission or low disease activity on the Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis index was lower among patients with less than 10 tender joints and less than 10 swollen joints at baseline. Methotrexate use at baseline did not affect ACR20 rates at week 16 in patients taking secukinumab, but the effect of methotrexate on ACR20 rates was noticeable among placebo-treated patients (38.9% vs. 14.7%). Enthesitis appeared to resolve significantly more often among patients on secukinumab, and more patients on secukinumab also had their dactylitis resolve, but the difference was not statistically significant.

Patients with psoriasis affecting more than 3% of their body surface area experienced higher response rates on the Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) for 75%, 90%, and 100% skin lesion clearance than did patients taking placebo.

Patients who switched from 150 mg to 300 mg secukinumab after week 16 in the second treatment period of the trial more often achieved ACR20/50/70 responses by week 52, going from 2.4% to 65.9% of the up-titration subset for ACR20 and from 0% to 34.1% for ACR50 and to 12.2% for ACR70. Patients on placebo who switched also experienced increases in these response rates out to week 52. However, BMI above 30 kg/m² led to numerically lower ACR50, ACR70, and PASI response rates at week 52.

The researchers noted that the response rates observed in CHOICE were lower than for the pivotal trials used for Food and Drug Administration approval for PsA, which “may have been due to patients in CHOICE having higher disease activity scores at baseline, compared with TNFi-naive patients” in the pivotal trials.

The safety profile of secukinumab appeared to be no different from what has been reported previously. The researchers said that, throughout the 52-week study, the most common adverse events in patients receiving secukinumab were upper respiratory tract infection in about 13% and diarrhea in about 7%. Most adverse events were mild or moderate, with serious adverse events occurring in 9.6% of patients taking secukinumab 300 mg and in 7.8% of patients taking secukinumab 150 mg over the 52 weeks.

“Overall, the findings from CHOICE were consistent with previous studies and demonstrated that secukinumab provides significant and sustained improvements in signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis. Our findings suggest that secukinumab 300 mg is safe and efficacious as a first-line biologic treatment for patients with PsA. Further studies will also help determine the optimal dose of secukinumab for treating overweight patients or those with high disease activity at treatment initiation,” the authors wrote.

The study was funded by Novartis, which manufactures secukinumab. Dr. Nguyen and some coauthors reported serving as a consultant, investigator, and/or speaker for numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

American patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and psoriasis who received the interleukin-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) as their first biologic treatment achieved the best response rate with a 300-mg dose regimen when compared with placebo, and those who up-titrated to 300 mg from the lower approved dose of 150 mg also saw benefits obtained at that level.

Researchers conducted a postmarketing trial of secukinumab in patients at U.S. centers, called CHOICE, after it was approved for psoriasis and PsA in 2015 and 2016 based on trials mainly conducted outside of the United States. The American patients in those studies “had a baseline clinical profile indicating harder-to-treat disease than the total study population, including higher body mass index (BMI), higher tender and swollen joint counts, increased prevalence of enthesitis and dactylitis, and more tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) experience,” Tien Q. Nguyen, MD, a dermatologist in private practice in Irvine, Calif., and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Rheumatology.

In order to get a better sense of how secukinumab performs in U.S. patients who have not been treated with biologics, the researchers conducted the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 4 CHOICE trial. It recruited patients for about 26 months at 67 U.S. centers during 2016-2018. The 258 patients randomized in the study to 300 mg (n = 103), 150 mg secukinumab (n = 103), or placebo (n = 52) had a mean time since PsA diagnosis of 3.0-3.9 years and all had a mean BMI of greater than 30 kg/m², with dactylitis present in 48% and enthesitis in 73%. About one-third were taking methotrexate at baseline.

At week 16, patients taking secukinumab 300 mg were about 3.5 times more likely to have 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria than with placebo (51.5% vs. 23.1%), whereas the response rate with 150 mg was not significantly different from placebo (36.9%). Rates of achieving ACR50 were significantly greater for both 300- and 150-mg doses versus placebo (28.2% and 24.3% vs. 5.8%), but only 300 mg led to a statistically significant difference in the rate of ACR70 responses, compared with placebo (17.5% vs. 1.9%).

In general, efficacy based on ACR20/50/70 responses and either remission or low disease activity on the Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis index was lower among patients with less than 10 tender joints and less than 10 swollen joints at baseline. Methotrexate use at baseline did not affect ACR20 rates at week 16 in patients taking secukinumab, but the effect of methotrexate on ACR20 rates was noticeable among placebo-treated patients (38.9% vs. 14.7%). Enthesitis appeared to resolve significantly more often among patients on secukinumab, and more patients on secukinumab also had their dactylitis resolve, but the difference was not statistically significant.

Patients with psoriasis affecting more than 3% of their body surface area experienced higher response rates on the Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) for 75%, 90%, and 100% skin lesion clearance than did patients taking placebo.

Patients who switched from 150 mg to 300 mg secukinumab after week 16 in the second treatment period of the trial more often achieved ACR20/50/70 responses by week 52, going from 2.4% to 65.9% of the up-titration subset for ACR20 and from 0% to 34.1% for ACR50 and to 12.2% for ACR70. Patients on placebo who switched also experienced increases in these response rates out to week 52. However, BMI above 30 kg/m² led to numerically lower ACR50, ACR70, and PASI response rates at week 52.

The researchers noted that the response rates observed in CHOICE were lower than for the pivotal trials used for Food and Drug Administration approval for PsA, which “may have been due to patients in CHOICE having higher disease activity scores at baseline, compared with TNFi-naive patients” in the pivotal trials.

The safety profile of secukinumab appeared to be no different from what has been reported previously. The researchers said that, throughout the 52-week study, the most common adverse events in patients receiving secukinumab were upper respiratory tract infection in about 13% and diarrhea in about 7%. Most adverse events were mild or moderate, with serious adverse events occurring in 9.6% of patients taking secukinumab 300 mg and in 7.8% of patients taking secukinumab 150 mg over the 52 weeks.

“Overall, the findings from CHOICE were consistent with previous studies and demonstrated that secukinumab provides significant and sustained improvements in signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis. Our findings suggest that secukinumab 300 mg is safe and efficacious as a first-line biologic treatment for patients with PsA. Further studies will also help determine the optimal dose of secukinumab for treating overweight patients or those with high disease activity at treatment initiation,” the authors wrote.

The study was funded by Novartis, which manufactures secukinumab. Dr. Nguyen and some coauthors reported serving as a consultant, investigator, and/or speaker for numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

American patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and psoriasis who received the interleukin-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) as their first biologic treatment achieved the best response rate with a 300-mg dose regimen when compared with placebo, and those who up-titrated to 300 mg from the lower approved dose of 150 mg also saw benefits obtained at that level.

Researchers conducted a postmarketing trial of secukinumab in patients at U.S. centers, called CHOICE, after it was approved for psoriasis and PsA in 2015 and 2016 based on trials mainly conducted outside of the United States. The American patients in those studies “had a baseline clinical profile indicating harder-to-treat disease than the total study population, including higher body mass index (BMI), higher tender and swollen joint counts, increased prevalence of enthesitis and dactylitis, and more tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) experience,” Tien Q. Nguyen, MD, a dermatologist in private practice in Irvine, Calif., and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Rheumatology.

In order to get a better sense of how secukinumab performs in U.S. patients who have not been treated with biologics, the researchers conducted the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 4 CHOICE trial. It recruited patients for about 26 months at 67 U.S. centers during 2016-2018. The 258 patients randomized in the study to 300 mg (n = 103), 150 mg secukinumab (n = 103), or placebo (n = 52) had a mean time since PsA diagnosis of 3.0-3.9 years and all had a mean BMI of greater than 30 kg/m², with dactylitis present in 48% and enthesitis in 73%. About one-third were taking methotrexate at baseline.

At week 16, patients taking secukinumab 300 mg were about 3.5 times more likely to have 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria than with placebo (51.5% vs. 23.1%), whereas the response rate with 150 mg was not significantly different from placebo (36.9%). Rates of achieving ACR50 were significantly greater for both 300- and 150-mg doses versus placebo (28.2% and 24.3% vs. 5.8%), but only 300 mg led to a statistically significant difference in the rate of ACR70 responses, compared with placebo (17.5% vs. 1.9%).

In general, efficacy based on ACR20/50/70 responses and either remission or low disease activity on the Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis index was lower among patients with less than 10 tender joints and less than 10 swollen joints at baseline. Methotrexate use at baseline did not affect ACR20 rates at week 16 in patients taking secukinumab, but the effect of methotrexate on ACR20 rates was noticeable among placebo-treated patients (38.9% vs. 14.7%). Enthesitis appeared to resolve significantly more often among patients on secukinumab, and more patients on secukinumab also had their dactylitis resolve, but the difference was not statistically significant.

Patients with psoriasis affecting more than 3% of their body surface area experienced higher response rates on the Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) for 75%, 90%, and 100% skin lesion clearance than did patients taking placebo.

Patients who switched from 150 mg to 300 mg secukinumab after week 16 in the second treatment period of the trial more often achieved ACR20/50/70 responses by week 52, going from 2.4% to 65.9% of the up-titration subset for ACR20 and from 0% to 34.1% for ACR50 and to 12.2% for ACR70. Patients on placebo who switched also experienced increases in these response rates out to week 52. However, BMI above 30 kg/m² led to numerically lower ACR50, ACR70, and PASI response rates at week 52.

The researchers noted that the response rates observed in CHOICE were lower than for the pivotal trials used for Food and Drug Administration approval for PsA, which “may have been due to patients in CHOICE having higher disease activity scores at baseline, compared with TNFi-naive patients” in the pivotal trials.

The safety profile of secukinumab appeared to be no different from what has been reported previously. The researchers said that, throughout the 52-week study, the most common adverse events in patients receiving secukinumab were upper respiratory tract infection in about 13% and diarrhea in about 7%. Most adverse events were mild or moderate, with serious adverse events occurring in 9.6% of patients taking secukinumab 300 mg and in 7.8% of patients taking secukinumab 150 mg over the 52 weeks.

“Overall, the findings from CHOICE were consistent with previous studies and demonstrated that secukinumab provides significant and sustained improvements in signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis. Our findings suggest that secukinumab 300 mg is safe and efficacious as a first-line biologic treatment for patients with PsA. Further studies will also help determine the optimal dose of secukinumab for treating overweight patients or those with high disease activity at treatment initiation,” the authors wrote.

The study was funded by Novartis, which manufactures secukinumab. Dr. Nguyen and some coauthors reported serving as a consultant, investigator, and/or speaker for numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

An expert task force convened by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) has started the process of consolidating classification criteria for early-stage knee osteoarthritis (OA).

“Early-stage knee OA classification criteria, we believe are critically required,” Gillian Hawker, MD, MSc, said at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.

Dr. Hawker, who is the chair of the Task Force Steering Committee, noted that classification criteria are needed for several reasons, such as “to advance OA therapeutics and [the] earlier identification of people with knee OA who can benefit from existing treatments.”

Moreover, they are needed so that people with knee OA can “be poised and ready to receive available therapies once we develop them,” said Dr. Hawker, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and a senior clinician-scientist in the Women’s College Research Institute at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto.
 

Reasoning for looking at early OA

“Osteoarthritis is a very serious disease with a growing population burden,” Dr. Hawker reminded delegates at the congress. Yet despite “amazing advances” in the understanding of the pathophysiology of disease and several potential druggable targets being identified, “we still have no safe and effective interventions to prevent or slow the progression of the disease.”

“Why have all the DMOADs [disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs] failed?” she questioned.

One hypothesis is that it’s down to the heterogeneity of OA. “We’ve been plugging people with different kinds or phenotypes of OA into the same clinical trials, and we need to better match OA phenotypes with appropriate treatment,” Dr. Hawker said.

Also, “structural changes on imaging, and the symptoms that characterize the disease of function, pain, stiffness, etc., are not super well correlated. It may be that any attempts at structure modification alone won’t adequately improve clinical symptoms.”

Perhaps most importantly, however, “we’re treating people way too late in the course of their disease,” Dr. Hawker said. “When we keep putting people with Kellgren and Lawrence [grade] 2 or 3 into clinical trials, it may be that we there’s nothing that we’re going to be able to do that’s really going to make a difference.”
 

Why just knee OA?

The reason for looking at early-stage OA specifically is that current knee OA classification criteria were developed nearly 40 years ago and were looking at a later stage of disease, mainly differentiating OA from other types of inflammatory arthritis, notably rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

The aim of the OARSI Early OA Task Force is thus to develop, refine, and validate classification criteria that will not only help identify people with early-stage OA who can then be entered into clinical trials of new therapies but also define a population that can be used in preclinical and prognostic work.

“The task force decided to start with early-stage knee OA due to the highest burden and the focus of most clinical trials,” steering committee member Martin Englund, MD, PhD, observed during the discussion.

“When we see how that goes, we may consider early hip OA,” said Dr. Englund, of Lund University and Skåne University Hospital in Sweden.

Dr. Hawker added that the task force felt that lumping hip and knee OA together would complicate matters because they thought that the classification criteria will likely look very different from each other.

“But the good news is we think that if we can identify early knee OA, we will likely also identify people with at least hand OA,” she said.
 

Building on previous work

The OARSI Task Force initiative will build on the early OA work by Stefan Lohmander, MD, PhD, and Frank Luyten, MD, PhD, who were part of a consensus panel that proposed draft classification criteria a few years ago. Those criteria, derived from a consensus workshop that had included basic scientists, physician-scientists, rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, and physiotherapists, identified three main areas of importance: Patient symptoms such as pain and function, the presence of crepitus or tender joints on clinical examination, and having a low Kellgren and Lawrence grade (0 or 1).

Dr. Lohmander remains heavily involved, heading up the advisory committee, with many other ad hoc committees likely to be set up during the project.

“We had over 70 people in the OARSI community volunteering to participate in some way, shape, or form,” Dr. Hawker said. All will be needed, she said, as there will be a lot of work to do. The starting point is people with undifferentiated knee symptoms, identifying the factors that increase or decrease the likelihood of having early-stage OA. Once a population has been found, the outcomes for prevention need to be defined.

A systematic search of the available literature has started and full-text review of more than 200 papers is in progress. The challenge ahead is to define what the ‘anchor question’ will be. That is, what question should be asked in order to determine whether a patient fulfills the criteria?

Dr. Hawker noted that when the American College of Rheumatology developed the RA classification criteria, the anchor question had been around whether methotrexate should be prescribed.

“We don’t have a ‘methotrexate’ in osteoarthritis, and it’s pretty low risk to start weight management or physical activity or even prescribe a topical anti-inflammatory,” she said. “So, we’re still trying to work out exactly how we create our anchor.”

It’s likely that the anchor question will be based on expert opinion rather than hard data. Perhaps it will focus on the chances that a patient’s symptoms will become persistent with loss of function or that they will develop established OA. It could perhaps be around the initiation of a novel DMOAD, if one proved effective enough to be used.

“We have many, many, many, questions!” Dr. Hawker said. One of the important ones is deciding what exactly should be prevented. Symptoms? Structural damage?

“I think a combination of symptoms and loss of function are probably what we want to prevent. But again, we’re going to have to define that very clearly. This is going to take us quite a bit of time.”

It’s likely to be a two-stage process: “First we define what is early stage OA, and then we identify those who are at the highest risk of rapid progression so that we can target those individuals for clinical trials.”

Dr. Hawker and Dr. Englund had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

An expert task force convened by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) has started the process of consolidating classification criteria for early-stage knee osteoarthritis (OA).

“Early-stage knee OA classification criteria, we believe are critically required,” Gillian Hawker, MD, MSc, said at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.

Dr. Hawker, who is the chair of the Task Force Steering Committee, noted that classification criteria are needed for several reasons, such as “to advance OA therapeutics and [the] earlier identification of people with knee OA who can benefit from existing treatments.”

Moreover, they are needed so that people with knee OA can “be poised and ready to receive available therapies once we develop them,” said Dr. Hawker, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and a senior clinician-scientist in the Women’s College Research Institute at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto.
 

Reasoning for looking at early OA

“Osteoarthritis is a very serious disease with a growing population burden,” Dr. Hawker reminded delegates at the congress. Yet despite “amazing advances” in the understanding of the pathophysiology of disease and several potential druggable targets being identified, “we still have no safe and effective interventions to prevent or slow the progression of the disease.”

“Why have all the DMOADs [disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs] failed?” she questioned.

One hypothesis is that it’s down to the heterogeneity of OA. “We’ve been plugging people with different kinds or phenotypes of OA into the same clinical trials, and we need to better match OA phenotypes with appropriate treatment,” Dr. Hawker said.

Also, “structural changes on imaging, and the symptoms that characterize the disease of function, pain, stiffness, etc., are not super well correlated. It may be that any attempts at structure modification alone won’t adequately improve clinical symptoms.”

Perhaps most importantly, however, “we’re treating people way too late in the course of their disease,” Dr. Hawker said. “When we keep putting people with Kellgren and Lawrence [grade] 2 or 3 into clinical trials, it may be that we there’s nothing that we’re going to be able to do that’s really going to make a difference.”
 

Why just knee OA?

The reason for looking at early-stage OA specifically is that current knee OA classification criteria were developed nearly 40 years ago and were looking at a later stage of disease, mainly differentiating OA from other types of inflammatory arthritis, notably rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

The aim of the OARSI Early OA Task Force is thus to develop, refine, and validate classification criteria that will not only help identify people with early-stage OA who can then be entered into clinical trials of new therapies but also define a population that can be used in preclinical and prognostic work.

“The task force decided to start with early-stage knee OA due to the highest burden and the focus of most clinical trials,” steering committee member Martin Englund, MD, PhD, observed during the discussion.

“When we see how that goes, we may consider early hip OA,” said Dr. Englund, of Lund University and Skåne University Hospital in Sweden.

Dr. Hawker added that the task force felt that lumping hip and knee OA together would complicate matters because they thought that the classification criteria will likely look very different from each other.

“But the good news is we think that if we can identify early knee OA, we will likely also identify people with at least hand OA,” she said.
 

Building on previous work

The OARSI Task Force initiative will build on the early OA work by Stefan Lohmander, MD, PhD, and Frank Luyten, MD, PhD, who were part of a consensus panel that proposed draft classification criteria a few years ago. Those criteria, derived from a consensus workshop that had included basic scientists, physician-scientists, rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, and physiotherapists, identified three main areas of importance: Patient symptoms such as pain and function, the presence of crepitus or tender joints on clinical examination, and having a low Kellgren and Lawrence grade (0 or 1).

Dr. Lohmander remains heavily involved, heading up the advisory committee, with many other ad hoc committees likely to be set up during the project.

“We had over 70 people in the OARSI community volunteering to participate in some way, shape, or form,” Dr. Hawker said. All will be needed, she said, as there will be a lot of work to do. The starting point is people with undifferentiated knee symptoms, identifying the factors that increase or decrease the likelihood of having early-stage OA. Once a population has been found, the outcomes for prevention need to be defined.

A systematic search of the available literature has started and full-text review of more than 200 papers is in progress. The challenge ahead is to define what the ‘anchor question’ will be. That is, what question should be asked in order to determine whether a patient fulfills the criteria?

Dr. Hawker noted that when the American College of Rheumatology developed the RA classification criteria, the anchor question had been around whether methotrexate should be prescribed.

“We don’t have a ‘methotrexate’ in osteoarthritis, and it’s pretty low risk to start weight management or physical activity or even prescribe a topical anti-inflammatory,” she said. “So, we’re still trying to work out exactly how we create our anchor.”

It’s likely that the anchor question will be based on expert opinion rather than hard data. Perhaps it will focus on the chances that a patient’s symptoms will become persistent with loss of function or that they will develop established OA. It could perhaps be around the initiation of a novel DMOAD, if one proved effective enough to be used.

“We have many, many, many, questions!” Dr. Hawker said. One of the important ones is deciding what exactly should be prevented. Symptoms? Structural damage?

“I think a combination of symptoms and loss of function are probably what we want to prevent. But again, we’re going to have to define that very clearly. This is going to take us quite a bit of time.”

It’s likely to be a two-stage process: “First we define what is early stage OA, and then we identify those who are at the highest risk of rapid progression so that we can target those individuals for clinical trials.”

Dr. Hawker and Dr. Englund had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

An expert task force convened by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) has started the process of consolidating classification criteria for early-stage knee osteoarthritis (OA).

“Early-stage knee OA classification criteria, we believe are critically required,” Gillian Hawker, MD, MSc, said at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.

Dr. Hawker, who is the chair of the Task Force Steering Committee, noted that classification criteria are needed for several reasons, such as “to advance OA therapeutics and [the] earlier identification of people with knee OA who can benefit from existing treatments.”

Moreover, they are needed so that people with knee OA can “be poised and ready to receive available therapies once we develop them,” said Dr. Hawker, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and a senior clinician-scientist in the Women’s College Research Institute at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto.
 

Reasoning for looking at early OA

“Osteoarthritis is a very serious disease with a growing population burden,” Dr. Hawker reminded delegates at the congress. Yet despite “amazing advances” in the understanding of the pathophysiology of disease and several potential druggable targets being identified, “we still have no safe and effective interventions to prevent or slow the progression of the disease.”

“Why have all the DMOADs [disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs] failed?” she questioned.

One hypothesis is that it’s down to the heterogeneity of OA. “We’ve been plugging people with different kinds or phenotypes of OA into the same clinical trials, and we need to better match OA phenotypes with appropriate treatment,” Dr. Hawker said.

Also, “structural changes on imaging, and the symptoms that characterize the disease of function, pain, stiffness, etc., are not super well correlated. It may be that any attempts at structure modification alone won’t adequately improve clinical symptoms.”

Perhaps most importantly, however, “we’re treating people way too late in the course of their disease,” Dr. Hawker said. “When we keep putting people with Kellgren and Lawrence [grade] 2 or 3 into clinical trials, it may be that we there’s nothing that we’re going to be able to do that’s really going to make a difference.”
 

Why just knee OA?

The reason for looking at early-stage OA specifically is that current knee OA classification criteria were developed nearly 40 years ago and were looking at a later stage of disease, mainly differentiating OA from other types of inflammatory arthritis, notably rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

The aim of the OARSI Early OA Task Force is thus to develop, refine, and validate classification criteria that will not only help identify people with early-stage OA who can then be entered into clinical trials of new therapies but also define a population that can be used in preclinical and prognostic work.

“The task force decided to start with early-stage knee OA due to the highest burden and the focus of most clinical trials,” steering committee member Martin Englund, MD, PhD, observed during the discussion.

“When we see how that goes, we may consider early hip OA,” said Dr. Englund, of Lund University and Skåne University Hospital in Sweden.

Dr. Hawker added that the task force felt that lumping hip and knee OA together would complicate matters because they thought that the classification criteria will likely look very different from each other.

“But the good news is we think that if we can identify early knee OA, we will likely also identify people with at least hand OA,” she said.
 

Building on previous work

The OARSI Task Force initiative will build on the early OA work by Stefan Lohmander, MD, PhD, and Frank Luyten, MD, PhD, who were part of a consensus panel that proposed draft classification criteria a few years ago. Those criteria, derived from a consensus workshop that had included basic scientists, physician-scientists, rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, and physiotherapists, identified three main areas of importance: Patient symptoms such as pain and function, the presence of crepitus or tender joints on clinical examination, and having a low Kellgren and Lawrence grade (0 or 1).

Dr. Lohmander remains heavily involved, heading up the advisory committee, with many other ad hoc committees likely to be set up during the project.

“We had over 70 people in the OARSI community volunteering to participate in some way, shape, or form,” Dr. Hawker said. All will be needed, she said, as there will be a lot of work to do. The starting point is people with undifferentiated knee symptoms, identifying the factors that increase or decrease the likelihood of having early-stage OA. Once a population has been found, the outcomes for prevention need to be defined.

A systematic search of the available literature has started and full-text review of more than 200 papers is in progress. The challenge ahead is to define what the ‘anchor question’ will be. That is, what question should be asked in order to determine whether a patient fulfills the criteria?

Dr. Hawker noted that when the American College of Rheumatology developed the RA classification criteria, the anchor question had been around whether methotrexate should be prescribed.

“We don’t have a ‘methotrexate’ in osteoarthritis, and it’s pretty low risk to start weight management or physical activity or even prescribe a topical anti-inflammatory,” she said. “So, we’re still trying to work out exactly how we create our anchor.”

It’s likely that the anchor question will be based on expert opinion rather than hard data. Perhaps it will focus on the chances that a patient’s symptoms will become persistent with loss of function or that they will develop established OA. It could perhaps be around the initiation of a novel DMOAD, if one proved effective enough to be used.

“We have many, many, many, questions!” Dr. Hawker said. One of the important ones is deciding what exactly should be prevented. Symptoms? Structural damage?

“I think a combination of symptoms and loss of function are probably what we want to prevent. But again, we’re going to have to define that very clearly. This is going to take us quite a bit of time.”

It’s likely to be a two-stage process: “First we define what is early stage OA, and then we identify those who are at the highest risk of rapid progression so that we can target those individuals for clinical trials.”

Dr. Hawker and Dr. Englund had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

One of the largest studies to date on myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination confirms an increased risk with both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in young men and shows that the risk is higher with the Moderna than with the Pfizer vaccine.

The study also suggests for the first time that in young men 16 to 24 years of age, the risk for myocarditis after vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine is higher than the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 infection.

The population-based study involved data on 23.1 million residents across four Scandinavian countries – Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden – 74% of whom had received two vaccine doses and 7% of whom had received one dose.

By linking data from high-quality nationwide health registers on COVID-19 vaccination, infection rates, and myocarditis diagnoses, the researchers were able to evaluate the risk for myocarditis by vaccine product, vaccination dose number, sex, and age.

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

The results confirm that the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is highest in young men 16 to 24 years of age after the second dose.

For men in this age group who received two doses of the same vaccine, data were compatible, with between four and seven excess myocarditis events in 28 days per 100,000 individuals after the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine, and between nine and 28 per 100,000 individuals after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine.

“This is one of the largest studies on this topic to date. The first population studies were in Israel, with 5 million individuals, and looked at just the Pfizer vaccine. We have data on 23 million people from Scandinavia that include both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines,” senior author Rickard Ljung, MD, Swedish Medical Products Agency, told this news organization.

“We show a clearly higher risk of myocarditis after the Moderna vaccine than after the Pfizer vaccine. This has been suggested before, but our data confirm definitively that the Moderna vaccine has a higher risk of myocarditis than the Pfizer vaccine,” he added.

“In the group at highest risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination – young men aged 16 to 24 – the Pfizer vaccine shows a five times higher risk of myocarditis versus the unvaccinated cohort, while the Moderna vaccine shows a 15 times higher risk,” Dr. Ljung noted.

After seeing these data, the Swedish regulatory authority is no longer recommending use of the Moderna vaccine for people younger than 30 years, Dr. Ljung said. Similar recommendations have been made in Norway and Finland.

The researchers report that their finding of a higher risk for myocarditis after the Moderna vaccine than after the Pfizer vaccine in young men is in line with data from the Canada, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. But they point out that, compared with previous studies, the current study had the advantage of data analyzed according to a common protocol from four different countries and that showed similar directions of associations, despite considerable differences in previous COVID-19 infection levels and lockdown policies.

Risk higher with vaccination than infection?

For what is believed to be the first time, the Scandinavian data also suggest a higher risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination with both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines than after COVID-19 infection in young men 16 to 24 years.

Although previous studies have shown that males in this age group have the highest risk for myocarditis after vaccination, it has always been suggested that the risk after vaccination is lower than the risk after infection. The Scandinavian data suggest otherwise for this age group.

Dr. Ljung explained that the myocarditis risk after COVID infection is very hard to study.

“It is highly dependent on the testing strategy,” he said. “For example, in the first half of 2020, the only people being tested were those admitted to hospital, so studies would have included the sickest patients and would therefore likely have found a higher rate of myocarditis. But this current Scandinavian dataset only included individuals with a positive COVID test after August 2020, reflecting a broader range of people.”

The researchers found an excess rate of myocarditis of 3.26 per 100,000 individuals within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test among all males, and 1.37 per 100,000 individuals among males 16 to 24 years of age.

“We show that the risk of myocarditis after COVID infection is lower in younger people and higher in older people, but the opposite is true after COVID vaccination, where the risk of myocarditis is higher in younger people and lower in older people,” Dr. Ljung said.

The study was not able to look at severity of myocarditis but did record length of hospital stay, which was similar in patients who developed myocarditis after vaccination and those in the unvaccinated cohort (4 to 5 days). Deaths were rare, with no deaths in people younger than 40 years.

“I think we can say that in people aged over 40, the risk of myocarditis is greater with infection than with vaccination, but in those under 40, it is not so clear. And our data suggest that for young men aged 16 to 24 years, the risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine is higher than after COVID infection,” Dr. Ljung commented.

Although the Swedish regulatory agency has already stopped recommending use of Moderna vaccine in those younger than 30 years on the basis of these data, Dr. Ljung was reluctant to make any recommendations regarding the use of the Pfizer vaccine in young males, saying it was up to individual public-health agencies to makes these decisions. 

But he pointed out that the current study only looked at myocarditis, and COVID infection can result in many other complications that can lead to hospitalization and death, which needs to be taken into account when assessing the risk and benefit of vaccination.

Dr. Ljung noted that the current data only applied to the first two doses of the vaccines; data after booster injections have not been included, although the researchers are looking at that now.

What to advise patients?

In an accompanying Editor’s Note, Ann Marie Navar, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is editor of JAMA Cardiology, and Robert Bonow, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, who is deputy editor of JAMA Cardiology, try to explain how these data can inform the way health care professionals communicate with their patients about vaccination.

They point out the “good news,” that older adults who are at highest risk for COVID-19 complications appear to be at extremely low risk for vaccine-associated myocarditis.

They note that for both men and women older than 40 years, the excess number of cases of myocarditis after vaccination was fewer than two in 100,000 vaccinees across all vaccines studied, and the death toll from COVID-19 in the United States as of March was more than 200 per 100,000 population.

“Given the high rates of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 infection in older adults and the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing severe infection and death, the benefits of immunization in those older than 40 years clearly outweigh the risks,” the editors say.

But given these data in young men, they suggest that health care professionals consider recommending the Pfizer vaccine over the Moderna vaccine for certain populations, including young men and other individuals for whom concerns about myocarditis present a barrier to immunization.

The editors also point out that although the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 immunization is real, this low risk must be considered in the context of the overall benefit of the vaccine.

“At the individual level, immunization prevents not only COVID-19-related myocarditis but also severe disease, hospitalization, long-term complications after COVID-19 infection, and death. At the population level, immunization helps to decrease community spread, decrease the chances of new variants emerging, protect people who are immunocompromised, and ensure our health care system can continue to provide for our communities,” they conclude.

Dr. Ljung reports grants from Sanofi Aventis paid to his institution outside the submitted work and personal fees from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr. Navar reports personal fees from Pfizer and AstraZeneca, outside the scope of this work.

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

One of the largest studies to date on myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination confirms an increased risk with both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in young men and shows that the risk is higher with the Moderna than with the Pfizer vaccine.

The study also suggests for the first time that in young men 16 to 24 years of age, the risk for myocarditis after vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine is higher than the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 infection.

The population-based study involved data on 23.1 million residents across four Scandinavian countries – Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden – 74% of whom had received two vaccine doses and 7% of whom had received one dose.

By linking data from high-quality nationwide health registers on COVID-19 vaccination, infection rates, and myocarditis diagnoses, the researchers were able to evaluate the risk for myocarditis by vaccine product, vaccination dose number, sex, and age.

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

The results confirm that the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is highest in young men 16 to 24 years of age after the second dose.

For men in this age group who received two doses of the same vaccine, data were compatible, with between four and seven excess myocarditis events in 28 days per 100,000 individuals after the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine, and between nine and 28 per 100,000 individuals after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine.

“This is one of the largest studies on this topic to date. The first population studies were in Israel, with 5 million individuals, and looked at just the Pfizer vaccine. We have data on 23 million people from Scandinavia that include both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines,” senior author Rickard Ljung, MD, Swedish Medical Products Agency, told this news organization.

“We show a clearly higher risk of myocarditis after the Moderna vaccine than after the Pfizer vaccine. This has been suggested before, but our data confirm definitively that the Moderna vaccine has a higher risk of myocarditis than the Pfizer vaccine,” he added.

“In the group at highest risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination – young men aged 16 to 24 – the Pfizer vaccine shows a five times higher risk of myocarditis versus the unvaccinated cohort, while the Moderna vaccine shows a 15 times higher risk,” Dr. Ljung noted.

After seeing these data, the Swedish regulatory authority is no longer recommending use of the Moderna vaccine for people younger than 30 years, Dr. Ljung said. Similar recommendations have been made in Norway and Finland.

The researchers report that their finding of a higher risk for myocarditis after the Moderna vaccine than after the Pfizer vaccine in young men is in line with data from the Canada, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. But they point out that, compared with previous studies, the current study had the advantage of data analyzed according to a common protocol from four different countries and that showed similar directions of associations, despite considerable differences in previous COVID-19 infection levels and lockdown policies.

Risk higher with vaccination than infection?

For what is believed to be the first time, the Scandinavian data also suggest a higher risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination with both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines than after COVID-19 infection in young men 16 to 24 years.

Although previous studies have shown that males in this age group have the highest risk for myocarditis after vaccination, it has always been suggested that the risk after vaccination is lower than the risk after infection. The Scandinavian data suggest otherwise for this age group.

Dr. Ljung explained that the myocarditis risk after COVID infection is very hard to study.

“It is highly dependent on the testing strategy,” he said. “For example, in the first half of 2020, the only people being tested were those admitted to hospital, so studies would have included the sickest patients and would therefore likely have found a higher rate of myocarditis. But this current Scandinavian dataset only included individuals with a positive COVID test after August 2020, reflecting a broader range of people.”

The researchers found an excess rate of myocarditis of 3.26 per 100,000 individuals within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test among all males, and 1.37 per 100,000 individuals among males 16 to 24 years of age.

“We show that the risk of myocarditis after COVID infection is lower in younger people and higher in older people, but the opposite is true after COVID vaccination, where the risk of myocarditis is higher in younger people and lower in older people,” Dr. Ljung said.

The study was not able to look at severity of myocarditis but did record length of hospital stay, which was similar in patients who developed myocarditis after vaccination and those in the unvaccinated cohort (4 to 5 days). Deaths were rare, with no deaths in people younger than 40 years.

“I think we can say that in people aged over 40, the risk of myocarditis is greater with infection than with vaccination, but in those under 40, it is not so clear. And our data suggest that for young men aged 16 to 24 years, the risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine is higher than after COVID infection,” Dr. Ljung commented.

Although the Swedish regulatory agency has already stopped recommending use of Moderna vaccine in those younger than 30 years on the basis of these data, Dr. Ljung was reluctant to make any recommendations regarding the use of the Pfizer vaccine in young males, saying it was up to individual public-health agencies to makes these decisions. 

But he pointed out that the current study only looked at myocarditis, and COVID infection can result in many other complications that can lead to hospitalization and death, which needs to be taken into account when assessing the risk and benefit of vaccination.

Dr. Ljung noted that the current data only applied to the first two doses of the vaccines; data after booster injections have not been included, although the researchers are looking at that now.

What to advise patients?

In an accompanying Editor’s Note, Ann Marie Navar, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is editor of JAMA Cardiology, and Robert Bonow, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, who is deputy editor of JAMA Cardiology, try to explain how these data can inform the way health care professionals communicate with their patients about vaccination.

They point out the “good news,” that older adults who are at highest risk for COVID-19 complications appear to be at extremely low risk for vaccine-associated myocarditis.

They note that for both men and women older than 40 years, the excess number of cases of myocarditis after vaccination was fewer than two in 100,000 vaccinees across all vaccines studied, and the death toll from COVID-19 in the United States as of March was more than 200 per 100,000 population.

“Given the high rates of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 infection in older adults and the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing severe infection and death, the benefits of immunization in those older than 40 years clearly outweigh the risks,” the editors say.

But given these data in young men, they suggest that health care professionals consider recommending the Pfizer vaccine over the Moderna vaccine for certain populations, including young men and other individuals for whom concerns about myocarditis present a barrier to immunization.

The editors also point out that although the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 immunization is real, this low risk must be considered in the context of the overall benefit of the vaccine.

“At the individual level, immunization prevents not only COVID-19-related myocarditis but also severe disease, hospitalization, long-term complications after COVID-19 infection, and death. At the population level, immunization helps to decrease community spread, decrease the chances of new variants emerging, protect people who are immunocompromised, and ensure our health care system can continue to provide for our communities,” they conclude.

Dr. Ljung reports grants from Sanofi Aventis paid to his institution outside the submitted work and personal fees from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr. Navar reports personal fees from Pfizer and AstraZeneca, outside the scope of this work.

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

One of the largest studies to date on myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination confirms an increased risk with both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in young men and shows that the risk is higher with the Moderna than with the Pfizer vaccine.

The study also suggests for the first time that in young men 16 to 24 years of age, the risk for myocarditis after vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine is higher than the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 infection.

The population-based study involved data on 23.1 million residents across four Scandinavian countries – Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden – 74% of whom had received two vaccine doses and 7% of whom had received one dose.

By linking data from high-quality nationwide health registers on COVID-19 vaccination, infection rates, and myocarditis diagnoses, the researchers were able to evaluate the risk for myocarditis by vaccine product, vaccination dose number, sex, and age.

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

The results confirm that the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is highest in young men 16 to 24 years of age after the second dose.

For men in this age group who received two doses of the same vaccine, data were compatible, with between four and seven excess myocarditis events in 28 days per 100,000 individuals after the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine, and between nine and 28 per 100,000 individuals after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine.

“This is one of the largest studies on this topic to date. The first population studies were in Israel, with 5 million individuals, and looked at just the Pfizer vaccine. We have data on 23 million people from Scandinavia that include both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines,” senior author Rickard Ljung, MD, Swedish Medical Products Agency, told this news organization.

“We show a clearly higher risk of myocarditis after the Moderna vaccine than after the Pfizer vaccine. This has been suggested before, but our data confirm definitively that the Moderna vaccine has a higher risk of myocarditis than the Pfizer vaccine,” he added.

“In the group at highest risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination – young men aged 16 to 24 – the Pfizer vaccine shows a five times higher risk of myocarditis versus the unvaccinated cohort, while the Moderna vaccine shows a 15 times higher risk,” Dr. Ljung noted.

After seeing these data, the Swedish regulatory authority is no longer recommending use of the Moderna vaccine for people younger than 30 years, Dr. Ljung said. Similar recommendations have been made in Norway and Finland.

The researchers report that their finding of a higher risk for myocarditis after the Moderna vaccine than after the Pfizer vaccine in young men is in line with data from the Canada, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. But they point out that, compared with previous studies, the current study had the advantage of data analyzed according to a common protocol from four different countries and that showed similar directions of associations, despite considerable differences in previous COVID-19 infection levels and lockdown policies.

Risk higher with vaccination than infection?

For what is believed to be the first time, the Scandinavian data also suggest a higher risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination with both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines than after COVID-19 infection in young men 16 to 24 years.

Although previous studies have shown that males in this age group have the highest risk for myocarditis after vaccination, it has always been suggested that the risk after vaccination is lower than the risk after infection. The Scandinavian data suggest otherwise for this age group.

Dr. Ljung explained that the myocarditis risk after COVID infection is very hard to study.

“It is highly dependent on the testing strategy,” he said. “For example, in the first half of 2020, the only people being tested were those admitted to hospital, so studies would have included the sickest patients and would therefore likely have found a higher rate of myocarditis. But this current Scandinavian dataset only included individuals with a positive COVID test after August 2020, reflecting a broader range of people.”

The researchers found an excess rate of myocarditis of 3.26 per 100,000 individuals within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test among all males, and 1.37 per 100,000 individuals among males 16 to 24 years of age.

“We show that the risk of myocarditis after COVID infection is lower in younger people and higher in older people, but the opposite is true after COVID vaccination, where the risk of myocarditis is higher in younger people and lower in older people,” Dr. Ljung said.

The study was not able to look at severity of myocarditis but did record length of hospital stay, which was similar in patients who developed myocarditis after vaccination and those in the unvaccinated cohort (4 to 5 days). Deaths were rare, with no deaths in people younger than 40 years.

“I think we can say that in people aged over 40, the risk of myocarditis is greater with infection than with vaccination, but in those under 40, it is not so clear. And our data suggest that for young men aged 16 to 24 years, the risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine is higher than after COVID infection,” Dr. Ljung commented.

Although the Swedish regulatory agency has already stopped recommending use of Moderna vaccine in those younger than 30 years on the basis of these data, Dr. Ljung was reluctant to make any recommendations regarding the use of the Pfizer vaccine in young males, saying it was up to individual public-health agencies to makes these decisions. 

But he pointed out that the current study only looked at myocarditis, and COVID infection can result in many other complications that can lead to hospitalization and death, which needs to be taken into account when assessing the risk and benefit of vaccination.

Dr. Ljung noted that the current data only applied to the first two doses of the vaccines; data after booster injections have not been included, although the researchers are looking at that now.

What to advise patients?

In an accompanying Editor’s Note, Ann Marie Navar, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is editor of JAMA Cardiology, and Robert Bonow, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, who is deputy editor of JAMA Cardiology, try to explain how these data can inform the way health care professionals communicate with their patients about vaccination.

They point out the “good news,” that older adults who are at highest risk for COVID-19 complications appear to be at extremely low risk for vaccine-associated myocarditis.

They note that for both men and women older than 40 years, the excess number of cases of myocarditis after vaccination was fewer than two in 100,000 vaccinees across all vaccines studied, and the death toll from COVID-19 in the United States as of March was more than 200 per 100,000 population.

“Given the high rates of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 infection in older adults and the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing severe infection and death, the benefits of immunization in those older than 40 years clearly outweigh the risks,” the editors say.

But given these data in young men, they suggest that health care professionals consider recommending the Pfizer vaccine over the Moderna vaccine for certain populations, including young men and other individuals for whom concerns about myocarditis present a barrier to immunization.

The editors also point out that although the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 immunization is real, this low risk must be considered in the context of the overall benefit of the vaccine.

“At the individual level, immunization prevents not only COVID-19-related myocarditis but also severe disease, hospitalization, long-term complications after COVID-19 infection, and death. At the population level, immunization helps to decrease community spread, decrease the chances of new variants emerging, protect people who are immunocompromised, and ensure our health care system can continue to provide for our communities,” they conclude.

Dr. Ljung reports grants from Sanofi Aventis paid to his institution outside the submitted work and personal fees from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr. Navar reports personal fees from Pfizer and AstraZeneca, outside the scope of this work.

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

A small new study of women suggests that adopting a low-fat vegan diet and then eliminating remaining trigger foods may dramatically reduce symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) within months. After 16 weeks, the mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) decreased from 4.5 to 2.5 (P < .001), and the mean number of swollen joints dipped from 7.0 to 3.3 (P = .03).

The study was published in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine. It’s not clear whether the vegan diet or the restriction of trigger foods – or both or neither – was helpful. Significant weight loss in the diet group could have played a role in reducing symptoms.

galitskaya / iStock / Getty Images

Still, the dietary strategy is “a life-changing experience for people,” lead author Neal D. Barnard, MD, an internal medicine specialist and adjunct professor of medicine at George Washington University, Washington, D.C, and president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, said in an interview. “Doctors should know about it, and they should try it themselves.”

The researchers launched the study to determine the feasibility of a “practical and easy-to-prescribe diet” without caloric limits, Dr. Barnard said. “People have done a variety of studies where they’ve looked at diet changes, often with fasting, and the quality has been variable.”

There’s no consensus in the medical literature on which dietary approach is best for patients with RA. A 2021 systematic review by Philippa and colleagues found positive results for the Mediterranean diet, high doses of omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin D supplementation, and sodium restriction. Fasting had significant but temporary effects, and the reviewers noted “outcomes from vegetarian, elimination, peptide, or elemental diets suggested that responses are very individualized.”

For the new randomized, crossover study, researchers assigned 44 women to one of two diet phases. After 16 weeks, they had a 4-week washout period, then began the other 16-week phase. A total of 32 patients completed the study, and they had a mean age of 57 years. Overall, 66% were White, 16% were Black, and 79% held a college degree or graduate degree.

In the 16-week intervention phase, participants went on a low-fat vegan diet. After 4 weeks, they eliminated common RA trigger foods such as grains with gluten, nuts, citrus fruits, and chocolate. After week 7, the subjects added back the trigger foods one by one, keeping them in their diet if they didn’t seem to cause pain.

In the 16-week placebo phase, the women took a supplement that they were told contained omega-3 oils and vitamin E. However, the amounts of omega-3 and vitamin E were very low and had no apparent effect.

Participants in the diet phase attended weekly 1-hour dietary support-group sessions. Thirty-two women completed the full study.

Average DAS28 scores fell in the diet phase, compared with the supplement phase (treatment effect, 1.8 [95% confidence interval [CI], 3.2 to 0.4]; P = .01), as did swollen joints (treatment effect, –4.2 [95% CI, –8.3 to –0.1], P = .047).

While the researchers reported dips in the DAS28 score and swollen joints, “the reductions in the number of painful and tender joints did not reach statistical significance (treatment effects, –4.1 [95% CI, –8.7 to +0.5]; P = .08; and –1.8 [95% CI, –5.5 to +1.9]; P = .41, respectively).”

Mean body weight fell by 6.5 kg among those in the diet group, while those in the placebo group gained 0.8 kg (treatment effect, –7.3 kg [95% CI, –9.4 to –5.1]; P < .001).

The researchers noted “the presumed mechanisms by which diets such [as this intervention strategy] reduce joint symptoms relate to the removal of inflammatory elements of an omnivorous diet, the presence of anti-inflammatory constituents in a plant-based diet, and diet-induced reductions in gut permeability that may, in turn, reduce the passage of antigens into circulation.”

Patients tolerate the diet well, Dr. Barnard said. “It’s practical for day-to-day life, and you don’t have to check into a fasting hospital.”

Elliott O’Donovan Photography

The message for physicians, he said, is to encourage patients to try changing their eating patterns before turning to medication. “It’s a good idea for anyone to have a chance to try a diet change,” he said. “You’ll know within a matter of weeks whether it will work.”

Vegan diets are also cheaper than diets with meat and dairy, he added.

The study has various limitations. It began with 44 participants, but 12 failed to complete it for various reasons. Four participants who were assigned to the diet phase first refused to resume their regular diets during the next phase. It’s not clear if the lost weight is most responsible for the diet’s benefits, Harvard Medical School rheumatologist Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH, said in an interview. In his review of the study findings, Dr. Solomon said that another possibility is that certain aspects of the diet – and not the full diet – were responsible.

A small new study of women suggests that adopting a low-fat vegan diet and then eliminating remaining trigger foods may dramatically reduce symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) within months. After 16 weeks, the mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) decreased from 4.5 to 2.5 (P < .001), and the mean number of swollen joints dipped from 7.0 to 3.3 (P = .03).

The study was published in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine. It’s not clear whether the vegan diet or the restriction of trigger foods – or both or neither – was helpful. Significant weight loss in the diet group could have played a role in reducing symptoms.

galitskaya / iStock / Getty Images

Still, the dietary strategy is “a life-changing experience for people,” lead author Neal D. Barnard, MD, an internal medicine specialist and adjunct professor of medicine at George Washington University, Washington, D.C, and president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, said in an interview. “Doctors should know about it, and they should try it themselves.”

The researchers launched the study to determine the feasibility of a “practical and easy-to-prescribe diet” without caloric limits, Dr. Barnard said. “People have done a variety of studies where they’ve looked at diet changes, often with fasting, and the quality has been variable.”

There’s no consensus in the medical literature on which dietary approach is best for patients with RA. A 2021 systematic review by Philippa and colleagues found positive results for the Mediterranean diet, high doses of omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin D supplementation, and sodium restriction. Fasting had significant but temporary effects, and the reviewers noted “outcomes from vegetarian, elimination, peptide, or elemental diets suggested that responses are very individualized.”

For the new randomized, crossover study, researchers assigned 44 women to one of two diet phases. After 16 weeks, they had a 4-week washout period, then began the other 16-week phase. A total of 32 patients completed the study, and they had a mean age of 57 years. Overall, 66% were White, 16% were Black, and 79% held a college degree or graduate degree.

In the 16-week intervention phase, participants went on a low-fat vegan diet. After 4 weeks, they eliminated common RA trigger foods such as grains with gluten, nuts, citrus fruits, and chocolate. After week 7, the subjects added back the trigger foods one by one, keeping them in their diet if they didn’t seem to cause pain.

In the 16-week placebo phase, the women took a supplement that they were told contained omega-3 oils and vitamin E. However, the amounts of omega-3 and vitamin E were very low and had no apparent effect.

Participants in the diet phase attended weekly 1-hour dietary support-group sessions. Thirty-two women completed the full study.

Average DAS28 scores fell in the diet phase, compared with the supplement phase (treatment effect, 1.8 [95% confidence interval [CI], 3.2 to 0.4]; P = .01), as did swollen joints (treatment effect, –4.2 [95% CI, –8.3 to –0.1], P = .047).

While the researchers reported dips in the DAS28 score and swollen joints, “the reductions in the number of painful and tender joints did not reach statistical significance (treatment effects, –4.1 [95% CI, –8.7 to +0.5]; P = .08; and –1.8 [95% CI, –5.5 to +1.9]; P = .41, respectively).”

Mean body weight fell by 6.5 kg among those in the diet group, while those in the placebo group gained 0.8 kg (treatment effect, –7.3 kg [95% CI, –9.4 to –5.1]; P < .001).

The researchers noted “the presumed mechanisms by which diets such [as this intervention strategy] reduce joint symptoms relate to the removal of inflammatory elements of an omnivorous diet, the presence of anti-inflammatory constituents in a plant-based diet, and diet-induced reductions in gut permeability that may, in turn, reduce the passage of antigens into circulation.”

Patients tolerate the diet well, Dr. Barnard said. “It’s practical for day-to-day life, and you don’t have to check into a fasting hospital.”

Elliott O’Donovan Photography

The message for physicians, he said, is to encourage patients to try changing their eating patterns before turning to medication. “It’s a good idea for anyone to have a chance to try a diet change,” he said. “You’ll know within a matter of weeks whether it will work.”

Vegan diets are also cheaper than diets with meat and dairy, he added.

The study has various limitations. It began with 44 participants, but 12 failed to complete it for various reasons. Four participants who were assigned to the diet phase first refused to resume their regular diets during the next phase. It’s not clear if the lost weight is most responsible for the diet’s benefits, Harvard Medical School rheumatologist Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH, said in an interview. In his review of the study findings, Dr. Solomon said that another possibility is that certain aspects of the diet – and not the full diet – were responsible.

A small new study of women suggests that adopting a low-fat vegan diet and then eliminating remaining trigger foods may dramatically reduce symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) within months. After 16 weeks, the mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) decreased from 4.5 to 2.5 (P < .001), and the mean number of swollen joints dipped from 7.0 to 3.3 (P = .03).

The study was published in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine. It’s not clear whether the vegan diet or the restriction of trigger foods – or both or neither – was helpful. Significant weight loss in the diet group could have played a role in reducing symptoms.

galitskaya / iStock / Getty Images

Still, the dietary strategy is “a life-changing experience for people,” lead author Neal D. Barnard, MD, an internal medicine specialist and adjunct professor of medicine at George Washington University, Washington, D.C, and president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, said in an interview. “Doctors should know about it, and they should try it themselves.”

The researchers launched the study to determine the feasibility of a “practical and easy-to-prescribe diet” without caloric limits, Dr. Barnard said. “People have done a variety of studies where they’ve looked at diet changes, often with fasting, and the quality has been variable.”

There’s no consensus in the medical literature on which dietary approach is best for patients with RA. A 2021 systematic review by Philippa and colleagues found positive results for the Mediterranean diet, high doses of omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin D supplementation, and sodium restriction. Fasting had significant but temporary effects, and the reviewers noted “outcomes from vegetarian, elimination, peptide, or elemental diets suggested that responses are very individualized.”

For the new randomized, crossover study, researchers assigned 44 women to one of two diet phases. After 16 weeks, they had a 4-week washout period, then began the other 16-week phase. A total of 32 patients completed the study, and they had a mean age of 57 years. Overall, 66% were White, 16% were Black, and 79% held a college degree or graduate degree.

In the 16-week intervention phase, participants went on a low-fat vegan diet. After 4 weeks, they eliminated common RA trigger foods such as grains with gluten, nuts, citrus fruits, and chocolate. After week 7, the subjects added back the trigger foods one by one, keeping them in their diet if they didn’t seem to cause pain.

In the 16-week placebo phase, the women took a supplement that they were told contained omega-3 oils and vitamin E. However, the amounts of omega-3 and vitamin E were very low and had no apparent effect.

Participants in the diet phase attended weekly 1-hour dietary support-group sessions. Thirty-two women completed the full study.

Average DAS28 scores fell in the diet phase, compared with the supplement phase (treatment effect, 1.8 [95% confidence interval [CI], 3.2 to 0.4]; P = .01), as did swollen joints (treatment effect, –4.2 [95% CI, –8.3 to –0.1], P = .047).

While the researchers reported dips in the DAS28 score and swollen joints, “the reductions in the number of painful and tender joints did not reach statistical significance (treatment effects, –4.1 [95% CI, –8.7 to +0.5]; P = .08; and –1.8 [95% CI, –5.5 to +1.9]; P = .41, respectively).”

Mean body weight fell by 6.5 kg among those in the diet group, while those in the placebo group gained 0.8 kg (treatment effect, –7.3 kg [95% CI, –9.4 to –5.1]; P < .001).

The researchers noted “the presumed mechanisms by which diets such [as this intervention strategy] reduce joint symptoms relate to the removal of inflammatory elements of an omnivorous diet, the presence of anti-inflammatory constituents in a plant-based diet, and diet-induced reductions in gut permeability that may, in turn, reduce the passage of antigens into circulation.”

Patients tolerate the diet well, Dr. Barnard said. “It’s practical for day-to-day life, and you don’t have to check into a fasting hospital.”

Elliott O’Donovan Photography

The message for physicians, he said, is to encourage patients to try changing their eating patterns before turning to medication. “It’s a good idea for anyone to have a chance to try a diet change,” he said. “You’ll know within a matter of weeks whether it will work.”

Vegan diets are also cheaper than diets with meat and dairy, he added.

The study has various limitations. It began with 44 participants, but 12 failed to complete it for various reasons. Four participants who were assigned to the diet phase first refused to resume their regular diets during the next phase. It’s not clear if the lost weight is most responsible for the diet’s benefits, Harvard Medical School rheumatologist Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH, said in an interview. In his review of the study findings, Dr. Solomon said that another possibility is that certain aspects of the diet – and not the full diet – were responsible.

In their heyday, drug reps had big expense budgets and would wine and dine physicians, golf with them, and give gifts to their potential physician clients.

But in 2002, pressure from Congress and increased scrutiny from the American Medical Association prompted the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America to adopt a set of voluntary ethical codes to regulate the gifts given to physicians. Now, physicians must report even small gifts or meals to the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Before the restrictions, physician/pharmaceutical rep relationships relied on face-to-face meetings. These included lunches with a limited budget or sharing a cup of coffee during a morning visit to a practice. The parties got to know each other, which led to trust and long-term relationships.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, everything changed. “It was culture shock for us,” admitted Craig F, a career pharmaceutical rep. “We didn’t know what we were going to do.”

The pharmaceutical industry pivoted and quickly got up to speed with Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and the like. “We began by reaching out to doctors via email and cell phones to set up virtual meetings,” Craig said. “Most of the doctors were working from home, doing telehealth whenever possible. For new sales reps, this was particularly difficult, because they couldn’t visit offices and get to know doctors.”

Many physicians didn’t want to devote time to Zoom meetings with pharma reps. “We worked around their schedules, and sometimes this even looked like Sunday calls,” he said.

As vaccination levels increased and medical offices began to reopen, so too did some of the old-school, face-to-face pharma rep/doctor meetings. But most proceeded with caution. “Some pharmaceutical companies didn’t put reps back into the field until the fall of 2020,” said Craig. “If we weren’t welcome in an office, we didn’t push it.”

Once much of the population was vaccinated, the thaw began in earnest, although the drug reps continued to tread cautiously, mask up, and respect the wishes of physicians. Today, Craig estimated that about two-thirds of his appointments are in person.

Still, it’s unlikely that the drug rep–supplied “free staff lunch” will ever regain its former popularity. Medical office staff are still keeping distance, owing to COVID; office schedules may be more crowded and may not allow the time; and many physicians are still nervous about having to report “gifts” or “paid lunches” from pharma. A new paradigm has emerged in the physician/pharma rep relationship, and it’s unlikely things will ever be the same.
 

The post-COVID paradigm shift

The pandemic put a dent in the pharma rep/doctor relationship, said Suzy Jackson, managing director of life sciences at Accenture and an author of The “New” Rules of Healthcare Provider Engagement . “COVID started moving power away from reps because they lost the ability to simply wander into a building and have a conversation with a health care provider. We’re seeing the pandemic evolve the meeting model into a hybrid in-person and virtual.”

“Many doctors are operating in a slower fashion because they’re balancing a hybrid model with patients, as well,” said Craig. “Some of my visits now involve talking to nurses or front-office staff, not getting in to see the doctors.”

The push from some doctors to see reps virtually as opposed to in person is a challenge for the pharma companies. “We get more done in person, so virtual is not our favorite way to do business,” said Craig. “But we’re thankful for any time we can get with doctors, so when they ask to do virtual, we agree.”

Still, the Accenture survey offered good news for pharma reps: Only 4% of respondents didn’t want to continue with in-person meetings at all. “I think of this as a positive,” Ms. Jackson said. “It shows that physicians value these relationships, if they’re done in the right way.”

But a survey by Boston Consulting Group confirms that virtual visits are likely to continue. BCG’s Doctors’ Changing Expectations of Pharma Are Here to Stay revealed that three-quarters of respondent physicians prefer to maintain or increase the amount of virtual engagements with pharma reps after becoming accustomed to the practice during the pandemic.

Under these changing scenarios, said Ms. Jackson, pharma reps have to think about more meaningful ways to engage with doctors.

“I feel that doctors are more crunched for time now, managing hybrid environments,” Craig said. “They have less time and want more patient-specific information that leads to fewer calls back to their offices.”

More physicians now value webinars, virtual training, and speaker programs. Virtual channels, the survey found, “give physicians access to the information they need in an easy and convenient manner.”

Still, physicians have noted that the survey indicated that email communications from pharma reps had increased. Often, physicians found the useful information buried in irrelevant “clutter.”
 

Restrictions on drug reps became tighter

In the 20 years since the guidelines came into existence, PhRMA has continued to strengthen the codes. In 2009, PhRMA issued new recommendations surrounding noneducational gifts and placed a cap of $100 for meals, drug samples, and other items. In 2022, they added layers to the code that focus on speaker programs. For instance, while companies can provide “modest” meals to attendees as an incidental courtesy, pharma reps can no longer pay for or provide alcohol in conjunction with these programs.

The rules vary from state to state. In Minnesota, for instance, gifts from pharma companies cannot exceed $50 per year. Some institutions – such as the Cleveland Clinic – have even stricter rules. “When we have conventions, we put up signage reminding doctors from the strictest states that they can’t even accept a cup of coffee from a rep,” said Craig.

However, COVID hasn’t completely changed doctor/pharma relationships. In Ms. Jackson’s words, “In spite of the shift to a more hybrid model, this is a very human relationship yielding real human results.”

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