Rheumatology News

A new study has found that methotrexate plus leflunomide outperforms methotrexate alone as a treatment option for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

“We believe that prescribing this combination in routine practice is viable when combined with shared decision-making and strict monitoring of side effects,” write Michelle L.M. Mulder, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and her coauthors. Their findings were published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

The latest treatment guidelines from the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommend conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for patients with active PsA, but Dr. Mulder and her colleagues note a distinct lack of information on their effectiveness, especially this particular combination.

To assess the efficacy and safety of methotrexate plus leflunomide, they launched a single-center, double-blind, randomized trial that included 78 Dutch patients with PsA. The majority of the participants in this trial – dubbed COMPLETE-PsA – were men (64%), and the median age of the patients was 55 years. All had active disease at baseline; the median swollen joint count (SJC) and tender joint count were 4.0 in both groups.

Participants were assigned to receive either methotrexate plus leflunomide (n = 39) or methotrexate plus placebo (n = 39). After 16 weeks, mean Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) had improved for patients in the combination therapy group in comparison with the monotherapy group (3.1; standard deviation, 1.4 vs. 3.7; SD, 1.3; treatment difference, –0.6; 90% confidence interval, –1.0 to –0.1; P = .025). The combination therapy group also achieved PASDAS low disease activity at a higher rate (59%) than did the monotherapy group (34%; P = .019).

Other notable differences after 16 weeks included improvements in SJC for 66 joints (–3.0 in the combination therapy group vs. –2.0 in the monotherapy group) and significantly better skin and nail measures – such as active psoriasis and change in body surface area – in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group.

When asked who should be prescribed the combination therapy and who should be prescribed methotrexate going forward, Dr. Mulder told this news organization, “At the moment, we have insufficient knowledge on who will benefit most or who will develop clinically relevant side effects. It seems warranted to discuss with every patient which approach they would prefer. This could be a step-down or -up approach.

“We hope to be able to better predict treatment response and side effects in the future via post hoc analysis of our study and via extensive flow-cytometric phenotyping of immune blood cells taken at baseline,” she added.

Three patients in the combination therapy group experienced serious adverse events, two of which were deemed unrelated to leflunomide. The most frequently occurring adverse events were nausea or vomiting, tiredness, and elevated alanine aminotransferase. Mild adverse events were more common in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group. No participants died, and all patients with adverse events recovered completely.

“It appears good practice to do blood draws for laboratory tests on liver enzymes at least monthly for the first 4 months and every 4 months after that once stable dosing is achieved, as well as have a telephone consultation after 6-8 weeks to talk about possible side effects a patient might experience and change or add therapy if necessary,” Dr. Mulder added.

Study turns perception of combination therapy into reality

It had already been perceived by rheumatologists that methotrexate plus leflunomide was an effective combo for PsA, and this study reinforces those beliefs, Clementina López-Medina, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the University of Cordoba (Spain), write in an accompanying editorial.

They highlight this study’s notable strengths, one of which was defining “active disease” as two or more swollen joints, which opened the study up to a larger patient population. The editorialists also underline the confirmation that leflunomide plus methotrexate reduces both joint symptoms and skin involvement in this subset of patients, which had also been found in a previous study.

“Leflunomide is usually considered as a second-line option after methotrexate is unsuccessful,” they note, “despite the fact that methotrexate did not show superiority over placebo in previous trials.”

The editorialists were not surprised that the combination therapy was more toxic than the monotherapy. Rheumatologists could use these data to individualize treatment accordingly, they write, while keeping an eye on “gastrointestinal disturbances.”

Overall, Dr. López-Medina and colleagues say that the study results should “be considered not only in daily clinical practice but also in the development of future recommendations.”

Leflunomide: Forgotten no longer, at least for PsA

“I think we probably underutilize leflunomide,” Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Innovative Therapy at the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization. “Sometimes medicines get ‘old,’ for lack of a better term, and fall a little bit of out of favor, sometimes unnecessarily. Leflunomide falls into that category. Because it’s older, it doesn’t get as much buzz as what’s new and shiny.

“I was not surprised by the results on the joints,” he said, “because we know from previous studies that leflunomide works in that regard. What did surprise me is that the skin got better, especially with the combination.”

Regarding the side effects for the combination therapy, he commended the authors for limiting potential uncertainty by using such a high dose of methotrexate.

“By going with a dose of 25 mg [per week], no one can say, ‘They pulled their punches and methotrexate monotherapy would’ve been just as good if it was given at a higher dose,’ “ he said. “And they also used leflunomide at a high dose. It makes you wonder: Could you use lower doses, and do lower doses mean fewer lab test abnormalities? This positive study does lend itself to some other permutations in terms of study design.

“Even though this was a small study,” he added, “it brings us right back to: We should really consider leflunomide in the treatment of PsA.”

The authors acknowledge their study’s limitations, including the fact that it was conducted in a single country and the absence of a nontreatment placebo group. They also note the higher percentage of women in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group, “which might have lowered the treatment response and increased the adverse event rate, resulting in bias.”

The study was funded by a Regional Junior Researcher Grant from Sint Maartenskliniek. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving payment, research grants, and consulting and speaker fees from various pharmaceutical companies.

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

A new study has found that methotrexate plus leflunomide outperforms methotrexate alone as a treatment option for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

“We believe that prescribing this combination in routine practice is viable when combined with shared decision-making and strict monitoring of side effects,” write Michelle L.M. Mulder, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and her coauthors. Their findings were published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

The latest treatment guidelines from the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommend conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for patients with active PsA, but Dr. Mulder and her colleagues note a distinct lack of information on their effectiveness, especially this particular combination.

To assess the efficacy and safety of methotrexate plus leflunomide, they launched a single-center, double-blind, randomized trial that included 78 Dutch patients with PsA. The majority of the participants in this trial – dubbed COMPLETE-PsA – were men (64%), and the median age of the patients was 55 years. All had active disease at baseline; the median swollen joint count (SJC) and tender joint count were 4.0 in both groups.

Participants were assigned to receive either methotrexate plus leflunomide (n = 39) or methotrexate plus placebo (n = 39). After 16 weeks, mean Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) had improved for patients in the combination therapy group in comparison with the monotherapy group (3.1; standard deviation, 1.4 vs. 3.7; SD, 1.3; treatment difference, –0.6; 90% confidence interval, –1.0 to –0.1; P = .025). The combination therapy group also achieved PASDAS low disease activity at a higher rate (59%) than did the monotherapy group (34%; P = .019).

Other notable differences after 16 weeks included improvements in SJC for 66 joints (–3.0 in the combination therapy group vs. –2.0 in the monotherapy group) and significantly better skin and nail measures – such as active psoriasis and change in body surface area – in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group.

When asked who should be prescribed the combination therapy and who should be prescribed methotrexate going forward, Dr. Mulder told this news organization, “At the moment, we have insufficient knowledge on who will benefit most or who will develop clinically relevant side effects. It seems warranted to discuss with every patient which approach they would prefer. This could be a step-down or -up approach.

“We hope to be able to better predict treatment response and side effects in the future via post hoc analysis of our study and via extensive flow-cytometric phenotyping of immune blood cells taken at baseline,” she added.

Three patients in the combination therapy group experienced serious adverse events, two of which were deemed unrelated to leflunomide. The most frequently occurring adverse events were nausea or vomiting, tiredness, and elevated alanine aminotransferase. Mild adverse events were more common in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group. No participants died, and all patients with adverse events recovered completely.

“It appears good practice to do blood draws for laboratory tests on liver enzymes at least monthly for the first 4 months and every 4 months after that once stable dosing is achieved, as well as have a telephone consultation after 6-8 weeks to talk about possible side effects a patient might experience and change or add therapy if necessary,” Dr. Mulder added.

Study turns perception of combination therapy into reality

It had already been perceived by rheumatologists that methotrexate plus leflunomide was an effective combo for PsA, and this study reinforces those beliefs, Clementina López-Medina, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the University of Cordoba (Spain), write in an accompanying editorial.

They highlight this study’s notable strengths, one of which was defining “active disease” as two or more swollen joints, which opened the study up to a larger patient population. The editorialists also underline the confirmation that leflunomide plus methotrexate reduces both joint symptoms and skin involvement in this subset of patients, which had also been found in a previous study.

“Leflunomide is usually considered as a second-line option after methotrexate is unsuccessful,” they note, “despite the fact that methotrexate did not show superiority over placebo in previous trials.”

The editorialists were not surprised that the combination therapy was more toxic than the monotherapy. Rheumatologists could use these data to individualize treatment accordingly, they write, while keeping an eye on “gastrointestinal disturbances.”

Overall, Dr. López-Medina and colleagues say that the study results should “be considered not only in daily clinical practice but also in the development of future recommendations.”

Leflunomide: Forgotten no longer, at least for PsA

“I think we probably underutilize leflunomide,” Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Innovative Therapy at the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization. “Sometimes medicines get ‘old,’ for lack of a better term, and fall a little bit of out of favor, sometimes unnecessarily. Leflunomide falls into that category. Because it’s older, it doesn’t get as much buzz as what’s new and shiny.

“I was not surprised by the results on the joints,” he said, “because we know from previous studies that leflunomide works in that regard. What did surprise me is that the skin got better, especially with the combination.”

Regarding the side effects for the combination therapy, he commended the authors for limiting potential uncertainty by using such a high dose of methotrexate.

“By going with a dose of 25 mg [per week], no one can say, ‘They pulled their punches and methotrexate monotherapy would’ve been just as good if it was given at a higher dose,’ “ he said. “And they also used leflunomide at a high dose. It makes you wonder: Could you use lower doses, and do lower doses mean fewer lab test abnormalities? This positive study does lend itself to some other permutations in terms of study design.

“Even though this was a small study,” he added, “it brings us right back to: We should really consider leflunomide in the treatment of PsA.”

The authors acknowledge their study’s limitations, including the fact that it was conducted in a single country and the absence of a nontreatment placebo group. They also note the higher percentage of women in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group, “which might have lowered the treatment response and increased the adverse event rate, resulting in bias.”

The study was funded by a Regional Junior Researcher Grant from Sint Maartenskliniek. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving payment, research grants, and consulting and speaker fees from various pharmaceutical companies.

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

A new study has found that methotrexate plus leflunomide outperforms methotrexate alone as a treatment option for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

“We believe that prescribing this combination in routine practice is viable when combined with shared decision-making and strict monitoring of side effects,” write Michelle L.M. Mulder, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and her coauthors. Their findings were published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

The latest treatment guidelines from the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommend conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for patients with active PsA, but Dr. Mulder and her colleagues note a distinct lack of information on their effectiveness, especially this particular combination.

To assess the efficacy and safety of methotrexate plus leflunomide, they launched a single-center, double-blind, randomized trial that included 78 Dutch patients with PsA. The majority of the participants in this trial – dubbed COMPLETE-PsA – were men (64%), and the median age of the patients was 55 years. All had active disease at baseline; the median swollen joint count (SJC) and tender joint count were 4.0 in both groups.

Participants were assigned to receive either methotrexate plus leflunomide (n = 39) or methotrexate plus placebo (n = 39). After 16 weeks, mean Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) had improved for patients in the combination therapy group in comparison with the monotherapy group (3.1; standard deviation, 1.4 vs. 3.7; SD, 1.3; treatment difference, –0.6; 90% confidence interval, –1.0 to –0.1; P = .025). The combination therapy group also achieved PASDAS low disease activity at a higher rate (59%) than did the monotherapy group (34%; P = .019).

Other notable differences after 16 weeks included improvements in SJC for 66 joints (–3.0 in the combination therapy group vs. –2.0 in the monotherapy group) and significantly better skin and nail measures – such as active psoriasis and change in body surface area – in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group.

When asked who should be prescribed the combination therapy and who should be prescribed methotrexate going forward, Dr. Mulder told this news organization, “At the moment, we have insufficient knowledge on who will benefit most or who will develop clinically relevant side effects. It seems warranted to discuss with every patient which approach they would prefer. This could be a step-down or -up approach.

“We hope to be able to better predict treatment response and side effects in the future via post hoc analysis of our study and via extensive flow-cytometric phenotyping of immune blood cells taken at baseline,” she added.

Three patients in the combination therapy group experienced serious adverse events, two of which were deemed unrelated to leflunomide. The most frequently occurring adverse events were nausea or vomiting, tiredness, and elevated alanine aminotransferase. Mild adverse events were more common in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group. No participants died, and all patients with adverse events recovered completely.

“It appears good practice to do blood draws for laboratory tests on liver enzymes at least monthly for the first 4 months and every 4 months after that once stable dosing is achieved, as well as have a telephone consultation after 6-8 weeks to talk about possible side effects a patient might experience and change or add therapy if necessary,” Dr. Mulder added.

Study turns perception of combination therapy into reality

It had already been perceived by rheumatologists that methotrexate plus leflunomide was an effective combo for PsA, and this study reinforces those beliefs, Clementina López-Medina, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the University of Cordoba (Spain), write in an accompanying editorial.

They highlight this study’s notable strengths, one of which was defining “active disease” as two or more swollen joints, which opened the study up to a larger patient population. The editorialists also underline the confirmation that leflunomide plus methotrexate reduces both joint symptoms and skin involvement in this subset of patients, which had also been found in a previous study.

“Leflunomide is usually considered as a second-line option after methotrexate is unsuccessful,” they note, “despite the fact that methotrexate did not show superiority over placebo in previous trials.”

The editorialists were not surprised that the combination therapy was more toxic than the monotherapy. Rheumatologists could use these data to individualize treatment accordingly, they write, while keeping an eye on “gastrointestinal disturbances.”

Overall, Dr. López-Medina and colleagues say that the study results should “be considered not only in daily clinical practice but also in the development of future recommendations.”

Leflunomide: Forgotten no longer, at least for PsA

“I think we probably underutilize leflunomide,” Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Innovative Therapy at the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization. “Sometimes medicines get ‘old,’ for lack of a better term, and fall a little bit of out of favor, sometimes unnecessarily. Leflunomide falls into that category. Because it’s older, it doesn’t get as much buzz as what’s new and shiny.

“I was not surprised by the results on the joints,” he said, “because we know from previous studies that leflunomide works in that regard. What did surprise me is that the skin got better, especially with the combination.”

Regarding the side effects for the combination therapy, he commended the authors for limiting potential uncertainty by using such a high dose of methotrexate.

“By going with a dose of 25 mg [per week], no one can say, ‘They pulled their punches and methotrexate monotherapy would’ve been just as good if it was given at a higher dose,’ “ he said. “And they also used leflunomide at a high dose. It makes you wonder: Could you use lower doses, and do lower doses mean fewer lab test abnormalities? This positive study does lend itself to some other permutations in terms of study design.

“Even though this was a small study,” he added, “it brings us right back to: We should really consider leflunomide in the treatment of PsA.”

The authors acknowledge their study’s limitations, including the fact that it was conducted in a single country and the absence of a nontreatment placebo group. They also note the higher percentage of women in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group, “which might have lowered the treatment response and increased the adverse event rate, resulting in bias.”

The study was funded by a Regional Junior Researcher Grant from Sint Maartenskliniek. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving payment, research grants, and consulting and speaker fees from various pharmaceutical companies.

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

In a bid to stop abuse and diversion of the anticonvulsant gabapentin, a watchdog group is petitioning federal regulators to make the drug a controlled substance.

The nonprofit group Public Citizen has filed a petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), arguing that the medication’s risks warrant additional safeguards.

Gabapentin is a generic drug, best known under the brand name Neurontin. The petition also covers the related drug gabapentin enacarbil (Horizant).

Public Citizen requested that gabapentin come under the DEA’s Schedule V category, which already includes the similar drug pregabalin (Lyrica). Schedule V is the lowest rung on the DEA’s drug schedule, meaning it has lower potential for abuse then Schedule I through IV drugs. This tier also includes cough preparations with less than 200 milligrams of codeine.

Classifying gabapentin as a Schedule V drug would facilitate better tracking of the drug’s use and misuse and put in place educational and limitation requirements to mitigate the risk of addiction, overdose, and death, Michael Abrams, MPH, PhD, senior health researcher with Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, and colleagues write in the petition.
 

‘Widespread misuse’

There is “substantial evidence of widespread misuse” of gabapentin, plausibly helped by “extraordinary levels of off-label prescribing,” Public Citizen said in the petition.

Some estimates have pegged off-label use at more than 90%, with gabapentin prescribed for indications such as chronic cough, hiccups, postoperative pain, and postmenopausal hot flashes, the group said.

“Moreover, there are numerous reports indicating that gabapentin is widely used and diverted on the street to induce ‘highs’ or otherwise self-medicate,” Public Citizen said. “Both gabapentin and pregabalin have been empirically linked to the opioid overdose epidemic as drugs that potentiate the activity of these oftentimes deadly analgesics.”

This news organization tried several times to reach Azurity for comment but did not receive a response. Pfizer included gabapentin in the portfolio of drugs used to create the Viatris spin-off, which took place in 2020. Pfizer referred this news organization to Viatris for comment, but it also did not respond.

It is unclear how the FDA and DEA will respond to the petition. Public Citizen has received a reply from the FDA, in which the agency acknowledged receipt of the petition. However, the “acceptance of the petition for filing is a procedural matter and in no way reflects the agency’s decision on the substantive merits of the petition,” the FDA said in a letter.

As is common practice, the agency assigned a docket number for the petition, FDA-2022-P-0149. The docket’s website allows interested parties to track the issue.
 

‘Unnoticed’ abuse

There have been rising concerns about risks and abuse of gabapentin in recent years. In its petition, Public Citizen noted that the United Kingdom and several U.S. states have already sought tighter control of gabapentin prescriptions.

In 2019, the United Kingdom announced it would reclassify both pregabalin and gabapentin as class C controlled substances because of the rising numbers of deaths linked to the drugs.

As of November 2020, seven states – Alabama, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia – had classified gabapentin as a schedule V drug, while another 12 states required prescription monitoring of the drug, Public Citizen noted.

In 2018, researchers at the University of Louisville, Kentucky, a state that has been hit particularly hard by the opioid crisis, tried to draw more attention to the risks of gabapentin.

“Amid the opioid epidemic, abuse of a different prescription painkiller has widely gone unnoticed,” the University said in a press release at the time.

The release highlighted a study led by Rachel Vickers Smith, PhD, assistant professor in the University of Louisville School of Nursing that was published in Psychology of Addictive Behaviors.

It included 33 individuals who reported recent recreational use of gabapentin. Use of the drug was combined with buprenorphine, other opioids, cocaine, and caffeine to produce effects such as muscle relaxation, pain reduction, sleep induction, feeling drunk, and feeling “high.”

In the press release, Dr. Vickers Smith said individuals who abuse gabapentin often mix it with opioids, marijuana, cocaine, and opioid treatment medication, compounding side effects to the central nervous system that include euphoria and sedation.

In addition, some individuals who primarily abused opioid pain medication have turned to gabapentin after law-enforcement actions made it more difficult to obtain prescription opioids, she noted.

“People are looking for other drugs to substitute for opioids, and gabapentin has filled that place for some,” Dr. Vickers Smith said. “Some have said it gives them a high similar to opioids.”
 

FDA 2019 warning

In 2019, the FDA issued a warning about serious breathing difficulties associated with gabapentin and pregabalin in patients with respiratory risk factors.

These factors include opioid use and other drugs that depress the central nervous system, as well as conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that reduce lung function. Older patients are also at higher risk, the FDA said.

The agency noted that gabapentinoids are often co-prescribed with opioids for for medical conditions and abused in combination with opioids. Data collected in 2016 from an office-based physician survey showed 14% of patient encounters involving gabapentin also involved opioids, the FDA said.

“Our evaluation shows that the use of these medicines, often referred to as gabapentinoids, has been growing for prescribed medical use, as well as misuse and abuse,” the agency said in its 2019 alert.

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

In a bid to stop abuse and diversion of the anticonvulsant gabapentin, a watchdog group is petitioning federal regulators to make the drug a controlled substance.

The nonprofit group Public Citizen has filed a petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), arguing that the medication’s risks warrant additional safeguards.

Gabapentin is a generic drug, best known under the brand name Neurontin. The petition also covers the related drug gabapentin enacarbil (Horizant).

Public Citizen requested that gabapentin come under the DEA’s Schedule V category, which already includes the similar drug pregabalin (Lyrica). Schedule V is the lowest rung on the DEA’s drug schedule, meaning it has lower potential for abuse then Schedule I through IV drugs. This tier also includes cough preparations with less than 200 milligrams of codeine.

Classifying gabapentin as a Schedule V drug would facilitate better tracking of the drug’s use and misuse and put in place educational and limitation requirements to mitigate the risk of addiction, overdose, and death, Michael Abrams, MPH, PhD, senior health researcher with Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, and colleagues write in the petition.
 

‘Widespread misuse’

There is “substantial evidence of widespread misuse” of gabapentin, plausibly helped by “extraordinary levels of off-label prescribing,” Public Citizen said in the petition.

Some estimates have pegged off-label use at more than 90%, with gabapentin prescribed for indications such as chronic cough, hiccups, postoperative pain, and postmenopausal hot flashes, the group said.

“Moreover, there are numerous reports indicating that gabapentin is widely used and diverted on the street to induce ‘highs’ or otherwise self-medicate,” Public Citizen said. “Both gabapentin and pregabalin have been empirically linked to the opioid overdose epidemic as drugs that potentiate the activity of these oftentimes deadly analgesics.”

This news organization tried several times to reach Azurity for comment but did not receive a response. Pfizer included gabapentin in the portfolio of drugs used to create the Viatris spin-off, which took place in 2020. Pfizer referred this news organization to Viatris for comment, but it also did not respond.

It is unclear how the FDA and DEA will respond to the petition. Public Citizen has received a reply from the FDA, in which the agency acknowledged receipt of the petition. However, the “acceptance of the petition for filing is a procedural matter and in no way reflects the agency’s decision on the substantive merits of the petition,” the FDA said in a letter.

As is common practice, the agency assigned a docket number for the petition, FDA-2022-P-0149. The docket’s website allows interested parties to track the issue.
 

‘Unnoticed’ abuse

There have been rising concerns about risks and abuse of gabapentin in recent years. In its petition, Public Citizen noted that the United Kingdom and several U.S. states have already sought tighter control of gabapentin prescriptions.

In 2019, the United Kingdom announced it would reclassify both pregabalin and gabapentin as class C controlled substances because of the rising numbers of deaths linked to the drugs.

As of November 2020, seven states – Alabama, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia – had classified gabapentin as a schedule V drug, while another 12 states required prescription monitoring of the drug, Public Citizen noted.

In 2018, researchers at the University of Louisville, Kentucky, a state that has been hit particularly hard by the opioid crisis, tried to draw more attention to the risks of gabapentin.

“Amid the opioid epidemic, abuse of a different prescription painkiller has widely gone unnoticed,” the University said in a press release at the time.

The release highlighted a study led by Rachel Vickers Smith, PhD, assistant professor in the University of Louisville School of Nursing that was published in Psychology of Addictive Behaviors.

It included 33 individuals who reported recent recreational use of gabapentin. Use of the drug was combined with buprenorphine, other opioids, cocaine, and caffeine to produce effects such as muscle relaxation, pain reduction, sleep induction, feeling drunk, and feeling “high.”

In the press release, Dr. Vickers Smith said individuals who abuse gabapentin often mix it with opioids, marijuana, cocaine, and opioid treatment medication, compounding side effects to the central nervous system that include euphoria and sedation.

In addition, some individuals who primarily abused opioid pain medication have turned to gabapentin after law-enforcement actions made it more difficult to obtain prescription opioids, she noted.

“People are looking for other drugs to substitute for opioids, and gabapentin has filled that place for some,” Dr. Vickers Smith said. “Some have said it gives them a high similar to opioids.”
 

FDA 2019 warning

In 2019, the FDA issued a warning about serious breathing difficulties associated with gabapentin and pregabalin in patients with respiratory risk factors.

These factors include opioid use and other drugs that depress the central nervous system, as well as conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that reduce lung function. Older patients are also at higher risk, the FDA said.

The agency noted that gabapentinoids are often co-prescribed with opioids for for medical conditions and abused in combination with opioids. Data collected in 2016 from an office-based physician survey showed 14% of patient encounters involving gabapentin also involved opioids, the FDA said.

“Our evaluation shows that the use of these medicines, often referred to as gabapentinoids, has been growing for prescribed medical use, as well as misuse and abuse,” the agency said in its 2019 alert.

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

In a bid to stop abuse and diversion of the anticonvulsant gabapentin, a watchdog group is petitioning federal regulators to make the drug a controlled substance.

The nonprofit group Public Citizen has filed a petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), arguing that the medication’s risks warrant additional safeguards.

Gabapentin is a generic drug, best known under the brand name Neurontin. The petition also covers the related drug gabapentin enacarbil (Horizant).

Public Citizen requested that gabapentin come under the DEA’s Schedule V category, which already includes the similar drug pregabalin (Lyrica). Schedule V is the lowest rung on the DEA’s drug schedule, meaning it has lower potential for abuse then Schedule I through IV drugs. This tier also includes cough preparations with less than 200 milligrams of codeine.

Classifying gabapentin as a Schedule V drug would facilitate better tracking of the drug’s use and misuse and put in place educational and limitation requirements to mitigate the risk of addiction, overdose, and death, Michael Abrams, MPH, PhD, senior health researcher with Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, and colleagues write in the petition.
 

‘Widespread misuse’

There is “substantial evidence of widespread misuse” of gabapentin, plausibly helped by “extraordinary levels of off-label prescribing,” Public Citizen said in the petition.

Some estimates have pegged off-label use at more than 90%, with gabapentin prescribed for indications such as chronic cough, hiccups, postoperative pain, and postmenopausal hot flashes, the group said.

“Moreover, there are numerous reports indicating that gabapentin is widely used and diverted on the street to induce ‘highs’ or otherwise self-medicate,” Public Citizen said. “Both gabapentin and pregabalin have been empirically linked to the opioid overdose epidemic as drugs that potentiate the activity of these oftentimes deadly analgesics.”

This news organization tried several times to reach Azurity for comment but did not receive a response. Pfizer included gabapentin in the portfolio of drugs used to create the Viatris spin-off, which took place in 2020. Pfizer referred this news organization to Viatris for comment, but it also did not respond.

It is unclear how the FDA and DEA will respond to the petition. Public Citizen has received a reply from the FDA, in which the agency acknowledged receipt of the petition. However, the “acceptance of the petition for filing is a procedural matter and in no way reflects the agency’s decision on the substantive merits of the petition,” the FDA said in a letter.

As is common practice, the agency assigned a docket number for the petition, FDA-2022-P-0149. The docket’s website allows interested parties to track the issue.
 

‘Unnoticed’ abuse

There have been rising concerns about risks and abuse of gabapentin in recent years. In its petition, Public Citizen noted that the United Kingdom and several U.S. states have already sought tighter control of gabapentin prescriptions.

In 2019, the United Kingdom announced it would reclassify both pregabalin and gabapentin as class C controlled substances because of the rising numbers of deaths linked to the drugs.

As of November 2020, seven states – Alabama, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia – had classified gabapentin as a schedule V drug, while another 12 states required prescription monitoring of the drug, Public Citizen noted.

In 2018, researchers at the University of Louisville, Kentucky, a state that has been hit particularly hard by the opioid crisis, tried to draw more attention to the risks of gabapentin.

“Amid the opioid epidemic, abuse of a different prescription painkiller has widely gone unnoticed,” the University said in a press release at the time.

The release highlighted a study led by Rachel Vickers Smith, PhD, assistant professor in the University of Louisville School of Nursing that was published in Psychology of Addictive Behaviors.

It included 33 individuals who reported recent recreational use of gabapentin. Use of the drug was combined with buprenorphine, other opioids, cocaine, and caffeine to produce effects such as muscle relaxation, pain reduction, sleep induction, feeling drunk, and feeling “high.”

In the press release, Dr. Vickers Smith said individuals who abuse gabapentin often mix it with opioids, marijuana, cocaine, and opioid treatment medication, compounding side effects to the central nervous system that include euphoria and sedation.

In addition, some individuals who primarily abused opioid pain medication have turned to gabapentin after law-enforcement actions made it more difficult to obtain prescription opioids, she noted.

“People are looking for other drugs to substitute for opioids, and gabapentin has filled that place for some,” Dr. Vickers Smith said. “Some have said it gives them a high similar to opioids.”
 

FDA 2019 warning

In 2019, the FDA issued a warning about serious breathing difficulties associated with gabapentin and pregabalin in patients with respiratory risk factors.

These factors include opioid use and other drugs that depress the central nervous system, as well as conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that reduce lung function. Older patients are also at higher risk, the FDA said.

The agency noted that gabapentinoids are often co-prescribed with opioids for for medical conditions and abused in combination with opioids. Data collected in 2016 from an office-based physician survey showed 14% of patient encounters involving gabapentin also involved opioids, the FDA said.

“Our evaluation shows that the use of these medicines, often referred to as gabapentinoids, has been growing for prescribed medical use, as well as misuse and abuse,” the agency said in its 2019 alert.

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

The federal government’s efforts to thwart information blocking are underway. As such, physicians would do well to be standing at the ready when the information-blocking regulations, designed to ensure that patients can access their electronic health information (EHI), shift into full gear.

Recently, the Office of the National Coordinator revealed that the Department of Health & Humans Services has received 299 reports of information blocking since inviting anyone who suspected that health care providers, IT developers, or health information networks/exchanges might have interfered with access, exchange, or use of EHI through the Report Information Blocking Portal on April 5, 2021.

The vast majority of these claims – 211 – were filed against providers, while 46 alleged incidents of information blocking were by health IT developers, and two claims point to health information networks/ exchanges. The other 25 claims did not appear to present a claim of information blocking.

Of the 274 possible claims of information blocking recently released by ONC, 176 were made by patients.

The ONC has sent all possible claims to the HHS’s Office of the Inspector General. The claims have not yet been investigated and substantiated.
 

Do the stats tell the story?

The numbers in the recent ONC report do not shed much light on how much impact the regulations are having on information sharing. Health care providers, including physicians, might not yet be complying with the rules because monetary penalties are not in place.

Indeed, HHS has yet to spell out exactly what the disincentives on providers will be, though the 21st Century Cures Act stipulates that regulators could fine up to $1 million per information-blocking incident.

“Some providers might be saying, ‘I’m not going to be penalized at this point … so I can take a little bit longer to think about how I come into compliance.’ That could be just one factor of a host of many that are affecting compliance. We also are still in the middle of a public health emergency. So it’s hard to say at this point” exactly how the regulations will affect information blocking, Lauren Riplinger, vice president of policy and public affairs at the American Health Information Management Association, Chicago, said in an interview.
 

A long time coming

The government first zeroed in on ensuring that patients have access to their information in 2016 when President Obama signed the Cures Act into law. The legislation directed ONC to implement a standardized process for the public to report claims of possible information blocking.

The initiative appears to be picking up steam. The ONC is expected to release monthly reports on the cumulative number of information-blocking claims. The announcement of associated penalties is expected sometime in the future.

Industry leaders are advising health care providers to brush up on compliance. Physicians can look to professional groups such as the American Medical Association, the Medical Group Management Association, and other specialty associations for guidance. In addition, the ONC is educating providers on the rule.

“The ONC has provided a lot of great content for the past couple months, not only in terms of putting out FAQs to help clarify some of the gray areas in the rule, but they also have produced a series of provider-specific webinars where they walk through a potential scenario and address the extent to the rules apply,” Ms. Riplinger said.
 

With education, more is better

These efforts, however, could be expanded, according to MGMA.

“There is a general awareness of the rules, but we encourage ONC to continue educating the provider community: More FAQs and educational webinars would be helpful,” Claire Ernst, director of government affairs for MGMA, said in an interview. “A June 2021 MGMA poll found that 51% of medical groups said they needed more government guidance on complying with the new information-blocking rules.”

Although ONC already has provided some “scenario-based” education, more of this type of guidance could prove valuable.

“This rule is that it is very circumstance based. … and so it’s those more nuanced cases that I think are more challenging for providers to know whether or not they are engaging in information blocking,” Ms. Riplinger noted.

For example, a physician might choose to not upload lab test results to a patient portal and prefer to wait to discuss the results directly with the patient, which could potentially be construed as information blocking under the regulations.

The MGMA is requesting that ONC take a second look at these situations – and possibly adjust the regulations.

“MGMA has heard concerns about the impact of providing immediate results to patients before medical groups have the time to thoroughly review test results and discuss them compassionately with their patients,” Ms. Ernst said. “To address this, ONC could expand the current definition of harm to account for other unintended consequences, such as emotional distress, or provide more flexibility in terms of the time frame.”

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

The federal government’s efforts to thwart information blocking are underway. As such, physicians would do well to be standing at the ready when the information-blocking regulations, designed to ensure that patients can access their electronic health information (EHI), shift into full gear.

Recently, the Office of the National Coordinator revealed that the Department of Health & Humans Services has received 299 reports of information blocking since inviting anyone who suspected that health care providers, IT developers, or health information networks/exchanges might have interfered with access, exchange, or use of EHI through the Report Information Blocking Portal on April 5, 2021.

The vast majority of these claims – 211 – were filed against providers, while 46 alleged incidents of information blocking were by health IT developers, and two claims point to health information networks/ exchanges. The other 25 claims did not appear to present a claim of information blocking.

Of the 274 possible claims of information blocking recently released by ONC, 176 were made by patients.

The ONC has sent all possible claims to the HHS’s Office of the Inspector General. The claims have not yet been investigated and substantiated.
 

Do the stats tell the story?

The numbers in the recent ONC report do not shed much light on how much impact the regulations are having on information sharing. Health care providers, including physicians, might not yet be complying with the rules because monetary penalties are not in place.

Indeed, HHS has yet to spell out exactly what the disincentives on providers will be, though the 21st Century Cures Act stipulates that regulators could fine up to $1 million per information-blocking incident.

“Some providers might be saying, ‘I’m not going to be penalized at this point … so I can take a little bit longer to think about how I come into compliance.’ That could be just one factor of a host of many that are affecting compliance. We also are still in the middle of a public health emergency. So it’s hard to say at this point” exactly how the regulations will affect information blocking, Lauren Riplinger, vice president of policy and public affairs at the American Health Information Management Association, Chicago, said in an interview.
 

A long time coming

The government first zeroed in on ensuring that patients have access to their information in 2016 when President Obama signed the Cures Act into law. The legislation directed ONC to implement a standardized process for the public to report claims of possible information blocking.

The initiative appears to be picking up steam. The ONC is expected to release monthly reports on the cumulative number of information-blocking claims. The announcement of associated penalties is expected sometime in the future.

Industry leaders are advising health care providers to brush up on compliance. Physicians can look to professional groups such as the American Medical Association, the Medical Group Management Association, and other specialty associations for guidance. In addition, the ONC is educating providers on the rule.

“The ONC has provided a lot of great content for the past couple months, not only in terms of putting out FAQs to help clarify some of the gray areas in the rule, but they also have produced a series of provider-specific webinars where they walk through a potential scenario and address the extent to the rules apply,” Ms. Riplinger said.
 

With education, more is better

These efforts, however, could be expanded, according to MGMA.

“There is a general awareness of the rules, but we encourage ONC to continue educating the provider community: More FAQs and educational webinars would be helpful,” Claire Ernst, director of government affairs for MGMA, said in an interview. “A June 2021 MGMA poll found that 51% of medical groups said they needed more government guidance on complying with the new information-blocking rules.”

Although ONC already has provided some “scenario-based” education, more of this type of guidance could prove valuable.

“This rule is that it is very circumstance based. … and so it’s those more nuanced cases that I think are more challenging for providers to know whether or not they are engaging in information blocking,” Ms. Riplinger noted.

For example, a physician might choose to not upload lab test results to a patient portal and prefer to wait to discuss the results directly with the patient, which could potentially be construed as information blocking under the regulations.

The MGMA is requesting that ONC take a second look at these situations – and possibly adjust the regulations.

“MGMA has heard concerns about the impact of providing immediate results to patients before medical groups have the time to thoroughly review test results and discuss them compassionately with their patients,” Ms. Ernst said. “To address this, ONC could expand the current definition of harm to account for other unintended consequences, such as emotional distress, or provide more flexibility in terms of the time frame.”

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

The federal government’s efforts to thwart information blocking are underway. As such, physicians would do well to be standing at the ready when the information-blocking regulations, designed to ensure that patients can access their electronic health information (EHI), shift into full gear.

Recently, the Office of the National Coordinator revealed that the Department of Health & Humans Services has received 299 reports of information blocking since inviting anyone who suspected that health care providers, IT developers, or health information networks/exchanges might have interfered with access, exchange, or use of EHI through the Report Information Blocking Portal on April 5, 2021.

The vast majority of these claims – 211 – were filed against providers, while 46 alleged incidents of information blocking were by health IT developers, and two claims point to health information networks/ exchanges. The other 25 claims did not appear to present a claim of information blocking.

Of the 274 possible claims of information blocking recently released by ONC, 176 were made by patients.

The ONC has sent all possible claims to the HHS’s Office of the Inspector General. The claims have not yet been investigated and substantiated.
 

Do the stats tell the story?

The numbers in the recent ONC report do not shed much light on how much impact the regulations are having on information sharing. Health care providers, including physicians, might not yet be complying with the rules because monetary penalties are not in place.

Indeed, HHS has yet to spell out exactly what the disincentives on providers will be, though the 21st Century Cures Act stipulates that regulators could fine up to $1 million per information-blocking incident.

“Some providers might be saying, ‘I’m not going to be penalized at this point … so I can take a little bit longer to think about how I come into compliance.’ That could be just one factor of a host of many that are affecting compliance. We also are still in the middle of a public health emergency. So it’s hard to say at this point” exactly how the regulations will affect information blocking, Lauren Riplinger, vice president of policy and public affairs at the American Health Information Management Association, Chicago, said in an interview.
 

A long time coming

The government first zeroed in on ensuring that patients have access to their information in 2016 when President Obama signed the Cures Act into law. The legislation directed ONC to implement a standardized process for the public to report claims of possible information blocking.

The initiative appears to be picking up steam. The ONC is expected to release monthly reports on the cumulative number of information-blocking claims. The announcement of associated penalties is expected sometime in the future.

Industry leaders are advising health care providers to brush up on compliance. Physicians can look to professional groups such as the American Medical Association, the Medical Group Management Association, and other specialty associations for guidance. In addition, the ONC is educating providers on the rule.

“The ONC has provided a lot of great content for the past couple months, not only in terms of putting out FAQs to help clarify some of the gray areas in the rule, but they also have produced a series of provider-specific webinars where they walk through a potential scenario and address the extent to the rules apply,” Ms. Riplinger said.
 

With education, more is better

These efforts, however, could be expanded, according to MGMA.

“There is a general awareness of the rules, but we encourage ONC to continue educating the provider community: More FAQs and educational webinars would be helpful,” Claire Ernst, director of government affairs for MGMA, said in an interview. “A June 2021 MGMA poll found that 51% of medical groups said they needed more government guidance on complying with the new information-blocking rules.”

Although ONC already has provided some “scenario-based” education, more of this type of guidance could prove valuable.

“This rule is that it is very circumstance based. … and so it’s those more nuanced cases that I think are more challenging for providers to know whether or not they are engaging in information blocking,” Ms. Riplinger noted.

For example, a physician might choose to not upload lab test results to a patient portal and prefer to wait to discuss the results directly with the patient, which could potentially be construed as information blocking under the regulations.

The MGMA is requesting that ONC take a second look at these situations – and possibly adjust the regulations.

“MGMA has heard concerns about the impact of providing immediate results to patients before medical groups have the time to thoroughly review test results and discuss them compassionately with their patients,” Ms. Ernst said. “To address this, ONC could expand the current definition of harm to account for other unintended consequences, such as emotional distress, or provide more flexibility in terms of the time frame.”

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

Data from the first 6 months after the rollout of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the United States released today show that adverse effects from shots are typically mild and short-lived.

Findings of the large study, compiled after nearly 300 million doses were administered, were published online March 7 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Researchers, led by Hannah G. Rosenblum, MD, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID Response Team, used passive U.S. surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and the active system, v-safe, starting in December 2020 through the first 6 months of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program. V-safe is a voluntary, smartphone-based system set up in 2020 specifically for monitoring reactions to COVID-19 and health effects after vaccination. The health effects information from v-safe is presented in this study for the first time.

Of the 298.7 million doses of mRNA vaccines administered in the U.S. during the study period, VAERS processed 340,522 reports. Of those, 313,499 (92.1%) were nonserious; 22,527 (6.6%) were serious (nondeath); and 4,496 (1.3%) were deaths.

From v-safe reporting, researchers learned that about 71% of the 7.9 million participants reported local or systemic reactions, more frequently after dose 2 than after dose 1. Of those reporting reactions after dose 1, about two-thirds (68.6%) reported a local reaction and 52.7% reported a systemic reaction.

Among other findings:

• Injection-site pain occurred after dose 1 in 66.2% of participants and 68.6% after dose 2.
• One-third of participants (33.9%) reported fatigue after dose 1 and 55.7% after dose 2.
• Headache was reported among 27% of participants after dose 1 and 46.2% after dose 2.
• When injection site pain, fatigue, or headaches were reported, the reports were usually in the first week after vaccination.
• Reports of being unable to work or do normal daily activities, or instances of seeking medical care, occurred more commonly after dose 2 (32.1%) than after dose 1 (11.9%). Fewer than 1% of participants reported seeking medical care after dose 1 or 2 of the vaccine.
• Reactions and health effects were reported more often in female than in male recipients, and in people younger than 65 years, compared with older people.
• Serious adverse events, including myocarditis, have been identified following mRNA vaccinations, but the events are rare.

The authors wrote that these results are consistent with preauthorization clinical trials and early postauthorization reports.

“On the basis of our findings, mild to moderate transient reactogenicity should be anticipated,” they said, “particularly among younger and female vaccine recipients.”
 

‘Robust and reassuring data’

“The safety monitoring of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines stands out as the most comprehensive of any vaccine in U.S. history. The use of these complementary monitoring systems has provided robust and reassuring data,” Matthew S. Krantz, MD, with the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and Elizabeth J. Phillips, MD, with the department of pathology, microbiology, and immunology at Vanderbilt, wrote in a related commentary in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

They point out that the v-safe reports of reactions are consistent with those reported from clinical trials and a large population study in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Phillips said in a press release, “[A]lthough approximately one in 1,000 individuals vaccinated may have an adverse effect, most of these are nonserious. No unusual patterns emerged in the cause of death or serious adverse effects among VAERS reports. For adverse events of special interest, it is reassuring that there were no unexpected signals other than myopericarditis and anaphylaxis, already known to be associated with mRNA vaccines.”

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Data from the first 6 months after the rollout of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the United States released today show that adverse effects from shots are typically mild and short-lived.

Findings of the large study, compiled after nearly 300 million doses were administered, were published online March 7 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Researchers, led by Hannah G. Rosenblum, MD, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID Response Team, used passive U.S. surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and the active system, v-safe, starting in December 2020 through the first 6 months of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program. V-safe is a voluntary, smartphone-based system set up in 2020 specifically for monitoring reactions to COVID-19 and health effects after vaccination. The health effects information from v-safe is presented in this study for the first time.

Of the 298.7 million doses of mRNA vaccines administered in the U.S. during the study period, VAERS processed 340,522 reports. Of those, 313,499 (92.1%) were nonserious; 22,527 (6.6%) were serious (nondeath); and 4,496 (1.3%) were deaths.

From v-safe reporting, researchers learned that about 71% of the 7.9 million participants reported local or systemic reactions, more frequently after dose 2 than after dose 1. Of those reporting reactions after dose 1, about two-thirds (68.6%) reported a local reaction and 52.7% reported a systemic reaction.

Among other findings:

• Injection-site pain occurred after dose 1 in 66.2% of participants and 68.6% after dose 2.
• One-third of participants (33.9%) reported fatigue after dose 1 and 55.7% after dose 2.
• Headache was reported among 27% of participants after dose 1 and 46.2% after dose 2.
• When injection site pain, fatigue, or headaches were reported, the reports were usually in the first week after vaccination.
• Reports of being unable to work or do normal daily activities, or instances of seeking medical care, occurred more commonly after dose 2 (32.1%) than after dose 1 (11.9%). Fewer than 1% of participants reported seeking medical care after dose 1 or 2 of the vaccine.
• Reactions and health effects were reported more often in female than in male recipients, and in people younger than 65 years, compared with older people.
• Serious adverse events, including myocarditis, have been identified following mRNA vaccinations, but the events are rare.

The authors wrote that these results are consistent with preauthorization clinical trials and early postauthorization reports.

“On the basis of our findings, mild to moderate transient reactogenicity should be anticipated,” they said, “particularly among younger and female vaccine recipients.”
 

‘Robust and reassuring data’

“The safety monitoring of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines stands out as the most comprehensive of any vaccine in U.S. history. The use of these complementary monitoring systems has provided robust and reassuring data,” Matthew S. Krantz, MD, with the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and Elizabeth J. Phillips, MD, with the department of pathology, microbiology, and immunology at Vanderbilt, wrote in a related commentary in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

They point out that the v-safe reports of reactions are consistent with those reported from clinical trials and a large population study in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Phillips said in a press release, “[A]lthough approximately one in 1,000 individuals vaccinated may have an adverse effect, most of these are nonserious. No unusual patterns emerged in the cause of death or serious adverse effects among VAERS reports. For adverse events of special interest, it is reassuring that there were no unexpected signals other than myopericarditis and anaphylaxis, already known to be associated with mRNA vaccines.”

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Data from the first 6 months after the rollout of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the United States released today show that adverse effects from shots are typically mild and short-lived.

Findings of the large study, compiled after nearly 300 million doses were administered, were published online March 7 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Researchers, led by Hannah G. Rosenblum, MD, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID Response Team, used passive U.S. surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and the active system, v-safe, starting in December 2020 through the first 6 months of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program. V-safe is a voluntary, smartphone-based system set up in 2020 specifically for monitoring reactions to COVID-19 and health effects after vaccination. The health effects information from v-safe is presented in this study for the first time.

Of the 298.7 million doses of mRNA vaccines administered in the U.S. during the study period, VAERS processed 340,522 reports. Of those, 313,499 (92.1%) were nonserious; 22,527 (6.6%) were serious (nondeath); and 4,496 (1.3%) were deaths.

From v-safe reporting, researchers learned that about 71% of the 7.9 million participants reported local or systemic reactions, more frequently after dose 2 than after dose 1. Of those reporting reactions after dose 1, about two-thirds (68.6%) reported a local reaction and 52.7% reported a systemic reaction.

Among other findings:

• Injection-site pain occurred after dose 1 in 66.2% of participants and 68.6% after dose 2.
• One-third of participants (33.9%) reported fatigue after dose 1 and 55.7% after dose 2.
• Headache was reported among 27% of participants after dose 1 and 46.2% after dose 2.
• When injection site pain, fatigue, or headaches were reported, the reports were usually in the first week after vaccination.
• Reports of being unable to work or do normal daily activities, or instances of seeking medical care, occurred more commonly after dose 2 (32.1%) than after dose 1 (11.9%). Fewer than 1% of participants reported seeking medical care after dose 1 or 2 of the vaccine.
• Reactions and health effects were reported more often in female than in male recipients, and in people younger than 65 years, compared with older people.
• Serious adverse events, including myocarditis, have been identified following mRNA vaccinations, but the events are rare.

The authors wrote that these results are consistent with preauthorization clinical trials and early postauthorization reports.

“On the basis of our findings, mild to moderate transient reactogenicity should be anticipated,” they said, “particularly among younger and female vaccine recipients.”
 

‘Robust and reassuring data’

“The safety monitoring of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines stands out as the most comprehensive of any vaccine in U.S. history. The use of these complementary monitoring systems has provided robust and reassuring data,” Matthew S. Krantz, MD, with the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and Elizabeth J. Phillips, MD, with the department of pathology, microbiology, and immunology at Vanderbilt, wrote in a related commentary in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

They point out that the v-safe reports of reactions are consistent with those reported from clinical trials and a large population study in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Phillips said in a press release, “[A]lthough approximately one in 1,000 individuals vaccinated may have an adverse effect, most of these are nonserious. No unusual patterns emerged in the cause of death or serious adverse effects among VAERS reports. For adverse events of special interest, it is reassuring that there were no unexpected signals other than myopericarditis and anaphylaxis, already known to be associated with mRNA vaccines.”

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with undifferentiated arthritis (UA) that is defined according to contemporary criteria don’t appear to have the same excess mortality that is associated with rheumatoid arthritis, despite links between the two conditions.

UA has long been considered an earlier phase of RA, so similar management strategies are often used based on the assumption that outcomes and elevated mortality risk were similar between the two, but new findings reported in a research letter published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases challenge that assumption.

The change in the definition of UA that accompanied the introduction of new RA criteria in 2010 meant that some of the patients who previously met the criteria for UA now were classified as having RA, and “the remaining contemporary UA population (not fulfilling the 1987/2010 RA criteria) is largely autoantibody negative, presents with monoarthritis or oligoarthritis, and progresses less frequently to RA,” PhD candidate Marloes Verstappen of Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center, and coauthors wrote.

As the first large study on excess mortality in patients meeting contemporary criteria for UA, the authors said it suggests that the change in criteria for UA has served to increase the differences in mortality between it and RA.

“Further research and discussions are needed as to whether the management of contemporary UA should be similar to or different from that of RA,” they wrote.

The researchers conducted a longitudinal cohort study of 860 patients who met the conventional criteria for UA – they did not meet the 1987 RA criteria or other diagnosis – at baseline and 561 who met contemporary criteria for UA based on the fact that they did not meet the 1987 or 2010 RA criteria. There were also 762 patients who were diagnosed with RA according to the 1987 criteria, and 828 diagnosed according to the 2010 criteria. All of these patients were diagnosed between 1993 and 2008 and their median follow-up times ranged from 16.0 to 17.3 years, with a minimum of 10 years of follow-up.

The study found that, while there was a trend toward excess mortality in the conventional UA group (standardized mortality ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.27), there was no significant excess mortality in the contemporary UA patients (SMR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.87-1.26).

In comparison, patients in both the 1987 RA criteria group and the 2010 criteria group showed significantly higher mortality. Among patients with anti–citrullinated protein antibody–positive disease, even early treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and treat-to-target strategies didn’t reduce the excess mortality.

The study did find some suggestion of excess mortality among patients with contemporary UA and who were anti–citrullinated protein antibody positive, but the number of patients was small.

“Only a few percent of patients presenting with contemporary UA are autoantibody positive; these patients may be considered at increased risk to progress to RA,” the authors wrote.

The data also suggested that disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs didn’t alter excess mortality among patients with contemporary UA.

The study was supported by the Dutch Arthritis Foundation and the European Research Council. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Patients with undifferentiated arthritis (UA) that is defined according to contemporary criteria don’t appear to have the same excess mortality that is associated with rheumatoid arthritis, despite links between the two conditions.

UA has long been considered an earlier phase of RA, so similar management strategies are often used based on the assumption that outcomes and elevated mortality risk were similar between the two, but new findings reported in a research letter published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases challenge that assumption.

The change in the definition of UA that accompanied the introduction of new RA criteria in 2010 meant that some of the patients who previously met the criteria for UA now were classified as having RA, and “the remaining contemporary UA population (not fulfilling the 1987/2010 RA criteria) is largely autoantibody negative, presents with monoarthritis or oligoarthritis, and progresses less frequently to RA,” PhD candidate Marloes Verstappen of Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center, and coauthors wrote.

As the first large study on excess mortality in patients meeting contemporary criteria for UA, the authors said it suggests that the change in criteria for UA has served to increase the differences in mortality between it and RA.

“Further research and discussions are needed as to whether the management of contemporary UA should be similar to or different from that of RA,” they wrote.

The researchers conducted a longitudinal cohort study of 860 patients who met the conventional criteria for UA – they did not meet the 1987 RA criteria or other diagnosis – at baseline and 561 who met contemporary criteria for UA based on the fact that they did not meet the 1987 or 2010 RA criteria. There were also 762 patients who were diagnosed with RA according to the 1987 criteria, and 828 diagnosed according to the 2010 criteria. All of these patients were diagnosed between 1993 and 2008 and their median follow-up times ranged from 16.0 to 17.3 years, with a minimum of 10 years of follow-up.

The study found that, while there was a trend toward excess mortality in the conventional UA group (standardized mortality ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.27), there was no significant excess mortality in the contemporary UA patients (SMR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.87-1.26).

In comparison, patients in both the 1987 RA criteria group and the 2010 criteria group showed significantly higher mortality. Among patients with anti–citrullinated protein antibody–positive disease, even early treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and treat-to-target strategies didn’t reduce the excess mortality.

The study did find some suggestion of excess mortality among patients with contemporary UA and who were anti–citrullinated protein antibody positive, but the number of patients was small.

“Only a few percent of patients presenting with contemporary UA are autoantibody positive; these patients may be considered at increased risk to progress to RA,” the authors wrote.

The data also suggested that disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs didn’t alter excess mortality among patients with contemporary UA.

The study was supported by the Dutch Arthritis Foundation and the European Research Council. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Patients with undifferentiated arthritis (UA) that is defined according to contemporary criteria don’t appear to have the same excess mortality that is associated with rheumatoid arthritis, despite links between the two conditions.

UA has long been considered an earlier phase of RA, so similar management strategies are often used based on the assumption that outcomes and elevated mortality risk were similar between the two, but new findings reported in a research letter published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases challenge that assumption.

The change in the definition of UA that accompanied the introduction of new RA criteria in 2010 meant that some of the patients who previously met the criteria for UA now were classified as having RA, and “the remaining contemporary UA population (not fulfilling the 1987/2010 RA criteria) is largely autoantibody negative, presents with monoarthritis or oligoarthritis, and progresses less frequently to RA,” PhD candidate Marloes Verstappen of Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center, and coauthors wrote.

As the first large study on excess mortality in patients meeting contemporary criteria for UA, the authors said it suggests that the change in criteria for UA has served to increase the differences in mortality between it and RA.

“Further research and discussions are needed as to whether the management of contemporary UA should be similar to or different from that of RA,” they wrote.

The researchers conducted a longitudinal cohort study of 860 patients who met the conventional criteria for UA – they did not meet the 1987 RA criteria or other diagnosis – at baseline and 561 who met contemporary criteria for UA based on the fact that they did not meet the 1987 or 2010 RA criteria. There were also 762 patients who were diagnosed with RA according to the 1987 criteria, and 828 diagnosed according to the 2010 criteria. All of these patients were diagnosed between 1993 and 2008 and their median follow-up times ranged from 16.0 to 17.3 years, with a minimum of 10 years of follow-up.

The study found that, while there was a trend toward excess mortality in the conventional UA group (standardized mortality ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.27), there was no significant excess mortality in the contemporary UA patients (SMR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.87-1.26).

In comparison, patients in both the 1987 RA criteria group and the 2010 criteria group showed significantly higher mortality. Among patients with anti–citrullinated protein antibody–positive disease, even early treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and treat-to-target strategies didn’t reduce the excess mortality.

The study did find some suggestion of excess mortality among patients with contemporary UA and who were anti–citrullinated protein antibody positive, but the number of patients was small.

“Only a few percent of patients presenting with contemporary UA are autoantibody positive; these patients may be considered at increased risk to progress to RA,” the authors wrote.

The data also suggested that disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs didn’t alter excess mortality among patients with contemporary UA.

The study was supported by the Dutch Arthritis Foundation and the European Research Council. No conflicts of interest were declared.

California-based emergency physician Simone Melissa Gold, MD, JD, founder of the antivaccine group America’s Frontline Doctors (AFD) and leading voice in the antivaccine movement, has pleaded guilty to one of five charges related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

According to the plea deal, Dr. Gold pleaded guilty to charges that she “did unlawfully and knowingly enter and remain in a restricted building and grounds, that is, any posted, cordoned-off, or otherwise restricted area within the United States Capitol and its grounds, during a time when the vice president was in the building without lawful authority to do so.” As part of the agreement, additional charges against her – obstructing an official proceeding and intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business – will be dismissed. She also agreed to cooperate with investigators, including allowing them to review social media postings made during the time surrounding the event.

Shortly after she was indicted, Dr. Gold told The Washington Post that she did not see any violence and that the event was “peaceful.” However, according to news reports, Dr. Gold acknowledged in her plea deal that she and her codefendant, John Herbert Strand, witnessed the assault of a police officer while they were outside the building.

Dr. Gold, 56, based in Beverly Hills, Calif., founded AFD in 2019. The group notes its goal is to “amplify the voices of concerned physicians and patients nationwide to combat those who push political and economic agendas at the expense of science and quality health care solutions.” Mr. Strand is the organization’s communication’s director.

The group has been a leading proponent of the use of ivermectin as a “safe and effective treatment” for COVID-19, according to its website.

In 2021, Dr. Gold spoke at an event called The Stand, representing AFD, where she promised to tell “the truth” about COVID vaccines, including that it was actually giving people the virus, that COVID was renamed from the “Wuhan Virus” as part of a cover-up, and touted treatments, including hydroxycholoroquine and ivermectin.

Dr. Gold has been one of the leading voices in the anti-vaccine movement. She has more than 400,000 Twitter followers; her Twitter profile includes a pinned tweet saying: “We are living in Orwellian times.” In addition to spreading vaccine misinformation, Dr. Gold has promoted the use of unproven treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

Calls and emails to AFD regarding a statement on Gold’s plea made by this news organization were not returned by press time.

In October, Representative James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, launched an investigation into organizations, including AFD, that spread misinformation and facilitate access to disproven and potentially hazardous treatments for COVID-19. According to news reports, Rep. Clyburn called the AFD and other such groups “predatory actors.”

Hospitals where Dr. Gold previously worked, including Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Santa Monica, Calif., and Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, have disassociated themselves from her. On July 29, 2020, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where Gold previously worked, issued a statement that said, in part, “Simone Gold, MD, has not worked with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center or any of its offices or affiliates since 2015. For 3 weeks in late 2015, Dr. Gold was employed on a per diem basis by Cedars-Sinai Medical Network, a component of Cedars-Sinai. She worked during this brief time in a network urgent care clinic. Dr. Gold is not authorized to represent or speak about any information on behalf of Cedars-Sinai.”

Dr. Gold’s medical license in the state of California is current and she has no pending hearings before the state medical board, according to its website. On her own website, Dr. Gold says she “voluntarily refused” to renew her board certification last year, “due to the unethical behavior of the medical boards.”

Dr. Gold is also a licensed attorney, having earned her law degree in health policy analysis at Stanford (Calif.) Law School.

Dr. Gold faces 6 months in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for June 16.

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

California-based emergency physician Simone Melissa Gold, MD, JD, founder of the antivaccine group America’s Frontline Doctors (AFD) and leading voice in the antivaccine movement, has pleaded guilty to one of five charges related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

According to the plea deal, Dr. Gold pleaded guilty to charges that she “did unlawfully and knowingly enter and remain in a restricted building and grounds, that is, any posted, cordoned-off, or otherwise restricted area within the United States Capitol and its grounds, during a time when the vice president was in the building without lawful authority to do so.” As part of the agreement, additional charges against her – obstructing an official proceeding and intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business – will be dismissed. She also agreed to cooperate with investigators, including allowing them to review social media postings made during the time surrounding the event.

Shortly after she was indicted, Dr. Gold told The Washington Post that she did not see any violence and that the event was “peaceful.” However, according to news reports, Dr. Gold acknowledged in her plea deal that she and her codefendant, John Herbert Strand, witnessed the assault of a police officer while they were outside the building.

Dr. Gold, 56, based in Beverly Hills, Calif., founded AFD in 2019. The group notes its goal is to “amplify the voices of concerned physicians and patients nationwide to combat those who push political and economic agendas at the expense of science and quality health care solutions.” Mr. Strand is the organization’s communication’s director.

The group has been a leading proponent of the use of ivermectin as a “safe and effective treatment” for COVID-19, according to its website.

In 2021, Dr. Gold spoke at an event called The Stand, representing AFD, where she promised to tell “the truth” about COVID vaccines, including that it was actually giving people the virus, that COVID was renamed from the “Wuhan Virus” as part of a cover-up, and touted treatments, including hydroxycholoroquine and ivermectin.

Dr. Gold has been one of the leading voices in the anti-vaccine movement. She has more than 400,000 Twitter followers; her Twitter profile includes a pinned tweet saying: “We are living in Orwellian times.” In addition to spreading vaccine misinformation, Dr. Gold has promoted the use of unproven treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

Calls and emails to AFD regarding a statement on Gold’s plea made by this news organization were not returned by press time.

In October, Representative James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, launched an investigation into organizations, including AFD, that spread misinformation and facilitate access to disproven and potentially hazardous treatments for COVID-19. According to news reports, Rep. Clyburn called the AFD and other such groups “predatory actors.”

Hospitals where Dr. Gold previously worked, including Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Santa Monica, Calif., and Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, have disassociated themselves from her. On July 29, 2020, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where Gold previously worked, issued a statement that said, in part, “Simone Gold, MD, has not worked with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center or any of its offices or affiliates since 2015. For 3 weeks in late 2015, Dr. Gold was employed on a per diem basis by Cedars-Sinai Medical Network, a component of Cedars-Sinai. She worked during this brief time in a network urgent care clinic. Dr. Gold is not authorized to represent or speak about any information on behalf of Cedars-Sinai.”

Dr. Gold’s medical license in the state of California is current and she has no pending hearings before the state medical board, according to its website. On her own website, Dr. Gold says she “voluntarily refused” to renew her board certification last year, “due to the unethical behavior of the medical boards.”

Dr. Gold is also a licensed attorney, having earned her law degree in health policy analysis at Stanford (Calif.) Law School.

Dr. Gold faces 6 months in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for June 16.

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

California-based emergency physician Simone Melissa Gold, MD, JD, founder of the antivaccine group America’s Frontline Doctors (AFD) and leading voice in the antivaccine movement, has pleaded guilty to one of five charges related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

According to the plea deal, Dr. Gold pleaded guilty to charges that she “did unlawfully and knowingly enter and remain in a restricted building and grounds, that is, any posted, cordoned-off, or otherwise restricted area within the United States Capitol and its grounds, during a time when the vice president was in the building without lawful authority to do so.” As part of the agreement, additional charges against her – obstructing an official proceeding and intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business – will be dismissed. She also agreed to cooperate with investigators, including allowing them to review social media postings made during the time surrounding the event.

Shortly after she was indicted, Dr. Gold told The Washington Post that she did not see any violence and that the event was “peaceful.” However, according to news reports, Dr. Gold acknowledged in her plea deal that she and her codefendant, John Herbert Strand, witnessed the assault of a police officer while they were outside the building.

Dr. Gold, 56, based in Beverly Hills, Calif., founded AFD in 2019. The group notes its goal is to “amplify the voices of concerned physicians and patients nationwide to combat those who push political and economic agendas at the expense of science and quality health care solutions.” Mr. Strand is the organization’s communication’s director.

The group has been a leading proponent of the use of ivermectin as a “safe and effective treatment” for COVID-19, according to its website.

In 2021, Dr. Gold spoke at an event called The Stand, representing AFD, where she promised to tell “the truth” about COVID vaccines, including that it was actually giving people the virus, that COVID was renamed from the “Wuhan Virus” as part of a cover-up, and touted treatments, including hydroxycholoroquine and ivermectin.

Dr. Gold has been one of the leading voices in the anti-vaccine movement. She has more than 400,000 Twitter followers; her Twitter profile includes a pinned tweet saying: “We are living in Orwellian times.” In addition to spreading vaccine misinformation, Dr. Gold has promoted the use of unproven treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

Calls and emails to AFD regarding a statement on Gold’s plea made by this news organization were not returned by press time.

In October, Representative James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, launched an investigation into organizations, including AFD, that spread misinformation and facilitate access to disproven and potentially hazardous treatments for COVID-19. According to news reports, Rep. Clyburn called the AFD and other such groups “predatory actors.”

Hospitals where Dr. Gold previously worked, including Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Santa Monica, Calif., and Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, have disassociated themselves from her. On July 29, 2020, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where Gold previously worked, issued a statement that said, in part, “Simone Gold, MD, has not worked with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center or any of its offices or affiliates since 2015. For 3 weeks in late 2015, Dr. Gold was employed on a per diem basis by Cedars-Sinai Medical Network, a component of Cedars-Sinai. She worked during this brief time in a network urgent care clinic. Dr. Gold is not authorized to represent or speak about any information on behalf of Cedars-Sinai.”

Dr. Gold’s medical license in the state of California is current and she has no pending hearings before the state medical board, according to its website. On her own website, Dr. Gold says she “voluntarily refused” to renew her board certification last year, “due to the unethical behavior of the medical boards.”

Dr. Gold is also a licensed attorney, having earned her law degree in health policy analysis at Stanford (Calif.) Law School.

Dr. Gold faces 6 months in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for June 16.

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

A former pain medicine physician received a sentence of 20 years in prison for selling opioids and writing prescriptions for patients who were abusing or diverting the medications.

Patrick Titus, 58, operated Lighthouse Internal Medicine in Milford, Delaware, from 2005-2014.

Federal prosecutors said Mr. Titus unlawfully distributed or dispensed opioids including fentanyl, morphine, methadone, OxyContin, and oxycodone outside the scope of practice and often prescribed them in combination with each other or in other dangerous combinations. Mr. Titus distributed over 1 million pills, said the government.

In a 2018 indictment, the government said that Mr. Titus would, “at the first and nearly every follow-up visit” prescribe opioids in high dosages, often without conducting an exam or reviewing any urine test results. He would also write prescriptions for opioids without getting patients’s prior medical records or reviewing test results and rarely referred patients to alternative pain treatments such as physical therapy, psychotherapy, or massage.

According to the indictment, he ignored “red flags,” including that patients would come from long distances, sometimes from out of state, and would pay cash, despite having Medicaid coverage.

“Today’s sentencing makes clear that medical professionals who recklessly prescribe opioids and endanger the safety and health of patients will be held accountable,” said Anne Milgram, a Drug Enforcement Administration administrator.

“This sentence is a reminder that the Department of Justice will hold accountable those doctors who are illegitimately prescribing opioids and fueling the country’s opioid crisis,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr., of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, in the same statement. “Doctors who commit these unlawful acts exploit their roles as stewards of their patients’s care for their own profit,” he added.

The sentence follows Mr. Titus’s 2-week jury trial in 2021, when he was convicted of 13 counts of unlawful distribution and dispensing of controlled substances and one count of maintaining his practice primarily as a location to sell drugs. Mr. Titus faced a maximum of 20 years per count.

At the time of his conviction, Mr. Titus’s attorney said he planned to appeal, according to Delaware Online.

Delaware suspended Mr. Titus’s registration to prescribe controlled substances for 1 year in 2011. At the time, the state said it had determined that his continued prescribing “poses [an] imminent danger to the public health or safety.”

The state found that from January to November 2011, Mr. Titus issued 3,941 prescriptions for almost 750,000 pills for 17 different controlled substances, all sent to a single pharmacy.

The state also alleged that he wrote prescriptions for controlled substances to patients with felony convictions for drug trafficking and to at least one patient who his staff told him was selling the opioid that Mr. Titus had prescribed. It later determined that Mr. Titus continued prescribing even after it had suspended his DEA registration.

According to a 2014 consent agreement, the state subsequently ordered another 1-year suspension of his DEA registration, to be followed by a 3-year probation period.

Meanwhile, the same year, the state Board of Medical Licensure put Mr. Titus’s medical license on probation for 2 years and ordered him to complete 15 continuing medical education credits in medical recordkeeping, ethics, how to detect diversion and abuse, and in some other areas, and to pay a $7,500 fine.

In 2016, the medical board revoked Mr. Titus’s license, after finding that he continued to prescribe pain medications to patients he did not screen or monitor and for a multitude of other infractions.

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

A former pain medicine physician received a sentence of 20 years in prison for selling opioids and writing prescriptions for patients who were abusing or diverting the medications.

Patrick Titus, 58, operated Lighthouse Internal Medicine in Milford, Delaware, from 2005-2014.

Federal prosecutors said Mr. Titus unlawfully distributed or dispensed opioids including fentanyl, morphine, methadone, OxyContin, and oxycodone outside the scope of practice and often prescribed them in combination with each other or in other dangerous combinations. Mr. Titus distributed over 1 million pills, said the government.

In a 2018 indictment, the government said that Mr. Titus would, “at the first and nearly every follow-up visit” prescribe opioids in high dosages, often without conducting an exam or reviewing any urine test results. He would also write prescriptions for opioids without getting patients’s prior medical records or reviewing test results and rarely referred patients to alternative pain treatments such as physical therapy, psychotherapy, or massage.

According to the indictment, he ignored “red flags,” including that patients would come from long distances, sometimes from out of state, and would pay cash, despite having Medicaid coverage.

“Today’s sentencing makes clear that medical professionals who recklessly prescribe opioids and endanger the safety and health of patients will be held accountable,” said Anne Milgram, a Drug Enforcement Administration administrator.

“This sentence is a reminder that the Department of Justice will hold accountable those doctors who are illegitimately prescribing opioids and fueling the country’s opioid crisis,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr., of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, in the same statement. “Doctors who commit these unlawful acts exploit their roles as stewards of their patients’s care for their own profit,” he added.

The sentence follows Mr. Titus’s 2-week jury trial in 2021, when he was convicted of 13 counts of unlawful distribution and dispensing of controlled substances and one count of maintaining his practice primarily as a location to sell drugs. Mr. Titus faced a maximum of 20 years per count.

At the time of his conviction, Mr. Titus’s attorney said he planned to appeal, according to Delaware Online.

Delaware suspended Mr. Titus’s registration to prescribe controlled substances for 1 year in 2011. At the time, the state said it had determined that his continued prescribing “poses [an] imminent danger to the public health or safety.”

The state found that from January to November 2011, Mr. Titus issued 3,941 prescriptions for almost 750,000 pills for 17 different controlled substances, all sent to a single pharmacy.

The state also alleged that he wrote prescriptions for controlled substances to patients with felony convictions for drug trafficking and to at least one patient who his staff told him was selling the opioid that Mr. Titus had prescribed. It later determined that Mr. Titus continued prescribing even after it had suspended his DEA registration.

According to a 2014 consent agreement, the state subsequently ordered another 1-year suspension of his DEA registration, to be followed by a 3-year probation period.

Meanwhile, the same year, the state Board of Medical Licensure put Mr. Titus’s medical license on probation for 2 years and ordered him to complete 15 continuing medical education credits in medical recordkeeping, ethics, how to detect diversion and abuse, and in some other areas, and to pay a $7,500 fine.

In 2016, the medical board revoked Mr. Titus’s license, after finding that he continued to prescribe pain medications to patients he did not screen or monitor and for a multitude of other infractions.

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

A former pain medicine physician received a sentence of 20 years in prison for selling opioids and writing prescriptions for patients who were abusing or diverting the medications.

Patrick Titus, 58, operated Lighthouse Internal Medicine in Milford, Delaware, from 2005-2014.

Federal prosecutors said Mr. Titus unlawfully distributed or dispensed opioids including fentanyl, morphine, methadone, OxyContin, and oxycodone outside the scope of practice and often prescribed them in combination with each other or in other dangerous combinations. Mr. Titus distributed over 1 million pills, said the government.

In a 2018 indictment, the government said that Mr. Titus would, “at the first and nearly every follow-up visit” prescribe opioids in high dosages, often without conducting an exam or reviewing any urine test results. He would also write prescriptions for opioids without getting patients’s prior medical records or reviewing test results and rarely referred patients to alternative pain treatments such as physical therapy, psychotherapy, or massage.

According to the indictment, he ignored “red flags,” including that patients would come from long distances, sometimes from out of state, and would pay cash, despite having Medicaid coverage.

“Today’s sentencing makes clear that medical professionals who recklessly prescribe opioids and endanger the safety and health of patients will be held accountable,” said Anne Milgram, a Drug Enforcement Administration administrator.

“This sentence is a reminder that the Department of Justice will hold accountable those doctors who are illegitimately prescribing opioids and fueling the country’s opioid crisis,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr., of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, in the same statement. “Doctors who commit these unlawful acts exploit their roles as stewards of their patients’s care for their own profit,” he added.

The sentence follows Mr. Titus’s 2-week jury trial in 2021, when he was convicted of 13 counts of unlawful distribution and dispensing of controlled substances and one count of maintaining his practice primarily as a location to sell drugs. Mr. Titus faced a maximum of 20 years per count.

At the time of his conviction, Mr. Titus’s attorney said he planned to appeal, according to Delaware Online.

Delaware suspended Mr. Titus’s registration to prescribe controlled substances for 1 year in 2011. At the time, the state said it had determined that his continued prescribing “poses [an] imminent danger to the public health or safety.”

The state found that from January to November 2011, Mr. Titus issued 3,941 prescriptions for almost 750,000 pills for 17 different controlled substances, all sent to a single pharmacy.

The state also alleged that he wrote prescriptions for controlled substances to patients with felony convictions for drug trafficking and to at least one patient who his staff told him was selling the opioid that Mr. Titus had prescribed. It later determined that Mr. Titus continued prescribing even after it had suspended his DEA registration.

According to a 2014 consent agreement, the state subsequently ordered another 1-year suspension of his DEA registration, to be followed by a 3-year probation period.

Meanwhile, the same year, the state Board of Medical Licensure put Mr. Titus’s medical license on probation for 2 years and ordered him to complete 15 continuing medical education credits in medical recordkeeping, ethics, how to detect diversion and abuse, and in some other areas, and to pay a $7,500 fine.

In 2016, the medical board revoked Mr. Titus’s license, after finding that he continued to prescribe pain medications to patients he did not screen or monitor and for a multitude of other infractions.

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

Research suggests that physicians have suicidal thoughts at about twice the rate of the general population (7.2% vs. 4%). Now, as they bear the weight of a multiyear pandemic alongside the perpetual struggle to maintain some semblance of work-life balance, their resiliency has been stretched to the brink.

In 2022, the Medscape Physician Suicide Report surveyed more than 13,000 physicians in 29 specialties who were candid about their experiences with suicidal thoughts, how they support their besieged colleagues, and their go-to coping strategies.

Overall, 21% of physicians reported having feelings of depression. Of those, 24% had clinical depression and 64% had colloquial depression. Physicians who felt sad or blue decreased slightly, compared with the 2021 report, but the number of physicians experiencing severe depression rose 4%.

One in 10 physicians said they have thought about or attempted suicide. However, the number of physicians with suicidal thoughts dropped to 9%, down substantially from the 22% who reported similar feelings in 2020.

Still, there was a slight uptick in women physicians contemplating suicide, likely linked to their larger share of childcare and family responsibilities.

Washington University School of Medicine

“They have needed to pull double duty even more than usual, and that may have increased their sense of burnout and vulnerability to suicidal thoughts,” said Andrea Giedinghagen, MD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis, and coauthor of “Physician Suicide: A Call to Action
 

Fighting the stigma of seeking mental health help

Although the number of physicians attempting, but not completing suicide, has remained steady at 1% for several years, the recent passage of the Dr. Lorna Breen Health Care Provider Protection Act by Congress aims to drive that figure even lower. Dr. Breen, an ED physician at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, died by suicide in April 2020. Overwhelmed by the onslaught of COVID patients, Dr. Breen was reluctant to seek mental health services for fear of being ostracized.

“Many physicians don’t seek mental health care due to fear of negative consequences in the workplace, including retribution, exclusion, loss of license, or even their job,” Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, told this news organization. “This was the experience of Dr. Lorna Breen. She was convinced that if she talked to a professional, she would lose her medical license. Perhaps if Dr. Breen was equipped with the accurate information – there is no mental health reporting requirement in her state’s medical license application – it might have saved her life.”

This same stigma was reflected in the survey, with one physician saying: “I’m afraid that if I spoke to a therapist, I’d have to report receiving psychiatric treatment to credentialing or licensing boards.” Roughly 40% of survey respondents, regardless of age, chose not to disclose their suicidal thoughts to anyone, not even a family member or suicide hotline. And just a tiny portion of physicians (10% of men and 13% of women) said that a colleague had discussed their suicidal thoughts with them.

“There is a longstanding culture of silence around physician mental health in the medical community,” said Dr. Price. “The strategies within the Act are critical to fixing this culture and making it acceptable and normalized for physicians to seek mental health care,” and for it to “become a fundamental and ongoing element of being a practicing physician.”

As part of the legislation, the Department of Health & Human Services must award grants to hospitals, medical associations, and other entities to facilitate mental health programs for providers. They must also establish policy recommendations and conduct campaigns to improve providers’ mental and behavioral health, encourage providers to seek mental health support and assistance, remove barriers to such treatment, and identify best practices to prevent suicide and promote resiliency
 

Addressing barriers to mental health

The new bill is a step in the right direction, but Dr. Price said health organizations must do more to address the six key structural barriers that are “discouraging physicians from seeking [mental health] help,” such as the inclusion of “intrusive mental health questions on medical board, hospital credentialing, and malpractice insurance applications.”

In addition, employers should allow physicians to seek out-of-network mental health services, if necessary, and not cause further humiliation by requiring them to be treated by colleagues within their hospital system. A similar proposal has recently been introduced and is gaining traction in Utah, following the suicide of ED physician Scott Jolley, MD, in 2021 after he was admitted for psychiatric care where he worked.

Diminishing the stigma surrounding physicians’ mental health encourages a more open dialogue, so if a colleague reaches out – listen. “Start by thanking the colleague for sharing the information: ‘I’m sure that wasn’t easy but I appreciate that you respect me enough to share this. Let’s talk more,’ ” said Michael F. Myers, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at State University of New York, Brooklyn . “Then ask what you can do to help, which cuts down on the sense of isolation that colleague may feel.”

According to the survey, many physicians have developed strategies to support their happiness and mental health. Although fewer than 10% said reducing work hours or transitioning to a part-time schedule was most effective, the majority of physicians relied on spending time with family and friends (68%) – a choice that has considerable benefits.

“Close and intimate relationships are the single most protective factor for our mental health,” said Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer for UC Davis Health and professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Isolation and loneliness are very important stressors, and we know that about 25% of the population reports being lonely.”

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

Research suggests that physicians have suicidal thoughts at about twice the rate of the general population (7.2% vs. 4%). Now, as they bear the weight of a multiyear pandemic alongside the perpetual struggle to maintain some semblance of work-life balance, their resiliency has been stretched to the brink.

In 2022, the Medscape Physician Suicide Report surveyed more than 13,000 physicians in 29 specialties who were candid about their experiences with suicidal thoughts, how they support their besieged colleagues, and their go-to coping strategies.

Overall, 21% of physicians reported having feelings of depression. Of those, 24% had clinical depression and 64% had colloquial depression. Physicians who felt sad or blue decreased slightly, compared with the 2021 report, but the number of physicians experiencing severe depression rose 4%.

One in 10 physicians said they have thought about or attempted suicide. However, the number of physicians with suicidal thoughts dropped to 9%, down substantially from the 22% who reported similar feelings in 2020.

Still, there was a slight uptick in women physicians contemplating suicide, likely linked to their larger share of childcare and family responsibilities.

Washington University School of Medicine

“They have needed to pull double duty even more than usual, and that may have increased their sense of burnout and vulnerability to suicidal thoughts,” said Andrea Giedinghagen, MD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis, and coauthor of “Physician Suicide: A Call to Action
 

Fighting the stigma of seeking mental health help

Although the number of physicians attempting, but not completing suicide, has remained steady at 1% for several years, the recent passage of the Dr. Lorna Breen Health Care Provider Protection Act by Congress aims to drive that figure even lower. Dr. Breen, an ED physician at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, died by suicide in April 2020. Overwhelmed by the onslaught of COVID patients, Dr. Breen was reluctant to seek mental health services for fear of being ostracized.

“Many physicians don’t seek mental health care due to fear of negative consequences in the workplace, including retribution, exclusion, loss of license, or even their job,” Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, told this news organization. “This was the experience of Dr. Lorna Breen. She was convinced that if she talked to a professional, she would lose her medical license. Perhaps if Dr. Breen was equipped with the accurate information – there is no mental health reporting requirement in her state’s medical license application – it might have saved her life.”

This same stigma was reflected in the survey, with one physician saying: “I’m afraid that if I spoke to a therapist, I’d have to report receiving psychiatric treatment to credentialing or licensing boards.” Roughly 40% of survey respondents, regardless of age, chose not to disclose their suicidal thoughts to anyone, not even a family member or suicide hotline. And just a tiny portion of physicians (10% of men and 13% of women) said that a colleague had discussed their suicidal thoughts with them.

“There is a longstanding culture of silence around physician mental health in the medical community,” said Dr. Price. “The strategies within the Act are critical to fixing this culture and making it acceptable and normalized for physicians to seek mental health care,” and for it to “become a fundamental and ongoing element of being a practicing physician.”

As part of the legislation, the Department of Health & Human Services must award grants to hospitals, medical associations, and other entities to facilitate mental health programs for providers. They must also establish policy recommendations and conduct campaigns to improve providers’ mental and behavioral health, encourage providers to seek mental health support and assistance, remove barriers to such treatment, and identify best practices to prevent suicide and promote resiliency
 

Addressing barriers to mental health

The new bill is a step in the right direction, but Dr. Price said health organizations must do more to address the six key structural barriers that are “discouraging physicians from seeking [mental health] help,” such as the inclusion of “intrusive mental health questions on medical board, hospital credentialing, and malpractice insurance applications.”

In addition, employers should allow physicians to seek out-of-network mental health services, if necessary, and not cause further humiliation by requiring them to be treated by colleagues within their hospital system. A similar proposal has recently been introduced and is gaining traction in Utah, following the suicide of ED physician Scott Jolley, MD, in 2021 after he was admitted for psychiatric care where he worked.

Diminishing the stigma surrounding physicians’ mental health encourages a more open dialogue, so if a colleague reaches out – listen. “Start by thanking the colleague for sharing the information: ‘I’m sure that wasn’t easy but I appreciate that you respect me enough to share this. Let’s talk more,’ ” said Michael F. Myers, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at State University of New York, Brooklyn . “Then ask what you can do to help, which cuts down on the sense of isolation that colleague may feel.”

According to the survey, many physicians have developed strategies to support their happiness and mental health. Although fewer than 10% said reducing work hours or transitioning to a part-time schedule was most effective, the majority of physicians relied on spending time with family and friends (68%) – a choice that has considerable benefits.

“Close and intimate relationships are the single most protective factor for our mental health,” said Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer for UC Davis Health and professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Isolation and loneliness are very important stressors, and we know that about 25% of the population reports being lonely.”

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

Research suggests that physicians have suicidal thoughts at about twice the rate of the general population (7.2% vs. 4%). Now, as they bear the weight of a multiyear pandemic alongside the perpetual struggle to maintain some semblance of work-life balance, their resiliency has been stretched to the brink.

In 2022, the Medscape Physician Suicide Report surveyed more than 13,000 physicians in 29 specialties who were candid about their experiences with suicidal thoughts, how they support their besieged colleagues, and their go-to coping strategies.

Overall, 21% of physicians reported having feelings of depression. Of those, 24% had clinical depression and 64% had colloquial depression. Physicians who felt sad or blue decreased slightly, compared with the 2021 report, but the number of physicians experiencing severe depression rose 4%.

One in 10 physicians said they have thought about or attempted suicide. However, the number of physicians with suicidal thoughts dropped to 9%, down substantially from the 22% who reported similar feelings in 2020.

Still, there was a slight uptick in women physicians contemplating suicide, likely linked to their larger share of childcare and family responsibilities.

Washington University School of Medicine

“They have needed to pull double duty even more than usual, and that may have increased their sense of burnout and vulnerability to suicidal thoughts,” said Andrea Giedinghagen, MD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis, and coauthor of “Physician Suicide: A Call to Action
 

Fighting the stigma of seeking mental health help

Although the number of physicians attempting, but not completing suicide, has remained steady at 1% for several years, the recent passage of the Dr. Lorna Breen Health Care Provider Protection Act by Congress aims to drive that figure even lower. Dr. Breen, an ED physician at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, died by suicide in April 2020. Overwhelmed by the onslaught of COVID patients, Dr. Breen was reluctant to seek mental health services for fear of being ostracized.

“Many physicians don’t seek mental health care due to fear of negative consequences in the workplace, including retribution, exclusion, loss of license, or even their job,” Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, told this news organization. “This was the experience of Dr. Lorna Breen. She was convinced that if she talked to a professional, she would lose her medical license. Perhaps if Dr. Breen was equipped with the accurate information – there is no mental health reporting requirement in her state’s medical license application – it might have saved her life.”

This same stigma was reflected in the survey, with one physician saying: “I’m afraid that if I spoke to a therapist, I’d have to report receiving psychiatric treatment to credentialing or licensing boards.” Roughly 40% of survey respondents, regardless of age, chose not to disclose their suicidal thoughts to anyone, not even a family member or suicide hotline. And just a tiny portion of physicians (10% of men and 13% of women) said that a colleague had discussed their suicidal thoughts with them.

“There is a longstanding culture of silence around physician mental health in the medical community,” said Dr. Price. “The strategies within the Act are critical to fixing this culture and making it acceptable and normalized for physicians to seek mental health care,” and for it to “become a fundamental and ongoing element of being a practicing physician.”

As part of the legislation, the Department of Health & Human Services must award grants to hospitals, medical associations, and other entities to facilitate mental health programs for providers. They must also establish policy recommendations and conduct campaigns to improve providers’ mental and behavioral health, encourage providers to seek mental health support and assistance, remove barriers to such treatment, and identify best practices to prevent suicide and promote resiliency
 

Addressing barriers to mental health

The new bill is a step in the right direction, but Dr. Price said health organizations must do more to address the six key structural barriers that are “discouraging physicians from seeking [mental health] help,” such as the inclusion of “intrusive mental health questions on medical board, hospital credentialing, and malpractice insurance applications.”

In addition, employers should allow physicians to seek out-of-network mental health services, if necessary, and not cause further humiliation by requiring them to be treated by colleagues within their hospital system. A similar proposal has recently been introduced and is gaining traction in Utah, following the suicide of ED physician Scott Jolley, MD, in 2021 after he was admitted for psychiatric care where he worked.

Diminishing the stigma surrounding physicians’ mental health encourages a more open dialogue, so if a colleague reaches out – listen. “Start by thanking the colleague for sharing the information: ‘I’m sure that wasn’t easy but I appreciate that you respect me enough to share this. Let’s talk more,’ ” said Michael F. Myers, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at State University of New York, Brooklyn . “Then ask what you can do to help, which cuts down on the sense of isolation that colleague may feel.”

According to the survey, many physicians have developed strategies to support their happiness and mental health. Although fewer than 10% said reducing work hours or transitioning to a part-time schedule was most effective, the majority of physicians relied on spending time with family and friends (68%) – a choice that has considerable benefits.

“Close and intimate relationships are the single most protective factor for our mental health,” said Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer for UC Davis Health and professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Isolation and loneliness are very important stressors, and we know that about 25% of the population reports being lonely.”

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

The American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons have released updated guidelines regarding whether to withhold drugs such as biologics and immunosuppressives for patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease who are scheduled to undergo elective total hip or knee replacement surgery.

The guidelines, published in a summary by the societies on Feb. 28, include revised and new recommendations about biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for patients with several types of inflammatory arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In general, the guidelines recommend that the most powerful medications be withheld prior to surgery except for patients whose SLE is so severe that it threatens organs. They also recommend a shorter period of withholding drugs – 3 days instead of 7 – for JAK inhibitors.
 

The previous guidelines were published in 2017.

“These recommendations seek to balance flares of disease that are likely when medications are stopped vs. the risk of infection,” Susan M. Goodman, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, and co–principal investigator of the guideline, told this news organization. “Patients and physicians may want to be either more conservative or more aggressive with their medications, depending on their personal priorities or specific medical history.”

According to Dr. Goodman, patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases are especially likely to undergo joint replacement surgery because the conditions can damage the joints. “While the introduction of potent biologics has been linked to a decrease in surgery of soft tissues and small joints, there has been little impact on large-joint surgeries,” she said.

The risk of infection in these patients is about 50% higher than in the general population, she said. However, “it is hard to determine the magnitude of the effect of withholding medications, given the low rate of infection. In fact, using pharmaco-epidemiologic methods in large Medicare databases, no difference was seen in patients whose immunosuppressant medication infusions were close to the time of surgery compared to those patients whose medication infusions were months prior to surgery.”

The guidelines add a recommendation for the first time for apremilast (Otezla), saying that when it is administered twice daily it is okay to schedule surgery at any time.

Withholding drugs in patients with SLE

“We now recommend continuing biologics used to treat SLE – rituximab and belimumab – in patients with severe SLE but continue to recommend withholding them in less severe cases where there is little risk of organ damage,” Bryan D. Springer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Charlotte, N.C., first vice president of the AAHKS, and co–principal investigator of the new guidelines, told this news organization.

In severe SLE cases, the guidelines recommend timing total joint replacement surgery for 4-6 months after the latest IV dose of rituximab (Rituxan), which is given every 4-6 months. For patients taking belimumab (Benlysta), time surgery anytime when weekly subcutaneous doses are administered or at week 4 when monthly IV doses are given.

The guidelines also make recommendations regarding two new drugs for the treatment of severe SLE:

• Anifrolumab (Saphnelo): Time surgery at week 4 when IV treatment is given every 4 weeks.
• Voclosporin (Lupkynis): Continue doses when they’re given twice daily.

An ACR statement cautions that there are no published, peer-reviewed data regarding the use of these two drugs prior to total joint surgery. “The medications do increase the risk of infection,” the statement says, “and therefore their use in patients with severe SLE would merit review by the treating rheumatologist in consideration of surgery.”

Timing of stopping and restarting medication

The guidelines also recommend that certain drugs be withheld for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or any type of SLE and then “restarting the antirheumatic therapy once the wound shows evidence of healing, any sutures/staples are out, there is no significant swelling, erythema, or drainage, and there is no ongoing nonsurgical site infection, which is typically about 14 days.”

In regard to biologics, “we continue to recommend withholding biologic medications in patients with inflammatory arthritis, withholding the medication for a dosing cycle prior to surgery, and scheduling the surgery after that dose would be due,” Dr. Springer said. “For example, if a patient takes the medication every 4 weeks, the patient would withhold the dose of the medication and schedule surgery in the 5th week.”

The new recommendations for biologics suggest scheduling surgery at week 5 when the interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor ixekizumab (Taltz) is given once every 4 weeks and at week 9 when the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya) is given every 8 weeks.

The guidelines also revise the previous recommendation about tofacitinib (Xeljanz): Surgery should be scheduled on day 4 when the drug is given once or twice daily. New recommendations for fellow JAK inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant, daily) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq, daily) are the same: Withhold for 3 days prior to surgery and perform surgery on the 4th day.

“We shortened the time between the last dose of JAK inhibitors and surgery to 3 days from 7 based on trial data demonstrating early flares when the drug was withheld, suggesting the immunosuppressant effect wears off sooner than we previously thought,” Dr. Springer said.

The guidelines caution that the recommendations for JAK inhibitors are for infection risk but do not consider the risk of cardiac events or venous thromboembolism.

In patients with nonsevere SLE, the guidelines revise the recommendations for mycophenolate mofetil (twice daily), cyclosporine (twice daily), and tacrolimus (twice daily, IV and oral). The new advice is to withhold the drugs for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery. New recommendations offer the same advice for belimumab, both IV and subcutaneous: Withhold for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery.

The board of the ACR approved the guidelines summary; the full manuscript has been submitted for peer review with an eye toward later publication in the journals Arthritis and Rheumatology and Arthritis Care and Research.

The ACR and AAHKS funded the guidelines. Dr. Goodman and Dr. Springer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons have released updated guidelines regarding whether to withhold drugs such as biologics and immunosuppressives for patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease who are scheduled to undergo elective total hip or knee replacement surgery.

The guidelines, published in a summary by the societies on Feb. 28, include revised and new recommendations about biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for patients with several types of inflammatory arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In general, the guidelines recommend that the most powerful medications be withheld prior to surgery except for patients whose SLE is so severe that it threatens organs. They also recommend a shorter period of withholding drugs – 3 days instead of 7 – for JAK inhibitors.