Rheumatology News

VIENNA — Results from the phase 3 SELECT-GCA study showed that the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq) induces significant and sustained remission in people with new-onset or relapsing giant cell arteritis (GCA).

The primary endpoint of sustained remission — the absence of GCA signs or symptoms from weeks 12 to 52 together with adherence to a steroid-tapering regimen — occurred in 46% of 210 individuals randomly assigned to treatment treated with a once-daily 15-mg dose of upadacitinib and 29% of 105 randomly assigned to placebo (P = .0019).

Nine of the 11 secondary endpoints were also positive for upadacitinib 15 mg vs placebo, and no new safety concerns were identified in a late-breaking abstract presented at the at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
 

First JAK Trial in GCA

This is the first trial to look at the use of a JAK inhibitor for the treatment of GCA, and it is addressing a real unmet need, the presenting study investigator Daniel Blockmans, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Leuven in Belgium, told this news organization.

Glucocorticoids remain the mainstay of treatment, and tocilizumab has been licensed for use, but people don’t always get better or can relapse, he explained.

“I have the impression that these only suppress the disease but do not cure it,” Dr. Blockmans said, adding that “patients get very well soon after these treatments are started, but there are more and more reports that there is a kind of smoldering vasculitis that exists, and this can lead to dilatation of the aorta.”

Upadacitinib inhibits two JAK-dependent cytokines, interleukin 6 and interferon gamma, which have been implicated in the pathogenesis of GCA. The latter could be particularly important, Dr. Blockmans suggested.
 

Study Details

SELECT-GCA is an ongoing multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib vs placebo in patients with GCA.

A total of 428 patients have been included: 210 were randomly allocated to treatment with upadacitinib 15 mg, 105 to upadacitinib 7.5 mg, and 105 to placebo. The inclusion of the lower “minimally effective” upadacitinib dose was a requirement of the regulatory authorities, Dr. Blockmans said; the licensed dose in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is 15 mg.

Dr. Blockmans reported data from the first 52 weeks of the trial during which all patients underwent glucocorticoid tapering — 26 weeks for upadacitinib and 52 weeks for placebo.

No imaging was done in this trial, which Dr. Blockmans said should be considered for future studies.
 

Secondary Endpoints

One of the key secondary endpoints was sustained complete remission, defined as sustained remission plus a normalized erythrocyte sedimentation rate to ≤ 30 mm/h and reducing high-sensitivity C-reactive protein to < 1 mg/dL.

Sustained complete remission occurred in 37% and 16% of patients treated with upadacitinib 15 mg and placebo, respectively (P < .0001).

Additionally, a significantly lower proportion of upadacitinib 15 mg- than placebo-treated patients experienced at least one disease flare through week 52 (34% vs 56%, P = .0014).

Other positive secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg vs placebo out to week 52 were the number of disease flares per patient, cumulative glucocorticoid exposure, and complete remission (also at week 24).

And significant changes in SF-36 and FACIT-Fatigue from baseline to week 52 were seen for upadacitinib 15 mg.

The only secondary endpoints not showing a clear benefit for upadacitinib 15 mg were the changes in the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication at 52 weeks and the rate of glucocorticoid-related adverse events through week 52.

As for the 7.5-mg dose of upadacitinib, neither the primary nor secondary endpoints were significantly better vs placebo.
 

‘Life-Changing’

The study’s findings could be “really life-changing” for patients with this type of vasculitis if upadacitinib gets approval for use in this indication, Milena Bond, MD, PhD, of Brunico Hospital in Italy, told this news organization at the meeting.

“Unfortunately, nowadays, we still have only a few options for treating these patients,” she said. “So, this drug could be really, really important.”

Dr. Bond added: “The data ... also shows there is a very good safety profile, which was a main concern given the class of the drug. So, I’m very positive about this treatment and very excited to see the preliminary results.”

After his presentation, Dr. Blockmans said, “Of course, if we already had an ideal treatment for GCA, there would be no need for a JAK inhibitor, but I don’t think that steroid treatment or tocilizumab treatment is the ideal treatment.”
 

Judicious Use Still Warranted

Upadacitinib still needs to be used cautiously, following appropriate guidance from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Bond said: “It is not advised to use to the drug when people are older than 65 years old,” according to the EMA, for example, and “given the rules that we have, I would not use this drug as a first-line treatment. We do not do that for rheumatoid arthritis.”

But, she added, “As for arthritis, when you fail treating patients with the other alternatives, you could use this drug, and you have to discuss risks with the patients.”

Dr. Blockmans reported there had been no increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events or venous thromboembolism associated with upadacitinib relative to placebo in the population of patients studied, and he pointed out that they had a much higher risk for these events than perhaps an RA population.

He said: “It’s effective, and it’s apparently safe in these older people, despite what we heard about tofacitinib in the ORAL [Surveillance] study; we didn’t see these problems here in this elderly population.”

The SELECT-GCA trial was funded by AbbVie, and the company participated in all aspects of the study, including its design, conduct, interpretation of data, and reporting. Dr. Blockmans received no funding or other honoraria from the company but reported a research grant from Roche and consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline. Most of his coauthors reported financial relationships with AbbVie, and some are employees of the company. Dr. Bond reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Results from the phase 3 SELECT-GCA study showed that the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq) induces significant and sustained remission in people with new-onset or relapsing giant cell arteritis (GCA).

The primary endpoint of sustained remission — the absence of GCA signs or symptoms from weeks 12 to 52 together with adherence to a steroid-tapering regimen — occurred in 46% of 210 individuals randomly assigned to treatment treated with a once-daily 15-mg dose of upadacitinib and 29% of 105 randomly assigned to placebo (P = .0019).

Nine of the 11 secondary endpoints were also positive for upadacitinib 15 mg vs placebo, and no new safety concerns were identified in a late-breaking abstract presented at the at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
 

First JAK Trial in GCA

This is the first trial to look at the use of a JAK inhibitor for the treatment of GCA, and it is addressing a real unmet need, the presenting study investigator Daniel Blockmans, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Leuven in Belgium, told this news organization.

Glucocorticoids remain the mainstay of treatment, and tocilizumab has been licensed for use, but people don’t always get better or can relapse, he explained.

“I have the impression that these only suppress the disease but do not cure it,” Dr. Blockmans said, adding that “patients get very well soon after these treatments are started, but there are more and more reports that there is a kind of smoldering vasculitis that exists, and this can lead to dilatation of the aorta.”

Upadacitinib inhibits two JAK-dependent cytokines, interleukin 6 and interferon gamma, which have been implicated in the pathogenesis of GCA. The latter could be particularly important, Dr. Blockmans suggested.
 

Study Details

SELECT-GCA is an ongoing multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib vs placebo in patients with GCA.

A total of 428 patients have been included: 210 were randomly allocated to treatment with upadacitinib 15 mg, 105 to upadacitinib 7.5 mg, and 105 to placebo. The inclusion of the lower “minimally effective” upadacitinib dose was a requirement of the regulatory authorities, Dr. Blockmans said; the licensed dose in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is 15 mg.

Dr. Blockmans reported data from the first 52 weeks of the trial during which all patients underwent glucocorticoid tapering — 26 weeks for upadacitinib and 52 weeks for placebo.

No imaging was done in this trial, which Dr. Blockmans said should be considered for future studies.
 

Secondary Endpoints

One of the key secondary endpoints was sustained complete remission, defined as sustained remission plus a normalized erythrocyte sedimentation rate to ≤ 30 mm/h and reducing high-sensitivity C-reactive protein to < 1 mg/dL.

Sustained complete remission occurred in 37% and 16% of patients treated with upadacitinib 15 mg and placebo, respectively (P < .0001).

Additionally, a significantly lower proportion of upadacitinib 15 mg- than placebo-treated patients experienced at least one disease flare through week 52 (34% vs 56%, P = .0014).

Other positive secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg vs placebo out to week 52 were the number of disease flares per patient, cumulative glucocorticoid exposure, and complete remission (also at week 24).

And significant changes in SF-36 and FACIT-Fatigue from baseline to week 52 were seen for upadacitinib 15 mg.

The only secondary endpoints not showing a clear benefit for upadacitinib 15 mg were the changes in the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication at 52 weeks and the rate of glucocorticoid-related adverse events through week 52.

As for the 7.5-mg dose of upadacitinib, neither the primary nor secondary endpoints were significantly better vs placebo.
 

‘Life-Changing’

The study’s findings could be “really life-changing” for patients with this type of vasculitis if upadacitinib gets approval for use in this indication, Milena Bond, MD, PhD, of Brunico Hospital in Italy, told this news organization at the meeting.

“Unfortunately, nowadays, we still have only a few options for treating these patients,” she said. “So, this drug could be really, really important.”

Dr. Bond added: “The data ... also shows there is a very good safety profile, which was a main concern given the class of the drug. So, I’m very positive about this treatment and very excited to see the preliminary results.”

After his presentation, Dr. Blockmans said, “Of course, if we already had an ideal treatment for GCA, there would be no need for a JAK inhibitor, but I don’t think that steroid treatment or tocilizumab treatment is the ideal treatment.”
 

Judicious Use Still Warranted

Upadacitinib still needs to be used cautiously, following appropriate guidance from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Bond said: “It is not advised to use to the drug when people are older than 65 years old,” according to the EMA, for example, and “given the rules that we have, I would not use this drug as a first-line treatment. We do not do that for rheumatoid arthritis.”

But, she added, “As for arthritis, when you fail treating patients with the other alternatives, you could use this drug, and you have to discuss risks with the patients.”

Dr. Blockmans reported there had been no increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events or venous thromboembolism associated with upadacitinib relative to placebo in the population of patients studied, and he pointed out that they had a much higher risk for these events than perhaps an RA population.

He said: “It’s effective, and it’s apparently safe in these older people, despite what we heard about tofacitinib in the ORAL [Surveillance] study; we didn’t see these problems here in this elderly population.”

The SELECT-GCA trial was funded by AbbVie, and the company participated in all aspects of the study, including its design, conduct, interpretation of data, and reporting. Dr. Blockmans received no funding or other honoraria from the company but reported a research grant from Roche and consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline. Most of his coauthors reported financial relationships with AbbVie, and some are employees of the company. Dr. Bond reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Results from the phase 3 SELECT-GCA study showed that the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq) induces significant and sustained remission in people with new-onset or relapsing giant cell arteritis (GCA).

The primary endpoint of sustained remission — the absence of GCA signs or symptoms from weeks 12 to 52 together with adherence to a steroid-tapering regimen — occurred in 46% of 210 individuals randomly assigned to treatment treated with a once-daily 15-mg dose of upadacitinib and 29% of 105 randomly assigned to placebo (P = .0019).

Nine of the 11 secondary endpoints were also positive for upadacitinib 15 mg vs placebo, and no new safety concerns were identified in a late-breaking abstract presented at the at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
 

First JAK Trial in GCA

This is the first trial to look at the use of a JAK inhibitor for the treatment of GCA, and it is addressing a real unmet need, the presenting study investigator Daniel Blockmans, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Leuven in Belgium, told this news organization.

Glucocorticoids remain the mainstay of treatment, and tocilizumab has been licensed for use, but people don’t always get better or can relapse, he explained.

“I have the impression that these only suppress the disease but do not cure it,” Dr. Blockmans said, adding that “patients get very well soon after these treatments are started, but there are more and more reports that there is a kind of smoldering vasculitis that exists, and this can lead to dilatation of the aorta.”

Upadacitinib inhibits two JAK-dependent cytokines, interleukin 6 and interferon gamma, which have been implicated in the pathogenesis of GCA. The latter could be particularly important, Dr. Blockmans suggested.
 

Study Details

SELECT-GCA is an ongoing multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib vs placebo in patients with GCA.

A total of 428 patients have been included: 210 were randomly allocated to treatment with upadacitinib 15 mg, 105 to upadacitinib 7.5 mg, and 105 to placebo. The inclusion of the lower “minimally effective” upadacitinib dose was a requirement of the regulatory authorities, Dr. Blockmans said; the licensed dose in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is 15 mg.

Dr. Blockmans reported data from the first 52 weeks of the trial during which all patients underwent glucocorticoid tapering — 26 weeks for upadacitinib and 52 weeks for placebo.

No imaging was done in this trial, which Dr. Blockmans said should be considered for future studies.
 

Secondary Endpoints

One of the key secondary endpoints was sustained complete remission, defined as sustained remission plus a normalized erythrocyte sedimentation rate to ≤ 30 mm/h and reducing high-sensitivity C-reactive protein to < 1 mg/dL.

Sustained complete remission occurred in 37% and 16% of patients treated with upadacitinib 15 mg and placebo, respectively (P < .0001).

Additionally, a significantly lower proportion of upadacitinib 15 mg- than placebo-treated patients experienced at least one disease flare through week 52 (34% vs 56%, P = .0014).

Other positive secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg vs placebo out to week 52 were the number of disease flares per patient, cumulative glucocorticoid exposure, and complete remission (also at week 24).

And significant changes in SF-36 and FACIT-Fatigue from baseline to week 52 were seen for upadacitinib 15 mg.

The only secondary endpoints not showing a clear benefit for upadacitinib 15 mg were the changes in the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication at 52 weeks and the rate of glucocorticoid-related adverse events through week 52.

As for the 7.5-mg dose of upadacitinib, neither the primary nor secondary endpoints were significantly better vs placebo.
 

‘Life-Changing’

The study’s findings could be “really life-changing” for patients with this type of vasculitis if upadacitinib gets approval for use in this indication, Milena Bond, MD, PhD, of Brunico Hospital in Italy, told this news organization at the meeting.

“Unfortunately, nowadays, we still have only a few options for treating these patients,” she said. “So, this drug could be really, really important.”

Dr. Bond added: “The data ... also shows there is a very good safety profile, which was a main concern given the class of the drug. So, I’m very positive about this treatment and very excited to see the preliminary results.”

After his presentation, Dr. Blockmans said, “Of course, if we already had an ideal treatment for GCA, there would be no need for a JAK inhibitor, but I don’t think that steroid treatment or tocilizumab treatment is the ideal treatment.”
 

Judicious Use Still Warranted

Upadacitinib still needs to be used cautiously, following appropriate guidance from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Bond said: “It is not advised to use to the drug when people are older than 65 years old,” according to the EMA, for example, and “given the rules that we have, I would not use this drug as a first-line treatment. We do not do that for rheumatoid arthritis.”

But, she added, “As for arthritis, when you fail treating patients with the other alternatives, you could use this drug, and you have to discuss risks with the patients.”

Dr. Blockmans reported there had been no increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events or venous thromboembolism associated with upadacitinib relative to placebo in the population of patients studied, and he pointed out that they had a much higher risk for these events than perhaps an RA population.

He said: “It’s effective, and it’s apparently safe in these older people, despite what we heard about tofacitinib in the ORAL [Surveillance] study; we didn’t see these problems here in this elderly population.”

The SELECT-GCA trial was funded by AbbVie, and the company participated in all aspects of the study, including its design, conduct, interpretation of data, and reporting. Dr. Blockmans received no funding or other honoraria from the company but reported a research grant from Roche and consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline. Most of his coauthors reported financial relationships with AbbVie, and some are employees of the company. Dr. Bond reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The largest US physician organization wrestled with the professional risks and rewards of artificial intelligence (AI) at its annual meeting, delaying action even as it adopted new policies on prior authorization and other concerns for clinicians and patients.

Physicians and medical students at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates in Chicago intensely debated a report and two key resolutions on AI but could not reach consensus, pushing off decision-making until a future meeting in November.

One resolution would establish “augmented intelligence” as the preferred term for AI, reflecting the desired role of these tools in supporting — not making — physicians’ decisions. The other resolution focused on insurers’ use of AI in determining medical necessity.

(See specific policies adopted at the meeting, held June 8-12, below.)

A comprehensive AMA trustees’ report on AI considered additional issues including requirements for disclosing AI use, liability for harms due to flawed application of AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity.

The AMA intends to “continue to methodically assess these issues and make informed recommendations in proposing new policy,” said Bobby Mukkamala, MD, an otolaryngologist from Flint, Michigan, who became the AMA’s new president-elect.

AMA members at the meeting largely applauded the aim of these AI proposals, but some objected to parts of the trustees’ report.

They raised questions about what, exactly, constitutes an AI-powered service and whether all AI tools need the kind of guardrails the AMA may seek. There also were concerns about calls to make AI use more transparent.

While transparency might be an admirable goal, it might prove too hard to achieve given that AI-powered tools and products are already woven into medical practice in ways that physicians may not know or understand, said Christopher Libby, MD, MPH, a clinical informaticist and emergency physician at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“It’s hard for the practicing clinician to know how every piece of technology works in order to describe it to the patient,” Dr. Libby said at the meeting. “How many people here can identify when algorithms are used in their EHR today?”

He suggested asking for more transparency from the companies that make and sell AI-powered software and tools to insurers and healthcare systems.

Steven H. Kroft, MD, the editor of the American Journal of Clinical Pathology, raised concerns about the unintended harm that unchecked use of AI may pose to scientific research.

He asked the AMA to address “a significant omission in an otherwise comprehensive report” — the need to protect the integrity of study results that can direct patient care.

“While sham science is not a new issue, large language models make it far easier for authors to generate fake papers and far harder for editors, reviewers, and publishers to identify them,” Dr. Kroft said. “This is a rapidly growing phenomenon that is threatening the integrity of the literature. These papers become embedded in the evidence bases that drive clinical decision-making.”

AMA has been working with specialty societies and outside AI experts to refine an effective set of recommendations. The new policies, once finalized, are intended to build on steps AMA already has taken, including last year releasing principles for AI development, deployment, and use.
 

Congress Mulling

The AMA delegates are far from alone in facing AI policy challenges.

Leaders in Congress also are examining AI guardrails, with influential panels such as the Senate Finance and House Energy and Commerce committees holding hearings.

A key congressional AI effort to watch is the expected implementation of a bipartisan Senate “road map,” which Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues released in May, said Miranda A. Franco, a senior policy advisor at the law firm Holland & Knight.

The product of many months of deliberation, this Senate road map identifies priorities for future legislation, including:

• Creating appropriate guardrails and safety measures to protect patients.
• Making healthcare and biomedical data available for machine learning and data science research while carefully addressing privacy issues.
• Providing transparency for clinicians and the public about the use of AI in medical products and clinical support services, including the data used to train models.
• Examining the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ reimbursement mechanisms as well as guardrails to ensure accountability, appropriate use, and broad application of AI across all populations.

Congress likely will address issues of AI in healthcare in piecemeal fashion, taking on different aspects of these challenges at different times, Ms. Franco said. The Senate road map gives the key committees directions on where to proceed in their efforts to develop new laws.

“I think this is all going to be slow and rolling, not big and sweeping,” Ms. Franco told this news organization. “I don’t think we’re going to see an encompassing AI bill.”
 

AMA Policies Adopted on Other Issues

At the June meeting, AMA delegates adopted the following policies aiming to:

• Increase oversight and accountability of health insurers’ use of prior authorization controls on patient access to care.
• Encourage policy changes allowing physicians to receive loan forgiveness when they practice in an Indian Health Service, Tribal, or Urban Indian Health Program, similar to physicians practicing in a Veterans Administration facility.
• Advocate for federal policy that limits a patient’s out-of-pocket cost to be the same or less than the amount that a patient with traditional Medicare plus a Medigap plan would pay.
• Oppose state or national legislation that could criminalize in vitro fertilization.
• Limit what the AMA calls the “expensive” cost for Medicare Advantage enrollees who need physician-administered drugs or biologics.
• Help physicians address the handling of de-identified patient data in a rapidly changing digital health ecosystem.
• Support efforts to decriminalize the possession of non-prescribed buprenorphine for personal use by individuals who lack access to a physician for the treatment of opioid use disorder.
• Expand access to hearing, vision, and dental care. The new AMA policy advocates working with state medical associations to support coverage of hearing exams, hearing aids, cochlear implants, and vision exams and aids. The revised AMA policy also supports working with the American Dental Association and other national organizations to improve access to dental care for people enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs.
• Increase enrollment of more women and sexual and gender minority populations in clinical trials.

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

The largest US physician organization wrestled with the professional risks and rewards of artificial intelligence (AI) at its annual meeting, delaying action even as it adopted new policies on prior authorization and other concerns for clinicians and patients.

Physicians and medical students at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates in Chicago intensely debated a report and two key resolutions on AI but could not reach consensus, pushing off decision-making until a future meeting in November.

One resolution would establish “augmented intelligence” as the preferred term for AI, reflecting the desired role of these tools in supporting — not making — physicians’ decisions. The other resolution focused on insurers’ use of AI in determining medical necessity.

(See specific policies adopted at the meeting, held June 8-12, below.)

A comprehensive AMA trustees’ report on AI considered additional issues including requirements for disclosing AI use, liability for harms due to flawed application of AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity.

The AMA intends to “continue to methodically assess these issues and make informed recommendations in proposing new policy,” said Bobby Mukkamala, MD, an otolaryngologist from Flint, Michigan, who became the AMA’s new president-elect.

AMA members at the meeting largely applauded the aim of these AI proposals, but some objected to parts of the trustees’ report.

They raised questions about what, exactly, constitutes an AI-powered service and whether all AI tools need the kind of guardrails the AMA may seek. There also were concerns about calls to make AI use more transparent.

While transparency might be an admirable goal, it might prove too hard to achieve given that AI-powered tools and products are already woven into medical practice in ways that physicians may not know or understand, said Christopher Libby, MD, MPH, a clinical informaticist and emergency physician at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“It’s hard for the practicing clinician to know how every piece of technology works in order to describe it to the patient,” Dr. Libby said at the meeting. “How many people here can identify when algorithms are used in their EHR today?”

He suggested asking for more transparency from the companies that make and sell AI-powered software and tools to insurers and healthcare systems.

Steven H. Kroft, MD, the editor of the American Journal of Clinical Pathology, raised concerns about the unintended harm that unchecked use of AI may pose to scientific research.

He asked the AMA to address “a significant omission in an otherwise comprehensive report” — the need to protect the integrity of study results that can direct patient care.

“While sham science is not a new issue, large language models make it far easier for authors to generate fake papers and far harder for editors, reviewers, and publishers to identify them,” Dr. Kroft said. “This is a rapidly growing phenomenon that is threatening the integrity of the literature. These papers become embedded in the evidence bases that drive clinical decision-making.”

AMA has been working with specialty societies and outside AI experts to refine an effective set of recommendations. The new policies, once finalized, are intended to build on steps AMA already has taken, including last year releasing principles for AI development, deployment, and use.
 

Congress Mulling

The AMA delegates are far from alone in facing AI policy challenges.

Leaders in Congress also are examining AI guardrails, with influential panels such as the Senate Finance and House Energy and Commerce committees holding hearings.

A key congressional AI effort to watch is the expected implementation of a bipartisan Senate “road map,” which Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues released in May, said Miranda A. Franco, a senior policy advisor at the law firm Holland & Knight.

The product of many months of deliberation, this Senate road map identifies priorities for future legislation, including:

• Creating appropriate guardrails and safety measures to protect patients.
• Making healthcare and biomedical data available for machine learning and data science research while carefully addressing privacy issues.
• Providing transparency for clinicians and the public about the use of AI in medical products and clinical support services, including the data used to train models.
• Examining the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ reimbursement mechanisms as well as guardrails to ensure accountability, appropriate use, and broad application of AI across all populations.

Congress likely will address issues of AI in healthcare in piecemeal fashion, taking on different aspects of these challenges at different times, Ms. Franco said. The Senate road map gives the key committees directions on where to proceed in their efforts to develop new laws.

“I think this is all going to be slow and rolling, not big and sweeping,” Ms. Franco told this news organization. “I don’t think we’re going to see an encompassing AI bill.”
 

AMA Policies Adopted on Other Issues

At the June meeting, AMA delegates adopted the following policies aiming to:

• Increase oversight and accountability of health insurers’ use of prior authorization controls on patient access to care.
• Encourage policy changes allowing physicians to receive loan forgiveness when they practice in an Indian Health Service, Tribal, or Urban Indian Health Program, similar to physicians practicing in a Veterans Administration facility.
• Advocate for federal policy that limits a patient’s out-of-pocket cost to be the same or less than the amount that a patient with traditional Medicare plus a Medigap plan would pay.
• Oppose state or national legislation that could criminalize in vitro fertilization.
• Limit what the AMA calls the “expensive” cost for Medicare Advantage enrollees who need physician-administered drugs or biologics.
• Help physicians address the handling of de-identified patient data in a rapidly changing digital health ecosystem.
• Support efforts to decriminalize the possession of non-prescribed buprenorphine for personal use by individuals who lack access to a physician for the treatment of opioid use disorder.
• Expand access to hearing, vision, and dental care. The new AMA policy advocates working with state medical associations to support coverage of hearing exams, hearing aids, cochlear implants, and vision exams and aids. The revised AMA policy also supports working with the American Dental Association and other national organizations to improve access to dental care for people enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs.
• Increase enrollment of more women and sexual and gender minority populations in clinical trials.

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

The largest US physician organization wrestled with the professional risks and rewards of artificial intelligence (AI) at its annual meeting, delaying action even as it adopted new policies on prior authorization and other concerns for clinicians and patients.

Physicians and medical students at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates in Chicago intensely debated a report and two key resolutions on AI but could not reach consensus, pushing off decision-making until a future meeting in November.

One resolution would establish “augmented intelligence” as the preferred term for AI, reflecting the desired role of these tools in supporting — not making — physicians’ decisions. The other resolution focused on insurers’ use of AI in determining medical necessity.

(See specific policies adopted at the meeting, held June 8-12, below.)

A comprehensive AMA trustees’ report on AI considered additional issues including requirements for disclosing AI use, liability for harms due to flawed application of AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity.

The AMA intends to “continue to methodically assess these issues and make informed recommendations in proposing new policy,” said Bobby Mukkamala, MD, an otolaryngologist from Flint, Michigan, who became the AMA’s new president-elect.

AMA members at the meeting largely applauded the aim of these AI proposals, but some objected to parts of the trustees’ report.

They raised questions about what, exactly, constitutes an AI-powered service and whether all AI tools need the kind of guardrails the AMA may seek. There also were concerns about calls to make AI use more transparent.

While transparency might be an admirable goal, it might prove too hard to achieve given that AI-powered tools and products are already woven into medical practice in ways that physicians may not know or understand, said Christopher Libby, MD, MPH, a clinical informaticist and emergency physician at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“It’s hard for the practicing clinician to know how every piece of technology works in order to describe it to the patient,” Dr. Libby said at the meeting. “How many people here can identify when algorithms are used in their EHR today?”

He suggested asking for more transparency from the companies that make and sell AI-powered software and tools to insurers and healthcare systems.

Steven H. Kroft, MD, the editor of the American Journal of Clinical Pathology, raised concerns about the unintended harm that unchecked use of AI may pose to scientific research.

He asked the AMA to address “a significant omission in an otherwise comprehensive report” — the need to protect the integrity of study results that can direct patient care.

“While sham science is not a new issue, large language models make it far easier for authors to generate fake papers and far harder for editors, reviewers, and publishers to identify them,” Dr. Kroft said. “This is a rapidly growing phenomenon that is threatening the integrity of the literature. These papers become embedded in the evidence bases that drive clinical decision-making.”

AMA has been working with specialty societies and outside AI experts to refine an effective set of recommendations. The new policies, once finalized, are intended to build on steps AMA already has taken, including last year releasing principles for AI development, deployment, and use.
 

Congress Mulling

The AMA delegates are far from alone in facing AI policy challenges.

Leaders in Congress also are examining AI guardrails, with influential panels such as the Senate Finance and House Energy and Commerce committees holding hearings.

A key congressional AI effort to watch is the expected implementation of a bipartisan Senate “road map,” which Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues released in May, said Miranda A. Franco, a senior policy advisor at the law firm Holland & Knight.

The product of many months of deliberation, this Senate road map identifies priorities for future legislation, including:

• Creating appropriate guardrails and safety measures to protect patients.
• Making healthcare and biomedical data available for machine learning and data science research while carefully addressing privacy issues.
• Providing transparency for clinicians and the public about the use of AI in medical products and clinical support services, including the data used to train models.
• Examining the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ reimbursement mechanisms as well as guardrails to ensure accountability, appropriate use, and broad application of AI across all populations.

Congress likely will address issues of AI in healthcare in piecemeal fashion, taking on different aspects of these challenges at different times, Ms. Franco said. The Senate road map gives the key committees directions on where to proceed in their efforts to develop new laws.

“I think this is all going to be slow and rolling, not big and sweeping,” Ms. Franco told this news organization. “I don’t think we’re going to see an encompassing AI bill.”
 

AMA Policies Adopted on Other Issues

At the June meeting, AMA delegates adopted the following policies aiming to:

• Increase oversight and accountability of health insurers’ use of prior authorization controls on patient access to care.
• Encourage policy changes allowing physicians to receive loan forgiveness when they practice in an Indian Health Service, Tribal, or Urban Indian Health Program, similar to physicians practicing in a Veterans Administration facility.
• Advocate for federal policy that limits a patient’s out-of-pocket cost to be the same or less than the amount that a patient with traditional Medicare plus a Medigap plan would pay.
• Oppose state or national legislation that could criminalize in vitro fertilization.
• Limit what the AMA calls the “expensive” cost for Medicare Advantage enrollees who need physician-administered drugs or biologics.
• Help physicians address the handling of de-identified patient data in a rapidly changing digital health ecosystem.
• Support efforts to decriminalize the possession of non-prescribed buprenorphine for personal use by individuals who lack access to a physician for the treatment of opioid use disorder.
• Expand access to hearing, vision, and dental care. The new AMA policy advocates working with state medical associations to support coverage of hearing exams, hearing aids, cochlear implants, and vision exams and aids. The revised AMA policy also supports working with the American Dental Association and other national organizations to improve access to dental care for people enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs.
• Increase enrollment of more women and sexual and gender minority populations in clinical trials.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved sarilumab (Kevzara) for the treatment of polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA) for patients weighing ≥ 63 kg (139 lb). 

“Polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) can be a painful disease for children where multiple joints are impacted by this chronic inflammation,” said George D. Yancopoulos, MD, PhD, president and chief scientific officer at Regeneron in a press release. 

It is estimated that nearly 300,000 children in the United States have JIA, and 1 in 4 of them have pJIA, according to the Arthritis Foundation. 

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

“Not only are their daily lives impacted, but their futures can be disrupted without adequate treatment,” Dr. Yancopoulos continued. “The approval of Kevzara in polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis provides these vulnerable patients and their families a new FDA-approved treatment option to help navigate this disease.” 

Sarilumab, jointly developed by Sanofi and Regeneron, is an interleukin 6 receptor blocker. It was first approved in 2017 for the treatment of moderate to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adults who had inadequate response or intolerance to at least one other disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). 

In 2023, the FDA approved sarilumab as the first biologic treatment for polymyalgia rheumatica in adults who had inadequate response to corticosteroids and could not tolerate a corticosteroid taper. 

For pJIA, sarilumab is administered subcutaneously using a 200-mg/1.14-mL prefilled syringe once every 2 weeks. The medication can be used alone or in combination with other conventional DMARDs. 

“Use of KEVZARA in pediatric patients with pJIA is supported by evidence from adequate and well-controlled studies of KEVZARA in adults with RA, pharmacokinetic data from adult patients with RA,” and pharmacokinetic comparability in 101 pediatric patients aged 2-17 years treated with sarilumab, according to the prescribing information. Sarilumab is not approved for pediatric patients < 63 kg “because of a lack of an appropriate dosage form.” 

The most common reported adverse reactions for sarilumab in pJIA are nasopharyngitis, neutropenia, upper respiratory tract infection, and injection site erythema. The pJIA trial recorded no new adverse reactions or safety concerns, compared with patients with RA. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved sarilumab (Kevzara) for the treatment of polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA) for patients weighing ≥ 63 kg (139 lb). 

“Polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) can be a painful disease for children where multiple joints are impacted by this chronic inflammation,” said George D. Yancopoulos, MD, PhD, president and chief scientific officer at Regeneron in a press release. 

It is estimated that nearly 300,000 children in the United States have JIA, and 1 in 4 of them have pJIA, according to the Arthritis Foundation. 

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

“Not only are their daily lives impacted, but their futures can be disrupted without adequate treatment,” Dr. Yancopoulos continued. “The approval of Kevzara in polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis provides these vulnerable patients and their families a new FDA-approved treatment option to help navigate this disease.” 

Sarilumab, jointly developed by Sanofi and Regeneron, is an interleukin 6 receptor blocker. It was first approved in 2017 for the treatment of moderate to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adults who had inadequate response or intolerance to at least one other disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). 

In 2023, the FDA approved sarilumab as the first biologic treatment for polymyalgia rheumatica in adults who had inadequate response to corticosteroids and could not tolerate a corticosteroid taper. 

For pJIA, sarilumab is administered subcutaneously using a 200-mg/1.14-mL prefilled syringe once every 2 weeks. The medication can be used alone or in combination with other conventional DMARDs. 

“Use of KEVZARA in pediatric patients with pJIA is supported by evidence from adequate and well-controlled studies of KEVZARA in adults with RA, pharmacokinetic data from adult patients with RA,” and pharmacokinetic comparability in 101 pediatric patients aged 2-17 years treated with sarilumab, according to the prescribing information. Sarilumab is not approved for pediatric patients < 63 kg “because of a lack of an appropriate dosage form.” 

The most common reported adverse reactions for sarilumab in pJIA are nasopharyngitis, neutropenia, upper respiratory tract infection, and injection site erythema. The pJIA trial recorded no new adverse reactions or safety concerns, compared with patients with RA. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved sarilumab (Kevzara) for the treatment of polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA) for patients weighing ≥ 63 kg (139 lb). 

“Polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) can be a painful disease for children where multiple joints are impacted by this chronic inflammation,” said George D. Yancopoulos, MD, PhD, president and chief scientific officer at Regeneron in a press release. 

It is estimated that nearly 300,000 children in the United States have JIA, and 1 in 4 of them have pJIA, according to the Arthritis Foundation. 

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

“Not only are their daily lives impacted, but their futures can be disrupted without adequate treatment,” Dr. Yancopoulos continued. “The approval of Kevzara in polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis provides these vulnerable patients and their families a new FDA-approved treatment option to help navigate this disease.” 

Sarilumab, jointly developed by Sanofi and Regeneron, is an interleukin 6 receptor blocker. It was first approved in 2017 for the treatment of moderate to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adults who had inadequate response or intolerance to at least one other disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). 

In 2023, the FDA approved sarilumab as the first biologic treatment for polymyalgia rheumatica in adults who had inadequate response to corticosteroids and could not tolerate a corticosteroid taper. 

For pJIA, sarilumab is administered subcutaneously using a 200-mg/1.14-mL prefilled syringe once every 2 weeks. The medication can be used alone or in combination with other conventional DMARDs. 

“Use of KEVZARA in pediatric patients with pJIA is supported by evidence from adequate and well-controlled studies of KEVZARA in adults with RA, pharmacokinetic data from adult patients with RA,” and pharmacokinetic comparability in 101 pediatric patients aged 2-17 years treated with sarilumab, according to the prescribing information. Sarilumab is not approved for pediatric patients < 63 kg “because of a lack of an appropriate dosage form.” 

The most common reported adverse reactions for sarilumab in pJIA are nasopharyngitis, neutropenia, upper respiratory tract infection, and injection site erythema. The pJIA trial recorded no new adverse reactions or safety concerns, compared with patients with RA. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential US panel may largely reaffirm its current recommendation in favor of screening older women to prevent osteoporotic fractures, while also repeating its call for more research to try to determine whether men would benefit from this kind of routine testing.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on June 11 released a draft update of its recommendations on osteoporosis screening. The task force will accept comments on the draft through July 8. Federal law gives the USPSTF recommendations extra clout, requiring insurers to cover — without co-pay — services that get top marks “A” or “B” from the task force.

The task force intends to maintain a “B” recommendation on screening of older women, indicating that the evidence gathered to date suggests a moderate net benefit. But the draft includes a shift in the approach to this screening.

The USPSTF proposed saying that it recommends screening for osteoporosis in both women aged 65 years and older and postmenopausal women younger than 65 years who are at an increased risk for an osteoporotic fracture. The current recommendation, finalized in 2018, advises “screening for osteoporosis with bone measurement testing [emphasis added]” for these groups.

The proposed change in language — dropping the phrase “with bone measurement testing” — is intended to expand flexibility for clinicians, Esa Davis, MD, MPH, a member of USPSTF and a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

USPSTF

University of Chicago Medicine

Insufficient Evidence

The USPSTF’s “I” grade is different from a “D” grade, which is what the task force uses to recommend against the use of a service.

A “D” grade means the USPSTF says there is moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits. (The USPSTF makes it easy to search online for grades given to preventive services, including those that got a “D.”)

The USPSTF is calling for more studies on the benefits and harms of screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures and related morbidity and mortality in men.

“Men do get osteoporosis,” Dr. Davis said. “But unfortunately, the evidence isn’t there” to allow USPSTF to make a recommendation on screening approaches.

“Any man who has concerns about bone health should certainly talk to his clinician and figure out what is the best form of screening” he might want to do, she said.

There’s been a growing interest in the question of whether to screen men for osteoporosis and bone health. For example, Osteoporosis Canada last year updated a guideline to emphasize the need to assess older patients of both sexes for the risk for fractures. But the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care in 2023 came to a conclusion in line with the USPSTF draft.

The Canadian task force recommended against routine screening in men, while adding that clinicians should be alert to changes in health that may indicate the patient has experienced or is at a higher risk for fragility fracture.
 

Risk Factors, Concerns About Tests

The USPSTF said that risk factors associated with fragility fractures are similar in men and women. These include:

• Increasing age
• Low body mass index
• Excessive alcohol intake
• Current smoking
• Chronic corticosteroid use
• History of prior fractures, falls within the past year, cerebrovascular accident, and diabetes
• Hypogonadism

The process of updating the USPSTF recommendations can serve as a chance to expand public awareness about osteoporosis, as many men may not know to raise the question of their fracture risk during medical appointments, Dr. Davis said.

“Clinicians need to be aware of the risk factors and to be able to have conversations with men,” she said.

Dr. Davis also cautioned about the need to be aware of limitations with clinical risk assessment tools. In the draft recommendation statement, the USPSTF noted that some tools and approaches may be less likely to identify Black, Hispanic, and Asian people as high risk, and subsequently, clinicians may be less likely to offer treatment to them compared with White people of the same age, bone mineral density, and clinical risk profile.

Dr. Davis had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Jain received research funding from the Amgen Foundation.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential US panel may largely reaffirm its current recommendation in favor of screening older women to prevent osteoporotic fractures, while also repeating its call for more research to try to determine whether men would benefit from this kind of routine testing.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on June 11 released a draft update of its recommendations on osteoporosis screening. The task force will accept comments on the draft through July 8. Federal law gives the USPSTF recommendations extra clout, requiring insurers to cover — without co-pay — services that get top marks “A” or “B” from the task force.

The task force intends to maintain a “B” recommendation on screening of older women, indicating that the evidence gathered to date suggests a moderate net benefit. But the draft includes a shift in the approach to this screening.

The USPSTF proposed saying that it recommends screening for osteoporosis in both women aged 65 years and older and postmenopausal women younger than 65 years who are at an increased risk for an osteoporotic fracture. The current recommendation, finalized in 2018, advises “screening for osteoporosis with bone measurement testing [emphasis added]” for these groups.

The proposed change in language — dropping the phrase “with bone measurement testing” — is intended to expand flexibility for clinicians, Esa Davis, MD, MPH, a member of USPSTF and a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

USPSTF

University of Chicago Medicine

Insufficient Evidence

The USPSTF’s “I” grade is different from a “D” grade, which is what the task force uses to recommend against the use of a service.

A “D” grade means the USPSTF says there is moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits. (The USPSTF makes it easy to search online for grades given to preventive services, including those that got a “D.”)

The USPSTF is calling for more studies on the benefits and harms of screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures and related morbidity and mortality in men.

“Men do get osteoporosis,” Dr. Davis said. “But unfortunately, the evidence isn’t there” to allow USPSTF to make a recommendation on screening approaches.

“Any man who has concerns about bone health should certainly talk to his clinician and figure out what is the best form of screening” he might want to do, she said.

There’s been a growing interest in the question of whether to screen men for osteoporosis and bone health. For example, Osteoporosis Canada last year updated a guideline to emphasize the need to assess older patients of both sexes for the risk for fractures. But the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care in 2023 came to a conclusion in line with the USPSTF draft.

The Canadian task force recommended against routine screening in men, while adding that clinicians should be alert to changes in health that may indicate the patient has experienced or is at a higher risk for fragility fracture.
 

Risk Factors, Concerns About Tests

The USPSTF said that risk factors associated with fragility fractures are similar in men and women. These include:

• Increasing age
• Low body mass index
• Excessive alcohol intake
• Current smoking
• Chronic corticosteroid use
• History of prior fractures, falls within the past year, cerebrovascular accident, and diabetes
• Hypogonadism

The process of updating the USPSTF recommendations can serve as a chance to expand public awareness about osteoporosis, as many men may not know to raise the question of their fracture risk during medical appointments, Dr. Davis said.

“Clinicians need to be aware of the risk factors and to be able to have conversations with men,” she said.

Dr. Davis also cautioned about the need to be aware of limitations with clinical risk assessment tools. In the draft recommendation statement, the USPSTF noted that some tools and approaches may be less likely to identify Black, Hispanic, and Asian people as high risk, and subsequently, clinicians may be less likely to offer treatment to them compared with White people of the same age, bone mineral density, and clinical risk profile.

Dr. Davis had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Jain received research funding from the Amgen Foundation.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential US panel may largely reaffirm its current recommendation in favor of screening older women to prevent osteoporotic fractures, while also repeating its call for more research to try to determine whether men would benefit from this kind of routine testing.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on June 11 released a draft update of its recommendations on osteoporosis screening. The task force will accept comments on the draft through July 8. Federal law gives the USPSTF recommendations extra clout, requiring insurers to cover — without co-pay — services that get top marks “A” or “B” from the task force.

The task force intends to maintain a “B” recommendation on screening of older women, indicating that the evidence gathered to date suggests a moderate net benefit. But the draft includes a shift in the approach to this screening.

The USPSTF proposed saying that it recommends screening for osteoporosis in both women aged 65 years and older and postmenopausal women younger than 65 years who are at an increased risk for an osteoporotic fracture. The current recommendation, finalized in 2018, advises “screening for osteoporosis with bone measurement testing [emphasis added]” for these groups.

The proposed change in language — dropping the phrase “with bone measurement testing” — is intended to expand flexibility for clinicians, Esa Davis, MD, MPH, a member of USPSTF and a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

USPSTF

University of Chicago Medicine

Insufficient Evidence

The USPSTF’s “I” grade is different from a “D” grade, which is what the task force uses to recommend against the use of a service.

A “D” grade means the USPSTF says there is moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits. (The USPSTF makes it easy to search online for grades given to preventive services, including those that got a “D.”)

The USPSTF is calling for more studies on the benefits and harms of screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures and related morbidity and mortality in men.

“Men do get osteoporosis,” Dr. Davis said. “But unfortunately, the evidence isn’t there” to allow USPSTF to make a recommendation on screening approaches.

“Any man who has concerns about bone health should certainly talk to his clinician and figure out what is the best form of screening” he might want to do, she said.

There’s been a growing interest in the question of whether to screen men for osteoporosis and bone health. For example, Osteoporosis Canada last year updated a guideline to emphasize the need to assess older patients of both sexes for the risk for fractures. But the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care in 2023 came to a conclusion in line with the USPSTF draft.

The Canadian task force recommended against routine screening in men, while adding that clinicians should be alert to changes in health that may indicate the patient has experienced or is at a higher risk for fragility fracture.
 

Risk Factors, Concerns About Tests

The USPSTF said that risk factors associated with fragility fractures are similar in men and women. These include:

• Increasing age
• Low body mass index
• Excessive alcohol intake
• Current smoking
• Chronic corticosteroid use
• History of prior fractures, falls within the past year, cerebrovascular accident, and diabetes
• Hypogonadism

The process of updating the USPSTF recommendations can serve as a chance to expand public awareness about osteoporosis, as many men may not know to raise the question of their fracture risk during medical appointments, Dr. Davis said.

“Clinicians need to be aware of the risk factors and to be able to have conversations with men,” she said.

Dr. Davis also cautioned about the need to be aware of limitations with clinical risk assessment tools. In the draft recommendation statement, the USPSTF noted that some tools and approaches may be less likely to identify Black, Hispanic, and Asian people as high risk, and subsequently, clinicians may be less likely to offer treatment to them compared with White people of the same age, bone mineral density, and clinical risk profile.

Dr. Davis had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Jain received research funding from the Amgen Foundation.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Having more tender than swollen joints is linked to worse patient-reported outcomes (PROs), particularly in pain interference, social participation, and fatigue, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODOLOGY:

• In early RA, understanding the impact of tender-swollen joint differences (TSJDs) on PROs across multiple domains of health-related quality of life is important to customize personalized therapeutic strategies.
• This study evaluated the impact of TSJDs on PROs over 1 year in 547 patients (mean age, 56 years; 70% women; mean symptom duration, 5.3 months) with early RA across 18 centers in Canada between January 2016 and August 2022.
• TSJDs were assessed for 28 joints (six large and 22 small) at baseline and at 3-, 6-, and 12-month visits using the PRO Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29), covering seven domains of health. Higher PROMIS T-scores indicated better health outcomes.

TAKEAWAY: 

• A one-point increase of TSJD was significantly associated with worse PROMIS T-scores in physical function (adjusted regression coefficient [β], −0.27; 95% CI, −0.39 to −0.15) and social participation (β, −0.34; 95% CI, −0.50 to −0.19).
• A one-point increase in TSJD was also linked to worsened PROMIS symptoms in pain interference (β, 0.49), fatigue (β, 0.34), sleep problems (β, 0.29), anxiety (β, 0.23), and depression (β, 0.20).
• Large-joint TSJD was particularly associated with worse PROs than small-joint TSJD.
• The sensitivity analysis validated the reliability of the primary findings regarding the association between joint counts and PROs evaluated by PROMIS-29, even when accounting for C-reactive protein levels in various scenarios or assumptions.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with more tender than swollen joints may experience worsening of all seven domains of health, especially pain interference, social participation, and fatigue. Rheumatologists should be alerted to their patients with early RA having more tender than swollen joints, particularly in large joints,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Charis F. Meng, MD, Division of Rheumatology, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York. It was published online on May 1, 2024, in Journal of Clinical Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study was observational with missing data, which could have impacted the reliability of the results. Most participants were women and White individuals, which could restrict the generalizability of results. The absence of ultrasound for synovitis limited the clinical assessment of patients with RA for information beyond physical examination alone. 

DISCLOSURES: 

The study was supported and funded by the Inflammatory Arthritis Center and Division of Rheumatology at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York. One author reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Having more tender than swollen joints is linked to worse patient-reported outcomes (PROs), particularly in pain interference, social participation, and fatigue, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODOLOGY:

• In early RA, understanding the impact of tender-swollen joint differences (TSJDs) on PROs across multiple domains of health-related quality of life is important to customize personalized therapeutic strategies.
• This study evaluated the impact of TSJDs on PROs over 1 year in 547 patients (mean age, 56 years; 70% women; mean symptom duration, 5.3 months) with early RA across 18 centers in Canada between January 2016 and August 2022.
• TSJDs were assessed for 28 joints (six large and 22 small) at baseline and at 3-, 6-, and 12-month visits using the PRO Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29), covering seven domains of health. Higher PROMIS T-scores indicated better health outcomes.

TAKEAWAY: 

• A one-point increase of TSJD was significantly associated with worse PROMIS T-scores in physical function (adjusted regression coefficient [β], −0.27; 95% CI, −0.39 to −0.15) and social participation (β, −0.34; 95% CI, −0.50 to −0.19).
• A one-point increase in TSJD was also linked to worsened PROMIS symptoms in pain interference (β, 0.49), fatigue (β, 0.34), sleep problems (β, 0.29), anxiety (β, 0.23), and depression (β, 0.20).
• Large-joint TSJD was particularly associated with worse PROs than small-joint TSJD.
• The sensitivity analysis validated the reliability of the primary findings regarding the association between joint counts and PROs evaluated by PROMIS-29, even when accounting for C-reactive protein levels in various scenarios or assumptions.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with more tender than swollen joints may experience worsening of all seven domains of health, especially pain interference, social participation, and fatigue. Rheumatologists should be alerted to their patients with early RA having more tender than swollen joints, particularly in large joints,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Charis F. Meng, MD, Division of Rheumatology, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York. It was published online on May 1, 2024, in Journal of Clinical Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study was observational with missing data, which could have impacted the reliability of the results. Most participants were women and White individuals, which could restrict the generalizability of results. The absence of ultrasound for synovitis limited the clinical assessment of patients with RA for information beyond physical examination alone. 

DISCLOSURES: 

The study was supported and funded by the Inflammatory Arthritis Center and Division of Rheumatology at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York. One author reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Having more tender than swollen joints is linked to worse patient-reported outcomes (PROs), particularly in pain interference, social participation, and fatigue, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODOLOGY:

• In early RA, understanding the impact of tender-swollen joint differences (TSJDs) on PROs across multiple domains of health-related quality of life is important to customize personalized therapeutic strategies.
• This study evaluated the impact of TSJDs on PROs over 1 year in 547 patients (mean age, 56 years; 70% women; mean symptom duration, 5.3 months) with early RA across 18 centers in Canada between January 2016 and August 2022.
• TSJDs were assessed for 28 joints (six large and 22 small) at baseline and at 3-, 6-, and 12-month visits using the PRO Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29), covering seven domains of health. Higher PROMIS T-scores indicated better health outcomes.

TAKEAWAY: 

• A one-point increase of TSJD was significantly associated with worse PROMIS T-scores in physical function (adjusted regression coefficient [β], −0.27; 95% CI, −0.39 to −0.15) and social participation (β, −0.34; 95% CI, −0.50 to −0.19).
• A one-point increase in TSJD was also linked to worsened PROMIS symptoms in pain interference (β, 0.49), fatigue (β, 0.34), sleep problems (β, 0.29), anxiety (β, 0.23), and depression (β, 0.20).
• Large-joint TSJD was particularly associated with worse PROs than small-joint TSJD.
• The sensitivity analysis validated the reliability of the primary findings regarding the association between joint counts and PROs evaluated by PROMIS-29, even when accounting for C-reactive protein levels in various scenarios or assumptions.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with more tender than swollen joints may experience worsening of all seven domains of health, especially pain interference, social participation, and fatigue. Rheumatologists should be alerted to their patients with early RA having more tender than swollen joints, particularly in large joints,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Charis F. Meng, MD, Division of Rheumatology, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York. It was published online on May 1, 2024, in Journal of Clinical Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study was observational with missing data, which could have impacted the reliability of the results. Most participants were women and White individuals, which could restrict the generalizability of results. The absence of ultrasound for synovitis limited the clinical assessment of patients with RA for information beyond physical examination alone. 

DISCLOSURES: 

The study was supported and funded by the Inflammatory Arthritis Center and Division of Rheumatology at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York. One author reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2024 European Congress of Rheumatology annual meeting is about to take place in Vienna, Austria. From June 12 to 15, some of the world’s leading researchers and clinicians will convene to present and learn about data on some of the new and innovative treatments for people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) as well as to discuss how to use and optimize existing approaches. 

Ahead of the Congress, this news organization asked the Congress Committee’s Scientific Programme Chair Caroline Ospelt, MD, PhD, and Abstract Chair Christian Dejaco, MD, PhD, MBA, to discuss some of their highlights of this year’s meeting.
 

From Bench to Bedside

“For me, the beauty at EULAR is really that you have the latest on basic research, how this can be translated in clinical trials, and then the last step would be how EULAR recommends it to be used in clinical practice,” Dr. Ospelt, professor of experimental rheumatology at University Hospital Zurich, said in an interview.  

University Hospital Zurich

“So, if you go to EULAR continuously, you can actually follow the whole story of how novelty comes into clinical practice,” she added. 

In a separate interview, Dr. Dejaco, a consultant rheumatologist and associate professor at the Medical University of Graz in Austria, said: “There are several new drug trials that are going to be presented.” 

One of his highlights on the use of new drugs for the treatment of giant cell arteritis will be the phase 3 SELECT-GCA trial of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib (LBA0001).

“It’s a trial that hopefully will lead to the approval of this drug in this indication,” Dr. Dejaco said.

EULAR

Late-Breaking Abstracts

Dr. Ospelt noted: “We had a lot of good late-breaking abstracts this year.” 

Some of these include: 

• Real-world data on the comparative effectiveness of five different classes of drugs used to treat psoriatic arthritis (PsA; LBA0002) 
• The 16-week results of a phase 2b/3 study with the novel interleukin (IL)–17A inhibitor izokibep in people with PsA (LBA0005)
• Data from the COSPIRIT-JIA trial on the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab (Taltz) in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (LBA0009)
• Phase 2 data on the safety and efficacy of the CD38-targeting monoclonal antibody daratumumab in systemic lupus erythematosus (LBA0007)
• Results of the phase 2 DAHLIAS study of the anti–neonatal Fc receptor monoclonal antibody nipocalimab in people with primary Sjögren disease (LBA0010) 
• Safety and immunogenicity data from a phase 1 study of an active anti–IL-6 immunotherapy in people with knee osteoarthritis (LBA0011)

The latter is “really interesting,” Dr. Ospelt said. As of now, there is no approved treatment for osteoarthritis, and there is no immunotherapy, “so this would be the first.” 

But it’s not just the late-breaker abstracts to look out for. Dr. Dejaco highlighted two abstracts that will be presented during the Abstract Plenary: 

• A phase 3 study of a new selective JAK1 inhibitor, SHR0302, in rheumatoid arthritis (OP0037)
• A multi-omics analysis and targeted gene-editing study in people with , which causes inflammatory and hematologic changes (OP0073)

Of the latter, he said, “this disease is still incompletely understood, and this abstract really helps to better understand the mechanisms underlying this disease.”
 

One to Watch: CAR T-Cell Therapy 

Dr. Ospelt said that the scientific program is about 80% clinical and 20% basic science overall. However, more sessions are being held jointly because data are starting to move from the bench to bedside. 

One of the basic science areas that has had “a real buzz” around it and is now producing results in the clinic is the use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells. In one of the first, and perhaps aptly titled What Is New, or WIN, sessions of the congress, Georg Schett, MD, vice president of research at Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nüremberg in Germany, will discuss the use of CAR T-cell therapy for inflammatory RMDs. There are also multiple abstract presentations on this topic. 

In-depth tissue analysis and prediction of treatment response is another interesting approach, Dr. Ospelt said. “I think that’s the way to go, that we come from the blood, we go into the tissue.” A “very nice” example of this approach will be presented during the Abstract Plenary session on Wednesday, June 12, looking at how synovial tissue macrophages may be able to give information on likely treatment response in treatment-naive rheumatoid arthritis (OP0062). There are also some further findings related to the tissue biopsy–driven treatment trial R4RA that are being presented at the meeting (OP0218, OP0242, and POS0351).
 

EULAR Highlighted Sessions

Among the highlighted sessions on the EULAR 2024 website is one on axial involvement in PsA and spondyloarthritis (SpA). 

“Axial involvement in psoriatic arthritis and peripheral involvement in axial spondyloarthritis is quite a hot topic at the moment,” Dr. Ospelt said. There are lots of questions: “How connected are they? How different are they? Do we need different treatment for axial involvement compared to peripheral involvement?” 

Another EULAR highlighted session is the 75th anniversary of glucocorticoid treatment, during which Past President of EULAR and Emeritus Professor of Rheumatology Josef S. Smolen, MD, will overview the “past, present, and future” of glucocorticoids in RMDs. Consultant rheumatologist Frank Buttgereit, MD, from the German Rheumatism Research Center in Berlin, will discuss the practicalities of using these drugs in clinical practice.

Dr. Dejaco noted: “Glucocorticoids have been one of the most important treatments for a very long time, and they’re still the most important treatment for the acute treatment of systemic inflammatory diseases.”

For a long time, there was no alternative to using steroids, he added, but steroid-sparing options now exist, and there will be data presented on a new type of drug that could potentially be used to control cortisol levels in the body (OP0335).
 

Recommendations and More

Dr. Ospelt and Dr. Dejaco both pointed out other sessions that are likely to be very popular, such as the first and second EULAR Recommendations sessions, a session on rheumatoid arthritis prevention, as well as the many presentations and sessions on digital health and nonpharmacologic interventions such as exercise. 

With over 5242 submitted abstracts, there is going to be no shortage of data being presented at EULAR 2024. Alongside the traditional abstract submission categories, this year there is a new clinical case reports category. 

“We had about 578 submissions for that category,” Dr. Dejaco said. There were 3315 abstracts submitted for the clinical research category, 812 for the basic and translational research category, 283 from health professionals in rheumatology, 152 from patient groups, and 102 in the field of pediatric rheumatology.
 

Join in On-Site, Watch on Demand 

EULAR 2024 reverts to an on-site–only meeting this year. Some of the more lighthearted yet educational elements of the program for those attending include the second edition of the EMEUNET Rheumatology Quiz and, new for this year, two escape rooms. These rooms will provide an interactive experience where small teams will have to solve rheumatologic conundrums in order to escape the room within the hour, Dr. Dejaco explained. There will also be a morning run on Friday, June 14. “It’s not a race, it’s simply to meet and run together,” Dr. Dejaco said. 

But if you cannot make the congress in person, the EULAR 2024 Livestream will be broadcasting throughout the congress. Anyone registered by June 30 will have on-demand access to the recorded content from June 17 until December 31, 2024. 

Abstracts for the meeting will be published as a supplement to Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the official journal of EULAR. 

Dr. Ospelt reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Dejaco has received consulting/speaker fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Sparrow, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Galapagos, and Sanofi.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2024 European Congress of Rheumatology annual meeting is about to take place in Vienna, Austria. From June 12 to 15, some of the world’s leading researchers and clinicians will convene to present and learn about data on some of the new and innovative treatments for people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) as well as to discuss how to use and optimize existing approaches. 

Ahead of the Congress, this news organization asked the Congress Committee’s Scientific Programme Chair Caroline Ospelt, MD, PhD, and Abstract Chair Christian Dejaco, MD, PhD, MBA, to discuss some of their highlights of this year’s meeting.
 

From Bench to Bedside

“For me, the beauty at EULAR is really that you have the latest on basic research, how this can be translated in clinical trials, and then the last step would be how EULAR recommends it to be used in clinical practice,” Dr. Ospelt, professor of experimental rheumatology at University Hospital Zurich, said in an interview.  

University Hospital Zurich

“So, if you go to EULAR continuously, you can actually follow the whole story of how novelty comes into clinical practice,” she added. 

In a separate interview, Dr. Dejaco, a consultant rheumatologist and associate professor at the Medical University of Graz in Austria, said: “There are several new drug trials that are going to be presented.” 

One of his highlights on the use of new drugs for the treatment of giant cell arteritis will be the phase 3 SELECT-GCA trial of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib (LBA0001).

“It’s a trial that hopefully will lead to the approval of this drug in this indication,” Dr. Dejaco said.

EULAR

Late-Breaking Abstracts

Dr. Ospelt noted: “We had a lot of good late-breaking abstracts this year.” 

Some of these include: 

• Real-world data on the comparative effectiveness of five different classes of drugs used to treat psoriatic arthritis (PsA; LBA0002) 
• The 16-week results of a phase 2b/3 study with the novel interleukin (IL)–17A inhibitor izokibep in people with PsA (LBA0005)
• Data from the COSPIRIT-JIA trial on the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab (Taltz) in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (LBA0009)
• Phase 2 data on the safety and efficacy of the CD38-targeting monoclonal antibody daratumumab in systemic lupus erythematosus (LBA0007)
• Results of the phase 2 DAHLIAS study of the anti–neonatal Fc receptor monoclonal antibody nipocalimab in people with primary Sjögren disease (LBA0010) 
• Safety and immunogenicity data from a phase 1 study of an active anti–IL-6 immunotherapy in people with knee osteoarthritis (LBA0011)

The latter is “really interesting,” Dr. Ospelt said. As of now, there is no approved treatment for osteoarthritis, and there is no immunotherapy, “so this would be the first.” 

But it’s not just the late-breaker abstracts to look out for. Dr. Dejaco highlighted two abstracts that will be presented during the Abstract Plenary: 

• A phase 3 study of a new selective JAK1 inhibitor, SHR0302, in rheumatoid arthritis (OP0037)
• A multi-omics analysis and targeted gene-editing study in people with , which causes inflammatory and hematologic changes (OP0073)

Of the latter, he said, “this disease is still incompletely understood, and this abstract really helps to better understand the mechanisms underlying this disease.”
 

One to Watch: CAR T-Cell Therapy 

Dr. Ospelt said that the scientific program is about 80% clinical and 20% basic science overall. However, more sessions are being held jointly because data are starting to move from the bench to bedside. 

One of the basic science areas that has had “a real buzz” around it and is now producing results in the clinic is the use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells. In one of the first, and perhaps aptly titled What Is New, or WIN, sessions of the congress, Georg Schett, MD, vice president of research at Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nüremberg in Germany, will discuss the use of CAR T-cell therapy for inflammatory RMDs. There are also multiple abstract presentations on this topic. 

In-depth tissue analysis and prediction of treatment response is another interesting approach, Dr. Ospelt said. “I think that’s the way to go, that we come from the blood, we go into the tissue.” A “very nice” example of this approach will be presented during the Abstract Plenary session on Wednesday, June 12, looking at how synovial tissue macrophages may be able to give information on likely treatment response in treatment-naive rheumatoid arthritis (OP0062). There are also some further findings related to the tissue biopsy–driven treatment trial R4RA that are being presented at the meeting (OP0218, OP0242, and POS0351).
 

EULAR Highlighted Sessions

Among the highlighted sessions on the EULAR 2024 website is one on axial involvement in PsA and spondyloarthritis (SpA). 

“Axial involvement in psoriatic arthritis and peripheral involvement in axial spondyloarthritis is quite a hot topic at the moment,” Dr. Ospelt said. There are lots of questions: “How connected are they? How different are they? Do we need different treatment for axial involvement compared to peripheral involvement?” 

Another EULAR highlighted session is the 75th anniversary of glucocorticoid treatment, during which Past President of EULAR and Emeritus Professor of Rheumatology Josef S. Smolen, MD, will overview the “past, present, and future” of glucocorticoids in RMDs. Consultant rheumatologist Frank Buttgereit, MD, from the German Rheumatism Research Center in Berlin, will discuss the practicalities of using these drugs in clinical practice.

Dr. Dejaco noted: “Glucocorticoids have been one of the most important treatments for a very long time, and they’re still the most important treatment for the acute treatment of systemic inflammatory diseases.”

For a long time, there was no alternative to using steroids, he added, but steroid-sparing options now exist, and there will be data presented on a new type of drug that could potentially be used to control cortisol levels in the body (OP0335).
 

Recommendations and More

Dr. Ospelt and Dr. Dejaco both pointed out other sessions that are likely to be very popular, such as the first and second EULAR Recommendations sessions, a session on rheumatoid arthritis prevention, as well as the many presentations and sessions on digital health and nonpharmacologic interventions such as exercise. 

With over 5242 submitted abstracts, there is going to be no shortage of data being presented at EULAR 2024. Alongside the traditional abstract submission categories, this year there is a new clinical case reports category. 

“We had about 578 submissions for that category,” Dr. Dejaco said. There were 3315 abstracts submitted for the clinical research category, 812 for the basic and translational research category, 283 from health professionals in rheumatology, 152 from patient groups, and 102 in the field of pediatric rheumatology.
 

Join in On-Site, Watch on Demand 

EULAR 2024 reverts to an on-site–only meeting this year. Some of the more lighthearted yet educational elements of the program for those attending include the second edition of the EMEUNET Rheumatology Quiz and, new for this year, two escape rooms. These rooms will provide an interactive experience where small teams will have to solve rheumatologic conundrums in order to escape the room within the hour, Dr. Dejaco explained. There will also be a morning run on Friday, June 14. “It’s not a race, it’s simply to meet and run together,” Dr. Dejaco said. 

But if you cannot make the congress in person, the EULAR 2024 Livestream will be broadcasting throughout the congress. Anyone registered by June 30 will have on-demand access to the recorded content from June 17 until December 31, 2024. 

Abstracts for the meeting will be published as a supplement to Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the official journal of EULAR. 

Dr. Ospelt reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Dejaco has received consulting/speaker fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Sparrow, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Galapagos, and Sanofi.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2024 European Congress of Rheumatology annual meeting is about to take place in Vienna, Austria. From June 12 to 15, some of the world’s leading researchers and clinicians will convene to present and learn about data on some of the new and innovative treatments for people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) as well as to discuss how to use and optimize existing approaches. 

Ahead of the Congress, this news organization asked the Congress Committee’s Scientific Programme Chair Caroline Ospelt, MD, PhD, and Abstract Chair Christian Dejaco, MD, PhD, MBA, to discuss some of their highlights of this year’s meeting.
 

From Bench to Bedside

“For me, the beauty at EULAR is really that you have the latest on basic research, how this can be translated in clinical trials, and then the last step would be how EULAR recommends it to be used in clinical practice,” Dr. Ospelt, professor of experimental rheumatology at University Hospital Zurich, said in an interview.  

University Hospital Zurich

“So, if you go to EULAR continuously, you can actually follow the whole story of how novelty comes into clinical practice,” she added. 

In a separate interview, Dr. Dejaco, a consultant rheumatologist and associate professor at the Medical University of Graz in Austria, said: “There are several new drug trials that are going to be presented.” 

One of his highlights on the use of new drugs for the treatment of giant cell arteritis will be the phase 3 SELECT-GCA trial of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib (LBA0001).

“It’s a trial that hopefully will lead to the approval of this drug in this indication,” Dr. Dejaco said.

EULAR

Late-Breaking Abstracts

Dr. Ospelt noted: “We had a lot of good late-breaking abstracts this year.” 

Some of these include: 

• Real-world data on the comparative effectiveness of five different classes of drugs used to treat psoriatic arthritis (PsA; LBA0002) 
• The 16-week results of a phase 2b/3 study with the novel interleukin (IL)–17A inhibitor izokibep in people with PsA (LBA0005)
• Data from the COSPIRIT-JIA trial on the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab (Taltz) in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (LBA0009)
• Phase 2 data on the safety and efficacy of the CD38-targeting monoclonal antibody daratumumab in systemic lupus erythematosus (LBA0007)
• Results of the phase 2 DAHLIAS study of the anti–neonatal Fc receptor monoclonal antibody nipocalimab in people with primary Sjögren disease (LBA0010) 
• Safety and immunogenicity data from a phase 1 study of an active anti–IL-6 immunotherapy in people with knee osteoarthritis (LBA0011)

The latter is “really interesting,” Dr. Ospelt said. As of now, there is no approved treatment for osteoarthritis, and there is no immunotherapy, “so this would be the first.” 

But it’s not just the late-breaker abstracts to look out for. Dr. Dejaco highlighted two abstracts that will be presented during the Abstract Plenary: 

• A phase 3 study of a new selective JAK1 inhibitor, SHR0302, in rheumatoid arthritis (OP0037)
• A multi-omics analysis and targeted gene-editing study in people with , which causes inflammatory and hematologic changes (OP0073)

Of the latter, he said, “this disease is still incompletely understood, and this abstract really helps to better understand the mechanisms underlying this disease.”
 

One to Watch: CAR T-Cell Therapy 

Dr. Ospelt said that the scientific program is about 80% clinical and 20% basic science overall. However, more sessions are being held jointly because data are starting to move from the bench to bedside. 

One of the basic science areas that has had “a real buzz” around it and is now producing results in the clinic is the use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells. In one of the first, and perhaps aptly titled What Is New, or WIN, sessions of the congress, Georg Schett, MD, vice president of research at Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nüremberg in Germany, will discuss the use of CAR T-cell therapy for inflammatory RMDs. There are also multiple abstract presentations on this topic. 

In-depth tissue analysis and prediction of treatment response is another interesting approach, Dr. Ospelt said. “I think that’s the way to go, that we come from the blood, we go into the tissue.” A “very nice” example of this approach will be presented during the Abstract Plenary session on Wednesday, June 12, looking at how synovial tissue macrophages may be able to give information on likely treatment response in treatment-naive rheumatoid arthritis (OP0062). There are also some further findings related to the tissue biopsy–driven treatment trial R4RA that are being presented at the meeting (OP0218, OP0242, and POS0351).
 

EULAR Highlighted Sessions

Among the highlighted sessions on the EULAR 2024 website is one on axial involvement in PsA and spondyloarthritis (SpA). 

“Axial involvement in psoriatic arthritis and peripheral involvement in axial spondyloarthritis is quite a hot topic at the moment,” Dr. Ospelt said. There are lots of questions: “How connected are they? How different are they? Do we need different treatment for axial involvement compared to peripheral involvement?” 

Another EULAR highlighted session is the 75th anniversary of glucocorticoid treatment, during which Past President of EULAR and Emeritus Professor of Rheumatology Josef S. Smolen, MD, will overview the “past, present, and future” of glucocorticoids in RMDs. Consultant rheumatologist Frank Buttgereit, MD, from the German Rheumatism Research Center in Berlin, will discuss the practicalities of using these drugs in clinical practice.

Dr. Dejaco noted: “Glucocorticoids have been one of the most important treatments for a very long time, and they’re still the most important treatment for the acute treatment of systemic inflammatory diseases.”

For a long time, there was no alternative to using steroids, he added, but steroid-sparing options now exist, and there will be data presented on a new type of drug that could potentially be used to control cortisol levels in the body (OP0335).
 

Recommendations and More

Dr. Ospelt and Dr. Dejaco both pointed out other sessions that are likely to be very popular, such as the first and second EULAR Recommendations sessions, a session on rheumatoid arthritis prevention, as well as the many presentations and sessions on digital health and nonpharmacologic interventions such as exercise. 

With over 5242 submitted abstracts, there is going to be no shortage of data being presented at EULAR 2024. Alongside the traditional abstract submission categories, this year there is a new clinical case reports category. 

“We had about 578 submissions for that category,” Dr. Dejaco said. There were 3315 abstracts submitted for the clinical research category, 812 for the basic and translational research category, 283 from health professionals in rheumatology, 152 from patient groups, and 102 in the field of pediatric rheumatology.
 

Join in On-Site, Watch on Demand 

EULAR 2024 reverts to an on-site–only meeting this year. Some of the more lighthearted yet educational elements of the program for those attending include the second edition of the EMEUNET Rheumatology Quiz and, new for this year, two escape rooms. These rooms will provide an interactive experience where small teams will have to solve rheumatologic conundrums in order to escape the room within the hour, Dr. Dejaco explained. There will also be a morning run on Friday, June 14. “It’s not a race, it’s simply to meet and run together,” Dr. Dejaco said. 

But if you cannot make the congress in person, the EULAR 2024 Livestream will be broadcasting throughout the congress. Anyone registered by June 30 will have on-demand access to the recorded content from June 17 until December 31, 2024. 

Abstracts for the meeting will be published as a supplement to Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the official journal of EULAR. 

Dr. Ospelt reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Dejaco has received consulting/speaker fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Sparrow, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Galapagos, and Sanofi.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do drugs work better if taken by the clock?

A new analysis published in The Lancet journal’s eClinicalMedicine suggests: Yes, they do — if you consider the patient’s individual body clock. The study is the first to find that timing blood pressure drugs to a person’s personal “chronotype” — that is, whether they are a night owl or an early bird — may reduce the risk for a heart attack.

The findings represent a significant advance in the field of circadian medicine or “chronotherapy” — timing drug administration to circadian rhythms. A growing stack of research suggests this approach could reduce side effects and improve the effectiveness of a wide range of therapies, including vaccines, cancer treatments, and drugs for depression, glaucoma, pain, seizures, and other conditions. Still, despite decades of research, time of day is rarely considered in writing prescriptions.

“We are really just at the beginning of an exciting new way of looking at patient care,” said Kenneth A. Dyar, PhD, whose lab at Helmholtz Zentrum München’s Institute for Diabetes and Cancer focuses on metabolic physiology. Dr. Dyar is co-lead author of the new blood pressure analysis.

“Chronotherapy is a rapidly growing field,” he said, “and I suspect we are soon going to see more and more studies focused on ‘personalized chronotherapy,’ not only in hypertension but also potentially in other clinical areas.”
 

The ‘Missing Piece’ in Chronotherapy Research

Blood pressure drugs have long been chronotherapy’s battleground. After all, blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm, peaking in the morning and dropping at night.

That healthy overnight dip can disappear in people with diabetes, kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea. Some physicians have suggested a bed-time dose to restore that dip. But studies have had mixed results, so “take at bedtime” has become a less common recommendation in recent years.

But the debate continued. After a large 2019 Spanish study found that bedtime doses had benefits so big that the results drew questions, an even larger, 2022 randomized, controlled trial from the University of Dundee in Dundee, Scotland — called the TIME study — aimed to settle the question.

Researchers assigned over 21,000 people to take morning or night hypertension drugs for several years and found no difference in cardiovascular outcomes.

“We did this study thinking nocturnal blood pressure tablets might be better,” said Thomas MacDonald, MD, professor emeritus of clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee and principal investigator for the TIME study and the recent chronotype analysis. “But there was no difference for heart attacks, strokes, or vascular death.”

So, the researchers then looked at participants’ chronotypes, sorting outcomes based on whether the participants were late-to-bed, late-to-rise “night owls” or early-to-bed, early-to-rise “morning larks.”

Their analysis of these 5358 TIME participants found the following results: Risk for hospitalization for a heart attack was at least 34% lower for “owls” who took their drugs at bedtime. By contrast, owls’ heart attack risk was at least 62% higher with morning doses. For “larks,” the opposite was true. Morning doses were associated with an 11% lower heart attack risk and night doses with an 11% higher risk, according to supplemental data.

The personalized approach could explain why some previous chronotherapy studies have failed to show a benefit. Those studies did not individualize drug timing as this one did. But personalization could be key to circadian medicine’s success.

“Our ‘internal personal time’ appears to be an important variable to consider when dosing antihypertensives,” said co-lead author Filippo Pigazzani, MD, PhD, clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Dundee School of Medicine. “Chronotherapy research has been going on for decades. We knew there was something important with time of day. But researchers haven’t considered the internal time of individual people. I think that is the missing piece.”

The analysis has several important limitations, the researchers said. A total of 95% of participants were White. And it was an observational study, not a true randomized comparison. “We started it late in the original TIME study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “You could argue we were reporting on those who survived long enough to get into the analysis.” More research is needed, they concluded.
 

Looking Beyond Blood Pressure

What about the rest of the body? “Almost all the cells of our body contain ‘circadian clocks’ that are synchronized by daily environmental cues, including light-dark, activity-rest, and feeding-fasting cycles,” said Dr. Dyar.

An estimated 50% of prescription drugs hit targets in the body that have circadian patterns. So, experts suspect that syncing a drug with a person’s body clock might increase effectiveness of many drugs.

A handful of US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs already have time-of-day recommendations on the label for effectiveness or to limit side effects, including bedtime or evening for the insomnia drug Ambien, the HIV antiviral Atripla, and cholesterol-lowering Zocor. Others are intended to be taken with or after your last meal of the day, such as the long-acting insulin Levemir and the cardiovascular drug Xarelto. A morning recommendation comes with the proton pump inhibitor Nexium and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drug Ritalin.

Interest is expanding. About one third of the papers published about chronotherapy in the past 25 years have come out in the past 5 years. The May 2024 meeting of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms featured a day-long session aimed at bringing clinicians up to speed. An organization called the International Association of Circadian Health Clinics is trying to bring circadian medicine findings to clinicians and their patients and to support research.

Moreover, while recent research suggests minding the clock could have benefits for a wide range of treatments, ignoring it could cause problems.

In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study published in April in Science Advances, researchers looked at engineered livers made from human donor cells and found more than 300 genes that operate on a circadian schedule, many with roles in drug metabolism. They also found that circadian patterns affected the toxicity of acetaminophen and atorvastatin. Identifying the time of day to take these drugs could maximize effectiveness and minimize adverse effects, the researchers said.
 

Timing and the Immune System

Circadian rhythms are also seen in immune processes. In a 2023 study in The Journal of Clinical Investigation of vaccine data from 1.5 million people in Israel, researchers found that children and older adults who got their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine earlier in the day were about 36% less likely to be hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection than those who got an evening shot.

“The sweet spot in our data was somewhere around late morning to late afternoon,” said lead researcher Jeffrey Haspel, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

In a multicenter, 2024 analysis of 13 studies of immunotherapy for advanced cancers in 1663 people, researchers found treatment earlier in the day was associated with longer survival time and longer survival without cancer progression.

“Patients with selected metastatic cancers seemed to largely benefit from early [time of day] infusions, which is consistent with circadian mechanisms in immune-cell functions and trafficking,” the researchers noted. But “retrospective randomized trials are needed to establish recommendations for optimal circadian timing.”

Other research suggests or is investigating possible chronotherapy benefits for depression, glaucoma, respiratory diseases, stroke treatment, epilepsy, and sedatives used in surgery. So why aren’t healthcare providers adding time of day to more prescriptions? “What’s missing is more reliable data,” Dr. Dyar said.
 

Should You Use Chronotherapy Now?

Experts emphasize that more research is needed before doctors use chronotherapy and before medical organizations include it in treatment recommendations. But for some patients, circadian dosing may be worth a try:

Night owls whose blood pressure isn’t well controlled. Dr. Dyar and Dr. Pigazzani said night-time blood pressure drugs may be helpful for people with a “late chronotype.” Of course, patients shouldn’t change their medication schedule on their own, they said. And doctors may want to consider other concerns, like more overnight bathroom visits with evening diuretics.

In their study, the researchers determined participants’ chronotype with a few questions from the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire about what time they fell asleep and woke up on workdays and days off and whether they considered themselves “morning types” or “evening types.” (The questions can be found in supplementary data for the study.)

If a physician thinks matching the timing of a dose with chronotype would help, they can consider it, Dr. Pigazzani said. “However, I must add that this was an observational study, so I would advise healthcare practitioners to wait for our data to be confirmed in new RCTs of personalized chronotherapy of hypertension.”

Children and older adults getting vaccines. Timing COVID shots and possibly other vaccines from late morning to mid-afternoon could have a small benefit for individuals and a bigger public-health benefit, Dr. Haspel said. But the most important thing is getting vaccinated. “If you can only get one in the evening, it’s still worthwhile. Timing may add oomph at a public-health level for more vulnerable groups.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do drugs work better if taken by the clock?

A new analysis published in The Lancet journal’s eClinicalMedicine suggests: Yes, they do — if you consider the patient’s individual body clock. The study is the first to find that timing blood pressure drugs to a person’s personal “chronotype” — that is, whether they are a night owl or an early bird — may reduce the risk for a heart attack.

The findings represent a significant advance in the field of circadian medicine or “chronotherapy” — timing drug administration to circadian rhythms. A growing stack of research suggests this approach could reduce side effects and improve the effectiveness of a wide range of therapies, including vaccines, cancer treatments, and drugs for depression, glaucoma, pain, seizures, and other conditions. Still, despite decades of research, time of day is rarely considered in writing prescriptions.

“We are really just at the beginning of an exciting new way of looking at patient care,” said Kenneth A. Dyar, PhD, whose lab at Helmholtz Zentrum München’s Institute for Diabetes and Cancer focuses on metabolic physiology. Dr. Dyar is co-lead author of the new blood pressure analysis.

“Chronotherapy is a rapidly growing field,” he said, “and I suspect we are soon going to see more and more studies focused on ‘personalized chronotherapy,’ not only in hypertension but also potentially in other clinical areas.”
 

The ‘Missing Piece’ in Chronotherapy Research

Blood pressure drugs have long been chronotherapy’s battleground. After all, blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm, peaking in the morning and dropping at night.

That healthy overnight dip can disappear in people with diabetes, kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea. Some physicians have suggested a bed-time dose to restore that dip. But studies have had mixed results, so “take at bedtime” has become a less common recommendation in recent years.

But the debate continued. After a large 2019 Spanish study found that bedtime doses had benefits so big that the results drew questions, an even larger, 2022 randomized, controlled trial from the University of Dundee in Dundee, Scotland — called the TIME study — aimed to settle the question.

Researchers assigned over 21,000 people to take morning or night hypertension drugs for several years and found no difference in cardiovascular outcomes.

“We did this study thinking nocturnal blood pressure tablets might be better,” said Thomas MacDonald, MD, professor emeritus of clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee and principal investigator for the TIME study and the recent chronotype analysis. “But there was no difference for heart attacks, strokes, or vascular death.”

So, the researchers then looked at participants’ chronotypes, sorting outcomes based on whether the participants were late-to-bed, late-to-rise “night owls” or early-to-bed, early-to-rise “morning larks.”

Their analysis of these 5358 TIME participants found the following results: Risk for hospitalization for a heart attack was at least 34% lower for “owls” who took their drugs at bedtime. By contrast, owls’ heart attack risk was at least 62% higher with morning doses. For “larks,” the opposite was true. Morning doses were associated with an 11% lower heart attack risk and night doses with an 11% higher risk, according to supplemental data.

The personalized approach could explain why some previous chronotherapy studies have failed to show a benefit. Those studies did not individualize drug timing as this one did. But personalization could be key to circadian medicine’s success.

“Our ‘internal personal time’ appears to be an important variable to consider when dosing antihypertensives,” said co-lead author Filippo Pigazzani, MD, PhD, clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Dundee School of Medicine. “Chronotherapy research has been going on for decades. We knew there was something important with time of day. But researchers haven’t considered the internal time of individual people. I think that is the missing piece.”

The analysis has several important limitations, the researchers said. A total of 95% of participants were White. And it was an observational study, not a true randomized comparison. “We started it late in the original TIME study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “You could argue we were reporting on those who survived long enough to get into the analysis.” More research is needed, they concluded.
 

Looking Beyond Blood Pressure

What about the rest of the body? “Almost all the cells of our body contain ‘circadian clocks’ that are synchronized by daily environmental cues, including light-dark, activity-rest, and feeding-fasting cycles,” said Dr. Dyar.

An estimated 50% of prescription drugs hit targets in the body that have circadian patterns. So, experts suspect that syncing a drug with a person’s body clock might increase effectiveness of many drugs.

A handful of US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs already have time-of-day recommendations on the label for effectiveness or to limit side effects, including bedtime or evening for the insomnia drug Ambien, the HIV antiviral Atripla, and cholesterol-lowering Zocor. Others are intended to be taken with or after your last meal of the day, such as the long-acting insulin Levemir and the cardiovascular drug Xarelto. A morning recommendation comes with the proton pump inhibitor Nexium and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drug Ritalin.

Interest is expanding. About one third of the papers published about chronotherapy in the past 25 years have come out in the past 5 years. The May 2024 meeting of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms featured a day-long session aimed at bringing clinicians up to speed. An organization called the International Association of Circadian Health Clinics is trying to bring circadian medicine findings to clinicians and their patients and to support research.

Moreover, while recent research suggests minding the clock could have benefits for a wide range of treatments, ignoring it could cause problems.

In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study published in April in Science Advances, researchers looked at engineered livers made from human donor cells and found more than 300 genes that operate on a circadian schedule, many with roles in drug metabolism. They also found that circadian patterns affected the toxicity of acetaminophen and atorvastatin. Identifying the time of day to take these drugs could maximize effectiveness and minimize adverse effects, the researchers said.
 

Timing and the Immune System

Circadian rhythms are also seen in immune processes. In a 2023 study in The Journal of Clinical Investigation of vaccine data from 1.5 million people in Israel, researchers found that children and older adults who got their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine earlier in the day were about 36% less likely to be hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection than those who got an evening shot.

“The sweet spot in our data was somewhere around late morning to late afternoon,” said lead researcher Jeffrey Haspel, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

In a multicenter, 2024 analysis of 13 studies of immunotherapy for advanced cancers in 1663 people, researchers found treatment earlier in the day was associated with longer survival time and longer survival without cancer progression.

“Patients with selected metastatic cancers seemed to largely benefit from early [time of day] infusions, which is consistent with circadian mechanisms in immune-cell functions and trafficking,” the researchers noted. But “retrospective randomized trials are needed to establish recommendations for optimal circadian timing.”

Other research suggests or is investigating possible chronotherapy benefits for depression, glaucoma, respiratory diseases, stroke treatment, epilepsy, and sedatives used in surgery. So why aren’t healthcare providers adding time of day to more prescriptions? “What’s missing is more reliable data,” Dr. Dyar said.
 

Should You Use Chronotherapy Now?

Experts emphasize that more research is needed before doctors use chronotherapy and before medical organizations include it in treatment recommendations. But for some patients, circadian dosing may be worth a try:

Night owls whose blood pressure isn’t well controlled. Dr. Dyar and Dr. Pigazzani said night-time blood pressure drugs may be helpful for people with a “late chronotype.” Of course, patients shouldn’t change their medication schedule on their own, they said. And doctors may want to consider other concerns, like more overnight bathroom visits with evening diuretics.

In their study, the researchers determined participants’ chronotype with a few questions from the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire about what time they fell asleep and woke up on workdays and days off and whether they considered themselves “morning types” or “evening types.” (The questions can be found in supplementary data for the study.)

If a physician thinks matching the timing of a dose with chronotype would help, they can consider it, Dr. Pigazzani said. “However, I must add that this was an observational study, so I would advise healthcare practitioners to wait for our data to be confirmed in new RCTs of personalized chronotherapy of hypertension.”

Children and older adults getting vaccines. Timing COVID shots and possibly other vaccines from late morning to mid-afternoon could have a small benefit for individuals and a bigger public-health benefit, Dr. Haspel said. But the most important thing is getting vaccinated. “If you can only get one in the evening, it’s still worthwhile. Timing may add oomph at a public-health level for more vulnerable groups.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do drugs work better if taken by the clock?

A new analysis published in The Lancet journal’s eClinicalMedicine suggests: Yes, they do — if you consider the patient’s individual body clock. The study is the first to find that timing blood pressure drugs to a person’s personal “chronotype” — that is, whether they are a night owl or an early bird — may reduce the risk for a heart attack.

The findings represent a significant advance in the field of circadian medicine or “chronotherapy” — timing drug administration to circadian rhythms. A growing stack of research suggests this approach could reduce side effects and improve the effectiveness of a wide range of therapies, including vaccines, cancer treatments, and drugs for depression, glaucoma, pain, seizures, and other conditions. Still, despite decades of research, time of day is rarely considered in writing prescriptions.

“We are really just at the beginning of an exciting new way of looking at patient care,” said Kenneth A. Dyar, PhD, whose lab at Helmholtz Zentrum München’s Institute for Diabetes and Cancer focuses on metabolic physiology. Dr. Dyar is co-lead author of the new blood pressure analysis.

“Chronotherapy is a rapidly growing field,” he said, “and I suspect we are soon going to see more and more studies focused on ‘personalized chronotherapy,’ not only in hypertension but also potentially in other clinical areas.”
 

The ‘Missing Piece’ in Chronotherapy Research

Blood pressure drugs have long been chronotherapy’s battleground. After all, blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm, peaking in the morning and dropping at night.

That healthy overnight dip can disappear in people with diabetes, kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea. Some physicians have suggested a bed-time dose to restore that dip. But studies have had mixed results, so “take at bedtime” has become a less common recommendation in recent years.

But the debate continued. After a large 2019 Spanish study found that bedtime doses had benefits so big that the results drew questions, an even larger, 2022 randomized, controlled trial from the University of Dundee in Dundee, Scotland — called the TIME study — aimed to settle the question.

Researchers assigned over 21,000 people to take morning or night hypertension drugs for several years and found no difference in cardiovascular outcomes.

“We did this study thinking nocturnal blood pressure tablets might be better,” said Thomas MacDonald, MD, professor emeritus of clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee and principal investigator for the TIME study and the recent chronotype analysis. “But there was no difference for heart attacks, strokes, or vascular death.”

So, the researchers then looked at participants’ chronotypes, sorting outcomes based on whether the participants were late-to-bed, late-to-rise “night owls” or early-to-bed, early-to-rise “morning larks.”

Their analysis of these 5358 TIME participants found the following results: Risk for hospitalization for a heart attack was at least 34% lower for “owls” who took their drugs at bedtime. By contrast, owls’ heart attack risk was at least 62% higher with morning doses. For “larks,” the opposite was true. Morning doses were associated with an 11% lower heart attack risk and night doses with an 11% higher risk, according to supplemental data.

The personalized approach could explain why some previous chronotherapy studies have failed to show a benefit. Those studies did not individualize drug timing as this one did. But personalization could be key to circadian medicine’s success.

“Our ‘internal personal time’ appears to be an important variable to consider when dosing antihypertensives,” said co-lead author Filippo Pigazzani, MD, PhD, clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Dundee School of Medicine. “Chronotherapy research has been going on for decades. We knew there was something important with time of day. But researchers haven’t considered the internal time of individual people. I think that is the missing piece.”

The analysis has several important limitations, the researchers said. A total of 95% of participants were White. And it was an observational study, not a true randomized comparison. “We started it late in the original TIME study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “You could argue we were reporting on those who survived long enough to get into the analysis.” More research is needed, they concluded.
 

Looking Beyond Blood Pressure

What about the rest of the body? “Almost all the cells of our body contain ‘circadian clocks’ that are synchronized by daily environmental cues, including light-dark, activity-rest, and feeding-fasting cycles,” said Dr. Dyar.

An estimated 50% of prescription drugs hit targets in the body that have circadian patterns. So, experts suspect that syncing a drug with a person’s body clock might increase effectiveness of many drugs.

A handful of US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs already have time-of-day recommendations on the label for effectiveness or to limit side effects, including bedtime or evening for the insomnia drug Ambien, the HIV antiviral Atripla, and cholesterol-lowering Zocor. Others are intended to be taken with or after your last meal of the day, such as the long-acting insulin Levemir and the cardiovascular drug Xarelto. A morning recommendation comes with the proton pump inhibitor Nexium and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drug Ritalin.

Interest is expanding. About one third of the papers published about chronotherapy in the past 25 years have come out in the past 5 years. The May 2024 meeting of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms featured a day-long session aimed at bringing clinicians up to speed. An organization called the International Association of Circadian Health Clinics is trying to bring circadian medicine findings to clinicians and their patients and to support research.

Moreover, while recent research suggests minding the clock could have benefits for a wide range of treatments, ignoring it could cause problems.

In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study published in April in Science Advances, researchers looked at engineered livers made from human donor cells and found more than 300 genes that operate on a circadian schedule, many with roles in drug metabolism. They also found that circadian patterns affected the toxicity of acetaminophen and atorvastatin. Identifying the time of day to take these drugs could maximize effectiveness and minimize adverse effects, the researchers said.
 

Timing and the Immune System

Circadian rhythms are also seen in immune processes. In a 2023 study in The Journal of Clinical Investigation of vaccine data from 1.5 million people in Israel, researchers found that children and older adults who got their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine earlier in the day were about 36% less likely to be hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection than those who got an evening shot.

“The sweet spot in our data was somewhere around late morning to late afternoon,” said lead researcher Jeffrey Haspel, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

In a multicenter, 2024 analysis of 13 studies of immunotherapy for advanced cancers in 1663 people, researchers found treatment earlier in the day was associated with longer survival time and longer survival without cancer progression.

“Patients with selected metastatic cancers seemed to largely benefit from early [time of day] infusions, which is consistent with circadian mechanisms in immune-cell functions and trafficking,” the researchers noted. But “retrospective randomized trials are needed to establish recommendations for optimal circadian timing.”

Other research suggests or is investigating possible chronotherapy benefits for depression, glaucoma, respiratory diseases, stroke treatment, epilepsy, and sedatives used in surgery. So why aren’t healthcare providers adding time of day to more prescriptions? “What’s missing is more reliable data,” Dr. Dyar said.
 

Should You Use Chronotherapy Now?

Experts emphasize that more research is needed before doctors use chronotherapy and before medical organizations include it in treatment recommendations. But for some patients, circadian dosing may be worth a try:

Night owls whose blood pressure isn’t well controlled. Dr. Dyar and Dr. Pigazzani said night-time blood pressure drugs may be helpful for people with a “late chronotype.” Of course, patients shouldn’t change their medication schedule on their own, they said. And doctors may want to consider other concerns, like more overnight bathroom visits with evening diuretics.

In their study, the researchers determined participants’ chronotype with a few questions from the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire about what time they fell asleep and woke up on workdays and days off and whether they considered themselves “morning types” or “evening types.” (The questions can be found in supplementary data for the study.)

If a physician thinks matching the timing of a dose with chronotype would help, they can consider it, Dr. Pigazzani said. “However, I must add that this was an observational study, so I would advise healthcare practitioners to wait for our data to be confirmed in new RCTs of personalized chronotherapy of hypertension.”

Children and older adults getting vaccines. Timing COVID shots and possibly other vaccines from late morning to mid-afternoon could have a small benefit for individuals and a bigger public-health benefit, Dr. Haspel said. But the most important thing is getting vaccinated. “If you can only get one in the evening, it’s still worthwhile. Timing may add oomph at a public-health level for more vulnerable groups.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When doctors and patients consider the appendix, it’s often with urgency. In cases of appendicitis, the clock could be ticking down to a life-threatening burst. Thus, despite recent research suggesting antibiotics could be an alternative therapy, appendectomy remains standard for uncomplicated appendicitis.

But what if removing the appendix could raise the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) diseases like irritable bowel syndrome and colorectal cancer? That’s what some emerging science suggests. And though the research is early and mixed, it’s enough to give some health professionals pause.

“If there’s no reason to remove the appendix, then it’s better to have one,” said Heather Smith, PhD, a comparative anatomist at Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona. Preemptive removal is not supported by the evidence, she said.

To be fair, we’ve come a long way since 1928, when American physician Miles Breuer, MD, suggested that people with infected appendixes should be left to perish, so as to remove their inferior DNA from the gene pool (he called such people “uncivilized” and “candidates for extinction”). Charles Darwin, while less radical, believed the appendix was at best useless — a mere vestige of our ancestors switching diets from leaves to fruits.

What we know now is that the appendix isn’t just a troublesome piece of worthless flesh. Instead, it may act as a safe house for friendly gut bacteria and a training camp for the immune system. It also appears to play a role in several medical conditions, from ulcerative colitis and colorectal cancer to Parkinson’s disease and lupus. The roughly 300,000 Americans who undergo appendectomy each year should be made aware of this, some experts say. But the frustrating truth is, scientists are still trying to figure out in which cases having an appendix is protective and in which we may be better off without it.
 

A ‘Worm’ as Intestinal Protection

The appendix is a blind pouch (meaning its ending is closed off) that extends from the large intestine. Not all mammals have one; it’s been found in several species of primates and rodents, as well as in rabbits, wombats, and Florida manatees, among others (dogs and cats don’t have it). While a human appendix “looks like a little worm,” Dr. Smith said, these anatomical structures come in various sizes and shapes. Some are thick, as in a beaver, while others are long and spiraling, like a rabbit’s.

Comparative anatomy studies reveal that the appendix has evolved independently at least 29 times throughout mammalian evolution. This suggests that “it has some kind of an adaptive function,” Dr. Smith said. When French scientists analyzed data from 258 species of mammals, they discovered that those that possess an appendix live longer than those without one. A possible explanation, the researchers wrote, may lie with the appendix’s role in preventing diarrhea.

Their 2023 study supported this hypothesis. Based on veterinary records of 45 different species of primates housed in a French zoo, the scientists established that primates with appendixes are far less likely to suffer severe diarrhea than those that don’t possess this organ. The appendix, it appears, might be our tiny weapon against bowel troubles.

For immunologist William Parker, PhD, a visiting scholar at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, these data are “about as good as we could hope for” in support of the idea that the appendix might protect mammals from GI problems. An experiment on humans would be unethical, Dr. Parker said. But observational studies offer clues.

One study showed that compared with people with an intact appendix, young adults with a history of appendectomy have more than double the risk of developing a serious infection with non-typhoidal Salmonella of the kind that would require hospitalization.
 

A ‘Safe House’ for Bacteria

Such studies add weight to a theory that Dr. Parker and his colleagues developed back in 2007: That the appendix acts as a “safe house” for beneficial gut bacteria.

Think of the colon as a wide pipe, Dr. Parker said, that may become contaminated with a pathogen such as Salmonella. Diarrhea follows, and the pipe gets repeatedly flushed, wiping everything clean, including your friendly gut microbiome. Luckily, “you’ve got this little offshoot of that pipe,” where the flow can’t really get in “because it’s so constricted,” Dr. Parker said. The friendly gut microbes can survive inside the appendix and repopulate the colon once diarrhea is over. Dr. Parker and his colleagues found that the human appendix contains a thick layer of beneficial bacteria. “They were right where we predicted they would be,” he said.

This safe house hypothesis could explain why the gut microbiome may be different in people who no longer have an appendix. In one small study, people who’d had an appendectomy had a less diverse microbiome, with a lower abundance of beneficial strains such as Butyricicoccus and Barnesiella, than did those with intact appendixes.

The appendix likely has a second function, too, Dr. Smith said: It may serve as a training camp for the immune system. “When there is an invading pathogen in the gut, it helps the GI system to mount the immune response,” she said. The human appendix is rich in special cells known as M cells. These act as scouts, detecting and capturing invasive bacteria and viruses and presenting them to the body’s defense team, such as the T lymphocytes.

If the appendix shelters beneficial bacteria and boosts immune response, that may explain its links to various diseases. According to an epidemiological study from Taiwan,patients who underwent an appendectomy have a 46% higher risk of developing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) — a disease associated with a low abundance of Butyricicoccus bacteria. This is why, the study authors wrote, doctors should pay careful attention to people who’ve had their appendixes removed, monitoring them for potential symptoms of IBS.

The same database helped uncover other connections between appendectomy and disease. For one, there was type 2 diabetes: Within 3 years of the surgery, patients under 30 had double the risk of developing this disorder. Then there was lupus: While those who underwent appendectomy generally had higher risk for this autoimmune disease, women were particularly affected.
 

The Contentious Connections

The most heated scientific discussion surrounds the links between the appendix and conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and colorectal cancer. A small 2019 study showed, for example, that appendectomy may improve symptoms of certain forms of ulcerative colitis that don’t respond to standard medical treatments. A third of patients improved after their appendix was removed, and 17% fully recovered.

Why? According to Dr. Parker, appendectomy may work for ulcerative colitis because it’s “a way of suppressing the immune system, especially in the lower intestinal areas.” A 2023 meta-analysis found that people who’d had their appendix removed before being diagnosed with ulcerative colitis were less likely to need their colon removed later on.

Such a procedure may have a serious side effect, however: Colorectal cancer. French scientists discovered that removing the appendix may reduce the numbers of certain immune cells called CD3+ and CD8+ T cells, causing a weakened immune surveillance. As a result, tumor cells might escape detection.

Yet the links between appendix removal and cancer are far from clear. A recent meta-analysis found that while people with appendectomies generally had a higher risk for colorectal cancer, for Europeans, these effects were insignificant. In fact, removal of the appendix actually protected European women from this particular form of cancer. For Parker, such mixed results may stem from the fact that treatments and populations vary widely. The issue “may depend on complex social and medical factors,” Dr. Parker said.

Things also appear complicated with Parkinson’s disease — another condition linked to the appendix. A large epidemiological study showed that appendectomy is associated with a lower risk for Parkinson’s disease and a delayed age of Parkinson’s onset. It also found that a normal appendix contains α-synuclein, a protein that may accumulate in the brain and contribute to the development of Parkinson’s. “Although α-synuclein is toxic when in the brain, it appears to be quite normal when present in the appendix,” said Luis Vitetta, PhD, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia. Yet, not all studies find that removing the appendix lowers the risk for Parkinson’s. In fact, some show the opposite results.
 

How Should Doctors View the Appendix?

Even with these mysteries and contradictions, Dr. Vitetta said, a healthy appendix in a healthy body appears to be protective. This is why, he said, when someone is diagnosed with appendicitis, careful assessment is essential before surgery is performed.

“Perhaps an antibiotic can actually help fix it,” he said. A 2020 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine showed that antibiotics may indeed be a good alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. “We don’t want necessarily to remove an appendix that could be beneficial,” Dr. Smith said.

The many links between the appendix and various diseases mean that doctors should be more vigilant when treating patients who’ve had this organ removed, Dr. Parker said. “When a patient loses an appendix, depending on their environment, there may be effects on infection and cancer. So they might need more regular checkups,” he said. This could include monitoring for IBS and colorectal cancer.

What’s more, Dr. Parker believes that research on the appendix puts even more emphasis on the need to protect the gut microbiome — such as taking probiotics with antibiotics. And while we are still a long way from understanding how exactly this worm-like structure affects various diseases, one thing appears quite certain: The appendix is not useless. “If Darwin had the information that we have, he would not have drawn these conclusions,” Dr. Parker said.
 

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

When doctors and patients consider the appendix, it’s often with urgency. In cases of appendicitis, the clock could be ticking down to a life-threatening burst. Thus, despite recent research suggesting antibiotics could be an alternative therapy, appendectomy remains standard for uncomplicated appendicitis.

But what if removing the appendix could raise the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) diseases like irritable bowel syndrome and colorectal cancer? That’s what some emerging science suggests. And though the research is early and mixed, it’s enough to give some health professionals pause.

“If there’s no reason to remove the appendix, then it’s better to have one,” said Heather Smith, PhD, a comparative anatomist at Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona. Preemptive removal is not supported by the evidence, she said.

To be fair, we’ve come a long way since 1928, when American physician Miles Breuer, MD, suggested that people with infected appendixes should be left to perish, so as to remove their inferior DNA from the gene pool (he called such people “uncivilized” and “candidates for extinction”). Charles Darwin, while less radical, believed the appendix was at best useless — a mere vestige of our ancestors switching diets from leaves to fruits.

What we know now is that the appendix isn’t just a troublesome piece of worthless flesh. Instead, it may act as a safe house for friendly gut bacteria and a training camp for the immune system. It also appears to play a role in several medical conditions, from ulcerative colitis and colorectal cancer to Parkinson’s disease and lupus. The roughly 300,000 Americans who undergo appendectomy each year should be made aware of this, some experts say. But the frustrating truth is, scientists are still trying to figure out in which cases having an appendix is protective and in which we may be better off without it.
 

A ‘Worm’ as Intestinal Protection

The appendix is a blind pouch (meaning its ending is closed off) that extends from the large intestine. Not all mammals have one; it’s been found in several species of primates and rodents, as well as in rabbits, wombats, and Florida manatees, among others (dogs and cats don’t have it). While a human appendix “looks like a little worm,” Dr. Smith said, these anatomical structures come in various sizes and shapes. Some are thick, as in a beaver, while others are long and spiraling, like a rabbit’s.

Comparative anatomy studies reveal that the appendix has evolved independently at least 29 times throughout mammalian evolution. This suggests that “it has some kind of an adaptive function,” Dr. Smith said. When French scientists analyzed data from 258 species of mammals, they discovered that those that possess an appendix live longer than those without one. A possible explanation, the researchers wrote, may lie with the appendix’s role in preventing diarrhea.

Their 2023 study supported this hypothesis. Based on veterinary records of 45 different species of primates housed in a French zoo, the scientists established that primates with appendixes are far less likely to suffer severe diarrhea than those that don’t possess this organ. The appendix, it appears, might be our tiny weapon against bowel troubles.

For immunologist William Parker, PhD, a visiting scholar at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, these data are “about as good as we could hope for” in support of the idea that the appendix might protect mammals from GI problems. An experiment on humans would be unethical, Dr. Parker said. But observational studies offer clues.

One study showed that compared with people with an intact appendix, young adults with a history of appendectomy have more than double the risk of developing a serious infection with non-typhoidal Salmonella of the kind that would require hospitalization.
 

A ‘Safe House’ for Bacteria

Such studies add weight to a theory that Dr. Parker and his colleagues developed back in 2007: That the appendix acts as a “safe house” for beneficial gut bacteria.

Think of the colon as a wide pipe, Dr. Parker said, that may become contaminated with a pathogen such as Salmonella. Diarrhea follows, and the pipe gets repeatedly flushed, wiping everything clean, including your friendly gut microbiome. Luckily, “you’ve got this little offshoot of that pipe,” where the flow can’t really get in “because it’s so constricted,” Dr. Parker said. The friendly gut microbes can survive inside the appendix and repopulate the colon once diarrhea is over. Dr. Parker and his colleagues found that the human appendix contains a thick layer of beneficial bacteria. “They were right where we predicted they would be,” he said.

This safe house hypothesis could explain why the gut microbiome may be different in people who no longer have an appendix. In one small study, people who’d had an appendectomy had a less diverse microbiome, with a lower abundance of beneficial strains such as Butyricicoccus and Barnesiella, than did those with intact appendixes.

The appendix likely has a second function, too, Dr. Smith said: It may serve as a training camp for the immune system. “When there is an invading pathogen in the gut, it helps the GI system to mount the immune response,” she said. The human appendix is rich in special cells known as M cells. These act as scouts, detecting and capturing invasive bacteria and viruses and presenting them to the body’s defense team, such as the T lymphocytes.

If the appendix shelters beneficial bacteria and boosts immune response, that may explain its links to various diseases. According to an epidemiological study from Taiwan,patients who underwent an appendectomy have a 46% higher risk of developing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) — a disease associated with a low abundance of Butyricicoccus bacteria. This is why, the study authors wrote, doctors should pay careful attention to people who’ve had their appendixes removed, monitoring them for potential symptoms of IBS.

The same database helped uncover other connections between appendectomy and disease. For one, there was type 2 diabetes: Within 3 years of the surgery, patients under 30 had double the risk of developing this disorder. Then there was lupus: While those who underwent appendectomy generally had higher risk for this autoimmune disease, women were particularly affected.
 

The Contentious Connections

The most heated scientific discussion surrounds the links between the appendix and conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and colorectal cancer. A small 2019 study showed, for example, that appendectomy may improve symptoms of certain forms of ulcerative colitis that don’t respond to standard medical treatments. A third of patients improved after their appendix was removed, and 17% fully recovered.

Why? According to Dr. Parker, appendectomy may work for ulcerative colitis because it’s “a way of suppressing the immune system, especially in the lower intestinal areas.” A 2023 meta-analysis found that people who’d had their appendix removed before being diagnosed with ulcerative colitis were less likely to need their colon removed later on.

Such a procedure may have a serious side effect, however: Colorectal cancer. French scientists discovered that removing the appendix may reduce the numbers of certain immune cells called CD3+ and CD8+ T cells, causing a weakened immune surveillance. As a result, tumor cells might escape detection.

Yet the links between appendix removal and cancer are far from clear. A recent meta-analysis found that while people with appendectomies generally had a higher risk for colorectal cancer, for Europeans, these effects were insignificant. In fact, removal of the appendix actually protected European women from this particular form of cancer. For Parker, such mixed results may stem from the fact that treatments and populations vary widely. The issue “may depend on complex social and medical factors,” Dr. Parker said.

Things also appear complicated with Parkinson’s disease — another condition linked to the appendix. A large epidemiological study showed that appendectomy is associated with a lower risk for Parkinson’s disease and a delayed age of Parkinson’s onset. It also found that a normal appendix contains α-synuclein, a protein that may accumulate in the brain and contribute to the development of Parkinson’s. “Although α-synuclein is toxic when in the brain, it appears to be quite normal when present in the appendix,” said Luis Vitetta, PhD, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia. Yet, not all studies find that removing the appendix lowers the risk for Parkinson’s. In fact, some show the opposite results.
 

How Should Doctors View the Appendix?

Even with these mysteries and contradictions, Dr. Vitetta said, a healthy appendix in a healthy body appears to be protective. This is why, he said, when someone is diagnosed with appendicitis, careful assessment is essential before surgery is performed.

“Perhaps an antibiotic can actually help fix it,” he said. A 2020 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine showed that antibiotics may indeed be a good alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. “We don’t want necessarily to remove an appendix that could be beneficial,” Dr. Smith said.

The many links between the appendix and various diseases mean that doctors should be more vigilant when treating patients who’ve had this organ removed, Dr. Parker said. “When a patient loses an appendix, depending on their environment, there may be effects on infection and cancer. So they might need more regular checkups,” he said. This could include monitoring for IBS and colorectal cancer.

What’s more, Dr. Parker believes that research on the appendix puts even more emphasis on the need to protect the gut microbiome — such as taking probiotics with antibiotics. And while we are still a long way from understanding how exactly this worm-like structure affects various diseases, one thing appears quite certain: The appendix is not useless. “If Darwin had the information that we have, he would not have drawn these conclusions,” Dr. Parker said.
 

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

When doctors and patients consider the appendix, it’s often with urgency. In cases of appendicitis, the clock could be ticking down to a life-threatening burst. Thus, despite recent research suggesting antibiotics could be an alternative therapy, appendectomy remains standard for uncomplicated appendicitis.

But what if removing the appendix could raise the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) diseases like irritable bowel syndrome and colorectal cancer? That’s what some emerging science suggests. And though the research is early and mixed, it’s enough to give some health professionals pause.

“If there’s no reason to remove the appendix, then it’s better to have one,” said Heather Smith, PhD, a comparative anatomist at Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona. Preemptive removal is not supported by the evidence, she said.

To be fair, we’ve come a long way since 1928, when American physician Miles Breuer, MD, suggested that people with infected appendixes should be left to perish, so as to remove their inferior DNA from the gene pool (he called such people “uncivilized” and “candidates for extinction”). Charles Darwin, while less radical, believed the appendix was at best useless — a mere vestige of our ancestors switching diets from leaves to fruits.

What we know now is that the appendix isn’t just a troublesome piece of worthless flesh. Instead, it may act as a safe house for friendly gut bacteria and a training camp for the immune system. It also appears to play a role in several medical conditions, from ulcerative colitis and colorectal cancer to Parkinson’s disease and lupus. The roughly 300,000 Americans who undergo appendectomy each year should be made aware of this, some experts say. But the frustrating truth is, scientists are still trying to figure out in which cases having an appendix is protective and in which we may be better off without it.
 

A ‘Worm’ as Intestinal Protection

The appendix is a blind pouch (meaning its ending is closed off) that extends from the large intestine. Not all mammals have one; it’s been found in several species of primates and rodents, as well as in rabbits, wombats, and Florida manatees, among others (dogs and cats don’t have it). While a human appendix “looks like a little worm,” Dr. Smith said, these anatomical structures come in various sizes and shapes. Some are thick, as in a beaver, while others are long and spiraling, like a rabbit’s.

Comparative anatomy studies reveal that the appendix has evolved independently at least 29 times throughout mammalian evolution. This suggests that “it has some kind of an adaptive function,” Dr. Smith said. When French scientists analyzed data from 258 species of mammals, they discovered that those that possess an appendix live longer than those without one. A possible explanation, the researchers wrote, may lie with the appendix’s role in preventing diarrhea.

Their 2023 study supported this hypothesis. Based on veterinary records of 45 different species of primates housed in a French zoo, the scientists established that primates with appendixes are far less likely to suffer severe diarrhea than those that don’t possess this organ. The appendix, it appears, might be our tiny weapon against bowel troubles.

For immunologist William Parker, PhD, a visiting scholar at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, these data are “about as good as we could hope for” in support of the idea that the appendix might protect mammals from GI problems. An experiment on humans would be unethical, Dr. Parker said. But observational studies offer clues.

One study showed that compared with people with an intact appendix, young adults with a history of appendectomy have more than double the risk of developing a serious infection with non-typhoidal Salmonella of the kind that would require hospitalization.
 

A ‘Safe House’ for Bacteria

Such studies add weight to a theory that Dr. Parker and his colleagues developed back in 2007: That the appendix acts as a “safe house” for beneficial gut bacteria.

Think of the colon as a wide pipe, Dr. Parker said, that may become contaminated with a pathogen such as Salmonella. Diarrhea follows, and the pipe gets repeatedly flushed, wiping everything clean, including your friendly gut microbiome. Luckily, “you’ve got this little offshoot of that pipe,” where the flow can’t really get in “because it’s so constricted,” Dr. Parker said. The friendly gut microbes can survive inside the appendix and repopulate the colon once diarrhea is over. Dr. Parker and his colleagues found that the human appendix contains a thick layer of beneficial bacteria. “They were right where we predicted they would be,” he said.

This safe house hypothesis could explain why the gut microbiome may be different in people who no longer have an appendix. In one small study, people who’d had an appendectomy had a less diverse microbiome, with a lower abundance of beneficial strains such as Butyricicoccus and Barnesiella, than did those with intact appendixes.

The appendix likely has a second function, too, Dr. Smith said: It may serve as a training camp for the immune system. “When there is an invading pathogen in the gut, it helps the GI system to mount the immune response,” she said. The human appendix is rich in special cells known as M cells. These act as scouts, detecting and capturing invasive bacteria and viruses and presenting them to the body’s defense team, such as the T lymphocytes.

If the appendix shelters beneficial bacteria and boosts immune response, that may explain its links to various diseases. According to an epidemiological study from Taiwan,patients who underwent an appendectomy have a 46% higher risk of developing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) — a disease associated with a low abundance of Butyricicoccus bacteria. This is why, the study authors wrote, doctors should pay careful attention to people who’ve had their appendixes removed, monitoring them for potential symptoms of IBS.

The same database helped uncover other connections between appendectomy and disease. For one, there was type 2 diabetes: Within 3 years of the surgery, patients under 30 had double the risk of developing this disorder. Then there was lupus: While those who underwent appendectomy generally had higher risk for this autoimmune disease, women were particularly affected.