Rheumatology News

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved sotatercept (Winrevair, Merck), for the treatment of adults with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), World Health Organization (WHO) Group 1, to increase exercise capacity, improve WHO functional class, and reduce the risk for clinical worsening events.

Sotatercept, which had breakthrough therapy designation, is a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor that works by improving the balance between pro- and antiproliferative signaling to regulate the vascular cell proliferation that underlies PAH.

“Sotatercept added to background therapy has the potential to become a new standard-of-care option for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension,” added coinvestigator Aaron B. Waxman, MD, PhD, executive director of the Center for Pulmonary Heart Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The approval was based on results of the phase 3 STELLAR study, a global, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, parallel-group clinical trial in which, 323 patients with PAH (WHO Group 1, functional class II or III) were randomly assigned 1:1 to add sotatercept or placebo to stable background therapy.

The results showed that sotatercept, administered subcutaneously every 3 weeks for 24 weeks, improved average 6-minute walk distance from baseline by a significant and clinically meaningful 40.8 meters compared with placebo for the trial’s primary efficacy endpoint (P < .001).

Sotatercept also led to significant improvement in multiple secondary outcome measures, including:

• Reduction in the risk for death from any cause or PAH clinical worsening events by 84% vs background therapy alone (number of events: 9 vs 42; hazard ratio [HR], 0.16; P < .001) 
• Improvement in FC from baseline at 24 weeks in 29% of patients compared with 14% of patients treated with placebo (P < .001) 
• Improvement in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR), with an average 235 dyn/sec/cm⁵ reduction in PVR from baseline (P < .001) 
• Improvement from baseline in N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels. The median treatment difference in NT-proBNP between sotatercept and placebo was -442 pg/mL (P < .001) 

The results were reported last year at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, with simultaneous publication in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

Sotatercept injection may be administered by patients or caregivers with guidance, training, and follow-up from a healthcare provider. The recommended starting dose is 0.3 mg/kg. The recommended target dose is 0.7 mg/kg every 3 weeks.

Sotatercept may increase hemoglobin, may lead to erythrocytosis, and may decrease platelet count and lead to severe thrombocytopenia. Treatment should not be initiated if platelet count is < 50,000/mm³. 

Hemoglobin and platelets should be monitored before each dose of sotatercept for the first five doses, or longer if values are unstable, and periodically thereafter to determine if dose adjustments are required. 

Full prescribing information is available online. 

Merck estimates that sotatercept will be available for dispensing by select specialty pharmacies in the United States by the end of April 2024.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved sotatercept (Winrevair, Merck), for the treatment of adults with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), World Health Organization (WHO) Group 1, to increase exercise capacity, improve WHO functional class, and reduce the risk for clinical worsening events.

Sotatercept, which had breakthrough therapy designation, is a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor that works by improving the balance between pro- and antiproliferative signaling to regulate the vascular cell proliferation that underlies PAH.

“Sotatercept added to background therapy has the potential to become a new standard-of-care option for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension,” added coinvestigator Aaron B. Waxman, MD, PhD, executive director of the Center for Pulmonary Heart Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The approval was based on results of the phase 3 STELLAR study, a global, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, parallel-group clinical trial in which, 323 patients with PAH (WHO Group 1, functional class II or III) were randomly assigned 1:1 to add sotatercept or placebo to stable background therapy.

The results showed that sotatercept, administered subcutaneously every 3 weeks for 24 weeks, improved average 6-minute walk distance from baseline by a significant and clinically meaningful 40.8 meters compared with placebo for the trial’s primary efficacy endpoint (P < .001).

Sotatercept also led to significant improvement in multiple secondary outcome measures, including:

• Reduction in the risk for death from any cause or PAH clinical worsening events by 84% vs background therapy alone (number of events: 9 vs 42; hazard ratio [HR], 0.16; P < .001) 
• Improvement in FC from baseline at 24 weeks in 29% of patients compared with 14% of patients treated with placebo (P < .001) 
• Improvement in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR), with an average 235 dyn/sec/cm⁵ reduction in PVR from baseline (P < .001) 
• Improvement from baseline in N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels. The median treatment difference in NT-proBNP between sotatercept and placebo was -442 pg/mL (P < .001) 

The results were reported last year at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, with simultaneous publication in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

Sotatercept injection may be administered by patients or caregivers with guidance, training, and follow-up from a healthcare provider. The recommended starting dose is 0.3 mg/kg. The recommended target dose is 0.7 mg/kg every 3 weeks.

Sotatercept may increase hemoglobin, may lead to erythrocytosis, and may decrease platelet count and lead to severe thrombocytopenia. Treatment should not be initiated if platelet count is < 50,000/mm³. 

Hemoglobin and platelets should be monitored before each dose of sotatercept for the first five doses, or longer if values are unstable, and periodically thereafter to determine if dose adjustments are required. 

Full prescribing information is available online. 

Merck estimates that sotatercept will be available for dispensing by select specialty pharmacies in the United States by the end of April 2024.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved sotatercept (Winrevair, Merck), for the treatment of adults with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), World Health Organization (WHO) Group 1, to increase exercise capacity, improve WHO functional class, and reduce the risk for clinical worsening events.

Sotatercept, which had breakthrough therapy designation, is a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor that works by improving the balance between pro- and antiproliferative signaling to regulate the vascular cell proliferation that underlies PAH.

“Sotatercept added to background therapy has the potential to become a new standard-of-care option for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension,” added coinvestigator Aaron B. Waxman, MD, PhD, executive director of the Center for Pulmonary Heart Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The approval was based on results of the phase 3 STELLAR study, a global, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, parallel-group clinical trial in which, 323 patients with PAH (WHO Group 1, functional class II or III) were randomly assigned 1:1 to add sotatercept or placebo to stable background therapy.

The results showed that sotatercept, administered subcutaneously every 3 weeks for 24 weeks, improved average 6-minute walk distance from baseline by a significant and clinically meaningful 40.8 meters compared with placebo for the trial’s primary efficacy endpoint (P < .001).

Sotatercept also led to significant improvement in multiple secondary outcome measures, including:

• Reduction in the risk for death from any cause or PAH clinical worsening events by 84% vs background therapy alone (number of events: 9 vs 42; hazard ratio [HR], 0.16; P < .001) 
• Improvement in FC from baseline at 24 weeks in 29% of patients compared with 14% of patients treated with placebo (P < .001) 
• Improvement in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR), with an average 235 dyn/sec/cm⁵ reduction in PVR from baseline (P < .001) 
• Improvement from baseline in N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels. The median treatment difference in NT-proBNP between sotatercept and placebo was -442 pg/mL (P < .001) 

The results were reported last year at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, with simultaneous publication in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

Sotatercept injection may be administered by patients or caregivers with guidance, training, and follow-up from a healthcare provider. The recommended starting dose is 0.3 mg/kg. The recommended target dose is 0.7 mg/kg every 3 weeks.

Sotatercept may increase hemoglobin, may lead to erythrocytosis, and may decrease platelet count and lead to severe thrombocytopenia. Treatment should not be initiated if platelet count is < 50,000/mm³. 

Hemoglobin and platelets should be monitored before each dose of sotatercept for the first five doses, or longer if values are unstable, and periodically thereafter to determine if dose adjustments are required. 

Full prescribing information is available online. 

Merck estimates that sotatercept will be available for dispensing by select specialty pharmacies in the United States by the end of April 2024.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Starting an exercise regimen with others can be a powerful fitness motivator, and new research spotlights the strategy’s particular importance for older adults.

In a randomized clinical trial published in JAMA Network Open, older adults who talked with peers about their exercise program were able to increase and sustain physical activity levels much better than those who focused on self-motivation and setting fitness goals.

Such self-focused — or “intrapersonal” — strategies tend to be more common in health and fitness than interactive, or “interpersonal,” ones, the study authors noted. Yet, research on their effectiveness is limited. Historically, intrapersonal strategies have been studied as part of a bundle of behavioral change strategies — a common limitation in research — making it difficult to discern their individual value.

“We’re not saying that intrapersonal strategies should not be used,” said study author Siobhan McMahon, PhD, associate professor and codirector of the Center on Aging Science and Care at the University of Minnesota, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, “but this study shows that interpersonal strategies are really important.”

Low physical activity among older adults is linked with “disability, difficulty managing chronic conditions, and increased falls and related injuries,” the authors wrote. Exercise can be the antidote, yet fewer than 16% of older adults meet the recommended guidelines (150 minutes of moderate aerobic activity and two muscle-strengthening sessions per week).

The study builds on previous research that suggests interpersonal strategies could help change that by encouraging more older adults to move.
 

Intrapersonal vs Interpersonal Behavior Change Strategies

More than 300 participants aged 70 years and older who did not meet physical activity guidelines were given a wearable fitness tracker and an exercise program and randomly split into four groups:

• One using intrapersonal behavior change strategies
• Another using interpersonal strategies
• A group combining both intrapersonal and interpersonal strategies
• A control group that received neither intervention

For 8 weeks, all participants exercised in meet-ups and discussed their progress in their groups. Afterward, they were left to their own devices and monitored for the remainder of the year.

“The intrapersonal strategies group involved personal reflection,” said Dr. McMahon. They set personal goals (increasing daily step count or exercise repetitions) and developed action plans for implementing physical activity into their daily routines.

“The interpersonal group involved more peer-to-peer conversation, collaborative learning, and sharing,” said Dr. McMahon. Participants talked among themselves about how they could sustain doing the prescribed exercises at home. “Through those conversations, they learned and experimented,” Dr. McMahon said. They problem-solved, determining what barriers might stop them from exercising and brainstorming ways around them.

The researchers evaluated the participants after 1 week, 6 months, and 12 months. The interpersonal group exhibited significant increases in physical activity — including light, moderate, and vigorous activity — for the entire year. They increased their average physical activity per day by 21-28 minutes and their daily step count by 776-1058.

The intrapersonal group, meanwhile, exhibited no significant changes in total physical activity. (The third experimental group, the intrapersonal plus interpersonal condition, had results similar to the interpersonal one.)

The results echoed the findings of a similar study Dr. McMahon conducted in 2017. “We followed people over a longer period of time in this [new] study,” she said, “12 months instead of 6 months. This is important in physical activity studies because a lot of evidence shows that after 6 months, people’s activity drops off.”
 

How Socializing Promotes Exercise Compliance

Research on the effectiveness of exercise in social groups dates back as far as the 19th century. It’s called the social facilitation theory: The idea that people will make an increased effort as a result of the real, imagined, or implied presence of others.

“Norman Triplett was a scientist who studied indoor cyclists, and he came up with the social facilitation theory in 1898,” said Robert Linkul, CSCS*D, who sits on the National Strength and Conditioning Association’s board of directors and specializes in exercise for older adults. “He noticed that during relays, the first cyclist would get slower as he fatigued, but as soon as his teammate came out, his last lap would be faster than his previous two laps. People try harder when there’s some other person present. They tend to feel pressure to perform because they don’t want to look bad.”

Dr. McMahon said the exact psychology of why socializing supports exercise isn’t clear yet but noted that talking to other people builds relationships and makes one feel connected to and involved with a community.

“I think connections between peers are really important,” said Dr. McMahon. “It goes beyond just being in the same room and doing the exercises together. It’s taking a little bit of time to talk about it. To acknowledge what they’re doing and their progress. To encourage each other and provide support.”

Some of the study participants even became friends and continued to meet on their own time over the course of the trial.

“They stayed in touch,” said Dr. McMahon. “One thing that people talked about after the study, even if they weren’t friends, was that the conversations within the meetings made them feel kind of a fellowship that helped them learn about themselves or people like them.”
 

Help Patients Find Their Own Fellowship of Active People

• Communicate the importance of exercise. During appointments, ask how the patient is doing with their exercise and listen for any obstacles to compliance, Dr. McMahon said.
• See if they have access to fitness classes. Many community-dwelling older adults do, Mr. Linkul said. If not, consider local or state agencies on aging — “in Minnesota, we have a program, Juniper,” Dr. McMahon said, that maintains a list of physical activity programs — or AARP’s free online group classes, or Silver Sneakers (free for those with eligible Medicare Advantage plans).
• Reach out to local qualified fitness professionals. Trainers with the Training the Older Adult certification (founded by Mr. Linkul) can be found here. Other qualified trainers can be found through the Functional Aging Institute, American Council on Exercise, and National Academy of Sports Medicine, Mr. Linkul said. “Many of these trainers will offer semiprivate sessions,” said Mr. Linkul, “which is usually four to eight people.” Groups of this size often facilitate better participation than larger classes. “You get more personalized attention from the instructor along with an environment that allows social engagement,” said Mr. Linkul. If you have exercise or rehab professionals in your network, you might consider reaching out to them. Some physical therapists lead activity groups, though reimbursement challenges mean they aren’t common, Dr. McMahon said.
• Prescribe short walks with a friend, family member, or neighbor. Have the person start with 30 minutes of walking or rucking (walking with a weighted backpack) most days, Mr. Linkul suggested, a recommendation that is echoed by the American College of Sports Medicine.
• Encourage patients to talk about their exercise. Even for those who prefer to exercise solo, “our studies suggest it might be helpful to have conversations with others about movement, and motivations for movement,” Dr. McMahon said. They can simply mention one idea, question, or observation related to physical activity during casual catchups or chats.
• Recommend resistance training. That goes for patients with preexisting health conditions too, Mr. Linkul said. Physicians “find out a patient has low bone mineral density, and they’ll often tell them not to pick up anything heavy because they’ll hurt themselves — and that’s the exact wrong answer,” Mr. Linkul said. A total of 32% of the participants in the JAMA Network study had cardiovascular disease, nearly 34% had osteoporosis, 70% had arthritis, and more than 20% were living with diabetes.
• Expect pushback. Encouraging older adults to exercise is hard because many are resistant to it, Mr. Linkul acknowledged. Do it anyway. Some will listen and that makes the effort worthwhile. “I try to provide as much information as I can about what happens to aging bodies if they don’t train,” said Mr. Linkul. “These people are more likely to fall, they’ll die earlier, and have a poorer quality of life. But when they start exercising, they feel better immediately.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Starting an exercise regimen with others can be a powerful fitness motivator, and new research spotlights the strategy’s particular importance for older adults.

In a randomized clinical trial published in JAMA Network Open, older adults who talked with peers about their exercise program were able to increase and sustain physical activity levels much better than those who focused on self-motivation and setting fitness goals.

Such self-focused — or “intrapersonal” — strategies tend to be more common in health and fitness than interactive, or “interpersonal,” ones, the study authors noted. Yet, research on their effectiveness is limited. Historically, intrapersonal strategies have been studied as part of a bundle of behavioral change strategies — a common limitation in research — making it difficult to discern their individual value.

“We’re not saying that intrapersonal strategies should not be used,” said study author Siobhan McMahon, PhD, associate professor and codirector of the Center on Aging Science and Care at the University of Minnesota, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, “but this study shows that interpersonal strategies are really important.”

Low physical activity among older adults is linked with “disability, difficulty managing chronic conditions, and increased falls and related injuries,” the authors wrote. Exercise can be the antidote, yet fewer than 16% of older adults meet the recommended guidelines (150 minutes of moderate aerobic activity and two muscle-strengthening sessions per week).

The study builds on previous research that suggests interpersonal strategies could help change that by encouraging more older adults to move.
 

Intrapersonal vs Interpersonal Behavior Change Strategies

More than 300 participants aged 70 years and older who did not meet physical activity guidelines were given a wearable fitness tracker and an exercise program and randomly split into four groups:

• One using intrapersonal behavior change strategies
• Another using interpersonal strategies
• A group combining both intrapersonal and interpersonal strategies
• A control group that received neither intervention

For 8 weeks, all participants exercised in meet-ups and discussed their progress in their groups. Afterward, they were left to their own devices and monitored for the remainder of the year.

“The intrapersonal strategies group involved personal reflection,” said Dr. McMahon. They set personal goals (increasing daily step count or exercise repetitions) and developed action plans for implementing physical activity into their daily routines.

“The interpersonal group involved more peer-to-peer conversation, collaborative learning, and sharing,” said Dr. McMahon. Participants talked among themselves about how they could sustain doing the prescribed exercises at home. “Through those conversations, they learned and experimented,” Dr. McMahon said. They problem-solved, determining what barriers might stop them from exercising and brainstorming ways around them.

The researchers evaluated the participants after 1 week, 6 months, and 12 months. The interpersonal group exhibited significant increases in physical activity — including light, moderate, and vigorous activity — for the entire year. They increased their average physical activity per day by 21-28 minutes and their daily step count by 776-1058.

The intrapersonal group, meanwhile, exhibited no significant changes in total physical activity. (The third experimental group, the intrapersonal plus interpersonal condition, had results similar to the interpersonal one.)

The results echoed the findings of a similar study Dr. McMahon conducted in 2017. “We followed people over a longer period of time in this [new] study,” she said, “12 months instead of 6 months. This is important in physical activity studies because a lot of evidence shows that after 6 months, people’s activity drops off.”
 

How Socializing Promotes Exercise Compliance

Research on the effectiveness of exercise in social groups dates back as far as the 19th century. It’s called the social facilitation theory: The idea that people will make an increased effort as a result of the real, imagined, or implied presence of others.

“Norman Triplett was a scientist who studied indoor cyclists, and he came up with the social facilitation theory in 1898,” said Robert Linkul, CSCS*D, who sits on the National Strength and Conditioning Association’s board of directors and specializes in exercise for older adults. “He noticed that during relays, the first cyclist would get slower as he fatigued, but as soon as his teammate came out, his last lap would be faster than his previous two laps. People try harder when there’s some other person present. They tend to feel pressure to perform because they don’t want to look bad.”

Dr. McMahon said the exact psychology of why socializing supports exercise isn’t clear yet but noted that talking to other people builds relationships and makes one feel connected to and involved with a community.

“I think connections between peers are really important,” said Dr. McMahon. “It goes beyond just being in the same room and doing the exercises together. It’s taking a little bit of time to talk about it. To acknowledge what they’re doing and their progress. To encourage each other and provide support.”

Some of the study participants even became friends and continued to meet on their own time over the course of the trial.

“They stayed in touch,” said Dr. McMahon. “One thing that people talked about after the study, even if they weren’t friends, was that the conversations within the meetings made them feel kind of a fellowship that helped them learn about themselves or people like them.”
 

Help Patients Find Their Own Fellowship of Active People

• Communicate the importance of exercise. During appointments, ask how the patient is doing with their exercise and listen for any obstacles to compliance, Dr. McMahon said.
• See if they have access to fitness classes. Many community-dwelling older adults do, Mr. Linkul said. If not, consider local or state agencies on aging — “in Minnesota, we have a program, Juniper,” Dr. McMahon said, that maintains a list of physical activity programs — or AARP’s free online group classes, or Silver Sneakers (free for those with eligible Medicare Advantage plans).
• Reach out to local qualified fitness professionals. Trainers with the Training the Older Adult certification (founded by Mr. Linkul) can be found here. Other qualified trainers can be found through the Functional Aging Institute, American Council on Exercise, and National Academy of Sports Medicine, Mr. Linkul said. “Many of these trainers will offer semiprivate sessions,” said Mr. Linkul, “which is usually four to eight people.” Groups of this size often facilitate better participation than larger classes. “You get more personalized attention from the instructor along with an environment that allows social engagement,” said Mr. Linkul. If you have exercise or rehab professionals in your network, you might consider reaching out to them. Some physical therapists lead activity groups, though reimbursement challenges mean they aren’t common, Dr. McMahon said.
• Prescribe short walks with a friend, family member, or neighbor. Have the person start with 30 minutes of walking or rucking (walking with a weighted backpack) most days, Mr. Linkul suggested, a recommendation that is echoed by the American College of Sports Medicine.
• Encourage patients to talk about their exercise. Even for those who prefer to exercise solo, “our studies suggest it might be helpful to have conversations with others about movement, and motivations for movement,” Dr. McMahon said. They can simply mention one idea, question, or observation related to physical activity during casual catchups or chats.
• Recommend resistance training. That goes for patients with preexisting health conditions too, Mr. Linkul said. Physicians “find out a patient has low bone mineral density, and they’ll often tell them not to pick up anything heavy because they’ll hurt themselves — and that’s the exact wrong answer,” Mr. Linkul said. A total of 32% of the participants in the JAMA Network study had cardiovascular disease, nearly 34% had osteoporosis, 70% had arthritis, and more than 20% were living with diabetes.
• Expect pushback. Encouraging older adults to exercise is hard because many are resistant to it, Mr. Linkul acknowledged. Do it anyway. Some will listen and that makes the effort worthwhile. “I try to provide as much information as I can about what happens to aging bodies if they don’t train,” said Mr. Linkul. “These people are more likely to fall, they’ll die earlier, and have a poorer quality of life. But when they start exercising, they feel better immediately.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Starting an exercise regimen with others can be a powerful fitness motivator, and new research spotlights the strategy’s particular importance for older adults.

In a randomized clinical trial published in JAMA Network Open, older adults who talked with peers about their exercise program were able to increase and sustain physical activity levels much better than those who focused on self-motivation and setting fitness goals.

Such self-focused — or “intrapersonal” — strategies tend to be more common in health and fitness than interactive, or “interpersonal,” ones, the study authors noted. Yet, research on their effectiveness is limited. Historically, intrapersonal strategies have been studied as part of a bundle of behavioral change strategies — a common limitation in research — making it difficult to discern their individual value.

“We’re not saying that intrapersonal strategies should not be used,” said study author Siobhan McMahon, PhD, associate professor and codirector of the Center on Aging Science and Care at the University of Minnesota, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, “but this study shows that interpersonal strategies are really important.”

Low physical activity among older adults is linked with “disability, difficulty managing chronic conditions, and increased falls and related injuries,” the authors wrote. Exercise can be the antidote, yet fewer than 16% of older adults meet the recommended guidelines (150 minutes of moderate aerobic activity and two muscle-strengthening sessions per week).

The study builds on previous research that suggests interpersonal strategies could help change that by encouraging more older adults to move.
 

Intrapersonal vs Interpersonal Behavior Change Strategies

More than 300 participants aged 70 years and older who did not meet physical activity guidelines were given a wearable fitness tracker and an exercise program and randomly split into four groups:

• One using intrapersonal behavior change strategies
• Another using interpersonal strategies
• A group combining both intrapersonal and interpersonal strategies
• A control group that received neither intervention

For 8 weeks, all participants exercised in meet-ups and discussed their progress in their groups. Afterward, they were left to their own devices and monitored for the remainder of the year.

“The intrapersonal strategies group involved personal reflection,” said Dr. McMahon. They set personal goals (increasing daily step count or exercise repetitions) and developed action plans for implementing physical activity into their daily routines.

“The interpersonal group involved more peer-to-peer conversation, collaborative learning, and sharing,” said Dr. McMahon. Participants talked among themselves about how they could sustain doing the prescribed exercises at home. “Through those conversations, they learned and experimented,” Dr. McMahon said. They problem-solved, determining what barriers might stop them from exercising and brainstorming ways around them.

The researchers evaluated the participants after 1 week, 6 months, and 12 months. The interpersonal group exhibited significant increases in physical activity — including light, moderate, and vigorous activity — for the entire year. They increased their average physical activity per day by 21-28 minutes and their daily step count by 776-1058.

The intrapersonal group, meanwhile, exhibited no significant changes in total physical activity. (The third experimental group, the intrapersonal plus interpersonal condition, had results similar to the interpersonal one.)

The results echoed the findings of a similar study Dr. McMahon conducted in 2017. “We followed people over a longer period of time in this [new] study,” she said, “12 months instead of 6 months. This is important in physical activity studies because a lot of evidence shows that after 6 months, people’s activity drops off.”
 

How Socializing Promotes Exercise Compliance

Research on the effectiveness of exercise in social groups dates back as far as the 19th century. It’s called the social facilitation theory: The idea that people will make an increased effort as a result of the real, imagined, or implied presence of others.

“Norman Triplett was a scientist who studied indoor cyclists, and he came up with the social facilitation theory in 1898,” said Robert Linkul, CSCS*D, who sits on the National Strength and Conditioning Association’s board of directors and specializes in exercise for older adults. “He noticed that during relays, the first cyclist would get slower as he fatigued, but as soon as his teammate came out, his last lap would be faster than his previous two laps. People try harder when there’s some other person present. They tend to feel pressure to perform because they don’t want to look bad.”

Dr. McMahon said the exact psychology of why socializing supports exercise isn’t clear yet but noted that talking to other people builds relationships and makes one feel connected to and involved with a community.

“I think connections between peers are really important,” said Dr. McMahon. “It goes beyond just being in the same room and doing the exercises together. It’s taking a little bit of time to talk about it. To acknowledge what they’re doing and their progress. To encourage each other and provide support.”

Some of the study participants even became friends and continued to meet on their own time over the course of the trial.

“They stayed in touch,” said Dr. McMahon. “One thing that people talked about after the study, even if they weren’t friends, was that the conversations within the meetings made them feel kind of a fellowship that helped them learn about themselves or people like them.”
 

Help Patients Find Their Own Fellowship of Active People

• Communicate the importance of exercise. During appointments, ask how the patient is doing with their exercise and listen for any obstacles to compliance, Dr. McMahon said.
• See if they have access to fitness classes. Many community-dwelling older adults do, Mr. Linkul said. If not, consider local or state agencies on aging — “in Minnesota, we have a program, Juniper,” Dr. McMahon said, that maintains a list of physical activity programs — or AARP’s free online group classes, or Silver Sneakers (free for those with eligible Medicare Advantage plans).
• Reach out to local qualified fitness professionals. Trainers with the Training the Older Adult certification (founded by Mr. Linkul) can be found here. Other qualified trainers can be found through the Functional Aging Institute, American Council on Exercise, and National Academy of Sports Medicine, Mr. Linkul said. “Many of these trainers will offer semiprivate sessions,” said Mr. Linkul, “which is usually four to eight people.” Groups of this size often facilitate better participation than larger classes. “You get more personalized attention from the instructor along with an environment that allows social engagement,” said Mr. Linkul. If you have exercise or rehab professionals in your network, you might consider reaching out to them. Some physical therapists lead activity groups, though reimbursement challenges mean they aren’t common, Dr. McMahon said.
• Prescribe short walks with a friend, family member, or neighbor. Have the person start with 30 minutes of walking or rucking (walking with a weighted backpack) most days, Mr. Linkul suggested, a recommendation that is echoed by the American College of Sports Medicine.
• Encourage patients to talk about their exercise. Even for those who prefer to exercise solo, “our studies suggest it might be helpful to have conversations with others about movement, and motivations for movement,” Dr. McMahon said. They can simply mention one idea, question, or observation related to physical activity during casual catchups or chats.
• Recommend resistance training. That goes for patients with preexisting health conditions too, Mr. Linkul said. Physicians “find out a patient has low bone mineral density, and they’ll often tell them not to pick up anything heavy because they’ll hurt themselves — and that’s the exact wrong answer,” Mr. Linkul said. A total of 32% of the participants in the JAMA Network study had cardiovascular disease, nearly 34% had osteoporosis, 70% had arthritis, and more than 20% were living with diabetes.
• Expect pushback. Encouraging older adults to exercise is hard because many are resistant to it, Mr. Linkul acknowledged. Do it anyway. Some will listen and that makes the effort worthwhile. “I try to provide as much information as I can about what happens to aging bodies if they don’t train,” said Mr. Linkul. “These people are more likely to fall, they’ll die earlier, and have a poorer quality of life. But when they start exercising, they feel better immediately.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Electronic health records (EHRs) make providing coordinated, efficient care easier and reduce medical errors and test duplications; research has also correlated EHR adoption with higher patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, for physicians, the benefits come at a cost.

Physicians spend significantly more time in healthcare portals, making notes, entering orders, reviewing clinical reports, and responding to patient messages.

“I spend at least the same amount of time in the portal that I do in scheduled clinical time with patients,” said Eve Rittenberg, MD, primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. “So, if I have a 4-hour session of seeing patients, I spend at least another 4 or more hours in the patient portal.”

The latest data showed that primary care physicians logged a median of 36.2 minutes in the healthcare portal per patient visit, spending 58.9% more time on orders, 24.4% more time reading and responding to messages, and 13% more time on chart review compared to prepandemic portal use.

“EHRs can be very powerful tools,” said Ralph DeBiasi, MD, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist at Yale New Haven Health. “We’re still working on how to best harness that power to make us better doctors and better care teams and to take better care of our patients because their use can take up a lot of time.”
 

Portal Time Isn’t Paid Time

Sharp increases in the amount of time spent in the EHR responding to messages or dispensing medical advice via the portal often aren’t linked to increases in compensation; most portal time is unpaid.

“There isn’t specific time allocated to working in the portal; it’s either done in the office while a patient is sitting in an exam room or in the mornings and evenings outside of traditional working hours,” Dr. DeBiasi said. “I think it’s reasonable to consider it being reimbursed because we’re taking our time and effort and making decisions to help the patient.”

Compensation for portal time affects all physicians, but the degree of impact depends on their specialties. Primary care physicians spent significantly more daily and after-hours time in the EHR, entering notes and orders, and doing clinical reviews compared to surgical and medical specialties.

In addition to the outsized impact on primary care, physician compensation for portal time is also an equity issue.

Dr. Rittenberg researched the issue and found a higher volume of communication from both patients and staff to female physicians than male physicians. As a result, female physicians spend 41.4 minutes more on the EHR than their male counterparts, which equates to more unpaid time. It’s likely no coincidence then that burnout rates are also higher among female physicians, who also leave the clinical workforce in higher numbers, especially in primary care.

“Finding ways to fairly compensate physicians for their work also will address some of the equity issues in workload and the consequences,” Dr. Rittenberg said.
 

Addressing the Issue

Some health systems have started charging patients who seek medical advice via patient portals, equating the communication to asynchronous acute care or an additional care touchpoint and billing based on the length and complexity of the messages. Patient fees for seeking medical advice via portals vary widely depending on their health system and insurance.

At University of California San Francisco Health, billing patients for EHR communication led to a sharp decrease in patient messages, which eased physician workload. At Cleveland Clinic, physicians receive “productivity credits” for the time spent in the EHR that can be used to reduce their clinic hours (but have no impact on their compensation).

Changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule also allow physicians to bill for “digital evaluation and management” based on the time spent in an EHR responding to patient-initiated questions and requests.

However, more efforts are needed to ease burnout and reverse the number of physicians who are seeing fewer patients or leaving medical practice altogether as a direct result of spending increasing amounts of unpaid time in the EHR. Dr. Rittenberg, who spends an estimated 50% of her working hours in the portal, had to reduce her clinical workload by 25% due to such heavy portal requirements.

“The workload has become unsustainable,” she said. “The work has undergone a dramatic change over the past decade, and the compensation system has not kept up with that change.”
 

Prioritizing Patient and Physician Experiences

The ever-expanding use of EHR is a result of their value as a healthcare tool. Data showed that the electronic exchange of information between patients and physicians improves diagnostics, reduces medical errors, enhances communication, and leads to more patient-centered care — and physicians want their patients to use the portal to maximize their healthcare.

“[The EHR] is good for patients,” said Dr. DeBiasi. “Sometimes, patients have access issues with healthcare, whether that’s not knowing what number to call or getting the right message to the right person at the right office. If [the portal] is good for them and helps them get access to care, we should embrace that and figure out a way to work it into our day-to-day schedules.”

But maximizing the patient experience shouldn’t come at the physicians’ expense. Dr. Rittenberg advocates a model that compensates physicians for the time spent in the EHR and prioritizes a team approach to rebalance the EHR workload to ensure that physicians aren’t devoting too much time to administrative tasks and can, instead, focus their time on clinical tasks.

“The way in which we provide healthcare has fundamentally shifted, and compensation models need to reflect that new reality,” Dr. Rittenberg added.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Electronic health records (EHRs) make providing coordinated, efficient care easier and reduce medical errors and test duplications; research has also correlated EHR adoption with higher patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, for physicians, the benefits come at a cost.

Physicians spend significantly more time in healthcare portals, making notes, entering orders, reviewing clinical reports, and responding to patient messages.

“I spend at least the same amount of time in the portal that I do in scheduled clinical time with patients,” said Eve Rittenberg, MD, primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. “So, if I have a 4-hour session of seeing patients, I spend at least another 4 or more hours in the patient portal.”

The latest data showed that primary care physicians logged a median of 36.2 minutes in the healthcare portal per patient visit, spending 58.9% more time on orders, 24.4% more time reading and responding to messages, and 13% more time on chart review compared to prepandemic portal use.

“EHRs can be very powerful tools,” said Ralph DeBiasi, MD, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist at Yale New Haven Health. “We’re still working on how to best harness that power to make us better doctors and better care teams and to take better care of our patients because their use can take up a lot of time.”
 

Portal Time Isn’t Paid Time

Sharp increases in the amount of time spent in the EHR responding to messages or dispensing medical advice via the portal often aren’t linked to increases in compensation; most portal time is unpaid.

“There isn’t specific time allocated to working in the portal; it’s either done in the office while a patient is sitting in an exam room or in the mornings and evenings outside of traditional working hours,” Dr. DeBiasi said. “I think it’s reasonable to consider it being reimbursed because we’re taking our time and effort and making decisions to help the patient.”

Compensation for portal time affects all physicians, but the degree of impact depends on their specialties. Primary care physicians spent significantly more daily and after-hours time in the EHR, entering notes and orders, and doing clinical reviews compared to surgical and medical specialties.

In addition to the outsized impact on primary care, physician compensation for portal time is also an equity issue.

Dr. Rittenberg researched the issue and found a higher volume of communication from both patients and staff to female physicians than male physicians. As a result, female physicians spend 41.4 minutes more on the EHR than their male counterparts, which equates to more unpaid time. It’s likely no coincidence then that burnout rates are also higher among female physicians, who also leave the clinical workforce in higher numbers, especially in primary care.

“Finding ways to fairly compensate physicians for their work also will address some of the equity issues in workload and the consequences,” Dr. Rittenberg said.
 

Addressing the Issue

Some health systems have started charging patients who seek medical advice via patient portals, equating the communication to asynchronous acute care or an additional care touchpoint and billing based on the length and complexity of the messages. Patient fees for seeking medical advice via portals vary widely depending on their health system and insurance.

At University of California San Francisco Health, billing patients for EHR communication led to a sharp decrease in patient messages, which eased physician workload. At Cleveland Clinic, physicians receive “productivity credits” for the time spent in the EHR that can be used to reduce their clinic hours (but have no impact on their compensation).

Changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule also allow physicians to bill for “digital evaluation and management” based on the time spent in an EHR responding to patient-initiated questions and requests.

However, more efforts are needed to ease burnout and reverse the number of physicians who are seeing fewer patients or leaving medical practice altogether as a direct result of spending increasing amounts of unpaid time in the EHR. Dr. Rittenberg, who spends an estimated 50% of her working hours in the portal, had to reduce her clinical workload by 25% due to such heavy portal requirements.

“The workload has become unsustainable,” she said. “The work has undergone a dramatic change over the past decade, and the compensation system has not kept up with that change.”
 

Prioritizing Patient and Physician Experiences

The ever-expanding use of EHR is a result of their value as a healthcare tool. Data showed that the electronic exchange of information between patients and physicians improves diagnostics, reduces medical errors, enhances communication, and leads to more patient-centered care — and physicians want their patients to use the portal to maximize their healthcare.

“[The EHR] is good for patients,” said Dr. DeBiasi. “Sometimes, patients have access issues with healthcare, whether that’s not knowing what number to call or getting the right message to the right person at the right office. If [the portal] is good for them and helps them get access to care, we should embrace that and figure out a way to work it into our day-to-day schedules.”

But maximizing the patient experience shouldn’t come at the physicians’ expense. Dr. Rittenberg advocates a model that compensates physicians for the time spent in the EHR and prioritizes a team approach to rebalance the EHR workload to ensure that physicians aren’t devoting too much time to administrative tasks and can, instead, focus their time on clinical tasks.

“The way in which we provide healthcare has fundamentally shifted, and compensation models need to reflect that new reality,” Dr. Rittenberg added.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Electronic health records (EHRs) make providing coordinated, efficient care easier and reduce medical errors and test duplications; research has also correlated EHR adoption with higher patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, for physicians, the benefits come at a cost.

Physicians spend significantly more time in healthcare portals, making notes, entering orders, reviewing clinical reports, and responding to patient messages.

“I spend at least the same amount of time in the portal that I do in scheduled clinical time with patients,” said Eve Rittenberg, MD, primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. “So, if I have a 4-hour session of seeing patients, I spend at least another 4 or more hours in the patient portal.”

The latest data showed that primary care physicians logged a median of 36.2 minutes in the healthcare portal per patient visit, spending 58.9% more time on orders, 24.4% more time reading and responding to messages, and 13% more time on chart review compared to prepandemic portal use.

“EHRs can be very powerful tools,” said Ralph DeBiasi, MD, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist at Yale New Haven Health. “We’re still working on how to best harness that power to make us better doctors and better care teams and to take better care of our patients because their use can take up a lot of time.”
 

Portal Time Isn’t Paid Time

Sharp increases in the amount of time spent in the EHR responding to messages or dispensing medical advice via the portal often aren’t linked to increases in compensation; most portal time is unpaid.

“There isn’t specific time allocated to working in the portal; it’s either done in the office while a patient is sitting in an exam room or in the mornings and evenings outside of traditional working hours,” Dr. DeBiasi said. “I think it’s reasonable to consider it being reimbursed because we’re taking our time and effort and making decisions to help the patient.”

Compensation for portal time affects all physicians, but the degree of impact depends on their specialties. Primary care physicians spent significantly more daily and after-hours time in the EHR, entering notes and orders, and doing clinical reviews compared to surgical and medical specialties.

In addition to the outsized impact on primary care, physician compensation for portal time is also an equity issue.

Dr. Rittenberg researched the issue and found a higher volume of communication from both patients and staff to female physicians than male physicians. As a result, female physicians spend 41.4 minutes more on the EHR than their male counterparts, which equates to more unpaid time. It’s likely no coincidence then that burnout rates are also higher among female physicians, who also leave the clinical workforce in higher numbers, especially in primary care.

“Finding ways to fairly compensate physicians for their work also will address some of the equity issues in workload and the consequences,” Dr. Rittenberg said.
 

Addressing the Issue

Some health systems have started charging patients who seek medical advice via patient portals, equating the communication to asynchronous acute care or an additional care touchpoint and billing based on the length and complexity of the messages. Patient fees for seeking medical advice via portals vary widely depending on their health system and insurance.

At University of California San Francisco Health, billing patients for EHR communication led to a sharp decrease in patient messages, which eased physician workload. At Cleveland Clinic, physicians receive “productivity credits” for the time spent in the EHR that can be used to reduce their clinic hours (but have no impact on their compensation).

Changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule also allow physicians to bill for “digital evaluation and management” based on the time spent in an EHR responding to patient-initiated questions and requests.

However, more efforts are needed to ease burnout and reverse the number of physicians who are seeing fewer patients or leaving medical practice altogether as a direct result of spending increasing amounts of unpaid time in the EHR. Dr. Rittenberg, who spends an estimated 50% of her working hours in the portal, had to reduce her clinical workload by 25% due to such heavy portal requirements.

“The workload has become unsustainable,” she said. “The work has undergone a dramatic change over the past decade, and the compensation system has not kept up with that change.”
 

Prioritizing Patient and Physician Experiences

The ever-expanding use of EHR is a result of their value as a healthcare tool. Data showed that the electronic exchange of information between patients and physicians improves diagnostics, reduces medical errors, enhances communication, and leads to more patient-centered care — and physicians want their patients to use the portal to maximize their healthcare.

“[The EHR] is good for patients,” said Dr. DeBiasi. “Sometimes, patients have access issues with healthcare, whether that’s not knowing what number to call or getting the right message to the right person at the right office. If [the portal] is good for them and helps them get access to care, we should embrace that and figure out a way to work it into our day-to-day schedules.”

But maximizing the patient experience shouldn’t come at the physicians’ expense. Dr. Rittenberg advocates a model that compensates physicians for the time spent in the EHR and prioritizes a team approach to rebalance the EHR workload to ensure that physicians aren’t devoting too much time to administrative tasks and can, instead, focus their time on clinical tasks.

“The way in which we provide healthcare has fundamentally shifted, and compensation models need to reflect that new reality,” Dr. Rittenberg added.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I don’t recommend ice baths. Perhaps I should. On my podcast-filled commute, I am reminded for miles of the mental and physical benefits of this revolutionary wellness routine: Cold exposure causes a spike in adrenaline and raises your baseline dopamine, thereby giving you superhuman focus and energy. Goodbye procrastination! Eliminate your ADHD in one icy step! I’m trying to be the fashionable mustached-columnist here so maybe I should get on board.

In fact, a heavyset, similarly-mustached 32-year-old patient just asked if I do ice baths. It was meant as a compliment, I believe. Displaying poise wearing my Chief of Dermatology embroidered white coat in my toddler-art-adorned office, I could hear him thinking: “This doc is legit. On fleek.” (Note, this is an approximation and the patient’s actual thoughts may have varied). We were talking podcasts and he was curious about my daily routine.

Kaiser Permanente

Now, ice baths probably do have the benefits that Andrew Huberman, Joe Rogan, and the others have described, I don’t argue. And the experience is oft described as invigorating with a runner’s high-like euphoria that follows a good dunk. I’ve tried it. I would describe it as “very uncomfortable.” To boot, following icy-cold morning showers, I wasn’t any better able to stave off opening my New York Times app on a newsy day. No, cold water isn’t my jams. But then again, I don’t journal like Marcus Aurelius or sleep on a mattress that keeps my body a chill 97 degrees like an inverse sous vide. If I were asked by Huberman in an interview what I do to be mentally strong, I’d answer, “I clean the pool.”

“Here’s how I do it, Dr. Huberman,” I’d say. “First, open the pool cover. Then with a cup with pool water from about 12 inches down, fill these little beakers with water and add a few drops of chemical reagents. Then calculate the ounces of calcium hypochlorite, muriatic acid, and other chemicals to make your pools sparkle. After skimming, take your pool brush and brush the bottom and sides of your pool. Rack your equipment when done and close the cover back up. This exercise takes about 15 minutes.” It’s a mundane task, but ah, there’s the point. Like folding the laundry, weeding the garden, emptying the dishwasher, they can be oh, so gratifying. Each of these has a crisp beginning and end and offer a lovely spot to be present. Let the thoughts flow with each stroke of the brush. Watch the water ripple the surface as you slowly pull the long pole out, dripping 7.4 pH water as you glide it in for the next pass. This is the Benabio secret to success.

Dr. Benabio

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

I don’t recommend ice baths. Perhaps I should. On my podcast-filled commute, I am reminded for miles of the mental and physical benefits of this revolutionary wellness routine: Cold exposure causes a spike in adrenaline and raises your baseline dopamine, thereby giving you superhuman focus and energy. Goodbye procrastination! Eliminate your ADHD in one icy step! I’m trying to be the fashionable mustached-columnist here so maybe I should get on board.

In fact, a heavyset, similarly-mustached 32-year-old patient just asked if I do ice baths. It was meant as a compliment, I believe. Displaying poise wearing my Chief of Dermatology embroidered white coat in my toddler-art-adorned office, I could hear him thinking: “This doc is legit. On fleek.” (Note, this is an approximation and the patient’s actual thoughts may have varied). We were talking podcasts and he was curious about my daily routine.

Kaiser Permanente

Now, ice baths probably do have the benefits that Andrew Huberman, Joe Rogan, and the others have described, I don’t argue. And the experience is oft described as invigorating with a runner’s high-like euphoria that follows a good dunk. I’ve tried it. I would describe it as “very uncomfortable.” To boot, following icy-cold morning showers, I wasn’t any better able to stave off opening my New York Times app on a newsy day. No, cold water isn’t my jams. But then again, I don’t journal like Marcus Aurelius or sleep on a mattress that keeps my body a chill 97 degrees like an inverse sous vide. If I were asked by Huberman in an interview what I do to be mentally strong, I’d answer, “I clean the pool.”

“Here’s how I do it, Dr. Huberman,” I’d say. “First, open the pool cover. Then with a cup with pool water from about 12 inches down, fill these little beakers with water and add a few drops of chemical reagents. Then calculate the ounces of calcium hypochlorite, muriatic acid, and other chemicals to make your pools sparkle. After skimming, take your pool brush and brush the bottom and sides of your pool. Rack your equipment when done and close the cover back up. This exercise takes about 15 minutes.” It’s a mundane task, but ah, there’s the point. Like folding the laundry, weeding the garden, emptying the dishwasher, they can be oh, so gratifying. Each of these has a crisp beginning and end and offer a lovely spot to be present. Let the thoughts flow with each stroke of the brush. Watch the water ripple the surface as you slowly pull the long pole out, dripping 7.4 pH water as you glide it in for the next pass. This is the Benabio secret to success.

Dr. Benabio

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

I don’t recommend ice baths. Perhaps I should. On my podcast-filled commute, I am reminded for miles of the mental and physical benefits of this revolutionary wellness routine: Cold exposure causes a spike in adrenaline and raises your baseline dopamine, thereby giving you superhuman focus and energy. Goodbye procrastination! Eliminate your ADHD in one icy step! I’m trying to be the fashionable mustached-columnist here so maybe I should get on board.

In fact, a heavyset, similarly-mustached 32-year-old patient just asked if I do ice baths. It was meant as a compliment, I believe. Displaying poise wearing my Chief of Dermatology embroidered white coat in my toddler-art-adorned office, I could hear him thinking: “This doc is legit. On fleek.” (Note, this is an approximation and the patient’s actual thoughts may have varied). We were talking podcasts and he was curious about my daily routine.

Kaiser Permanente

Now, ice baths probably do have the benefits that Andrew Huberman, Joe Rogan, and the others have described, I don’t argue. And the experience is oft described as invigorating with a runner’s high-like euphoria that follows a good dunk. I’ve tried it. I would describe it as “very uncomfortable.” To boot, following icy-cold morning showers, I wasn’t any better able to stave off opening my New York Times app on a newsy day. No, cold water isn’t my jams. But then again, I don’t journal like Marcus Aurelius or sleep on a mattress that keeps my body a chill 97 degrees like an inverse sous vide. If I were asked by Huberman in an interview what I do to be mentally strong, I’d answer, “I clean the pool.”

“Here’s how I do it, Dr. Huberman,” I’d say. “First, open the pool cover. Then with a cup with pool water from about 12 inches down, fill these little beakers with water and add a few drops of chemical reagents. Then calculate the ounces of calcium hypochlorite, muriatic acid, and other chemicals to make your pools sparkle. After skimming, take your pool brush and brush the bottom and sides of your pool. Rack your equipment when done and close the cover back up. This exercise takes about 15 minutes.” It’s a mundane task, but ah, there’s the point. Like folding the laundry, weeding the garden, emptying the dishwasher, they can be oh, so gratifying. Each of these has a crisp beginning and end and offer a lovely spot to be present. Let the thoughts flow with each stroke of the brush. Watch the water ripple the surface as you slowly pull the long pole out, dripping 7.4 pH water as you glide it in for the next pass. This is the Benabio secret to success.

Dr. Benabio

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

Please note that this is a commentary, an opinion piece: my opinion. The statements here do not necessarily represent those of this news organization or any of the myriad people or institutions that comprise this corner of the human universe.

Some days, speaking as a long-time physician and editor, I wish that there were no such things as race or ethnicity or even geographic origin for that matter. We can’t get away from sex, gender, disability, age, or culture. I’m not sure about religion. I wish people were just people.

But race is deeply embedded in the American experience — an almost invisible but inevitable presence in all of our thoughts and expressions about human activities.

In medical education (for eons it seems) the student has been taught to mention race in the first sentence of a given patient presentation, along with age and sex. In human epidemiologic research, race is almost always a studied variable. In clinical and basic medical research, looking at the impact of race on this, that, or the other is commonplace. “Mixed race not otherwise specified” is ubiquitous in the United States yet blithely ignored by most who tally these statistics. Race is rarely gene-specific. It is more of a social and cultural construct but with plainly visible overt phenotypic markers — an almost infinite mix of daily reality.

Our country, and much of Western civilization in 2024, is based on the principle that all men are created equal, although the originators of that notion were unaware of their own “equity-challenged” situation.

Many organizations, in and out of government, are now understanding, developing, and implementing programs (and thought/language patterns) to socialize diversity, equity, and inclusion (known as DEI) into their culture. It should not be surprising that many who prefer the status quo are not happy with the pressure from this movement and are using whatever methods are available to them to prevent full DEI. Such it always is.

The trusty Copilot from Bing provides these definitions:

• Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce. This includes aspects such as gender, culture, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, and opinion.
• Equity encompasses concepts of fairness and justice. It involves fair compensation, substantive equality, and addressing societal disparities. Equity also considers unique circumstances and adjusts treatment to achieve equal outcomes.
• Inclusion focuses on creating an organizational culture where all employees feel heard, fostering a sense of belonging and integration.

I am more than proud that my old domain of peer-reviewed, primary source, medical (and science) journals is taking a leading role in this noble, necessary, and long overdue movement for medicine.

As the central repository and transmitter of new medical information, including scientific studies, clinical medicine reports, ethics measures, and education, medical journals (including those deemed prestigious) have historically been among the worst offenders in perpetuating non-DEI objectives in their leadership, staffing, focus, instructions for authors, style manuals, and published materials.

This issue came to a head in March 2021 when a JAMA podcast about racism in American medicine was followed by this promotional tweet: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?”

Reactions and actions were rapid, strong, and decisive. After an interregnum at JAMA, a new editor in chief, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, PhD, MD, MAS, was named. She and her large staff of editors and editorial board members from the multijournal JAMA Network joined a worldwide movement of (currently) 56 publishing organizations representing 15,000 journals called the Joint Commitment for Action on Inclusion and Diversity in Publishing.

A recent JAMA editorial with 29 authors describes the entire commitment initiative of publishers-editors. It reports JAMA Network data from 2023 and 2024 from surveys of 455 editors (a 91% response rate) about their own gender (five choices), ethnic origins or geographic ancestry (13 choices), and race (eight choices), demonstrating considerable progress toward DEI goals. The survey’s complex multinational classifications may not jibe with the categorizations used in some countries (too bad that “mixed” is not “mixed in” — a missed opportunity).

This encouraging movement will not fix it all. But when people of certain groups are represented at the table, that point of view is far more likely to make it into the lexicon, language, and omnipresent work products, potentially changing cultural norms. Even the measurement of movement related to disparity in healthcare is marred by frequent variations of data accuracy. More consistency in what to measure can help a lot, and the medical literature can be very influential.

A personal anecdote: When I was a professor at UC Davis in 1978, Allan Bakke, MD, was my student. Some of you will remember the saga of affirmative action on admissions, which was just revisited in the light of a recent decision by the US Supreme Court.

Back in 1978, the dean at UC Davis told me that he kept two file folders on the admission processes in different desk drawers. One categorized all applicants and enrollees by race, and the other did not. Depending on who came to visit and ask questions, he would choose one or the other file to share once he figured out what they were looking for (this is not a joke).

The strength of the current active political pushback against the entire DEI movement has deep roots and should not be underestimated. There will be a lot of to-ing and fro-ing.

French writer Victor Hugo is credited with stating, “There is nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has come.” A majority of Americans, physicians, and other healthcare professionals believe in basic fairness. The time for DEI in all aspects of medicine is now.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief of Cancer Commons, disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Please note that this is a commentary, an opinion piece: my opinion. The statements here do not necessarily represent those of this news organization or any of the myriad people or institutions that comprise this corner of the human universe.

Some days, speaking as a long-time physician and editor, I wish that there were no such things as race or ethnicity or even geographic origin for that matter. We can’t get away from sex, gender, disability, age, or culture. I’m not sure about religion. I wish people were just people.

But race is deeply embedded in the American experience — an almost invisible but inevitable presence in all of our thoughts and expressions about human activities.

In medical education (for eons it seems) the student has been taught to mention race in the first sentence of a given patient presentation, along with age and sex. In human epidemiologic research, race is almost always a studied variable. In clinical and basic medical research, looking at the impact of race on this, that, or the other is commonplace. “Mixed race not otherwise specified” is ubiquitous in the United States yet blithely ignored by most who tally these statistics. Race is rarely gene-specific. It is more of a social and cultural construct but with plainly visible overt phenotypic markers — an almost infinite mix of daily reality.

Our country, and much of Western civilization in 2024, is based on the principle that all men are created equal, although the originators of that notion were unaware of their own “equity-challenged” situation.

Many organizations, in and out of government, are now understanding, developing, and implementing programs (and thought/language patterns) to socialize diversity, equity, and inclusion (known as DEI) into their culture. It should not be surprising that many who prefer the status quo are not happy with the pressure from this movement and are using whatever methods are available to them to prevent full DEI. Such it always is.

The trusty Copilot from Bing provides these definitions:

• Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce. This includes aspects such as gender, culture, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, and opinion.
• Equity encompasses concepts of fairness and justice. It involves fair compensation, substantive equality, and addressing societal disparities. Equity also considers unique circumstances and adjusts treatment to achieve equal outcomes.
• Inclusion focuses on creating an organizational culture where all employees feel heard, fostering a sense of belonging and integration.

I am more than proud that my old domain of peer-reviewed, primary source, medical (and science) journals is taking a leading role in this noble, necessary, and long overdue movement for medicine.

As the central repository and transmitter of new medical information, including scientific studies, clinical medicine reports, ethics measures, and education, medical journals (including those deemed prestigious) have historically been among the worst offenders in perpetuating non-DEI objectives in their leadership, staffing, focus, instructions for authors, style manuals, and published materials.

This issue came to a head in March 2021 when a JAMA podcast about racism in American medicine was followed by this promotional tweet: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?”

Reactions and actions were rapid, strong, and decisive. After an interregnum at JAMA, a new editor in chief, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, PhD, MD, MAS, was named. She and her large staff of editors and editorial board members from the multijournal JAMA Network joined a worldwide movement of (currently) 56 publishing organizations representing 15,000 journals called the Joint Commitment for Action on Inclusion and Diversity in Publishing.

A recent JAMA editorial with 29 authors describes the entire commitment initiative of publishers-editors. It reports JAMA Network data from 2023 and 2024 from surveys of 455 editors (a 91% response rate) about their own gender (five choices), ethnic origins or geographic ancestry (13 choices), and race (eight choices), demonstrating considerable progress toward DEI goals. The survey’s complex multinational classifications may not jibe with the categorizations used in some countries (too bad that “mixed” is not “mixed in” — a missed opportunity).

This encouraging movement will not fix it all. But when people of certain groups are represented at the table, that point of view is far more likely to make it into the lexicon, language, and omnipresent work products, potentially changing cultural norms. Even the measurement of movement related to disparity in healthcare is marred by frequent variations of data accuracy. More consistency in what to measure can help a lot, and the medical literature can be very influential.

A personal anecdote: When I was a professor at UC Davis in 1978, Allan Bakke, MD, was my student. Some of you will remember the saga of affirmative action on admissions, which was just revisited in the light of a recent decision by the US Supreme Court.

Back in 1978, the dean at UC Davis told me that he kept two file folders on the admission processes in different desk drawers. One categorized all applicants and enrollees by race, and the other did not. Depending on who came to visit and ask questions, he would choose one or the other file to share once he figured out what they were looking for (this is not a joke).

The strength of the current active political pushback against the entire DEI movement has deep roots and should not be underestimated. There will be a lot of to-ing and fro-ing.

French writer Victor Hugo is credited with stating, “There is nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has come.” A majority of Americans, physicians, and other healthcare professionals believe in basic fairness. The time for DEI in all aspects of medicine is now.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief of Cancer Commons, disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Please note that this is a commentary, an opinion piece: my opinion. The statements here do not necessarily represent those of this news organization or any of the myriad people or institutions that comprise this corner of the human universe.

Some days, speaking as a long-time physician and editor, I wish that there were no such things as race or ethnicity or even geographic origin for that matter. We can’t get away from sex, gender, disability, age, or culture. I’m not sure about religion. I wish people were just people.

But race is deeply embedded in the American experience — an almost invisible but inevitable presence in all of our thoughts and expressions about human activities.

In medical education (for eons it seems) the student has been taught to mention race in the first sentence of a given patient presentation, along with age and sex. In human epidemiologic research, race is almost always a studied variable. In clinical and basic medical research, looking at the impact of race on this, that, or the other is commonplace. “Mixed race not otherwise specified” is ubiquitous in the United States yet blithely ignored by most who tally these statistics. Race is rarely gene-specific. It is more of a social and cultural construct but with plainly visible overt phenotypic markers — an almost infinite mix of daily reality.

Our country, and much of Western civilization in 2024, is based on the principle that all men are created equal, although the originators of that notion were unaware of their own “equity-challenged” situation.

Many organizations, in and out of government, are now understanding, developing, and implementing programs (and thought/language patterns) to socialize diversity, equity, and inclusion (known as DEI) into their culture. It should not be surprising that many who prefer the status quo are not happy with the pressure from this movement and are using whatever methods are available to them to prevent full DEI. Such it always is.

The trusty Copilot from Bing provides these definitions:

• Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce. This includes aspects such as gender, culture, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, and opinion.
• Equity encompasses concepts of fairness and justice. It involves fair compensation, substantive equality, and addressing societal disparities. Equity also considers unique circumstances and adjusts treatment to achieve equal outcomes.
• Inclusion focuses on creating an organizational culture where all employees feel heard, fostering a sense of belonging and integration.

I am more than proud that my old domain of peer-reviewed, primary source, medical (and science) journals is taking a leading role in this noble, necessary, and long overdue movement for medicine.

As the central repository and transmitter of new medical information, including scientific studies, clinical medicine reports, ethics measures, and education, medical journals (including those deemed prestigious) have historically been among the worst offenders in perpetuating non-DEI objectives in their leadership, staffing, focus, instructions for authors, style manuals, and published materials.

This issue came to a head in March 2021 when a JAMA podcast about racism in American medicine was followed by this promotional tweet: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?”

Reactions and actions were rapid, strong, and decisive. After an interregnum at JAMA, a new editor in chief, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, PhD, MD, MAS, was named. She and her large staff of editors and editorial board members from the multijournal JAMA Network joined a worldwide movement of (currently) 56 publishing organizations representing 15,000 journals called the Joint Commitment for Action on Inclusion and Diversity in Publishing.

A recent JAMA editorial with 29 authors describes the entire commitment initiative of publishers-editors. It reports JAMA Network data from 2023 and 2024 from surveys of 455 editors (a 91% response rate) about their own gender (five choices), ethnic origins or geographic ancestry (13 choices), and race (eight choices), demonstrating considerable progress toward DEI goals. The survey’s complex multinational classifications may not jibe with the categorizations used in some countries (too bad that “mixed” is not “mixed in” — a missed opportunity).

This encouraging movement will not fix it all. But when people of certain groups are represented at the table, that point of view is far more likely to make it into the lexicon, language, and omnipresent work products, potentially changing cultural norms. Even the measurement of movement related to disparity in healthcare is marred by frequent variations of data accuracy. More consistency in what to measure can help a lot, and the medical literature can be very influential.

A personal anecdote: When I was a professor at UC Davis in 1978, Allan Bakke, MD, was my student. Some of you will remember the saga of affirmative action on admissions, which was just revisited in the light of a recent decision by the US Supreme Court.

Back in 1978, the dean at UC Davis told me that he kept two file folders on the admission processes in different desk drawers. One categorized all applicants and enrollees by race, and the other did not. Depending on who came to visit and ask questions, he would choose one or the other file to share once he figured out what they were looking for (this is not a joke).

The strength of the current active political pushback against the entire DEI movement has deep roots and should not be underestimated. There will be a lot of to-ing and fro-ing.

French writer Victor Hugo is credited with stating, “There is nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has come.” A majority of Americans, physicians, and other healthcare professionals believe in basic fairness. The time for DEI in all aspects of medicine is now.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief of Cancer Commons, disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In most Western countries, professional standards dictate that physicians should practice medicine with compassion. Patients also expect compassionate care from physicians because it represents a model capable of providing greater patient satisfaction, fostering better doctor-patient relationships, and enabling better psychological states among patients.

The etymology of the term “compassion” derives from the Latin roots “com,” meaning “together with,” and “pati,” meaning “to endure or suffer.” When discussing compassion, it is necessary to distinguish it from empathy, a term generally used to refer to cognitive or emotional processes in which the perspective of the other (in this case, the patient) is taken. Compassion implies or requires empathy and includes the desire to help or alleviate the suffering of others. Compassion in the medical context is likely a specific instance of a more complex adaptive system that has evolved, not only among humans, to motivate recognition and assistance when others suffer.
 

Compassion Fatigue

Physicians’ compassion is expected by patients and the profession. It is fundamental for effective clinical practice. Although compassion is central to medical practice, most research related to the topic has focused on “compassion fatigue,” which is understood as a specific type of professional burnout, as if physicians had a limited reserve of compassion that dwindles or becomes exhausted with use or overuse. This is one aspect of a much more complex problem, in which compassion represents the endpoint of a dynamic process that encompasses the influences of the physician, the patient, the clinic, and the institution.

Compassion Capacity: Conditioning Factors

Chronic exposure of physicians to conflicting work demands may be associated with the depletion of their psychological resources and, consequently, emotional and cognitive fatigue that can contribute to poorer work outcomes, including the ability to express compassion.

Rates of professional burnout in medicine are increasing. The driving factors of this phenomenon are largely rooted in organizations and healthcare systems and include excessive workloads, inefficient work processes, administrative burdens, and lack of input or control by physicians regarding issues concerning their work life. The outcome often is early retirement of physicians, a current, increasingly widespread phenomenon and a critical issue not only for the Italian National Health Service but also for other healthcare systems worldwide.
 

Organizational and Personal Values

There is no clear empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that working in healthcare environments experienced as discrepant with one’s own values has negative effects on key professional outcomes. However, a study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine highlighted the overall negative effect of misalignment between system values and physicians’ personal values, including impaired ability to provide compassionate care, as well as reduced job satisfaction, burnout, absenteeism, and considering the possibility of early retirement. Results from 1000 surveyed professionals indicate that physicians’ subjective competence in providing compassionate care may remain high, but their ability to express it is compromised. From data analysis, the authors hypothesize that when working in environments with discrepant values, occupational contingencies may repeatedly require physicians to set aside their personal values, which can lead them to refrain from using available skills to keep their performance in line with organizational requirements.

These results and hypotheses are not consistent with the notion of compassion fatigue as a reflection of the cost of care resulting from exposure to repeated suffering. Previous evidence shows that expressing compassion in healthcare facilitates greater understanding, suggesting that providing compassion does not impoverish physicians but rather supports them in the effectiveness of interventions and in their satisfaction.

In summary, this study suggests that what prevents compassion is the inability to provide it when hindered by factors related to the situation in which the physician operates. Improving compassion does not simply depend on motivating individual professionals to be more compassionate or on promoting fundamental skills, but probably on the creation of organizational and clinical conditions in which physician compassion can thrive.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In most Western countries, professional standards dictate that physicians should practice medicine with compassion. Patients also expect compassionate care from physicians because it represents a model capable of providing greater patient satisfaction, fostering better doctor-patient relationships, and enabling better psychological states among patients.

The etymology of the term “compassion” derives from the Latin roots “com,” meaning “together with,” and “pati,” meaning “to endure or suffer.” When discussing compassion, it is necessary to distinguish it from empathy, a term generally used to refer to cognitive or emotional processes in which the perspective of the other (in this case, the patient) is taken. Compassion implies or requires empathy and includes the desire to help or alleviate the suffering of others. Compassion in the medical context is likely a specific instance of a more complex adaptive system that has evolved, not only among humans, to motivate recognition and assistance when others suffer.
 

Compassion Fatigue

Physicians’ compassion is expected by patients and the profession. It is fundamental for effective clinical practice. Although compassion is central to medical practice, most research related to the topic has focused on “compassion fatigue,” which is understood as a specific type of professional burnout, as if physicians had a limited reserve of compassion that dwindles or becomes exhausted with use or overuse. This is one aspect of a much more complex problem, in which compassion represents the endpoint of a dynamic process that encompasses the influences of the physician, the patient, the clinic, and the institution.

Compassion Capacity: Conditioning Factors

Chronic exposure of physicians to conflicting work demands may be associated with the depletion of their psychological resources and, consequently, emotional and cognitive fatigue that can contribute to poorer work outcomes, including the ability to express compassion.

Rates of professional burnout in medicine are increasing. The driving factors of this phenomenon are largely rooted in organizations and healthcare systems and include excessive workloads, inefficient work processes, administrative burdens, and lack of input or control by physicians regarding issues concerning their work life. The outcome often is early retirement of physicians, a current, increasingly widespread phenomenon and a critical issue not only for the Italian National Health Service but also for other healthcare systems worldwide.
 

Organizational and Personal Values

There is no clear empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that working in healthcare environments experienced as discrepant with one’s own values has negative effects on key professional outcomes. However, a study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine highlighted the overall negative effect of misalignment between system values and physicians’ personal values, including impaired ability to provide compassionate care, as well as reduced job satisfaction, burnout, absenteeism, and considering the possibility of early retirement. Results from 1000 surveyed professionals indicate that physicians’ subjective competence in providing compassionate care may remain high, but their ability to express it is compromised. From data analysis, the authors hypothesize that when working in environments with discrepant values, occupational contingencies may repeatedly require physicians to set aside their personal values, which can lead them to refrain from using available skills to keep their performance in line with organizational requirements.

These results and hypotheses are not consistent with the notion of compassion fatigue as a reflection of the cost of care resulting from exposure to repeated suffering. Previous evidence shows that expressing compassion in healthcare facilitates greater understanding, suggesting that providing compassion does not impoverish physicians but rather supports them in the effectiveness of interventions and in their satisfaction.

In summary, this study suggests that what prevents compassion is the inability to provide it when hindered by factors related to the situation in which the physician operates. Improving compassion does not simply depend on motivating individual professionals to be more compassionate or on promoting fundamental skills, but probably on the creation of organizational and clinical conditions in which physician compassion can thrive.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In most Western countries, professional standards dictate that physicians should practice medicine with compassion. Patients also expect compassionate care from physicians because it represents a model capable of providing greater patient satisfaction, fostering better doctor-patient relationships, and enabling better psychological states among patients.

The etymology of the term “compassion” derives from the Latin roots “com,” meaning “together with,” and “pati,” meaning “to endure or suffer.” When discussing compassion, it is necessary to distinguish it from empathy, a term generally used to refer to cognitive or emotional processes in which the perspective of the other (in this case, the patient) is taken. Compassion implies or requires empathy and includes the desire to help or alleviate the suffering of others. Compassion in the medical context is likely a specific instance of a more complex adaptive system that has evolved, not only among humans, to motivate recognition and assistance when others suffer.
 

Compassion Fatigue

Physicians’ compassion is expected by patients and the profession. It is fundamental for effective clinical practice. Although compassion is central to medical practice, most research related to the topic has focused on “compassion fatigue,” which is understood as a specific type of professional burnout, as if physicians had a limited reserve of compassion that dwindles or becomes exhausted with use or overuse. This is one aspect of a much more complex problem, in which compassion represents the endpoint of a dynamic process that encompasses the influences of the physician, the patient, the clinic, and the institution.

Compassion Capacity: Conditioning Factors

Chronic exposure of physicians to conflicting work demands may be associated with the depletion of their psychological resources and, consequently, emotional and cognitive fatigue that can contribute to poorer work outcomes, including the ability to express compassion.

Rates of professional burnout in medicine are increasing. The driving factors of this phenomenon are largely rooted in organizations and healthcare systems and include excessive workloads, inefficient work processes, administrative burdens, and lack of input or control by physicians regarding issues concerning their work life. The outcome often is early retirement of physicians, a current, increasingly widespread phenomenon and a critical issue not only for the Italian National Health Service but also for other healthcare systems worldwide.
 

Organizational and Personal Values

There is no clear empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that working in healthcare environments experienced as discrepant with one’s own values has negative effects on key professional outcomes. However, a study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine highlighted the overall negative effect of misalignment between system values and physicians’ personal values, including impaired ability to provide compassionate care, as well as reduced job satisfaction, burnout, absenteeism, and considering the possibility of early retirement. Results from 1000 surveyed professionals indicate that physicians’ subjective competence in providing compassionate care may remain high, but their ability to express it is compromised. From data analysis, the authors hypothesize that when working in environments with discrepant values, occupational contingencies may repeatedly require physicians to set aside their personal values, which can lead them to refrain from using available skills to keep their performance in line with organizational requirements.

These results and hypotheses are not consistent with the notion of compassion fatigue as a reflection of the cost of care resulting from exposure to repeated suffering. Previous evidence shows that expressing compassion in healthcare facilitates greater understanding, suggesting that providing compassion does not impoverish physicians but rather supports them in the effectiveness of interventions and in their satisfaction.

In summary, this study suggests that what prevents compassion is the inability to provide it when hindered by factors related to the situation in which the physician operates. Improving compassion does not simply depend on motivating individual professionals to be more compassionate or on promoting fundamental skills, but probably on the creation of organizational and clinical conditions in which physician compassion can thrive.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An estimated 3% of the world’s population have psoriasis, with approximately 6.4 million people across Europe affected. Almost one third of people with psoriasis will develop psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a disease that can be severe and debilitating and lead to irreversible degeneration of bone and tissue, typically affecting the joints of hands and feet. 

As inflammatory autoimmune diseases, psoriasis and PsA also increase the risk for further comorbidities, such as cardiovascular diseases and obesity, with higher rates of depression among those affected. 

Although notable advances have been made in the range of treatment options for PsA, it remains difficult to diagnose. No specific diagnostic criteria or laboratory tests are available, and the disease course and response to treatment can be unpredictable.

“Another key unmet need relates to whether we can reliably identify risk factors for which a person with psoriasis will develop PsA. We know that 30% will develop PsA, but we cannot identify which person with psoriasis is at risk,” said Professor Oliver FitzGerald of University College Dublin (UCD), Dublin, Ireland, an international opinion leader in rheumatology. A clearer understanding of PsA could lead to development of tools for its early diagnosis and identification of disease prevention strategies, he explained.

Thus, HIPPOCRATES (Health Initiatives in Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Consortium European States ) was created. This ambitious research consortium was conceived by Dr. FitzGerald and his colleague Stephen Pennington, professor of proteomics at UCD, together with a number of likeminded colleagues in the fields of rheumatology and dermatology and at organizations such as GRAPPA, HUPO, EULAR, and EUROPSO. 

The collaboration has brought together world-leading clinicians, researchers, and people living with psoriasis and PsA to address the main challenges in its early identification and management.

HIPPOCRATES received €23.5 million in funding from the EU Innovative Medicines Initiative public-private partnership in 2021 and is now half way through its 5-year plan. 

Key Goals 

HIPPOCRATES involves 27 partners, including from industry, in 11 countries. 

Its four key goals are:

• Identifying specific PsA disease markers to develop accurate diagnostic tools;
• Developing prediction strategies to identify which person with psoriasis will develop PsA;
• Monitoring and prevention of PsA disease progression to irreversible joint damage; and
• Identifying personalized treatment options, so that patients are treated with the right medicines for their specific disease.

“The pharmaceutical companies have come up with a veritable armory of potential treatments, but rheumatologists still don’t know which one to use for a particular patient at a particular time,” Dr. Pennington explained to this news organization. “So the reality is they tend to cycle through treatments until they find one that is effective.” This is not very efficient or desirable for patients, he added. 

Multidisciplinary Approach

A key advantage of HIPPOCRATES is that it brings several medical disciplines together. The current approach of clinicians working in silos is a key barrier to earlier diagnosis of PsA.

“The reality is that a patient with psoriasis will see a dermatologist, and dermatologists don’t necessarily have the skills or training to identify the very early stages of psoriatic arthritis, so they will only refer a patient of theirs to a rheumatologist at a very late stage,” said Dr. Pennington.

Dermatologists need better tools to be able to recognize when they should refer their psoriasis patients to rheumatologists, so that patients developing PsA are diagnosed and treated earlier, he explained. 

GPs will also be an important component of the project because they are the first point of healthcare contact for people with PsA or psoriasis.

“[I]t is about helping GPs diagnose earlier and raise awareness among patients. Historically, there has been a bit of a lag between people having their first symptoms and getting a diagnosis,” explained HIPPOCRATES collaborator Frances Mair, the Norie Miller Professor of General Practice and head of general practice and primary care at the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland. 

Dr. Mair said that diagnosis isn't always straightforward, and the hope is that the study will identify more specific risk factors that will help GPs flag PsA earlier. 

Patient Involvement and Data Sharing

The HIPPOCRATES consortium involves patients in all stages of the project.

“In HIPPOCRATES, patient and public involvement is really a central feature, which is quite unusual at the more experimental side of healthcare and research. In HIPPOCRATES, the patient research partners have a leading role, making a real difference…” said Dr. Mair.

To facilitate its goals, the consortium partners are sharing data and samples from previously conducted studies on psoriasis and PsA populations. This will facilitate extensive omics-based analyses to establish and validate robust biomarkers across datasets, using the latest cutting-edge techniques, including machine learning and artificial intelligence. 

In addition, the HIPPOCRATES Prospective Observational Study (HPOS) was launched last year. This web-based study aims to recruit 25,000 adults (≥ 18 years of age) with skin psoriasis across Europe. They will collect their clinical data every 6 months, including emerging musculoskeletal symptoms. Blood samples will also be collected remotely from a subset of 3000 participants using a finger-prick kit that will be posted to their homes. 

HPOS has already commenced recruitment in the UK, Ireland and, most recently, Greece and Portugal, with nearly 2300 participants enrolled to date. HPOS also plans to launch in France, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Sweden. 

“This ambitious study will give us the statistical power to identify clinical/molecular risk factors for progression from psoriasis to PsA. We anticipate that 675 participants per year will develop PsA in our studied population. Participants will receive regular feedback to help monitor their condition, and we will help them to get the medical care that they need,” said Dr. FitzGerald.

Dr. Pennington added that the consortium believes it is a “realistic goal” that the resulting molecular risk prediction tools could eventually enable clinicians to intervene to prevent PsA. 

From Research to Practice

The HIPPOCRATES projects are making good progress, with several early publications, and further publications being drafted. 

“One of the biggest achievements so far has been to assemble this massive resource of patient samples — tens of thousands in total in a single integrated database, which is the foundation of the project,” said Dr. Pennington. He explained that it took a significant amount of work to secure the necessary agreements from all 27 partners to share the patient data securely, appropriately, and anonymously within the consortium.

Creating successful biomarkers, algorithms, and other tools is one thing, but disseminating the knowledge learned and rolling out the final agreed guidelines will be just as important as the research work, said Dr. Pennington.

Dr. Mair, who is responsible for promoting communication, dissemination, and maximizing the impact of the research undertaken by the HIPPOCRATES consortium, said: “We see so often in healthcare that people come with great ideas or tools, yet they don’t become part of everyday practice. Hence, I am working on the implementation side of HIPPOCRATES, to make sure its findings will be embedded and routinely used in practice,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An estimated 3% of the world’s population have psoriasis, with approximately 6.4 million people across Europe affected. Almost one third of people with psoriasis will develop psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a disease that can be severe and debilitating and lead to irreversible degeneration of bone and tissue, typically affecting the joints of hands and feet. 

As inflammatory autoimmune diseases, psoriasis and PsA also increase the risk for further comorbidities, such as cardiovascular diseases and obesity, with higher rates of depression among those affected. 

Although notable advances have been made in the range of treatment options for PsA, it remains difficult to diagnose. No specific diagnostic criteria or laboratory tests are available, and the disease course and response to treatment can be unpredictable.

“Another key unmet need relates to whether we can reliably identify risk factors for which a person with psoriasis will develop PsA. We know that 30% will develop PsA, but we cannot identify which person with psoriasis is at risk,” said Professor Oliver FitzGerald of University College Dublin (UCD), Dublin, Ireland, an international opinion leader in rheumatology. A clearer understanding of PsA could lead to development of tools for its early diagnosis and identification of disease prevention strategies, he explained.

Thus, HIPPOCRATES (Health Initiatives in Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Consortium European States ) was created. This ambitious research consortium was conceived by Dr. FitzGerald and his colleague Stephen Pennington, professor of proteomics at UCD, together with a number of likeminded colleagues in the fields of rheumatology and dermatology and at organizations such as GRAPPA, HUPO, EULAR, and EUROPSO. 

The collaboration has brought together world-leading clinicians, researchers, and people living with psoriasis and PsA to address the main challenges in its early identification and management.

HIPPOCRATES received €23.5 million in funding from the EU Innovative Medicines Initiative public-private partnership in 2021 and is now half way through its 5-year plan. 

Key Goals 

HIPPOCRATES involves 27 partners, including from industry, in 11 countries. 

Its four key goals are:

• Identifying specific PsA disease markers to develop accurate diagnostic tools;
• Developing prediction strategies to identify which person with psoriasis will develop PsA;
• Monitoring and prevention of PsA disease progression to irreversible joint damage; and
• Identifying personalized treatment options, so that patients are treated with the right medicines for their specific disease.

“The pharmaceutical companies have come up with a veritable armory of potential treatments, but rheumatologists still don’t know which one to use for a particular patient at a particular time,” Dr. Pennington explained to this news organization. “So the reality is they tend to cycle through treatments until they find one that is effective.” This is not very efficient or desirable for patients, he added. 

Multidisciplinary Approach

A key advantage of HIPPOCRATES is that it brings several medical disciplines together. The current approach of clinicians working in silos is a key barrier to earlier diagnosis of PsA.

“The reality is that a patient with psoriasis will see a dermatologist, and dermatologists don’t necessarily have the skills or training to identify the very early stages of psoriatic arthritis, so they will only refer a patient of theirs to a rheumatologist at a very late stage,” said Dr. Pennington.

Dermatologists need better tools to be able to recognize when they should refer their psoriasis patients to rheumatologists, so that patients developing PsA are diagnosed and treated earlier, he explained. 

GPs will also be an important component of the project because they are the first point of healthcare contact for people with PsA or psoriasis.

“[I]t is about helping GPs diagnose earlier and raise awareness among patients. Historically, there has been a bit of a lag between people having their first symptoms and getting a diagnosis,” explained HIPPOCRATES collaborator Frances Mair, the Norie Miller Professor of General Practice and head of general practice and primary care at the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland. 

Dr. Mair said that diagnosis isn't always straightforward, and the hope is that the study will identify more specific risk factors that will help GPs flag PsA earlier. 

Patient Involvement and Data Sharing

The HIPPOCRATES consortium involves patients in all stages of the project.

“In HIPPOCRATES, patient and public involvement is really a central feature, which is quite unusual at the more experimental side of healthcare and research. In HIPPOCRATES, the patient research partners have a leading role, making a real difference…” said Dr. Mair.

To facilitate its goals, the consortium partners are sharing data and samples from previously conducted studies on psoriasis and PsA populations. This will facilitate extensive omics-based analyses to establish and validate robust biomarkers across datasets, using the latest cutting-edge techniques, including machine learning and artificial intelligence. 

In addition, the HIPPOCRATES Prospective Observational Study (HPOS) was launched last year. This web-based study aims to recruit 25,000 adults (≥ 18 years of age) with skin psoriasis across Europe. They will collect their clinical data every 6 months, including emerging musculoskeletal symptoms. Blood samples will also be collected remotely from a subset of 3000 participants using a finger-prick kit that will be posted to their homes. 

HPOS has already commenced recruitment in the UK, Ireland and, most recently, Greece and Portugal, with nearly 2300 participants enrolled to date. HPOS also plans to launch in France, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Sweden. 

“This ambitious study will give us the statistical power to identify clinical/molecular risk factors for progression from psoriasis to PsA. We anticipate that 675 participants per year will develop PsA in our studied population. Participants will receive regular feedback to help monitor their condition, and we will help them to get the medical care that they need,” said Dr. FitzGerald.

Dr. Pennington added that the consortium believes it is a “realistic goal” that the resulting molecular risk prediction tools could eventually enable clinicians to intervene to prevent PsA. 

From Research to Practice

The HIPPOCRATES projects are making good progress, with several early publications, and further publications being drafted. 

“One of the biggest achievements so far has been to assemble this massive resource of patient samples — tens of thousands in total in a single integrated database, which is the foundation of the project,” said Dr. Pennington. He explained that it took a significant amount of work to secure the necessary agreements from all 27 partners to share the patient data securely, appropriately, and anonymously within the consortium.

Creating successful biomarkers, algorithms, and other tools is one thing, but disseminating the knowledge learned and rolling out the final agreed guidelines will be just as important as the research work, said Dr. Pennington.

Dr. Mair, who is responsible for promoting communication, dissemination, and maximizing the impact of the research undertaken by the HIPPOCRATES consortium, said: “We see so often in healthcare that people come with great ideas or tools, yet they don’t become part of everyday practice. Hence, I am working on the implementation side of HIPPOCRATES, to make sure its findings will be embedded and routinely used in practice,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An estimated 3% of the world’s population have psoriasis, with approximately 6.4 million people across Europe affected. Almost one third of people with psoriasis will develop psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a disease that can be severe and debilitating and lead to irreversible degeneration of bone and tissue, typically affecting the joints of hands and feet. 

As inflammatory autoimmune diseases, psoriasis and PsA also increase the risk for further comorbidities, such as cardiovascular diseases and obesity, with higher rates of depression among those affected. 

Although notable advances have been made in the range of treatment options for PsA, it remains difficult to diagnose. No specific diagnostic criteria or laboratory tests are available, and the disease course and response to treatment can be unpredictable.

“Another key unmet need relates to whether we can reliably identify risk factors for which a person with psoriasis will develop PsA. We know that 30% will develop PsA, but we cannot identify which person with psoriasis is at risk,” said Professor Oliver FitzGerald of University College Dublin (UCD), Dublin, Ireland, an international opinion leader in rheumatology. A clearer understanding of PsA could lead to development of tools for its early diagnosis and identification of disease prevention strategies, he explained.

Thus, HIPPOCRATES (Health Initiatives in Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Consortium European States ) was created. This ambitious research consortium was conceived by Dr. FitzGerald and his colleague Stephen Pennington, professor of proteomics at UCD, together with a number of likeminded colleagues in the fields of rheumatology and dermatology and at organizations such as GRAPPA, HUPO, EULAR, and EUROPSO. 

The collaboration has brought together world-leading clinicians, researchers, and people living with psoriasis and PsA to address the main challenges in its early identification and management.

HIPPOCRATES received €23.5 million in funding from the EU Innovative Medicines Initiative public-private partnership in 2021 and is now half way through its 5-year plan. 

Key Goals 

HIPPOCRATES involves 27 partners, including from industry, in 11 countries. 

Its four key goals are:

• Identifying specific PsA disease markers to develop accurate diagnostic tools;
• Developing prediction strategies to identify which person with psoriasis will develop PsA;
• Monitoring and prevention of PsA disease progression to irreversible joint damage; and
• Identifying personalized treatment options, so that patients are treated with the right medicines for their specific disease.

“The pharmaceutical companies have come up with a veritable armory of potential treatments, but rheumatologists still don’t know which one to use for a particular patient at a particular time,” Dr. Pennington explained to this news organization. “So the reality is they tend to cycle through treatments until they find one that is effective.” This is not very efficient or desirable for patients, he added. 

Multidisciplinary Approach

A key advantage of HIPPOCRATES is that it brings several medical disciplines together. The current approach of clinicians working in silos is a key barrier to earlier diagnosis of PsA.

“The reality is that a patient with psoriasis will see a dermatologist, and dermatologists don’t necessarily have the skills or training to identify the very early stages of psoriatic arthritis, so they will only refer a patient of theirs to a rheumatologist at a very late stage,” said Dr. Pennington.

Dermatologists need better tools to be able to recognize when they should refer their psoriasis patients to rheumatologists, so that patients developing PsA are diagnosed and treated earlier, he explained. 

GPs will also be an important component of the project because they are the first point of healthcare contact for people with PsA or psoriasis.

“[I]t is about helping GPs diagnose earlier and raise awareness among patients. Historically, there has been a bit of a lag between people having their first symptoms and getting a diagnosis,” explained HIPPOCRATES collaborator Frances Mair, the Norie Miller Professor of General Practice and head of general practice and primary care at the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland. 

Dr. Mair said that diagnosis isn't always straightforward, and the hope is that the study will identify more specific risk factors that will help GPs flag PsA earlier. 

Patient Involvement and Data Sharing

The HIPPOCRATES consortium involves patients in all stages of the project.

“In HIPPOCRATES, patient and public involvement is really a central feature, which is quite unusual at the more experimental side of healthcare and research. In HIPPOCRATES, the patient research partners have a leading role, making a real difference…” said Dr. Mair.

To facilitate its goals, the consortium partners are sharing data and samples from previously conducted studies on psoriasis and PsA populations. This will facilitate extensive omics-based analyses to establish and validate robust biomarkers across datasets, using the latest cutting-edge techniques, including machine learning and artificial intelligence. 

In addition, the HIPPOCRATES Prospective Observational Study (HPOS) was launched last year. This web-based study aims to recruit 25,000 adults (≥ 18 years of age) with skin psoriasis across Europe. They will collect their clinical data every 6 months, including emerging musculoskeletal symptoms. Blood samples will also be collected remotely from a subset of 3000 participants using a finger-prick kit that will be posted to their homes. 

HPOS has already commenced recruitment in the UK, Ireland and, most recently, Greece and Portugal, with nearly 2300 participants enrolled to date. HPOS also plans to launch in France, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Sweden. 

“This ambitious study will give us the statistical power to identify clinical/molecular risk factors for progression from psoriasis to PsA. We anticipate that 675 participants per year will develop PsA in our studied population. Participants will receive regular feedback to help monitor their condition, and we will help them to get the medical care that they need,” said Dr. FitzGerald.

Dr. Pennington added that the consortium believes it is a “realistic goal” that the resulting molecular risk prediction tools could eventually enable clinicians to intervene to prevent PsA. 

From Research to Practice

The HIPPOCRATES projects are making good progress, with several early publications, and further publications being drafted. 

“One of the biggest achievements so far has been to assemble this massive resource of patient samples — tens of thousands in total in a single integrated database, which is the foundation of the project,” said Dr. Pennington. He explained that it took a significant amount of work to secure the necessary agreements from all 27 partners to share the patient data securely, appropriately, and anonymously within the consortium.

Creating successful biomarkers, algorithms, and other tools is one thing, but disseminating the knowledge learned and rolling out the final agreed guidelines will be just as important as the research work, said Dr. Pennington.

Dr. Mair, who is responsible for promoting communication, dissemination, and maximizing the impact of the research undertaken by the HIPPOCRATES consortium, said: “We see so often in healthcare that people come with great ideas or tools, yet they don’t become part of everyday practice. Hence, I am working on the implementation side of HIPPOCRATES, to make sure its findings will be embedded and routinely used in practice,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The accumulation of multiple adverse social determinants of health is linked to worse disease at initial presentation and worse disease activity over time in children with rheumatologic conditions, according to findings presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

One study revealed that cumulative factors conferring social disadvantage progressively increased the odds of active disease and functional disability in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Another study similarly found that children with lupus living in neighborhoods with comparatively fewer resources for childhood opportunity had worse disease at presentation and greater disease activity over follow-up.

The findings suggest that exposure to multiple disadvantaging social variables may be linked to worse outcomes than exposure to any single factor, William Daniel Soulsby, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, told attendees in his presentation of data from the JIA study.

“Most prior studies have analyzed such determinants as independent risk factors,” Dr. Soulsby said. “However, individuals experiencing social disadvantage often face multiple social hardships that rarely act in isolation; studying these factors independently may miss underlying disparities.”

Stacy P. Ardoin, MD, MSc, professor of pediatric and adult rheumatology at Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University in Columbus, and vice president of CARRA, did not find the results of Soulsby’s study surprising, but she said they do “provide important confirmation of our growing understanding of the impact of social determinants of health on the outcomes of children and adolescents with chronic disease like juvenile idiopathic arthritis.” She added: “In medicine, we often think about the bench, the bedside, and the clinic, but this study tells us that if we want to improve outcomes for our patients, we also need to think about the ‘backyard,’ too.”
 

Social Disadvantage With JIA

Dr. Soulsby’s team adopted an approach similar to that of a recent National Survey of Children’s Health analysis that used a combined scoring system to calculate cumulative social disadvantage. The researchers used income level, insurance status, and education level to capture individual factors related to disadvantage and then an area deprivation index (ADI) to capture community factors. While they were unable to use any variables specific to societal factors, they included race, which is relevant at all three levels.

The cohort included 9612 patients in the CARRA Registry from July 2015 to January 2022. They included all patients who had a JIA diagnosis with onset before age 16 and at least one visit with a complete clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (JADAS) score. Most of the patients (70%) were female, with an average age at enrollment of 11 and a mean time to diagnosis of 10.6 months.

Most of the patients had oligoarthritis (35.5%) or rheumatoid factor–negative polyarthritis (29.4%), followed by enthesitis-related arthritis (10.5%) and then other forms. A total of 4% of patients had a secondary rheumatologic condition. Most of the patients were White (74.9%), with 3.9% Black, 7.6% Hispanic, and 6.5% of more than one race. ADI data were missing for 17.2% of patients.

The researchers assigned a score to each patient that could add up to a maximum of 3. They received 1 point for an annual household income below $50,000, 1 point for having public insurance or no insurance, and 1 point for their guardian having no more than a high school education. Patients with a score of 0 comprised 60.9% of the patients, while 21.3% had a score of 1, 12.9% had a score of 2, and 4.9% had a score of 3.

Just over a quarter of the patients (26.3%) were underinsured, 19.1% were low income, and 16.4% had caregivers with a high school education or less. However, income level was unknown for 24.6% of patients, and guardians’ education level was unknown for 15.7% of patients.

The primary outcomes were the odds of active disease as based on clinical JADAS (at least a 1.1 score for oligoarticular JIA and more than 2.5 for all other subtypes) and odds of functional disability based on the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ). Adjustments were made for sex, race/ethnicity, age at enrollment, time to diagnosis, ADI, JIA category, presence of secondary rheumatologic disease, and medication (use of a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [DMARD], biologic DMARD, or small molecule drug).

Nearly half (48%) of patients had active disease during follow-up, with an average clinical JADAS score of 4 from the whole cohort. Compared with children with a cumulative disadvantage score of 0, each additional point on the clinical JADAS resulted in significantly increased odds of active disease. Those with the highest score of 3 were twice as likely to have active disease (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.05; P < .001) as those with a score of 0, but those with a score of 1 (aOR, 1.36; P < .001) or 2 (aOR, 1.86; P < .001) were also more likely to have active disease. Other significant independent predictors of active arthritis included being of Black race (aOR, 1.55) or more than one race (aOR, 1.31).

Each of the scored factors also independently increased the likelihood of active disease by similar amounts: 1.69 higher odds for low household income on its own, 1.6 higher odds for public or no insurance, and 1.45 higher odds for high school education or less (all P < .001).

Similarly, odds of functional disability based on CHAQ increased significantly with each additional point. The mean CHAQ score was 0.31, and 46% of patients had functional disability during follow-up. Those with a cumulative social disadvantage score of 3 were three times as likely to have functional disability (aOR, 3.09; P < .001) as those with a score of 0. Those with a score of 1 (aOR, 1.82) or 2 (aOR, 2.81) were also more likely to have functional disability (P < .001). Again, Black individuals (aOR, 2.09) or those of mixed race (aOR, 1.78) had greater odds of functional disability (P < .001).

The independent factor most associated with increased odds of functional disability was a household income below $50,000 a year (OR, 3.03; P < .001), followed by having public or no insurance (OR, 2.57) or a caregiver with no more than a high school education (OR, 1.98). Dr. Soulsby noted that their study was limited by the missing data and may oversimplify the relationships between social determinants of health.

Overall, however, the findings revealed both the importance of social risk screening in the pediatric rheumatology clinic and the coupling of that screening with individual level support for patients, Dr. Soulsby said.

“This study did a great job of harnessing the power of the CARRA Registry,” said Dr. Ardoin, who was not involved in the research. “These findings underscore how important it is for all clinicians, including pediatric rheumatologists, to evaluate every child for social risks of poor outcomes,” she said.

One take-home message from the findings is that once pediatric rheumatologists identify social risks for poor outcomes in their patients, they can “consult with social workers and connect families with community resources in an effort to ameliorate social deprivation.”
 

Childhood Lupus and Reduced Childhood Opportunity

In a similar study looking at children with childhood-onset lupus, researchers similarly identified the way that compounding social determinants of health were linked to greater disease activity.

“We know that structural racism segregates children from historically marginalized groups into different neighborhoods with lower childhood opportunity,” Joyce C. Chang, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, told attendees. “When we talk about child opportunity, we’re really describing all of the resources and conditions that helped to promote healthy childhood development,” including factors related to education, physical health, the built environment, and social and economic security, she said.

Dr. Chang and her colleagues therefore assessed the relationship between a 29-indicator Child Opportunity Index for patients with childhood-onset lupus and the severity of their disease presentation and activity over time. They determined the Child Opportunity Index for different neighborhoods and assessed the amount of racial residential segregation around the three institutions involved in the study. Severity of lupus presentation was based on the need for intensive care unit admission or dialysis or a Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) score of 10 or higher. Disease activity over time was based on the SLEDAI-2K score.

The patient population included 553 patients with childhood-onset lupus from three institutions: Boston Children’s Hospital, Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, and Children’s of Alabama in Birmingham, Alabama. Across the full population, 30% of the patients were Black and 30% were Hispanic, but the distribution of race and ethnicity varied by institution. Most of the Black patients, for example, were at Children’s of Alabama (59%), while 43% of the Hispanic patients were at Lurie. Across all the sites, 14% of the patients’ families preferred a non-English language as their first language, and just over half the patients (52%) had public insurance.

Dr. Chang did not have data yet from the Lurie and Alabama cohorts, so she presented preliminary data from the Boston Children’s cohort of 148 patients. In those results, children living in neighborhoods of low childhood opportunity had four times higher odds of presenting with severe disease than children living in neighborhoods of very high opportunity. Then the researchers factored in the location quotient that represented the magnitude of racial segregation in a residential area. In areas with high levels of Black vs White segregation, children were 2.5 times more likely to have a more severe initial disease presentation. However, there was not a significant difference in areas highly segregated between Hispanic and non-Hispanic residents.

After initial presentation, the data revealed a dose-dependent relationship between childhood opportunity and severity of disease activity based on SLEDAI-2K. After adjustment for insurance status, race, preferred language, age at disease onset, sex, major organ involvement, initial SLEDAI-2K score at presentation, and follow-up time, disease activity incrementally increased as childhood opportunity decreased (P < .001 for the trend).

The findings suggested that even in regions like Boston, where overall childhood opportunity is higher than the national average, “poor relative neighborhood opportunity is still associated with more severe lupus presentation, as well as higher lupus disease activity during follow-up,” Dr. Chang said. “Area-level conditions may drive inequitable outcomes at numerous points,” including initial access to subspecialty care and after establishing that care, she said.

Dr. Soulsby, Dr. Chang, and Dr. Ardoin reported having no disclosures. Dr. Soulsby’s research was funded by CARRA and the Arthritis Foundation, and Dr. Chang’s research was funded by CARRA.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The accumulation of multiple adverse social determinants of health is linked to worse disease at initial presentation and worse disease activity over time in children with rheumatologic conditions, according to findings presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

One study revealed that cumulative factors conferring social disadvantage progressively increased the odds of active disease and functional disability in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Another study similarly found that children with lupus living in neighborhoods with comparatively fewer resources for childhood opportunity had worse disease at presentation and greater disease activity over follow-up.

The findings suggest that exposure to multiple disadvantaging social variables may be linked to worse outcomes than exposure to any single factor, William Daniel Soulsby, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, told attendees in his presentation of data from the JIA study.

“Most prior studies have analyzed such determinants as independent risk factors,” Dr. Soulsby said. “However, individuals experiencing social disadvantage often face multiple social hardships that rarely act in isolation; studying these factors independently may miss underlying disparities.”

Stacy P. Ardoin, MD, MSc, professor of pediatric and adult rheumatology at Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University in Columbus, and vice president of CARRA, did not find the results of Soulsby’s study surprising, but she said they do “provide important confirmation of our growing understanding of the impact of social determinants of health on the outcomes of children and adolescents with chronic disease like juvenile idiopathic arthritis.” She added: “In medicine, we often think about the bench, the bedside, and the clinic, but this study tells us that if we want to improve outcomes for our patients, we also need to think about the ‘backyard,’ too.”
 

Social Disadvantage With JIA

Dr. Soulsby’s team adopted an approach similar to that of a recent National Survey of Children’s Health analysis that used a combined scoring system to calculate cumulative social disadvantage. The researchers used income level, insurance status, and education level to capture individual factors related to disadvantage and then an area deprivation index (ADI) to capture community factors. While they were unable to use any variables specific to societal factors, they included race, which is relevant at all three levels.

The cohort included 9612 patients in the CARRA Registry from July 2015 to January 2022. They included all patients who had a JIA diagnosis with onset before age 16 and at least one visit with a complete clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (JADAS) score. Most of the patients (70%) were female, with an average age at enrollment of 11 and a mean time to diagnosis of 10.6 months.

Most of the patients had oligoarthritis (35.5%) or rheumatoid factor–negative polyarthritis (29.4%), followed by enthesitis-related arthritis (10.5%) and then other forms. A total of 4% of patients had a secondary rheumatologic condition. Most of the patients were White (74.9%), with 3.9% Black, 7.6% Hispanic, and 6.5% of more than one race. ADI data were missing for 17.2% of patients.

The researchers assigned a score to each patient that could add up to a maximum of 3. They received 1 point for an annual household income below $50,000, 1 point for having public insurance or no insurance, and 1 point for their guardian having no more than a high school education. Patients with a score of 0 comprised 60.9% of the patients, while 21.3% had a score of 1, 12.9% had a score of 2, and 4.9% had a score of 3.

Just over a quarter of the patients (26.3%) were underinsured, 19.1% were low income, and 16.4% had caregivers with a high school education or less. However, income level was unknown for 24.6% of patients, and guardians’ education level was unknown for 15.7% of patients.

The primary outcomes were the odds of active disease as based on clinical JADAS (at least a 1.1 score for oligoarticular JIA and more than 2.5 for all other subtypes) and odds of functional disability based on the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ). Adjustments were made for sex, race/ethnicity, age at enrollment, time to diagnosis, ADI, JIA category, presence of secondary rheumatologic disease, and medication (use of a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [DMARD], biologic DMARD, or small molecule drug).

Nearly half (48%) of patients had active disease during follow-up, with an average clinical JADAS score of 4 from the whole cohort. Compared with children with a cumulative disadvantage score of 0, each additional point on the clinical JADAS resulted in significantly increased odds of active disease. Those with the highest score of 3 were twice as likely to have active disease (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.05; P < .001) as those with a score of 0, but those with a score of 1 (aOR, 1.36; P < .001) or 2 (aOR, 1.86; P < .001) were also more likely to have active disease. Other significant independent predictors of active arthritis included being of Black race (aOR, 1.55) or more than one race (aOR, 1.31).

Each of the scored factors also independently increased the likelihood of active disease by similar amounts: 1.69 higher odds for low household income on its own, 1.6 higher odds for public or no insurance, and 1.45 higher odds for high school education or less (all P < .001).

Similarly, odds of functional disability based on CHAQ increased significantly with each additional point. The mean CHAQ score was 0.31, and 46% of patients had functional disability during follow-up. Those with a cumulative social disadvantage score of 3 were three times as likely to have functional disability (aOR, 3.09; P < .001) as those with a score of 0. Those with a score of 1 (aOR, 1.82) or 2 (aOR, 2.81) were also more likely to have functional disability (P < .001). Again, Black individuals (aOR, 2.09) or those of mixed race (aOR, 1.78) had greater odds of functional disability (P < .001).

The independent factor most associated with increased odds of functional disability was a household income below $50,000 a year (OR, 3.03; P < .001), followed by having public or no insurance (OR, 2.57) or a caregiver with no more than a high school education (OR, 1.98). Dr. Soulsby noted that their study was limited by the missing data and may oversimplify the relationships between social determinants of health.

Overall, however, the findings revealed both the importance of social risk screening in the pediatric rheumatology clinic and the coupling of that screening with individual level support for patients, Dr. Soulsby said.

“This study did a great job of harnessing the power of the CARRA Registry,” said Dr. Ardoin, who was not involved in the research. “These findings underscore how important it is for all clinicians, including pediatric rheumatologists, to evaluate every child for social risks of poor outcomes,” she said.

One take-home message from the findings is that once pediatric rheumatologists identify social risks for poor outcomes in their patients, they can “consult with social workers and connect families with community resources in an effort to ameliorate social deprivation.”
 

Childhood Lupus and Reduced Childhood Opportunity

In a similar study looking at children with childhood-onset lupus, researchers similarly identified the way that compounding social determinants of health were linked to greater disease activity.

“We know that structural racism segregates children from historically marginalized groups into different neighborhoods with lower childhood opportunity,” Joyce C. Chang, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, told attendees. “When we talk about child opportunity, we’re really describing all of the resources and conditions that helped to promote healthy childhood development,” including factors related to education, physical health, the built environment, and social and economic security, she said.

Dr. Chang and her colleagues therefore assessed the relationship between a 29-indicator Child Opportunity Index for patients with childhood-onset lupus and the severity of their disease presentation and activity over time. They determined the Child Opportunity Index for different neighborhoods and assessed the amount of racial residential segregation around the three institutions involved in the study. Severity of lupus presentation was based on the need for intensive care unit admission or dialysis or a Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) score of 10 or higher. Disease activity over time was based on the SLEDAI-2K score.

The patient population included 553 patients with childhood-onset lupus from three institutions: Boston Children’s Hospital, Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, and Children’s of Alabama in Birmingham, Alabama. Across the full population, 30% of the patients were Black and 30% were Hispanic, but the distribution of race and ethnicity varied by institution. Most of the Black patients, for example, were at Children’s of Alabama (59%), while 43% of the Hispanic patients were at Lurie. Across all the sites, 14% of the patients’ families preferred a non-English language as their first language, and just over half the patients (52%) had public insurance.

Dr. Chang did not have data yet from the Lurie and Alabama cohorts, so she presented preliminary data from the Boston Children’s cohort of 148 patients. In those results, children living in neighborhoods of low childhood opportunity had four times higher odds of presenting with severe disease than children living in neighborhoods of very high opportunity. Then the researchers factored in the location quotient that represented the magnitude of racial segregation in a residential area. In areas with high levels of Black vs White segregation, children were 2.5 times more likely to have a more severe initial disease presentation. However, there was not a significant difference in areas highly segregated between Hispanic and non-Hispanic residents.

After initial presentation, the data revealed a dose-dependent relationship between childhood opportunity and severity of disease activity based on SLEDAI-2K. After adjustment for insurance status, race, preferred language, age at disease onset, sex, major organ involvement, initial SLEDAI-2K score at presentation, and follow-up time, disease activity incrementally increased as childhood opportunity decreased (P < .001 for the trend).

The findings suggested that even in regions like Boston, where overall childhood opportunity is higher than the national average, “poor relative neighborhood opportunity is still associated with more severe lupus presentation, as well as higher lupus disease activity during follow-up,” Dr. Chang said. “Area-level conditions may drive inequitable outcomes at numerous points,” including initial access to subspecialty care and after establishing that care, she said.

Dr. Soulsby, Dr. Chang, and Dr. Ardoin reported having no disclosures. Dr. Soulsby’s research was funded by CARRA and the Arthritis Foundation, and Dr. Chang’s research was funded by CARRA.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The accumulation of multiple adverse social determinants of health is linked to worse disease at initial presentation and worse disease activity over time in children with rheumatologic conditions, according to findings presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

One study revealed that cumulative factors conferring social disadvantage progressively increased the odds of active disease and functional disability in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Another study similarly found that children with lupus living in neighborhoods with comparatively fewer resources for childhood opportunity had worse disease at presentation and greater disease activity over follow-up.

The findings suggest that exposure to multiple disadvantaging social variables may be linked to worse outcomes than exposure to any single factor, William Daniel Soulsby, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, told attendees in his presentation of data from the JIA study.

“Most prior studies have analyzed such determinants as independent risk factors,” Dr. Soulsby said. “However, individuals experiencing social disadvantage often face multiple social hardships that rarely act in isolation; studying these factors independently may miss underlying disparities.”

Stacy P. Ardoin, MD, MSc, professor of pediatric and adult rheumatology at Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University in Columbus, and vice president of CARRA, did not find the results of Soulsby’s study surprising, but she said they do “provide important confirmation of our growing understanding of the impact of social determinants of health on the outcomes of children and adolescents with chronic disease like juvenile idiopathic arthritis.” She added: “In medicine, we often think about the bench, the bedside, and the clinic, but this study tells us that if we want to improve outcomes for our patients, we also need to think about the ‘backyard,’ too.”
 

Social Disadvantage With JIA

Dr. Soulsby’s team adopted an approach similar to that of a recent National Survey of Children’s Health analysis that used a combined scoring system to calculate cumulative social disadvantage. The researchers used income level, insurance status, and education level to capture individual factors related to disadvantage and then an area deprivation index (ADI) to capture community factors. While they were unable to use any variables specific to societal factors, they included race, which is relevant at all three levels.

The cohort included 9612 patients in the CARRA Registry from July 2015 to January 2022. They included all patients who had a JIA diagnosis with onset before age 16 and at least one visit with a complete clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (JADAS) score. Most of the patients (70%) were female, with an average age at enrollment of 11 and a mean time to diagnosis of 10.6 months.

Most of the patients had oligoarthritis (35.5%) or rheumatoid factor–negative polyarthritis (29.4%), followed by enthesitis-related arthritis (10.5%) and then other forms. A total of 4% of patients had a secondary rheumatologic condition. Most of the patients were White (74.9%), with 3.9% Black, 7.6% Hispanic, and 6.5% of more than one race. ADI data were missing for 17.2% of patients.

The researchers assigned a score to each patient that could add up to a maximum of 3. They received 1 point for an annual household income below $50,000, 1 point for having public insurance or no insurance, and 1 point for their guardian having no more than a high school education. Patients with a score of 0 comprised 60.9% of the patients, while 21.3% had a score of 1, 12.9% had a score of 2, and 4.9% had a score of 3.

Just over a quarter of the patients (26.3%) were underinsured, 19.1% were low income, and 16.4% had caregivers with a high school education or less. However, income level was unknown for 24.6% of patients, and guardians’ education level was unknown for 15.7% of patients.

The primary outcomes were the odds of active disease as based on clinical JADAS (at least a 1.1 score for oligoarticular JIA and more than 2.5 for all other subtypes) and odds of functional disability based on the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ). Adjustments were made for sex, race/ethnicity, age at enrollment, time to diagnosis, ADI, JIA category, presence of secondary rheumatologic disease, and medication (use of a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [DMARD], biologic DMARD, or small molecule drug).

Nearly half (48%) of patients had active disease during follow-up, with an average clinical JADAS score of 4 from the whole cohort. Compared with children with a cumulative disadvantage score of 0, each additional point on the clinical JADAS resulted in significantly increased odds of active disease. Those with the highest score of 3 were twice as likely to have active disease (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.05; P < .001) as those with a score of 0, but those with a score of 1 (aOR, 1.36; P < .001) or 2 (aOR, 1.86; P < .001) were also more likely to have active disease. Other significant independent predictors of active arthritis included being of Black race (aOR, 1.55) or more than one race (aOR, 1.31).

Each of the scored factors also independently increased the likelihood of active disease by similar amounts: 1.69 higher odds for low household income on its own, 1.6 higher odds for public or no insurance, and 1.45 higher odds for high school education or less (all P < .001).

Similarly, odds of functional disability based on CHAQ increased significantly with each additional point. The mean CHAQ score was 0.31, and 46% of patients had functional disability during follow-up. Those with a cumulative social disadvantage score of 3 were three times as likely to have functional disability (aOR, 3.09; P < .001) as those with a score of 0. Those with a score of 1 (aOR, 1.82) or 2 (aOR, 2.81) were also more likely to have functional disability (P < .001). Again, Black individuals (aOR, 2.09) or those of mixed race (aOR, 1.78) had greater odds of functional disability (P < .001).

The independent factor most associated with increased odds of functional disability was a household income below $50,000 a year (OR, 3.03; P < .001), followed by having public or no insurance (OR, 2.57) or a caregiver with no more than a high school education (OR, 1.98). Dr. Soulsby noted that their study was limited by the missing data and may oversimplify the relationships between social determinants of health.

Overall, however, the findings revealed both the importance of social risk screening in the pediatric rheumatology clinic and the coupling of that screening with individual level support for patients, Dr. Soulsby said.

“This study did a great job of harnessing the power of the CARRA Registry,” said Dr. Ardoin, who was not involved in the research. “These findings underscore how important it is for all clinicians, including pediatric rheumatologists, to evaluate every child for social risks of poor outcomes,” she said.

One take-home message from the findings is that once pediatric rheumatologists identify social risks for poor outcomes in their patients, they can “consult with social workers and connect families with community resources in an effort to ameliorate social deprivation.”
 

Childhood Lupus and Reduced Childhood Opportunity

In a similar study looking at children with childhood-onset lupus, researchers similarly identified the way that compounding social determinants of health were linked to greater disease activity.

“We know that structural racism segregates children from historically marginalized groups into different neighborhoods with lower childhood opportunity,” Joyce C. Chang, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, told attendees. “When we talk about child opportunity, we’re really describing all of the resources and conditions that helped to promote healthy childhood development,” including factors related to education, physical health, the built environment, and social and economic security, she said.

Dr. Chang and her colleagues therefore assessed the relationship between a 29-indicator Child Opportunity Index for patients with childhood-onset lupus and the severity of their disease presentation and activity over time. They determined the Child Opportunity Index for different neighborhoods and assessed the amount of racial residential segregation around the three institutions involved in the study. Severity of lupus presentation was based on the need for intensive care unit admission or dialysis or a Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) score of 10 or higher. Disease activity over time was based on the SLEDAI-2K score.

The patient population included 553 patients with childhood-onset lupus from three institutions: Boston Children’s Hospital, Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, and Children’s of Alabama in Birmingham, Alabama. Across the full population, 30% of the patients were Black and 30% were Hispanic, but the distribution of race and ethnicity varied by institution. Most of the Black patients, for example, were at Children’s of Alabama (59%), while 43% of the Hispanic patients were at Lurie. Across all the sites, 14% of the patients’ families preferred a non-English language as their first language, and just over half the patients (52%) had public insurance.

Dr. Chang did not have data yet from the Lurie and Alabama cohorts, so she presented preliminary data from the Boston Children’s cohort of 148 patients. In those results, children living in neighborhoods of low childhood opportunity had four times higher odds of presenting with severe disease than children living in neighborhoods of very high opportunity. Then the researchers factored in the location quotient that represented the magnitude of racial segregation in a residential area. In areas with high levels of Black vs White segregation, children were 2.5 times more likely to have a more severe initial disease presentation. However, there was not a significant difference in areas highly segregated between Hispanic and non-Hispanic residents.

After initial presentation, the data revealed a dose-dependent relationship between childhood opportunity and severity of disease activity based on SLEDAI-2K. After adjustment for insurance status, race, preferred language, age at disease onset, sex, major organ involvement, initial SLEDAI-2K score at presentation, and follow-up time, disease activity incrementally increased as childhood opportunity decreased (P < .001 for the trend).

The findings suggested that even in regions like Boston, where overall childhood opportunity is higher than the national average, “poor relative neighborhood opportunity is still associated with more severe lupus presentation, as well as higher lupus disease activity during follow-up,” Dr. Chang said. “Area-level conditions may drive inequitable outcomes at numerous points,” including initial access to subspecialty care and after establishing that care, she said.

Dr. Soulsby, Dr. Chang, and Dr. Ardoin reported having no disclosures. Dr. Soulsby’s research was funded by CARRA and the Arthritis Foundation, and Dr. Chang’s research was funded by CARRA.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Anti-osteoporosis medications reduce fracture risk similarly, regardless of whether patients are younger or older than 70 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators conducted the study as part of a  to assess bone mineral density as a surrogate marker for fracture risk.
• Analyses used individual patient data from 23 randomized placebo-controlled trials of anti-osteoporosis medications (11 of bisphosphonates, four of selective estrogen receptor modulators, three of anabolic medications, two of hormone replacement therapy, and one each of odanacatib, denosumab, and romosozumab).
• Overall, 43% of the included 123,164 patients were aged 70 years or older.
• The main outcomes were fractures and bone mineral density.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was a similar benefit regardless of age when it came to the reduction in risks for hip fracture (odds ratio, 0.65 vs 0.72; P for interaction = .50) and any fracture (odds ratio, 0.72 vs 0.70; P for interaction = .20).
• Findings were comparable in analyses restricted to bisphosphonate trials, except that the reduction in hip fracture risk was greater among the younger group (hazard ratio, 0.44 vs 0.79; P for interaction = .02).
• The benefit of anti-osteoporosis medication in increasing hip and spine bone mineral density at 24 months was significantly greater among the older patients.

IN PRACTICE:

Taken together, the study results “strongly support treatment in those over age 70,” the authors wrote. “These are important findings with potential impact in patient treatment since it goes against a common misconception that medications are less effective in older people,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Marian Schini, MD, PhD, FHEA, University of Sheffield, England, and was published online in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included a preponderance of female patients (99%), possible residual confounding, a lack of analysis of adverse effects, and potentially different findings using alternate age cutoffs.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the American Society for Bone Mineral Research. Some authors disclosed affiliations with companies that manufacture anti-osteoporosis drugs.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Anti-osteoporosis medications reduce fracture risk similarly, regardless of whether patients are younger or older than 70 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators conducted the study as part of a  to assess bone mineral density as a surrogate marker for fracture risk.
• Analyses used individual patient data from 23 randomized placebo-controlled trials of anti-osteoporosis medications (11 of bisphosphonates, four of selective estrogen receptor modulators, three of anabolic medications, two of hormone replacement therapy, and one each of odanacatib, denosumab, and romosozumab).
• Overall, 43% of the included 123,164 patients were aged 70 years or older.
• The main outcomes were fractures and bone mineral density.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was a similar benefit regardless of age when it came to the reduction in risks for hip fracture (odds ratio, 0.65 vs 0.72; P for interaction = .50) and any fracture (odds ratio, 0.72 vs 0.70; P for interaction = .20).
• Findings were comparable in analyses restricted to bisphosphonate trials, except that the reduction in hip fracture risk was greater among the younger group (hazard ratio, 0.44 vs 0.79; P for interaction = .02).
• The benefit of anti-osteoporosis medication in increasing hip and spine bone mineral density at 24 months was significantly greater among the older patients.

IN PRACTICE:

Taken together, the study results “strongly support treatment in those over age 70,” the authors wrote. “These are important findings with potential impact in patient treatment since it goes against a common misconception that medications are less effective in older people,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Marian Schini, MD, PhD, FHEA, University of Sheffield, England, and was published online in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included a preponderance of female patients (99%), possible residual confounding, a lack of analysis of adverse effects, and potentially different findings using alternate age cutoffs.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the American Society for Bone Mineral Research. Some authors disclosed affiliations with companies that manufacture anti-osteoporosis drugs.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Anti-osteoporosis medications reduce fracture risk similarly, regardless of whether patients are younger or older than 70 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators conducted the study as part of a  to assess bone mineral density as a surrogate marker for fracture risk.
• Analyses used individual patient data from 23 randomized placebo-controlled trials of anti-osteoporosis medications (11 of bisphosphonates, four of selective estrogen receptor modulators, three of anabolic medications, two of hormone replacement therapy, and one each of odanacatib, denosumab, and romosozumab).
• Overall, 43% of the included 123,164 patients were aged 70 years or older.
• The main outcomes were fractures and bone mineral density.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was a similar benefit regardless of age when it came to the reduction in risks for hip fracture (odds ratio, 0.65 vs 0.72; P for interaction = .50) and any fracture (odds ratio, 0.72 vs 0.70; P for interaction = .20).
• Findings were comparable in analyses restricted to bisphosphonate trials, except that the reduction in hip fracture risk was greater among the younger group (hazard ratio, 0.44 vs 0.79; P for interaction = .02).
• The benefit of anti-osteoporosis medication in increasing hip and spine bone mineral density at 24 months was significantly greater among the older patients.

IN PRACTICE:

Taken together, the study results “strongly support treatment in those over age 70,” the authors wrote. “These are important findings with potential impact in patient treatment since it goes against a common misconception that medications are less effective in older people,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Marian Schini, MD, PhD, FHEA, University of Sheffield, England, and was published online in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included a preponderance of female patients (99%), possible residual confounding, a lack of analysis of adverse effects, and potentially different findings using alternate age cutoffs.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the American Society for Bone Mineral Research. Some authors disclosed affiliations with companies that manufacture anti-osteoporosis drugs.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.