Rheumatology News

Among the potential uses envisioned for artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is decreasing provider burden by using the technology to help respond to patients’ questions submitted through portals.

Easing the burden on providers of responding to each question is a target ripe for solutions as during the COVID pandemic, such messages increased 157% from prepandemic levels, say authors of a paper published online in JAMA Network Open. Each additional message added 2.3 minutes to time spent on the electronic health record (EHR) per day.

Researchers at Stanford Health Care, led by Patricia Garcia, MD, with the department of medicine, conducted a 5-week, prospective, single-group quality improvement study from July 10 through August 13, 2023, at Stanford to test an AI response system.
 

Large Language Model Used

All attending physicians, advanced practice providers, clinic nurses, and clinical pharmacists from the divisions of primary care and gastroenterology and hepatology were enrolled in a pilot program that offered the option to answer patients’ questions with drafts that were generated by a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant large language model integrated into EHRs. Drafts were then reviewed by the provider.

The study primarily tested whether providers (162 were included) would use the AI-generated drafts. Secondary outcomes included whether using such a system saved time or improved the clinician experience.

Participants received survey emails before and after the pilot period and answered questions on areas including task load, EHR burden, usability, work exhaustion, burnout, and satisfaction.

Researchers found that the overall average utilization rate per clinician was 20% but there were significant between-group differences. For example, in gastroenterology and hepatology, nurses used the AI tool the most at 29% and physicians/APPs had a 24% usage rate, whereas clinical pharmacists had the highest use rate for primary care at 44% compared with physician use at 15%.
 

Burden Improved, But Didn’t Save Time

AI did not appear to save time but did improve task load scores and work exhaustion scores. The report states that there was no change in reply action time, write time, or read time between the prepilot and pilot periods. However, there were significant reductions in the physician task load score derivative (mean [SD], 61.31 [17.23] pre survey vs 47.26 [17.11] post survey; paired difference, −13.87; 95% CI, −17.38 to −9.50; P < .001) and work exhaustion scores decreased by a third (mean [SD], 1.95 [0.79] pre survey vs 1.62 [0.68] post survey; paired difference, −0.33; 95% CI, −0.50 to −0.17; P < .001)

The authors wrote that improvements in task load and emotional exhaustion scores suggest that generated replies have the potential to lessen cognitive burden and burnout. Though the AI tool didn’t save time, editing responses may be less cognitively taxing than writing responses for providers, the authors suggest.
 

Quality of AI Responses

Comments about AI response message voice and/or tone were the most common and had the highest absolute number of negative comments (10 positive, 2 neutral, and 14 negative). The most negative comments were about length (too long or too short) of the draft message (1 positive, 2 neutral, and 8 negative).

Comments on accuracy of the draft response were fairly even ­— 4 positive and 5 negative — but there were no adverse safety signals, the authors report.

The providers had high expectations about use and quality of the tool that “were either met or exceeded at the end of the pilot,” Dr. Garcia and coauthors write. “Given the evidence that burnout is associated with turnover, reductions in clinical activity, and quality, even a modest improvement may have a substantial impact.”

One coauthor reported grants from Google, Omada Health, and PredictaMed outside the submitted work. Another coauthor reported having a patent for Well-being Index Instruments and Mayo Leadership Impact Index, with royalties paid from Mayo Clinic, and receiving honoraria for presenting grand rounds, keynote lectures, and advising health care organizations on clinician well-being. No other disclosures were reported. 

Among the potential uses envisioned for artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is decreasing provider burden by using the technology to help respond to patients’ questions submitted through portals.

Easing the burden on providers of responding to each question is a target ripe for solutions as during the COVID pandemic, such messages increased 157% from prepandemic levels, say authors of a paper published online in JAMA Network Open. Each additional message added 2.3 minutes to time spent on the electronic health record (EHR) per day.

Researchers at Stanford Health Care, led by Patricia Garcia, MD, with the department of medicine, conducted a 5-week, prospective, single-group quality improvement study from July 10 through August 13, 2023, at Stanford to test an AI response system.
 

Large Language Model Used

All attending physicians, advanced practice providers, clinic nurses, and clinical pharmacists from the divisions of primary care and gastroenterology and hepatology were enrolled in a pilot program that offered the option to answer patients’ questions with drafts that were generated by a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant large language model integrated into EHRs. Drafts were then reviewed by the provider.

The study primarily tested whether providers (162 were included) would use the AI-generated drafts. Secondary outcomes included whether using such a system saved time or improved the clinician experience.

Participants received survey emails before and after the pilot period and answered questions on areas including task load, EHR burden, usability, work exhaustion, burnout, and satisfaction.

Researchers found that the overall average utilization rate per clinician was 20% but there were significant between-group differences. For example, in gastroenterology and hepatology, nurses used the AI tool the most at 29% and physicians/APPs had a 24% usage rate, whereas clinical pharmacists had the highest use rate for primary care at 44% compared with physician use at 15%.
 

Burden Improved, But Didn’t Save Time

AI did not appear to save time but did improve task load scores and work exhaustion scores. The report states that there was no change in reply action time, write time, or read time between the prepilot and pilot periods. However, there were significant reductions in the physician task load score derivative (mean [SD], 61.31 [17.23] pre survey vs 47.26 [17.11] post survey; paired difference, −13.87; 95% CI, −17.38 to −9.50; P < .001) and work exhaustion scores decreased by a third (mean [SD], 1.95 [0.79] pre survey vs 1.62 [0.68] post survey; paired difference, −0.33; 95% CI, −0.50 to −0.17; P < .001)

The authors wrote that improvements in task load and emotional exhaustion scores suggest that generated replies have the potential to lessen cognitive burden and burnout. Though the AI tool didn’t save time, editing responses may be less cognitively taxing than writing responses for providers, the authors suggest.
 

Quality of AI Responses

Comments about AI response message voice and/or tone were the most common and had the highest absolute number of negative comments (10 positive, 2 neutral, and 14 negative). The most negative comments were about length (too long or too short) of the draft message (1 positive, 2 neutral, and 8 negative).

Comments on accuracy of the draft response were fairly even ­— 4 positive and 5 negative — but there were no adverse safety signals, the authors report.

The providers had high expectations about use and quality of the tool that “were either met or exceeded at the end of the pilot,” Dr. Garcia and coauthors write. “Given the evidence that burnout is associated with turnover, reductions in clinical activity, and quality, even a modest improvement may have a substantial impact.”

One coauthor reported grants from Google, Omada Health, and PredictaMed outside the submitted work. Another coauthor reported having a patent for Well-being Index Instruments and Mayo Leadership Impact Index, with royalties paid from Mayo Clinic, and receiving honoraria for presenting grand rounds, keynote lectures, and advising health care organizations on clinician well-being. No other disclosures were reported. 

Among the potential uses envisioned for artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is decreasing provider burden by using the technology to help respond to patients’ questions submitted through portals.

Easing the burden on providers of responding to each question is a target ripe for solutions as during the COVID pandemic, such messages increased 157% from prepandemic levels, say authors of a paper published online in JAMA Network Open. Each additional message added 2.3 minutes to time spent on the electronic health record (EHR) per day.

Researchers at Stanford Health Care, led by Patricia Garcia, MD, with the department of medicine, conducted a 5-week, prospective, single-group quality improvement study from July 10 through August 13, 2023, at Stanford to test an AI response system.
 

Large Language Model Used

All attending physicians, advanced practice providers, clinic nurses, and clinical pharmacists from the divisions of primary care and gastroenterology and hepatology were enrolled in a pilot program that offered the option to answer patients’ questions with drafts that were generated by a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant large language model integrated into EHRs. Drafts were then reviewed by the provider.

The study primarily tested whether providers (162 were included) would use the AI-generated drafts. Secondary outcomes included whether using such a system saved time or improved the clinician experience.

Participants received survey emails before and after the pilot period and answered questions on areas including task load, EHR burden, usability, work exhaustion, burnout, and satisfaction.

Researchers found that the overall average utilization rate per clinician was 20% but there were significant between-group differences. For example, in gastroenterology and hepatology, nurses used the AI tool the most at 29% and physicians/APPs had a 24% usage rate, whereas clinical pharmacists had the highest use rate for primary care at 44% compared with physician use at 15%.
 

Burden Improved, But Didn’t Save Time

AI did not appear to save time but did improve task load scores and work exhaustion scores. The report states that there was no change in reply action time, write time, or read time between the prepilot and pilot periods. However, there were significant reductions in the physician task load score derivative (mean [SD], 61.31 [17.23] pre survey vs 47.26 [17.11] post survey; paired difference, −13.87; 95% CI, −17.38 to −9.50; P < .001) and work exhaustion scores decreased by a third (mean [SD], 1.95 [0.79] pre survey vs 1.62 [0.68] post survey; paired difference, −0.33; 95% CI, −0.50 to −0.17; P < .001)

The authors wrote that improvements in task load and emotional exhaustion scores suggest that generated replies have the potential to lessen cognitive burden and burnout. Though the AI tool didn’t save time, editing responses may be less cognitively taxing than writing responses for providers, the authors suggest.
 

Quality of AI Responses

Comments about AI response message voice and/or tone were the most common and had the highest absolute number of negative comments (10 positive, 2 neutral, and 14 negative). The most negative comments were about length (too long or too short) of the draft message (1 positive, 2 neutral, and 8 negative).

Comments on accuracy of the draft response were fairly even ­— 4 positive and 5 negative — but there were no adverse safety signals, the authors report.

The providers had high expectations about use and quality of the tool that “were either met or exceeded at the end of the pilot,” Dr. Garcia and coauthors write. “Given the evidence that burnout is associated with turnover, reductions in clinical activity, and quality, even a modest improvement may have a substantial impact.”

One coauthor reported grants from Google, Omada Health, and PredictaMed outside the submitted work. Another coauthor reported having a patent for Well-being Index Instruments and Mayo Leadership Impact Index, with royalties paid from Mayo Clinic, and receiving honoraria for presenting grand rounds, keynote lectures, and advising health care organizations on clinician well-being. No other disclosures were reported. 

SAN DIEGO — Home-based phototherapy is non-inferior to office-based phototherapy for the treatment of plaque and guttate psoriasis across all skin types and was associated with improved Physician’s Global Assessment (PGA) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores, results from a pragmatic, multicenter study showed.

“In 2024, we have a lot of ways to treat moderate-to-severe psoriasis, and phototherapy remains relevant,” lead investigator Joel M. Gelfand, MD, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, told attendees of a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. 

Courtesy Dr. Gelfand

“Office phototherapy is 10 to 100 times less expensive than biologics for psoriasis, and in head-to-head trials, it’s about as effective as adalimumab and achieves better patient-reported outcomes. It may have some cardiovascular benefits by lowering IL-6 and improving HDL-P,” he said. “And, compared to secukinumab, it has no risk of infection.”

Although phototherapy is a preferred as a treatment by patients with psoriasis, he continued, inconvenience of traveling to a clinician’s office for the treatment and lack of coverage by health insurance plans remain major barriers to this option. According to Dr. Gelfand, office-based phototherapy is not available in 90% of counties in the United States, “and a lack of US data has resulted in many insurance companies not covering home phototherapy. As a result, many providers are uncertain about prescribing it.”
 

LITE Study Data

In 2019, Dr. Gelfand and colleagues Light Treatment Effectiveness (LITE) study, a patient-centered study that tested the hypothesis that narrowband UVB phototherapy of psoriasis at home is non-inferior to office treatment, based on outcomes that matter to patients, clinicians, and payers. The co-primary outcomes were a PGA score of 0/1 (clear, almost clear) and a DLQI score of 5 or less (small, no effect on health-related quality of life).

Dr. Gelfand and colleagues at 42 sites in the United States enrolled 783 patients aged 12 years and older who had plaque or guttate psoriasis and were candidates for phototherapy at home or in an office setting. New or established patients to the practices were accepted into the trial, while those treated with phototherapy within 14 days before the baseline visit were not. These entry criteria “are highly pragmatic and reflect routine clinical practice,” he said.

The researchers evenly stratified patients by skin types I and II, III and IV, and V and VI. They collected data from medical records or from an app on the patient’s cell phone, which captured the DLQI data. Study participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to office- or home-based phototherapy for 12 weeks at doses recommended in the 2019 AAD-National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines. This was followed by a 12-week observation period, which ended at 24 weeks. 

At baseline, the mean DLQI score of patients was 12.2, the mean PGA score was 3, and their mean body surface area affected was 12.5%. “These patients had pretty severe disease, long-standing disease, and about 12% were on biologics or nonbiologic systemic therapy during the study,” said Dr. Gelfand, also the director of the Psoriasis and Phototherapy Treatment Center at Penn. In addition, he said, “the average round-trip to receive phototherapy in the office was about 60 minutes.”
 

An Improvement in Health Equity

Following treatment at 12 weeks, 25.6% of patients in the office-based phototherapy group achieved a PGA of 0/1, compared with 32.8% of patients in the home-based phototherapy group (P >.0001 for non-inferiority). Similarly, 33.6% of patients in the office-based phototherapy group achieved a score of 5 or less on the DLQI, compared with 52.4% of patients in the home-based phototherapy group (P >.0001 for non-inferiority).

In subgroup analyses, patients with darkly pigmented skin did especially well on home phototherapy relative to office treatment. “This finding is an example of how the LITE study was specifically designed to improve health equity through an intentionally inclusive approach,” Dr. Gelfand said. Perhaps not surprisingly, patients in the home-based phototherapy arm were more adherent to treatment compared with those in the office-based arm (a mean of 26.8 sessions during the study period, compared with a mean of 17.9, respectively; P < .0001). “They also had higher cumulative doses of phototherapy and therefore higher episodes of treatments with erythema,” he noted.

Among patients who reported “itchy, sore, painful, or stinging” skin in the previous week, 63% characterized the degree of discomfort as “not at all or a little,” while 28% said “a lot,” and 9% said “very much.” No patients withdrew or stopped phototherapy during the trial because of treatment-related side effects, “so it’s very well tolerated,” Dr. Gelfand said.

“If a patient never had phototherapy before, they did just as well at home as they did in the office. This suggests that there’s no reason to insist that a patient use office-based phototherapy before using home phototherapy.”

The researchers studied the efficacy of narrow-band UVB in patients who had at least two treatments per week for 12 weeks. In this subgroup of patients, 60% achieved clear or almost clear skin and nearly 50% achieved the equivalent of a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 score.

“Home phototherapy is clearly non-inferior to office-based phototherapy across all skin types and both primary outcomes, PGA and DLQI, and both have excellent effectiveness and safety in real-world settings,” Dr. Gelfand concluded. “These data support the use of home phototherapy as a first-line treatment option for psoriasis, including those with no prior phototherapy experience.”

LITE Study Described as “Groundbreaking”

One of the session moderators, dermatologist Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, of the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, asked about the impact that lockdowns during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic had on the trial. “The study shut down for a couple weeks during the initial lockdown, but we got back up and running pretty quickly,” Dr. Gelfand responded. “We didn’t study that specific period of time, but the study was going on well before COVID and well after COVID restrictions were lifted. We’ll have to analyze that period of time you question but I suspect that it’s not driving the results we see.”

Asked to comment, Henry W. Lim, MD, a dermatologist with Henry Ford Health in Detroit, characterized the findings of the study as “groundbreaking, because it looked at a real-life situation in the use of phototherapy at home vs in the office, showing that the home phototherapy is not inferior to office-based phototherapy.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Home-based phototherapy is non-inferior to office-based phototherapy for the treatment of plaque and guttate psoriasis across all skin types and was associated with improved Physician’s Global Assessment (PGA) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores, results from a pragmatic, multicenter study showed.

“In 2024, we have a lot of ways to treat moderate-to-severe psoriasis, and phototherapy remains relevant,” lead investigator Joel M. Gelfand, MD, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, told attendees of a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. 

Courtesy Dr. Gelfand

“Office phototherapy is 10 to 100 times less expensive than biologics for psoriasis, and in head-to-head trials, it’s about as effective as adalimumab and achieves better patient-reported outcomes. It may have some cardiovascular benefits by lowering IL-6 and improving HDL-P,” he said. “And, compared to secukinumab, it has no risk of infection.”

Although phototherapy is a preferred as a treatment by patients with psoriasis, he continued, inconvenience of traveling to a clinician’s office for the treatment and lack of coverage by health insurance plans remain major barriers to this option. According to Dr. Gelfand, office-based phototherapy is not available in 90% of counties in the United States, “and a lack of US data has resulted in many insurance companies not covering home phototherapy. As a result, many providers are uncertain about prescribing it.”
 

LITE Study Data

In 2019, Dr. Gelfand and colleagues Light Treatment Effectiveness (LITE) study, a patient-centered study that tested the hypothesis that narrowband UVB phototherapy of psoriasis at home is non-inferior to office treatment, based on outcomes that matter to patients, clinicians, and payers. The co-primary outcomes were a PGA score of 0/1 (clear, almost clear) and a DLQI score of 5 or less (small, no effect on health-related quality of life).

Dr. Gelfand and colleagues at 42 sites in the United States enrolled 783 patients aged 12 years and older who had plaque or guttate psoriasis and were candidates for phototherapy at home or in an office setting. New or established patients to the practices were accepted into the trial, while those treated with phototherapy within 14 days before the baseline visit were not. These entry criteria “are highly pragmatic and reflect routine clinical practice,” he said.

The researchers evenly stratified patients by skin types I and II, III and IV, and V and VI. They collected data from medical records or from an app on the patient’s cell phone, which captured the DLQI data. Study participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to office- or home-based phototherapy for 12 weeks at doses recommended in the 2019 AAD-National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines. This was followed by a 12-week observation period, which ended at 24 weeks. 

At baseline, the mean DLQI score of patients was 12.2, the mean PGA score was 3, and their mean body surface area affected was 12.5%. “These patients had pretty severe disease, long-standing disease, and about 12% were on biologics or nonbiologic systemic therapy during the study,” said Dr. Gelfand, also the director of the Psoriasis and Phototherapy Treatment Center at Penn. In addition, he said, “the average round-trip to receive phototherapy in the office was about 60 minutes.”
 

An Improvement in Health Equity

Following treatment at 12 weeks, 25.6% of patients in the office-based phototherapy group achieved a PGA of 0/1, compared with 32.8% of patients in the home-based phototherapy group (P >.0001 for non-inferiority). Similarly, 33.6% of patients in the office-based phototherapy group achieved a score of 5 or less on the DLQI, compared with 52.4% of patients in the home-based phototherapy group (P >.0001 for non-inferiority).

In subgroup analyses, patients with darkly pigmented skin did especially well on home phototherapy relative to office treatment. “This finding is an example of how the LITE study was specifically designed to improve health equity through an intentionally inclusive approach,” Dr. Gelfand said. Perhaps not surprisingly, patients in the home-based phototherapy arm were more adherent to treatment compared with those in the office-based arm (a mean of 26.8 sessions during the study period, compared with a mean of 17.9, respectively; P < .0001). “They also had higher cumulative doses of phototherapy and therefore higher episodes of treatments with erythema,” he noted.

Among patients who reported “itchy, sore, painful, or stinging” skin in the previous week, 63% characterized the degree of discomfort as “not at all or a little,” while 28% said “a lot,” and 9% said “very much.” No patients withdrew or stopped phototherapy during the trial because of treatment-related side effects, “so it’s very well tolerated,” Dr. Gelfand said.

“If a patient never had phototherapy before, they did just as well at home as they did in the office. This suggests that there’s no reason to insist that a patient use office-based phototherapy before using home phototherapy.”

The researchers studied the efficacy of narrow-band UVB in patients who had at least two treatments per week for 12 weeks. In this subgroup of patients, 60% achieved clear or almost clear skin and nearly 50% achieved the equivalent of a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 score.

“Home phototherapy is clearly non-inferior to office-based phototherapy across all skin types and both primary outcomes, PGA and DLQI, and both have excellent effectiveness and safety in real-world settings,” Dr. Gelfand concluded. “These data support the use of home phototherapy as a first-line treatment option for psoriasis, including those with no prior phototherapy experience.”

LITE Study Described as “Groundbreaking”

One of the session moderators, dermatologist Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, of the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, asked about the impact that lockdowns during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic had on the trial. “The study shut down for a couple weeks during the initial lockdown, but we got back up and running pretty quickly,” Dr. Gelfand responded. “We didn’t study that specific period of time, but the study was going on well before COVID and well after COVID restrictions were lifted. We’ll have to analyze that period of time you question but I suspect that it’s not driving the results we see.”

Asked to comment, Henry W. Lim, MD, a dermatologist with Henry Ford Health in Detroit, characterized the findings of the study as “groundbreaking, because it looked at a real-life situation in the use of phototherapy at home vs in the office, showing that the home phototherapy is not inferior to office-based phototherapy.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Home-based phototherapy is non-inferior to office-based phototherapy for the treatment of plaque and guttate psoriasis across all skin types and was associated with improved Physician’s Global Assessment (PGA) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores, results from a pragmatic, multicenter study showed.

“In 2024, we have a lot of ways to treat moderate-to-severe psoriasis, and phototherapy remains relevant,” lead investigator Joel M. Gelfand, MD, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, told attendees of a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. 

Courtesy Dr. Gelfand

“Office phototherapy is 10 to 100 times less expensive than biologics for psoriasis, and in head-to-head trials, it’s about as effective as adalimumab and achieves better patient-reported outcomes. It may have some cardiovascular benefits by lowering IL-6 and improving HDL-P,” he said. “And, compared to secukinumab, it has no risk of infection.”

Although phototherapy is a preferred as a treatment by patients with psoriasis, he continued, inconvenience of traveling to a clinician’s office for the treatment and lack of coverage by health insurance plans remain major barriers to this option. According to Dr. Gelfand, office-based phototherapy is not available in 90% of counties in the United States, “and a lack of US data has resulted in many insurance companies not covering home phototherapy. As a result, many providers are uncertain about prescribing it.”
 

LITE Study Data

In 2019, Dr. Gelfand and colleagues Light Treatment Effectiveness (LITE) study, a patient-centered study that tested the hypothesis that narrowband UVB phototherapy of psoriasis at home is non-inferior to office treatment, based on outcomes that matter to patients, clinicians, and payers. The co-primary outcomes were a PGA score of 0/1 (clear, almost clear) and a DLQI score of 5 or less (small, no effect on health-related quality of life).

Dr. Gelfand and colleagues at 42 sites in the United States enrolled 783 patients aged 12 years and older who had plaque or guttate psoriasis and were candidates for phototherapy at home or in an office setting. New or established patients to the practices were accepted into the trial, while those treated with phototherapy within 14 days before the baseline visit were not. These entry criteria “are highly pragmatic and reflect routine clinical practice,” he said.

The researchers evenly stratified patients by skin types I and II, III and IV, and V and VI. They collected data from medical records or from an app on the patient’s cell phone, which captured the DLQI data. Study participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to office- or home-based phototherapy for 12 weeks at doses recommended in the 2019 AAD-National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines. This was followed by a 12-week observation period, which ended at 24 weeks. 

At baseline, the mean DLQI score of patients was 12.2, the mean PGA score was 3, and their mean body surface area affected was 12.5%. “These patients had pretty severe disease, long-standing disease, and about 12% were on biologics or nonbiologic systemic therapy during the study,” said Dr. Gelfand, also the director of the Psoriasis and Phototherapy Treatment Center at Penn. In addition, he said, “the average round-trip to receive phototherapy in the office was about 60 minutes.”
 

An Improvement in Health Equity

Following treatment at 12 weeks, 25.6% of patients in the office-based phototherapy group achieved a PGA of 0/1, compared with 32.8% of patients in the home-based phototherapy group (P >.0001 for non-inferiority). Similarly, 33.6% of patients in the office-based phototherapy group achieved a score of 5 or less on the DLQI, compared with 52.4% of patients in the home-based phototherapy group (P >.0001 for non-inferiority).

In subgroup analyses, patients with darkly pigmented skin did especially well on home phototherapy relative to office treatment. “This finding is an example of how the LITE study was specifically designed to improve health equity through an intentionally inclusive approach,” Dr. Gelfand said. Perhaps not surprisingly, patients in the home-based phototherapy arm were more adherent to treatment compared with those in the office-based arm (a mean of 26.8 sessions during the study period, compared with a mean of 17.9, respectively; P < .0001). “They also had higher cumulative doses of phototherapy and therefore higher episodes of treatments with erythema,” he noted.

Among patients who reported “itchy, sore, painful, or stinging” skin in the previous week, 63% characterized the degree of discomfort as “not at all or a little,” while 28% said “a lot,” and 9% said “very much.” No patients withdrew or stopped phototherapy during the trial because of treatment-related side effects, “so it’s very well tolerated,” Dr. Gelfand said.

“If a patient never had phototherapy before, they did just as well at home as they did in the office. This suggests that there’s no reason to insist that a patient use office-based phototherapy before using home phototherapy.”

The researchers studied the efficacy of narrow-band UVB in patients who had at least two treatments per week for 12 weeks. In this subgroup of patients, 60% achieved clear or almost clear skin and nearly 50% achieved the equivalent of a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 score.

“Home phototherapy is clearly non-inferior to office-based phototherapy across all skin types and both primary outcomes, PGA and DLQI, and both have excellent effectiveness and safety in real-world settings,” Dr. Gelfand concluded. “These data support the use of home phototherapy as a first-line treatment option for psoriasis, including those with no prior phototherapy experience.”

LITE Study Described as “Groundbreaking”

One of the session moderators, dermatologist Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, of the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, asked about the impact that lockdowns during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic had on the trial. “The study shut down for a couple weeks during the initial lockdown, but we got back up and running pretty quickly,” Dr. Gelfand responded. “We didn’t study that specific period of time, but the study was going on well before COVID and well after COVID restrictions were lifted. We’ll have to analyze that period of time you question but I suspect that it’s not driving the results we see.”

Asked to comment, Henry W. Lim, MD, a dermatologist with Henry Ford Health in Detroit, characterized the findings of the study as “groundbreaking, because it looked at a real-life situation in the use of phototherapy at home vs in the office, showing that the home phototherapy is not inferior to office-based phototherapy.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medical schools with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives could lose federal funding under a new bill proposed this week in the US House of Representatives. 

The Embracing Anti-Discrimination, Unbiased Curricula, and Advancing Truth in Education (EDUCATE) Act was introduced March 19 by North Carolina Rep. Greg Murphy (R-NC3). It aims to ban what the bill describes as “race-based mandates” at medical schools. 

The legislation highlights a larger national backlash, largely led by conservatives, against considering race and ethnicity in higher education after the Supreme Court overturned affirmative action last summer. 

According to the bill’s text, medical schools must not “establish, maintain, or contract with a [DEI] office, or any other functional equivalent.” They must also agree that they will not force students or faculty to acknowledge that “America is an oppressive nation” or that “individuals should be adversely treated on the basis of their sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin.” 

If H.R. 7725 passes, noncompliant medical schools would no longer receive federal funding or be eligible to participate in guaranteed student loan programs. 

Advocating for colorblind medical school admissions overlooks the racism that still exists in society, said Vanessa Grubbs, MD, MPH, nephrologist and cofounder of the nonprofit Black Doc Village. She told this news organization that bills like H.R. 7725 distract from the real work of diversifying the physician workforce to achieve equitable care for all. 

“There’s a huge body of literature that shows when there is racial or cultural concordance, people have better satisfaction and health outcomes,” said Dr. Grubbs. “It’s really telling that the first thing the people dreaming up these bills say is that by having a diverse workforce, it automatically means that you have a less qualified workforce or that you’re lowering standards.”

The bill joins dozens of state legislative actions seeking to ban DEI principles in healthcare.

This week, Alabama legislators passed a bill prohibiting public universities from establishing DEI programs or using state money to sponsor events involving “divisive concepts.” If signed by the governor, the bill would go into effect on October 1, 2024, joining states like Tennessee and Utah with similar laws already on the books.

Industry groups are also grappling with anti-DEI sentiment. Earlier this month, the American Academy of Dermatology’s annual meeting took an unexpected turn when a member physician and 92 colleagues petitioned the academy to end its DEI programs, including scholarships and mentoring. A committee hearing the petition declined to send it to the Academy’s board.

Rep. Murphy, a urology surgeon who wrote a related editorial in the Wall Street Journal, argued that DEI ideology violates freedom of speech and allows medical schools to reject candidates for not being progressive enough. In the opinion piece, he and coauthor nephrologist Stanley Goldfarb, MD, referred to DEI efforts as “quackery” and a form of discrimination. 

Dr. Goldfarb is the chairman of Do No Harm, a Virginia-based advocacy group that has pushed to eradicate “identity politics” in medical education and clinical practice. The group was instrumental in suing the Louisiana governor for a law requiring that minority candidates fill some state medical board positions. It also filed a complaint against the Medical Board of California on behalf of two physicians, claiming the state’s mandated implicit bias training for healthcare professionals violates their First Amendment rights.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning affirmative action, the American Medical Association (AMA) adopted a policy advising medical schools to consider race as a factor in admissions alongside other criteria such as test scores, grades, and interviews. The policy provides a “necessary safeguard” to diversify the physician workforce and advance health equity, the AMA said at the time. 

The Association of American Medical Colleges supports DEI principles in medical education while advocating for race-neutral admissions practices like holistic review. This method considers the whole applicant, including their experiences, attributes, academic achievements, and the value they bring to the learning environment. 

H.R. 7725 has 35 cosponsors, many of whom are physicians. Podiatrist and Ohio Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R) said in a statement that medical education should be “free of discrimination” and that the bill would prevent physicians from “being forced to pledge, affirm, or adopt tenets that have infiltrated higher education.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Medical schools with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives could lose federal funding under a new bill proposed this week in the US House of Representatives. 

The Embracing Anti-Discrimination, Unbiased Curricula, and Advancing Truth in Education (EDUCATE) Act was introduced March 19 by North Carolina Rep. Greg Murphy (R-NC3). It aims to ban what the bill describes as “race-based mandates” at medical schools. 

The legislation highlights a larger national backlash, largely led by conservatives, against considering race and ethnicity in higher education after the Supreme Court overturned affirmative action last summer. 

According to the bill’s text, medical schools must not “establish, maintain, or contract with a [DEI] office, or any other functional equivalent.” They must also agree that they will not force students or faculty to acknowledge that “America is an oppressive nation” or that “individuals should be adversely treated on the basis of their sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin.” 

If H.R. 7725 passes, noncompliant medical schools would no longer receive federal funding or be eligible to participate in guaranteed student loan programs. 

Advocating for colorblind medical school admissions overlooks the racism that still exists in society, said Vanessa Grubbs, MD, MPH, nephrologist and cofounder of the nonprofit Black Doc Village. She told this news organization that bills like H.R. 7725 distract from the real work of diversifying the physician workforce to achieve equitable care for all. 

“There’s a huge body of literature that shows when there is racial or cultural concordance, people have better satisfaction and health outcomes,” said Dr. Grubbs. “It’s really telling that the first thing the people dreaming up these bills say is that by having a diverse workforce, it automatically means that you have a less qualified workforce or that you’re lowering standards.”

The bill joins dozens of state legislative actions seeking to ban DEI principles in healthcare.

This week, Alabama legislators passed a bill prohibiting public universities from establishing DEI programs or using state money to sponsor events involving “divisive concepts.” If signed by the governor, the bill would go into effect on October 1, 2024, joining states like Tennessee and Utah with similar laws already on the books.

Industry groups are also grappling with anti-DEI sentiment. Earlier this month, the American Academy of Dermatology’s annual meeting took an unexpected turn when a member physician and 92 colleagues petitioned the academy to end its DEI programs, including scholarships and mentoring. A committee hearing the petition declined to send it to the Academy’s board.

Rep. Murphy, a urology surgeon who wrote a related editorial in the Wall Street Journal, argued that DEI ideology violates freedom of speech and allows medical schools to reject candidates for not being progressive enough. In the opinion piece, he and coauthor nephrologist Stanley Goldfarb, MD, referred to DEI efforts as “quackery” and a form of discrimination. 

Dr. Goldfarb is the chairman of Do No Harm, a Virginia-based advocacy group that has pushed to eradicate “identity politics” in medical education and clinical practice. The group was instrumental in suing the Louisiana governor for a law requiring that minority candidates fill some state medical board positions. It also filed a complaint against the Medical Board of California on behalf of two physicians, claiming the state’s mandated implicit bias training for healthcare professionals violates their First Amendment rights.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning affirmative action, the American Medical Association (AMA) adopted a policy advising medical schools to consider race as a factor in admissions alongside other criteria such as test scores, grades, and interviews. The policy provides a “necessary safeguard” to diversify the physician workforce and advance health equity, the AMA said at the time. 

The Association of American Medical Colleges supports DEI principles in medical education while advocating for race-neutral admissions practices like holistic review. This method considers the whole applicant, including their experiences, attributes, academic achievements, and the value they bring to the learning environment. 

H.R. 7725 has 35 cosponsors, many of whom are physicians. Podiatrist and Ohio Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R) said in a statement that medical education should be “free of discrimination” and that the bill would prevent physicians from “being forced to pledge, affirm, or adopt tenets that have infiltrated higher education.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Medical schools with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives could lose federal funding under a new bill proposed this week in the US House of Representatives. 

The Embracing Anti-Discrimination, Unbiased Curricula, and Advancing Truth in Education (EDUCATE) Act was introduced March 19 by North Carolina Rep. Greg Murphy (R-NC3). It aims to ban what the bill describes as “race-based mandates” at medical schools. 

The legislation highlights a larger national backlash, largely led by conservatives, against considering race and ethnicity in higher education after the Supreme Court overturned affirmative action last summer. 

According to the bill’s text, medical schools must not “establish, maintain, or contract with a [DEI] office, or any other functional equivalent.” They must also agree that they will not force students or faculty to acknowledge that “America is an oppressive nation” or that “individuals should be adversely treated on the basis of their sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin.” 

If H.R. 7725 passes, noncompliant medical schools would no longer receive federal funding or be eligible to participate in guaranteed student loan programs. 

Advocating for colorblind medical school admissions overlooks the racism that still exists in society, said Vanessa Grubbs, MD, MPH, nephrologist and cofounder of the nonprofit Black Doc Village. She told this news organization that bills like H.R. 7725 distract from the real work of diversifying the physician workforce to achieve equitable care for all. 

“There’s a huge body of literature that shows when there is racial or cultural concordance, people have better satisfaction and health outcomes,” said Dr. Grubbs. “It’s really telling that the first thing the people dreaming up these bills say is that by having a diverse workforce, it automatically means that you have a less qualified workforce or that you’re lowering standards.”

The bill joins dozens of state legislative actions seeking to ban DEI principles in healthcare.

This week, Alabama legislators passed a bill prohibiting public universities from establishing DEI programs or using state money to sponsor events involving “divisive concepts.” If signed by the governor, the bill would go into effect on October 1, 2024, joining states like Tennessee and Utah with similar laws already on the books.

Industry groups are also grappling with anti-DEI sentiment. Earlier this month, the American Academy of Dermatology’s annual meeting took an unexpected turn when a member physician and 92 colleagues petitioned the academy to end its DEI programs, including scholarships and mentoring. A committee hearing the petition declined to send it to the Academy’s board.

Rep. Murphy, a urology surgeon who wrote a related editorial in the Wall Street Journal, argued that DEI ideology violates freedom of speech and allows medical schools to reject candidates for not being progressive enough. In the opinion piece, he and coauthor nephrologist Stanley Goldfarb, MD, referred to DEI efforts as “quackery” and a form of discrimination. 

Dr. Goldfarb is the chairman of Do No Harm, a Virginia-based advocacy group that has pushed to eradicate “identity politics” in medical education and clinical practice. The group was instrumental in suing the Louisiana governor for a law requiring that minority candidates fill some state medical board positions. It also filed a complaint against the Medical Board of California on behalf of two physicians, claiming the state’s mandated implicit bias training for healthcare professionals violates their First Amendment rights.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning affirmative action, the American Medical Association (AMA) adopted a policy advising medical schools to consider race as a factor in admissions alongside other criteria such as test scores, grades, and interviews. The policy provides a “necessary safeguard” to diversify the physician workforce and advance health equity, the AMA said at the time. 

The Association of American Medical Colleges supports DEI principles in medical education while advocating for race-neutral admissions practices like holistic review. This method considers the whole applicant, including their experiences, attributes, academic achievements, and the value they bring to the learning environment. 

H.R. 7725 has 35 cosponsors, many of whom are physicians. Podiatrist and Ohio Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R) said in a statement that medical education should be “free of discrimination” and that the bill would prevent physicians from “being forced to pledge, affirm, or adopt tenets that have infiltrated higher education.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

TOPLINE:

Patients who undergo surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) may have an increased risk of developing incident diabetes, showed a recent study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Diabetes has been shown to be a risk factor for CTS, the most common entrapment neuropathy, but it remains unclear whether CTS is associated with subsequent diabetes.
• Researchers used data from Danish national registries to evaluate the odds of developing diabetes in 83,466 patients (median age, 54 years; 67% women) who underwent surgery for CTS between January 1996 and December 2018.
• The study compared the risk of developing diabetes in patients who had CTS surgery with that of an age- and sex-matched cohort of individuals from the general population in a 1:5 ratio (n = 417,330).
• Patients were followed (median of 7.6 years) until either a diagnosis of diabetes during hospitalization or a prescription of a glucose-lowering drug, or until either death, emigration, or the end of the study period.
• Cause-specific Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare the odds of developing diabetes between the two groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• The cumulative incidence of diabetes was higher in the CTS group than in the age-matched controls (16.8% vs 10.3%).
• Patients who underwent surgery for CTS were at a higher risk of developing diabetes within 1 year of surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 1.72) and during the rest of the study period (> 1 year: HR, 1.66).
• The risk for incident diabetes after CTS surgery was higher among younger patients aged 18-39 years (adjusted HR, 2.77) than among older patients aged 70-79 years (adjusted HR, 1.29).
• Also, patients who had bilateral surgery had a higher risk of developing diabetes than the matched control population (adjusted HR, 1.86).

IN PRACTICE:

“Identifying patients who are at risk of DM [diabetes mellitus] may mediate earlier initiation of preventive strategies. However, other factors, such as obesity and A1c levels, may affect the association,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study led by Jeppe Ravn Jacobsen, MB, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, was published online in Diabetes, Obesity, and Metabolism .

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not find an association between CTS and a future diagnosis of type 1 diabetes, which may be attributed to the fact that patients younger than 18 years were excluded. A proportion of the patients who underwent CTS may have had undetected prediabetes or diabetes at the time of CTS surgery. Moreover, the registry lacked information on potential confounders such as body mass index, smoking history, and blood samples. The association between CTS and diabetes may be attributable to shared risk factors for both, such as obesity.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by an internal grant from the Department of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients who undergo surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) may have an increased risk of developing incident diabetes, showed a recent study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Diabetes has been shown to be a risk factor for CTS, the most common entrapment neuropathy, but it remains unclear whether CTS is associated with subsequent diabetes.
• Researchers used data from Danish national registries to evaluate the odds of developing diabetes in 83,466 patients (median age, 54 years; 67% women) who underwent surgery for CTS between January 1996 and December 2018.
• The study compared the risk of developing diabetes in patients who had CTS surgery with that of an age- and sex-matched cohort of individuals from the general population in a 1:5 ratio (n = 417,330).
• Patients were followed (median of 7.6 years) until either a diagnosis of diabetes during hospitalization or a prescription of a glucose-lowering drug, or until either death, emigration, or the end of the study period.
• Cause-specific Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare the odds of developing diabetes between the two groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• The cumulative incidence of diabetes was higher in the CTS group than in the age-matched controls (16.8% vs 10.3%).
• Patients who underwent surgery for CTS were at a higher risk of developing diabetes within 1 year of surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 1.72) and during the rest of the study period (> 1 year: HR, 1.66).
• The risk for incident diabetes after CTS surgery was higher among younger patients aged 18-39 years (adjusted HR, 2.77) than among older patients aged 70-79 years (adjusted HR, 1.29).
• Also, patients who had bilateral surgery had a higher risk of developing diabetes than the matched control population (adjusted HR, 1.86).

IN PRACTICE:

“Identifying patients who are at risk of DM [diabetes mellitus] may mediate earlier initiation of preventive strategies. However, other factors, such as obesity and A1c levels, may affect the association,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study led by Jeppe Ravn Jacobsen, MB, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, was published online in Diabetes, Obesity, and Metabolism .

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not find an association between CTS and a future diagnosis of type 1 diabetes, which may be attributed to the fact that patients younger than 18 years were excluded. A proportion of the patients who underwent CTS may have had undetected prediabetes or diabetes at the time of CTS surgery. Moreover, the registry lacked information on potential confounders such as body mass index, smoking history, and blood samples. The association between CTS and diabetes may be attributable to shared risk factors for both, such as obesity.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by an internal grant from the Department of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients who undergo surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) may have an increased risk of developing incident diabetes, showed a recent study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Diabetes has been shown to be a risk factor for CTS, the most common entrapment neuropathy, but it remains unclear whether CTS is associated with subsequent diabetes.
• Researchers used data from Danish national registries to evaluate the odds of developing diabetes in 83,466 patients (median age, 54 years; 67% women) who underwent surgery for CTS between January 1996 and December 2018.
• The study compared the risk of developing diabetes in patients who had CTS surgery with that of an age- and sex-matched cohort of individuals from the general population in a 1:5 ratio (n = 417,330).
• Patients were followed (median of 7.6 years) until either a diagnosis of diabetes during hospitalization or a prescription of a glucose-lowering drug, or until either death, emigration, or the end of the study period.
• Cause-specific Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare the odds of developing diabetes between the two groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• The cumulative incidence of diabetes was higher in the CTS group than in the age-matched controls (16.8% vs 10.3%).
• Patients who underwent surgery for CTS were at a higher risk of developing diabetes within 1 year of surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 1.72) and during the rest of the study period (> 1 year: HR, 1.66).
• The risk for incident diabetes after CTS surgery was higher among younger patients aged 18-39 years (adjusted HR, 2.77) than among older patients aged 70-79 years (adjusted HR, 1.29).
• Also, patients who had bilateral surgery had a higher risk of developing diabetes than the matched control population (adjusted HR, 1.86).

IN PRACTICE:

“Identifying patients who are at risk of DM [diabetes mellitus] may mediate earlier initiation of preventive strategies. However, other factors, such as obesity and A1c levels, may affect the association,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study led by Jeppe Ravn Jacobsen, MB, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, was published online in Diabetes, Obesity, and Metabolism .

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not find an association between CTS and a future diagnosis of type 1 diabetes, which may be attributed to the fact that patients younger than 18 years were excluded. A proportion of the patients who underwent CTS may have had undetected prediabetes or diabetes at the time of CTS surgery. Moreover, the registry lacked information on potential confounders such as body mass index, smoking history, and blood samples. The association between CTS and diabetes may be attributable to shared risk factors for both, such as obesity.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by an internal grant from the Department of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

Researchers have identified three distinct subgroups of Sjögren syndrome (SS) with different prognoses. While previous efforts to stratify these patients were based on reported symptoms, this new analysis is the first to add clinical and biological manifestations into the equation.

The three distinct patient clusters are those with B-cell active disease with low symptom burden (BALS), those with high systemic disease activity (HSA), and those with low systemic disease activity and high symptom burden (LSAHS). Each group had distinct long-term outcomes, including disease evolution and lymphoma incidence.

The findings were published in The Lancet Rheumatology.
 

Derived and Validated in Separate Cohorts

Researchers led by Yann Nguyen, MD, PhD, of Bicêtre Hospital and Paris-Saclay University, Paris, France, identified distinct subgroups with data from the French Paris-Saclay cohort, a group of patients suspected of having SS who participated in a multidisciplinary diagnostic session at a French National Referral Center for Rare Systemic Autoimmune Diseases and were recruited between 1999 and 2022.

The study included only patients who met the 2002 American-European Consensus Group criteria for SS and had European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI) and EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) scores at inclusion. Researchers excluded patients with other autoimmune diseases associated with SS.

Researchers identified distinct subgroups using 26 variables, including patient-reported symptoms, clinical parameters, and biological data.

Researchers then validated the subgroups using the same methodology in the Assessment of Systemic Signs and Evolution of Sjögren’s syndrome (ASSESS) cohort, a national French multicenter prospective cohort formed in 2006. They then compared changes in disease activity (measured by ESSDAI) and patient-acceptable symptom state (measured by ESSPRI) between the groups over 5 years of follow-up, as well as differences in lymphoma incidence over 15 years of follow-up.
 

Patients With High Systemic Disease, Low Symptoms Fare Worse

The study ultimately included 534 patients from the Paris-Saclay cohort and 395 patients from the ASSESS cohort. For both groups, 94% of patients were women, and the median age was between 53 and 54 years.

In the Paris-Saclay group, 205 patients were classified as BALS, 160 were HSA, and 169 were LSAHS. In the ASSESS cohort, BALS remained the largest group (186 patients), followed by HSA (158 patients). Only 51 patients in the second cohort were classified as LSAHS.

During 5 years of follow-up in the ASSESS cohort, systemic disease activity improved in the HSA cluster and worsened in the BALS cluster, while there were no significant changes in the LSAHS cluster. The BALS cluster was the only group to experience significant changes in patient-acceptable symptom states during follow-up: 49% of patients with BALS had an ESSPRI score of less than 5 at inclusion, but this percentage dipped to 36% at month 60.

The findings “highlight the fact that even in patients who present with predominantly systemic manifestations, the symptom burden is high and should not be neglected,” the authors wrote.

The three categories established in this study did not correlate well with previous symptom-based stratification of patients with SS, the authors noted, which looked at the five most common symptoms associated with the condition: Pain, fatigue, dryness, anxiety, and depression.

“Patients from the high symptom burden, dryness dominant with fatigue, and pain dominant with fatigue subgroups were present in each of our three clusters,” they wrote. “This finding is consistent with the poor correlation between patient-reported outcomes and systemic disease activity.”

Lymphoma was diagnosed in 5 of 186 patients (3%) in the BALS cluster, diagnosed after a median of 70 months of follow-up, and 6 of 158 patients (4%) in the HSA cluster, diagnosed after a median of 23 months follow-up. There were no cases of lymphoma in the LSAHS group.

“Notably, in the BALS cluster, lymphoma occurred later than in the HSA cluster, and after 5 years, systemic manifestations in this cluster tended to be similar to those in the HSA cluster at inclusion,” the authors added. “The BALS cluster could therefore represent an earlier stage of the disease and carry the risk of progressing toward a more systemic phenotype.”
 

A ‘First Step’ to Subgrouping Patients

Alan Baer, MD, director of the Jerome Greene Sjogren’s Syndrome Center at John Hopkins Medical Center in Baltimore, Maryland, who commented on the study, noted that these three subgroups did “resonate” with what clinicians see in practice. Certain patients may have lab results that are “quite striking” even though they report minimal symptoms. The reverse is also true: Patients who have a high symptom burden without signs of systemic disease activity. Whether these patients should be managed differently “remains the key question,” he said.

“The hope is that when you have a group of patients that’s relatively homogenous in terms of their clinical features, that also translates to similarities into the underlying pathogenesis that can then lead to treatments that are targeted to specific subgroups of patients,” he added.

Another approach could be looking directly at molecular alterations across patients with SS and seeing how they correlate to clinical features, Dr. Baer noted.

This study “is a first step” in figuring out how to best define SS subgroups, he said, adding that “there’s more work to be done.”

This research was funded by the Fondation pour la Recherche Medicale, French Ministry of Health, French Society of Rheumatology, Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking, Medical Research Council UK, and Foundation for Research in Rheumatology. The study authors disclosed financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Baer had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Researchers have identified three distinct subgroups of Sjögren syndrome (SS) with different prognoses. While previous efforts to stratify these patients were based on reported symptoms, this new analysis is the first to add clinical and biological manifestations into the equation.

The three distinct patient clusters are those with B-cell active disease with low symptom burden (BALS), those with high systemic disease activity (HSA), and those with low systemic disease activity and high symptom burden (LSAHS). Each group had distinct long-term outcomes, including disease evolution and lymphoma incidence.

The findings were published in The Lancet Rheumatology.
 

Derived and Validated in Separate Cohorts

Researchers led by Yann Nguyen, MD, PhD, of Bicêtre Hospital and Paris-Saclay University, Paris, France, identified distinct subgroups with data from the French Paris-Saclay cohort, a group of patients suspected of having SS who participated in a multidisciplinary diagnostic session at a French National Referral Center for Rare Systemic Autoimmune Diseases and were recruited between 1999 and 2022.

The study included only patients who met the 2002 American-European Consensus Group criteria for SS and had European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI) and EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) scores at inclusion. Researchers excluded patients with other autoimmune diseases associated with SS.

Researchers identified distinct subgroups using 26 variables, including patient-reported symptoms, clinical parameters, and biological data.

Researchers then validated the subgroups using the same methodology in the Assessment of Systemic Signs and Evolution of Sjögren’s syndrome (ASSESS) cohort, a national French multicenter prospective cohort formed in 2006. They then compared changes in disease activity (measured by ESSDAI) and patient-acceptable symptom state (measured by ESSPRI) between the groups over 5 years of follow-up, as well as differences in lymphoma incidence over 15 years of follow-up.
 

Patients With High Systemic Disease, Low Symptoms Fare Worse

The study ultimately included 534 patients from the Paris-Saclay cohort and 395 patients from the ASSESS cohort. For both groups, 94% of patients were women, and the median age was between 53 and 54 years.

In the Paris-Saclay group, 205 patients were classified as BALS, 160 were HSA, and 169 were LSAHS. In the ASSESS cohort, BALS remained the largest group (186 patients), followed by HSA (158 patients). Only 51 patients in the second cohort were classified as LSAHS.

During 5 years of follow-up in the ASSESS cohort, systemic disease activity improved in the HSA cluster and worsened in the BALS cluster, while there were no significant changes in the LSAHS cluster. The BALS cluster was the only group to experience significant changes in patient-acceptable symptom states during follow-up: 49% of patients with BALS had an ESSPRI score of less than 5 at inclusion, but this percentage dipped to 36% at month 60.

The findings “highlight the fact that even in patients who present with predominantly systemic manifestations, the symptom burden is high and should not be neglected,” the authors wrote.

The three categories established in this study did not correlate well with previous symptom-based stratification of patients with SS, the authors noted, which looked at the five most common symptoms associated with the condition: Pain, fatigue, dryness, anxiety, and depression.

“Patients from the high symptom burden, dryness dominant with fatigue, and pain dominant with fatigue subgroups were present in each of our three clusters,” they wrote. “This finding is consistent with the poor correlation between patient-reported outcomes and systemic disease activity.”

Lymphoma was diagnosed in 5 of 186 patients (3%) in the BALS cluster, diagnosed after a median of 70 months of follow-up, and 6 of 158 patients (4%) in the HSA cluster, diagnosed after a median of 23 months follow-up. There were no cases of lymphoma in the LSAHS group.

“Notably, in the BALS cluster, lymphoma occurred later than in the HSA cluster, and after 5 years, systemic manifestations in this cluster tended to be similar to those in the HSA cluster at inclusion,” the authors added. “The BALS cluster could therefore represent an earlier stage of the disease and carry the risk of progressing toward a more systemic phenotype.”
 

A ‘First Step’ to Subgrouping Patients

Alan Baer, MD, director of the Jerome Greene Sjogren’s Syndrome Center at John Hopkins Medical Center in Baltimore, Maryland, who commented on the study, noted that these three subgroups did “resonate” with what clinicians see in practice. Certain patients may have lab results that are “quite striking” even though they report minimal symptoms. The reverse is also true: Patients who have a high symptom burden without signs of systemic disease activity. Whether these patients should be managed differently “remains the key question,” he said.

“The hope is that when you have a group of patients that’s relatively homogenous in terms of their clinical features, that also translates to similarities into the underlying pathogenesis that can then lead to treatments that are targeted to specific subgroups of patients,” he added.

Another approach could be looking directly at molecular alterations across patients with SS and seeing how they correlate to clinical features, Dr. Baer noted.

This study “is a first step” in figuring out how to best define SS subgroups, he said, adding that “there’s more work to be done.”

This research was funded by the Fondation pour la Recherche Medicale, French Ministry of Health, French Society of Rheumatology, Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking, Medical Research Council UK, and Foundation for Research in Rheumatology. The study authors disclosed financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Baer had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Researchers have identified three distinct subgroups of Sjögren syndrome (SS) with different prognoses. While previous efforts to stratify these patients were based on reported symptoms, this new analysis is the first to add clinical and biological manifestations into the equation.

The three distinct patient clusters are those with B-cell active disease with low symptom burden (BALS), those with high systemic disease activity (HSA), and those with low systemic disease activity and high symptom burden (LSAHS). Each group had distinct long-term outcomes, including disease evolution and lymphoma incidence.

The findings were published in The Lancet Rheumatology.
 

Derived and Validated in Separate Cohorts

Researchers led by Yann Nguyen, MD, PhD, of Bicêtre Hospital and Paris-Saclay University, Paris, France, identified distinct subgroups with data from the French Paris-Saclay cohort, a group of patients suspected of having SS who participated in a multidisciplinary diagnostic session at a French National Referral Center for Rare Systemic Autoimmune Diseases and were recruited between 1999 and 2022.

The study included only patients who met the 2002 American-European Consensus Group criteria for SS and had European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI) and EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) scores at inclusion. Researchers excluded patients with other autoimmune diseases associated with SS.

Researchers identified distinct subgroups using 26 variables, including patient-reported symptoms, clinical parameters, and biological data.

Researchers then validated the subgroups using the same methodology in the Assessment of Systemic Signs and Evolution of Sjögren’s syndrome (ASSESS) cohort, a national French multicenter prospective cohort formed in 2006. They then compared changes in disease activity (measured by ESSDAI) and patient-acceptable symptom state (measured by ESSPRI) between the groups over 5 years of follow-up, as well as differences in lymphoma incidence over 15 years of follow-up.
 

Patients With High Systemic Disease, Low Symptoms Fare Worse

The study ultimately included 534 patients from the Paris-Saclay cohort and 395 patients from the ASSESS cohort. For both groups, 94% of patients were women, and the median age was between 53 and 54 years.

In the Paris-Saclay group, 205 patients were classified as BALS, 160 were HSA, and 169 were LSAHS. In the ASSESS cohort, BALS remained the largest group (186 patients), followed by HSA (158 patients). Only 51 patients in the second cohort were classified as LSAHS.

During 5 years of follow-up in the ASSESS cohort, systemic disease activity improved in the HSA cluster and worsened in the BALS cluster, while there were no significant changes in the LSAHS cluster. The BALS cluster was the only group to experience significant changes in patient-acceptable symptom states during follow-up: 49% of patients with BALS had an ESSPRI score of less than 5 at inclusion, but this percentage dipped to 36% at month 60.

The findings “highlight the fact that even in patients who present with predominantly systemic manifestations, the symptom burden is high and should not be neglected,” the authors wrote.

The three categories established in this study did not correlate well with previous symptom-based stratification of patients with SS, the authors noted, which looked at the five most common symptoms associated with the condition: Pain, fatigue, dryness, anxiety, and depression.

“Patients from the high symptom burden, dryness dominant with fatigue, and pain dominant with fatigue subgroups were present in each of our three clusters,” they wrote. “This finding is consistent with the poor correlation between patient-reported outcomes and systemic disease activity.”

Lymphoma was diagnosed in 5 of 186 patients (3%) in the BALS cluster, diagnosed after a median of 70 months of follow-up, and 6 of 158 patients (4%) in the HSA cluster, diagnosed after a median of 23 months follow-up. There were no cases of lymphoma in the LSAHS group.

“Notably, in the BALS cluster, lymphoma occurred later than in the HSA cluster, and after 5 years, systemic manifestations in this cluster tended to be similar to those in the HSA cluster at inclusion,” the authors added. “The BALS cluster could therefore represent an earlier stage of the disease and carry the risk of progressing toward a more systemic phenotype.”
 

A ‘First Step’ to Subgrouping Patients

Alan Baer, MD, director of the Jerome Greene Sjogren’s Syndrome Center at John Hopkins Medical Center in Baltimore, Maryland, who commented on the study, noted that these three subgroups did “resonate” with what clinicians see in practice. Certain patients may have lab results that are “quite striking” even though they report minimal symptoms. The reverse is also true: Patients who have a high symptom burden without signs of systemic disease activity. Whether these patients should be managed differently “remains the key question,” he said.

“The hope is that when you have a group of patients that’s relatively homogenous in terms of their clinical features, that also translates to similarities into the underlying pathogenesis that can then lead to treatments that are targeted to specific subgroups of patients,” he added.

Another approach could be looking directly at molecular alterations across patients with SS and seeing how they correlate to clinical features, Dr. Baer noted.

This study “is a first step” in figuring out how to best define SS subgroups, he said, adding that “there’s more work to be done.”

This research was funded by the Fondation pour la Recherche Medicale, French Ministry of Health, French Society of Rheumatology, Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking, Medical Research Council UK, and Foundation for Research in Rheumatology. The study authors disclosed financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Baer had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Physiotherapy conducted via video conference is noninferior to in-person sessions for the treatment of chronic knee pain, according to new research.

In the trial, participants assigned to in-person or telehealth sessions had similar improvements in knee pain and physical function over 3 months, while the online group had better session attendance and reported higher convenience.

While the COVID-19 pandemic increased the use of telerehabilitation physiotherapy services, it is not clear how these teleservices will be utilized moving forward, the study authors wrote. There is some research suggesting that both in-person and online physiotherapy are equally effective, but surveys suggest that both providers and patients remain unconvinced.

“Based on pandemic telerehabilitation experiences, less than half of allied health clinicians believe telerehabilitation is as effective as in-person care and almost half of patients think video conferencing with a physiotherapist provides lower quality care,” study first author Rana Hinman, PhD, professor of physiotherapy at the University of Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues wrote in their report published online in The Lancet.
 

‘A Game Changer’ for Physical Therapy

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Daniel White, ScD, an associate professor in the department of physical therapy at the University of Delaware in Newark, Delaware, called the research “a game changer” for physical therapy. 

“It’s showing that in-person care can be replicated in terms of efficacy,” in telehealth settings, he said. “From a telehealth perspective, it really opens the doors to access to people who have difficulty reaching physical therapists,” he added, “and puts us on stage with other modes of telehealth that are given as part of modern medicine.”

Dr. White noted that physical therapy treatment for knee osteoarthritis is underused, with just 10% of patients seeing a physical therapist prior to undergoing knee replacement. While knee replacements are effective interventions, he said, access to physical therapy could allow many patients to put off having surgery.

The findings not only provide solutions for access issues but also assuage concerns “that you’re going to get ‘physical therapy lite’” with telehealth, Dr. White added. 

“You can deliver physical therapy to this group that typically is not getting enough of it,” he said, “and it is just as effective when delivered online than if it were to be delivered in person.”
 

Noninferiority Maintained at 9 Months’ Follow-up

To understand how video conferencing physiotherapy consultations compared to in-person care, the researchers designed a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial. 

For the trial, researchers enrolled 394 adults with chronic knee pain who were aged ≥ 45 years, had activity-related joint pain, and either had no morning stiffness or morning stiffness lasting < 30 minutes. Other inclusion criteria were history of knee pain of ≥ 3 months, knee pain most days of the previous month, average walking pain score of four or more on the 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) over the previous week, and difficulty walking and climbing stairs.

Participants also needed access to a computer device with internet as well as the ability to travel to the nearest trial physiotherapist.

The study recruited 15 physiotherapists across 27 practices in metropolitan Queensland and Victoria, Australia, of which 60% had no previous telerehabilitation experience. Physiotherapists were trained to conduct video sessions via e-learning, practice video consultations, and a competency video conferencing evaluation.

Participants were randomly assigned to in-person or video physiotherapist consultations, with both groups receiving five consultations over 3 months. All clients were prescribed a home-based strength training program and physical activity plan.

The primary outcomes were changes at 3 months in patient-reported knee pain (on a scale of 0-10), with an inferiority margin of 0.95, and physical function — assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) — with an inferiority margin of −5.44.

From December 10, 2019, to June 17, 2022, 204 participants were assigned to in-person sessions and 190 were assigned to telerehabilitation. At 3 months, both groups reported improved pain and physical function, with no significant differences between the two groups with either measure. The mean between-group difference was 0.16 (95% CI, −0.26 to 0.57) for knee pain and 1.65 (−0.23 to 3.53) for physical function. Noninferiority was also maintained at 9 months’ follow-up.

The trial took place over the COVID-19 pandemic, which limited participant ability to attend in-person consultations. In total, 84% of participants assigned to in-person rehabilitation attended at least three or more consultations compared with 96% of those assigned to telerehabilitation. In an additional analysis including only participants attending three or more sessions, improvement in knee pain and physical function was similar between the in-person or tele-rehabilitation groups “showing that the findings are robust,” the authors noted.

At 3 months, the telerehabilitation group ranked their sessions as more convenient that their in-person counterparts and reported greater adherence to their strengthening program. At 9 months’ follow-up, the telerehabilitation group had higher physical activity scores than the in-person group.

This research was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Two authors reported grant funding paid to the University of Melbourne from the National Health & Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, Medical Research Future Fund, and Medibank for research. Dr. White has been a paid speaker for Viatris.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physiotherapy conducted via video conference is noninferior to in-person sessions for the treatment of chronic knee pain, according to new research.

In the trial, participants assigned to in-person or telehealth sessions had similar improvements in knee pain and physical function over 3 months, while the online group had better session attendance and reported higher convenience.

While the COVID-19 pandemic increased the use of telerehabilitation physiotherapy services, it is not clear how these teleservices will be utilized moving forward, the study authors wrote. There is some research suggesting that both in-person and online physiotherapy are equally effective, but surveys suggest that both providers and patients remain unconvinced.

“Based on pandemic telerehabilitation experiences, less than half of allied health clinicians believe telerehabilitation is as effective as in-person care and almost half of patients think video conferencing with a physiotherapist provides lower quality care,” study first author Rana Hinman, PhD, professor of physiotherapy at the University of Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues wrote in their report published online in The Lancet.
 

‘A Game Changer’ for Physical Therapy

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Daniel White, ScD, an associate professor in the department of physical therapy at the University of Delaware in Newark, Delaware, called the research “a game changer” for physical therapy. 

“It’s showing that in-person care can be replicated in terms of efficacy,” in telehealth settings, he said. “From a telehealth perspective, it really opens the doors to access to people who have difficulty reaching physical therapists,” he added, “and puts us on stage with other modes of telehealth that are given as part of modern medicine.”

Dr. White noted that physical therapy treatment for knee osteoarthritis is underused, with just 10% of patients seeing a physical therapist prior to undergoing knee replacement. While knee replacements are effective interventions, he said, access to physical therapy could allow many patients to put off having surgery.

The findings not only provide solutions for access issues but also assuage concerns “that you’re going to get ‘physical therapy lite’” with telehealth, Dr. White added. 

“You can deliver physical therapy to this group that typically is not getting enough of it,” he said, “and it is just as effective when delivered online than if it were to be delivered in person.”
 

Noninferiority Maintained at 9 Months’ Follow-up

To understand how video conferencing physiotherapy consultations compared to in-person care, the researchers designed a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial. 

For the trial, researchers enrolled 394 adults with chronic knee pain who were aged ≥ 45 years, had activity-related joint pain, and either had no morning stiffness or morning stiffness lasting < 30 minutes. Other inclusion criteria were history of knee pain of ≥ 3 months, knee pain most days of the previous month, average walking pain score of four or more on the 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) over the previous week, and difficulty walking and climbing stairs.

Participants also needed access to a computer device with internet as well as the ability to travel to the nearest trial physiotherapist.

The study recruited 15 physiotherapists across 27 practices in metropolitan Queensland and Victoria, Australia, of which 60% had no previous telerehabilitation experience. Physiotherapists were trained to conduct video sessions via e-learning, practice video consultations, and a competency video conferencing evaluation.

Participants were randomly assigned to in-person or video physiotherapist consultations, with both groups receiving five consultations over 3 months. All clients were prescribed a home-based strength training program and physical activity plan.

The primary outcomes were changes at 3 months in patient-reported knee pain (on a scale of 0-10), with an inferiority margin of 0.95, and physical function — assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) — with an inferiority margin of −5.44.

From December 10, 2019, to June 17, 2022, 204 participants were assigned to in-person sessions and 190 were assigned to telerehabilitation. At 3 months, both groups reported improved pain and physical function, with no significant differences between the two groups with either measure. The mean between-group difference was 0.16 (95% CI, −0.26 to 0.57) for knee pain and 1.65 (−0.23 to 3.53) for physical function. Noninferiority was also maintained at 9 months’ follow-up.

The trial took place over the COVID-19 pandemic, which limited participant ability to attend in-person consultations. In total, 84% of participants assigned to in-person rehabilitation attended at least three or more consultations compared with 96% of those assigned to telerehabilitation. In an additional analysis including only participants attending three or more sessions, improvement in knee pain and physical function was similar between the in-person or tele-rehabilitation groups “showing that the findings are robust,” the authors noted.

At 3 months, the telerehabilitation group ranked their sessions as more convenient that their in-person counterparts and reported greater adherence to their strengthening program. At 9 months’ follow-up, the telerehabilitation group had higher physical activity scores than the in-person group.

This research was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Two authors reported grant funding paid to the University of Melbourne from the National Health & Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, Medical Research Future Fund, and Medibank for research. Dr. White has been a paid speaker for Viatris.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physiotherapy conducted via video conference is noninferior to in-person sessions for the treatment of chronic knee pain, according to new research.

In the trial, participants assigned to in-person or telehealth sessions had similar improvements in knee pain and physical function over 3 months, while the online group had better session attendance and reported higher convenience.

While the COVID-19 pandemic increased the use of telerehabilitation physiotherapy services, it is not clear how these teleservices will be utilized moving forward, the study authors wrote. There is some research suggesting that both in-person and online physiotherapy are equally effective, but surveys suggest that both providers and patients remain unconvinced.

“Based on pandemic telerehabilitation experiences, less than half of allied health clinicians believe telerehabilitation is as effective as in-person care and almost half of patients think video conferencing with a physiotherapist provides lower quality care,” study first author Rana Hinman, PhD, professor of physiotherapy at the University of Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues wrote in their report published online in The Lancet.
 

‘A Game Changer’ for Physical Therapy

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Daniel White, ScD, an associate professor in the department of physical therapy at the University of Delaware in Newark, Delaware, called the research “a game changer” for physical therapy. 

“It’s showing that in-person care can be replicated in terms of efficacy,” in telehealth settings, he said. “From a telehealth perspective, it really opens the doors to access to people who have difficulty reaching physical therapists,” he added, “and puts us on stage with other modes of telehealth that are given as part of modern medicine.”

Dr. White noted that physical therapy treatment for knee osteoarthritis is underused, with just 10% of patients seeing a physical therapist prior to undergoing knee replacement. While knee replacements are effective interventions, he said, access to physical therapy could allow many patients to put off having surgery.

The findings not only provide solutions for access issues but also assuage concerns “that you’re going to get ‘physical therapy lite’” with telehealth, Dr. White added. 

“You can deliver physical therapy to this group that typically is not getting enough of it,” he said, “and it is just as effective when delivered online than if it were to be delivered in person.”
 

Noninferiority Maintained at 9 Months’ Follow-up

To understand how video conferencing physiotherapy consultations compared to in-person care, the researchers designed a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial. 

For the trial, researchers enrolled 394 adults with chronic knee pain who were aged ≥ 45 years, had activity-related joint pain, and either had no morning stiffness or morning stiffness lasting < 30 minutes. Other inclusion criteria were history of knee pain of ≥ 3 months, knee pain most days of the previous month, average walking pain score of four or more on the 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) over the previous week, and difficulty walking and climbing stairs.

Participants also needed access to a computer device with internet as well as the ability to travel to the nearest trial physiotherapist.

The study recruited 15 physiotherapists across 27 practices in metropolitan Queensland and Victoria, Australia, of which 60% had no previous telerehabilitation experience. Physiotherapists were trained to conduct video sessions via e-learning, practice video consultations, and a competency video conferencing evaluation.

Participants were randomly assigned to in-person or video physiotherapist consultations, with both groups receiving five consultations over 3 months. All clients were prescribed a home-based strength training program and physical activity plan.

The primary outcomes were changes at 3 months in patient-reported knee pain (on a scale of 0-10), with an inferiority margin of 0.95, and physical function — assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) — with an inferiority margin of −5.44.

From December 10, 2019, to June 17, 2022, 204 participants were assigned to in-person sessions and 190 were assigned to telerehabilitation. At 3 months, both groups reported improved pain and physical function, with no significant differences between the two groups with either measure. The mean between-group difference was 0.16 (95% CI, −0.26 to 0.57) for knee pain and 1.65 (−0.23 to 3.53) for physical function. Noninferiority was also maintained at 9 months’ follow-up.

The trial took place over the COVID-19 pandemic, which limited participant ability to attend in-person consultations. In total, 84% of participants assigned to in-person rehabilitation attended at least three or more consultations compared with 96% of those assigned to telerehabilitation. In an additional analysis including only participants attending three or more sessions, improvement in knee pain and physical function was similar between the in-person or tele-rehabilitation groups “showing that the findings are robust,” the authors noted.

At 3 months, the telerehabilitation group ranked their sessions as more convenient that their in-person counterparts and reported greater adherence to their strengthening program. At 9 months’ follow-up, the telerehabilitation group had higher physical activity scores than the in-person group.

This research was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Two authors reported grant funding paid to the University of Melbourne from the National Health & Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, Medical Research Future Fund, and Medibank for research. Dr. White has been a paid speaker for Viatris.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The following scenario was discussed during a forum at a meeting recently:

Two employees managing the front desk are clock watchers, always the first to leave at 11:59 a.m. for lunch and at 4:59 p.m. for the end of the day no matter what is happening. This leaves the other employees stuck with their work.

I have seen clock watching often enough to know that it is widely practiced, and widely reviled by coworkers and managers alike. Generally, clock watchers — sometimes referred to in modern parlance as “quiet quitters” — radiate a palpable sense of “I don’t want to be here.”

Physicians typically can’t identify with clock watching behavior, because we learned early on that patient-care tasks must be pursued to completion; if that involves working past the usual “quitting time,” so be it. So your first task in dealing with this problem is to determine its cause. The clock watcher label may be unfair. There may be legitimate reasons for certain employees to leave work at precisely 4:59 every day. Perhaps they must pick up children, or they have a second job to get to. The label usually comes from a pattern of consistent, repeated behavior. And if more than one employee is exhibiting the same behavior in the same office, the likelihood of a valid explanation decreases proportionally.

Utamaru Kido/Moment/Getty Images

A common cause of clock watching is a lack of employees’ commitment to their jobs. They don’t see the point in putting in extra effort, so they run out the door as soon as possible. There are many reasons why this might be the case. For example, the workload in your office may be too large to be accomplished in the time available by the number of people you employ. The solution might be to simply hire additional personnel.

Another common cause is a lack of communication between physicians, managers, and lower-level employees. If staffers are raising concerns or potential solutions, and management is not listening to their opinions or ideas, they will stop offering them. Alternatively, other staff members may not be pulling their weight. When there is a large imbalance in the contribution of team members, the higher performers will stop trying.

Over my 40 plus years in practice, I have had my share of clock watchers. I try the best I can not to let employees’ time commitment practices impact my valuation of their work. I always attempt to focus on quality and productivity. It isn’t easy, but I always try to address the issues behind clock watching behavior. As such, I can’t recall ever having to fire anyone for clock watching. Here are some of the strategies that have worked for me over the years:

1. Set clear expectations. Clearly communicate job responsibilities and expectations regarding time management and patient care. Ensure that all staff understand the importance of dedicating the necessary time to each patient, regardless of the time of day.

2. Foster a patient-centered culture. Cultivate a work environment that prioritizes patient care above all. This can help shift the focus from watching the clock to ensuring high-quality patient care.

3. Provide adequate breaks. Ensure that staff schedules include sufficient breaks. Overworked staff are more likely to watch the clock. Adequate rest periods can help alleviate this issue.

4. Offer flexibility where possible. If feasible, offer some degree of scheduling flexibility. This can help staff manage their personal time more effectively, potentially reducing the tendency to watch the clock.

5. Implement time management training. Offer training sessions focused on time management and efficiency. This can help staff manage their duties more effectively, reducing the need to constantly check the time.

6. Encourage open communication. Create an environment where staff feel comfortable discussing their concerns, including issues related to workload and time management. This can help identify and address specific factors contributing to clock watching.

7. Monitor and provide feedback. Regularly monitor staff performance and provide constructive feedback. If clock watching is observed, discuss it directly with the employee, focusing on the impact on patient care and the work environment.

8. Recognize and reward. Acknowledge and reward staff who consistently provide high-quality care and demonstrate effective time management. Recognition can motivate others to adjust their behavior.

9. Evaluate workloads. Regularly assess staff workloads to ensure they are manageable. Overburdened employees are more likely to engage in clock watching.

10. Lead by example. Management should model the behavior they wish to see in their staff. Demonstrating a commitment to patient care and effective time management can set a positive example.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

The following scenario was discussed during a forum at a meeting recently:

Two employees managing the front desk are clock watchers, always the first to leave at 11:59 a.m. for lunch and at 4:59 p.m. for the end of the day no matter what is happening. This leaves the other employees stuck with their work.

I have seen clock watching often enough to know that it is widely practiced, and widely reviled by coworkers and managers alike. Generally, clock watchers — sometimes referred to in modern parlance as “quiet quitters” — radiate a palpable sense of “I don’t want to be here.”

Physicians typically can’t identify with clock watching behavior, because we learned early on that patient-care tasks must be pursued to completion; if that involves working past the usual “quitting time,” so be it. So your first task in dealing with this problem is to determine its cause. The clock watcher label may be unfair. There may be legitimate reasons for certain employees to leave work at precisely 4:59 every day. Perhaps they must pick up children, or they have a second job to get to. The label usually comes from a pattern of consistent, repeated behavior. And if more than one employee is exhibiting the same behavior in the same office, the likelihood of a valid explanation decreases proportionally.

Utamaru Kido/Moment/Getty Images

A common cause of clock watching is a lack of employees’ commitment to their jobs. They don’t see the point in putting in extra effort, so they run out the door as soon as possible. There are many reasons why this might be the case. For example, the workload in your office may be too large to be accomplished in the time available by the number of people you employ. The solution might be to simply hire additional personnel.

Another common cause is a lack of communication between physicians, managers, and lower-level employees. If staffers are raising concerns or potential solutions, and management is not listening to their opinions or ideas, they will stop offering them. Alternatively, other staff members may not be pulling their weight. When there is a large imbalance in the contribution of team members, the higher performers will stop trying.

Over my 40 plus years in practice, I have had my share of clock watchers. I try the best I can not to let employees’ time commitment practices impact my valuation of their work. I always attempt to focus on quality and productivity. It isn’t easy, but I always try to address the issues behind clock watching behavior. As such, I can’t recall ever having to fire anyone for clock watching. Here are some of the strategies that have worked for me over the years:

1. Set clear expectations. Clearly communicate job responsibilities and expectations regarding time management and patient care. Ensure that all staff understand the importance of dedicating the necessary time to each patient, regardless of the time of day.

2. Foster a patient-centered culture. Cultivate a work environment that prioritizes patient care above all. This can help shift the focus from watching the clock to ensuring high-quality patient care.

3. Provide adequate breaks. Ensure that staff schedules include sufficient breaks. Overworked staff are more likely to watch the clock. Adequate rest periods can help alleviate this issue.

4. Offer flexibility where possible. If feasible, offer some degree of scheduling flexibility. This can help staff manage their personal time more effectively, potentially reducing the tendency to watch the clock.

5. Implement time management training. Offer training sessions focused on time management and efficiency. This can help staff manage their duties more effectively, reducing the need to constantly check the time.

6. Encourage open communication. Create an environment where staff feel comfortable discussing their concerns, including issues related to workload and time management. This can help identify and address specific factors contributing to clock watching.

7. Monitor and provide feedback. Regularly monitor staff performance and provide constructive feedback. If clock watching is observed, discuss it directly with the employee, focusing on the impact on patient care and the work environment.

8. Recognize and reward. Acknowledge and reward staff who consistently provide high-quality care and demonstrate effective time management. Recognition can motivate others to adjust their behavior.

9. Evaluate workloads. Regularly assess staff workloads to ensure they are manageable. Overburdened employees are more likely to engage in clock watching.

10. Lead by example. Management should model the behavior they wish to see in their staff. Demonstrating a commitment to patient care and effective time management can set a positive example.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

The following scenario was discussed during a forum at a meeting recently:

Two employees managing the front desk are clock watchers, always the first to leave at 11:59 a.m. for lunch and at 4:59 p.m. for the end of the day no matter what is happening. This leaves the other employees stuck with their work.

I have seen clock watching often enough to know that it is widely practiced, and widely reviled by coworkers and managers alike. Generally, clock watchers — sometimes referred to in modern parlance as “quiet quitters” — radiate a palpable sense of “I don’t want to be here.”

Physicians typically can’t identify with clock watching behavior, because we learned early on that patient-care tasks must be pursued to completion; if that involves working past the usual “quitting time,” so be it. So your first task in dealing with this problem is to determine its cause. The clock watcher label may be unfair. There may be legitimate reasons for certain employees to leave work at precisely 4:59 every day. Perhaps they must pick up children, or they have a second job to get to. The label usually comes from a pattern of consistent, repeated behavior. And if more than one employee is exhibiting the same behavior in the same office, the likelihood of a valid explanation decreases proportionally.

Utamaru Kido/Moment/Getty Images

A common cause of clock watching is a lack of employees’ commitment to their jobs. They don’t see the point in putting in extra effort, so they run out the door as soon as possible. There are many reasons why this might be the case. For example, the workload in your office may be too large to be accomplished in the time available by the number of people you employ. The solution might be to simply hire additional personnel.

Another common cause is a lack of communication between physicians, managers, and lower-level employees. If staffers are raising concerns or potential solutions, and management is not listening to their opinions or ideas, they will stop offering them. Alternatively, other staff members may not be pulling their weight. When there is a large imbalance in the contribution of team members, the higher performers will stop trying.

Over my 40 plus years in practice, I have had my share of clock watchers. I try the best I can not to let employees’ time commitment practices impact my valuation of their work. I always attempt to focus on quality and productivity. It isn’t easy, but I always try to address the issues behind clock watching behavior. As such, I can’t recall ever having to fire anyone for clock watching. Here are some of the strategies that have worked for me over the years:

1. Set clear expectations. Clearly communicate job responsibilities and expectations regarding time management and patient care. Ensure that all staff understand the importance of dedicating the necessary time to each patient, regardless of the time of day.

2. Foster a patient-centered culture. Cultivate a work environment that prioritizes patient care above all. This can help shift the focus from watching the clock to ensuring high-quality patient care.

3. Provide adequate breaks. Ensure that staff schedules include sufficient breaks. Overworked staff are more likely to watch the clock. Adequate rest periods can help alleviate this issue.

4. Offer flexibility where possible. If feasible, offer some degree of scheduling flexibility. This can help staff manage their personal time more effectively, potentially reducing the tendency to watch the clock.

5. Implement time management training. Offer training sessions focused on time management and efficiency. This can help staff manage their duties more effectively, reducing the need to constantly check the time.

6. Encourage open communication. Create an environment where staff feel comfortable discussing their concerns, including issues related to workload and time management. This can help identify and address specific factors contributing to clock watching.

7. Monitor and provide feedback. Regularly monitor staff performance and provide constructive feedback. If clock watching is observed, discuss it directly with the employee, focusing on the impact on patient care and the work environment.

8. Recognize and reward. Acknowledge and reward staff who consistently provide high-quality care and demonstrate effective time management. Recognition can motivate others to adjust their behavior.

9. Evaluate workloads. Regularly assess staff workloads to ensure they are manageable. Overburdened employees are more likely to engage in clock watching.

10. Lead by example. Management should model the behavior they wish to see in their staff. Demonstrating a commitment to patient care and effective time management can set a positive example.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Fractures, particularly hip and spine fractures, are a major cause of mortality and morbidity among older individuals. The term “osteoporosis” indicates increased porosity of bones resulting in low bone density; increased bone fragility; and an increased risk for fracture, often with minimal trauma.

During the adolescent years, bone accrues at a rapid rate, and optimal bone accrual during this time is essential to attain optimal peak bone mass, typically achieved in the third decade of life. Bone mass then stays stable until the 40s-50s, after which it starts to decline. One’s peak bone mass sets the stage for both immediate and future bone health. Individuals with lower peak bone mass tend to have less optimal bone health throughout their lives, and this becomes particularly problematic in older men and in the postmenopausal years for women.

The best strategy to optimize bone health is to prevent osteoporosis from occurring in the first place. This requires attention to factors that contribute to optimal bone health. One’s genes have a major impact on bone density and are currently not modifiable.

Modifiable factors include mechanical loading of bones through exercise activity, maintaining a normal body weight, and ensuring adequate intake of micronutrients (including calcium and vitamin D) and macronutrients. Medications such as glucocorticoids that have deleterious effects on bones should be limited as far as possible. Endocrine, gastrointestinal, renal, and rheumatologic conditions and others, such as cancer, which are known to be associated with reduced bone density and increased fracture risk, should be managed appropriately.

A deficiency of the gonadal hormones (estrogen and testosterone) and high blood concentrations of cortisol are particularly deleterious to bone. Hormone replacement therapy in those with gonadal hormone deficiency and strategies to reduce cortisol levels in those with hypercortisolemia are essential to prevent osteoporosis and also improve bone density over time. The same applies to management of conditions such as anorexia nervosa, relative energy deficiency in sports, inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, cystic fibrosis, chronic kidney disease, and chronic arthritis.

Once osteoporosis has developed, depending on the cause, these strategies may not be sufficient to completely reverse the condition, and pharmacologic therapy may be necessary to improve bone density and reduce fracture risk. This is particularly an issue with postmenopausal women and older men. In these individuals, medications that increase bone formation or reduce bone loss may be necessary.

Medications that reduce bone loss include bisphosphonates and denosumab; these are also called “antiresorptive medications” because they reduce bone resorption by cells called osteoclasts. Bisphosphonates include alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, pamidronate, and zoledronic acid, and these medications have direct effects on osteoclasts, reducing their activity. Some bisphosphonates, such as alendronate and risedronate, are taken orally (daily, weekly, or monthly, depending on the medication and its strength), whereas others, such as pamidronate and zoledronic acid, are administered intravenously: every 3-4 months for pamidronate and every 6-12 months for zoledronic acid. Ibandronate is available both orally and intravenously.

Denosumab is a medication that inhibits the action of receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa ligand 1 (RANKL), which otherwise increases osteoclast activity. It is administered as a subcutaneous injection every 6 months to treat osteoporosis. One concern with denosumab is a rapid increase in bone loss after its discontinuation.

Medications that increase bone formation are called bone anabolics and include teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab. Teriparatide is a synthetic form of parathyroid hormone (recombinant PTH1-34) administered daily for up to 2 years. Abaloparatide is a synthetic analog of parathyroid hormone–related peptide (PTHrP), which is also administered daily as a subcutaneous injection. Romosozumab inhibits sclerostin (a substance that otherwise reduces bone formation and increases bone resorption) and is administered as a subcutaneous injection once a month. Effects of these medications tend to be lost after they are discontinued.

In 2019, the Endocrine Society published guidelines for managing postmenopausal osteoporosis. The guidelines recommend lifestyle modifications, including attention to diet, calcium and vitamin D supplements, and weight-bearing exercise for all postmenopausal women. They also recommend assessing fracture risk using country-specific existing models.

Guidelines vary depending on whether fracture risk is low, moderate, or high. Patients at low risk are followed and reassessed every 2-4 years for fracture risk. Those at moderate risk may be followed similarly or prescribed bisphosphonates. Those at high risk are prescribed an antiresorptive, such as a bisphosphonate or denosumab, or a bone anabolic, such as teriparatide or abaloparatide (for up to 2 years) or romosozumab (for a year), with calcium and vitamin D and are reassessed at defined intervals for fracture risk; subsequent management then depends on the assessed fracture risk.

People who are on a bone anabolic should typically follow this with an antiresorptive medication to maintain the gains achieved with the former after that medication is discontinued. Patients who discontinue denosumab should be switched to bisphosphonates to prevent the increase in bone loss that typically occurs.

In postmenopausal women who are intolerant to or inappropriate for use of these medications, guidelines vary depending on age (younger or older than 60 years) and presence or absence of vasomotor symptoms (such as hot flashes). Options could include the use of calcium and vitamin D supplements; hormone replacement therapy with estrogen with or without a progestin; or selective estrogen receptor modulators (such as raloxifene or bazedoxifene), tibolone, or calcitonin.

It’s important to recognize that all pharmacologic therapy carries the risk for adverse events, and it’s essential to take the necessary steps to prevent, monitor for, and manage any adverse effects that may develop.

Managing osteoporosis in older men could include the use of bone anabolics and/or antiresorptives. In younger individuals, use of pharmacologic therapy is less common but sometimes necessary, particularly when bone density is very low and associated with a problematic fracture history — for example, in those with genetic conditions such as osteogenesis imperfecta. Furthermore, the occurrence of vertebral compression fractures often requires bisphosphonate treatment regardless of bone density, particularly in patients on chronic glucocorticoid therapy.

Preventing osteoporosis is best managed by paying attention to lifestyle; optimizing nutrition and calcium and vitamin D intake; and managing conditions and limiting the use of medications that reduce bone density.

However, in certain patients, these measures are not enough, and pharmacologic therapy with bone anabolics or antiresorptives may be necessary to improve bone density and reduce fracture risk.

Dr. Misra, of the University of Virginia and UVA Health Children’s Hospital, Charlottesville, disclosed ties with AbbVie, Sanofi, and Ipsen.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Fractures, particularly hip and spine fractures, are a major cause of mortality and morbidity among older individuals. The term “osteoporosis” indicates increased porosity of bones resulting in low bone density; increased bone fragility; and an increased risk for fracture, often with minimal trauma.

During the adolescent years, bone accrues at a rapid rate, and optimal bone accrual during this time is essential to attain optimal peak bone mass, typically achieved in the third decade of life. Bone mass then stays stable until the 40s-50s, after which it starts to decline. One’s peak bone mass sets the stage for both immediate and future bone health. Individuals with lower peak bone mass tend to have less optimal bone health throughout their lives, and this becomes particularly problematic in older men and in the postmenopausal years for women.

The best strategy to optimize bone health is to prevent osteoporosis from occurring in the first place. This requires attention to factors that contribute to optimal bone health. One’s genes have a major impact on bone density and are currently not modifiable.

Modifiable factors include mechanical loading of bones through exercise activity, maintaining a normal body weight, and ensuring adequate intake of micronutrients (including calcium and vitamin D) and macronutrients. Medications such as glucocorticoids that have deleterious effects on bones should be limited as far as possible. Endocrine, gastrointestinal, renal, and rheumatologic conditions and others, such as cancer, which are known to be associated with reduced bone density and increased fracture risk, should be managed appropriately.

A deficiency of the gonadal hormones (estrogen and testosterone) and high blood concentrations of cortisol are particularly deleterious to bone. Hormone replacement therapy in those with gonadal hormone deficiency and strategies to reduce cortisol levels in those with hypercortisolemia are essential to prevent osteoporosis and also improve bone density over time. The same applies to management of conditions such as anorexia nervosa, relative energy deficiency in sports, inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, cystic fibrosis, chronic kidney disease, and chronic arthritis.

Once osteoporosis has developed, depending on the cause, these strategies may not be sufficient to completely reverse the condition, and pharmacologic therapy may be necessary to improve bone density and reduce fracture risk. This is particularly an issue with postmenopausal women and older men. In these individuals, medications that increase bone formation or reduce bone loss may be necessary.

Medications that reduce bone loss include bisphosphonates and denosumab; these are also called “antiresorptive medications” because they reduce bone resorption by cells called osteoclasts. Bisphosphonates include alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, pamidronate, and zoledronic acid, and these medications have direct effects on osteoclasts, reducing their activity. Some bisphosphonates, such as alendronate and risedronate, are taken orally (daily, weekly, or monthly, depending on the medication and its strength), whereas others, such as pamidronate and zoledronic acid, are administered intravenously: every 3-4 months for pamidronate and every 6-12 months for zoledronic acid. Ibandronate is available both orally and intravenously.

Denosumab is a medication that inhibits the action of receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa ligand 1 (RANKL), which otherwise increases osteoclast activity. It is administered as a subcutaneous injection every 6 months to treat osteoporosis. One concern with denosumab is a rapid increase in bone loss after its discontinuation.

Medications that increase bone formation are called bone anabolics and include teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab. Teriparatide is a synthetic form of parathyroid hormone (recombinant PTH1-34) administered daily for up to 2 years. Abaloparatide is a synthetic analog of parathyroid hormone–related peptide (PTHrP), which is also administered daily as a subcutaneous injection. Romosozumab inhibits sclerostin (a substance that otherwise reduces bone formation and increases bone resorption) and is administered as a subcutaneous injection once a month. Effects of these medications tend to be lost after they are discontinued.

In 2019, the Endocrine Society published guidelines for managing postmenopausal osteoporosis. The guidelines recommend lifestyle modifications, including attention to diet, calcium and vitamin D supplements, and weight-bearing exercise for all postmenopausal women. They also recommend assessing fracture risk using country-specific existing models.

Guidelines vary depending on whether fracture risk is low, moderate, or high. Patients at low risk are followed and reassessed every 2-4 years for fracture risk. Those at moderate risk may be followed similarly or prescribed bisphosphonates. Those at high risk are prescribed an antiresorptive, such as a bisphosphonate or denosumab, or a bone anabolic, such as teriparatide or abaloparatide (for up to 2 years) or romosozumab (for a year), with calcium and vitamin D and are reassessed at defined intervals for fracture risk; subsequent management then depends on the assessed fracture risk.

People who are on a bone anabolic should typically follow this with an antiresorptive medication to maintain the gains achieved with the former after that medication is discontinued. Patients who discontinue denosumab should be switched to bisphosphonates to prevent the increase in bone loss that typically occurs.

In postmenopausal women who are intolerant to or inappropriate for use of these medications, guidelines vary depending on age (younger or older than 60 years) and presence or absence of vasomotor symptoms (such as hot flashes). Options could include the use of calcium and vitamin D supplements; hormone replacement therapy with estrogen with or without a progestin; or selective estrogen receptor modulators (such as raloxifene or bazedoxifene), tibolone, or calcitonin.

It’s important to recognize that all pharmacologic therapy carries the risk for adverse events, and it’s essential to take the necessary steps to prevent, monitor for, and manage any adverse effects that may develop.

Managing osteoporosis in older men could include the use of bone anabolics and/or antiresorptives. In younger individuals, use of pharmacologic therapy is less common but sometimes necessary, particularly when bone density is very low and associated with a problematic fracture history — for example, in those with genetic conditions such as osteogenesis imperfecta. Furthermore, the occurrence of vertebral compression fractures often requires bisphosphonate treatment regardless of bone density, particularly in patients on chronic glucocorticoid therapy.

Preventing osteoporosis is best managed by paying attention to lifestyle; optimizing nutrition and calcium and vitamin D intake; and managing conditions and limiting the use of medications that reduce bone density.

However, in certain patients, these measures are not enough, and pharmacologic therapy with bone anabolics or antiresorptives may be necessary to improve bone density and reduce fracture risk.

Dr. Misra, of the University of Virginia and UVA Health Children’s Hospital, Charlottesville, disclosed ties with AbbVie, Sanofi, and Ipsen.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Fractures, particularly hip and spine fractures, are a major cause of mortality and morbidity among older individuals. The term “osteoporosis” indicates increased porosity of bones resulting in low bone density; increased bone fragility; and an increased risk for fracture, often with minimal trauma.

During the adolescent years, bone accrues at a rapid rate, and optimal bone accrual during this time is essential to attain optimal peak bone mass, typically achieved in the third decade of life. Bone mass then stays stable until the 40s-50s, after which it starts to decline. One’s peak bone mass sets the stage for both immediate and future bone health. Individuals with lower peak bone mass tend to have less optimal bone health throughout their lives, and this becomes particularly problematic in older men and in the postmenopausal years for women.

The best strategy to optimize bone health is to prevent osteoporosis from occurring in the first place. This requires attention to factors that contribute to optimal bone health. One’s genes have a major impact on bone density and are currently not modifiable.

Modifiable factors include mechanical loading of bones through exercise activity, maintaining a normal body weight, and ensuring adequate intake of micronutrients (including calcium and vitamin D) and macronutrients. Medications such as glucocorticoids that have deleterious effects on bones should be limited as far as possible. Endocrine, gastrointestinal, renal, and rheumatologic conditions and others, such as cancer, which are known to be associated with reduced bone density and increased fracture risk, should be managed appropriately.

A deficiency of the gonadal hormones (estrogen and testosterone) and high blood concentrations of cortisol are particularly deleterious to bone. Hormone replacement therapy in those with gonadal hormone deficiency and strategies to reduce cortisol levels in those with hypercortisolemia are essential to prevent osteoporosis and also improve bone density over time. The same applies to management of conditions such as anorexia nervosa, relative energy deficiency in sports, inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, cystic fibrosis, chronic kidney disease, and chronic arthritis.

Once osteoporosis has developed, depending on the cause, these strategies may not be sufficient to completely reverse the condition, and pharmacologic therapy may be necessary to improve bone density and reduce fracture risk. This is particularly an issue with postmenopausal women and older men. In these individuals, medications that increase bone formation or reduce bone loss may be necessary.

Medications that reduce bone loss include bisphosphonates and denosumab; these are also called “antiresorptive medications” because they reduce bone resorption by cells called osteoclasts. Bisphosphonates include alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, pamidronate, and zoledronic acid, and these medications have direct effects on osteoclasts, reducing their activity. Some bisphosphonates, such as alendronate and risedronate, are taken orally (daily, weekly, or monthly, depending on the medication and its strength), whereas others, such as pamidronate and zoledronic acid, are administered intravenously: every 3-4 months for pamidronate and every 6-12 months for zoledronic acid. Ibandronate is available both orally and intravenously.

Denosumab is a medication that inhibits the action of receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa ligand 1 (RANKL), which otherwise increases osteoclast activity. It is administered as a subcutaneous injection every 6 months to treat osteoporosis. One concern with denosumab is a rapid increase in bone loss after its discontinuation.

Medications that increase bone formation are called bone anabolics and include teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab. Teriparatide is a synthetic form of parathyroid hormone (recombinant PTH1-34) administered daily for up to 2 years. Abaloparatide is a synthetic analog of parathyroid hormone–related peptide (PTHrP), which is also administered daily as a subcutaneous injection. Romosozumab inhibits sclerostin (a substance that otherwise reduces bone formation and increases bone resorption) and is administered as a subcutaneous injection once a month. Effects of these medications tend to be lost after they are discontinued.

In 2019, the Endocrine Society published guidelines for managing postmenopausal osteoporosis. The guidelines recommend lifestyle modifications, including attention to diet, calcium and vitamin D supplements, and weight-bearing exercise for all postmenopausal women. They also recommend assessing fracture risk using country-specific existing models.

Guidelines vary depending on whether fracture risk is low, moderate, or high. Patients at low risk are followed and reassessed every 2-4 years for fracture risk. Those at moderate risk may be followed similarly or prescribed bisphosphonates. Those at high risk are prescribed an antiresorptive, such as a bisphosphonate or denosumab, or a bone anabolic, such as teriparatide or abaloparatide (for up to 2 years) or romosozumab (for a year), with calcium and vitamin D and are reassessed at defined intervals for fracture risk; subsequent management then depends on the assessed fracture risk.

People who are on a bone anabolic should typically follow this with an antiresorptive medication to maintain the gains achieved with the former after that medication is discontinued. Patients who discontinue denosumab should be switched to bisphosphonates to prevent the increase in bone loss that typically occurs.

In postmenopausal women who are intolerant to or inappropriate for use of these medications, guidelines vary depending on age (younger or older than 60 years) and presence or absence of vasomotor symptoms (such as hot flashes). Options could include the use of calcium and vitamin D supplements; hormone replacement therapy with estrogen with or without a progestin; or selective estrogen receptor modulators (such as raloxifene or bazedoxifene), tibolone, or calcitonin.

It’s important to recognize that all pharmacologic therapy carries the risk for adverse events, and it’s essential to take the necessary steps to prevent, monitor for, and manage any adverse effects that may develop.

Managing osteoporosis in older men could include the use of bone anabolics and/or antiresorptives. In younger individuals, use of pharmacologic therapy is less common but sometimes necessary, particularly when bone density is very low and associated with a problematic fracture history — for example, in those with genetic conditions such as osteogenesis imperfecta. Furthermore, the occurrence of vertebral compression fractures often requires bisphosphonate treatment regardless of bone density, particularly in patients on chronic glucocorticoid therapy.

Preventing osteoporosis is best managed by paying attention to lifestyle; optimizing nutrition and calcium and vitamin D intake; and managing conditions and limiting the use of medications that reduce bone density.

However, in certain patients, these measures are not enough, and pharmacologic therapy with bone anabolics or antiresorptives may be necessary to improve bone density and reduce fracture risk.

Dr. Misra, of the University of Virginia and UVA Health Children’s Hospital, Charlottesville, disclosed ties with AbbVie, Sanofi, and Ipsen.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with non–tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) may not pose an increased risk for cancer, compared with TNFis and conventional synthetic DMARDs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research has presented conflicting results on the association between non-TNFi bDMARDs and the risk for cancer, with abatacept drawing particular attention owing to its mode of action.
• By utilizing information from Danish registers (January 2006-December 2020), researchers compared the risk for cancer in 14,944 patients with RA (age > 18 years) who were initiated on non-TNFi bDMARDs (tocilizumab/sarilumab, abatacept, or rituximab), TNFis, or were in the conventional synthetic DMARDs (bDMARD-naive) group.
• The patient population contributed to 21,982 treatment initiations, which corresponded to 1457, 1016, 690, 7458, and 11,361 treatment initiations for the tocilizumab/sarilumab, abatacept, rituximab, TNFi, and bDMARD-naive groups, respectively.
• Patients were followed up until a diagnosis was obtained for cancer, death, emigration, the initiation of a different bDMARD or a targeted synthetic DMARD, or the end of the study, whichever was earlier.
• The primary outcome was defined as any primary cancer diagnosis (except nonmelanoma skin cancer).

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for overall cancer was not significantly higher in the tocilizumab/sarilumab-, abatacept-, or rituximab-initiated groups than in the TNFi-treated and bDMARD-naive groups.

• The likelihood of cancer appeared to be higher in patients with more than 5 years of exposure to abatacept than in the TNFi-treated (hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% CI, 0.60-2.60) and bDMARD-naive groups (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.51-2.33). However, the results were not statistically significant.
• Treatment with rituximab may be associated with a lower risk for hematologic cancers than for TNFi-treated (HR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.00-2.06) or bDMARD-naive groups (HR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.00-1.89), although the findings did not show statistical significance.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “bDMARD-associated cancer risk remains a clinically important research question, and more future studies specifically investigating non-TNFi bDMARDs in terms of cancer risk in patients with RA are warranted.”

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Rasmus Westermann, MD, of Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark, was published online on March 7 in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Many patients received more than one type of non-TNFi bDMARD treatment during the study. Because the temporal relationship of DMARD treatment with cancer was not certain, potential carcinogenic treatment effects could not be distinguished. Limited data were available on cancer risk factors.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Danish Rheumatism Association and the Danish Cancer Society. Some authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies outside of the submitted work.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with non–tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) may not pose an increased risk for cancer, compared with TNFis and conventional synthetic DMARDs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research has presented conflicting results on the association between non-TNFi bDMARDs and the risk for cancer, with abatacept drawing particular attention owing to its mode of action.
• By utilizing information from Danish registers (January 2006-December 2020), researchers compared the risk for cancer in 14,944 patients with RA (age > 18 years) who were initiated on non-TNFi bDMARDs (tocilizumab/sarilumab, abatacept, or rituximab), TNFis, or were in the conventional synthetic DMARDs (bDMARD-naive) group.
• The patient population contributed to 21,982 treatment initiations, which corresponded to 1457, 1016, 690, 7458, and 11,361 treatment initiations for the tocilizumab/sarilumab, abatacept, rituximab, TNFi, and bDMARD-naive groups, respectively.
• Patients were followed up until a diagnosis was obtained for cancer, death, emigration, the initiation of a different bDMARD or a targeted synthetic DMARD, or the end of the study, whichever was earlier.
• The primary outcome was defined as any primary cancer diagnosis (except nonmelanoma skin cancer).

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for overall cancer was not significantly higher in the tocilizumab/sarilumab-, abatacept-, or rituximab-initiated groups than in the TNFi-treated and bDMARD-naive groups.

• The likelihood of cancer appeared to be higher in patients with more than 5 years of exposure to abatacept than in the TNFi-treated (hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% CI, 0.60-2.60) and bDMARD-naive groups (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.51-2.33). However, the results were not statistically significant.
• Treatment with rituximab may be associated with a lower risk for hematologic cancers than for TNFi-treated (HR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.00-2.06) or bDMARD-naive groups (HR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.00-1.89), although the findings did not show statistical significance.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “bDMARD-associated cancer risk remains a clinically important research question, and more future studies specifically investigating non-TNFi bDMARDs in terms of cancer risk in patients with RA are warranted.”

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Rasmus Westermann, MD, of Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark, was published online on March 7 in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Many patients received more than one type of non-TNFi bDMARD treatment during the study. Because the temporal relationship of DMARD treatment with cancer was not certain, potential carcinogenic treatment effects could not be distinguished. Limited data were available on cancer risk factors.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Danish Rheumatism Association and the Danish Cancer Society. Some authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies outside of the submitted work.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with non–tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) may not pose an increased risk for cancer, compared with TNFis and conventional synthetic DMARDs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research has presented conflicting results on the association between non-TNFi bDMARDs and the risk for cancer, with abatacept drawing particular attention owing to its mode of action.
• By utilizing information from Danish registers (January 2006-December 2020), researchers compared the risk for cancer in 14,944 patients with RA (age > 18 years) who were initiated on non-TNFi bDMARDs (tocilizumab/sarilumab, abatacept, or rituximab), TNFis, or were in the conventional synthetic DMARDs (bDMARD-naive) group.
• The patient population contributed to 21,982 treatment initiations, which corresponded to 1457, 1016, 690, 7458, and 11,361 treatment initiations for the tocilizumab/sarilumab, abatacept, rituximab, TNFi, and bDMARD-naive groups, respectively.
• Patients were followed up until a diagnosis was obtained for cancer, death, emigration, the initiation of a different bDMARD or a targeted synthetic DMARD, or the end of the study, whichever was earlier.
• The primary outcome was defined as any primary cancer diagnosis (except nonmelanoma skin cancer).

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for overall cancer was not significantly higher in the tocilizumab/sarilumab-, abatacept-, or rituximab-initiated groups than in the TNFi-treated and bDMARD-naive groups.

• The likelihood of cancer appeared to be higher in patients with more than 5 years of exposure to abatacept than in the TNFi-treated (hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% CI, 0.60-2.60) and bDMARD-naive groups (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.51-2.33). However, the results were not statistically significant.
• Treatment with rituximab may be associated with a lower risk for hematologic cancers than for TNFi-treated (HR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.00-2.06) or bDMARD-naive groups (HR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.00-1.89), although the findings did not show statistical significance.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “bDMARD-associated cancer risk remains a clinically important research question, and more future studies specifically investigating non-TNFi bDMARDs in terms of cancer risk in patients with RA are warranted.”

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Rasmus Westermann, MD, of Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark, was published online on March 7 in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Many patients received more than one type of non-TNFi bDMARD treatment during the study. Because the temporal relationship of DMARD treatment with cancer was not certain, potential carcinogenic treatment effects could not be distinguished. Limited data were available on cancer risk factors.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Danish Rheumatism Association and the Danish Cancer Society. Some authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies outside of the submitted work.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.