Rheumatology News

The number of clinically active rheumatology providers in the United States grew more than 20% from 2009 to 2019, according to a new analysis.

The number of advanced practice providers (APPs) in rheumatology more than doubled during that same time. However, these numerical increases are not enough to meet the projected demand in care, the authors reported.

University of Alabama Medical Center

“Even though we found growth, and if that same growth continued, we’d still be well below the projected needs for the overall aging population of the United States,” lead author Melissa Mannion, MD, MSPH, a pediatric rheumatologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

In a 2015 workforce study by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), researchers projected that the supply of rheumatologists would decrease by 25% from 2015 to 2030, with an estimated shortage of over 4000 clinical full-time equivalent (cFTE) rheumatology providers.

While the previous study’s findings seem to contrast with this newest analysis, Dr. Dr. Mannion said the findings are complementary, with both studies using different data sources.

The newest findings were published online on February 24 in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Leveraging Medicare Data

The ACR study estimated the adult rheumatology workforce and cFTEs using both primary and secondary sources, including published data from the American Medical Association and other professional societies, as well as electronic surveys of ACR members and rheumatology fellows in training.

By contrast, this newest study identified rheumatology providers using Medicare administrative data from 2006 to 2020, supplemented by national provider identifier taxonomy codes. Rheumatologists were considered “clinically active” if they provided care for at least five patients in 1 year. To account for rheumatology fellows, who can be categorized as internal medicine physicians, researchers also included internists who prescribed biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to more than 10 patients a year.

The count also included APPs, both nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs), who were attached to practices with only rheumatologists, internists, or one other specialty. Like physicians, APPs were included in the count if they prescribed more than 10 patients biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs in a calendar year and billed at least five patients with a rheumatic condition per year.

Researchers also estimated the number of cFTEs for 2019, using a variety of assumptions to generate an upper and lower range.

Different Numbers, Complementary Conclusions

For the 2019 calendar year, researchers counted 5667 clinically active rheumatologists and 379 NPs/PAs.

This represented a 23% increase in rheumatologists and a 141% increase in the number of APPs in the rheumatology workforce from 2009. The active rheumatology workforce increased by about 100 providers per year over the study period, although growth flattened off in more recent years.

The estimated cFTEs for 2019 ranged from 3457 to 5396, which are “comparable” to the projected 2020 cFTE estimates made in the ACR 2015 workforce study: 3888 to 5777 cFTEs.

American College of Rheumatology

Daniel Battafarano, DO, chair of the ACR Workforce Solutions Committee, agreed with Dr. Mannion that these findings complement each other, telling a similar story “but with different numbers,” he told this news organization. Dr. Battafarano, a professor of medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, led the ACR workforce study.

“Both studies project estimates of rheumatology providers and workforce trends, but neither study can claim accurate numbers of rheumatology providers due to the true limitation of either workforce study model,” he said.

The ACR study began with a higher count of rheumatologists, estimating 6013 practicing providers in 2015, while Dr. Mannion’s team calculated 5474 providers for the same year. The ACR study projected that provider numbers would fall to 5886 by 2020, which was higher than the 2019 count in this most recent study.

Dr. Battafarano noted that the studies also dealt with different time frames: While the ACR study used 2015 data to project trends in 5-year increments, this most recent study looked trends in the previous decade.

“We found an increase over time, although toward the end of our study — from 2019 to 2020 — we did have a drop off in number of providers, so maybe we are finding the beginning of what [the ACR researchers] anticipated, or maybe that will be corrected in the future,” Dr. Dr. Mannion said. “I think that our estimates really coordinate with what they found just using a different data source.”

Geographic Disparities and Solutions

The new study also highlighted the scarcity of rheumatology providers in rural counties, which was also an important take away from the 2015 ACR study. In the new analysis, researchers found that 95% of rheumatology practices were in urban settings, which did not change over the study period. Most counties in the United States had fewer than 30 rheumatologists per 1 million adults, with 93% of rural counties having zero adult rheumatologists. In comparison, 48% of urban counties had no adult rheumatologists.

“There’s not enough people, and they’re in very specific locations,” Dr. Dr. Mannion said. “Both things make it harder for people to get care.”

Dr. Battafarano noted that leveraging APPs would be key to increasing patient access to care moving forward — a resource that has more than doubled in the past decade, according to Dr. Dr. Mannion’s analysis.

“Recruiting a significant number of APPs into rheumatology practice should be a primary goal to increase the rheumatology workforce,” he said. Other potential solutions, he added, include employing telemedicine and educating primary care providers on rheumatic disease to help them comanage these conditions with rheumatologists.

This study was partially funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Mannion was supported by the Rheumatology Research Foundation Norman B. Gaylis, MD Clinical Research Award, paid to her institution. Dr. Battafarano had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The number of clinically active rheumatology providers in the United States grew more than 20% from 2009 to 2019, according to a new analysis.

The number of advanced practice providers (APPs) in rheumatology more than doubled during that same time. However, these numerical increases are not enough to meet the projected demand in care, the authors reported.

University of Alabama Medical Center

“Even though we found growth, and if that same growth continued, we’d still be well below the projected needs for the overall aging population of the United States,” lead author Melissa Mannion, MD, MSPH, a pediatric rheumatologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

In a 2015 workforce study by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), researchers projected that the supply of rheumatologists would decrease by 25% from 2015 to 2030, with an estimated shortage of over 4000 clinical full-time equivalent (cFTE) rheumatology providers.

While the previous study’s findings seem to contrast with this newest analysis, Dr. Dr. Mannion said the findings are complementary, with both studies using different data sources.

The newest findings were published online on February 24 in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Leveraging Medicare Data

The ACR study estimated the adult rheumatology workforce and cFTEs using both primary and secondary sources, including published data from the American Medical Association and other professional societies, as well as electronic surveys of ACR members and rheumatology fellows in training.

By contrast, this newest study identified rheumatology providers using Medicare administrative data from 2006 to 2020, supplemented by national provider identifier taxonomy codes. Rheumatologists were considered “clinically active” if they provided care for at least five patients in 1 year. To account for rheumatology fellows, who can be categorized as internal medicine physicians, researchers also included internists who prescribed biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to more than 10 patients a year.

The count also included APPs, both nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs), who were attached to practices with only rheumatologists, internists, or one other specialty. Like physicians, APPs were included in the count if they prescribed more than 10 patients biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs in a calendar year and billed at least five patients with a rheumatic condition per year.

Researchers also estimated the number of cFTEs for 2019, using a variety of assumptions to generate an upper and lower range.

Different Numbers, Complementary Conclusions

For the 2019 calendar year, researchers counted 5667 clinically active rheumatologists and 379 NPs/PAs.

This represented a 23% increase in rheumatologists and a 141% increase in the number of APPs in the rheumatology workforce from 2009. The active rheumatology workforce increased by about 100 providers per year over the study period, although growth flattened off in more recent years.

The estimated cFTEs for 2019 ranged from 3457 to 5396, which are “comparable” to the projected 2020 cFTE estimates made in the ACR 2015 workforce study: 3888 to 5777 cFTEs.

American College of Rheumatology

Daniel Battafarano, DO, chair of the ACR Workforce Solutions Committee, agreed with Dr. Mannion that these findings complement each other, telling a similar story “but with different numbers,” he told this news organization. Dr. Battafarano, a professor of medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, led the ACR workforce study.

“Both studies project estimates of rheumatology providers and workforce trends, but neither study can claim accurate numbers of rheumatology providers due to the true limitation of either workforce study model,” he said.

The ACR study began with a higher count of rheumatologists, estimating 6013 practicing providers in 2015, while Dr. Mannion’s team calculated 5474 providers for the same year. The ACR study projected that provider numbers would fall to 5886 by 2020, which was higher than the 2019 count in this most recent study.

Dr. Battafarano noted that the studies also dealt with different time frames: While the ACR study used 2015 data to project trends in 5-year increments, this most recent study looked trends in the previous decade.

“We found an increase over time, although toward the end of our study — from 2019 to 2020 — we did have a drop off in number of providers, so maybe we are finding the beginning of what [the ACR researchers] anticipated, or maybe that will be corrected in the future,” Dr. Dr. Mannion said. “I think that our estimates really coordinate with what they found just using a different data source.”

Geographic Disparities and Solutions

The new study also highlighted the scarcity of rheumatology providers in rural counties, which was also an important take away from the 2015 ACR study. In the new analysis, researchers found that 95% of rheumatology practices were in urban settings, which did not change over the study period. Most counties in the United States had fewer than 30 rheumatologists per 1 million adults, with 93% of rural counties having zero adult rheumatologists. In comparison, 48% of urban counties had no adult rheumatologists.

“There’s not enough people, and they’re in very specific locations,” Dr. Dr. Mannion said. “Both things make it harder for people to get care.”

Dr. Battafarano noted that leveraging APPs would be key to increasing patient access to care moving forward — a resource that has more than doubled in the past decade, according to Dr. Dr. Mannion’s analysis.

“Recruiting a significant number of APPs into rheumatology practice should be a primary goal to increase the rheumatology workforce,” he said. Other potential solutions, he added, include employing telemedicine and educating primary care providers on rheumatic disease to help them comanage these conditions with rheumatologists.

This study was partially funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Mannion was supported by the Rheumatology Research Foundation Norman B. Gaylis, MD Clinical Research Award, paid to her institution. Dr. Battafarano had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The number of clinically active rheumatology providers in the United States grew more than 20% from 2009 to 2019, according to a new analysis.

The number of advanced practice providers (APPs) in rheumatology more than doubled during that same time. However, these numerical increases are not enough to meet the projected demand in care, the authors reported.

University of Alabama Medical Center

“Even though we found growth, and if that same growth continued, we’d still be well below the projected needs for the overall aging population of the United States,” lead author Melissa Mannion, MD, MSPH, a pediatric rheumatologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

In a 2015 workforce study by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), researchers projected that the supply of rheumatologists would decrease by 25% from 2015 to 2030, with an estimated shortage of over 4000 clinical full-time equivalent (cFTE) rheumatology providers.

While the previous study’s findings seem to contrast with this newest analysis, Dr. Dr. Mannion said the findings are complementary, with both studies using different data sources.

The newest findings were published online on February 24 in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Leveraging Medicare Data

The ACR study estimated the adult rheumatology workforce and cFTEs using both primary and secondary sources, including published data from the American Medical Association and other professional societies, as well as electronic surveys of ACR members and rheumatology fellows in training.

By contrast, this newest study identified rheumatology providers using Medicare administrative data from 2006 to 2020, supplemented by national provider identifier taxonomy codes. Rheumatologists were considered “clinically active” if they provided care for at least five patients in 1 year. To account for rheumatology fellows, who can be categorized as internal medicine physicians, researchers also included internists who prescribed biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to more than 10 patients a year.

The count also included APPs, both nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs), who were attached to practices with only rheumatologists, internists, or one other specialty. Like physicians, APPs were included in the count if they prescribed more than 10 patients biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs in a calendar year and billed at least five patients with a rheumatic condition per year.

Researchers also estimated the number of cFTEs for 2019, using a variety of assumptions to generate an upper and lower range.

Different Numbers, Complementary Conclusions

For the 2019 calendar year, researchers counted 5667 clinically active rheumatologists and 379 NPs/PAs.

This represented a 23% increase in rheumatologists and a 141% increase in the number of APPs in the rheumatology workforce from 2009. The active rheumatology workforce increased by about 100 providers per year over the study period, although growth flattened off in more recent years.

The estimated cFTEs for 2019 ranged from 3457 to 5396, which are “comparable” to the projected 2020 cFTE estimates made in the ACR 2015 workforce study: 3888 to 5777 cFTEs.

American College of Rheumatology

Daniel Battafarano, DO, chair of the ACR Workforce Solutions Committee, agreed with Dr. Mannion that these findings complement each other, telling a similar story “but with different numbers,” he told this news organization. Dr. Battafarano, a professor of medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, led the ACR workforce study.

“Both studies project estimates of rheumatology providers and workforce trends, but neither study can claim accurate numbers of rheumatology providers due to the true limitation of either workforce study model,” he said.

The ACR study began with a higher count of rheumatologists, estimating 6013 practicing providers in 2015, while Dr. Mannion’s team calculated 5474 providers for the same year. The ACR study projected that provider numbers would fall to 5886 by 2020, which was higher than the 2019 count in this most recent study.

Dr. Battafarano noted that the studies also dealt with different time frames: While the ACR study used 2015 data to project trends in 5-year increments, this most recent study looked trends in the previous decade.

“We found an increase over time, although toward the end of our study — from 2019 to 2020 — we did have a drop off in number of providers, so maybe we are finding the beginning of what [the ACR researchers] anticipated, or maybe that will be corrected in the future,” Dr. Dr. Mannion said. “I think that our estimates really coordinate with what they found just using a different data source.”

Geographic Disparities and Solutions

The new study also highlighted the scarcity of rheumatology providers in rural counties, which was also an important take away from the 2015 ACR study. In the new analysis, researchers found that 95% of rheumatology practices were in urban settings, which did not change over the study period. Most counties in the United States had fewer than 30 rheumatologists per 1 million adults, with 93% of rural counties having zero adult rheumatologists. In comparison, 48% of urban counties had no adult rheumatologists.

“There’s not enough people, and they’re in very specific locations,” Dr. Dr. Mannion said. “Both things make it harder for people to get care.”

Dr. Battafarano noted that leveraging APPs would be key to increasing patient access to care moving forward — a resource that has more than doubled in the past decade, according to Dr. Dr. Mannion’s analysis.

“Recruiting a significant number of APPs into rheumatology practice should be a primary goal to increase the rheumatology workforce,” he said. Other potential solutions, he added, include employing telemedicine and educating primary care providers on rheumatic disease to help them comanage these conditions with rheumatologists.

This study was partially funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Mannion was supported by the Rheumatology Research Foundation Norman B. Gaylis, MD Clinical Research Award, paid to her institution. Dr. Battafarano had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In published trials, both an interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitor and an IL-23 inhibitor achieved impressive rates of clear or almost clear responses in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, but late-breaker data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology show that these types of responses are sustained for as long as patients have remained on therapy.

Of the two, the longer follow up is with the IL-17 inhibitor bimekizumab (Bimzelx). In a 4-year open-label extension study, the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 rate was approximately 85% in treated patients, according to Mark Lebwohl, MD, professor and chairman emeritus of the Department of Dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City

A PASI 90 score signifies that 90% of skin surface area is cleared. The proportion of patients who achieved a PASI 100 score, signifying total clearance, approached 70% at 4 years in the group with the greatest response. PASI 90 and PASI 100 rates at this point were only modestly lower than those reported at the end of the double-blind phase 3 trial when evaluated 3 years earlier. 

Follow-up with a novel oral anti-IL-23 inhibitor JNJ-2113 (JNJ-77242113) was only 52 weeks, far shorter. But again, the response for the most effective dose at the end of this period was essentially unchanged from that at 16 weeks. Among those on the highest and most effective test dose of once-daily 100 mg, the PASI 90 at 1 year was 64.3%, a rate that was essentially unchanged from week 16.

No Apparent Loss of Benefit Over Time

“We can really look at those dose-response curves and see that there is, overall, a maintenance of response,” reported Laura K. Ferris, MD, PhD, professor and director of clinical trials, Department of Dermatology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In her presentation of the data, she showed similar sustained control for the most effective doses of JNJ-2113 for multiple clinical outcomes, including an investigator’s global assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1, also signifying clear or near clear skin.

Bimekizumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits both IL-17A and IL-17F, is already approved for the treatment of plaque psoriasis. The 52-week BE SURE trial, which provided the 478 patients who entered into the BE BRIGHT open label extension study, was published in The New England Journal of Medicine in July 2021. 

In the 4-year data reported by Dr. Lebwohl, three groups were compared: Those initially randomized to an every-4-week dosing schedule of bimekizumab over the course of the 52-week BE SURE trial; those randomized to an every-4-week bimekizumab schedule who were then subsequently switched to an every-8-week schedule; and those initiated on the TNF-inhibitor adalimumab (Humira) and were then switched at week 24 to every-4-week bimekizumab.

The PASI 90 responses at 52 weeks in these three groups, respectively, were 91.2%, 89.3%, and 95.2%. At 4 years, this almost clear response was observed in 82.4%, 83.2%, and 87.6%, respectively. At 52 weeks, the PASI 100 responses in these three groups, respectively, were 75.3%, 74.2%, and 72.9%. At 4 years, 61.9%, 58.5%, and 69.5% still had complete skin clearance.

Bimekizumab was well tolerated during the randomized trial, reported Dr. Lebwohl. The rates of nasopharyngitis and oral candidiasis, which were observed in approximately 12% and 8%, respectively, of treated patients during the randomized phase remained at about the same level in the long-term follow up. There were no new safety signals, he said.
 

JNJ-2113 Is First Potential Oral IL-23 Inhibitor

JNJ-2113 is a first-in-class oral peptide that binds to the IL-23 receptor, blocking the IL-23 signaling pathway. If approved, it would be the first oral therapy targeting IL-23. The 16-week outcomes of the dose-finding FRONTIER 1 phase 2b trial were published in The New England Journal of Medicine earlier this year. The primary endpoint was PASI 75, achieved by 79% of those on the 100 mg twice daily dose at week 16, vs 9% on placebo, and at 52 weeks, was 76%. 

“The proportion of patients achieving the FRONTIER 1 primary endpoint was maintained from week 16 to the end of week 52 in the extension study,” Dr. Ferris said, but further pointed out that rates of near or complete clearance achieved at week 16 were also essentially unchanged at week 52. This was true of PASI scores and IGA. 

Clearance of psoriatic lesions on the scalp was particularly impressive. By scalp-specific IGA, rates of clear or near clear (0/1) were not just maintained but improved over the course of follow-up, reaching 75.1% at 52 weeks in the highest dose group, she said.

JNJ-2113 was well tolerated in FRONTIER 1 and remained so during long-term follow-up, in the FRONTIER 2 extension study, according to Dr. Ferris. The most common complaints with JNJ-2113, such as nasopharyngitis (18.1% vs 25.7% in placebo), did not appear to differ significantly from placebo and the treatment remained well tolerated over the course of the extended follow-up.

There are limited direct comparisons of different biologics active in the treatment of plaque psoriasis for efficacy and safety, but these data appear to show a depth and durability of benefit for psoriasis that is exceptional, Dr. Lebwohl told this news organization. “The PASI 100 scores achieved by bimekizumab exceed anything we have seen to date,” he said. “And the durability of those exceedingly high scores is remarkable.”

Dr. Lebwohl reports financial relationships with approximately 40 pharmaceutical companies, including UCB Pharma, which developed bimekizumab. Dr. Ferris reports financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Janssen, which is developing JNJ-2113. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In published trials, both an interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitor and an IL-23 inhibitor achieved impressive rates of clear or almost clear responses in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, but late-breaker data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology show that these types of responses are sustained for as long as patients have remained on therapy.

Of the two, the longer follow up is with the IL-17 inhibitor bimekizumab (Bimzelx). In a 4-year open-label extension study, the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 rate was approximately 85% in treated patients, according to Mark Lebwohl, MD, professor and chairman emeritus of the Department of Dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City

A PASI 90 score signifies that 90% of skin surface area is cleared. The proportion of patients who achieved a PASI 100 score, signifying total clearance, approached 70% at 4 years in the group with the greatest response. PASI 90 and PASI 100 rates at this point were only modestly lower than those reported at the end of the double-blind phase 3 trial when evaluated 3 years earlier. 

Follow-up with a novel oral anti-IL-23 inhibitor JNJ-2113 (JNJ-77242113) was only 52 weeks, far shorter. But again, the response for the most effective dose at the end of this period was essentially unchanged from that at 16 weeks. Among those on the highest and most effective test dose of once-daily 100 mg, the PASI 90 at 1 year was 64.3%, a rate that was essentially unchanged from week 16.

No Apparent Loss of Benefit Over Time

“We can really look at those dose-response curves and see that there is, overall, a maintenance of response,” reported Laura K. Ferris, MD, PhD, professor and director of clinical trials, Department of Dermatology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In her presentation of the data, she showed similar sustained control for the most effective doses of JNJ-2113 for multiple clinical outcomes, including an investigator’s global assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1, also signifying clear or near clear skin.

Bimekizumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits both IL-17A and IL-17F, is already approved for the treatment of plaque psoriasis. The 52-week BE SURE trial, which provided the 478 patients who entered into the BE BRIGHT open label extension study, was published in The New England Journal of Medicine in July 2021. 

In the 4-year data reported by Dr. Lebwohl, three groups were compared: Those initially randomized to an every-4-week dosing schedule of bimekizumab over the course of the 52-week BE SURE trial; those randomized to an every-4-week bimekizumab schedule who were then subsequently switched to an every-8-week schedule; and those initiated on the TNF-inhibitor adalimumab (Humira) and were then switched at week 24 to every-4-week bimekizumab.

The PASI 90 responses at 52 weeks in these three groups, respectively, were 91.2%, 89.3%, and 95.2%. At 4 years, this almost clear response was observed in 82.4%, 83.2%, and 87.6%, respectively. At 52 weeks, the PASI 100 responses in these three groups, respectively, were 75.3%, 74.2%, and 72.9%. At 4 years, 61.9%, 58.5%, and 69.5% still had complete skin clearance.

Bimekizumab was well tolerated during the randomized trial, reported Dr. Lebwohl. The rates of nasopharyngitis and oral candidiasis, which were observed in approximately 12% and 8%, respectively, of treated patients during the randomized phase remained at about the same level in the long-term follow up. There were no new safety signals, he said.
 

JNJ-2113 Is First Potential Oral IL-23 Inhibitor

JNJ-2113 is a first-in-class oral peptide that binds to the IL-23 receptor, blocking the IL-23 signaling pathway. If approved, it would be the first oral therapy targeting IL-23. The 16-week outcomes of the dose-finding FRONTIER 1 phase 2b trial were published in The New England Journal of Medicine earlier this year. The primary endpoint was PASI 75, achieved by 79% of those on the 100 mg twice daily dose at week 16, vs 9% on placebo, and at 52 weeks, was 76%. 

“The proportion of patients achieving the FRONTIER 1 primary endpoint was maintained from week 16 to the end of week 52 in the extension study,” Dr. Ferris said, but further pointed out that rates of near or complete clearance achieved at week 16 were also essentially unchanged at week 52. This was true of PASI scores and IGA. 

Clearance of psoriatic lesions on the scalp was particularly impressive. By scalp-specific IGA, rates of clear or near clear (0/1) were not just maintained but improved over the course of follow-up, reaching 75.1% at 52 weeks in the highest dose group, she said.

JNJ-2113 was well tolerated in FRONTIER 1 and remained so during long-term follow-up, in the FRONTIER 2 extension study, according to Dr. Ferris. The most common complaints with JNJ-2113, such as nasopharyngitis (18.1% vs 25.7% in placebo), did not appear to differ significantly from placebo and the treatment remained well tolerated over the course of the extended follow-up.

There are limited direct comparisons of different biologics active in the treatment of plaque psoriasis for efficacy and safety, but these data appear to show a depth and durability of benefit for psoriasis that is exceptional, Dr. Lebwohl told this news organization. “The PASI 100 scores achieved by bimekizumab exceed anything we have seen to date,” he said. “And the durability of those exceedingly high scores is remarkable.”

Dr. Lebwohl reports financial relationships with approximately 40 pharmaceutical companies, including UCB Pharma, which developed bimekizumab. Dr. Ferris reports financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Janssen, which is developing JNJ-2113. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In published trials, both an interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitor and an IL-23 inhibitor achieved impressive rates of clear or almost clear responses in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, but late-breaker data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology show that these types of responses are sustained for as long as patients have remained on therapy.

Of the two, the longer follow up is with the IL-17 inhibitor bimekizumab (Bimzelx). In a 4-year open-label extension study, the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 rate was approximately 85% in treated patients, according to Mark Lebwohl, MD, professor and chairman emeritus of the Department of Dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City

A PASI 90 score signifies that 90% of skin surface area is cleared. The proportion of patients who achieved a PASI 100 score, signifying total clearance, approached 70% at 4 years in the group with the greatest response. PASI 90 and PASI 100 rates at this point were only modestly lower than those reported at the end of the double-blind phase 3 trial when evaluated 3 years earlier. 

Follow-up with a novel oral anti-IL-23 inhibitor JNJ-2113 (JNJ-77242113) was only 52 weeks, far shorter. But again, the response for the most effective dose at the end of this period was essentially unchanged from that at 16 weeks. Among those on the highest and most effective test dose of once-daily 100 mg, the PASI 90 at 1 year was 64.3%, a rate that was essentially unchanged from week 16.

No Apparent Loss of Benefit Over Time

“We can really look at those dose-response curves and see that there is, overall, a maintenance of response,” reported Laura K. Ferris, MD, PhD, professor and director of clinical trials, Department of Dermatology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In her presentation of the data, she showed similar sustained control for the most effective doses of JNJ-2113 for multiple clinical outcomes, including an investigator’s global assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1, also signifying clear or near clear skin.

Bimekizumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits both IL-17A and IL-17F, is already approved for the treatment of plaque psoriasis. The 52-week BE SURE trial, which provided the 478 patients who entered into the BE BRIGHT open label extension study, was published in The New England Journal of Medicine in July 2021. 

In the 4-year data reported by Dr. Lebwohl, three groups were compared: Those initially randomized to an every-4-week dosing schedule of bimekizumab over the course of the 52-week BE SURE trial; those randomized to an every-4-week bimekizumab schedule who were then subsequently switched to an every-8-week schedule; and those initiated on the TNF-inhibitor adalimumab (Humira) and were then switched at week 24 to every-4-week bimekizumab.

The PASI 90 responses at 52 weeks in these three groups, respectively, were 91.2%, 89.3%, and 95.2%. At 4 years, this almost clear response was observed in 82.4%, 83.2%, and 87.6%, respectively. At 52 weeks, the PASI 100 responses in these three groups, respectively, were 75.3%, 74.2%, and 72.9%. At 4 years, 61.9%, 58.5%, and 69.5% still had complete skin clearance.

Bimekizumab was well tolerated during the randomized trial, reported Dr. Lebwohl. The rates of nasopharyngitis and oral candidiasis, which were observed in approximately 12% and 8%, respectively, of treated patients during the randomized phase remained at about the same level in the long-term follow up. There were no new safety signals, he said.
 

JNJ-2113 Is First Potential Oral IL-23 Inhibitor

JNJ-2113 is a first-in-class oral peptide that binds to the IL-23 receptor, blocking the IL-23 signaling pathway. If approved, it would be the first oral therapy targeting IL-23. The 16-week outcomes of the dose-finding FRONTIER 1 phase 2b trial were published in The New England Journal of Medicine earlier this year. The primary endpoint was PASI 75, achieved by 79% of those on the 100 mg twice daily dose at week 16, vs 9% on placebo, and at 52 weeks, was 76%. 

“The proportion of patients achieving the FRONTIER 1 primary endpoint was maintained from week 16 to the end of week 52 in the extension study,” Dr. Ferris said, but further pointed out that rates of near or complete clearance achieved at week 16 were also essentially unchanged at week 52. This was true of PASI scores and IGA. 

Clearance of psoriatic lesions on the scalp was particularly impressive. By scalp-specific IGA, rates of clear or near clear (0/1) were not just maintained but improved over the course of follow-up, reaching 75.1% at 52 weeks in the highest dose group, she said.

JNJ-2113 was well tolerated in FRONTIER 1 and remained so during long-term follow-up, in the FRONTIER 2 extension study, according to Dr. Ferris. The most common complaints with JNJ-2113, such as nasopharyngitis (18.1% vs 25.7% in placebo), did not appear to differ significantly from placebo and the treatment remained well tolerated over the course of the extended follow-up.

There are limited direct comparisons of different biologics active in the treatment of plaque psoriasis for efficacy and safety, but these data appear to show a depth and durability of benefit for psoriasis that is exceptional, Dr. Lebwohl told this news organization. “The PASI 100 scores achieved by bimekizumab exceed anything we have seen to date,” he said. “And the durability of those exceedingly high scores is remarkable.”

Dr. Lebwohl reports financial relationships with approximately 40 pharmaceutical companies, including UCB Pharma, which developed bimekizumab. Dr. Ferris reports financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Janssen, which is developing JNJ-2113. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recently filed lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson can serve as an example to use when advocating for patients who have insurance through their employers that can potentially hurt them physically and financially. When your patient has an employer-funded health insurance plan where the employer directly pays for all medical costs — called an ERISA plan for the federal law that governs employee benefit plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act — there are certain accountability, fairness, and fiduciary responsibilities that the employers must meet. These so-called ERISA plans do not have to follow state utilization management legislation that addresses harmful changes in insurers’ formularies and other policies, so when the plans are not properly overseen and do not mandate the delivery of proper care at the lowest cost, both the patient and employer may be losing out.

The J&J lawsuit serves as a bellwether warning to self-insured employers to demand transparency from their third-party administrators so as not to (knowingly or unknowingly) breach their fiduciary duty to their health plans and employees. These duties include ensuring reasonable plan costs as well as acting in the best interest of their employees. There were multiple complaints in the lawsuit by a J&J employee, stating that she paid a much higher price for her multiple sclerosis drug through the plan than the price she eventually found at a lower cost pharmacy. The allegations state that J&J failed to show prudence in its selection of a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM). In addition, the company failed to negotiate better drug pricing terms, and the design of the drug plan steered patients to the PBM specialty pharmacy, resulting in higher prices for the employees. All of these led to higher drug costs and premiums for employees, which, according to the lawsuit, is a breach of J&J’s fiduciary duties.

Why Should Rheumatologists Care About This?

With all insurance plans, it feels as though we are dealing with obstacles every day that keep us from giving the excellent rheumatologic care that our patients deserve. Self-insured employers now account for over 50% of commercial health plans, and as rheumatologists caring for the employees of these companies, we can use those transparency, accountability, and fiduciary responsibilities of the employer to ensure that our patients are getting the proper care at the lowest cost.

Not only is the J&J lawsuit a warning to self-insured employers, but a reminder to rheumatologists to be on the lookout for drug pricing issues and formulary construction that leads to higher pricing for employees and the plan. For example, make note if your patient is forced to fail a much higher priced self-injectable biologic before using a much lower cost infusible medication. Or if the plan mandates the use of the much higher priced adalimumab biosimilars over the lower priced biosimilars or even the highest priced JAK inhibitor over the lowest priced one. Let’s not forget mandated white bagging, which is often much more expensive to the plan than the buy-and-bill model through a rheumatologist’s office.

Recently, we have been able to help rheumatology practices get exemptions from white-bagging mandates that large self-insured employers often have in their plan documents. We have been able to show that the cost of obtaining the medication through specialty pharmacy (SP) is much higher than through the buy-and-bill model. Mandating that the plan spend more money on SP drugs, as opposed to allowing the rheumatologist to buy and bill, could easily be interpreted as a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the employer by mandating a higher cost model.
 

CSRO Payer Issue Response Team

I have written about the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO)’s Payer Issue Response Team (PIRT) in the past. Rheumatologists around the country can send to PIRT any problems that they are having with payers. A recent PIRT submission involved a white-bagging mandate for an employee of a very large international Fortune 500 company. This particular example is important because of the response by the VP of Global Benefits for this company. Express Scripts is the administrator of pharmacy benefits for this company. The rheumatologist was told that he could not buy and bill for an infusible medicine but would have to obtain the drug through Express Scripts’ SP. He then asked Express Scripts for the SP medication’s cost to the health plan in order to compare the SP price versus what the buy-and-bill model would cost this company. Express Scripts would not respond to this simple transparency question; often, PBMs claim that this is proprietary information.

I was able to speak with the company’s VP of Global Benefits regarding this issue. First of all, he stated that his company was not mandating white bagging. I explained to him that the plan documents had white bagging as the only option for acquisition of provider-administered drugs. A rheumatologist would have to apply for an exemption to buy and bill, and in this case, it was denied. This is essentially a mandate.

I gave the VP of Global Benefits an example of another large Fortune 500 company (UPS) that spent over $30,000 per year more on an infusible medication when obtained through SP than what it cost them under a buy-and-bill model. I had hoped that this example would impress upon the VP the importance of transparency in pricing and claims to prevent his company from unknowingly costing the health plan more and its being construed as a breach of fiduciary duty. It was explained to me by the VP of Global Benefits that his company is part of the National Drug Purchasers Coalition and they trust Express Scripts to do the right thing for them. As they say, “You can lead a horse to water, but can’t make it drink.”
 

Liability of a Plan That Physically Harms an Employee?

A slightly different example of a self-insured employer, presumably unknowingly, allowing its third-party administrator to mishandle the care of an employee was recently brought to me by a rheumatologist in North Carolina. She takes care of an employee who has rheumatoid arthritis with severe interstitial lung disease (ILD). The employee’s pulmonary status was stabilized on several courses of Rituxan (reference product of rituximab). Recently, BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina, the third-party administrator of this employer’s plan, mandated a switch to a biosimilar of rituximab for the treatment of the ILD. The rheumatologist appealed the nonmedical switch but gave the patient the biosimilar so as not to delay care. Her patient’s condition is now deteriorating with progression of the ILD, and she once again has asked for an exemption to use Rituxan, which had initially stabilized the patient. Her staff told her that the BCBSNC rep said that the patient would have to have a life-threatening infusion reaction (and present the bill for the ambulance) before they would approve a return to the reference product. An employer that knowingly or unknowingly allows a third-party administrator to act in such a way as to endanger the life of an employee could be considered to be breaching its fiduciary duty. (Disclaimer: I am not an attorney — merely a rheumatologist with common sense. Nor am I making any qualitative statement about biosimilars.)

We now have a lawsuit to which you can refer when advocating for our patients who are employed by large, self-insured employers. It is unfortunate that it is not the third-party administrators or PBMs that can be sued, as they are generally not the fiduciaries for the plan. It is the unsuspecting employers who “trust” their brokers/consultants and the third-party administrators to do the right thing. Please continue to send us your payer issues. And if your patient works for a self-insured employer, I will continue to remind the CEO, CFO, and chief compliance officer that an employer with an ERISA health plan can potentially face legal action if the health plan’s actions or decisions cause harm to an employee’s health — physically or in the wallet.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

A recently filed lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson can serve as an example to use when advocating for patients who have insurance through their employers that can potentially hurt them physically and financially. When your patient has an employer-funded health insurance plan where the employer directly pays for all medical costs — called an ERISA plan for the federal law that governs employee benefit plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act — there are certain accountability, fairness, and fiduciary responsibilities that the employers must meet. These so-called ERISA plans do not have to follow state utilization management legislation that addresses harmful changes in insurers’ formularies and other policies, so when the plans are not properly overseen and do not mandate the delivery of proper care at the lowest cost, both the patient and employer may be losing out.

The J&J lawsuit serves as a bellwether warning to self-insured employers to demand transparency from their third-party administrators so as not to (knowingly or unknowingly) breach their fiduciary duty to their health plans and employees. These duties include ensuring reasonable plan costs as well as acting in the best interest of their employees. There were multiple complaints in the lawsuit by a J&J employee, stating that she paid a much higher price for her multiple sclerosis drug through the plan than the price she eventually found at a lower cost pharmacy. The allegations state that J&J failed to show prudence in its selection of a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM). In addition, the company failed to negotiate better drug pricing terms, and the design of the drug plan steered patients to the PBM specialty pharmacy, resulting in higher prices for the employees. All of these led to higher drug costs and premiums for employees, which, according to the lawsuit, is a breach of J&J’s fiduciary duties.

Why Should Rheumatologists Care About This?

With all insurance plans, it feels as though we are dealing with obstacles every day that keep us from giving the excellent rheumatologic care that our patients deserve. Self-insured employers now account for over 50% of commercial health plans, and as rheumatologists caring for the employees of these companies, we can use those transparency, accountability, and fiduciary responsibilities of the employer to ensure that our patients are getting the proper care at the lowest cost.

Not only is the J&J lawsuit a warning to self-insured employers, but a reminder to rheumatologists to be on the lookout for drug pricing issues and formulary construction that leads to higher pricing for employees and the plan. For example, make note if your patient is forced to fail a much higher priced self-injectable biologic before using a much lower cost infusible medication. Or if the plan mandates the use of the much higher priced adalimumab biosimilars over the lower priced biosimilars or even the highest priced JAK inhibitor over the lowest priced one. Let’s not forget mandated white bagging, which is often much more expensive to the plan than the buy-and-bill model through a rheumatologist’s office.

Recently, we have been able to help rheumatology practices get exemptions from white-bagging mandates that large self-insured employers often have in their plan documents. We have been able to show that the cost of obtaining the medication through specialty pharmacy (SP) is much higher than through the buy-and-bill model. Mandating that the plan spend more money on SP drugs, as opposed to allowing the rheumatologist to buy and bill, could easily be interpreted as a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the employer by mandating a higher cost model.
 

CSRO Payer Issue Response Team

I have written about the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO)’s Payer Issue Response Team (PIRT) in the past. Rheumatologists around the country can send to PIRT any problems that they are having with payers. A recent PIRT submission involved a white-bagging mandate for an employee of a very large international Fortune 500 company. This particular example is important because of the response by the VP of Global Benefits for this company. Express Scripts is the administrator of pharmacy benefits for this company. The rheumatologist was told that he could not buy and bill for an infusible medicine but would have to obtain the drug through Express Scripts’ SP. He then asked Express Scripts for the SP medication’s cost to the health plan in order to compare the SP price versus what the buy-and-bill model would cost this company. Express Scripts would not respond to this simple transparency question; often, PBMs claim that this is proprietary information.

I was able to speak with the company’s VP of Global Benefits regarding this issue. First of all, he stated that his company was not mandating white bagging. I explained to him that the plan documents had white bagging as the only option for acquisition of provider-administered drugs. A rheumatologist would have to apply for an exemption to buy and bill, and in this case, it was denied. This is essentially a mandate.

I gave the VP of Global Benefits an example of another large Fortune 500 company (UPS) that spent over $30,000 per year more on an infusible medication when obtained through SP than what it cost them under a buy-and-bill model. I had hoped that this example would impress upon the VP the importance of transparency in pricing and claims to prevent his company from unknowingly costing the health plan more and its being construed as a breach of fiduciary duty. It was explained to me by the VP of Global Benefits that his company is part of the National Drug Purchasers Coalition and they trust Express Scripts to do the right thing for them. As they say, “You can lead a horse to water, but can’t make it drink.”
 

Liability of a Plan That Physically Harms an Employee?

A slightly different example of a self-insured employer, presumably unknowingly, allowing its third-party administrator to mishandle the care of an employee was recently brought to me by a rheumatologist in North Carolina. She takes care of an employee who has rheumatoid arthritis with severe interstitial lung disease (ILD). The employee’s pulmonary status was stabilized on several courses of Rituxan (reference product of rituximab). Recently, BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina, the third-party administrator of this employer’s plan, mandated a switch to a biosimilar of rituximab for the treatment of the ILD. The rheumatologist appealed the nonmedical switch but gave the patient the biosimilar so as not to delay care. Her patient’s condition is now deteriorating with progression of the ILD, and she once again has asked for an exemption to use Rituxan, which had initially stabilized the patient. Her staff told her that the BCBSNC rep said that the patient would have to have a life-threatening infusion reaction (and present the bill for the ambulance) before they would approve a return to the reference product. An employer that knowingly or unknowingly allows a third-party administrator to act in such a way as to endanger the life of an employee could be considered to be breaching its fiduciary duty. (Disclaimer: I am not an attorney — merely a rheumatologist with common sense. Nor am I making any qualitative statement about biosimilars.)

We now have a lawsuit to which you can refer when advocating for our patients who are employed by large, self-insured employers. It is unfortunate that it is not the third-party administrators or PBMs that can be sued, as they are generally not the fiduciaries for the plan. It is the unsuspecting employers who “trust” their brokers/consultants and the third-party administrators to do the right thing. Please continue to send us your payer issues. And if your patient works for a self-insured employer, I will continue to remind the CEO, CFO, and chief compliance officer that an employer with an ERISA health plan can potentially face legal action if the health plan’s actions or decisions cause harm to an employee’s health — physically or in the wallet.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

A recently filed lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson can serve as an example to use when advocating for patients who have insurance through their employers that can potentially hurt them physically and financially. When your patient has an employer-funded health insurance plan where the employer directly pays for all medical costs — called an ERISA plan for the federal law that governs employee benefit plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act — there are certain accountability, fairness, and fiduciary responsibilities that the employers must meet. These so-called ERISA plans do not have to follow state utilization management legislation that addresses harmful changes in insurers’ formularies and other policies, so when the plans are not properly overseen and do not mandate the delivery of proper care at the lowest cost, both the patient and employer may be losing out.

The J&J lawsuit serves as a bellwether warning to self-insured employers to demand transparency from their third-party administrators so as not to (knowingly or unknowingly) breach their fiduciary duty to their health plans and employees. These duties include ensuring reasonable plan costs as well as acting in the best interest of their employees. There were multiple complaints in the lawsuit by a J&J employee, stating that she paid a much higher price for her multiple sclerosis drug through the plan than the price she eventually found at a lower cost pharmacy. The allegations state that J&J failed to show prudence in its selection of a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM). In addition, the company failed to negotiate better drug pricing terms, and the design of the drug plan steered patients to the PBM specialty pharmacy, resulting in higher prices for the employees. All of these led to higher drug costs and premiums for employees, which, according to the lawsuit, is a breach of J&J’s fiduciary duties.

Why Should Rheumatologists Care About This?

With all insurance plans, it feels as though we are dealing with obstacles every day that keep us from giving the excellent rheumatologic care that our patients deserve. Self-insured employers now account for over 50% of commercial health plans, and as rheumatologists caring for the employees of these companies, we can use those transparency, accountability, and fiduciary responsibilities of the employer to ensure that our patients are getting the proper care at the lowest cost.

Not only is the J&J lawsuit a warning to self-insured employers, but a reminder to rheumatologists to be on the lookout for drug pricing issues and formulary construction that leads to higher pricing for employees and the plan. For example, make note if your patient is forced to fail a much higher priced self-injectable biologic before using a much lower cost infusible medication. Or if the plan mandates the use of the much higher priced adalimumab biosimilars over the lower priced biosimilars or even the highest priced JAK inhibitor over the lowest priced one. Let’s not forget mandated white bagging, which is often much more expensive to the plan than the buy-and-bill model through a rheumatologist’s office.

Recently, we have been able to help rheumatology practices get exemptions from white-bagging mandates that large self-insured employers often have in their plan documents. We have been able to show that the cost of obtaining the medication through specialty pharmacy (SP) is much higher than through the buy-and-bill model. Mandating that the plan spend more money on SP drugs, as opposed to allowing the rheumatologist to buy and bill, could easily be interpreted as a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the employer by mandating a higher cost model.
 

CSRO Payer Issue Response Team

I have written about the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO)’s Payer Issue Response Team (PIRT) in the past. Rheumatologists around the country can send to PIRT any problems that they are having with payers. A recent PIRT submission involved a white-bagging mandate for an employee of a very large international Fortune 500 company. This particular example is important because of the response by the VP of Global Benefits for this company. Express Scripts is the administrator of pharmacy benefits for this company. The rheumatologist was told that he could not buy and bill for an infusible medicine but would have to obtain the drug through Express Scripts’ SP. He then asked Express Scripts for the SP medication’s cost to the health plan in order to compare the SP price versus what the buy-and-bill model would cost this company. Express Scripts would not respond to this simple transparency question; often, PBMs claim that this is proprietary information.

I was able to speak with the company’s VP of Global Benefits regarding this issue. First of all, he stated that his company was not mandating white bagging. I explained to him that the plan documents had white bagging as the only option for acquisition of provider-administered drugs. A rheumatologist would have to apply for an exemption to buy and bill, and in this case, it was denied. This is essentially a mandate.

I gave the VP of Global Benefits an example of another large Fortune 500 company (UPS) that spent over $30,000 per year more on an infusible medication when obtained through SP than what it cost them under a buy-and-bill model. I had hoped that this example would impress upon the VP the importance of transparency in pricing and claims to prevent his company from unknowingly costing the health plan more and its being construed as a breach of fiduciary duty. It was explained to me by the VP of Global Benefits that his company is part of the National Drug Purchasers Coalition and they trust Express Scripts to do the right thing for them. As they say, “You can lead a horse to water, but can’t make it drink.”
 

Liability of a Plan That Physically Harms an Employee?

A slightly different example of a self-insured employer, presumably unknowingly, allowing its third-party administrator to mishandle the care of an employee was recently brought to me by a rheumatologist in North Carolina. She takes care of an employee who has rheumatoid arthritis with severe interstitial lung disease (ILD). The employee’s pulmonary status was stabilized on several courses of Rituxan (reference product of rituximab). Recently, BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina, the third-party administrator of this employer’s plan, mandated a switch to a biosimilar of rituximab for the treatment of the ILD. The rheumatologist appealed the nonmedical switch but gave the patient the biosimilar so as not to delay care. Her patient’s condition is now deteriorating with progression of the ILD, and she once again has asked for an exemption to use Rituxan, which had initially stabilized the patient. Her staff told her that the BCBSNC rep said that the patient would have to have a life-threatening infusion reaction (and present the bill for the ambulance) before they would approve a return to the reference product. An employer that knowingly or unknowingly allows a third-party administrator to act in such a way as to endanger the life of an employee could be considered to be breaching its fiduciary duty. (Disclaimer: I am not an attorney — merely a rheumatologist with common sense. Nor am I making any qualitative statement about biosimilars.)

We now have a lawsuit to which you can refer when advocating for our patients who are employed by large, self-insured employers. It is unfortunate that it is not the third-party administrators or PBMs that can be sued, as they are generally not the fiduciaries for the plan. It is the unsuspecting employers who “trust” their brokers/consultants and the third-party administrators to do the right thing. Please continue to send us your payer issues. And if your patient works for a self-insured employer, I will continue to remind the CEO, CFO, and chief compliance officer that an employer with an ERISA health plan can potentially face legal action if the health plan’s actions or decisions cause harm to an employee’s health — physically or in the wallet.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

President Joe Biden on March 9 signed into law a measure that softened — but did not completely eliminate — a 2024 cut in a key rate used to determine how physicians are paid for treating Medicare patients.

While physician groups hailed the move as partial relief, they say they’ll continue to press for broader changes in the Medicare physician fee schedule.

The Medicare provision was tucked into a larger spending package approved by the US House and Senate.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and other groups have lobbied Congress for months to undo a 3.4% cut in the base rate, or conversion factor, in the physician fee schedule for 2024.

The conversion factor is used in calculations to determine reimbursement for myriad other services. Federal Medicare officials said the cut would mean a 1.25% decrease in overall payments in 2024, compared with 2023.

“With the passage of this legislation, Congress has offset 2.93% of that payment cut,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president in a statement. “We appreciate this temporary measure but continue to urge Congress to advance comprehensive, long-term Medicare payment reform.”

In a statement, Representative Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), said the payment cut could not be completely eliminated because of budget constraints.

The Medicare physician fee schedule covers much of the care clinicians provide to people older than 65 and those with disabilities. It covers about 8000 different types of services, ranging from office visits to surgical procedures, imaging, and tests, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).

Along with physicians, the fee schedule sets payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, physical therapists, psychologists, and other clinicians.

In 2021, the Medicare program and its beneficiaries paid $92.8 billion for services provided by almost 1.3 million clinicians, MedPAC said.
 

Larger Changes Ahead?

Rep. Bucshon is among the physicians serving in the House who are pressing for a permanent revamp of the Medicare physician fee schedule. He cosponsored a bill (HR 2474) that would peg future annual increases in the physician fee schedule to the Medicare Economic Index, which would reflect inflation’s effect.

In April, more than 120 state and national medical groups signed onto an AMA-led letter urging Congress to pass this bill.

The measure is a key priority for the AMA. The organization reached out repeatedly last year to federal officials about it through its own in-house lobbyists, this news organization found through a review of congressional lobbying forms submitted by AMA.

These required disclosure forms reveal how much AMA and other organizations spend each quarter to appeal to members of Congress and federal agencies on specific issues. The disclosure forms do not include a detailed accounting of spending on each issue.

But they do show which issues are priorities for an organization. AMA’s in-house lobbyists reported raising dozens of issues in 2024 within contacts in Congress and federal agencies. These issues included abortion access, maternal health, physician burnout, and potential for bias in clinical use of algorithms, as well as Medicare payment for physicians.

AMA reported spending estimated cost of $20.6 million. (AMA spent $6.7 million in the first quarter, $4.75 million in the second quarter, $3.42 million in the third quarter, and $5.74 million in the fourth quarter.)

In a March 6 statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, AMA president, urged Congress to turn to more serious consideration of Medicare physician pay beyond short-term tweaks attached to other larger bills.

“As physicians, we are trained to run toward emergencies. We urge Congress to do the same,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We encourage Congress to act if this policy decision is an emergency because — in fact — it is. It is well past time to put an end to stopgap measures that fail to address the underlying causes of the continuing decline in Medicare physician payments.”

There’s bipartisan interest in a revamp of the physician fee schedule amid widespread criticism of the last such overhaul, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.

For example, Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has proposed the creation of a technical advisory committee to improve how Medicare sets the physician fee schedule. The existing fee schedule provides too little money for primary care services and primary care provider pay, contributing to shortages, Sen. Whitehouse said.

Sen. Whitehouse on March 6 held a hearing on ways to beef up US primary care. Among the experts who appeared was Amol Navathe, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Dr. Navathe said the current Medicare physician fee schedule tilts in favor of procedural services, leading to “underinvestment in cognitive, diagnostic, and supportive services such as primary care.”

In addition, much of what primary care clinicians do, “such as addressing social challenges, is not included in the codes of the fee schedule itself,” said Dr. Navathe, who also serves as the vice chairman of MedPAC.

It’s unclear when Congress will attempt a serious revision to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Lawmakers are unlikely to take on such a major challenge in this election year.

There would be significant opposition and challenges for lawmakers in trying to clear a bill that added an inflation adjustment for what’s already seen as an imperfect physician fee schedule, said Mark E. Miller, PhD, executive vice president of healthcare at the philanthropy Arnold Ventures, which studies how payment decisions affect medical care.

“That bill could cost a lot of money and raise a lot of questions,” Dr. Miller said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

President Joe Biden on March 9 signed into law a measure that softened — but did not completely eliminate — a 2024 cut in a key rate used to determine how physicians are paid for treating Medicare patients.

While physician groups hailed the move as partial relief, they say they’ll continue to press for broader changes in the Medicare physician fee schedule.

The Medicare provision was tucked into a larger spending package approved by the US House and Senate.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and other groups have lobbied Congress for months to undo a 3.4% cut in the base rate, or conversion factor, in the physician fee schedule for 2024.

The conversion factor is used in calculations to determine reimbursement for myriad other services. Federal Medicare officials said the cut would mean a 1.25% decrease in overall payments in 2024, compared with 2023.

“With the passage of this legislation, Congress has offset 2.93% of that payment cut,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president in a statement. “We appreciate this temporary measure but continue to urge Congress to advance comprehensive, long-term Medicare payment reform.”

In a statement, Representative Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), said the payment cut could not be completely eliminated because of budget constraints.

The Medicare physician fee schedule covers much of the care clinicians provide to people older than 65 and those with disabilities. It covers about 8000 different types of services, ranging from office visits to surgical procedures, imaging, and tests, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).

Along with physicians, the fee schedule sets payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, physical therapists, psychologists, and other clinicians.

In 2021, the Medicare program and its beneficiaries paid $92.8 billion for services provided by almost 1.3 million clinicians, MedPAC said.
 

Larger Changes Ahead?

Rep. Bucshon is among the physicians serving in the House who are pressing for a permanent revamp of the Medicare physician fee schedule. He cosponsored a bill (HR 2474) that would peg future annual increases in the physician fee schedule to the Medicare Economic Index, which would reflect inflation’s effect.

In April, more than 120 state and national medical groups signed onto an AMA-led letter urging Congress to pass this bill.

The measure is a key priority for the AMA. The organization reached out repeatedly last year to federal officials about it through its own in-house lobbyists, this news organization found through a review of congressional lobbying forms submitted by AMA.

These required disclosure forms reveal how much AMA and other organizations spend each quarter to appeal to members of Congress and federal agencies on specific issues. The disclosure forms do not include a detailed accounting of spending on each issue.

But they do show which issues are priorities for an organization. AMA’s in-house lobbyists reported raising dozens of issues in 2024 within contacts in Congress and federal agencies. These issues included abortion access, maternal health, physician burnout, and potential for bias in clinical use of algorithms, as well as Medicare payment for physicians.

AMA reported spending estimated cost of $20.6 million. (AMA spent $6.7 million in the first quarter, $4.75 million in the second quarter, $3.42 million in the third quarter, and $5.74 million in the fourth quarter.)

In a March 6 statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, AMA president, urged Congress to turn to more serious consideration of Medicare physician pay beyond short-term tweaks attached to other larger bills.

“As physicians, we are trained to run toward emergencies. We urge Congress to do the same,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We encourage Congress to act if this policy decision is an emergency because — in fact — it is. It is well past time to put an end to stopgap measures that fail to address the underlying causes of the continuing decline in Medicare physician payments.”

There’s bipartisan interest in a revamp of the physician fee schedule amid widespread criticism of the last such overhaul, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.

For example, Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has proposed the creation of a technical advisory committee to improve how Medicare sets the physician fee schedule. The existing fee schedule provides too little money for primary care services and primary care provider pay, contributing to shortages, Sen. Whitehouse said.

Sen. Whitehouse on March 6 held a hearing on ways to beef up US primary care. Among the experts who appeared was Amol Navathe, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Dr. Navathe said the current Medicare physician fee schedule tilts in favor of procedural services, leading to “underinvestment in cognitive, diagnostic, and supportive services such as primary care.”

In addition, much of what primary care clinicians do, “such as addressing social challenges, is not included in the codes of the fee schedule itself,” said Dr. Navathe, who also serves as the vice chairman of MedPAC.

It’s unclear when Congress will attempt a serious revision to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Lawmakers are unlikely to take on such a major challenge in this election year.

There would be significant opposition and challenges for lawmakers in trying to clear a bill that added an inflation adjustment for what’s already seen as an imperfect physician fee schedule, said Mark E. Miller, PhD, executive vice president of healthcare at the philanthropy Arnold Ventures, which studies how payment decisions affect medical care.

“That bill could cost a lot of money and raise a lot of questions,” Dr. Miller said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

President Joe Biden on March 9 signed into law a measure that softened — but did not completely eliminate — a 2024 cut in a key rate used to determine how physicians are paid for treating Medicare patients.

While physician groups hailed the move as partial relief, they say they’ll continue to press for broader changes in the Medicare physician fee schedule.

The Medicare provision was tucked into a larger spending package approved by the US House and Senate.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and other groups have lobbied Congress for months to undo a 3.4% cut in the base rate, or conversion factor, in the physician fee schedule for 2024.

The conversion factor is used in calculations to determine reimbursement for myriad other services. Federal Medicare officials said the cut would mean a 1.25% decrease in overall payments in 2024, compared with 2023.

“With the passage of this legislation, Congress has offset 2.93% of that payment cut,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president in a statement. “We appreciate this temporary measure but continue to urge Congress to advance comprehensive, long-term Medicare payment reform.”

In a statement, Representative Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), said the payment cut could not be completely eliminated because of budget constraints.

The Medicare physician fee schedule covers much of the care clinicians provide to people older than 65 and those with disabilities. It covers about 8000 different types of services, ranging from office visits to surgical procedures, imaging, and tests, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).

Along with physicians, the fee schedule sets payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, physical therapists, psychologists, and other clinicians.

In 2021, the Medicare program and its beneficiaries paid $92.8 billion for services provided by almost 1.3 million clinicians, MedPAC said.
 

Larger Changes Ahead?

Rep. Bucshon is among the physicians serving in the House who are pressing for a permanent revamp of the Medicare physician fee schedule. He cosponsored a bill (HR 2474) that would peg future annual increases in the physician fee schedule to the Medicare Economic Index, which would reflect inflation’s effect.

In April, more than 120 state and national medical groups signed onto an AMA-led letter urging Congress to pass this bill.

The measure is a key priority for the AMA. The organization reached out repeatedly last year to federal officials about it through its own in-house lobbyists, this news organization found through a review of congressional lobbying forms submitted by AMA.

These required disclosure forms reveal how much AMA and other organizations spend each quarter to appeal to members of Congress and federal agencies on specific issues. The disclosure forms do not include a detailed accounting of spending on each issue.

But they do show which issues are priorities for an organization. AMA’s in-house lobbyists reported raising dozens of issues in 2024 within contacts in Congress and federal agencies. These issues included abortion access, maternal health, physician burnout, and potential for bias in clinical use of algorithms, as well as Medicare payment for physicians.

AMA reported spending estimated cost of $20.6 million. (AMA spent $6.7 million in the first quarter, $4.75 million in the second quarter, $3.42 million in the third quarter, and $5.74 million in the fourth quarter.)

In a March 6 statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, AMA president, urged Congress to turn to more serious consideration of Medicare physician pay beyond short-term tweaks attached to other larger bills.

“As physicians, we are trained to run toward emergencies. We urge Congress to do the same,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We encourage Congress to act if this policy decision is an emergency because — in fact — it is. It is well past time to put an end to stopgap measures that fail to address the underlying causes of the continuing decline in Medicare physician payments.”

There’s bipartisan interest in a revamp of the physician fee schedule amid widespread criticism of the last such overhaul, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.

For example, Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has proposed the creation of a technical advisory committee to improve how Medicare sets the physician fee schedule. The existing fee schedule provides too little money for primary care services and primary care provider pay, contributing to shortages, Sen. Whitehouse said.

Sen. Whitehouse on March 6 held a hearing on ways to beef up US primary care. Among the experts who appeared was Amol Navathe, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Dr. Navathe said the current Medicare physician fee schedule tilts in favor of procedural services, leading to “underinvestment in cognitive, diagnostic, and supportive services such as primary care.”

In addition, much of what primary care clinicians do, “such as addressing social challenges, is not included in the codes of the fee schedule itself,” said Dr. Navathe, who also serves as the vice chairman of MedPAC.

It’s unclear when Congress will attempt a serious revision to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Lawmakers are unlikely to take on such a major challenge in this election year.

There would be significant opposition and challenges for lawmakers in trying to clear a bill that added an inflation adjustment for what’s already seen as an imperfect physician fee schedule, said Mark E. Miller, PhD, executive vice president of healthcare at the philanthropy Arnold Ventures, which studies how payment decisions affect medical care.

“That bill could cost a lot of money and raise a lot of questions,” Dr. Miller said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medtronic Neurosurgery has recalled Duet External Drainage and Monitoring System (EDMS) catheter tubing because the catheter may disconnect from the patient line stopcock connectors.

If this happens, potential harm to patients may include infections, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage, overdrainage of CSF, and abnormality of the ventricles. Uncontrolled overdrainage of CSF could lead to neurological injury or death if the disconnection is undetected.

The Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a Class I recall — the most serious type — due to the risk for serious injury or death. To date, there have been 26 reported injuries and no deaths related to this issue. 

The recall includes 45,176 devices distributed in the United States between May 3, 2021, and January 9, 2024, with model numbers 46913, 46914, 46915, 46916, and 46917.

The Duet EDMS is used for temporary CSF drainage or sampling in patients who have surgery for open descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) or descending thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) or patients who have TAA/TAAA repair surgery and develop symptoms such as paraplegia.

Medtronic has sent an urgent medical device recall letter to all affected customers asking them to identify, quarantine, and return any unused recalled products. 

Customers are also advised to check all Duet EDMS components for damage and ensure that all connections are secure and leak-free. 

If a patient is currently connected to an impacted Duet EDMS and a leak or disconnection is detected, the device should be changed to a new alternative device utilizing a sterile technique. 

It is not recommended that a Duet system device that is connected to a patient and working as intended be removed or replaced.

Customers in the United States with questions about this recall should contact Medtronic at 1-800-874-5797.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medtronic Neurosurgery has recalled Duet External Drainage and Monitoring System (EDMS) catheter tubing because the catheter may disconnect from the patient line stopcock connectors.

If this happens, potential harm to patients may include infections, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage, overdrainage of CSF, and abnormality of the ventricles. Uncontrolled overdrainage of CSF could lead to neurological injury or death if the disconnection is undetected.

The Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a Class I recall — the most serious type — due to the risk for serious injury or death. To date, there have been 26 reported injuries and no deaths related to this issue. 

The recall includes 45,176 devices distributed in the United States between May 3, 2021, and January 9, 2024, with model numbers 46913, 46914, 46915, 46916, and 46917.

The Duet EDMS is used for temporary CSF drainage or sampling in patients who have surgery for open descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) or descending thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) or patients who have TAA/TAAA repair surgery and develop symptoms such as paraplegia.

Medtronic has sent an urgent medical device recall letter to all affected customers asking them to identify, quarantine, and return any unused recalled products. 

Customers are also advised to check all Duet EDMS components for damage and ensure that all connections are secure and leak-free. 

If a patient is currently connected to an impacted Duet EDMS and a leak or disconnection is detected, the device should be changed to a new alternative device utilizing a sterile technique. 

It is not recommended that a Duet system device that is connected to a patient and working as intended be removed or replaced.

Customers in the United States with questions about this recall should contact Medtronic at 1-800-874-5797.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medtronic Neurosurgery has recalled Duet External Drainage and Monitoring System (EDMS) catheter tubing because the catheter may disconnect from the patient line stopcock connectors.

If this happens, potential harm to patients may include infections, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage, overdrainage of CSF, and abnormality of the ventricles. Uncontrolled overdrainage of CSF could lead to neurological injury or death if the disconnection is undetected.

The Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a Class I recall — the most serious type — due to the risk for serious injury or death. To date, there have been 26 reported injuries and no deaths related to this issue. 

The recall includes 45,176 devices distributed in the United States between May 3, 2021, and January 9, 2024, with model numbers 46913, 46914, 46915, 46916, and 46917.

The Duet EDMS is used for temporary CSF drainage or sampling in patients who have surgery for open descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) or descending thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) or patients who have TAA/TAAA repair surgery and develop symptoms such as paraplegia.

Medtronic has sent an urgent medical device recall letter to all affected customers asking them to identify, quarantine, and return any unused recalled products. 

Customers are also advised to check all Duet EDMS components for damage and ensure that all connections are secure and leak-free. 

If a patient is currently connected to an impacted Duet EDMS and a leak or disconnection is detected, the device should be changed to a new alternative device utilizing a sterile technique. 

It is not recommended that a Duet system device that is connected to a patient and working as intended be removed or replaced.

Customers in the United States with questions about this recall should contact Medtronic at 1-800-874-5797.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The rheumatologist of the future will see patients who have been assessed and triaged with artificial intelligence utilizing data from remote kiosk-placed ultrasound scanners and physician-directed algorithms. Practices will be broadly fueled by AI, which will screen charts, produce notes, handle prior authorizations and insurance issues, aid in earlier diagnoses, find patients for clinical trials, and maybe even suggest the next best therapy for individual patients.

Such is the future envisioned by Alvin F. Wells, MD, PhD, and John J. Cush, MD, who discussed the current and forthcoming reach of AI — and their own uses of it — at the 2024 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

“We’re not at the stage where ChatGPT and AI can tell us what the next best therapy is, but we’re getting there,” said Dr. Cush, a rheumatologist based in Dallas and executive director of RheumNow.com. For now, he said, “AI affords us a truly big-time increase in efficiency. It helps you deal with your time constraints in managing information overload and task overload.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

At a time when “PubMed doubles every 73 days ... and it’s getting harder and harder to stay abreast,” for example, new applications such as Scite, SciSpace, and Consensus can help curate, focus, and analyze the literature to match one’s own clinical interests. Such review tools are “just now getting into play and are evolving,” Dr. Cush said, noting that many but not all of them are based on ChatGPT, OpenAI’s chatbot that had a over 100 million users by January 2023 — just over a month after its version 3.5 was released.

For Dr. Wells, a rheumatologist and Midwest Region director in the department of rheumatology for the Advocate Health Medical Group in Franklin, Wisconsin, clinician-developed algorithms are helping his group assess patients — often remotely — and triage them to be seen fairly immediately by a rheumatologist versus in 4-6 weeks or in several months. “You can use AI to guide your access,” he said.

A patient “with a family history of RA, sed rate above 50, and osteopenia on x-rays” would be seen within a week, for example, while “another patient who’s had a [positive] ANA with no other symptoms, and maybe a family history, might be seen in 4-6 weeks,” said Dr. Wells, sharing his belief that “there is not a shortage of rheumatologists, [but a] shortage of using rheumatologists efficiently.”

Dr. Wells

AI for Improving Workflow

Current and future advances will enrich the intersection of AI and virtual medicine and improve outcomes and the rheumatologist-patient interaction, Dr. Wells said, pointing to research presented at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2023 annual meeting on the use of computer vision technology for remotely assessing disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

In the proof-of-concept “MeFisto” study, 28 patients with RA used an app that enabled computer vision inference of hand motion data. Upon recording, an algorithm tracked the mean degree change of joint angle on flexion and the mean time to maximal flexion for each joint.

The researchers found a strong correlation between flexion of the distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint and the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, the Swollen Hand Joint Count, and the Tender Hand Joint Count. DIP flexion was found to be a significant predictor of low disease activity/remission and high disease activity, the researchers reported in their abstract.

“This blows you away — that a single camera on [one’s] smartphone can look at the manipulation of a hand … and that AI can tell me, there’s a chance this might be an inflammatory arthritis,” said Dr. Wells, noting that researchers are also developing ways to detect joint swelling in RA by AI.

AI can also be used for remote ultrasound scanning in RA, as evidenced by use of the ARTHUR system in Europe, he said. Developed by the Danish company ROPCA, the ARTHUR technology (Rheumatoid Arthritis Ultrasound Robot) interacts directly with the patient who has new joint pain or established RA to capture ultrasound images in grayscale and color flow of 11 joints per hand. AI analyzes the images and creates a report for the specialist.

“They’re trying to get a foothold in the US,” Dr. Wells said, sharing his prediction that similar technology will someday be seen not only in pharmacies but also — in support of equitable access — in locations such as grocery stores. “Again,” he said, “nothing will replace us. I’m taking all [such] information and saying, who needs to be seen in 7 days and who can wait.”
 

AI for Writing, for Improving Practice and Patient Care

To manage his “task overload,” Dr. Cush uses ChatGPT for jobs such as first drafts of articles and making PowerPoint slides. It must be used cautiously for medical writing, however, as inaccuracies and false data/fabricated information — some of which has been coined AI “hallucinations” — are not uncommon.

“It’s very good at manuscript drafts, at generating bibliographies … it can do systematic reviews, it can do network meta-analyses, and it can find trends and patterns that can very helpful when it comes to writing. But you have to know how it’s a tool, and how it can hurt you,” he said.

Researchers recently reported asking ChatGPT to write an editorial about “how AI may replace the rheumatologist in editorial writing,” Dr. Cush noted. ChatGPT was “very politically correct,” he quipped, because it wrote that AI is “a tool to help the rheumatologist, but not replace him.”

Publishers want to preserve human intelligence — critical thinking and the ability to interpret, for instance — and most of the top medical journals (those most often cited) have issued guidance on the use of generative AI. “One said AI can’t be attributed as an author because being an author carries with it accountability of the work, and AI can’t take responsibility,” Dr. Cush said. Journals also “are saying you can use AI but you have to be totally transparent about it … [how it’s used] has to be very well spelled out.”

In practice, chatbots can be used for summarizing medical records, drafting post-visit summaries, collecting patient feedback, reminding about vaccinations, and performing administrative functions. “It’s really limitless as to what chatbots can do,” Dr. Cush said. “The question is, [what is] really going to help you?”

Much of the research submitted for presentation at major rheumatology meetings over the years has had questionable real-world utility and value, he said. But in the future this will likely change. “Take the PsA [psoriatic arthritis] patient who hasn’t responded to methotrexate or apremilast [Otezla]. There are [so many] choices, and there really isn’t a clear one. Shouldn’t data guide us on whether an IL-23 is better than a JAK, or maybe a JAK preferred over a TNF for some reason?” Dr. Cush said. “That’s what we’re hoping will happen down the line.”

More realistic AI-guided clinical scenarios for now include the following: AI screens the chart of a 68-year-old with RA on methotrexate and etanercept who is following up, and retrieves pieces of history — an elevated C-reactive protein 3 months ago, for instance, and diverticulosis 5 years ago. “AI tells you, based on this, he may have active disease, and here are three medications covered by his insurance,” Dr. Wells said.

Or, in the case of a 58-year-old patient with RA who has scheduled a virtual follow-up visit after having been on methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine for 12 weeks, AI detects a low platelet count in her previsit labs and also sees that she received an MMR booster 5 weeks ago at a local CVS Minute Clinic. AI retrieves for the rheumatologist a review article about thrombocytopenic purpura after MMR vaccination.
 

AI for Drug Development, Clinical Trials

Dr. Cush is following with keen interest the integration of AI into the process of drug development, from drug discovery and biomarker evaluation to clinical trial efficiency and patient recruitment, as well as marketing. “A lot hasn’t been ‘rolled out’ or shown to us, but there’s a lot going on … everyone is investing,” he said. “The number one challenge is regulatory: How will the [Food and Drug Administration] handle AI-generated data sets or AI-generated or monitored trials?”

The FDA is working to ensure quality and utility of data and is rapidly “approving AI algorithms for use in medicine and healthcare,” he said.

AI’s ability to identify patients in populations can not only facilitate earlier diagnoses but can accelerate patient recruitment for clinical trials, Dr. Cush emphasized. He pointed to research presented at the ACR 2021 annual meeting in which a machine-learning algorithm was used with electronic health records in the United Kingdom to estimate the probability of a patient’s being diagnosed with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).

AI identified 89 best clinical predictors (out of 820 analyzed). When applying these predictors to the population, AI was able to differentiate patients with axSpA from healthy controls with a sensitivity of 75%, a specificity of 96%, and a positive predictive value of 81%. Such an application of AI “is ideal … It would make clinical trials more streamlined and productive,” he said.

The extent to which AI will lead to cost savings — in the pharmacology arena, for instance, or for Well’s medical group — is unknown, Dr. Cush and Dr. Wells said. And, of course, there are concerns about potential bias and abuse of AI. “The worry,” Dr. Cush said, “is, who’s watching?”

Dr. Wells disclosed that he has research support and has served as a member of advisory boards and/or speaker bureaus for 17 different pharmaceutical or medical technology companies. Dr. Cush disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi, and UCB.

The rheumatologist of the future will see patients who have been assessed and triaged with artificial intelligence utilizing data from remote kiosk-placed ultrasound scanners and physician-directed algorithms. Practices will be broadly fueled by AI, which will screen charts, produce notes, handle prior authorizations and insurance issues, aid in earlier diagnoses, find patients for clinical trials, and maybe even suggest the next best therapy for individual patients.

Such is the future envisioned by Alvin F. Wells, MD, PhD, and John J. Cush, MD, who discussed the current and forthcoming reach of AI — and their own uses of it — at the 2024 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

“We’re not at the stage where ChatGPT and AI can tell us what the next best therapy is, but we’re getting there,” said Dr. Cush, a rheumatologist based in Dallas and executive director of RheumNow.com. For now, he said, “AI affords us a truly big-time increase in efficiency. It helps you deal with your time constraints in managing information overload and task overload.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

At a time when “PubMed doubles every 73 days ... and it’s getting harder and harder to stay abreast,” for example, new applications such as Scite, SciSpace, and Consensus can help curate, focus, and analyze the literature to match one’s own clinical interests. Such review tools are “just now getting into play and are evolving,” Dr. Cush said, noting that many but not all of them are based on ChatGPT, OpenAI’s chatbot that had a over 100 million users by January 2023 — just over a month after its version 3.5 was released.

For Dr. Wells, a rheumatologist and Midwest Region director in the department of rheumatology for the Advocate Health Medical Group in Franklin, Wisconsin, clinician-developed algorithms are helping his group assess patients — often remotely — and triage them to be seen fairly immediately by a rheumatologist versus in 4-6 weeks or in several months. “You can use AI to guide your access,” he said.

A patient “with a family history of RA, sed rate above 50, and osteopenia on x-rays” would be seen within a week, for example, while “another patient who’s had a [positive] ANA with no other symptoms, and maybe a family history, might be seen in 4-6 weeks,” said Dr. Wells, sharing his belief that “there is not a shortage of rheumatologists, [but a] shortage of using rheumatologists efficiently.”

Dr. Wells

AI for Improving Workflow

Current and future advances will enrich the intersection of AI and virtual medicine and improve outcomes and the rheumatologist-patient interaction, Dr. Wells said, pointing to research presented at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2023 annual meeting on the use of computer vision technology for remotely assessing disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

In the proof-of-concept “MeFisto” study, 28 patients with RA used an app that enabled computer vision inference of hand motion data. Upon recording, an algorithm tracked the mean degree change of joint angle on flexion and the mean time to maximal flexion for each joint.

The researchers found a strong correlation between flexion of the distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint and the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, the Swollen Hand Joint Count, and the Tender Hand Joint Count. DIP flexion was found to be a significant predictor of low disease activity/remission and high disease activity, the researchers reported in their abstract.

“This blows you away — that a single camera on [one’s] smartphone can look at the manipulation of a hand … and that AI can tell me, there’s a chance this might be an inflammatory arthritis,” said Dr. Wells, noting that researchers are also developing ways to detect joint swelling in RA by AI.

AI can also be used for remote ultrasound scanning in RA, as evidenced by use of the ARTHUR system in Europe, he said. Developed by the Danish company ROPCA, the ARTHUR technology (Rheumatoid Arthritis Ultrasound Robot) interacts directly with the patient who has new joint pain or established RA to capture ultrasound images in grayscale and color flow of 11 joints per hand. AI analyzes the images and creates a report for the specialist.

“They’re trying to get a foothold in the US,” Dr. Wells said, sharing his prediction that similar technology will someday be seen not only in pharmacies but also — in support of equitable access — in locations such as grocery stores. “Again,” he said, “nothing will replace us. I’m taking all [such] information and saying, who needs to be seen in 7 days and who can wait.”
 

AI for Writing, for Improving Practice and Patient Care

To manage his “task overload,” Dr. Cush uses ChatGPT for jobs such as first drafts of articles and making PowerPoint slides. It must be used cautiously for medical writing, however, as inaccuracies and false data/fabricated information — some of which has been coined AI “hallucinations” — are not uncommon.

“It’s very good at manuscript drafts, at generating bibliographies … it can do systematic reviews, it can do network meta-analyses, and it can find trends and patterns that can very helpful when it comes to writing. But you have to know how it’s a tool, and how it can hurt you,” he said.

Researchers recently reported asking ChatGPT to write an editorial about “how AI may replace the rheumatologist in editorial writing,” Dr. Cush noted. ChatGPT was “very politically correct,” he quipped, because it wrote that AI is “a tool to help the rheumatologist, but not replace him.”

Publishers want to preserve human intelligence — critical thinking and the ability to interpret, for instance — and most of the top medical journals (those most often cited) have issued guidance on the use of generative AI. “One said AI can’t be attributed as an author because being an author carries with it accountability of the work, and AI can’t take responsibility,” Dr. Cush said. Journals also “are saying you can use AI but you have to be totally transparent about it … [how it’s used] has to be very well spelled out.”

In practice, chatbots can be used for summarizing medical records, drafting post-visit summaries, collecting patient feedback, reminding about vaccinations, and performing administrative functions. “It’s really limitless as to what chatbots can do,” Dr. Cush said. “The question is, [what is] really going to help you?”

Much of the research submitted for presentation at major rheumatology meetings over the years has had questionable real-world utility and value, he said. But in the future this will likely change. “Take the PsA [psoriatic arthritis] patient who hasn’t responded to methotrexate or apremilast [Otezla]. There are [so many] choices, and there really isn’t a clear one. Shouldn’t data guide us on whether an IL-23 is better than a JAK, or maybe a JAK preferred over a TNF for some reason?” Dr. Cush said. “That’s what we’re hoping will happen down the line.”

More realistic AI-guided clinical scenarios for now include the following: AI screens the chart of a 68-year-old with RA on methotrexate and etanercept who is following up, and retrieves pieces of history — an elevated C-reactive protein 3 months ago, for instance, and diverticulosis 5 years ago. “AI tells you, based on this, he may have active disease, and here are three medications covered by his insurance,” Dr. Wells said.

Or, in the case of a 58-year-old patient with RA who has scheduled a virtual follow-up visit after having been on methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine for 12 weeks, AI detects a low platelet count in her previsit labs and also sees that she received an MMR booster 5 weeks ago at a local CVS Minute Clinic. AI retrieves for the rheumatologist a review article about thrombocytopenic purpura after MMR vaccination.
 

AI for Drug Development, Clinical Trials

Dr. Cush is following with keen interest the integration of AI into the process of drug development, from drug discovery and biomarker evaluation to clinical trial efficiency and patient recruitment, as well as marketing. “A lot hasn’t been ‘rolled out’ or shown to us, but there’s a lot going on … everyone is investing,” he said. “The number one challenge is regulatory: How will the [Food and Drug Administration] handle AI-generated data sets or AI-generated or monitored trials?”

The FDA is working to ensure quality and utility of data and is rapidly “approving AI algorithms for use in medicine and healthcare,” he said.

AI’s ability to identify patients in populations can not only facilitate earlier diagnoses but can accelerate patient recruitment for clinical trials, Dr. Cush emphasized. He pointed to research presented at the ACR 2021 annual meeting in which a machine-learning algorithm was used with electronic health records in the United Kingdom to estimate the probability of a patient’s being diagnosed with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).

AI identified 89 best clinical predictors (out of 820 analyzed). When applying these predictors to the population, AI was able to differentiate patients with axSpA from healthy controls with a sensitivity of 75%, a specificity of 96%, and a positive predictive value of 81%. Such an application of AI “is ideal … It would make clinical trials more streamlined and productive,” he said.

The extent to which AI will lead to cost savings — in the pharmacology arena, for instance, or for Well’s medical group — is unknown, Dr. Cush and Dr. Wells said. And, of course, there are concerns about potential bias and abuse of AI. “The worry,” Dr. Cush said, “is, who’s watching?”

Dr. Wells disclosed that he has research support and has served as a member of advisory boards and/or speaker bureaus for 17 different pharmaceutical or medical technology companies. Dr. Cush disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi, and UCB.

The rheumatologist of the future will see patients who have been assessed and triaged with artificial intelligence utilizing data from remote kiosk-placed ultrasound scanners and physician-directed algorithms. Practices will be broadly fueled by AI, which will screen charts, produce notes, handle prior authorizations and insurance issues, aid in earlier diagnoses, find patients for clinical trials, and maybe even suggest the next best therapy for individual patients.

Such is the future envisioned by Alvin F. Wells, MD, PhD, and John J. Cush, MD, who discussed the current and forthcoming reach of AI — and their own uses of it — at the 2024 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

“We’re not at the stage where ChatGPT and AI can tell us what the next best therapy is, but we’re getting there,” said Dr. Cush, a rheumatologist based in Dallas and executive director of RheumNow.com. For now, he said, “AI affords us a truly big-time increase in efficiency. It helps you deal with your time constraints in managing information overload and task overload.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

At a time when “PubMed doubles every 73 days ... and it’s getting harder and harder to stay abreast,” for example, new applications such as Scite, SciSpace, and Consensus can help curate, focus, and analyze the literature to match one’s own clinical interests. Such review tools are “just now getting into play and are evolving,” Dr. Cush said, noting that many but not all of them are based on ChatGPT, OpenAI’s chatbot that had a over 100 million users by January 2023 — just over a month after its version 3.5 was released.

For Dr. Wells, a rheumatologist and Midwest Region director in the department of rheumatology for the Advocate Health Medical Group in Franklin, Wisconsin, clinician-developed algorithms are helping his group assess patients — often remotely — and triage them to be seen fairly immediately by a rheumatologist versus in 4-6 weeks or in several months. “You can use AI to guide your access,” he said.

A patient “with a family history of RA, sed rate above 50, and osteopenia on x-rays” would be seen within a week, for example, while “another patient who’s had a [positive] ANA with no other symptoms, and maybe a family history, might be seen in 4-6 weeks,” said Dr. Wells, sharing his belief that “there is not a shortage of rheumatologists, [but a] shortage of using rheumatologists efficiently.”

Dr. Wells

AI for Improving Workflow

Current and future advances will enrich the intersection of AI and virtual medicine and improve outcomes and the rheumatologist-patient interaction, Dr. Wells said, pointing to research presented at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2023 annual meeting on the use of computer vision technology for remotely assessing disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

In the proof-of-concept “MeFisto” study, 28 patients with RA used an app that enabled computer vision inference of hand motion data. Upon recording, an algorithm tracked the mean degree change of joint angle on flexion and the mean time to maximal flexion for each joint.

The researchers found a strong correlation between flexion of the distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint and the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, the Swollen Hand Joint Count, and the Tender Hand Joint Count. DIP flexion was found to be a significant predictor of low disease activity/remission and high disease activity, the researchers reported in their abstract.

“This blows you away — that a single camera on [one’s] smartphone can look at the manipulation of a hand … and that AI can tell me, there’s a chance this might be an inflammatory arthritis,” said Dr. Wells, noting that researchers are also developing ways to detect joint swelling in RA by AI.

AI can also be used for remote ultrasound scanning in RA, as evidenced by use of the ARTHUR system in Europe, he said. Developed by the Danish company ROPCA, the ARTHUR technology (Rheumatoid Arthritis Ultrasound Robot) interacts directly with the patient who has new joint pain or established RA to capture ultrasound images in grayscale and color flow of 11 joints per hand. AI analyzes the images and creates a report for the specialist.

“They’re trying to get a foothold in the US,” Dr. Wells said, sharing his prediction that similar technology will someday be seen not only in pharmacies but also — in support of equitable access — in locations such as grocery stores. “Again,” he said, “nothing will replace us. I’m taking all [such] information and saying, who needs to be seen in 7 days and who can wait.”
 

AI for Writing, for Improving Practice and Patient Care

To manage his “task overload,” Dr. Cush uses ChatGPT for jobs such as first drafts of articles and making PowerPoint slides. It must be used cautiously for medical writing, however, as inaccuracies and false data/fabricated information — some of which has been coined AI “hallucinations” — are not uncommon.

“It’s very good at manuscript drafts, at generating bibliographies … it can do systematic reviews, it can do network meta-analyses, and it can find trends and patterns that can very helpful when it comes to writing. But you have to know how it’s a tool, and how it can hurt you,” he said.

Researchers recently reported asking ChatGPT to write an editorial about “how AI may replace the rheumatologist in editorial writing,” Dr. Cush noted. ChatGPT was “very politically correct,” he quipped, because it wrote that AI is “a tool to help the rheumatologist, but not replace him.”

Publishers want to preserve human intelligence — critical thinking and the ability to interpret, for instance — and most of the top medical journals (those most often cited) have issued guidance on the use of generative AI. “One said AI can’t be attributed as an author because being an author carries with it accountability of the work, and AI can’t take responsibility,” Dr. Cush said. Journals also “are saying you can use AI but you have to be totally transparent about it … [how it’s used] has to be very well spelled out.”

In practice, chatbots can be used for summarizing medical records, drafting post-visit summaries, collecting patient feedback, reminding about vaccinations, and performing administrative functions. “It’s really limitless as to what chatbots can do,” Dr. Cush said. “The question is, [what is] really going to help you?”

Much of the research submitted for presentation at major rheumatology meetings over the years has had questionable real-world utility and value, he said. But in the future this will likely change. “Take the PsA [psoriatic arthritis] patient who hasn’t responded to methotrexate or apremilast [Otezla]. There are [so many] choices, and there really isn’t a clear one. Shouldn’t data guide us on whether an IL-23 is better than a JAK, or maybe a JAK preferred over a TNF for some reason?” Dr. Cush said. “That’s what we’re hoping will happen down the line.”

More realistic AI-guided clinical scenarios for now include the following: AI screens the chart of a 68-year-old with RA on methotrexate and etanercept who is following up, and retrieves pieces of history — an elevated C-reactive protein 3 months ago, for instance, and diverticulosis 5 years ago. “AI tells you, based on this, he may have active disease, and here are three medications covered by his insurance,” Dr. Wells said.

Or, in the case of a 58-year-old patient with RA who has scheduled a virtual follow-up visit after having been on methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine for 12 weeks, AI detects a low platelet count in her previsit labs and also sees that she received an MMR booster 5 weeks ago at a local CVS Minute Clinic. AI retrieves for the rheumatologist a review article about thrombocytopenic purpura after MMR vaccination.
 

AI for Drug Development, Clinical Trials

Dr. Cush is following with keen interest the integration of AI into the process of drug development, from drug discovery and biomarker evaluation to clinical trial efficiency and patient recruitment, as well as marketing. “A lot hasn’t been ‘rolled out’ or shown to us, but there’s a lot going on … everyone is investing,” he said. “The number one challenge is regulatory: How will the [Food and Drug Administration] handle AI-generated data sets or AI-generated or monitored trials?”

The FDA is working to ensure quality and utility of data and is rapidly “approving AI algorithms for use in medicine and healthcare,” he said.

AI’s ability to identify patients in populations can not only facilitate earlier diagnoses but can accelerate patient recruitment for clinical trials, Dr. Cush emphasized. He pointed to research presented at the ACR 2021 annual meeting in which a machine-learning algorithm was used with electronic health records in the United Kingdom to estimate the probability of a patient’s being diagnosed with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).

AI identified 89 best clinical predictors (out of 820 analyzed). When applying these predictors to the population, AI was able to differentiate patients with axSpA from healthy controls with a sensitivity of 75%, a specificity of 96%, and a positive predictive value of 81%. Such an application of AI “is ideal … It would make clinical trials more streamlined and productive,” he said.

The extent to which AI will lead to cost savings — in the pharmacology arena, for instance, or for Well’s medical group — is unknown, Dr. Cush and Dr. Wells said. And, of course, there are concerns about potential bias and abuse of AI. “The worry,” Dr. Cush said, “is, who’s watching?”

Dr. Wells disclosed that he has research support and has served as a member of advisory boards and/or speaker bureaus for 17 different pharmaceutical or medical technology companies. Dr. Cush disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi, and UCB.

Patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and co-occurring anxiety or depression are less likely to achieve low disease activity (LDA) and better symptom control after 3 months of treatment, according to new research presented at the at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

The findings emphasized the importance of taking a multidisciplinary approach to RA treatment, said presenter Susan Bartlett, PhD, a professor in the Divisions of Clinical Epidemiology, Rheumatology, and Respiratory Epidemiology at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

McGill University

“In the absence of directly addressing anxiety and depression, people are not going to improve to the same extent we hope that they will,” she told this news organization.
 

Symptom Clusters in RA

In her research, presented on February 29, Dr. Bartlett explored how certain symptom clusters in RA predicted prognosis.

Symptom clusters are related symptoms that occur together and can be associated with worse outcomes than one symptom alone. Symptom science has been a growing interest in precision medicine, particularly for cancer, Dr. Bartlett noted, and this same approach could help pinpoint RA subtypes, disease trajectories, and personalized treatment.

In the study, Dr. Bartlett and colleagues used data from the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH), a multisite prospective research study following individuals with new-onset RA. They identified patients starting methotrexate (MTX) therapy who also had clinical and patient-reported outcome measures available. Individuals included in the analysis may have also been taking additional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs beyond MTX.

Across the 310 selected individuals, researchers identified four key symptoms: Pain, fatigue, anxiety, and depression. Pain and fatigue were defined as physical symptoms, while anxiety and depression were classified as emotional symptoms. Results showed that the patients could be sorted into four distinct symptom clusters: Minimal symptoms (12%), mild physical and emotional symptoms (11%), moderate to severe pain and fatigue (40%), and moderate to severe physical and emotional symptoms (37%).

Researchers then followed patients during the first 6 months of treatment to evaluate if patients’ symptoms improved.

Symptom improvement mostly occurred during the first 3 months of treatment and remained consistent at 6 months. Overall, patients with moderate to severe emotional symptoms had a worse prognosis and were less likely to achieve milder symptoms than those who had only pain and fatigue or mild emotional symptoms. While 64% of patients in the moderate to severe physical symptoms group achieved minimal symptoms after 3 months of treatment, only 13% of patients with moderate to severe physical and emotional systems reported minimal symptoms during this same time frame.

The study builds on previous work that “suggests that there are different factors that we can identify around the time of diagnosis that point to how well a person is likely to respond,” Dr. Bartlett added. “What our work is showing pretty clearly [is that] the presence of anxiety and depression is one of those important markers.”
 

Patients With Depression Report Worse Disease Activity

In a related study, researchers from the University of Ottawa explored how depression in RA affected subjective and objective disease measures.

The study included patients from the Ottawa Rheumatology Comprehensive Treatment and Assessment (ORCHESTRA) clinic at The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, which sees patients with inflammatory arthritis who are starting biologic therapy or switching to another biologic. The clinic is designed to take a more comprehensive approach to managing inflammatory arthritis, including addressing comorbidities such as cardiac disease, depression, and cancer. Patients seen at the clinic can opt to be included in the ORCHESTRA cohort to be a part of ongoing research.

From this cohort, researchers identified 98 patients with RA. At enrollment, patients were screened for depression using patient health questionnaire scores and asked about duration of morning stiffness and tender joint counts. Swollen joint counts, ultrasound, and clinical scores were used to evaluate disease activity.

In the study group, 47 patients had no depression, 21 patients had mild depression, and 30 patients had moderate to severe depression. Researchers found that subjective disease measures, including visual analog pain scale, health assessment questionnaire, and disease activity score in 28 joints were all higher in patients with depression; however, depression did not appear to affect objective disease measures, such as the Global OMERACT-EULAR Synovitis Score or Doppler scores.

While there is a known link between inflammation and depression, these findings suggest that depression is “a concomitant comorbidity just like cardiovascular disease, just like fibromyalgia, just like some other comorbidity that also needs to be addressed in its own right to improve the outcomes,” noted Elliot Hepworth, MD, a rheumatologist and ORCHESTRA clinic lead at The Ottawa Hospital, in an interview.

Dr. Hepworth presented the findings on March 1.

Dr. Elliot Hepworth

The data also suggested that patients with depression had poorer outcomes. For the 79 patients who had 3-month follow-up visit data, 43.9% of patients with no or mild depression achieved LDA and remission compared with 21.7% of patients with moderate to severe depression, though this difference was not statistically significant (P = .064). There was a similar trend for the 39 patients with 6-month follow-up data: Only 20% of patients with moderate to severe depression had reached LDA and remission compared with 37.9% of patients with no or mild depression (P = .445). The researchers noted this could be an issue with a smaller sample size.

“Every time more patients get added we approach closer to significance,” Dr. Hepworth added.
 

Some Disagreement, Same Takeaway

Commenting on the Ottawa study, Dr. Bartlett was skeptical of the conclusion that depression may not directly influence disease activity. “There’s just too much good evidence these days that [depression] very much coexists with worse disease activity,” she said. “It is not in the person’s head.”

Dr. Hepworth added that patient-reported outcomes are important for clinicians to address during treatment.

“There’s the tender joints, there’s the pain, there’s the fatigue, there’s the patient global assessment, which are subjective,” he said, “but that does not mean that they are not important. Those are important to the patient: That is how they’re living their life, and that is how they’re experiencing their disease.”

This is why efforts to treat depression in patients with RA such as cognitive behavioral therapy are so important, he said, to which Dr. Bartlett agreed.

“A comprehensive approach is required, which includes addressing depression,” she said. Otherwise, data show “that people just never make it to remission.”

The studies looked at different patient populations but ultimately complement each other, added Sibel Aydin, MD, a professor of medicine in the Division of Rheumatology at the University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, and senior author of the Ottawa study.

Dr. Sibel Aydin

“Two different cohorts with different patient populations still reached the same result,” she said. “If you don’t address the emotional aspect, you are not going to achieve the good outcomes.”

“It’s remarkable when you have two independent researchers coming to the same conclusion without ever talking to each other,” added Dr. Hepworth. “That really shows that this is something that’s pervasive, and it’s not just within our patient population.”

CATCH is funded by unrestricted research grants from programs with Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, Sandoz, Fresenius Kabi, Organon, Viatris, JAMP, and Celltrion. Dr. Bartlett is president of the PROMIS Health Organization. She is a member of speakers bureaus or has consulted for Pfizer, Sandoz, Merck, Janssen, and Organon. Dr. Hepworth and Dr. Aydin declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and co-occurring anxiety or depression are less likely to achieve low disease activity (LDA) and better symptom control after 3 months of treatment, according to new research presented at the at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

The findings emphasized the importance of taking a multidisciplinary approach to RA treatment, said presenter Susan Bartlett, PhD, a professor in the Divisions of Clinical Epidemiology, Rheumatology, and Respiratory Epidemiology at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

McGill University

“In the absence of directly addressing anxiety and depression, people are not going to improve to the same extent we hope that they will,” she told this news organization.
 

Symptom Clusters in RA

In her research, presented on February 29, Dr. Bartlett explored how certain symptom clusters in RA predicted prognosis.

Symptom clusters are related symptoms that occur together and can be associated with worse outcomes than one symptom alone. Symptom science has been a growing interest in precision medicine, particularly for cancer, Dr. Bartlett noted, and this same approach could help pinpoint RA subtypes, disease trajectories, and personalized treatment.

In the study, Dr. Bartlett and colleagues used data from the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH), a multisite prospective research study following individuals with new-onset RA. They identified patients starting methotrexate (MTX) therapy who also had clinical and patient-reported outcome measures available. Individuals included in the analysis may have also been taking additional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs beyond MTX.

Across the 310 selected individuals, researchers identified four key symptoms: Pain, fatigue, anxiety, and depression. Pain and fatigue were defined as physical symptoms, while anxiety and depression were classified as emotional symptoms. Results showed that the patients could be sorted into four distinct symptom clusters: Minimal symptoms (12%), mild physical and emotional symptoms (11%), moderate to severe pain and fatigue (40%), and moderate to severe physical and emotional symptoms (37%).

Researchers then followed patients during the first 6 months of treatment to evaluate if patients’ symptoms improved.

Symptom improvement mostly occurred during the first 3 months of treatment and remained consistent at 6 months. Overall, patients with moderate to severe emotional symptoms had a worse prognosis and were less likely to achieve milder symptoms than those who had only pain and fatigue or mild emotional symptoms. While 64% of patients in the moderate to severe physical symptoms group achieved minimal symptoms after 3 months of treatment, only 13% of patients with moderate to severe physical and emotional systems reported minimal symptoms during this same time frame.

The study builds on previous work that “suggests that there are different factors that we can identify around the time of diagnosis that point to how well a person is likely to respond,” Dr. Bartlett added. “What our work is showing pretty clearly [is that] the presence of anxiety and depression is one of those important markers.”
 

Patients With Depression Report Worse Disease Activity

In a related study, researchers from the University of Ottawa explored how depression in RA affected subjective and objective disease measures.

The study included patients from the Ottawa Rheumatology Comprehensive Treatment and Assessment (ORCHESTRA) clinic at The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, which sees patients with inflammatory arthritis who are starting biologic therapy or switching to another biologic. The clinic is designed to take a more comprehensive approach to managing inflammatory arthritis, including addressing comorbidities such as cardiac disease, depression, and cancer. Patients seen at the clinic can opt to be included in the ORCHESTRA cohort to be a part of ongoing research.

From this cohort, researchers identified 98 patients with RA. At enrollment, patients were screened for depression using patient health questionnaire scores and asked about duration of morning stiffness and tender joint counts. Swollen joint counts, ultrasound, and clinical scores were used to evaluate disease activity.

In the study group, 47 patients had no depression, 21 patients had mild depression, and 30 patients had moderate to severe depression. Researchers found that subjective disease measures, including visual analog pain scale, health assessment questionnaire, and disease activity score in 28 joints were all higher in patients with depression; however, depression did not appear to affect objective disease measures, such as the Global OMERACT-EULAR Synovitis Score or Doppler scores.

While there is a known link between inflammation and depression, these findings suggest that depression is “a concomitant comorbidity just like cardiovascular disease, just like fibromyalgia, just like some other comorbidity that also needs to be addressed in its own right to improve the outcomes,” noted Elliot Hepworth, MD, a rheumatologist and ORCHESTRA clinic lead at The Ottawa Hospital, in an interview.

Dr. Hepworth presented the findings on March 1.

Dr. Elliot Hepworth

The data also suggested that patients with depression had poorer outcomes. For the 79 patients who had 3-month follow-up visit data, 43.9% of patients with no or mild depression achieved LDA and remission compared with 21.7% of patients with moderate to severe depression, though this difference was not statistically significant (P = .064). There was a similar trend for the 39 patients with 6-month follow-up data: Only 20% of patients with moderate to severe depression had reached LDA and remission compared with 37.9% of patients with no or mild depression (P = .445). The researchers noted this could be an issue with a smaller sample size.

“Every time more patients get added we approach closer to significance,” Dr. Hepworth added.
 

Some Disagreement, Same Takeaway

Commenting on the Ottawa study, Dr. Bartlett was skeptical of the conclusion that depression may not directly influence disease activity. “There’s just too much good evidence these days that [depression] very much coexists with worse disease activity,” she said. “It is not in the person’s head.”

Dr. Hepworth added that patient-reported outcomes are important for clinicians to address during treatment.

“There’s the tender joints, there’s the pain, there’s the fatigue, there’s the patient global assessment, which are subjective,” he said, “but that does not mean that they are not important. Those are important to the patient: That is how they’re living their life, and that is how they’re experiencing their disease.”

This is why efforts to treat depression in patients with RA such as cognitive behavioral therapy are so important, he said, to which Dr. Bartlett agreed.

“A comprehensive approach is required, which includes addressing depression,” she said. Otherwise, data show “that people just never make it to remission.”

The studies looked at different patient populations but ultimately complement each other, added Sibel Aydin, MD, a professor of medicine in the Division of Rheumatology at the University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, and senior author of the Ottawa study.

Dr. Sibel Aydin

“Two different cohorts with different patient populations still reached the same result,” she said. “If you don’t address the emotional aspect, you are not going to achieve the good outcomes.”

“It’s remarkable when you have two independent researchers coming to the same conclusion without ever talking to each other,” added Dr. Hepworth. “That really shows that this is something that’s pervasive, and it’s not just within our patient population.”

CATCH is funded by unrestricted research grants from programs with Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, Sandoz, Fresenius Kabi, Organon, Viatris, JAMP, and Celltrion. Dr. Bartlett is president of the PROMIS Health Organization. She is a member of speakers bureaus or has consulted for Pfizer, Sandoz, Merck, Janssen, and Organon. Dr. Hepworth and Dr. Aydin declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and co-occurring anxiety or depression are less likely to achieve low disease activity (LDA) and better symptom control after 3 months of treatment, according to new research presented at the at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

The findings emphasized the importance of taking a multidisciplinary approach to RA treatment, said presenter Susan Bartlett, PhD, a professor in the Divisions of Clinical Epidemiology, Rheumatology, and Respiratory Epidemiology at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

McGill University

“In the absence of directly addressing anxiety and depression, people are not going to improve to the same extent we hope that they will,” she told this news organization.
 

Symptom Clusters in RA

In her research, presented on February 29, Dr. Bartlett explored how certain symptom clusters in RA predicted prognosis.

Symptom clusters are related symptoms that occur together and can be associated with worse outcomes than one symptom alone. Symptom science has been a growing interest in precision medicine, particularly for cancer, Dr. Bartlett noted, and this same approach could help pinpoint RA subtypes, disease trajectories, and personalized treatment.

In the study, Dr. Bartlett and colleagues used data from the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH), a multisite prospective research study following individuals with new-onset RA. They identified patients starting methotrexate (MTX) therapy who also had clinical and patient-reported outcome measures available. Individuals included in the analysis may have also been taking additional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs beyond MTX.

Across the 310 selected individuals, researchers identified four key symptoms: Pain, fatigue, anxiety, and depression. Pain and fatigue were defined as physical symptoms, while anxiety and depression were classified as emotional symptoms. Results showed that the patients could be sorted into four distinct symptom clusters: Minimal symptoms (12%), mild physical and emotional symptoms (11%), moderate to severe pain and fatigue (40%), and moderate to severe physical and emotional symptoms (37%).

Researchers then followed patients during the first 6 months of treatment to evaluate if patients’ symptoms improved.

Symptom improvement mostly occurred during the first 3 months of treatment and remained consistent at 6 months. Overall, patients with moderate to severe emotional symptoms had a worse prognosis and were less likely to achieve milder symptoms than those who had only pain and fatigue or mild emotional symptoms. While 64% of patients in the moderate to severe physical symptoms group achieved minimal symptoms after 3 months of treatment, only 13% of patients with moderate to severe physical and emotional systems reported minimal symptoms during this same time frame.

The study builds on previous work that “suggests that there are different factors that we can identify around the time of diagnosis that point to how well a person is likely to respond,” Dr. Bartlett added. “What our work is showing pretty clearly [is that] the presence of anxiety and depression is one of those important markers.”
 

Patients With Depression Report Worse Disease Activity

In a related study, researchers from the University of Ottawa explored how depression in RA affected subjective and objective disease measures.

The study included patients from the Ottawa Rheumatology Comprehensive Treatment and Assessment (ORCHESTRA) clinic at The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, which sees patients with inflammatory arthritis who are starting biologic therapy or switching to another biologic. The clinic is designed to take a more comprehensive approach to managing inflammatory arthritis, including addressing comorbidities such as cardiac disease, depression, and cancer. Patients seen at the clinic can opt to be included in the ORCHESTRA cohort to be a part of ongoing research.

From this cohort, researchers identified 98 patients with RA. At enrollment, patients were screened for depression using patient health questionnaire scores and asked about duration of morning stiffness and tender joint counts. Swollen joint counts, ultrasound, and clinical scores were used to evaluate disease activity.

In the study group, 47 patients had no depression, 21 patients had mild depression, and 30 patients had moderate to severe depression. Researchers found that subjective disease measures, including visual analog pain scale, health assessment questionnaire, and disease activity score in 28 joints were all higher in patients with depression; however, depression did not appear to affect objective disease measures, such as the Global OMERACT-EULAR Synovitis Score or Doppler scores.

While there is a known link between inflammation and depression, these findings suggest that depression is “a concomitant comorbidity just like cardiovascular disease, just like fibromyalgia, just like some other comorbidity that also needs to be addressed in its own right to improve the outcomes,” noted Elliot Hepworth, MD, a rheumatologist and ORCHESTRA clinic lead at The Ottawa Hospital, in an interview.

Dr. Hepworth presented the findings on March 1.

Dr. Elliot Hepworth

The data also suggested that patients with depression had poorer outcomes. For the 79 patients who had 3-month follow-up visit data, 43.9% of patients with no or mild depression achieved LDA and remission compared with 21.7% of patients with moderate to severe depression, though this difference was not statistically significant (P = .064). There was a similar trend for the 39 patients with 6-month follow-up data: Only 20% of patients with moderate to severe depression had reached LDA and remission compared with 37.9% of patients with no or mild depression (P = .445). The researchers noted this could be an issue with a smaller sample size.

“Every time more patients get added we approach closer to significance,” Dr. Hepworth added.
 

Some Disagreement, Same Takeaway

Commenting on the Ottawa study, Dr. Bartlett was skeptical of the conclusion that depression may not directly influence disease activity. “There’s just too much good evidence these days that [depression] very much coexists with worse disease activity,” she said. “It is not in the person’s head.”

Dr. Hepworth added that patient-reported outcomes are important for clinicians to address during treatment.

“There’s the tender joints, there’s the pain, there’s the fatigue, there’s the patient global assessment, which are subjective,” he said, “but that does not mean that they are not important. Those are important to the patient: That is how they’re living their life, and that is how they’re experiencing their disease.”

This is why efforts to treat depression in patients with RA such as cognitive behavioral therapy are so important, he said, to which Dr. Bartlett agreed.

“A comprehensive approach is required, which includes addressing depression,” she said. Otherwise, data show “that people just never make it to remission.”

The studies looked at different patient populations but ultimately complement each other, added Sibel Aydin, MD, a professor of medicine in the Division of Rheumatology at the University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, and senior author of the Ottawa study.

Dr. Sibel Aydin

“Two different cohorts with different patient populations still reached the same result,” she said. “If you don’t address the emotional aspect, you are not going to achieve the good outcomes.”

“It’s remarkable when you have two independent researchers coming to the same conclusion without ever talking to each other,” added Dr. Hepworth. “That really shows that this is something that’s pervasive, and it’s not just within our patient population.”

CATCH is funded by unrestricted research grants from programs with Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, Sandoz, Fresenius Kabi, Organon, Viatris, JAMP, and Celltrion. Dr. Bartlett is president of the PROMIS Health Organization. She is a member of speakers bureaus or has consulted for Pfizer, Sandoz, Merck, Janssen, and Organon. Dr. Hepworth and Dr. Aydin declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

TOPLINE:

Tapering glucocorticoids (GCs) does not increase the risk for flare in modified serologically active clinically quiescent (mSACQ) patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) with a low daily exposure to GC.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research has indicated that SACQ SLE is associated with an increased risk for flare after low-dose GC withdrawal.
• Researchers assessed the risk for flare and damage accrual after tapering GCs in mSACQ patients with SLE.
• They used data from the Asia Pacific Lupus Collaboration (APLC) to study 1850 patients (mean age, 40 years; 91.6% women) who met the criteria for SLE, including the definition of mSACQ at least once during observation and being followed up for 2 years after the first mSACQ visit.
• mSACQ was defined as a condition with serological activity but without clinical activity managed with ≤ 7.5 mg/d of -equivalent GCs, regardless of duration.
• The primary outcome was disease flare (both severe and overall) on the basis of the SELENA-SLEDAI flare index definitions.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 742 patients experienced an overall flare, 271 experienced a severe flare, and 180 experienced damage accrual.
• Reducing the prednisolone-equivalent GC dosage by 1 mg/d did not increase the risk for an overall (P = .27) or severe (P = .11) flare in patients initially on prednisolone-equivalent GC dosages of 0-7.5 mg/d.
• Antimalarial use decreased the risk for overall (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P = .002) and severe (HR, 0.59; P < .001) flares, and immunosuppressant use decreased the risk for severe flares (HR, 0.77; P = .043) but not overall flares.
• Reducing the GC dosage by 1 mg/d reduced the risk for damage accrual by 4% in patients who started taking prednisolone at a dose > 5 but ≤ 7.5 mg/d (P = .007).

IN PRACTICE:

“Cautious tapering of GCs is a feasible option for mSACQ-SLE with low daily exposure to GCs (≤ 7.5 mg/d of prednisolone-equivalent) and can reduce GC burden,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yasuhiro Katsumata, Division of Rheumatology, Tokyo Women’s Medical University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan, was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

The data were collected retrospectively. A short follow-up duration might have prevented the demonstration of clear benefits in terms of damage accrual among patients receiving < 5 mg of GCs. Moreover, the findings may have limited generalizability as the majority of patients had Asian ancestry.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by grants and funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lily, Janssen, Merck Serono, UCB, GlaxoSmithKline, Australia, and others to APLC. Some of the authors declared receiving honoraria, consulting fees, research grants, and research support from various sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Tapering glucocorticoids (GCs) does not increase the risk for flare in modified serologically active clinically quiescent (mSACQ) patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) with a low daily exposure to GC.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research has indicated that SACQ SLE is associated with an increased risk for flare after low-dose GC withdrawal.
• Researchers assessed the risk for flare and damage accrual after tapering GCs in mSACQ patients with SLE.
• They used data from the Asia Pacific Lupus Collaboration (APLC) to study 1850 patients (mean age, 40 years; 91.6% women) who met the criteria for SLE, including the definition of mSACQ at least once during observation and being followed up for 2 years after the first mSACQ visit.
• mSACQ was defined as a condition with serological activity but without clinical activity managed with ≤ 7.5 mg/d of -equivalent GCs, regardless of duration.
• The primary outcome was disease flare (both severe and overall) on the basis of the SELENA-SLEDAI flare index definitions.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 742 patients experienced an overall flare, 271 experienced a severe flare, and 180 experienced damage accrual.
• Reducing the prednisolone-equivalent GC dosage by 1 mg/d did not increase the risk for an overall (P = .27) or severe (P = .11) flare in patients initially on prednisolone-equivalent GC dosages of 0-7.5 mg/d.
• Antimalarial use decreased the risk for overall (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P = .002) and severe (HR, 0.59; P < .001) flares, and immunosuppressant use decreased the risk for severe flares (HR, 0.77; P = .043) but not overall flares.
• Reducing the GC dosage by 1 mg/d reduced the risk for damage accrual by 4% in patients who started taking prednisolone at a dose > 5 but ≤ 7.5 mg/d (P = .007).

IN PRACTICE:

“Cautious tapering of GCs is a feasible option for mSACQ-SLE with low daily exposure to GCs (≤ 7.5 mg/d of prednisolone-equivalent) and can reduce GC burden,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yasuhiro Katsumata, Division of Rheumatology, Tokyo Women’s Medical University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan, was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

The data were collected retrospectively. A short follow-up duration might have prevented the demonstration of clear benefits in terms of damage accrual among patients receiving < 5 mg of GCs. Moreover, the findings may have limited generalizability as the majority of patients had Asian ancestry.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by grants and funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lily, Janssen, Merck Serono, UCB, GlaxoSmithKline, Australia, and others to APLC. Some of the authors declared receiving honoraria, consulting fees, research grants, and research support from various sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Tapering glucocorticoids (GCs) does not increase the risk for flare in modified serologically active clinically quiescent (mSACQ) patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) with a low daily exposure to GC.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research has indicated that SACQ SLE is associated with an increased risk for flare after low-dose GC withdrawal.
• Researchers assessed the risk for flare and damage accrual after tapering GCs in mSACQ patients with SLE.
• They used data from the Asia Pacific Lupus Collaboration (APLC) to study 1850 patients (mean age, 40 years; 91.6% women) who met the criteria for SLE, including the definition of mSACQ at least once during observation and being followed up for 2 years after the first mSACQ visit.
• mSACQ was defined as a condition with serological activity but without clinical activity managed with ≤ 7.5 mg/d of -equivalent GCs, regardless of duration.
• The primary outcome was disease flare (both severe and overall) on the basis of the SELENA-SLEDAI flare index definitions.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 742 patients experienced an overall flare, 271 experienced a severe flare, and 180 experienced damage accrual.
• Reducing the prednisolone-equivalent GC dosage by 1 mg/d did not increase the risk for an overall (P = .27) or severe (P = .11) flare in patients initially on prednisolone-equivalent GC dosages of 0-7.5 mg/d.
• Antimalarial use decreased the risk for overall (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P = .002) and severe (HR, 0.59; P < .001) flares, and immunosuppressant use decreased the risk for severe flares (HR, 0.77; P = .043) but not overall flares.
• Reducing the GC dosage by 1 mg/d reduced the risk for damage accrual by 4% in patients who started taking prednisolone at a dose > 5 but ≤ 7.5 mg/d (P = .007).

IN PRACTICE:

“Cautious tapering of GCs is a feasible option for mSACQ-SLE with low daily exposure to GCs (≤ 7.5 mg/d of prednisolone-equivalent) and can reduce GC burden,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yasuhiro Katsumata, Division of Rheumatology, Tokyo Women’s Medical University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan, was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

The data were collected retrospectively. A short follow-up duration might have prevented the demonstration of clear benefits in terms of damage accrual among patients receiving < 5 mg of GCs. Moreover, the findings may have limited generalizability as the majority of patients had Asian ancestry.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by grants and funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lily, Janssen, Merck Serono, UCB, GlaxoSmithKline, Australia, and others to APLC. Some of the authors declared receiving honoraria, consulting fees, research grants, and research support from various sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The remission period of type 1 diabetes (T1D) can be prolonged with high-dose ergocalciferol (a vitamin D analog), by preserving the function of insulin-producing beta cells in newly diagnosed patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• Beta cells may retain approximately 30%-50% function at the time of T1D diagnosis and continue producing insulin for months or years. Preserving beta-cell function early on can extend this remission period and improve long-term glycemic control.
• Researchers conducted a secondary post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial looking at residual beta function and vitamin D supplementation in 36 youths (age, 10-21 years; mean age, 13.5 years; 33.3% women) with recently diagnosed T1D.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive vitamin D (50,000 international units) or placebo every week for 2 months and then biweekly for 10 months.
• Mixed-meal tolerance tests were performed after overnight fasting at 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, and blood draws were obtained 30 minutes and 90 minutes for post-meal C-peptide and glucose estimations.
• The fasting proinsulin to C-peptide ratio (PI:C) and the percentage change in the area under the curve of C-peptide from baseline (%ΔAUC) were calculated to test the effect of vitamin D on beta-cell function.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Vitamin D supplementation improved the insulin secretion capacity of beta cells, as observed by the decrease in the mean fasting PI:C ratio compared with placebo (−0.0009 vs 0.0011; P =.01).
• The reduction in %ΔAUC of C-peptide was notably slower with vitamin D than placebo (−2.8% vs −4.7%; P =.03), indicating a longer delay in the loss of C-peptide.

IN PRACTICE:

“It is exciting to know that vitamin D could protect the beta cells of the pancreas and increase the natural production of good and functional insulin in these patients. This, in turn, prolongs the honeymoon phase of type 1 diabetes and leads to reduced long-term complications of this disease,” Benjamin Udoka Nwosu, MD, Northwell Health, Division of Endocrinology, Department of Pediatrics, Cohen Children’s Medical Center, New Hyde Park, New York, the principal author, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

It was a single-center study.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The remission period of type 1 diabetes (T1D) can be prolonged with high-dose ergocalciferol (a vitamin D analog), by preserving the function of insulin-producing beta cells in newly diagnosed patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• Beta cells may retain approximately 30%-50% function at the time of T1D diagnosis and continue producing insulin for months or years. Preserving beta-cell function early on can extend this remission period and improve long-term glycemic control.
• Researchers conducted a secondary post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial looking at residual beta function and vitamin D supplementation in 36 youths (age, 10-21 years; mean age, 13.5 years; 33.3% women) with recently diagnosed T1D.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive vitamin D (50,000 international units) or placebo every week for 2 months and then biweekly for 10 months.
• Mixed-meal tolerance tests were performed after overnight fasting at 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, and blood draws were obtained 30 minutes and 90 minutes for post-meal C-peptide and glucose estimations.
• The fasting proinsulin to C-peptide ratio (PI:C) and the percentage change in the area under the curve of C-peptide from baseline (%ΔAUC) were calculated to test the effect of vitamin D on beta-cell function.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Vitamin D supplementation improved the insulin secretion capacity of beta cells, as observed by the decrease in the mean fasting PI:C ratio compared with placebo (−0.0009 vs 0.0011; P =.01).
• The reduction in %ΔAUC of C-peptide was notably slower with vitamin D than placebo (−2.8% vs −4.7%; P =.03), indicating a longer delay in the loss of C-peptide.

IN PRACTICE:

“It is exciting to know that vitamin D could protect the beta cells of the pancreas and increase the natural production of good and functional insulin in these patients. This, in turn, prolongs the honeymoon phase of type 1 diabetes and leads to reduced long-term complications of this disease,” Benjamin Udoka Nwosu, MD, Northwell Health, Division of Endocrinology, Department of Pediatrics, Cohen Children’s Medical Center, New Hyde Park, New York, the principal author, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

It was a single-center study.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The remission period of type 1 diabetes (T1D) can be prolonged with high-dose ergocalciferol (a vitamin D analog), by preserving the function of insulin-producing beta cells in newly diagnosed patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• Beta cells may retain approximately 30%-50% function at the time of T1D diagnosis and continue producing insulin for months or years. Preserving beta-cell function early on can extend this remission period and improve long-term glycemic control.
• Researchers conducted a secondary post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial looking at residual beta function and vitamin D supplementation in 36 youths (age, 10-21 years; mean age, 13.5 years; 33.3% women) with recently diagnosed T1D.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive vitamin D (50,000 international units) or placebo every week for 2 months and then biweekly for 10 months.
• Mixed-meal tolerance tests were performed after overnight fasting at 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, and blood draws were obtained 30 minutes and 90 minutes for post-meal C-peptide and glucose estimations.
• The fasting proinsulin to C-peptide ratio (PI:C) and the percentage change in the area under the curve of C-peptide from baseline (%ΔAUC) were calculated to test the effect of vitamin D on beta-cell function.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Vitamin D supplementation improved the insulin secretion capacity of beta cells, as observed by the decrease in the mean fasting PI:C ratio compared with placebo (−0.0009 vs 0.0011; P =.01).
• The reduction in %ΔAUC of C-peptide was notably slower with vitamin D than placebo (−2.8% vs −4.7%; P =.03), indicating a longer delay in the loss of C-peptide.

IN PRACTICE:

“It is exciting to know that vitamin D could protect the beta cells of the pancreas and increase the natural production of good and functional insulin in these patients. This, in turn, prolongs the honeymoon phase of type 1 diabetes and leads to reduced long-term complications of this disease,” Benjamin Udoka Nwosu, MD, Northwell Health, Division of Endocrinology, Department of Pediatrics, Cohen Children’s Medical Center, New Hyde Park, New York, the principal author, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

It was a single-center study.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.