Rheumatology News

Non–Lyme disease, tick-borne illnesses — such as spotted fever group rickettsiosis (SFGR), ehrlichiosis, and alpha-gal syndrome (AGS) — are emerging public health threats, but whether prior tick exposures are responsible for long-term complications, such as musculoskeletal symptoms or osteoarthritis, has been unclear.

Many patients attribute their nonspecific long-term symptoms, such as musculoskeletal pain, to previous illnesses from tick bites, note authors of a study published in JAMA Network Open. But the researchers, led by Diana L. Zychowski, MD, MPH, with the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found that Ehrlichia or Rickettsia seropositivity was not associated with chronic musculoskeletal symptoms, though they write that “further investigation into the pathogenesis of [alpha-gal] syndrome is needed.”
 

Tick-Borne Illness Cases Multiplying

Cases of tick-borne illness (TBD) in the United States have multiplied in recent years. More than 50,000 cases of TBD in the United States were reported in 2019, which doubled the number of cases over the previous 2 decades, the authors note.

Most of the cases are Lyme disease, but others — including SFGR and ehrlichiosis — represent an important public health threat, especially in southeastern states, the authors write. Cases of ehrlichiosis, for example, transmitted by the lone star tick, soared more than 10-fold since 2000.

The goal of this study was to evaluate whether there was an association between prior exposure to TBDs endemic to the southeastern United States and chronic musculoskeletal symptoms and radiographic measures of osteoarthritis.

Researchers analyzed 488 blood samples from the fourth visit (2017-2018) of the Johnston County Osteoarthritis (JoCo OA) project, an ongoing population-based study in Johnston County, North Carolina. JoCo OA participants include noninstitutionalized White and Black Johnston County residents 45 years old or older with osteoarthritis.

They measured seroprevalence of Rickettsia- and Ehrlichia-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) as well as alpha-gal immunoglobulin E (IgE) in patient samples. Only alpha-gal IgE was linked in the study with knee pain, aching, or stiffness. Antibodies to Rickettsia, Ehrlichia, and alpha-gal were not associated with radiographic, symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

“To our knowledge,” the authors write, “this study was the first population-based seroprevalence study of SFGR, Ehrlichia, and [alpha]-gal.”

The study also found a high prevalence of TBD exposure in the cohort. More than a third (36.5%) had either an alpha-gal IgE level greater than 0.1 IU/mL, a positive test for SFGR IgG antibodies, or a positive test for Ehrlichia IgG antibodies.

Given that not every tick carries an infectious pathogen, the findings show human-tick interactions are common, they write.

“These findings suggest that substantial investment is required to examine the pathogenesis of these TBDs and interventions to reduce human-tick interactions,” the authors conclude.

This study was funded by a Creativity Hub Award from the University of North Carolina Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research. The JoCo OA project is supported in part by grants from the Association of Schools of Public Health/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Authors reported grants from the National Institutes of Health, the CDC, and several pharmaceutical companies.

Non–Lyme disease, tick-borne illnesses — such as spotted fever group rickettsiosis (SFGR), ehrlichiosis, and alpha-gal syndrome (AGS) — are emerging public health threats, but whether prior tick exposures are responsible for long-term complications, such as musculoskeletal symptoms or osteoarthritis, has been unclear.

Many patients attribute their nonspecific long-term symptoms, such as musculoskeletal pain, to previous illnesses from tick bites, note authors of a study published in JAMA Network Open. But the researchers, led by Diana L. Zychowski, MD, MPH, with the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found that Ehrlichia or Rickettsia seropositivity was not associated with chronic musculoskeletal symptoms, though they write that “further investigation into the pathogenesis of [alpha-gal] syndrome is needed.”
 

Tick-Borne Illness Cases Multiplying

Cases of tick-borne illness (TBD) in the United States have multiplied in recent years. More than 50,000 cases of TBD in the United States were reported in 2019, which doubled the number of cases over the previous 2 decades, the authors note.

Most of the cases are Lyme disease, but others — including SFGR and ehrlichiosis — represent an important public health threat, especially in southeastern states, the authors write. Cases of ehrlichiosis, for example, transmitted by the lone star tick, soared more than 10-fold since 2000.

The goal of this study was to evaluate whether there was an association between prior exposure to TBDs endemic to the southeastern United States and chronic musculoskeletal symptoms and radiographic measures of osteoarthritis.

Researchers analyzed 488 blood samples from the fourth visit (2017-2018) of the Johnston County Osteoarthritis (JoCo OA) project, an ongoing population-based study in Johnston County, North Carolina. JoCo OA participants include noninstitutionalized White and Black Johnston County residents 45 years old or older with osteoarthritis.

They measured seroprevalence of Rickettsia- and Ehrlichia-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) as well as alpha-gal immunoglobulin E (IgE) in patient samples. Only alpha-gal IgE was linked in the study with knee pain, aching, or stiffness. Antibodies to Rickettsia, Ehrlichia, and alpha-gal were not associated with radiographic, symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

“To our knowledge,” the authors write, “this study was the first population-based seroprevalence study of SFGR, Ehrlichia, and [alpha]-gal.”

The study also found a high prevalence of TBD exposure in the cohort. More than a third (36.5%) had either an alpha-gal IgE level greater than 0.1 IU/mL, a positive test for SFGR IgG antibodies, or a positive test for Ehrlichia IgG antibodies.

Given that not every tick carries an infectious pathogen, the findings show human-tick interactions are common, they write.

“These findings suggest that substantial investment is required to examine the pathogenesis of these TBDs and interventions to reduce human-tick interactions,” the authors conclude.

This study was funded by a Creativity Hub Award from the University of North Carolina Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research. The JoCo OA project is supported in part by grants from the Association of Schools of Public Health/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Authors reported grants from the National Institutes of Health, the CDC, and several pharmaceutical companies.

Non–Lyme disease, tick-borne illnesses — such as spotted fever group rickettsiosis (SFGR), ehrlichiosis, and alpha-gal syndrome (AGS) — are emerging public health threats, but whether prior tick exposures are responsible for long-term complications, such as musculoskeletal symptoms or osteoarthritis, has been unclear.

Many patients attribute their nonspecific long-term symptoms, such as musculoskeletal pain, to previous illnesses from tick bites, note authors of a study published in JAMA Network Open. But the researchers, led by Diana L. Zychowski, MD, MPH, with the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found that Ehrlichia or Rickettsia seropositivity was not associated with chronic musculoskeletal symptoms, though they write that “further investigation into the pathogenesis of [alpha-gal] syndrome is needed.”
 

Tick-Borne Illness Cases Multiplying

Cases of tick-borne illness (TBD) in the United States have multiplied in recent years. More than 50,000 cases of TBD in the United States were reported in 2019, which doubled the number of cases over the previous 2 decades, the authors note.

Most of the cases are Lyme disease, but others — including SFGR and ehrlichiosis — represent an important public health threat, especially in southeastern states, the authors write. Cases of ehrlichiosis, for example, transmitted by the lone star tick, soared more than 10-fold since 2000.

The goal of this study was to evaluate whether there was an association between prior exposure to TBDs endemic to the southeastern United States and chronic musculoskeletal symptoms and radiographic measures of osteoarthritis.

Researchers analyzed 488 blood samples from the fourth visit (2017-2018) of the Johnston County Osteoarthritis (JoCo OA) project, an ongoing population-based study in Johnston County, North Carolina. JoCo OA participants include noninstitutionalized White and Black Johnston County residents 45 years old or older with osteoarthritis.

They measured seroprevalence of Rickettsia- and Ehrlichia-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) as well as alpha-gal immunoglobulin E (IgE) in patient samples. Only alpha-gal IgE was linked in the study with knee pain, aching, or stiffness. Antibodies to Rickettsia, Ehrlichia, and alpha-gal were not associated with radiographic, symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

“To our knowledge,” the authors write, “this study was the first population-based seroprevalence study of SFGR, Ehrlichia, and [alpha]-gal.”

The study also found a high prevalence of TBD exposure in the cohort. More than a third (36.5%) had either an alpha-gal IgE level greater than 0.1 IU/mL, a positive test for SFGR IgG antibodies, or a positive test for Ehrlichia IgG antibodies.

Given that not every tick carries an infectious pathogen, the findings show human-tick interactions are common, they write.

“These findings suggest that substantial investment is required to examine the pathogenesis of these TBDs and interventions to reduce human-tick interactions,” the authors conclude.

This study was funded by a Creativity Hub Award from the University of North Carolina Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research. The JoCo OA project is supported in part by grants from the Association of Schools of Public Health/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Authors reported grants from the National Institutes of Health, the CDC, and several pharmaceutical companies.

TOPLINE:

Dermatomyositis (DM) is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular comorbidities, including chronic kidney disease, a new study found.

METHODOLOGY:

• DM is associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD), but US-based data studies on CVD comorbidities in patients with DM are lacking.
• In a cross-sectional analysis of participants in the All of Us research program aged 18 years and older with at least 1 year of electronic health record (EHR) data, researchers identified DM cases and controls with nearest neighbor propensity score matching by age, sex, race/ethnicity, EHR duration, and healthcare visit quantity.
• They used the Pearson’s chi-squared test, Fisher’s exact test, unpaired t-test, or Mann-Whitney U test to compare clinical characteristics and traditional CV comorbidities.
• Multivariable conditional logistic regression was used with backward elimination of comorbidities with P > .1 or evidence of collinearity.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 235,161 All of Us participants, researchers identified 206 DM cases and 824 matched controls with largely similar demographic characteristics, including smoking status, obesity, and indicators of socioeconomic status.
• Participants with DM were more likely to have a history of atrial fibrillation (10.1% vs 16.0%, respectively), chronic kidney disease (15.2% vs 29.1%), congestive heart failure (9.6% vs 18.0%), coronary artery disease (CAD) (18.2% vs 34.0%), hypertension (52.5% vs 60.7%), myocardial infarction (7.4% vs 15.0), type 2 diabetes (27.3% vs 47.6%), and valvular heart disease (8.7% vs 16.5%) than matched controls.
• In a multivariable analysis that adjusted for potential confounders, three comorbidities remained associated with DM: CAD (odds ratio [OR], 2.0; P < .001), type 2 diabetes (OR, 2.2; P < .001), and chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.7; P = .015).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings are important both for prognosis and clinical care, suggesting DM patients should be screened for CVD risk factors to potentially reduce the increased risk for cardiovascular events and CVD-related mortality in DM,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Alisa N. Femia, MD, of the department of dermatology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, led the research. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

How DM treatments might influence CVD development was not addressed. EHRs may have diagnostic inaccuracies and omissions and lack data on clinical features and severity.

DISCLOSURES:

The project was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Femia reported consulting fees from Octagon Therapeutics, Timber Pharmaceuticals, and Guidepoint. Study author Michael S. Garshick, MD, reported consulting fees from AbbVie and Horizon Therapeutics. The remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Dermatomyositis (DM) is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular comorbidities, including chronic kidney disease, a new study found.

METHODOLOGY:

• DM is associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD), but US-based data studies on CVD comorbidities in patients with DM are lacking.
• In a cross-sectional analysis of participants in the All of Us research program aged 18 years and older with at least 1 year of electronic health record (EHR) data, researchers identified DM cases and controls with nearest neighbor propensity score matching by age, sex, race/ethnicity, EHR duration, and healthcare visit quantity.
• They used the Pearson’s chi-squared test, Fisher’s exact test, unpaired t-test, or Mann-Whitney U test to compare clinical characteristics and traditional CV comorbidities.
• Multivariable conditional logistic regression was used with backward elimination of comorbidities with P > .1 or evidence of collinearity.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 235,161 All of Us participants, researchers identified 206 DM cases and 824 matched controls with largely similar demographic characteristics, including smoking status, obesity, and indicators of socioeconomic status.
• Participants with DM were more likely to have a history of atrial fibrillation (10.1% vs 16.0%, respectively), chronic kidney disease (15.2% vs 29.1%), congestive heart failure (9.6% vs 18.0%), coronary artery disease (CAD) (18.2% vs 34.0%), hypertension (52.5% vs 60.7%), myocardial infarction (7.4% vs 15.0), type 2 diabetes (27.3% vs 47.6%), and valvular heart disease (8.7% vs 16.5%) than matched controls.
• In a multivariable analysis that adjusted for potential confounders, three comorbidities remained associated with DM: CAD (odds ratio [OR], 2.0; P < .001), type 2 diabetes (OR, 2.2; P < .001), and chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.7; P = .015).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings are important both for prognosis and clinical care, suggesting DM patients should be screened for CVD risk factors to potentially reduce the increased risk for cardiovascular events and CVD-related mortality in DM,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Alisa N. Femia, MD, of the department of dermatology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, led the research. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

How DM treatments might influence CVD development was not addressed. EHRs may have diagnostic inaccuracies and omissions and lack data on clinical features and severity.

DISCLOSURES:

The project was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Femia reported consulting fees from Octagon Therapeutics, Timber Pharmaceuticals, and Guidepoint. Study author Michael S. Garshick, MD, reported consulting fees from AbbVie and Horizon Therapeutics. The remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Dermatomyositis (DM) is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular comorbidities, including chronic kidney disease, a new study found.

METHODOLOGY:

• DM is associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD), but US-based data studies on CVD comorbidities in patients with DM are lacking.
• In a cross-sectional analysis of participants in the All of Us research program aged 18 years and older with at least 1 year of electronic health record (EHR) data, researchers identified DM cases and controls with nearest neighbor propensity score matching by age, sex, race/ethnicity, EHR duration, and healthcare visit quantity.
• They used the Pearson’s chi-squared test, Fisher’s exact test, unpaired t-test, or Mann-Whitney U test to compare clinical characteristics and traditional CV comorbidities.
• Multivariable conditional logistic regression was used with backward elimination of comorbidities with P > .1 or evidence of collinearity.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 235,161 All of Us participants, researchers identified 206 DM cases and 824 matched controls with largely similar demographic characteristics, including smoking status, obesity, and indicators of socioeconomic status.
• Participants with DM were more likely to have a history of atrial fibrillation (10.1% vs 16.0%, respectively), chronic kidney disease (15.2% vs 29.1%), congestive heart failure (9.6% vs 18.0%), coronary artery disease (CAD) (18.2% vs 34.0%), hypertension (52.5% vs 60.7%), myocardial infarction (7.4% vs 15.0), type 2 diabetes (27.3% vs 47.6%), and valvular heart disease (8.7% vs 16.5%) than matched controls.
• In a multivariable analysis that adjusted for potential confounders, three comorbidities remained associated with DM: CAD (odds ratio [OR], 2.0; P < .001), type 2 diabetes (OR, 2.2; P < .001), and chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.7; P = .015).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings are important both for prognosis and clinical care, suggesting DM patients should be screened for CVD risk factors to potentially reduce the increased risk for cardiovascular events and CVD-related mortality in DM,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Alisa N. Femia, MD, of the department of dermatology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, led the research. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

How DM treatments might influence CVD development was not addressed. EHRs may have diagnostic inaccuracies and omissions and lack data on clinical features and severity.

DISCLOSURES:

The project was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Femia reported consulting fees from Octagon Therapeutics, Timber Pharmaceuticals, and Guidepoint. Study author Michael S. Garshick, MD, reported consulting fees from AbbVie and Horizon Therapeutics. The remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

The first time I saw a patient in the hospital was in 2004, twenty years ago, when I was a third-year med student. I mean, look at that guy. The things I could tell him.

Since that time, I have spent countless hours in the hospital as a resident, a renal fellow, and finally as an attending. And I’m sure many of you in the medical community feel the same thing I do, which is that patients are much more complicated now than they used to be. I’ll listen to an intern present a new case on rounds and she’ll have an assessment and plan that encompasses a dozen individual medical problems. Sometimes I have to literally be like, “Wait, why is this patient here again?”

But until now, I had no data to convince myself that this feeling was real — that hospitalized patients are getting more and more complicated, or that they only seem more complicated because I’m getting older. Maybe I was better able to keep track of things when I was an intern rather than now as an attending, spending just a couple months of the year in the hospital. I mean, after all, if patients were getting more complicated, surely hospitals would know this and allocate more resources to patient care, right?

Right?

It’s not an illusion. At least not according to this paper, Population-Based Trends in Complexity of Hospital Inpatients, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, which examines about 15 years of inpatient hospital admissions in British Columbia.

I like Canada for this study for two reasons: First, their electronic health record system is province-wide, so they don’t have issues of getting data from hospital A vs hospital B. All the data are there — in this case, more than 3 million nonelective hospital admissions from British Columbia. Second, there is universal healthcare. We don’t have to worry about insurance companies changing, or the start of a new program like the Affordable Care Act. It’s just a cleaner set-up.

Of course, complexity is hard to define, and the authors here decide to look at a variety of metrics I think we can agree are tied into complexity. These include things like patient age, comorbidities, medications, frequency of hospitalization, and so on. They also looked at outcomes associated with hospitalization: Did the patient require the ICU? Did they survive? Were they readmitted?

And the tale of the tape is as clear as that British Columbian air: Over the past 15 years, your average hospitalized patient is about 3 years older, is twice as likely to have kidney disease, 70% more likely to have diabetes, is on more medications (particularly anticoagulants), and is much more likely to be admitted through the emergency room. They’ve also spent more time in the hospital in the past year.

Given the increased complexity, you might expect that the outcomes for these patients are worse than years ago, but the data do not bear that out. In fact, inpatient mortality is lower now than it was 15 years ago, although 30-day postdischarge mortality is higher. Put those together and it turns out that death rates are pretty stable: 9% of people admitted for nonelective reasons to the hospital will die within 30 days. It’s just that nowadays, we tend to discharge them before that happens.

Why are our patients getting more complex? Some of it is demographics; the population is aging, after all. Some of it relates to the increasing burden of comorbidities like diabetes and kidney disease, which are associated with the obesity epidemic. But in some ways, we’re a victim of our own success. We have the ability to keep people alive today who would not have survived 15 years ago. We have better treatments for metastatic cancer, less-invasive therapies for heart disease, better protocolized ICU care.

Given all that, does it make any sense that many of our hospitals are at skeleton-crew staffing levels? That hospitalists report taking care of more patients than they ever have before?

There’s been so much talk about burnout in the health professions lately. Maybe something people need to start acknowledging — particularly those who haven’t practiced on the front lines for a decade or two — is that the job is, quite simply, harder now. As patients become more complex, we need more resources, human and otherwise, to care for them.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

The first time I saw a patient in the hospital was in 2004, twenty years ago, when I was a third-year med student. I mean, look at that guy. The things I could tell him.

Since that time, I have spent countless hours in the hospital as a resident, a renal fellow, and finally as an attending. And I’m sure many of you in the medical community feel the same thing I do, which is that patients are much more complicated now than they used to be. I’ll listen to an intern present a new case on rounds and she’ll have an assessment and plan that encompasses a dozen individual medical problems. Sometimes I have to literally be like, “Wait, why is this patient here again?”

But until now, I had no data to convince myself that this feeling was real — that hospitalized patients are getting more and more complicated, or that they only seem more complicated because I’m getting older. Maybe I was better able to keep track of things when I was an intern rather than now as an attending, spending just a couple months of the year in the hospital. I mean, after all, if patients were getting more complicated, surely hospitals would know this and allocate more resources to patient care, right?

Right?

It’s not an illusion. At least not according to this paper, Population-Based Trends in Complexity of Hospital Inpatients, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, which examines about 15 years of inpatient hospital admissions in British Columbia.

I like Canada for this study for two reasons: First, their electronic health record system is province-wide, so they don’t have issues of getting data from hospital A vs hospital B. All the data are there — in this case, more than 3 million nonelective hospital admissions from British Columbia. Second, there is universal healthcare. We don’t have to worry about insurance companies changing, or the start of a new program like the Affordable Care Act. It’s just a cleaner set-up.

Of course, complexity is hard to define, and the authors here decide to look at a variety of metrics I think we can agree are tied into complexity. These include things like patient age, comorbidities, medications, frequency of hospitalization, and so on. They also looked at outcomes associated with hospitalization: Did the patient require the ICU? Did they survive? Were they readmitted?

And the tale of the tape is as clear as that British Columbian air: Over the past 15 years, your average hospitalized patient is about 3 years older, is twice as likely to have kidney disease, 70% more likely to have diabetes, is on more medications (particularly anticoagulants), and is much more likely to be admitted through the emergency room. They’ve also spent more time in the hospital in the past year.

Given the increased complexity, you might expect that the outcomes for these patients are worse than years ago, but the data do not bear that out. In fact, inpatient mortality is lower now than it was 15 years ago, although 30-day postdischarge mortality is higher. Put those together and it turns out that death rates are pretty stable: 9% of people admitted for nonelective reasons to the hospital will die within 30 days. It’s just that nowadays, we tend to discharge them before that happens.

Why are our patients getting more complex? Some of it is demographics; the population is aging, after all. Some of it relates to the increasing burden of comorbidities like diabetes and kidney disease, which are associated with the obesity epidemic. But in some ways, we’re a victim of our own success. We have the ability to keep people alive today who would not have survived 15 years ago. We have better treatments for metastatic cancer, less-invasive therapies for heart disease, better protocolized ICU care.

Given all that, does it make any sense that many of our hospitals are at skeleton-crew staffing levels? That hospitalists report taking care of more patients than they ever have before?

There’s been so much talk about burnout in the health professions lately. Maybe something people need to start acknowledging — particularly those who haven’t practiced on the front lines for a decade or two — is that the job is, quite simply, harder now. As patients become more complex, we need more resources, human and otherwise, to care for them.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

The first time I saw a patient in the hospital was in 2004, twenty years ago, when I was a third-year med student. I mean, look at that guy. The things I could tell him.

Since that time, I have spent countless hours in the hospital as a resident, a renal fellow, and finally as an attending. And I’m sure many of you in the medical community feel the same thing I do, which is that patients are much more complicated now than they used to be. I’ll listen to an intern present a new case on rounds and she’ll have an assessment and plan that encompasses a dozen individual medical problems. Sometimes I have to literally be like, “Wait, why is this patient here again?”

But until now, I had no data to convince myself that this feeling was real — that hospitalized patients are getting more and more complicated, or that they only seem more complicated because I’m getting older. Maybe I was better able to keep track of things when I was an intern rather than now as an attending, spending just a couple months of the year in the hospital. I mean, after all, if patients were getting more complicated, surely hospitals would know this and allocate more resources to patient care, right?

Right?

It’s not an illusion. At least not according to this paper, Population-Based Trends in Complexity of Hospital Inpatients, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, which examines about 15 years of inpatient hospital admissions in British Columbia.

I like Canada for this study for two reasons: First, their electronic health record system is province-wide, so they don’t have issues of getting data from hospital A vs hospital B. All the data are there — in this case, more than 3 million nonelective hospital admissions from British Columbia. Second, there is universal healthcare. We don’t have to worry about insurance companies changing, or the start of a new program like the Affordable Care Act. It’s just a cleaner set-up.

Of course, complexity is hard to define, and the authors here decide to look at a variety of metrics I think we can agree are tied into complexity. These include things like patient age, comorbidities, medications, frequency of hospitalization, and so on. They also looked at outcomes associated with hospitalization: Did the patient require the ICU? Did they survive? Were they readmitted?

And the tale of the tape is as clear as that British Columbian air: Over the past 15 years, your average hospitalized patient is about 3 years older, is twice as likely to have kidney disease, 70% more likely to have diabetes, is on more medications (particularly anticoagulants), and is much more likely to be admitted through the emergency room. They’ve also spent more time in the hospital in the past year.

Given the increased complexity, you might expect that the outcomes for these patients are worse than years ago, but the data do not bear that out. In fact, inpatient mortality is lower now than it was 15 years ago, although 30-day postdischarge mortality is higher. Put those together and it turns out that death rates are pretty stable: 9% of people admitted for nonelective reasons to the hospital will die within 30 days. It’s just that nowadays, we tend to discharge them before that happens.

Why are our patients getting more complex? Some of it is demographics; the population is aging, after all. Some of it relates to the increasing burden of comorbidities like diabetes and kidney disease, which are associated with the obesity epidemic. But in some ways, we’re a victim of our own success. We have the ability to keep people alive today who would not have survived 15 years ago. We have better treatments for metastatic cancer, less-invasive therapies for heart disease, better protocolized ICU care.

Given all that, does it make any sense that many of our hospitals are at skeleton-crew staffing levels? That hospitalists report taking care of more patients than they ever have before?

There’s been so much talk about burnout in the health professions lately. Maybe something people need to start acknowledging — particularly those who haven’t practiced on the front lines for a decade or two — is that the job is, quite simply, harder now. As patients become more complex, we need more resources, human and otherwise, to care for them.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An intensive weight loss program is safe for individuals with gout and obesity but does not ease gout symptoms compared with a “control diet” with basic nutritional counseling.

METHODOLOGY:

• Weight loss is recommended as a gout management strategy, despite little clinical evidence.
• Researchers recruited 61 patients with gout and obesity to participate in a 16-week, randomized, nonblinded, parallel-group trial in Denmark.
• A total of 29 participants were assigned to an intensive, low-calorie diet with provided meal replacements.
• Another 32 participants were assigned to the “control diet” with basic nutritional counseling.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients in the intensive group lost more weight (−15.4 kg/34 lbs) than those the control group (−7.7 kg/17 lbs).
• There were no differences in pain, fatigue, or gout flares between the two groups.
• Weight loss was associated with reduction in serum urate (SU).
• Patients in the intervention group had a numerically larger mean SU change (−0.6 mg/dL) than the control group (−0.3 mg/dL), but this difference was not statistically significant.

IN PRACTICE:

Weight loss can lower SU levels, but this did not translate to improved gout symptoms.

SOURCE:

Robin Christensen, PhD, and Kristian Zobbe, MD, PhD, of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark, were co-first authors of the study, published on January 2, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a relatively small sample size and short-term intervention period, which may have made it difficult to detect differences between the intervention and control groups. Patients in the control group lost a significant amount of weight, which also affected comparisons between the two groups.

DISCLOSURES:

Several of the authors disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. The Parker Institute, which funded the study, is supported by grants from the Oak Foundation and the Danish Rheumatism Association.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An intensive weight loss program is safe for individuals with gout and obesity but does not ease gout symptoms compared with a “control diet” with basic nutritional counseling.

METHODOLOGY:

• Weight loss is recommended as a gout management strategy, despite little clinical evidence.
• Researchers recruited 61 patients with gout and obesity to participate in a 16-week, randomized, nonblinded, parallel-group trial in Denmark.
• A total of 29 participants were assigned to an intensive, low-calorie diet with provided meal replacements.
• Another 32 participants were assigned to the “control diet” with basic nutritional counseling.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients in the intensive group lost more weight (−15.4 kg/34 lbs) than those the control group (−7.7 kg/17 lbs).
• There were no differences in pain, fatigue, or gout flares between the two groups.
• Weight loss was associated with reduction in serum urate (SU).
• Patients in the intervention group had a numerically larger mean SU change (−0.6 mg/dL) than the control group (−0.3 mg/dL), but this difference was not statistically significant.

IN PRACTICE:

Weight loss can lower SU levels, but this did not translate to improved gout symptoms.

SOURCE:

Robin Christensen, PhD, and Kristian Zobbe, MD, PhD, of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark, were co-first authors of the study, published on January 2, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a relatively small sample size and short-term intervention period, which may have made it difficult to detect differences between the intervention and control groups. Patients in the control group lost a significant amount of weight, which also affected comparisons between the two groups.

DISCLOSURES:

Several of the authors disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. The Parker Institute, which funded the study, is supported by grants from the Oak Foundation and the Danish Rheumatism Association.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An intensive weight loss program is safe for individuals with gout and obesity but does not ease gout symptoms compared with a “control diet” with basic nutritional counseling.

METHODOLOGY:

• Weight loss is recommended as a gout management strategy, despite little clinical evidence.
• Researchers recruited 61 patients with gout and obesity to participate in a 16-week, randomized, nonblinded, parallel-group trial in Denmark.
• A total of 29 participants were assigned to an intensive, low-calorie diet with provided meal replacements.
• Another 32 participants were assigned to the “control diet” with basic nutritional counseling.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients in the intensive group lost more weight (−15.4 kg/34 lbs) than those the control group (−7.7 kg/17 lbs).
• There were no differences in pain, fatigue, or gout flares between the two groups.
• Weight loss was associated with reduction in serum urate (SU).
• Patients in the intervention group had a numerically larger mean SU change (−0.6 mg/dL) than the control group (−0.3 mg/dL), but this difference was not statistically significant.

IN PRACTICE:

Weight loss can lower SU levels, but this did not translate to improved gout symptoms.

SOURCE:

Robin Christensen, PhD, and Kristian Zobbe, MD, PhD, of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark, were co-first authors of the study, published on January 2, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a relatively small sample size and short-term intervention period, which may have made it difficult to detect differences between the intervention and control groups. Patients in the control group lost a significant amount of weight, which also affected comparisons between the two groups.

DISCLOSURES:

Several of the authors disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. The Parker Institute, which funded the study, is supported by grants from the Oak Foundation and the Danish Rheumatism Association.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Over just a decade, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have revolutionized the second-line treatment of type 2 diabetes by improving the control of blood sugar, and they’re also being used to treat heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Now, there’s growing evidence that the medications have the potential to play a role in the treatment of a variety of rheumatologic diseases — gout, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and lupus nephritis.

“I suspect that SGLT2 inhibitors may have a role in multiple rheumatic diseases,” said rheumatologist April Jorge, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

In gout, for example, “SGLT2 inhibitors hold great promise as a multipurpose treatment option,” said rheumatologist Chio Yokose, MD, MSc, also of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. Both Dr. Jorge and Dr. Yokose spoke at recent medical conferences and in interviews about the potential value of the drugs in rheumatology.
 

There’s a big caveat. For the moment, SGLT2 inhibitors aren’t cleared for use in the treatment of rheumatologic conditions, and neither physician is ready to recommend prescribing them off-label outside of their FDA-approved indications.

But studies could pave the way toward more approved uses in rheumatology. And there’s good news for now: Many rheumatology patients may already be eligible to take the drugs because of other medical conditions. In gout, for example, “sizable proportions of patients have comorbidities for which they are already indicated,” Dr. Yokose said.
 

Research Hints at Gout-Busting Potential

The first SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), received FDA approval in 2013, followed by dapagliflozin (Farxiga), empagliflozin (Jardiance), ertugliflozin (Steglatro), and bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy). The drugs “lower blood sugar by causing the kidneys to remove sugar from the body through urine,” reports the National Kidney Foundation, and they “help to protect the kidneys and heart in people with CKD [chronic kidney disease].”

As Dr. Yokose noted in a presentation at the 2023 Gout Hyperuricemia and Crystal Associated Disease Network research symposium, SGLT2 inhibitors “have really become blockbuster drugs, and they’ve now been integrated into multiple professional society guidelines and recommendations.”

These drugs should not be confused with the wildly popular medications known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, which include medications such as semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy). These drugs are generally administered via injection — unlike the oral SGLT2 inhibitors — and they’re variously indicated for type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Dr. Yokose highlighted research findings about the drugs in gout. A 2020 study, for example, tracked 295,907 US adults with type 2 diabetes who received a new prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP1 agonist during 2013-2017. Those in the SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 36% lower risk of newly diagnosed gout (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72), the researchers reported.

A similar study, a 2021 report from Taiwan, also linked SGLT2 inhibitors to improvement in gout incidence vs. dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, diabetes drugs that are not linked to lower serum urate levels. In an adjusted analysis, the risk of gout was 11% lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor group (adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95).

What about recurrent gout? In a 2023 study, Dr. Yokose and colleagues tracked patients with type 2 diabetes who began SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP4 inhibitors. Over the period from 2013 to 2017, those who took SGLT2 inhibitors were less likely to have gout flares (rate ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75) and gout-primary emergency department visits/hospitalizations (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.84).

“This finding requires further replication in other populations and compared to other drugs,” Dr. Yokose cautioned.

Another 2023 study analyzed UK data and reached similar results regarding risk of recurrent gout.

Lower Urate Levels and Less Inflammation Could Be Key

How might SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk of gout? Multiple studies have linked the drugs to lower serum urate levels, Dr. Yokose said, but researchers often excluded patients with gout.

For a small new study presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology but not yet published, Dr. Yokose and colleagues reported that patients with gout who began SGLT2 inhibitors had lower urate levels than those who began a sulfonylurea, another second-line agent for type 2 diabetes. During the study period, up to 3 months before and after initiation, 43.5% of patients in the SGLT2 inhibitor group reached a target serum urate of < 6 mg/dL vs. 4.2% of sulfonylurea initiators.

“The magnitude of this reduction, while not as large as what can be achieved with appropriately titrated urate-lowering therapy such as allopurinol or febuxostat, is also not negligible. It’s believed to be between 1.5-2.0 mg/dL among patients with gout,” Dr. Yokose said. “Also, SGLT2 inhibitors are purported to have some anti-inflammatory effects that may target the same pathways responsible for the profound inflammation associated with acute gout flares. However, both the exact mechanisms underlying the serum urate-lowering and anti-inflammatory effects of SGLT2 [inhibitors] require further research and clarification.”

Moving forward, she said, “I would love to see some prospective studies of SGLT2 inhibitor use among patients with gout, looking at serum urate and clinical gout endpoints, as well as biomarkers to understand better the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors as it pertains to patients with gout.”

In Lupus, Findings Are More Mixed

Studies of SGLT2 inhibitors have excluded patients with lupus, limiting insight into their benefits in that specific population, said Dr. Jorge of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. However, “one small phase I/II trial showed an acceptable safety profile of dapagliflozin add-on therapy in adult patients with SLE,” she said.

Her team is working to expand understanding about the drugs in people with lupus. At the 2023 ACR annual meeting, she presented the findings of a study that tracked patients with SLE who took SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 426, including 154 with lupus nephritis) or DPP4 inhibitors (n = 865, including 270 with lupus nephritis). Patients who took SGLT2 inhibitors had lower risks of major adverse cardiac events (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99) and renal progression (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.98).

“Our results are promising, but the majority of patient with lupus who had received SGLT2 inhibitors also had the comorbidity of type 2 diabetes as a separate indication for SGLT2 inhibitor use,” Dr. Jorge said. “We still need to study the impact of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis who do not have a separate indication for the medication.”

Dr. Jorge added that “we do not yet know the ideal time to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors in the treatment of lupus nephritis. Specifically, it is not yet known whether these medications should be used in patients with persistent proteinuria due to damage from lupus nephritis or whether there is also a role to start these medications in patients with active lupus nephritis who are undergoing induction immunosuppression regimens.”

However, another study released at the 2023 ACR annual meeting suggested that SGLT2 inhibitors may not have a beneficial effect in lupus nephritis: “We observed a reduction in decline in eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] after starting SGLT2 inhibitors; however, this reduction was not statistically significant … early experience suggested marginal benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in SLE,” researchers from Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Maryland, Baltimore, reported.

“My cohort is not showing miracles from SGLT2 inhibitors,” study lead author Michelle Petri, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.

Still, new European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for SLE now advise to consider the use of the drugs in patients with lupus nephritis who have reduced eGFR. Meanwhile, “the American College of Rheumatology is currently developing new treatment guidelines for SLE and for lupus nephritis, and SGLT2 inhibitors will likely be a topic of consideration,” Dr. Jorge added.

As for mechanism, Dr. Jorge said it’s not clear how the drugs may affect lupus. “It’s proposed that they have benefits in hemodynamic effects as well as potentially anti-inflammatory effects. The hemodynamic effects, including reducing intraglomerular hyperfiltration and reducing blood pressure, likely have similar benefits in patients with chronic kidney disease due to diabetic nephropathy or due to lupus nephritis with damage/scarring and persistent proteinuria. Patients with SLE and other chronic, systemic rheumatic diseases such as ANCA [antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody]-associated vasculitis also develop kidney disease and cardiovascular events mediated by inflammatory processes.”
 

Side Effects and Cost: Where Do They Fit In?

According to Dr. Yokose, SGLT2 inhibitors “are generally quite well-tolerated, and very serious adverse effects are rare.” Side effects include disrupted urination, increased thirst, genital infections, flu-like symptoms, and swelling.

Urinary-related problems are understandable “because these drugs cause the kidneys to pass more glucose into the urine,” University of Hong Kong cardiac specialist Bernard Cheung, MBBCh, PhD, who has studied SGLT2 inhibitors, said in an interview.

In Dr. Yokose’s 2023 study of SGLT2 inhibitors in recurrent gout, patients who took the drugs were 2.15 times more likely than the comparison group to have genital infections (hazard ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.39-3.30). This finding “was what we’d expect,” she said.

She added that genital infection rates were higher among patients with diabetes, women, and uncircumcised men. “Fortunately, most experienced just a single mild episode that can readily be treated with topical therapy. There does not appear to be an increased risk of urinary tract infections.”

Dr. Cheung added that “doctors should be aware of a rare adverse effect called euglycemic ketoacidosis, in which the patient has increased ketones in the blood causing it to be more acidic than normal, but the blood glucose remains within the normal range.”

As for cost, goodrx.com reports that several SGLT2 inhibitors run about $550-$683 per month, making them expensive but still cheaper than GLP-1 agonists, which can cost $1,000 or more per month. Unlike the most popular GLP-1 agonists such as Ozempic, none of the SGLT2 inhibitors are in short supply, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

“If someone with gout already has a cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic indication for SGLT2 inhibitors and also stands to benefit in terms of lowering serum urate and risk of recurrent gout flares, there is potential for high benefit relative to cost,” Dr. Yokose said.

She added: “It is well-documented that current gout care is suboptimal, and many patients end up in the emergency room or hospitalized for gout, which in and of itself is quite costly both for the patient and the health care system. Therefore, streamlining or integrating gout and comorbidity care with SGLT2 inhibitors could potentially be quite beneficial for patients with gout.”

In regard to lupus, “many patients with lupus undergo multiple hospitalizations related to their disease, which is a source of high health care costs,” Dr. Jorge said. “Additionally, chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease are major causes of disability and premature mortality. Further studies will be needed to better understand whether benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors may outweigh the costs of treatment.”

As for prescribing the drugs in lupus now, Dr. Jorge said they can be an option in lupus nephritis. “There is not a clear consensus of the ideal timing to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors — e.g., degree of proteinuria or eGFR range,” she said. “However, it is less controversial that SGLT2 inhibitors should be considered in particular for patients with lupus nephritis with ongoing proteinuria despite adequate treatment with conventional therapies.”

As for gout, Dr. Yokose isn’t ready to prescribe the drugs to patients who don’t have comorbidities that can be treated by the medications. However, she noted that those patients are rare.

“If I see a patient with gout with one or more of these comorbidities, and I see that they are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor, I definitely take the time to talk to the patient about this exciting class of drugs and will consult with their other physicians about getting them started on an SGLT2 inhibitor.”

Dr. Yokose, Dr. Petri, and Dr. Cheung have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Jorge disclosed serving as a site investigator for SLE clinical trials funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Cabaletta Bio; the trials are not related to SGLT2 inhibitors.

Over just a decade, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have revolutionized the second-line treatment of type 2 diabetes by improving the control of blood sugar, and they’re also being used to treat heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Now, there’s growing evidence that the medications have the potential to play a role in the treatment of a variety of rheumatologic diseases — gout, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and lupus nephritis.

“I suspect that SGLT2 inhibitors may have a role in multiple rheumatic diseases,” said rheumatologist April Jorge, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

In gout, for example, “SGLT2 inhibitors hold great promise as a multipurpose treatment option,” said rheumatologist Chio Yokose, MD, MSc, also of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. Both Dr. Jorge and Dr. Yokose spoke at recent medical conferences and in interviews about the potential value of the drugs in rheumatology.
 

There’s a big caveat. For the moment, SGLT2 inhibitors aren’t cleared for use in the treatment of rheumatologic conditions, and neither physician is ready to recommend prescribing them off-label outside of their FDA-approved indications.

But studies could pave the way toward more approved uses in rheumatology. And there’s good news for now: Many rheumatology patients may already be eligible to take the drugs because of other medical conditions. In gout, for example, “sizable proportions of patients have comorbidities for which they are already indicated,” Dr. Yokose said.
 

Research Hints at Gout-Busting Potential

The first SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), received FDA approval in 2013, followed by dapagliflozin (Farxiga), empagliflozin (Jardiance), ertugliflozin (Steglatro), and bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy). The drugs “lower blood sugar by causing the kidneys to remove sugar from the body through urine,” reports the National Kidney Foundation, and they “help to protect the kidneys and heart in people with CKD [chronic kidney disease].”

As Dr. Yokose noted in a presentation at the 2023 Gout Hyperuricemia and Crystal Associated Disease Network research symposium, SGLT2 inhibitors “have really become blockbuster drugs, and they’ve now been integrated into multiple professional society guidelines and recommendations.”

These drugs should not be confused with the wildly popular medications known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, which include medications such as semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy). These drugs are generally administered via injection — unlike the oral SGLT2 inhibitors — and they’re variously indicated for type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Dr. Yokose highlighted research findings about the drugs in gout. A 2020 study, for example, tracked 295,907 US adults with type 2 diabetes who received a new prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP1 agonist during 2013-2017. Those in the SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 36% lower risk of newly diagnosed gout (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72), the researchers reported.

A similar study, a 2021 report from Taiwan, also linked SGLT2 inhibitors to improvement in gout incidence vs. dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, diabetes drugs that are not linked to lower serum urate levels. In an adjusted analysis, the risk of gout was 11% lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor group (adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95).

What about recurrent gout? In a 2023 study, Dr. Yokose and colleagues tracked patients with type 2 diabetes who began SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP4 inhibitors. Over the period from 2013 to 2017, those who took SGLT2 inhibitors were less likely to have gout flares (rate ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75) and gout-primary emergency department visits/hospitalizations (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.84).

“This finding requires further replication in other populations and compared to other drugs,” Dr. Yokose cautioned.

Another 2023 study analyzed UK data and reached similar results regarding risk of recurrent gout.

Lower Urate Levels and Less Inflammation Could Be Key

How might SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk of gout? Multiple studies have linked the drugs to lower serum urate levels, Dr. Yokose said, but researchers often excluded patients with gout.

For a small new study presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology but not yet published, Dr. Yokose and colleagues reported that patients with gout who began SGLT2 inhibitors had lower urate levels than those who began a sulfonylurea, another second-line agent for type 2 diabetes. During the study period, up to 3 months before and after initiation, 43.5% of patients in the SGLT2 inhibitor group reached a target serum urate of < 6 mg/dL vs. 4.2% of sulfonylurea initiators.

“The magnitude of this reduction, while not as large as what can be achieved with appropriately titrated urate-lowering therapy such as allopurinol or febuxostat, is also not negligible. It’s believed to be between 1.5-2.0 mg/dL among patients with gout,” Dr. Yokose said. “Also, SGLT2 inhibitors are purported to have some anti-inflammatory effects that may target the same pathways responsible for the profound inflammation associated with acute gout flares. However, both the exact mechanisms underlying the serum urate-lowering and anti-inflammatory effects of SGLT2 [inhibitors] require further research and clarification.”

Moving forward, she said, “I would love to see some prospective studies of SGLT2 inhibitor use among patients with gout, looking at serum urate and clinical gout endpoints, as well as biomarkers to understand better the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors as it pertains to patients with gout.”

In Lupus, Findings Are More Mixed

Studies of SGLT2 inhibitors have excluded patients with lupus, limiting insight into their benefits in that specific population, said Dr. Jorge of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. However, “one small phase I/II trial showed an acceptable safety profile of dapagliflozin add-on therapy in adult patients with SLE,” she said.

Her team is working to expand understanding about the drugs in people with lupus. At the 2023 ACR annual meeting, she presented the findings of a study that tracked patients with SLE who took SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 426, including 154 with lupus nephritis) or DPP4 inhibitors (n = 865, including 270 with lupus nephritis). Patients who took SGLT2 inhibitors had lower risks of major adverse cardiac events (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99) and renal progression (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.98).

“Our results are promising, but the majority of patient with lupus who had received SGLT2 inhibitors also had the comorbidity of type 2 diabetes as a separate indication for SGLT2 inhibitor use,” Dr. Jorge said. “We still need to study the impact of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis who do not have a separate indication for the medication.”

Dr. Jorge added that “we do not yet know the ideal time to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors in the treatment of lupus nephritis. Specifically, it is not yet known whether these medications should be used in patients with persistent proteinuria due to damage from lupus nephritis or whether there is also a role to start these medications in patients with active lupus nephritis who are undergoing induction immunosuppression regimens.”

However, another study released at the 2023 ACR annual meeting suggested that SGLT2 inhibitors may not have a beneficial effect in lupus nephritis: “We observed a reduction in decline in eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] after starting SGLT2 inhibitors; however, this reduction was not statistically significant … early experience suggested marginal benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in SLE,” researchers from Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Maryland, Baltimore, reported.

“My cohort is not showing miracles from SGLT2 inhibitors,” study lead author Michelle Petri, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.

Still, new European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for SLE now advise to consider the use of the drugs in patients with lupus nephritis who have reduced eGFR. Meanwhile, “the American College of Rheumatology is currently developing new treatment guidelines for SLE and for lupus nephritis, and SGLT2 inhibitors will likely be a topic of consideration,” Dr. Jorge added.

As for mechanism, Dr. Jorge said it’s not clear how the drugs may affect lupus. “It’s proposed that they have benefits in hemodynamic effects as well as potentially anti-inflammatory effects. The hemodynamic effects, including reducing intraglomerular hyperfiltration and reducing blood pressure, likely have similar benefits in patients with chronic kidney disease due to diabetic nephropathy or due to lupus nephritis with damage/scarring and persistent proteinuria. Patients with SLE and other chronic, systemic rheumatic diseases such as ANCA [antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody]-associated vasculitis also develop kidney disease and cardiovascular events mediated by inflammatory processes.”
 

Side Effects and Cost: Where Do They Fit In?

According to Dr. Yokose, SGLT2 inhibitors “are generally quite well-tolerated, and very serious adverse effects are rare.” Side effects include disrupted urination, increased thirst, genital infections, flu-like symptoms, and swelling.

Urinary-related problems are understandable “because these drugs cause the kidneys to pass more glucose into the urine,” University of Hong Kong cardiac specialist Bernard Cheung, MBBCh, PhD, who has studied SGLT2 inhibitors, said in an interview.

In Dr. Yokose’s 2023 study of SGLT2 inhibitors in recurrent gout, patients who took the drugs were 2.15 times more likely than the comparison group to have genital infections (hazard ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.39-3.30). This finding “was what we’d expect,” she said.

She added that genital infection rates were higher among patients with diabetes, women, and uncircumcised men. “Fortunately, most experienced just a single mild episode that can readily be treated with topical therapy. There does not appear to be an increased risk of urinary tract infections.”

Dr. Cheung added that “doctors should be aware of a rare adverse effect called euglycemic ketoacidosis, in which the patient has increased ketones in the blood causing it to be more acidic than normal, but the blood glucose remains within the normal range.”

As for cost, goodrx.com reports that several SGLT2 inhibitors run about $550-$683 per month, making them expensive but still cheaper than GLP-1 agonists, which can cost $1,000 or more per month. Unlike the most popular GLP-1 agonists such as Ozempic, none of the SGLT2 inhibitors are in short supply, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

“If someone with gout already has a cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic indication for SGLT2 inhibitors and also stands to benefit in terms of lowering serum urate and risk of recurrent gout flares, there is potential for high benefit relative to cost,” Dr. Yokose said.

She added: “It is well-documented that current gout care is suboptimal, and many patients end up in the emergency room or hospitalized for gout, which in and of itself is quite costly both for the patient and the health care system. Therefore, streamlining or integrating gout and comorbidity care with SGLT2 inhibitors could potentially be quite beneficial for patients with gout.”

In regard to lupus, “many patients with lupus undergo multiple hospitalizations related to their disease, which is a source of high health care costs,” Dr. Jorge said. “Additionally, chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease are major causes of disability and premature mortality. Further studies will be needed to better understand whether benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors may outweigh the costs of treatment.”

As for prescribing the drugs in lupus now, Dr. Jorge said they can be an option in lupus nephritis. “There is not a clear consensus of the ideal timing to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors — e.g., degree of proteinuria or eGFR range,” she said. “However, it is less controversial that SGLT2 inhibitors should be considered in particular for patients with lupus nephritis with ongoing proteinuria despite adequate treatment with conventional therapies.”

As for gout, Dr. Yokose isn’t ready to prescribe the drugs to patients who don’t have comorbidities that can be treated by the medications. However, she noted that those patients are rare.

“If I see a patient with gout with one or more of these comorbidities, and I see that they are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor, I definitely take the time to talk to the patient about this exciting class of drugs and will consult with their other physicians about getting them started on an SGLT2 inhibitor.”

Dr. Yokose, Dr. Petri, and Dr. Cheung have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Jorge disclosed serving as a site investigator for SLE clinical trials funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Cabaletta Bio; the trials are not related to SGLT2 inhibitors.

Over just a decade, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have revolutionized the second-line treatment of type 2 diabetes by improving the control of blood sugar, and they’re also being used to treat heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Now, there’s growing evidence that the medications have the potential to play a role in the treatment of a variety of rheumatologic diseases — gout, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and lupus nephritis.

“I suspect that SGLT2 inhibitors may have a role in multiple rheumatic diseases,” said rheumatologist April Jorge, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

In gout, for example, “SGLT2 inhibitors hold great promise as a multipurpose treatment option,” said rheumatologist Chio Yokose, MD, MSc, also of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. Both Dr. Jorge and Dr. Yokose spoke at recent medical conferences and in interviews about the potential value of the drugs in rheumatology.
 

There’s a big caveat. For the moment, SGLT2 inhibitors aren’t cleared for use in the treatment of rheumatologic conditions, and neither physician is ready to recommend prescribing them off-label outside of their FDA-approved indications.

But studies could pave the way toward more approved uses in rheumatology. And there’s good news for now: Many rheumatology patients may already be eligible to take the drugs because of other medical conditions. In gout, for example, “sizable proportions of patients have comorbidities for which they are already indicated,” Dr. Yokose said.
 

Research Hints at Gout-Busting Potential

The first SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), received FDA approval in 2013, followed by dapagliflozin (Farxiga), empagliflozin (Jardiance), ertugliflozin (Steglatro), and bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy). The drugs “lower blood sugar by causing the kidneys to remove sugar from the body through urine,” reports the National Kidney Foundation, and they “help to protect the kidneys and heart in people with CKD [chronic kidney disease].”

As Dr. Yokose noted in a presentation at the 2023 Gout Hyperuricemia and Crystal Associated Disease Network research symposium, SGLT2 inhibitors “have really become blockbuster drugs, and they’ve now been integrated into multiple professional society guidelines and recommendations.”

These drugs should not be confused with the wildly popular medications known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, which include medications such as semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy). These drugs are generally administered via injection — unlike the oral SGLT2 inhibitors — and they’re variously indicated for type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Dr. Yokose highlighted research findings about the drugs in gout. A 2020 study, for example, tracked 295,907 US adults with type 2 diabetes who received a new prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP1 agonist during 2013-2017. Those in the SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 36% lower risk of newly diagnosed gout (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72), the researchers reported.

A similar study, a 2021 report from Taiwan, also linked SGLT2 inhibitors to improvement in gout incidence vs. dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, diabetes drugs that are not linked to lower serum urate levels. In an adjusted analysis, the risk of gout was 11% lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor group (adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95).

What about recurrent gout? In a 2023 study, Dr. Yokose and colleagues tracked patients with type 2 diabetes who began SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP4 inhibitors. Over the period from 2013 to 2017, those who took SGLT2 inhibitors were less likely to have gout flares (rate ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75) and gout-primary emergency department visits/hospitalizations (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.84).

“This finding requires further replication in other populations and compared to other drugs,” Dr. Yokose cautioned.

Another 2023 study analyzed UK data and reached similar results regarding risk of recurrent gout.

Lower Urate Levels and Less Inflammation Could Be Key

How might SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk of gout? Multiple studies have linked the drugs to lower serum urate levels, Dr. Yokose said, but researchers often excluded patients with gout.

For a small new study presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology but not yet published, Dr. Yokose and colleagues reported that patients with gout who began SGLT2 inhibitors had lower urate levels than those who began a sulfonylurea, another second-line agent for type 2 diabetes. During the study period, up to 3 months before and after initiation, 43.5% of patients in the SGLT2 inhibitor group reached a target serum urate of < 6 mg/dL vs. 4.2% of sulfonylurea initiators.

“The magnitude of this reduction, while not as large as what can be achieved with appropriately titrated urate-lowering therapy such as allopurinol or febuxostat, is also not negligible. It’s believed to be between 1.5-2.0 mg/dL among patients with gout,” Dr. Yokose said. “Also, SGLT2 inhibitors are purported to have some anti-inflammatory effects that may target the same pathways responsible for the profound inflammation associated with acute gout flares. However, both the exact mechanisms underlying the serum urate-lowering and anti-inflammatory effects of SGLT2 [inhibitors] require further research and clarification.”

Moving forward, she said, “I would love to see some prospective studies of SGLT2 inhibitor use among patients with gout, looking at serum urate and clinical gout endpoints, as well as biomarkers to understand better the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors as it pertains to patients with gout.”

In Lupus, Findings Are More Mixed

Studies of SGLT2 inhibitors have excluded patients with lupus, limiting insight into their benefits in that specific population, said Dr. Jorge of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. However, “one small phase I/II trial showed an acceptable safety profile of dapagliflozin add-on therapy in adult patients with SLE,” she said.

Her team is working to expand understanding about the drugs in people with lupus. At the 2023 ACR annual meeting, she presented the findings of a study that tracked patients with SLE who took SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 426, including 154 with lupus nephritis) or DPP4 inhibitors (n = 865, including 270 with lupus nephritis). Patients who took SGLT2 inhibitors had lower risks of major adverse cardiac events (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99) and renal progression (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.98).

“Our results are promising, but the majority of patient with lupus who had received SGLT2 inhibitors also had the comorbidity of type 2 diabetes as a separate indication for SGLT2 inhibitor use,” Dr. Jorge said. “We still need to study the impact of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis who do not have a separate indication for the medication.”

Dr. Jorge added that “we do not yet know the ideal time to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors in the treatment of lupus nephritis. Specifically, it is not yet known whether these medications should be used in patients with persistent proteinuria due to damage from lupus nephritis or whether there is also a role to start these medications in patients with active lupus nephritis who are undergoing induction immunosuppression regimens.”

However, another study released at the 2023 ACR annual meeting suggested that SGLT2 inhibitors may not have a beneficial effect in lupus nephritis: “We observed a reduction in decline in eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] after starting SGLT2 inhibitors; however, this reduction was not statistically significant … early experience suggested marginal benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in SLE,” researchers from Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Maryland, Baltimore, reported.

“My cohort is not showing miracles from SGLT2 inhibitors,” study lead author Michelle Petri, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.

Still, new European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for SLE now advise to consider the use of the drugs in patients with lupus nephritis who have reduced eGFR. Meanwhile, “the American College of Rheumatology is currently developing new treatment guidelines for SLE and for lupus nephritis, and SGLT2 inhibitors will likely be a topic of consideration,” Dr. Jorge added.

As for mechanism, Dr. Jorge said it’s not clear how the drugs may affect lupus. “It’s proposed that they have benefits in hemodynamic effects as well as potentially anti-inflammatory effects. The hemodynamic effects, including reducing intraglomerular hyperfiltration and reducing blood pressure, likely have similar benefits in patients with chronic kidney disease due to diabetic nephropathy or due to lupus nephritis with damage/scarring and persistent proteinuria. Patients with SLE and other chronic, systemic rheumatic diseases such as ANCA [antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody]-associated vasculitis also develop kidney disease and cardiovascular events mediated by inflammatory processes.”
 

Side Effects and Cost: Where Do They Fit In?

According to Dr. Yokose, SGLT2 inhibitors “are generally quite well-tolerated, and very serious adverse effects are rare.” Side effects include disrupted urination, increased thirst, genital infections, flu-like symptoms, and swelling.

Urinary-related problems are understandable “because these drugs cause the kidneys to pass more glucose into the urine,” University of Hong Kong cardiac specialist Bernard Cheung, MBBCh, PhD, who has studied SGLT2 inhibitors, said in an interview.

In Dr. Yokose’s 2023 study of SGLT2 inhibitors in recurrent gout, patients who took the drugs were 2.15 times more likely than the comparison group to have genital infections (hazard ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.39-3.30). This finding “was what we’d expect,” she said.

She added that genital infection rates were higher among patients with diabetes, women, and uncircumcised men. “Fortunately, most experienced just a single mild episode that can readily be treated with topical therapy. There does not appear to be an increased risk of urinary tract infections.”

Dr. Cheung added that “doctors should be aware of a rare adverse effect called euglycemic ketoacidosis, in which the patient has increased ketones in the blood causing it to be more acidic than normal, but the blood glucose remains within the normal range.”

As for cost, goodrx.com reports that several SGLT2 inhibitors run about $550-$683 per month, making them expensive but still cheaper than GLP-1 agonists, which can cost $1,000 or more per month. Unlike the most popular GLP-1 agonists such as Ozempic, none of the SGLT2 inhibitors are in short supply, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

“If someone with gout already has a cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic indication for SGLT2 inhibitors and also stands to benefit in terms of lowering serum urate and risk of recurrent gout flares, there is potential for high benefit relative to cost,” Dr. Yokose said.

She added: “It is well-documented that current gout care is suboptimal, and many patients end up in the emergency room or hospitalized for gout, which in and of itself is quite costly both for the patient and the health care system. Therefore, streamlining or integrating gout and comorbidity care with SGLT2 inhibitors could potentially be quite beneficial for patients with gout.”

In regard to lupus, “many patients with lupus undergo multiple hospitalizations related to their disease, which is a source of high health care costs,” Dr. Jorge said. “Additionally, chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease are major causes of disability and premature mortality. Further studies will be needed to better understand whether benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors may outweigh the costs of treatment.”

As for prescribing the drugs in lupus now, Dr. Jorge said they can be an option in lupus nephritis. “There is not a clear consensus of the ideal timing to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors — e.g., degree of proteinuria or eGFR range,” she said. “However, it is less controversial that SGLT2 inhibitors should be considered in particular for patients with lupus nephritis with ongoing proteinuria despite adequate treatment with conventional therapies.”

As for gout, Dr. Yokose isn’t ready to prescribe the drugs to patients who don’t have comorbidities that can be treated by the medications. However, she noted that those patients are rare.

“If I see a patient with gout with one or more of these comorbidities, and I see that they are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor, I definitely take the time to talk to the patient about this exciting class of drugs and will consult with their other physicians about getting them started on an SGLT2 inhibitor.”

Dr. Yokose, Dr. Petri, and Dr. Cheung have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Jorge disclosed serving as a site investigator for SLE clinical trials funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Cabaletta Bio; the trials are not related to SGLT2 inhibitors.

Ten years ago, Clare Gerada, FRCGP, an advocate for physician well-being and today president of the UK’s Royal College of General Practitioners, made a prediction to the audience at the International Conference on Physician Health.

“We have seen a massive increase in eating disorders [among doctors],” she said. “I’m not sure anybody is quite aware of the tsunami of eating disorders,” she believed would soon strike predominantly female physicians.

That was 2014. Did the tsunami hit?

Quite possibly. Data are limited on the prevalence of eating disorders (EDs) among healthcare workers, but studies do exist. A 2019 global review and meta-analysis determined “the summary prevalence of eating disorder (ED) risk among medical students was 10.4%.”

A 2022 update of that review boosted the estimate to 17.35%.

Tsunami or not, that’s nearly double the 9% rate within the US general public (from a 2020 report from STRIPED and the Academy of Eating Disorders). And while the following stat isn’t an indicator of EDs per se, 19% of doctors admit to unhealthy eating habits, according to a recent Medscape Medical News physician survey.

To her credit, Dr. Gerada, awarded a damehood in 2020, was in a position to know what was coming. Her statement was informed by research showing an increasing number of young doctors seeking treatment for mental health issues, including EDs, through the NHS Practitioner Health program, a mental health service she established in 2008.

So ... what puts doctors at such a high risk for EDs?

Be Careful of ‘Overlap Traits’

As with many mental health issues, EDs have no single cause. Researchers believe they stem from a complex interaction of genetic, biological, behavioral, psychological, and social factors. But the medical field should take note: Some personality traits commonly associated with EDs are often shared by successful physicians.

“I think some of the overlap traits would be being highly driven, goal-oriented and self-critical,” said Lesley Williams, MD, a family medicine physician at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. “A lot of those traits can make you a very successful physician and physician-in-training but could also potentially spill over into body image and rigidity around food.”

Of course, we want physicians to strive for excellence, and the majority of diligent, driven doctors will not develop an ED.

But when pushed too far, those admirable qualities can easily become perfectionism — which has long been recognized as a risk factor for EDs, an association supported by decades of research.

Medical School: Where EDs Begin and Little Education About Them Happens

“I think medicine in general attracts people that often share similar characteristics to those who struggle with EDs — high-achieving, hardworking perfectionists who put a lot of pressure on themselves,” said Elizabeth McNaught, MD, a general practitioner and medical director at Family Mental Wealth.

Diagnosed with an ED at 14, Dr. McNaught has experienced this firsthand and shared her story in a 2020 memoir, Life Hurts: A Doctor’s Personal Journey Through Anorexia.

Competitive, high-stress environments can also be a trigger, Dr. McNaught explained. “The pressure of medical school,” for example, “can perpetuate an eating disorder if that’s something that you’re struggling with,” she said.

Pressure to perform may not be the only problem. Medical students are taught to view weight as a key indicator of health. Multiple studies suggested that not only does weight stigma exist in healthcare but also it has increased over time and negatively affects patients’ psychological well-being and physical health.

There is far less public discourse about how weight stigma can be harmful to medical students and physicians themselves. Dr. Williams believed the weight-centric paradigm was key.

“For so long, we believed that health presents itself within these confines on a BMI chart and anything outside of that is unhealthy and must be fixed,” she said. “I can say from having gone through medical education, having that continual messaging does make someone feel that if I myself am not within those confines, then I need to do something to fix that immediately if I’m going to continue to care for patients.”

In general, Dr. Williams, and Dr. McNaught agreed that medical training around EDs is lacking, producing doctors who are ill-equipped to diagnose, treat, or even discuss them with patients. Dr. Williams recalled only one lecture on the topic in med school.

“And yet, anorexia carries the second highest death rate of all mental illnesses after opioid-use disorders,” she said, “so it’s astonishing that that just wasn’t included.”

MDs Hiding Mental Health Issues

Claire Anderson, MD (a pseudonym), emphatically stated she would never tell anyone at the hospital where she works in the emergency department that she has an ED.

“There is still a lot of misunderstanding about mental health, and I never want people to doubt my ability to care for people,” Dr. Anderson said. “There’s so much stigma around eating disorders, and I also feel like once it’s out there, I can’t take it back, and I don’t want to feel like people are watching me.”

Melissa Klein, PhD, a clinical psychologist specializing in EDs, has more than 25 years of experience working the inpatient ED unit at New York Presbyterian. Having treated medical professionals, Dr. Klein said they have legitimate concerns about revealing their struggles.

“Sometimes, they do get reported to higher ups — the boards,” Dr. Klein said, “and they’re told that they have to get help in order for them to continue to work in their profession. I think people might be scared to ask for help because of that reason.”

Doctors Often Ignore EDs or Teach ‘Bad Habits’

Dr. Anderson firmly believed that if her early treatment from doctors had been better, she might not be struggling so much today.

The first time Dr. Anderson’s mother brought up her daughter’s sudden weight loss at 14, their family doctor conferred with a chart and said there was no reason to worry; Dr. Anderson’s weight was “normal.” “I was eating like 500 calories a day and swimming for 3 hours, and [by saying that], they assured me I was fine,” she recalls.

At 15, when Dr. Anderson went in for an initial assessment for an ED, she thought she’d be connected with a nutritionist and sent home. “I didn’t have a lot of classic thoughts of wanting to be thin or wanting to lose weight,” she said.

Instead, Dr. Anderson was sent to inpatient care, which she credits with escalating her ED. “I picked up on a lot of really bad habits when I went there — I sort of learned how to have an eating disorder,” she said. “When I left, it was very different than when I went in, which is kind of sad.”

Throughout high school, Dr. Anderson went in and out of so many hospitals and treatment programs that she’s lost track of them. Then, in 2008, she left formal treatment altogether. “I had been really angry with the treatment programs for trying to fit me into their box with a rigid schedule of inpatient and outpatient care,” she recalled. “I didn’t want to live in that world anymore.”

After working with a new psychiatrist, Dr. Anderson’s situation improved until a particularly stressful second year of residency. “That’s when I just tanked,” she said. “Residency, and especially being on my own and with COVID, things have not been great for me.”

Dr. Anderson now sees an eating disorder specialist, but she pays for this out-of-pocket. “I have terrible insurance,” she said with a laugh, aware of that irony.

If You Are Struggling, Don’t Be Ashamed

Some physicians who’ve experienced EDs firsthand are working to improve training on diagnosing and treating the conditions. Dr. McNaught has developed and launched a new eLearning program for healthcare workers on how to recognize the early signs and symptoms of an ED and provide support.

“It’s not only so they can recognize it in their patients but also if colleagues and family and friends are struggling,” she said.

In 2021, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) approved the APA Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Eating Disorders, which aims to improve patient care and treatment outcomes.

But Dr. Klein is concerned that increased stress since the COVID-19 pandemic may be putting healthcare workers at even greater risk.

“When people are under stress or when they feel like there are things in their life that maybe they can’t control, sometimes turning to an eating disorder is a way to cope,” she said, “In that sense, the stress on medical professionals is something that could lead to eating disorder behaviors.”

Dr. Klein’s message to healthcare workers: Don’t be ashamed. She described an ED as “a monster that takes over your brain. Once it starts, it’s very hard to turn it around on your own. So, I hope anyone who is suffering, in whatever field they’re in, that they are able to ask for help.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Ten years ago, Clare Gerada, FRCGP, an advocate for physician well-being and today president of the UK’s Royal College of General Practitioners, made a prediction to the audience at the International Conference on Physician Health.

“We have seen a massive increase in eating disorders [among doctors],” she said. “I’m not sure anybody is quite aware of the tsunami of eating disorders,” she believed would soon strike predominantly female physicians.

That was 2014. Did the tsunami hit?

Quite possibly. Data are limited on the prevalence of eating disorders (EDs) among healthcare workers, but studies do exist. A 2019 global review and meta-analysis determined “the summary prevalence of eating disorder (ED) risk among medical students was 10.4%.”

A 2022 update of that review boosted the estimate to 17.35%.

Tsunami or not, that’s nearly double the 9% rate within the US general public (from a 2020 report from STRIPED and the Academy of Eating Disorders). And while the following stat isn’t an indicator of EDs per se, 19% of doctors admit to unhealthy eating habits, according to a recent Medscape Medical News physician survey.

To her credit, Dr. Gerada, awarded a damehood in 2020, was in a position to know what was coming. Her statement was informed by research showing an increasing number of young doctors seeking treatment for mental health issues, including EDs, through the NHS Practitioner Health program, a mental health service she established in 2008.

So ... what puts doctors at such a high risk for EDs?

Be Careful of ‘Overlap Traits’

As with many mental health issues, EDs have no single cause. Researchers believe they stem from a complex interaction of genetic, biological, behavioral, psychological, and social factors. But the medical field should take note: Some personality traits commonly associated with EDs are often shared by successful physicians.

“I think some of the overlap traits would be being highly driven, goal-oriented and self-critical,” said Lesley Williams, MD, a family medicine physician at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. “A lot of those traits can make you a very successful physician and physician-in-training but could also potentially spill over into body image and rigidity around food.”

Of course, we want physicians to strive for excellence, and the majority of diligent, driven doctors will not develop an ED.

But when pushed too far, those admirable qualities can easily become perfectionism — which has long been recognized as a risk factor for EDs, an association supported by decades of research.

Medical School: Where EDs Begin and Little Education About Them Happens

“I think medicine in general attracts people that often share similar characteristics to those who struggle with EDs — high-achieving, hardworking perfectionists who put a lot of pressure on themselves,” said Elizabeth McNaught, MD, a general practitioner and medical director at Family Mental Wealth.

Diagnosed with an ED at 14, Dr. McNaught has experienced this firsthand and shared her story in a 2020 memoir, Life Hurts: A Doctor’s Personal Journey Through Anorexia.

Competitive, high-stress environments can also be a trigger, Dr. McNaught explained. “The pressure of medical school,” for example, “can perpetuate an eating disorder if that’s something that you’re struggling with,” she said.

Pressure to perform may not be the only problem. Medical students are taught to view weight as a key indicator of health. Multiple studies suggested that not only does weight stigma exist in healthcare but also it has increased over time and negatively affects patients’ psychological well-being and physical health.

There is far less public discourse about how weight stigma can be harmful to medical students and physicians themselves. Dr. Williams believed the weight-centric paradigm was key.

“For so long, we believed that health presents itself within these confines on a BMI chart and anything outside of that is unhealthy and must be fixed,” she said. “I can say from having gone through medical education, having that continual messaging does make someone feel that if I myself am not within those confines, then I need to do something to fix that immediately if I’m going to continue to care for patients.”

In general, Dr. Williams, and Dr. McNaught agreed that medical training around EDs is lacking, producing doctors who are ill-equipped to diagnose, treat, or even discuss them with patients. Dr. Williams recalled only one lecture on the topic in med school.

“And yet, anorexia carries the second highest death rate of all mental illnesses after opioid-use disorders,” she said, “so it’s astonishing that that just wasn’t included.”

MDs Hiding Mental Health Issues

Claire Anderson, MD (a pseudonym), emphatically stated she would never tell anyone at the hospital where she works in the emergency department that she has an ED.

“There is still a lot of misunderstanding about mental health, and I never want people to doubt my ability to care for people,” Dr. Anderson said. “There’s so much stigma around eating disorders, and I also feel like once it’s out there, I can’t take it back, and I don’t want to feel like people are watching me.”

Melissa Klein, PhD, a clinical psychologist specializing in EDs, has more than 25 years of experience working the inpatient ED unit at New York Presbyterian. Having treated medical professionals, Dr. Klein said they have legitimate concerns about revealing their struggles.

“Sometimes, they do get reported to higher ups — the boards,” Dr. Klein said, “and they’re told that they have to get help in order for them to continue to work in their profession. I think people might be scared to ask for help because of that reason.”

Doctors Often Ignore EDs or Teach ‘Bad Habits’

Dr. Anderson firmly believed that if her early treatment from doctors had been better, she might not be struggling so much today.

The first time Dr. Anderson’s mother brought up her daughter’s sudden weight loss at 14, their family doctor conferred with a chart and said there was no reason to worry; Dr. Anderson’s weight was “normal.” “I was eating like 500 calories a day and swimming for 3 hours, and [by saying that], they assured me I was fine,” she recalls.

At 15, when Dr. Anderson went in for an initial assessment for an ED, she thought she’d be connected with a nutritionist and sent home. “I didn’t have a lot of classic thoughts of wanting to be thin or wanting to lose weight,” she said.

Instead, Dr. Anderson was sent to inpatient care, which she credits with escalating her ED. “I picked up on a lot of really bad habits when I went there — I sort of learned how to have an eating disorder,” she said. “When I left, it was very different than when I went in, which is kind of sad.”

Throughout high school, Dr. Anderson went in and out of so many hospitals and treatment programs that she’s lost track of them. Then, in 2008, she left formal treatment altogether. “I had been really angry with the treatment programs for trying to fit me into their box with a rigid schedule of inpatient and outpatient care,” she recalled. “I didn’t want to live in that world anymore.”

After working with a new psychiatrist, Dr. Anderson’s situation improved until a particularly stressful second year of residency. “That’s when I just tanked,” she said. “Residency, and especially being on my own and with COVID, things have not been great for me.”

Dr. Anderson now sees an eating disorder specialist, but she pays for this out-of-pocket. “I have terrible insurance,” she said with a laugh, aware of that irony.

If You Are Struggling, Don’t Be Ashamed

Some physicians who’ve experienced EDs firsthand are working to improve training on diagnosing and treating the conditions. Dr. McNaught has developed and launched a new eLearning program for healthcare workers on how to recognize the early signs and symptoms of an ED and provide support.

“It’s not only so they can recognize it in their patients but also if colleagues and family and friends are struggling,” she said.

In 2021, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) approved the APA Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Eating Disorders, which aims to improve patient care and treatment outcomes.

But Dr. Klein is concerned that increased stress since the COVID-19 pandemic may be putting healthcare workers at even greater risk.

“When people are under stress or when they feel like there are things in their life that maybe they can’t control, sometimes turning to an eating disorder is a way to cope,” she said, “In that sense, the stress on medical professionals is something that could lead to eating disorder behaviors.”

Dr. Klein’s message to healthcare workers: Don’t be ashamed. She described an ED as “a monster that takes over your brain. Once it starts, it’s very hard to turn it around on your own. So, I hope anyone who is suffering, in whatever field they’re in, that they are able to ask for help.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Ten years ago, Clare Gerada, FRCGP, an advocate for physician well-being and today president of the UK’s Royal College of General Practitioners, made a prediction to the audience at the International Conference on Physician Health.

“We have seen a massive increase in eating disorders [among doctors],” she said. “I’m not sure anybody is quite aware of the tsunami of eating disorders,” she believed would soon strike predominantly female physicians.

That was 2014. Did the tsunami hit?

Quite possibly. Data are limited on the prevalence of eating disorders (EDs) among healthcare workers, but studies do exist. A 2019 global review and meta-analysis determined “the summary prevalence of eating disorder (ED) risk among medical students was 10.4%.”

A 2022 update of that review boosted the estimate to 17.35%.

Tsunami or not, that’s nearly double the 9% rate within the US general public (from a 2020 report from STRIPED and the Academy of Eating Disorders). And while the following stat isn’t an indicator of EDs per se, 19% of doctors admit to unhealthy eating habits, according to a recent Medscape Medical News physician survey.

To her credit, Dr. Gerada, awarded a damehood in 2020, was in a position to know what was coming. Her statement was informed by research showing an increasing number of young doctors seeking treatment for mental health issues, including EDs, through the NHS Practitioner Health program, a mental health service she established in 2008.

So ... what puts doctors at such a high risk for EDs?

Be Careful of ‘Overlap Traits’

As with many mental health issues, EDs have no single cause. Researchers believe they stem from a complex interaction of genetic, biological, behavioral, psychological, and social factors. But the medical field should take note: Some personality traits commonly associated with EDs are often shared by successful physicians.

“I think some of the overlap traits would be being highly driven, goal-oriented and self-critical,” said Lesley Williams, MD, a family medicine physician at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. “A lot of those traits can make you a very successful physician and physician-in-training but could also potentially spill over into body image and rigidity around food.”

Of course, we want physicians to strive for excellence, and the majority of diligent, driven doctors will not develop an ED.

But when pushed too far, those admirable qualities can easily become perfectionism — which has long been recognized as a risk factor for EDs, an association supported by decades of research.

Medical School: Where EDs Begin and Little Education About Them Happens

“I think medicine in general attracts people that often share similar characteristics to those who struggle with EDs — high-achieving, hardworking perfectionists who put a lot of pressure on themselves,” said Elizabeth McNaught, MD, a general practitioner and medical director at Family Mental Wealth.

Diagnosed with an ED at 14, Dr. McNaught has experienced this firsthand and shared her story in a 2020 memoir, Life Hurts: A Doctor’s Personal Journey Through Anorexia.

Competitive, high-stress environments can also be a trigger, Dr. McNaught explained. “The pressure of medical school,” for example, “can perpetuate an eating disorder if that’s something that you’re struggling with,” she said.

Pressure to perform may not be the only problem. Medical students are taught to view weight as a key indicator of health. Multiple studies suggested that not only does weight stigma exist in healthcare but also it has increased over time and negatively affects patients’ psychological well-being and physical health.

There is far less public discourse about how weight stigma can be harmful to medical students and physicians themselves. Dr. Williams believed the weight-centric paradigm was key.

“For so long, we believed that health presents itself within these confines on a BMI chart and anything outside of that is unhealthy and must be fixed,” she said. “I can say from having gone through medical education, having that continual messaging does make someone feel that if I myself am not within those confines, then I need to do something to fix that immediately if I’m going to continue to care for patients.”

In general, Dr. Williams, and Dr. McNaught agreed that medical training around EDs is lacking, producing doctors who are ill-equipped to diagnose, treat, or even discuss them with patients. Dr. Williams recalled only one lecture on the topic in med school.

“And yet, anorexia carries the second highest death rate of all mental illnesses after opioid-use disorders,” she said, “so it’s astonishing that that just wasn’t included.”

MDs Hiding Mental Health Issues

Claire Anderson, MD (a pseudonym), emphatically stated she would never tell anyone at the hospital where she works in the emergency department that she has an ED.

“There is still a lot of misunderstanding about mental health, and I never want people to doubt my ability to care for people,” Dr. Anderson said. “There’s so much stigma around eating disorders, and I also feel like once it’s out there, I can’t take it back, and I don’t want to feel like people are watching me.”

Melissa Klein, PhD, a clinical psychologist specializing in EDs, has more than 25 years of experience working the inpatient ED unit at New York Presbyterian. Having treated medical professionals, Dr. Klein said they have legitimate concerns about revealing their struggles.

“Sometimes, they do get reported to higher ups — the boards,” Dr. Klein said, “and they’re told that they have to get help in order for them to continue to work in their profession. I think people might be scared to ask for help because of that reason.”

Doctors Often Ignore EDs or Teach ‘Bad Habits’

Dr. Anderson firmly believed that if her early treatment from doctors had been better, she might not be struggling so much today.

The first time Dr. Anderson’s mother brought up her daughter’s sudden weight loss at 14, their family doctor conferred with a chart and said there was no reason to worry; Dr. Anderson’s weight was “normal.” “I was eating like 500 calories a day and swimming for 3 hours, and [by saying that], they assured me I was fine,” she recalls.

At 15, when Dr. Anderson went in for an initial assessment for an ED, she thought she’d be connected with a nutritionist and sent home. “I didn’t have a lot of classic thoughts of wanting to be thin or wanting to lose weight,” she said.

Instead, Dr. Anderson was sent to inpatient care, which she credits with escalating her ED. “I picked up on a lot of really bad habits when I went there — I sort of learned how to have an eating disorder,” she said. “When I left, it was very different than when I went in, which is kind of sad.”

Throughout high school, Dr. Anderson went in and out of so many hospitals and treatment programs that she’s lost track of them. Then, in 2008, she left formal treatment altogether. “I had been really angry with the treatment programs for trying to fit me into their box with a rigid schedule of inpatient and outpatient care,” she recalled. “I didn’t want to live in that world anymore.”

After working with a new psychiatrist, Dr. Anderson’s situation improved until a particularly stressful second year of residency. “That’s when I just tanked,” she said. “Residency, and especially being on my own and with COVID, things have not been great for me.”

Dr. Anderson now sees an eating disorder specialist, but she pays for this out-of-pocket. “I have terrible insurance,” she said with a laugh, aware of that irony.

If You Are Struggling, Don’t Be Ashamed

Some physicians who’ve experienced EDs firsthand are working to improve training on diagnosing and treating the conditions. Dr. McNaught has developed and launched a new eLearning program for healthcare workers on how to recognize the early signs and symptoms of an ED and provide support.

“It’s not only so they can recognize it in their patients but also if colleagues and family and friends are struggling,” she said.

In 2021, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) approved the APA Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Eating Disorders, which aims to improve patient care and treatment outcomes.

But Dr. Klein is concerned that increased stress since the COVID-19 pandemic may be putting healthcare workers at even greater risk.

“When people are under stress or when they feel like there are things in their life that maybe they can’t control, sometimes turning to an eating disorder is a way to cope,” she said, “In that sense, the stress on medical professionals is something that could lead to eating disorder behaviors.”

Dr. Klein’s message to healthcare workers: Don’t be ashamed. She described an ED as “a monster that takes over your brain. Once it starts, it’s very hard to turn it around on your own. So, I hope anyone who is suffering, in whatever field they’re in, that they are able to ask for help.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) is suspected, a “prompt referral to a rheumatologist” is in order. But with the referral possibly taking several weeks, if not months in some parts of the world, how can primary care practitioners manage patients with this type of chronic back pain in the meantime? And what is the long-term role of the primary care practitioner in managing someone diagnosed with the condition? This news organization asked rheumatologist Marina Magrey, MD, and general internal medicine physician Debra Leizman, MD, for their expert advice.

Steps to Manage Suspected Axial SpA

“As [primary care practitioners] identify patients who they suspect may have axial spondyloarthritis, the first thing they should do is a prompt referral to a rheumatologist so that there is a timely diagnosis,” said Dr. Magrey, who heads up the division of rheumatology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and is professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, Ohio.

Importantly, the referral should “explicitly say that they’re suspecting axial spondyloarthritis” and not just chronic back pain, Dr. Magrey added, otherwise it may not “hit the radar” that patients need to be seen as soon as possible. Results of lab tests such as C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and human leukocyte antigen B27, along with basic pelvic imaging results, are useful to note on the referral. “If the patient comes with that information, it makes it much easier for the rheumatologist,” she said.

Additionally, primary care practitioners can carry out screening for high cholesterol and high blood pressure and check for any existing cardiovascular disorders or extraarticular manifestations before the patient gets to see the rheumatologist.

First-Line Treatment Options

“The goal is to improve the quality of life for our patients: To reduce pain, fatigue, inflammation,” Dr. Magrey noted. “So, starting a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug [NSAID] with physical therapy is very useful” in primary care, she added. These remain the “cornerstone” of treatment for axial SpA even in secondary care.

Dr. Leizman agreed that her “go to” treatment for suspected axial SpA is physical therapy alongside one of the many NSAIDs available, such as naproxen or celecoxib. She may also use topical treatments such as lidocaine or diclofenac.

“I’m not going to start any biologics; I leave that for my rheumatologist,” said Dr. Leizman, who is a senior attending physician in the division of general internal medicine at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University.

“If I think it’s a possibility that the patient will be going on to a biologic; however, I will try to check their TB status, immunizations, and vaccination titers, making sure that the patient is up to date and as healthy otherwise as possible so that they will be primed and ready, hopefully, to go on to the biologics,” she added.

Dr. Magrey cautioned that disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, such as methotrexate and sulfasalazine, and systemic steroids such as oral prednisone “do not work in axial spondyloarthritis, so they are not recommended.”

Does the Choice of NSAID Matter?

The choice of NSAID is really down to the personal choice of the physician in agreement with the patient, and of course whether the medical insurance will cover it, Dr. Magrey observed. There appears to be little difference between the available NSAIDs, and it doesn’t appear to matter whether they are long-acting and taken once a day — which may be a convenient option for some patients — or short-acting and taken twice a day. The important point is that patients are taking these drugs continuously and not on demand and that they are being given at full dose.

“Start with one NSAID at the maximum strength, and then you try that for 2-4 weeks. If that doesn’t work, switch to another one,” Dr. Magrey advised.

American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines for axial SpA recommend that a trial of at least two NSAIDs is undertaken before any biologic treatment is considered, but because the presentation of axial SpA is so heterogeneous, the decision to escalate treatment — usually to a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor first — is best left until after the referral and the diagnosis had been confirmed, she suggested.

What Type of Physical Therapy Works?

Physical therapy and nonpharmacologic ways to help people are integral to optimal patient management. But these still need to be prescribed and administered by a qualified physiotherapist, which means another, separate referral that can also take time, as it’s important to match the patient to the right physiotherapist, Dr. Leizman observed.

Patients need to be informed about the benefits of regular exercise, and suggesting low-impact exercises for the back can be helpful, Dr. Magrey noted.

“Supervised physical therapy is preferred over unsupervised back exercises,” Dr. Magrey said, summarizing current ACR recommendations, which also suggest that land-based activities are preferred over water-based exercises and group physical therapy rather than home-based exercises, according to the available evidence, although it is of low-to-moderate quality.

What type of physical therapy to recommend really boils down to what services are available, what facilities the patient has access to, and what they feel they are capable of doing or are willing to do.

Back pain can be frustrating for patients, said Dr. Leizman, because they hurt when they move, and there’s not a simple solution of “do this or that and you’ll get better.”

“If it’s possible for a patient to do aqua therapy, that has been a good option for many of my patients who are unable to get moving on land without pain,” she said, and “I’ve had some great success with some yoga therapists who work with my patients.”

Long-term Role of the Primary Care Practitioner

Once referred, patients with axial SpA will usually be seen by their rheumatologists at least twice a year to monitor their response to treatment. Primary care practitioners will also continue to see these people for other reasons and can help monitor for drug toxicity by performing blood and liver function tests, as well as looking for signs of associated conditions such as uveitis, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel disease and referring patients on to other specialists as required.

Treating the inflammatory back pain may sometimes help treat the related conditions and vice versa, but not always, noted Dr. Leizman. Communication between professionals is thus very important to ensure that everyone is on the same page, and regular updates help enormously.

Dr. Leizman tries to see all her patients regularly, at least once a year, but it can be once or twice a year, depending on their age, how healthy they are, and what underlying conditions they may have that she is also managing along with the inflammatory back condition. It is a balancing act to prevent too many appointments, she said, but also helps patients manage the multiple recommendations.

At these appointments, she’ll not only check on patients’ progress and ensure that they have had all the tests that they should have, but she’ll also discuss general measures that may help with patients’ general health, such as weight control, their ability to manage disease processes with other daily activities of living, and other creative coping mechanisms.

“The weight discussion is never easy, but it is helpful to address the impact of weight if it may be contributing to their discomfort,” Dr. Leizman said. “I also think that there are diets patients can choose that are less inflammatory and that can be beneficial.”

Ultimately, “I want my patients to be on the least amount of medicine possible,” Dr. Leizman said. “If they need medications, I support my rheumatologists’ recommendations. I help my patients as they try whatever works to make them feel better, both the nonpharmaceutical options and the medications,” she said.

“Importantly, I am there for support as a resource and a partner,” Leizman added. “I’m the main quarterback for my patients.”

Key Takeaways

• Prompt referral to a rheumatologist remains key.
• The treatment goal is to improve patients’ quality of life by reducing symptoms such as pain and fatigue.
• Physical therapy and NSAIDs remain first-line treatment in primary care.
• NSAID treatment should be at the full recommended dose and given continuously, not as needed.
• The choice of NSAID does not matter; try switching the NSAID if no effects are seen.
• Physical therapy such as water-based activities and yoga may be beneficial, but exercise programs should be prescribed by a qualified therapist.
• Remember general health advice regarding diet and nutrition can be helpful.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) is suspected, a “prompt referral to a rheumatologist” is in order. But with the referral possibly taking several weeks, if not months in some parts of the world, how can primary care practitioners manage patients with this type of chronic back pain in the meantime? And what is the long-term role of the primary care practitioner in managing someone diagnosed with the condition? This news organization asked rheumatologist Marina Magrey, MD, and general internal medicine physician Debra Leizman, MD, for their expert advice.

Steps to Manage Suspected Axial SpA

“As [primary care practitioners] identify patients who they suspect may have axial spondyloarthritis, the first thing they should do is a prompt referral to a rheumatologist so that there is a timely diagnosis,” said Dr. Magrey, who heads up the division of rheumatology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and is professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, Ohio.

Importantly, the referral should “explicitly say that they’re suspecting axial spondyloarthritis” and not just chronic back pain, Dr. Magrey added, otherwise it may not “hit the radar” that patients need to be seen as soon as possible. Results of lab tests such as C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and human leukocyte antigen B27, along with basic pelvic imaging results, are useful to note on the referral. “If the patient comes with that information, it makes it much easier for the rheumatologist,” she said.

Additionally, primary care practitioners can carry out screening for high cholesterol and high blood pressure and check for any existing cardiovascular disorders or extraarticular manifestations before the patient gets to see the rheumatologist.

First-Line Treatment Options

“The goal is to improve the quality of life for our patients: To reduce pain, fatigue, inflammation,” Dr. Magrey noted. “So, starting a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug [NSAID] with physical therapy is very useful” in primary care, she added. These remain the “cornerstone” of treatment for axial SpA even in secondary care.

Dr. Leizman agreed that her “go to” treatment for suspected axial SpA is physical therapy alongside one of the many NSAIDs available, such as naproxen or celecoxib. She may also use topical treatments such as lidocaine or diclofenac.

“I’m not going to start any biologics; I leave that for my rheumatologist,” said Dr. Leizman, who is a senior attending physician in the division of general internal medicine at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University.

“If I think it’s a possibility that the patient will be going on to a biologic; however, I will try to check their TB status, immunizations, and vaccination titers, making sure that the patient is up to date and as healthy otherwise as possible so that they will be primed and ready, hopefully, to go on to the biologics,” she added.

Dr. Magrey cautioned that disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, such as methotrexate and sulfasalazine, and systemic steroids such as oral prednisone “do not work in axial spondyloarthritis, so they are not recommended.”

Does the Choice of NSAID Matter?

The choice of NSAID is really down to the personal choice of the physician in agreement with the patient, and of course whether the medical insurance will cover it, Dr. Magrey observed. There appears to be little difference between the available NSAIDs, and it doesn’t appear to matter whether they are long-acting and taken once a day — which may be a convenient option for some patients — or short-acting and taken twice a day. The important point is that patients are taking these drugs continuously and not on demand and that they are being given at full dose.

“Start with one NSAID at the maximum strength, and then you try that for 2-4 weeks. If that doesn’t work, switch to another one,” Dr. Magrey advised.

American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines for axial SpA recommend that a trial of at least two NSAIDs is undertaken before any biologic treatment is considered, but because the presentation of axial SpA is so heterogeneous, the decision to escalate treatment — usually to a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor first — is best left until after the referral and the diagnosis had been confirmed, she suggested.

What Type of Physical Therapy Works?

Physical therapy and nonpharmacologic ways to help people are integral to optimal patient management. But these still need to be prescribed and administered by a qualified physiotherapist, which means another, separate referral that can also take time, as it’s important to match the patient to the right physiotherapist, Dr. Leizman observed.

Patients need to be informed about the benefits of regular exercise, and suggesting low-impact exercises for the back can be helpful, Dr. Magrey noted.

“Supervised physical therapy is preferred over unsupervised back exercises,” Dr. Magrey said, summarizing current ACR recommendations, which also suggest that land-based activities are preferred over water-based exercises and group physical therapy rather than home-based exercises, according to the available evidence, although it is of low-to-moderate quality.

What type of physical therapy to recommend really boils down to what services are available, what facilities the patient has access to, and what they feel they are capable of doing or are willing to do.

Back pain can be frustrating for patients, said Dr. Leizman, because they hurt when they move, and there’s not a simple solution of “do this or that and you’ll get better.”

“If it’s possible for a patient to do aqua therapy, that has been a good option for many of my patients who are unable to get moving on land without pain,” she said, and “I’ve had some great success with some yoga therapists who work with my patients.”

Long-term Role of the Primary Care Practitioner

Once referred, patients with axial SpA will usually be seen by their rheumatologists at least twice a year to monitor their response to treatment. Primary care practitioners will also continue to see these people for other reasons and can help monitor for drug toxicity by performing blood and liver function tests, as well as looking for signs of associated conditions such as uveitis, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel disease and referring patients on to other specialists as required.

Treating the inflammatory back pain may sometimes help treat the related conditions and vice versa, but not always, noted Dr. Leizman. Communication between professionals is thus very important to ensure that everyone is on the same page, and regular updates help enormously.

Dr. Leizman tries to see all her patients regularly, at least once a year, but it can be once or twice a year, depending on their age, how healthy they are, and what underlying conditions they may have that she is also managing along with the inflammatory back condition. It is a balancing act to prevent too many appointments, she said, but also helps patients manage the multiple recommendations.

At these appointments, she’ll not only check on patients’ progress and ensure that they have had all the tests that they should have, but she’ll also discuss general measures that may help with patients’ general health, such as weight control, their ability to manage disease processes with other daily activities of living, and other creative coping mechanisms.

“The weight discussion is never easy, but it is helpful to address the impact of weight if it may be contributing to their discomfort,” Dr. Leizman said. “I also think that there are diets patients can choose that are less inflammatory and that can be beneficial.”

Ultimately, “I want my patients to be on the least amount of medicine possible,” Dr. Leizman said. “If they need medications, I support my rheumatologists’ recommendations. I help my patients as they try whatever works to make them feel better, both the nonpharmaceutical options and the medications,” she said.

“Importantly, I am there for support as a resource and a partner,” Leizman added. “I’m the main quarterback for my patients.”

Key Takeaways

• Prompt referral to a rheumatologist remains key.
• The treatment goal is to improve patients’ quality of life by reducing symptoms such as pain and fatigue.
• Physical therapy and NSAIDs remain first-line treatment in primary care.
• NSAID treatment should be at the full recommended dose and given continuously, not as needed.
• The choice of NSAID does not matter; try switching the NSAID if no effects are seen.
• Physical therapy such as water-based activities and yoga may be beneficial, but exercise programs should be prescribed by a qualified therapist.
• Remember general health advice regarding diet and nutrition can be helpful.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) is suspected, a “prompt referral to a rheumatologist” is in order. But with the referral possibly taking several weeks, if not months in some parts of the world, how can primary care practitioners manage patients with this type of chronic back pain in the meantime? And what is the long-term role of the primary care practitioner in managing someone diagnosed with the condition? This news organization asked rheumatologist Marina Magrey, MD, and general internal medicine physician Debra Leizman, MD, for their expert advice.

Steps to Manage Suspected Axial SpA

“As [primary care practitioners] identify patients who they suspect may have axial spondyloarthritis, the first thing they should do is a prompt referral to a rheumatologist so that there is a timely diagnosis,” said Dr. Magrey, who heads up the division of rheumatology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and is professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, Ohio.

Importantly, the referral should “explicitly say that they’re suspecting axial spondyloarthritis” and not just chronic back pain, Dr. Magrey added, otherwise it may not “hit the radar” that patients need to be seen as soon as possible. Results of lab tests such as C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and human leukocyte antigen B27, along with basic pelvic imaging results, are useful to note on the referral. “If the patient comes with that information, it makes it much easier for the rheumatologist,” she said.

Additionally, primary care practitioners can carry out screening for high cholesterol and high blood pressure and check for any existing cardiovascular disorders or extraarticular manifestations before the patient gets to see the rheumatologist.

First-Line Treatment Options

“The goal is to improve the quality of life for our patients: To reduce pain, fatigue, inflammation,” Dr. Magrey noted. “So, starting a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug [NSAID] with physical therapy is very useful” in primary care, she added. These remain the “cornerstone” of treatment for axial SpA even in secondary care.

Dr. Leizman agreed that her “go to” treatment for suspected axial SpA is physical therapy alongside one of the many NSAIDs available, such as naproxen or celecoxib. She may also use topical treatments such as lidocaine or diclofenac.

“I’m not going to start any biologics; I leave that for my rheumatologist,” said Dr. Leizman, who is a senior attending physician in the division of general internal medicine at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University.

“If I think it’s a possibility that the patient will be going on to a biologic; however, I will try to check their TB status, immunizations, and vaccination titers, making sure that the patient is up to date and as healthy otherwise as possible so that they will be primed and ready, hopefully, to go on to the biologics,” she added.

Dr. Magrey cautioned that disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, such as methotrexate and sulfasalazine, and systemic steroids such as oral prednisone “do not work in axial spondyloarthritis, so they are not recommended.”

Does the Choice of NSAID Matter?

The choice of NSAID is really down to the personal choice of the physician in agreement with the patient, and of course whether the medical insurance will cover it, Dr. Magrey observed. There appears to be little difference between the available NSAIDs, and it doesn’t appear to matter whether they are long-acting and taken once a day — which may be a convenient option for some patients — or short-acting and taken twice a day. The important point is that patients are taking these drugs continuously and not on demand and that they are being given at full dose.

“Start with one NSAID at the maximum strength, and then you try that for 2-4 weeks. If that doesn’t work, switch to another one,” Dr. Magrey advised.

American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines for axial SpA recommend that a trial of at least two NSAIDs is undertaken before any biologic treatment is considered, but because the presentation of axial SpA is so heterogeneous, the decision to escalate treatment — usually to a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor first — is best left until after the referral and the diagnosis had been confirmed, she suggested.

What Type of Physical Therapy Works?

Physical therapy and nonpharmacologic ways to help people are integral to optimal patient management. But these still need to be prescribed and administered by a qualified physiotherapist, which means another, separate referral that can also take time, as it’s important to match the patient to the right physiotherapist, Dr. Leizman observed.

Patients need to be informed about the benefits of regular exercise, and suggesting low-impact exercises for the back can be helpful, Dr. Magrey noted.

“Supervised physical therapy is preferred over unsupervised back exercises,” Dr. Magrey said, summarizing current ACR recommendations, which also suggest that land-based activities are preferred over water-based exercises and group physical therapy rather than home-based exercises, according to the available evidence, although it is of low-to-moderate quality.

What type of physical therapy to recommend really boils down to what services are available, what facilities the patient has access to, and what they feel they are capable of doing or are willing to do.

Back pain can be frustrating for patients, said Dr. Leizman, because they hurt when they move, and there’s not a simple solution of “do this or that and you’ll get better.”

“If it’s possible for a patient to do aqua therapy, that has been a good option for many of my patients who are unable to get moving on land without pain,” she said, and “I’ve had some great success with some yoga therapists who work with my patients.”

Long-term Role of the Primary Care Practitioner

Once referred, patients with axial SpA will usually be seen by their rheumatologists at least twice a year to monitor their response to treatment. Primary care practitioners will also continue to see these people for other reasons and can help monitor for drug toxicity by performing blood and liver function tests, as well as looking for signs of associated conditions such as uveitis, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel disease and referring patients on to other specialists as required.

Treating the inflammatory back pain may sometimes help treat the related conditions and vice versa, but not always, noted Dr. Leizman. Communication between professionals is thus very important to ensure that everyone is on the same page, and regular updates help enormously.

Dr. Leizman tries to see all her patients regularly, at least once a year, but it can be once or twice a year, depending on their age, how healthy they are, and what underlying conditions they may have that she is also managing along with the inflammatory back condition. It is a balancing act to prevent too many appointments, she said, but also helps patients manage the multiple recommendations.

At these appointments, she’ll not only check on patients’ progress and ensure that they have had all the tests that they should have, but she’ll also discuss general measures that may help with patients’ general health, such as weight control, their ability to manage disease processes with other daily activities of living, and other creative coping mechanisms.

“The weight discussion is never easy, but it is helpful to address the impact of weight if it may be contributing to their discomfort,” Dr. Leizman said. “I also think that there are diets patients can choose that are less inflammatory and that can be beneficial.”

Ultimately, “I want my patients to be on the least amount of medicine possible,” Dr. Leizman said. “If they need medications, I support my rheumatologists’ recommendations. I help my patients as they try whatever works to make them feel better, both the nonpharmaceutical options and the medications,” she said.

“Importantly, I am there for support as a resource and a partner,” Leizman added. “I’m the main quarterback for my patients.”

Key Takeaways

• Prompt referral to a rheumatologist remains key.
• The treatment goal is to improve patients’ quality of life by reducing symptoms such as pain and fatigue.
• Physical therapy and NSAIDs remain first-line treatment in primary care.
• NSAID treatment should be at the full recommended dose and given continuously, not as needed.
• The choice of NSAID does not matter; try switching the NSAID if no effects are seen.
• Physical therapy such as water-based activities and yoga may be beneficial, but exercise programs should be prescribed by a qualified therapist.
• Remember general health advice regarding diet and nutrition can be helpful.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Maintaining remission in patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis who have kept their autoantibodies in check after at least 2 years on rituximab therapy has proved challenging, but a team of nephrologists in Boston have reported that a longer-term strategy that uses a rise in B-cell levels as a threshold for rituximab infusions may be the better of two strategies at reducing relapse risks. 

“The bottom line is with the B-cell strategy, which is that rituximab was redosed when the B cells recovered or started to recover, we only have a 6% rate in relapses by 3 years,” senior study author John L. Niles, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School and director of the Vasculitis and Glomerulonephritis Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, told Medscape Medical News.

Massachusetts General Hospital

“Whereas in the other strategy, we were waiting for a serologic relapse and hoping we could prevent clinical relapses, but we still have about 30% rate of relapse by 3 years.”

Dr. Niles and his associates reported their findings from the MAINTANCVAS study (for MAINTenance of ANCA VASculitis) December 11, 2023, in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. Their single-center study compared two different treatment strategies in patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis in remission after completing at least 2 years of fixed-schedule rituximab therapy: an approach that reinfused rituximab upon B-cell repopulation, called the B-cell arm and a strategy that reinfused rituximab when serologic levels of ANCA increased significantly, which they called the ANCA arm. A total of 115 patients were randomly assigned to either arm.
 

Study Results

Median follow-up was 4.1 years from study entry. Throughout the study, 5 of 58 patients in the B-cell arm and 14 of 57 in the ANCA arm had relapses. According to Kaplan-Meier analysis, at 3 years after study entry, 4.1% of patients in the B-cell arm had a relapse vs 20.5% of patients in the ANCA arm. At 5 years, the respective relapse rates were 11.3% and 27.7%. Overall, four major relapses occurred in the B-cell arm and seven in the ANCA arm.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused the researchers to halt the study before it was fully enrolled, Dr. Niles said. The study also attributed high rates of serious adverse events (SAEs) in the B-cell arm to cases of COVID-19 in that study population. The overall number of SAEs was identical in both arms: 22 (P = .95). But the B-cell arm had six cases of COVID-19 vs one in the ANCA arm, including two deaths because of COVID-19.

The study findings provided insight into how to best individualize treatment in patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, Dr. Niles said. “We will typically start with the B-cell strategy after 2 years, but to the extent that people have infections or hypogammaglobulinemia, we’ll start stretching a little longer on the B cells, and if the level is too high in terms of infection, we’ll stop and switch to the ANCA strategy,” he said.

He added, “Relapsers get a more strict B-cell strategy, and people with infections get much longer intervals or even switch entirely to the ANCA strategy.”

Because the study ended before it was fully enrolled, it was underpowered for subgroup analyses, Dr. Niles noted. One such potential subgroup was relapsing patients with interstitial lung disease as the primary clinical finding. “The interstitial lung disease doesn’t seem to respond as well to therapy as the other classic features of ANCA disease,” Dr. Niles said. “It’s the one part that’s the most problematic for the long run. It behaves differently, and there’s going to need to be more research on ILD. Fortunately, it’s a fairly small percentage of the total group, but it’s the most difficult part of this disease.”
 

Findings in Context

This study brings clarity on how to best manage patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, Robert Hylland, MD, an assistant clinical professor of rheumatology at Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine, told this news organization.

“Most of us have tried to discern from the literature that exists how to manage [ANCA-associated vasculitis]. There have been a number of different approaches, and they have changed over the course of time,” Dr. Hylland said. “But now this article helps us to understand how to proceed with this disease after we have induced remission. The ability to determine the validity of serology vs B-cell depletion was brought out very nicely in this article.”

Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine

The size of the study population was a strength of the study, Dr. Hylland said. 

He credited the study authors for providing insight into using positive myeloperoxidase (MPO)- or proteinase 3 (PR3)-ANCA readings to guide treatment for relapses. The study defined a serologic ANCA flare in the ANCA arm as a fivefold increase in MPO and a fourfold rise in PR3.

“Many of us wouldn’t have recognized that a less than fivefold increase, for example, in the MPO could be watched for a while, where most of us would have been treating that serologic flare,” Hylland said.

The study also highlighted the difficulty of evaluating a patient who has neither a positive ANCA nor a significant increase in their B-cell counts and yet still has clinical signs and symptoms of a relapse, such as with granulomatosis with polyangiitis, also known as Wegener’s granulomatosis.

“A lot of physicians tend to feel a little more relaxed when they see their patient is serologically doing well and yet, when they come in, some of the subtle symptoms of Wegener’s could be ignored if you don’t recognize that there’s a considerable number who will come to you with having had treatment and still have negative serology,” Hylland said.

The study had no specific outside funding source. Dr. Niles and Dr. Hylland report no relevant financial relationships. Two co-authors report financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Maintaining remission in patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis who have kept their autoantibodies in check after at least 2 years on rituximab therapy has proved challenging, but a team of nephrologists in Boston have reported that a longer-term strategy that uses a rise in B-cell levels as a threshold for rituximab infusions may be the better of two strategies at reducing relapse risks. 

“The bottom line is with the B-cell strategy, which is that rituximab was redosed when the B cells recovered or started to recover, we only have a 6% rate in relapses by 3 years,” senior study author John L. Niles, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School and director of the Vasculitis and Glomerulonephritis Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, told Medscape Medical News.

Massachusetts General Hospital

“Whereas in the other strategy, we were waiting for a serologic relapse and hoping we could prevent clinical relapses, but we still have about 30% rate of relapse by 3 years.”

Dr. Niles and his associates reported their findings from the MAINTANCVAS study (for MAINTenance of ANCA VASculitis) December 11, 2023, in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. Their single-center study compared two different treatment strategies in patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis in remission after completing at least 2 years of fixed-schedule rituximab therapy: an approach that reinfused rituximab upon B-cell repopulation, called the B-cell arm and a strategy that reinfused rituximab when serologic levels of ANCA increased significantly, which they called the ANCA arm. A total of 115 patients were randomly assigned to either arm.
 

Study Results

Median follow-up was 4.1 years from study entry. Throughout the study, 5 of 58 patients in the B-cell arm and 14 of 57 in the ANCA arm had relapses. According to Kaplan-Meier analysis, at 3 years after study entry, 4.1% of patients in the B-cell arm had a relapse vs 20.5% of patients in the ANCA arm. At 5 years, the respective relapse rates were 11.3% and 27.7%. Overall, four major relapses occurred in the B-cell arm and seven in the ANCA arm.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused the researchers to halt the study before it was fully enrolled, Dr. Niles said. The study also attributed high rates of serious adverse events (SAEs) in the B-cell arm to cases of COVID-19 in that study population. The overall number of SAEs was identical in both arms: 22 (P = .95). But the B-cell arm had six cases of COVID-19 vs one in the ANCA arm, including two deaths because of COVID-19.

The study findings provided insight into how to best individualize treatment in patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, Dr. Niles said. “We will typically start with the B-cell strategy after 2 years, but to the extent that people have infections or hypogammaglobulinemia, we’ll start stretching a little longer on the B cells, and if the level is too high in terms of infection, we’ll stop and switch to the ANCA strategy,” he said.

He added, “Relapsers get a more strict B-cell strategy, and people with infections get much longer intervals or even switch entirely to the ANCA strategy.”

Because the study ended before it was fully enrolled, it was underpowered for subgroup analyses, Dr. Niles noted. One such potential subgroup was relapsing patients with interstitial lung disease as the primary clinical finding. “The interstitial lung disease doesn’t seem to respond as well to therapy as the other classic features of ANCA disease,” Dr. Niles said. “It’s the one part that’s the most problematic for the long run. It behaves differently, and there’s going to need to be more research on ILD. Fortunately, it’s a fairly small percentage of the total group, but it’s the most difficult part of this disease.”
 

Findings in Context

This study brings clarity on how to best manage patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, Robert Hylland, MD, an assistant clinical professor of rheumatology at Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine, told this news organization.

“Most of us have tried to discern from the literature that exists how to manage [ANCA-associated vasculitis]. There have been a number of different approaches, and they have changed over the course of time,” Dr. Hylland said. “But now this article helps us to understand how to proceed with this disease after we have induced remission. The ability to determine the validity of serology vs B-cell depletion was brought out very nicely in this article.”

Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine

The size of the study population was a strength of the study, Dr. Hylland said. 

He credited the study authors for providing insight into using positive myeloperoxidase (MPO)- or proteinase 3 (PR3)-ANCA readings to guide treatment for relapses. The study defined a serologic ANCA flare in the ANCA arm as a fivefold increase in MPO and a fourfold rise in PR3.

“Many of us wouldn’t have recognized that a less than fivefold increase, for example, in the MPO could be watched for a while, where most of us would have been treating that serologic flare,” Hylland said.

The study also highlighted the difficulty of evaluating a patient who has neither a positive ANCA nor a significant increase in their B-cell counts and yet still has clinical signs and symptoms of a relapse, such as with granulomatosis with polyangiitis, also known as Wegener’s granulomatosis.

“A lot of physicians tend to feel a little more relaxed when they see their patient is serologically doing well and yet, when they come in, some of the subtle symptoms of Wegener’s could be ignored if you don’t recognize that there’s a considerable number who will come to you with having had treatment and still have negative serology,” Hylland said.

The study had no specific outside funding source. Dr. Niles and Dr. Hylland report no relevant financial relationships. Two co-authors report financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Maintaining remission in patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis who have kept their autoantibodies in check after at least 2 years on rituximab therapy has proved challenging, but a team of nephrologists in Boston have reported that a longer-term strategy that uses a rise in B-cell levels as a threshold for rituximab infusions may be the better of two strategies at reducing relapse risks. 

“The bottom line is with the B-cell strategy, which is that rituximab was redosed when the B cells recovered or started to recover, we only have a 6% rate in relapses by 3 years,” senior study author John L. Niles, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School and director of the Vasculitis and Glomerulonephritis Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, told Medscape Medical News.

Massachusetts General Hospital

“Whereas in the other strategy, we were waiting for a serologic relapse and hoping we could prevent clinical relapses, but we still have about 30% rate of relapse by 3 years.”

Dr. Niles and his associates reported their findings from the MAINTANCVAS study (for MAINTenance of ANCA VASculitis) December 11, 2023, in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. Their single-center study compared two different treatment strategies in patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis in remission after completing at least 2 years of fixed-schedule rituximab therapy: an approach that reinfused rituximab upon B-cell repopulation, called the B-cell arm and a strategy that reinfused rituximab when serologic levels of ANCA increased significantly, which they called the ANCA arm. A total of 115 patients were randomly assigned to either arm.
 

Study Results

Median follow-up was 4.1 years from study entry. Throughout the study, 5 of 58 patients in the B-cell arm and 14 of 57 in the ANCA arm had relapses. According to Kaplan-Meier analysis, at 3 years after study entry, 4.1% of patients in the B-cell arm had a relapse vs 20.5% of patients in the ANCA arm. At 5 years, the respective relapse rates were 11.3% and 27.7%. Overall, four major relapses occurred in the B-cell arm and seven in the ANCA arm.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused the researchers to halt the study before it was fully enrolled, Dr. Niles said. The study also attributed high rates of serious adverse events (SAEs) in the B-cell arm to cases of COVID-19 in that study population. The overall number of SAEs was identical in both arms: 22 (P = .95). But the B-cell arm had six cases of COVID-19 vs one in the ANCA arm, including two deaths because of COVID-19.

The study findings provided insight into how to best individualize treatment in patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, Dr. Niles said. “We will typically start with the B-cell strategy after 2 years, but to the extent that people have infections or hypogammaglobulinemia, we’ll start stretching a little longer on the B cells, and if the level is too high in terms of infection, we’ll stop and switch to the ANCA strategy,” he said.

He added, “Relapsers get a more strict B-cell strategy, and people with infections get much longer intervals or even switch entirely to the ANCA strategy.”

Because the study ended before it was fully enrolled, it was underpowered for subgroup analyses, Dr. Niles noted. One such potential subgroup was relapsing patients with interstitial lung disease as the primary clinical finding. “The interstitial lung disease doesn’t seem to respond as well to therapy as the other classic features of ANCA disease,” Dr. Niles said. “It’s the one part that’s the most problematic for the long run. It behaves differently, and there’s going to need to be more research on ILD. Fortunately, it’s a fairly small percentage of the total group, but it’s the most difficult part of this disease.”
 

Findings in Context

This study brings clarity on how to best manage patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, Robert Hylland, MD, an assistant clinical professor of rheumatology at Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine, told this news organization.

“Most of us have tried to discern from the literature that exists how to manage [ANCA-associated vasculitis]. There have been a number of different approaches, and they have changed over the course of time,” Dr. Hylland said. “But now this article helps us to understand how to proceed with this disease after we have induced remission. The ability to determine the validity of serology vs B-cell depletion was brought out very nicely in this article.”

Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine

The size of the study population was a strength of the study, Dr. Hylland said. 

He credited the study authors for providing insight into using positive myeloperoxidase (MPO)- or proteinase 3 (PR3)-ANCA readings to guide treatment for relapses. The study defined a serologic ANCA flare in the ANCA arm as a fivefold increase in MPO and a fourfold rise in PR3.

“Many of us wouldn’t have recognized that a less than fivefold increase, for example, in the MPO could be watched for a while, where most of us would have been treating that serologic flare,” Hylland said.

The study also highlighted the difficulty of evaluating a patient who has neither a positive ANCA nor a significant increase in their B-cell counts and yet still has clinical signs and symptoms of a relapse, such as with granulomatosis with polyangiitis, also known as Wegener’s granulomatosis.

“A lot of physicians tend to feel a little more relaxed when they see their patient is serologically doing well and yet, when they come in, some of the subtle symptoms of Wegener’s could be ignored if you don’t recognize that there’s a considerable number who will come to you with having had treatment and still have negative serology,” Hylland said.

The study had no specific outside funding source. Dr. Niles and Dr. Hylland report no relevant financial relationships. Two co-authors report financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Neuroinflammation expert Jarred Younger, PhD, disputes a recent study commentary calling for clinicians to stop prescribing low-dose naltrexone for people with fibromyalgia.

Naltrexone is a nonselective µ-opioid receptor antagonist approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at doses of 50-100 mg/day to treat opioid and alcohol dependence. Lower doses, typically 1-5 mg, can produce an analgesic effect via antagonism of receptors on microglial cells that lead to neuroinflammation. The low-dose version, available at compounding pharmacies, is not FDA-approved, but for many years it has been used off-label to treat fibromyalgia and related conditions.

Results from earlier small clinical trials have conflicted, but two conducted by Dr. Younger using doses of 4.5 mg/day showed benefit in reducing pain and other fibromyalgia symptoms. However, a new study from Denmark on 6 mg low-dose naltrexone versus placebo among 99 women with fibromyalgia demonstrated no significant difference in the primary outcome of change in pain intensity from baseline to 12 weeks.

On the other hand, there was a significant improvement in memory, and there were no differences in adverse events or safety, the authors reported in The Lancet Rheumatology.

Nonetheless, an accompanying commentary called the study a “resoundingly negative trial” and advised that while off-label use of low-dose naltrexone could continue for patients already taking it, clinicians should not initiate it for patients who have not previously used it, pending additional data.

Dr. Younger, director of the Neuroinflammation, Pain and Fatigue Laboratory at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, was speaking on December 13, 2023, at a National Institutes of Health meeting about myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome about the potential use of low-dose naltrexone for that patient population. He had checked the literature in preparation for his talk and saw the new study, which had just been published December 5, 2023. 

During his talk, Dr. Younger said, “It looks like the study was very well done, and all the decisions made sense to me, so I don’t doubt the quality of their data or the statistics.”

But as for the commentary, he said, “I strongly disagree, and I believe the physicians at this conference strongly disagree with that as well. I know plenty of physicians who would say that is not good advice because this drug is so helpful for so many people.”

Indeed, Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, who heard Dr. Younger’s talk but hadn’t seen the new study, told this news organization that he is a “fan” of low-dose naltrexone based on his own experience with one patient who had a “clearly beneficial response” and that of other clinicians he’s spoken with about it. “My colleagues say it doesn’t work for everyone because the disease is so heterogeneous ... but it definitely works for some patients.”

Dr. Younger noted that the proportion of people in the Danish study who reported a clinically significant, that is 30% reduction, in pain scores was 45% versus 28% with placebo, not far from the 50% he found in his studies. “If they’d had 40 to 60 more people, they would have had statistically significant difference,” Dr. Younger said.

Indeed, the authors themselves pointed this out in their discussion, noting, “Our study was not powered to detect a significant difference regarding responder indices ... Subgroups of patients with fibromyalgia might respond differently to low-dose naltrexone treatment, and we intend to conduct a responder analysis based on levels of inflammatory biomarkers and specific biomarkers of glial activation, hypothesising that an inflammatory subgroup might benefit from the treatment. Results will be published in subsequent papers.”

The commentary authors responded to that, saying that they “appreciate” the intention to conduct that subgroup analysis, but that it is “probable that the current sample size will preclude robust statistical comparisons but could be a step to generate hypotheses.”

Those authors noted that a systematic review has described both pro-inflammatory (tumor necrosis factor, interleukin [IL]-6, and IL-8) and anti-inflammatory (IL-10) cytokines as peripheral inflammatory biomarkers in patients with fibromyalgia. “The specific peripheral biomarkers of glial activation are yet to be identified. The neuroinflammation hypothesis of fibromyalgia could be supported if a reduction of central nervous system inflammation would predict improvement of fibromyalgia symptoms. Subsequent work in this area is eagerly awaited.”

In the meantime, Dr. Younger said, “I do not think this should stop us from looking at low-dose naltrexone [or that] we shouldn’t try it. I’ve talked to over a thousand people over the last 10 years. It would be a very bad thing to give up on low-dose naltrexone now.”

Dr. Younger’s work is funded by the National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, SolveME, the American Fibromyalgia Association, and ME Research UK. Komaroff has no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Neuroinflammation expert Jarred Younger, PhD, disputes a recent study commentary calling for clinicians to stop prescribing low-dose naltrexone for people with fibromyalgia.

Naltrexone is a nonselective µ-opioid receptor antagonist approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at doses of 50-100 mg/day to treat opioid and alcohol dependence. Lower doses, typically 1-5 mg, can produce an analgesic effect via antagonism of receptors on microglial cells that lead to neuroinflammation. The low-dose version, available at compounding pharmacies, is not FDA-approved, but for many years it has been used off-label to treat fibromyalgia and related conditions.

Results from earlier small clinical trials have conflicted, but two conducted by Dr. Younger using doses of 4.5 mg/day showed benefit in reducing pain and other fibromyalgia symptoms. However, a new study from Denmark on 6 mg low-dose naltrexone versus placebo among 99 women with fibromyalgia demonstrated no significant difference in the primary outcome of change in pain intensity from baseline to 12 weeks.

On the other hand, there was a significant improvement in memory, and there were no differences in adverse events or safety, the authors reported in The Lancet Rheumatology.

Nonetheless, an accompanying commentary called the study a “resoundingly negative trial” and advised that while off-label use of low-dose naltrexone could continue for patients already taking it, clinicians should not initiate it for patients who have not previously used it, pending additional data.

Dr. Younger, director of the Neuroinflammation, Pain and Fatigue Laboratory at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, was speaking on December 13, 2023, at a National Institutes of Health meeting about myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome about the potential use of low-dose naltrexone for that patient population. He had checked the literature in preparation for his talk and saw the new study, which had just been published December 5, 2023. 

During his talk, Dr. Younger said, “It looks like the study was very well done, and all the decisions made sense to me, so I don’t doubt the quality of their data or the statistics.”

But as for the commentary, he said, “I strongly disagree, and I believe the physicians at this conference strongly disagree with that as well. I know plenty of physicians who would say that is not good advice because this drug is so helpful for so many people.”

Indeed, Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, who heard Dr. Younger’s talk but hadn’t seen the new study, told this news organization that he is a “fan” of low-dose naltrexone based on his own experience with one patient who had a “clearly beneficial response” and that of other clinicians he’s spoken with about it. “My colleagues say it doesn’t work for everyone because the disease is so heterogeneous ... but it definitely works for some patients.”

Dr. Younger noted that the proportion of people in the Danish study who reported a clinically significant, that is 30% reduction, in pain scores was 45% versus 28% with placebo, not far from the 50% he found in his studies. “If they’d had 40 to 60 more people, they would have had statistically significant difference,” Dr. Younger said.

Indeed, the authors themselves pointed this out in their discussion, noting, “Our study was not powered to detect a significant difference regarding responder indices ... Subgroups of patients with fibromyalgia might respond differently to low-dose naltrexone treatment, and we intend to conduct a responder analysis based on levels of inflammatory biomarkers and specific biomarkers of glial activation, hypothesising that an inflammatory subgroup might benefit from the treatment. Results will be published in subsequent papers.”

The commentary authors responded to that, saying that they “appreciate” the intention to conduct that subgroup analysis, but that it is “probable that the current sample size will preclude robust statistical comparisons but could be a step to generate hypotheses.”

Those authors noted that a systematic review has described both pro-inflammatory (tumor necrosis factor, interleukin [IL]-6, and IL-8) and anti-inflammatory (IL-10) cytokines as peripheral inflammatory biomarkers in patients with fibromyalgia. “The specific peripheral biomarkers of glial activation are yet to be identified. The neuroinflammation hypothesis of fibromyalgia could be supported if a reduction of central nervous system inflammation would predict improvement of fibromyalgia symptoms. Subsequent work in this area is eagerly awaited.”

In the meantime, Dr. Younger said, “I do not think this should stop us from looking at low-dose naltrexone [or that] we shouldn’t try it. I’ve talked to over a thousand people over the last 10 years. It would be a very bad thing to give up on low-dose naltrexone now.”

Dr. Younger’s work is funded by the National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, SolveME, the American Fibromyalgia Association, and ME Research UK. Komaroff has no disclosures.