Rheumatology News

WASHINGTON – A series of three higher-than-approved induction doses of the interleukin-23 inhibitor risankizumab in patients with psoriasis – and no further subsequent dosing – led to an “unprecedented” level of complete skin clearance at week 52 in a small study investigating whether high-dose IL-23 inhibition can target resident memory T cells and thereby induce long-term remission, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, reported at the annual research symposium of the National Psoriasis Foundation.

Understanding and trying to target resident memory T (Trm) cells has become a hot topic in psoriasis research, with possible importance for psoriatic arthritis as well. The cells, which normally develop within tissues in a pathogen-specific manner and persist after infections resolve, have been found in healed psoriatic skin and are believed to be responsible for recurrences of psoriasis at the same sites previously affected by the disease. Research suggests, moreover, that Trm cells are dependent on IL-23 for their survival, said Dr. Blauvelt, an investigator with the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.

Using an approach he has coined “knockout” therapy, 20 adult patients at the center were randomized 1:1 in double-blinded dosing to receive 300 mg or 600 mg of risankizumab (two and four times the standard initial doses, respectively) at 0, 4, and 16 weeks, and were seen every 4-6 weeks in a double-blinded follow-up period. Skin biopsies of lesional and nonlesional skin were collected at weeks 0 and 52 for RNA sequence analysis to evaluate changes in Trm cell number and effector function.

At week 28, almost all patients – 94% – achieved a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 90 score, and 83% achieved PASI 100. At week 52, of the 18 still-enrolled patients, 69% had PASI 90 scores and 43% maintained PASI 100 scores. “We’re not curing psoriasis, but that is incredible to have 43% still clear 9 months after the last dose,” Dr. Blauvelt said.

The findings are interim results that pool the two doses of risankizumab (Skyrizi). An evaluation of maintenance of efficacy with the 300-mg versus 600-mg doses and results of the skin biopsies will be presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, he said. Patients who have not had recurrences are being followed up to week 100 (unblinded).

Skin biopsy findings together with levels of clearance will “add insight as to whether high-dose IL-23 inhibition is associated with higher levels of complete clearance (i.e., PASI 100) over long periods of time, and whether remissions are associated with more profound knock-down of Trm cells,” Dr. Blauvelt wrote in an editorial on Trm cells in psoriasis published in the Journal of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

Risankizumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in 2019, and for active psoriatic arthritis in 2022.
 

Impact of IL-23 inhibition

A 2021 study, Dr. Blauvelt noted in his presentation, showed that the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya) reduced the number of Trm cells in healed psoriatic skin, while the IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) did not affect Trm cells.

Other researchers have concluded that local IL-23 is required for the proliferation and retention of Trm cells in the skin, he said, noting also that, as a class, IL-23 blockers “are associated with the longest disease-free intervals” in patients with psoriasis.

Research showing loss of Trm cells in biopsies of cleared skin is “incredibly important,” as is data showing that IL-23 may be “a critical survival factor” for Trm cells, said Christopher Ritchlin, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist and director of the clinical immunology research unit at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, who attended the NPF meeting and was asked to comment on the growing interest in Trm cells. He did not hear Dr. Blauvelt’s presentation but has followed Trm research in psoriasis.

Measuring Trm cells in synovial tissue of patients with psoriatic disease is, in fact, on the agenda of a new research team coled by Dr. Ritchlin that is part of the Autoimmune and Immune-Mediated Diseases Program of the Accelerating Medicine Partnership – a public-private partnership that aims to collect and analyze troves of biological data in order to illuminate the cellular and molecular interactions leading to autoimmune diseases.

“Resident memory T cells have been thought to be cells that are constrained to being resident in the tissue, and while that’s largely true, there’s more recent data showing that they actually can dedifferentiate and go back to the lymph node and then go back to the joint again,” Dr. Ritchlin noted in an interview. “So it’s a more complicated story,” but nonetheless targeting the cells is a concept worth exploring therapeutically.
 

Moving toward a cure?

The high induction doses of risankizumab in Dr. Blauvelt’s phase 2 “knockout” study were well tolerated through week 40, with safety profiles similar overall to those reported in previous studies of risankizumab and “no new safety signals,” Dr. Blauvelt said at the meeting.

(At baseline, patients had a mean disease duration of 21 years, a mean affected BSA of 21, and a mean PASI of 18.5. Seven had prior treatment with biologic medications, though not in the prior 4 months and not with risankizumab.)

In lieu of a cure, which is still possible in the next 10 years, he said, patients are eager for longer-term remission and the ability to break away from established regular dosing. After publication of a phase 1 study of risankizumab, in which a notable number of patients experienced complete skin clearance up to 1 year following a single high dose, “we started getting numerous calls in our [clinical trials] office from patients who said ‘I want to be on that drug that you give once a year,’ ” Dr. Blauvelt said. (The high dosing was not investigated any further in phase 2 and 3 research, he added.)

While the “knockout” study adopts a “hit hard” approach, it is also possible that a strategy to hit both hard and early after disease onset may induce long-term remission and/or cure of the disease. “I’m talking about using the best things first. There are hints that if we treat early, maybe we can keep [psoriasis] from becoming a chronic disease, keep it from ‘setting up shop’ if you will,” he said, noting that the “hit hard, hit early” concept is not unique to dermatology.

During a discussion period, Dr. Blauvelt said that in a future iteration of the “knockout” study, he would like to evaluate risankizumab in patients with disease duration under 12 months. It may also be valuable to look not only at Trm cells, but more broadly at other elements of the tissue architecture before and after treatment.

Among other strategies for achieving long-term remission and/or cure is the expansion of regulatory T cells, which work to “control inappropriate immune responses” and calm inflammation. Defects in the number and function of regulatory T cells are associated with psoriasis and other autoimmune diseases, and it appears in early research from other investigators that low-dose IL-2 can induce the expansion of regulatory T cells and improve psoriasis. “Keep tuned,” Dr. Blauvelt said.

Dr. Blauvelt disclosed ties with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ritchlin had no disclosures.

WASHINGTON – A series of three higher-than-approved induction doses of the interleukin-23 inhibitor risankizumab in patients with psoriasis – and no further subsequent dosing – led to an “unprecedented” level of complete skin clearance at week 52 in a small study investigating whether high-dose IL-23 inhibition can target resident memory T cells and thereby induce long-term remission, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, reported at the annual research symposium of the National Psoriasis Foundation.

Understanding and trying to target resident memory T (Trm) cells has become a hot topic in psoriasis research, with possible importance for psoriatic arthritis as well. The cells, which normally develop within tissues in a pathogen-specific manner and persist after infections resolve, have been found in healed psoriatic skin and are believed to be responsible for recurrences of psoriasis at the same sites previously affected by the disease. Research suggests, moreover, that Trm cells are dependent on IL-23 for their survival, said Dr. Blauvelt, an investigator with the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.

Using an approach he has coined “knockout” therapy, 20 adult patients at the center were randomized 1:1 in double-blinded dosing to receive 300 mg or 600 mg of risankizumab (two and four times the standard initial doses, respectively) at 0, 4, and 16 weeks, and were seen every 4-6 weeks in a double-blinded follow-up period. Skin biopsies of lesional and nonlesional skin were collected at weeks 0 and 52 for RNA sequence analysis to evaluate changes in Trm cell number and effector function.

At week 28, almost all patients – 94% – achieved a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 90 score, and 83% achieved PASI 100. At week 52, of the 18 still-enrolled patients, 69% had PASI 90 scores and 43% maintained PASI 100 scores. “We’re not curing psoriasis, but that is incredible to have 43% still clear 9 months after the last dose,” Dr. Blauvelt said.

The findings are interim results that pool the two doses of risankizumab (Skyrizi). An evaluation of maintenance of efficacy with the 300-mg versus 600-mg doses and results of the skin biopsies will be presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, he said. Patients who have not had recurrences are being followed up to week 100 (unblinded).

Skin biopsy findings together with levels of clearance will “add insight as to whether high-dose IL-23 inhibition is associated with higher levels of complete clearance (i.e., PASI 100) over long periods of time, and whether remissions are associated with more profound knock-down of Trm cells,” Dr. Blauvelt wrote in an editorial on Trm cells in psoriasis published in the Journal of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

Risankizumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in 2019, and for active psoriatic arthritis in 2022.
 

Impact of IL-23 inhibition

A 2021 study, Dr. Blauvelt noted in his presentation, showed that the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya) reduced the number of Trm cells in healed psoriatic skin, while the IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) did not affect Trm cells.

Other researchers have concluded that local IL-23 is required for the proliferation and retention of Trm cells in the skin, he said, noting also that, as a class, IL-23 blockers “are associated with the longest disease-free intervals” in patients with psoriasis.

Research showing loss of Trm cells in biopsies of cleared skin is “incredibly important,” as is data showing that IL-23 may be “a critical survival factor” for Trm cells, said Christopher Ritchlin, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist and director of the clinical immunology research unit at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, who attended the NPF meeting and was asked to comment on the growing interest in Trm cells. He did not hear Dr. Blauvelt’s presentation but has followed Trm research in psoriasis.

Measuring Trm cells in synovial tissue of patients with psoriatic disease is, in fact, on the agenda of a new research team coled by Dr. Ritchlin that is part of the Autoimmune and Immune-Mediated Diseases Program of the Accelerating Medicine Partnership – a public-private partnership that aims to collect and analyze troves of biological data in order to illuminate the cellular and molecular interactions leading to autoimmune diseases.

“Resident memory T cells have been thought to be cells that are constrained to being resident in the tissue, and while that’s largely true, there’s more recent data showing that they actually can dedifferentiate and go back to the lymph node and then go back to the joint again,” Dr. Ritchlin noted in an interview. “So it’s a more complicated story,” but nonetheless targeting the cells is a concept worth exploring therapeutically.
 

Moving toward a cure?

The high induction doses of risankizumab in Dr. Blauvelt’s phase 2 “knockout” study were well tolerated through week 40, with safety profiles similar overall to those reported in previous studies of risankizumab and “no new safety signals,” Dr. Blauvelt said at the meeting.

(At baseline, patients had a mean disease duration of 21 years, a mean affected BSA of 21, and a mean PASI of 18.5. Seven had prior treatment with biologic medications, though not in the prior 4 months and not with risankizumab.)

In lieu of a cure, which is still possible in the next 10 years, he said, patients are eager for longer-term remission and the ability to break away from established regular dosing. After publication of a phase 1 study of risankizumab, in which a notable number of patients experienced complete skin clearance up to 1 year following a single high dose, “we started getting numerous calls in our [clinical trials] office from patients who said ‘I want to be on that drug that you give once a year,’ ” Dr. Blauvelt said. (The high dosing was not investigated any further in phase 2 and 3 research, he added.)

While the “knockout” study adopts a “hit hard” approach, it is also possible that a strategy to hit both hard and early after disease onset may induce long-term remission and/or cure of the disease. “I’m talking about using the best things first. There are hints that if we treat early, maybe we can keep [psoriasis] from becoming a chronic disease, keep it from ‘setting up shop’ if you will,” he said, noting that the “hit hard, hit early” concept is not unique to dermatology.

During a discussion period, Dr. Blauvelt said that in a future iteration of the “knockout” study, he would like to evaluate risankizumab in patients with disease duration under 12 months. It may also be valuable to look not only at Trm cells, but more broadly at other elements of the tissue architecture before and after treatment.

Among other strategies for achieving long-term remission and/or cure is the expansion of regulatory T cells, which work to “control inappropriate immune responses” and calm inflammation. Defects in the number and function of regulatory T cells are associated with psoriasis and other autoimmune diseases, and it appears in early research from other investigators that low-dose IL-2 can induce the expansion of regulatory T cells and improve psoriasis. “Keep tuned,” Dr. Blauvelt said.

Dr. Blauvelt disclosed ties with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ritchlin had no disclosures.

WASHINGTON – A series of three higher-than-approved induction doses of the interleukin-23 inhibitor risankizumab in patients with psoriasis – and no further subsequent dosing – led to an “unprecedented” level of complete skin clearance at week 52 in a small study investigating whether high-dose IL-23 inhibition can target resident memory T cells and thereby induce long-term remission, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, reported at the annual research symposium of the National Psoriasis Foundation.

Understanding and trying to target resident memory T (Trm) cells has become a hot topic in psoriasis research, with possible importance for psoriatic arthritis as well. The cells, which normally develop within tissues in a pathogen-specific manner and persist after infections resolve, have been found in healed psoriatic skin and are believed to be responsible for recurrences of psoriasis at the same sites previously affected by the disease. Research suggests, moreover, that Trm cells are dependent on IL-23 for their survival, said Dr. Blauvelt, an investigator with the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.

Using an approach he has coined “knockout” therapy, 20 adult patients at the center were randomized 1:1 in double-blinded dosing to receive 300 mg or 600 mg of risankizumab (two and four times the standard initial doses, respectively) at 0, 4, and 16 weeks, and were seen every 4-6 weeks in a double-blinded follow-up period. Skin biopsies of lesional and nonlesional skin were collected at weeks 0 and 52 for RNA sequence analysis to evaluate changes in Trm cell number and effector function.

At week 28, almost all patients – 94% – achieved a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 90 score, and 83% achieved PASI 100. At week 52, of the 18 still-enrolled patients, 69% had PASI 90 scores and 43% maintained PASI 100 scores. “We’re not curing psoriasis, but that is incredible to have 43% still clear 9 months after the last dose,” Dr. Blauvelt said.

The findings are interim results that pool the two doses of risankizumab (Skyrizi). An evaluation of maintenance of efficacy with the 300-mg versus 600-mg doses and results of the skin biopsies will be presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, he said. Patients who have not had recurrences are being followed up to week 100 (unblinded).

Skin biopsy findings together with levels of clearance will “add insight as to whether high-dose IL-23 inhibition is associated with higher levels of complete clearance (i.e., PASI 100) over long periods of time, and whether remissions are associated with more profound knock-down of Trm cells,” Dr. Blauvelt wrote in an editorial on Trm cells in psoriasis published in the Journal of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

Risankizumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in 2019, and for active psoriatic arthritis in 2022.
 

Impact of IL-23 inhibition

A 2021 study, Dr. Blauvelt noted in his presentation, showed that the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya) reduced the number of Trm cells in healed psoriatic skin, while the IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) did not affect Trm cells.

Other researchers have concluded that local IL-23 is required for the proliferation and retention of Trm cells in the skin, he said, noting also that, as a class, IL-23 blockers “are associated with the longest disease-free intervals” in patients with psoriasis.

Research showing loss of Trm cells in biopsies of cleared skin is “incredibly important,” as is data showing that IL-23 may be “a critical survival factor” for Trm cells, said Christopher Ritchlin, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist and director of the clinical immunology research unit at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, who attended the NPF meeting and was asked to comment on the growing interest in Trm cells. He did not hear Dr. Blauvelt’s presentation but has followed Trm research in psoriasis.

Measuring Trm cells in synovial tissue of patients with psoriatic disease is, in fact, on the agenda of a new research team coled by Dr. Ritchlin that is part of the Autoimmune and Immune-Mediated Diseases Program of the Accelerating Medicine Partnership – a public-private partnership that aims to collect and analyze troves of biological data in order to illuminate the cellular and molecular interactions leading to autoimmune diseases.

“Resident memory T cells have been thought to be cells that are constrained to being resident in the tissue, and while that’s largely true, there’s more recent data showing that they actually can dedifferentiate and go back to the lymph node and then go back to the joint again,” Dr. Ritchlin noted in an interview. “So it’s a more complicated story,” but nonetheless targeting the cells is a concept worth exploring therapeutically.
 

Moving toward a cure?

The high induction doses of risankizumab in Dr. Blauvelt’s phase 2 “knockout” study were well tolerated through week 40, with safety profiles similar overall to those reported in previous studies of risankizumab and “no new safety signals,” Dr. Blauvelt said at the meeting.

(At baseline, patients had a mean disease duration of 21 years, a mean affected BSA of 21, and a mean PASI of 18.5. Seven had prior treatment with biologic medications, though not in the prior 4 months and not with risankizumab.)

In lieu of a cure, which is still possible in the next 10 years, he said, patients are eager for longer-term remission and the ability to break away from established regular dosing. After publication of a phase 1 study of risankizumab, in which a notable number of patients experienced complete skin clearance up to 1 year following a single high dose, “we started getting numerous calls in our [clinical trials] office from patients who said ‘I want to be on that drug that you give once a year,’ ” Dr. Blauvelt said. (The high dosing was not investigated any further in phase 2 and 3 research, he added.)

While the “knockout” study adopts a “hit hard” approach, it is also possible that a strategy to hit both hard and early after disease onset may induce long-term remission and/or cure of the disease. “I’m talking about using the best things first. There are hints that if we treat early, maybe we can keep [psoriasis] from becoming a chronic disease, keep it from ‘setting up shop’ if you will,” he said, noting that the “hit hard, hit early” concept is not unique to dermatology.

During a discussion period, Dr. Blauvelt said that in a future iteration of the “knockout” study, he would like to evaluate risankizumab in patients with disease duration under 12 months. It may also be valuable to look not only at Trm cells, but more broadly at other elements of the tissue architecture before and after treatment.

Among other strategies for achieving long-term remission and/or cure is the expansion of regulatory T cells, which work to “control inappropriate immune responses” and calm inflammation. Defects in the number and function of regulatory T cells are associated with psoriasis and other autoimmune diseases, and it appears in early research from other investigators that low-dose IL-2 can induce the expansion of regulatory T cells and improve psoriasis. “Keep tuned,” Dr. Blauvelt said.

Dr. Blauvelt disclosed ties with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ritchlin had no disclosures.

New England Baptist Hospital has been grappling with a serious problem facing health care today: insurers demanding prior authorizations for services ordered by physicians. Meeting payers’ requirements eats up time, delays treatment, and can be a costly drain on doctors’ practices. 

To deal with this problem, the Boston orthopedic hospital has opted to automate submission of prior authorization requests on behalf of more than 100 mostly orthopedic surgeons on staff. 

After 5 years using this system, “we can say that automation definitely works,” said Lidiya Hadzhieva, director of patient access at the hospital. The software has reduced write-offs by 30% and staff costs by 25%. Prior authorization gets approved 3 days after scheduling, compared with 11 days previously, she said.

“This software not only saves staff time, but it can also more accurately predict when prior authorization is needed,” she added.

For practices deluged with required prior authorizations by insurers, automation is emerging as a way for practices to make the process less time-consuming and save money. However, the software can be costly and may not be adoptable to many practices, and many physicians are not even aware it exists.

So far, the software is mainly used at large organizations like hospital systems. But as word gets out and the software becomes easier to use, private practices and other smaller entities may join the automation trend.

There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization. The American Medical Association reports that physicians spend 16 hours per week on prior authorizations. In a recent AMA survey, more than 60% of physicians indicated that it’s difficult to know when prior authorization is needed. And 93% of physicians reported care delays while waiting for authorization, the AMA said.  

Experts estimate that 80% of prior authorization work could be automated, but most practices still use the phone or fax, even as numbers of prior authorizations continue to increase.
 

How it works

Automation software connects directly to the practice’s electronic health record (EHR). “When the doctor places an order in the EHR, the process starts automatically,” Ms. Hadzhieva said. “The doctor may not even notice it.” 

In addition to using an EHR connection, many software products can communicate with the payer through its portal or by fax or phone, while still automating other parts of the process.

The software’s first step is to decide whether prior authorization is needed. This requires having an updated list of the rules that each payer uses for prior authorization. Manually keeping track of payer rules is very time-consuming, but automation uses bots to visit each payer site to look for rules changes. One vendor, Infinitus, uses a voice-based bot called Eva that calls up each payer and speaks with a representative.

“Automatically updating payer rules is not a new technology,” said YiDing Yu, MD, chief product officer at Olive, the automation vendor for New England Baptist. “What is new in the last 5 years is extracting the information needed for the prior authorization out of the clinical notes.”

This is challenging because each doctor has different ways to describe each step of clinical work. To identify this shorthand, Dr. Yu said Olive uses natural language processing, which is a form of artificial intelligence that learns how each doctor describes things.

Dr. Yu asserts that Olive is actually better than a practice’s staff at digging out clinical information. She said staff without much clinical training may miss terms that the software can catch, and they don’t have the time to go back many months into the record to find valuable information. But automation can do that.

In some instances, however, the software may not be able to find the information, in which case it alerts staff through a prompt in the EHR and the information is retrieved manually, Dr. Yu said.

Next, the Olive software puts the information it found into the request form and sends it to the payer. After submission, the software constantly checks on the status of each request, again visiting payer sites with a bot.

At New England Baptist, the software is used mainly by physicians in fairly small private practices who are on staff. They are using the software on the hospital’s dime, but it only works inside the hospital, Ms. Hadzhieva said. For their work outside of the hospital, they would have to purchase the Olive software on their own, she said.
 

Automation hasn’t spread to practices yet

Despite the promising outcomes for products like Olive, automation software is still primarily used by large organizations. Vendors say very few private practices have bought it yet. “The technology works, but it is still in the early-adopter phase,” Dr. Yu said.

For one thing, the software can be expensive. Very few vendors reveal their prices, but Dr. Yu did so. She said Olive normally costs about $50,000 a year for even a small organization. She insisted, however, that the savings from avoiding just one denial each month for a hip surgery would justify the expense.

On the other hand, some automation software is free, such as the Surescripts product for prior authorization of prescriptions. But it is unclear whether Surescripts does as much as Olive. Vendors’ descriptions of their products tend to be vague.

Also, Surescripts and Olive have entirely separate functions. Dr. Yu said Olive is limited to procedures, so it benefits specialties like oncology, neurosurgery, colorectal surgery, vascular surgery, and cardiology. Olive does not cover prescriptions, because they operate on a different technology.

Dr. Yu said another hurdle for adopting the software is the kind of EHR systems that doctors use. At this point, only a few EHR systems – such as Epic, Cerner, and Athena – are compatible with Olive. Large organizations tend to use Epic and Cerner, while many practices often use Athena or a variety of other systems, she said.

Despite stunted demand, there is no shortage of companies offering automation software for medical (that is, non-prescription) prior authorization. One compilation lists 25 such vendors, including companies like Myndshft, Rhyme, Infinitus, Infinx, and Waystar. As with any start-up technology, companies occasionally buy each other out.

In addition to issues like cost, specialty, and EHR compatibility, another hurdle is that few doctors even know the technology exists. Vendors say marketing focuses on larger provider organizations, not smaller practices.

Even many tech-savvy doctors, like Adam Bruggeman, MD, an orthopedist and CEO of Texas Spine Care Center in San Antonio, say they know little about the technology. “There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization,” he said. “But I don’t know of any colleagues who use it.” He has only just begun to explore vendors, he said.

Many medical practice consultants also have not yet explored the technology. “Automation makes a lot of sense, because there are a lot of repetitive tasks in prior authorization,” said Jill Arena, CEO of Portland, Ore.–based Health e Practices. “But I haven’t looked into it yet, and none of my clients has even asked about it.”

“I could see how it could be an easier sell for large organizations,” she added. “They have an IT person and a CFO who can explore the issue. Smaller practices usually don’t have that kind of expertise.”
 

Where does automation go from here?

Until now, clinicians who want to fully automate prior authorizations would have to buy two products – one for medical procedures and one for prescriptions. This has to do with incompatible electronic transmission standards, which are used to digitize information, said Susan Lawson-Dawson, content marketing strategist for the vendor Myndshft Health.

Myndshft has long been selling automation software for medical prior authorizations, but now it is introducing a product for prescriptions, Ms. Lawson-Dawson said. She said Myndshft will then be the only vendor to automate both kinds of prior authorizations.

Ms. Lawson-Dawson said Myndshft has 685 customers to date and is looking for more business. Recently the company entered the Google Cloud Marketplace. Google Cloud customers can now direct their committed spend with Google to purchasing Myndshft, meaning they could get it at a discount.

Software like Olive and Myndshft can operate independently of payers, but a vendor called Rhyme depends on payers for its software to function, said Rhyme CEO Joe Anstine. He said more than 300 payers have agreed to install the Rhyme system, and Rhyme has signed up a number of large health systems to use the product. Initially, he said, clinicians paid for the service, but now Rhyme is beginning to find payers to foot the costs and to let clinicians use it for free, which would open Rhyme up to smaller practices.

EHR companies themselves are beginning to offer automation, too. Epic, for example, has created a tool for prior authorization as part of its Epic Payer Platform. Like Rhyme, it requires payer cooperation, because information goes back and forth between clinician and payer in what is called bi-directional exchange.

The Epic product is still in its pilot phase. Epic reported that several large health systems were using its product in conjunction with a specific payer – for instance, Mayo Clinic with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and Ochsner Health with Humana. According to Epic, the arrangement reduced Mayo’s denials due to additional documentation requests by 63% for professional billing.

Automating with just one payer still means the clinician has to deal with manual processes at other payers, but a large clinician could have sufficient volume with that one payer to make the arrangement useful.
 

Will payers automate prior authorization?

Ultimately, payers may take the automation business away from vendors, offering a free product to all clinicians. But don’t hold your breath. Payers first have to rebuild their electronic systems to accommodate an electronic connection with providers. Even then, some payers might hold back from automating, forcing practices to continue manually processing some prior authorizations.

Efforts are underway, however, to mandate payers to support prior authorization automation. For this to happen, payers would have to revamp their data so that it could be easily read by practices’ EHRs. This would mean adopting a specific interoperability standard called Health Level 7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR).

Toward this goal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to require payers to adopt FHIR by January 2026. (CMS still has to finalize the rule.) Experts say the two-year ramp-up time is needed because it takes extensive work for payers to translate their data into FHIR.

The only payer so far to switch to FHIR for prior authorization is Regence in Washington state. In a pilot project, it has automated prior authorization with just one provider, MultiCare Connected Care, an accountable care organization (ACO), also in Washington state.

Anna Taylor, associate vice president of population health and value-based care at MultiCare, explained how the arrangement works. “Two separate entities are sharing one operational process,” she told this news organization. “That means they can have a digital conversation back and forth, so it is much easier to resolve prior authorization issues.” 

Unlike many vendor products, the Regence service is free. And while the vendors market only to large organizations, most doctors in the MultiCare arrangement are in independent practices. Ms. Taylor said these doctors have been “enthusiastic” about the arrangement.

The results of the pilot are impressive. Ms. Taylor said automation has resulted in a 233% productivity gain for MultiCare clinicians, and 89% of submissions to Regence get an immediate response.

There is a potential downside, however, to working directly with payers. A direct connection to clinicians allows payers to access the doctor’s clinical notes, which could make many doctors uneasy. But Ms. Taylor said Regence only has access to the “discrete data fields” on MultiCare’s EHR dashboard, not to the notes themselves.

The ultimate goal of the Regence-Multicare project is to include more payers and clinicians. Ms. Taylor said two of the 27 other payers that MultiCare works with are “highly interested,” but it would take a lot of work for them to get connected with practices and other clinicians. 

Ultimately, payers could offer automation and third-party vendors might then fade away. However, physicians may resist working directly with payers if the arrangement requires full access to their medical records.

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

New England Baptist Hospital has been grappling with a serious problem facing health care today: insurers demanding prior authorizations for services ordered by physicians. Meeting payers’ requirements eats up time, delays treatment, and can be a costly drain on doctors’ practices. 

To deal with this problem, the Boston orthopedic hospital has opted to automate submission of prior authorization requests on behalf of more than 100 mostly orthopedic surgeons on staff. 

After 5 years using this system, “we can say that automation definitely works,” said Lidiya Hadzhieva, director of patient access at the hospital. The software has reduced write-offs by 30% and staff costs by 25%. Prior authorization gets approved 3 days after scheduling, compared with 11 days previously, she said.

“This software not only saves staff time, but it can also more accurately predict when prior authorization is needed,” she added.

For practices deluged with required prior authorizations by insurers, automation is emerging as a way for practices to make the process less time-consuming and save money. However, the software can be costly and may not be adoptable to many practices, and many physicians are not even aware it exists.

So far, the software is mainly used at large organizations like hospital systems. But as word gets out and the software becomes easier to use, private practices and other smaller entities may join the automation trend.

There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization. The American Medical Association reports that physicians spend 16 hours per week on prior authorizations. In a recent AMA survey, more than 60% of physicians indicated that it’s difficult to know when prior authorization is needed. And 93% of physicians reported care delays while waiting for authorization, the AMA said.  

Experts estimate that 80% of prior authorization work could be automated, but most practices still use the phone or fax, even as numbers of prior authorizations continue to increase.
 

How it works

Automation software connects directly to the practice’s electronic health record (EHR). “When the doctor places an order in the EHR, the process starts automatically,” Ms. Hadzhieva said. “The doctor may not even notice it.” 

In addition to using an EHR connection, many software products can communicate with the payer through its portal or by fax or phone, while still automating other parts of the process.

The software’s first step is to decide whether prior authorization is needed. This requires having an updated list of the rules that each payer uses for prior authorization. Manually keeping track of payer rules is very time-consuming, but automation uses bots to visit each payer site to look for rules changes. One vendor, Infinitus, uses a voice-based bot called Eva that calls up each payer and speaks with a representative.

“Automatically updating payer rules is not a new technology,” said YiDing Yu, MD, chief product officer at Olive, the automation vendor for New England Baptist. “What is new in the last 5 years is extracting the information needed for the prior authorization out of the clinical notes.”

This is challenging because each doctor has different ways to describe each step of clinical work. To identify this shorthand, Dr. Yu said Olive uses natural language processing, which is a form of artificial intelligence that learns how each doctor describes things.

Dr. Yu asserts that Olive is actually better than a practice’s staff at digging out clinical information. She said staff without much clinical training may miss terms that the software can catch, and they don’t have the time to go back many months into the record to find valuable information. But automation can do that.

In some instances, however, the software may not be able to find the information, in which case it alerts staff through a prompt in the EHR and the information is retrieved manually, Dr. Yu said.

Next, the Olive software puts the information it found into the request form and sends it to the payer. After submission, the software constantly checks on the status of each request, again visiting payer sites with a bot.

At New England Baptist, the software is used mainly by physicians in fairly small private practices who are on staff. They are using the software on the hospital’s dime, but it only works inside the hospital, Ms. Hadzhieva said. For their work outside of the hospital, they would have to purchase the Olive software on their own, she said.
 

Automation hasn’t spread to practices yet

Despite the promising outcomes for products like Olive, automation software is still primarily used by large organizations. Vendors say very few private practices have bought it yet. “The technology works, but it is still in the early-adopter phase,” Dr. Yu said.

For one thing, the software can be expensive. Very few vendors reveal their prices, but Dr. Yu did so. She said Olive normally costs about $50,000 a year for even a small organization. She insisted, however, that the savings from avoiding just one denial each month for a hip surgery would justify the expense.

On the other hand, some automation software is free, such as the Surescripts product for prior authorization of prescriptions. But it is unclear whether Surescripts does as much as Olive. Vendors’ descriptions of their products tend to be vague.

Also, Surescripts and Olive have entirely separate functions. Dr. Yu said Olive is limited to procedures, so it benefits specialties like oncology, neurosurgery, colorectal surgery, vascular surgery, and cardiology. Olive does not cover prescriptions, because they operate on a different technology.

Dr. Yu said another hurdle for adopting the software is the kind of EHR systems that doctors use. At this point, only a few EHR systems – such as Epic, Cerner, and Athena – are compatible with Olive. Large organizations tend to use Epic and Cerner, while many practices often use Athena or a variety of other systems, she said.

Despite stunted demand, there is no shortage of companies offering automation software for medical (that is, non-prescription) prior authorization. One compilation lists 25 such vendors, including companies like Myndshft, Rhyme, Infinitus, Infinx, and Waystar. As with any start-up technology, companies occasionally buy each other out.

In addition to issues like cost, specialty, and EHR compatibility, another hurdle is that few doctors even know the technology exists. Vendors say marketing focuses on larger provider organizations, not smaller practices.

Even many tech-savvy doctors, like Adam Bruggeman, MD, an orthopedist and CEO of Texas Spine Care Center in San Antonio, say they know little about the technology. “There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization,” he said. “But I don’t know of any colleagues who use it.” He has only just begun to explore vendors, he said.

Many medical practice consultants also have not yet explored the technology. “Automation makes a lot of sense, because there are a lot of repetitive tasks in prior authorization,” said Jill Arena, CEO of Portland, Ore.–based Health e Practices. “But I haven’t looked into it yet, and none of my clients has even asked about it.”

“I could see how it could be an easier sell for large organizations,” she added. “They have an IT person and a CFO who can explore the issue. Smaller practices usually don’t have that kind of expertise.”
 

Where does automation go from here?

Until now, clinicians who want to fully automate prior authorizations would have to buy two products – one for medical procedures and one for prescriptions. This has to do with incompatible electronic transmission standards, which are used to digitize information, said Susan Lawson-Dawson, content marketing strategist for the vendor Myndshft Health.

Myndshft has long been selling automation software for medical prior authorizations, but now it is introducing a product for prescriptions, Ms. Lawson-Dawson said. She said Myndshft will then be the only vendor to automate both kinds of prior authorizations.

Ms. Lawson-Dawson said Myndshft has 685 customers to date and is looking for more business. Recently the company entered the Google Cloud Marketplace. Google Cloud customers can now direct their committed spend with Google to purchasing Myndshft, meaning they could get it at a discount.

Software like Olive and Myndshft can operate independently of payers, but a vendor called Rhyme depends on payers for its software to function, said Rhyme CEO Joe Anstine. He said more than 300 payers have agreed to install the Rhyme system, and Rhyme has signed up a number of large health systems to use the product. Initially, he said, clinicians paid for the service, but now Rhyme is beginning to find payers to foot the costs and to let clinicians use it for free, which would open Rhyme up to smaller practices.

EHR companies themselves are beginning to offer automation, too. Epic, for example, has created a tool for prior authorization as part of its Epic Payer Platform. Like Rhyme, it requires payer cooperation, because information goes back and forth between clinician and payer in what is called bi-directional exchange.

The Epic product is still in its pilot phase. Epic reported that several large health systems were using its product in conjunction with a specific payer – for instance, Mayo Clinic with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and Ochsner Health with Humana. According to Epic, the arrangement reduced Mayo’s denials due to additional documentation requests by 63% for professional billing.

Automating with just one payer still means the clinician has to deal with manual processes at other payers, but a large clinician could have sufficient volume with that one payer to make the arrangement useful.
 

Will payers automate prior authorization?

Ultimately, payers may take the automation business away from vendors, offering a free product to all clinicians. But don’t hold your breath. Payers first have to rebuild their electronic systems to accommodate an electronic connection with providers. Even then, some payers might hold back from automating, forcing practices to continue manually processing some prior authorizations.

Efforts are underway, however, to mandate payers to support prior authorization automation. For this to happen, payers would have to revamp their data so that it could be easily read by practices’ EHRs. This would mean adopting a specific interoperability standard called Health Level 7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR).

Toward this goal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to require payers to adopt FHIR by January 2026. (CMS still has to finalize the rule.) Experts say the two-year ramp-up time is needed because it takes extensive work for payers to translate their data into FHIR.

The only payer so far to switch to FHIR for prior authorization is Regence in Washington state. In a pilot project, it has automated prior authorization with just one provider, MultiCare Connected Care, an accountable care organization (ACO), also in Washington state.

Anna Taylor, associate vice president of population health and value-based care at MultiCare, explained how the arrangement works. “Two separate entities are sharing one operational process,” she told this news organization. “That means they can have a digital conversation back and forth, so it is much easier to resolve prior authorization issues.” 

Unlike many vendor products, the Regence service is free. And while the vendors market only to large organizations, most doctors in the MultiCare arrangement are in independent practices. Ms. Taylor said these doctors have been “enthusiastic” about the arrangement.

The results of the pilot are impressive. Ms. Taylor said automation has resulted in a 233% productivity gain for MultiCare clinicians, and 89% of submissions to Regence get an immediate response.

There is a potential downside, however, to working directly with payers. A direct connection to clinicians allows payers to access the doctor’s clinical notes, which could make many doctors uneasy. But Ms. Taylor said Regence only has access to the “discrete data fields” on MultiCare’s EHR dashboard, not to the notes themselves.

The ultimate goal of the Regence-Multicare project is to include more payers and clinicians. Ms. Taylor said two of the 27 other payers that MultiCare works with are “highly interested,” but it would take a lot of work for them to get connected with practices and other clinicians. 

Ultimately, payers could offer automation and third-party vendors might then fade away. However, physicians may resist working directly with payers if the arrangement requires full access to their medical records.

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

New England Baptist Hospital has been grappling with a serious problem facing health care today: insurers demanding prior authorizations for services ordered by physicians. Meeting payers’ requirements eats up time, delays treatment, and can be a costly drain on doctors’ practices. 

To deal with this problem, the Boston orthopedic hospital has opted to automate submission of prior authorization requests on behalf of more than 100 mostly orthopedic surgeons on staff. 

After 5 years using this system, “we can say that automation definitely works,” said Lidiya Hadzhieva, director of patient access at the hospital. The software has reduced write-offs by 30% and staff costs by 25%. Prior authorization gets approved 3 days after scheduling, compared with 11 days previously, she said.

“This software not only saves staff time, but it can also more accurately predict when prior authorization is needed,” she added.

For practices deluged with required prior authorizations by insurers, automation is emerging as a way for practices to make the process less time-consuming and save money. However, the software can be costly and may not be adoptable to many practices, and many physicians are not even aware it exists.

So far, the software is mainly used at large organizations like hospital systems. But as word gets out and the software becomes easier to use, private practices and other smaller entities may join the automation trend.

There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization. The American Medical Association reports that physicians spend 16 hours per week on prior authorizations. In a recent AMA survey, more than 60% of physicians indicated that it’s difficult to know when prior authorization is needed. And 93% of physicians reported care delays while waiting for authorization, the AMA said.  

Experts estimate that 80% of prior authorization work could be automated, but most practices still use the phone or fax, even as numbers of prior authorizations continue to increase.
 

How it works

Automation software connects directly to the practice’s electronic health record (EHR). “When the doctor places an order in the EHR, the process starts automatically,” Ms. Hadzhieva said. “The doctor may not even notice it.” 

In addition to using an EHR connection, many software products can communicate with the payer through its portal or by fax or phone, while still automating other parts of the process.

The software’s first step is to decide whether prior authorization is needed. This requires having an updated list of the rules that each payer uses for prior authorization. Manually keeping track of payer rules is very time-consuming, but automation uses bots to visit each payer site to look for rules changes. One vendor, Infinitus, uses a voice-based bot called Eva that calls up each payer and speaks with a representative.

“Automatically updating payer rules is not a new technology,” said YiDing Yu, MD, chief product officer at Olive, the automation vendor for New England Baptist. “What is new in the last 5 years is extracting the information needed for the prior authorization out of the clinical notes.”

This is challenging because each doctor has different ways to describe each step of clinical work. To identify this shorthand, Dr. Yu said Olive uses natural language processing, which is a form of artificial intelligence that learns how each doctor describes things.

Dr. Yu asserts that Olive is actually better than a practice’s staff at digging out clinical information. She said staff without much clinical training may miss terms that the software can catch, and they don’t have the time to go back many months into the record to find valuable information. But automation can do that.

In some instances, however, the software may not be able to find the information, in which case it alerts staff through a prompt in the EHR and the information is retrieved manually, Dr. Yu said.

Next, the Olive software puts the information it found into the request form and sends it to the payer. After submission, the software constantly checks on the status of each request, again visiting payer sites with a bot.

At New England Baptist, the software is used mainly by physicians in fairly small private practices who are on staff. They are using the software on the hospital’s dime, but it only works inside the hospital, Ms. Hadzhieva said. For their work outside of the hospital, they would have to purchase the Olive software on their own, she said.
 

Automation hasn’t spread to practices yet

Despite the promising outcomes for products like Olive, automation software is still primarily used by large organizations. Vendors say very few private practices have bought it yet. “The technology works, but it is still in the early-adopter phase,” Dr. Yu said.

For one thing, the software can be expensive. Very few vendors reveal their prices, but Dr. Yu did so. She said Olive normally costs about $50,000 a year for even a small organization. She insisted, however, that the savings from avoiding just one denial each month for a hip surgery would justify the expense.

On the other hand, some automation software is free, such as the Surescripts product for prior authorization of prescriptions. But it is unclear whether Surescripts does as much as Olive. Vendors’ descriptions of their products tend to be vague.

Also, Surescripts and Olive have entirely separate functions. Dr. Yu said Olive is limited to procedures, so it benefits specialties like oncology, neurosurgery, colorectal surgery, vascular surgery, and cardiology. Olive does not cover prescriptions, because they operate on a different technology.

Dr. Yu said another hurdle for adopting the software is the kind of EHR systems that doctors use. At this point, only a few EHR systems – such as Epic, Cerner, and Athena – are compatible with Olive. Large organizations tend to use Epic and Cerner, while many practices often use Athena or a variety of other systems, she said.

Despite stunted demand, there is no shortage of companies offering automation software for medical (that is, non-prescription) prior authorization. One compilation lists 25 such vendors, including companies like Myndshft, Rhyme, Infinitus, Infinx, and Waystar. As with any start-up technology, companies occasionally buy each other out.

In addition to issues like cost, specialty, and EHR compatibility, another hurdle is that few doctors even know the technology exists. Vendors say marketing focuses on larger provider organizations, not smaller practices.

Even many tech-savvy doctors, like Adam Bruggeman, MD, an orthopedist and CEO of Texas Spine Care Center in San Antonio, say they know little about the technology. “There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization,” he said. “But I don’t know of any colleagues who use it.” He has only just begun to explore vendors, he said.

Many medical practice consultants also have not yet explored the technology. “Automation makes a lot of sense, because there are a lot of repetitive tasks in prior authorization,” said Jill Arena, CEO of Portland, Ore.–based Health e Practices. “But I haven’t looked into it yet, and none of my clients has even asked about it.”

“I could see how it could be an easier sell for large organizations,” she added. “They have an IT person and a CFO who can explore the issue. Smaller practices usually don’t have that kind of expertise.”
 

Where does automation go from here?

Until now, clinicians who want to fully automate prior authorizations would have to buy two products – one for medical procedures and one for prescriptions. This has to do with incompatible electronic transmission standards, which are used to digitize information, said Susan Lawson-Dawson, content marketing strategist for the vendor Myndshft Health.

Myndshft has long been selling automation software for medical prior authorizations, but now it is introducing a product for prescriptions, Ms. Lawson-Dawson said. She said Myndshft will then be the only vendor to automate both kinds of prior authorizations.

Ms. Lawson-Dawson said Myndshft has 685 customers to date and is looking for more business. Recently the company entered the Google Cloud Marketplace. Google Cloud customers can now direct their committed spend with Google to purchasing Myndshft, meaning they could get it at a discount.

Software like Olive and Myndshft can operate independently of payers, but a vendor called Rhyme depends on payers for its software to function, said Rhyme CEO Joe Anstine. He said more than 300 payers have agreed to install the Rhyme system, and Rhyme has signed up a number of large health systems to use the product. Initially, he said, clinicians paid for the service, but now Rhyme is beginning to find payers to foot the costs and to let clinicians use it for free, which would open Rhyme up to smaller practices.

EHR companies themselves are beginning to offer automation, too. Epic, for example, has created a tool for prior authorization as part of its Epic Payer Platform. Like Rhyme, it requires payer cooperation, because information goes back and forth between clinician and payer in what is called bi-directional exchange.

The Epic product is still in its pilot phase. Epic reported that several large health systems were using its product in conjunction with a specific payer – for instance, Mayo Clinic with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and Ochsner Health with Humana. According to Epic, the arrangement reduced Mayo’s denials due to additional documentation requests by 63% for professional billing.

Automating with just one payer still means the clinician has to deal with manual processes at other payers, but a large clinician could have sufficient volume with that one payer to make the arrangement useful.
 

Will payers automate prior authorization?

Ultimately, payers may take the automation business away from vendors, offering a free product to all clinicians. But don’t hold your breath. Payers first have to rebuild their electronic systems to accommodate an electronic connection with providers. Even then, some payers might hold back from automating, forcing practices to continue manually processing some prior authorizations.

Efforts are underway, however, to mandate payers to support prior authorization automation. For this to happen, payers would have to revamp their data so that it could be easily read by practices’ EHRs. This would mean adopting a specific interoperability standard called Health Level 7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR).

Toward this goal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to require payers to adopt FHIR by January 2026. (CMS still has to finalize the rule.) Experts say the two-year ramp-up time is needed because it takes extensive work for payers to translate their data into FHIR.

The only payer so far to switch to FHIR for prior authorization is Regence in Washington state. In a pilot project, it has automated prior authorization with just one provider, MultiCare Connected Care, an accountable care organization (ACO), also in Washington state.

Anna Taylor, associate vice president of population health and value-based care at MultiCare, explained how the arrangement works. “Two separate entities are sharing one operational process,” she told this news organization. “That means they can have a digital conversation back and forth, so it is much easier to resolve prior authorization issues.” 

Unlike many vendor products, the Regence service is free. And while the vendors market only to large organizations, most doctors in the MultiCare arrangement are in independent practices. Ms. Taylor said these doctors have been “enthusiastic” about the arrangement.

The results of the pilot are impressive. Ms. Taylor said automation has resulted in a 233% productivity gain for MultiCare clinicians, and 89% of submissions to Regence get an immediate response.

There is a potential downside, however, to working directly with payers. A direct connection to clinicians allows payers to access the doctor’s clinical notes, which could make many doctors uneasy. But Ms. Taylor said Regence only has access to the “discrete data fields” on MultiCare’s EHR dashboard, not to the notes themselves.

The ultimate goal of the Regence-Multicare project is to include more payers and clinicians. Ms. Taylor said two of the 27 other payers that MultiCare works with are “highly interested,” but it would take a lot of work for them to get connected with practices and other clinicians. 

Ultimately, payers could offer automation and third-party vendors might then fade away. However, physicians may resist working directly with payers if the arrangement requires full access to their medical records.

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

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of reported diagnosed arthritis in the United States is highest overall in older adults with comorbid chronic conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 2019 to 2021 to update the prevalence of self-reported arthritis in the United States.
• The sample sizes for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 NHIS were 31,997, 21,153, and 29,482, with survey response rates of 59.1%, 48.9%, and 50.9%, respectively.
• The unadjusted and age-standardized prevalence estimates were calculated for adults aged 18 years and older and based on self-reported health and demographic data.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, arthritis was diagnosed in 53.2 million adults aged 18 years and older in the United States; of these, 88.3% were aged 45 years and older and 48.3% were 65 years and older.
• Age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher in women vs men and among veterans vs nonveterans (20.9% vs 16.3% and 24.2% vs 18.5%, respectively).
• When categorized by race, age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher among non-Hispanic White individuals, compared with Hispanic or Latino individuals or non-Hispanic Asian individuals (20.1%, 14.7%, and 10.3%, respectively).
• The prevalence of arthritis also was higher among individuals with self-reported diagnosis of chronic conditions including dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer than in those without these conditions; approximately half of adults aged 65 years and older with arthritis reported at least one of these conditions.

IN PRACTICE:

“These prevalence estimates can be used to guide public health policies and activities to increase equitable access to physical activity opportunities within the built environment and other community-based, arthritis-appropriate, evidence-based interventions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Elizabeth A. Fallon, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. The data were published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.  

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design prevented conclusions of causality between individual characteristics and arthritis diagnosis; other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, possible response bias, and the inability to calculate prevalence of arthritis subtypes. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of reported diagnosed arthritis in the United States is highest overall in older adults with comorbid chronic conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 2019 to 2021 to update the prevalence of self-reported arthritis in the United States.
• The sample sizes for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 NHIS were 31,997, 21,153, and 29,482, with survey response rates of 59.1%, 48.9%, and 50.9%, respectively.
• The unadjusted and age-standardized prevalence estimates were calculated for adults aged 18 years and older and based on self-reported health and demographic data.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, arthritis was diagnosed in 53.2 million adults aged 18 years and older in the United States; of these, 88.3% were aged 45 years and older and 48.3% were 65 years and older.
• Age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher in women vs men and among veterans vs nonveterans (20.9% vs 16.3% and 24.2% vs 18.5%, respectively).
• When categorized by race, age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher among non-Hispanic White individuals, compared with Hispanic or Latino individuals or non-Hispanic Asian individuals (20.1%, 14.7%, and 10.3%, respectively).
• The prevalence of arthritis also was higher among individuals with self-reported diagnosis of chronic conditions including dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer than in those without these conditions; approximately half of adults aged 65 years and older with arthritis reported at least one of these conditions.

IN PRACTICE:

“These prevalence estimates can be used to guide public health policies and activities to increase equitable access to physical activity opportunities within the built environment and other community-based, arthritis-appropriate, evidence-based interventions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Elizabeth A. Fallon, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. The data were published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.  

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design prevented conclusions of causality between individual characteristics and arthritis diagnosis; other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, possible response bias, and the inability to calculate prevalence of arthritis subtypes. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of reported diagnosed arthritis in the United States is highest overall in older adults with comorbid chronic conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 2019 to 2021 to update the prevalence of self-reported arthritis in the United States.
• The sample sizes for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 NHIS were 31,997, 21,153, and 29,482, with survey response rates of 59.1%, 48.9%, and 50.9%, respectively.
• The unadjusted and age-standardized prevalence estimates were calculated for adults aged 18 years and older and based on self-reported health and demographic data.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, arthritis was diagnosed in 53.2 million adults aged 18 years and older in the United States; of these, 88.3% were aged 45 years and older and 48.3% were 65 years and older.
• Age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher in women vs men and among veterans vs nonveterans (20.9% vs 16.3% and 24.2% vs 18.5%, respectively).
• When categorized by race, age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher among non-Hispanic White individuals, compared with Hispanic or Latino individuals or non-Hispanic Asian individuals (20.1%, 14.7%, and 10.3%, respectively).
• The prevalence of arthritis also was higher among individuals with self-reported diagnosis of chronic conditions including dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer than in those without these conditions; approximately half of adults aged 65 years and older with arthritis reported at least one of these conditions.

IN PRACTICE:

“These prevalence estimates can be used to guide public health policies and activities to increase equitable access to physical activity opportunities within the built environment and other community-based, arthritis-appropriate, evidence-based interventions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Elizabeth A. Fallon, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. The data were published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.  

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design prevented conclusions of causality between individual characteristics and arthritis diagnosis; other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, possible response bias, and the inability to calculate prevalence of arthritis subtypes. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

VANCOUVER – The occurrence of a fracture predicts future fracture risk, but the increase in risk is the same no matter what the age of the patient, according to a new population-based study drawn from the Manitoba BMD Registry.

The work expands previous studies that focused mostly on fracture risk prediction after a first fracture among individuals aged 45-50 and older. Other limitations of prior studies include large age categories (such as “premenopausal”), reliance on self-reporting, and small sample sizes.

As a result, some guidelines recommend considering fracture history only for patients older than a certain age when assessing for future risk, such as with the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX). The new study suggests a potential need to reconsider that stance.

“The [percentage] of increased risk from having had prevalent fractures in the past, no matter what your age, is about the same. I think that it’s really paradigm shifting because [when] most of us think [of] young people who fracture, we’re not thinking of osteoporosis or future fracture risk. We’re not saying, ‘Oh, I had a fracture when I was 25. When I’m 70, I should be thinking about osteoporosis.’ So, I think this study is quite eye-opening that way,” Carrie Ye, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, said in an interview.

Participants of younger age who are referred for dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) likely represent a population at increased risk of osteoporosis, according to Dr. Ye. “Maybe they have Crohn’s disease or maybe they’re on a bunch of steroids, and so a clinician has flagged them,” said Dr. Ye, who is an assistant professor and rheumatologist at the University of Alberta, Edmonton.

The researchers limited the analysis to nontraumatic fractures, but session moderator Nicholas Harvey, MD, PhD, wondered if a similar finding would occur with traumatic fractures. In an interview, he noted that researchers led by William Leslie, MD, at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, found that prior traumatic fracture also predicted future low bone-mineral density (BMD) and osteoporotic fracture. “I think that would have been one interesting question,” said Dr. Harvey, director of the Medical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre at the University of Southampton, England.

Dr. Ye’s study included 88,696 individuals who underwent a first DXA scan between 1996 and 2018, which researchers then linked to provincial administrative health data collected between 1979 and 2018. The mean age at first DXA was 64.6 years, and 90.3% were women. Their mean body mass index was 27.4 kg/m². Current smokers made up 10.1% of the cohort, 5.5% had a history of prolonged glucocorticoid use, 3.1% had rheumatoid arthritis, and among 14.9% of patients, there was a secondary cause of osteoporosis. Over a median 25.1 years of observation prior to DXA, clinical fracture occurred in 23.8% of participants.

The mean age of the patients at the time of their first prior fracture was 57.7 years. Over a mean 9.0 years of follow-up, 14.6% of participants experienced a fracture of any kind, 14.0% had osteoporotic fractures, 10.6% had a major osteoporotic fracture (nonankle), and 3.5% had a hip fracture. Among persons aged 20-29 years to 80 years or older, the adjusted hazard ratios for future fractures were similar, ranging from 1.51 to 2.12 (P for trend = .120).

The results were similar when age groups were analyzed with regard to all fractures, osteoporotic fractures, major osteoporotic fractures, or hip fractures.

Going forward, Dr. Ye hopes to expand the research into childhood fractures. “They can break their bones pretty easily, especially as they’re going through growth spurts and things like that,” she said.

Asked what her advice to physicians would be, Dr. Ye responded: “Don’t ignore prior fractures, even if they occurred at an early age. I think if someone’s had a fracture, they bought themselves a fracture risk assessment, and that doesn’t mean necessarily a DXA scan. It means you go through their other risk factors: What medications are they on? Do they have a family history? Are they super low BMI? Look at other reasons why you should be worried about their bones, and if you should be worried about their bones, certainly [measure their] BMD and see what’s going on.”

Dr. Ye and Dr. Harvey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – The occurrence of a fracture predicts future fracture risk, but the increase in risk is the same no matter what the age of the patient, according to a new population-based study drawn from the Manitoba BMD Registry.

The work expands previous studies that focused mostly on fracture risk prediction after a first fracture among individuals aged 45-50 and older. Other limitations of prior studies include large age categories (such as “premenopausal”), reliance on self-reporting, and small sample sizes.

As a result, some guidelines recommend considering fracture history only for patients older than a certain age when assessing for future risk, such as with the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX). The new study suggests a potential need to reconsider that stance.

“The [percentage] of increased risk from having had prevalent fractures in the past, no matter what your age, is about the same. I think that it’s really paradigm shifting because [when] most of us think [of] young people who fracture, we’re not thinking of osteoporosis or future fracture risk. We’re not saying, ‘Oh, I had a fracture when I was 25. When I’m 70, I should be thinking about osteoporosis.’ So, I think this study is quite eye-opening that way,” Carrie Ye, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, said in an interview.

Participants of younger age who are referred for dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) likely represent a population at increased risk of osteoporosis, according to Dr. Ye. “Maybe they have Crohn’s disease or maybe they’re on a bunch of steroids, and so a clinician has flagged them,” said Dr. Ye, who is an assistant professor and rheumatologist at the University of Alberta, Edmonton.

The researchers limited the analysis to nontraumatic fractures, but session moderator Nicholas Harvey, MD, PhD, wondered if a similar finding would occur with traumatic fractures. In an interview, he noted that researchers led by William Leslie, MD, at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, found that prior traumatic fracture also predicted future low bone-mineral density (BMD) and osteoporotic fracture. “I think that would have been one interesting question,” said Dr. Harvey, director of the Medical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre at the University of Southampton, England.

Dr. Ye’s study included 88,696 individuals who underwent a first DXA scan between 1996 and 2018, which researchers then linked to provincial administrative health data collected between 1979 and 2018. The mean age at first DXA was 64.6 years, and 90.3% were women. Their mean body mass index was 27.4 kg/m². Current smokers made up 10.1% of the cohort, 5.5% had a history of prolonged glucocorticoid use, 3.1% had rheumatoid arthritis, and among 14.9% of patients, there was a secondary cause of osteoporosis. Over a median 25.1 years of observation prior to DXA, clinical fracture occurred in 23.8% of participants.

The mean age of the patients at the time of their first prior fracture was 57.7 years. Over a mean 9.0 years of follow-up, 14.6% of participants experienced a fracture of any kind, 14.0% had osteoporotic fractures, 10.6% had a major osteoporotic fracture (nonankle), and 3.5% had a hip fracture. Among persons aged 20-29 years to 80 years or older, the adjusted hazard ratios for future fractures were similar, ranging from 1.51 to 2.12 (P for trend = .120).

The results were similar when age groups were analyzed with regard to all fractures, osteoporotic fractures, major osteoporotic fractures, or hip fractures.

Going forward, Dr. Ye hopes to expand the research into childhood fractures. “They can break their bones pretty easily, especially as they’re going through growth spurts and things like that,” she said.

Asked what her advice to physicians would be, Dr. Ye responded: “Don’t ignore prior fractures, even if they occurred at an early age. I think if someone’s had a fracture, they bought themselves a fracture risk assessment, and that doesn’t mean necessarily a DXA scan. It means you go through their other risk factors: What medications are they on? Do they have a family history? Are they super low BMI? Look at other reasons why you should be worried about their bones, and if you should be worried about their bones, certainly [measure their] BMD and see what’s going on.”

Dr. Ye and Dr. Harvey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – The occurrence of a fracture predicts future fracture risk, but the increase in risk is the same no matter what the age of the patient, according to a new population-based study drawn from the Manitoba BMD Registry.

The work expands previous studies that focused mostly on fracture risk prediction after a first fracture among individuals aged 45-50 and older. Other limitations of prior studies include large age categories (such as “premenopausal”), reliance on self-reporting, and small sample sizes.

As a result, some guidelines recommend considering fracture history only for patients older than a certain age when assessing for future risk, such as with the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX). The new study suggests a potential need to reconsider that stance.

“The [percentage] of increased risk from having had prevalent fractures in the past, no matter what your age, is about the same. I think that it’s really paradigm shifting because [when] most of us think [of] young people who fracture, we’re not thinking of osteoporosis or future fracture risk. We’re not saying, ‘Oh, I had a fracture when I was 25. When I’m 70, I should be thinking about osteoporosis.’ So, I think this study is quite eye-opening that way,” Carrie Ye, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, said in an interview.

Participants of younger age who are referred for dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) likely represent a population at increased risk of osteoporosis, according to Dr. Ye. “Maybe they have Crohn’s disease or maybe they’re on a bunch of steroids, and so a clinician has flagged them,” said Dr. Ye, who is an assistant professor and rheumatologist at the University of Alberta, Edmonton.

The researchers limited the analysis to nontraumatic fractures, but session moderator Nicholas Harvey, MD, PhD, wondered if a similar finding would occur with traumatic fractures. In an interview, he noted that researchers led by William Leslie, MD, at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, found that prior traumatic fracture also predicted future low bone-mineral density (BMD) and osteoporotic fracture. “I think that would have been one interesting question,” said Dr. Harvey, director of the Medical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre at the University of Southampton, England.

Dr. Ye’s study included 88,696 individuals who underwent a first DXA scan between 1996 and 2018, which researchers then linked to provincial administrative health data collected between 1979 and 2018. The mean age at first DXA was 64.6 years, and 90.3% were women. Their mean body mass index was 27.4 kg/m². Current smokers made up 10.1% of the cohort, 5.5% had a history of prolonged glucocorticoid use, 3.1% had rheumatoid arthritis, and among 14.9% of patients, there was a secondary cause of osteoporosis. Over a median 25.1 years of observation prior to DXA, clinical fracture occurred in 23.8% of participants.

The mean age of the patients at the time of their first prior fracture was 57.7 years. Over a mean 9.0 years of follow-up, 14.6% of participants experienced a fracture of any kind, 14.0% had osteoporotic fractures, 10.6% had a major osteoporotic fracture (nonankle), and 3.5% had a hip fracture. Among persons aged 20-29 years to 80 years or older, the adjusted hazard ratios for future fractures were similar, ranging from 1.51 to 2.12 (P for trend = .120).

The results were similar when age groups were analyzed with regard to all fractures, osteoporotic fractures, major osteoporotic fractures, or hip fractures.

Going forward, Dr. Ye hopes to expand the research into childhood fractures. “They can break their bones pretty easily, especially as they’re going through growth spurts and things like that,” she said.

Asked what her advice to physicians would be, Dr. Ye responded: “Don’t ignore prior fractures, even if they occurred at an early age. I think if someone’s had a fracture, they bought themselves a fracture risk assessment, and that doesn’t mean necessarily a DXA scan. It means you go through their other risk factors: What medications are they on? Do they have a family history? Are they super low BMI? Look at other reasons why you should be worried about their bones, and if you should be worried about their bones, certainly [measure their] BMD and see what’s going on.”

Dr. Ye and Dr. Harvey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

In combination with methotrexate, both abatacept (Orencia) and certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), but not tocilizumab (Actemra), showed superiority over different combinations of active conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for promoting remission in patients with early, untreated rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODOLOGY:

The study population included 812 adults from sites in six European countries who had treatment-naive early RA (less than 24 months’ duration) and moderate to severe disease.

Participants were randomly assigned to open-label treatment with methotrexate plus one of four treatments:

• Active conventional therapy (oral , tapered quickly and discontinued after 9 months, or , hydroxychloroquine, and intra-articular glucocorticoid injections in swollen joints).
• Certolizumab pegol.
• Abatacept.
• Tocilizumab.

In all the biologic-treated groups, intra-articular glucocorticoid injections were allowed on demand up to week 12; thereafter, up to 40 mg were allowed every 12 weeks. In all groups, intra-articular glucocorticoids were prohibited in weeks 20-24 and weeks 44-48 to minimize their influence on week 24 and week 48 outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Clinical remission rates at week 48 based on Clinical Disease Activity Index scores of 2.8 or less were 59.3% with abatacept and 52.3% with certolizumab, which were significantly greater than the rate of 39.2% seen with active conventional therapy. The 51.9% rate seen with tocilizumab was not superior to active conventional therapy.
• The co–primary outcome of change in van der Heijde-modified Sharp Score from baseline to week 48 was relatively low across all groups: 0.45 for active conventional therapy, and 0.62, 0.47, and 0.50 for abatacept, certolizumab pegol, and tocilizumab, respectively.
• No new safety signals appeared, nor did any significantly increased risk associated with glucocorticoid use; at least one adverse event was reported in 88.3%, 89.6%, 85.8%, and 96.7% of patients taking conventional therapy, certolizumab pegol, abatacept, and tocilizumab, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

The results suggest that both abatacept and certolizumab pegol yield higher remission rates than optimized conventional therapy, and “should be considered when the management of patients with newly diagnosed RA is decided, both in clinical practice and in treatment recommendations,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Mikkel Østergaard, MD, PhD, of the Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen. The study was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Disease.  

LIMITATIONS:

The open-label study design could influence some subjective outcomes, and conventional therapy included two slightly different strategies based on national recommendations for the individual countries.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by multiple public sources to centers from countries participating in the study, as well as the Icelandic Society for Rheumatology, the Swedish Rheumatism Association, and the Research Fund of University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland. UCB and Bristol-Myers Squibb provided certolizumab pegol and abatacept, respectively, at no cost, but were not otherwise involved in the study. Many authors, including Dr. Østergaard, report financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies. The full list can be found with the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

In combination with methotrexate, both abatacept (Orencia) and certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), but not tocilizumab (Actemra), showed superiority over different combinations of active conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for promoting remission in patients with early, untreated rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODOLOGY:

The study population included 812 adults from sites in six European countries who had treatment-naive early RA (less than 24 months’ duration) and moderate to severe disease.

Participants were randomly assigned to open-label treatment with methotrexate plus one of four treatments:

• Active conventional therapy (oral , tapered quickly and discontinued after 9 months, or , hydroxychloroquine, and intra-articular glucocorticoid injections in swollen joints).
• Certolizumab pegol.
• Abatacept.
• Tocilizumab.

In all the biologic-treated groups, intra-articular glucocorticoid injections were allowed on demand up to week 12; thereafter, up to 40 mg were allowed every 12 weeks. In all groups, intra-articular glucocorticoids were prohibited in weeks 20-24 and weeks 44-48 to minimize their influence on week 24 and week 48 outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Clinical remission rates at week 48 based on Clinical Disease Activity Index scores of 2.8 or less were 59.3% with abatacept and 52.3% with certolizumab, which were significantly greater than the rate of 39.2% seen with active conventional therapy. The 51.9% rate seen with tocilizumab was not superior to active conventional therapy.
• The co–primary outcome of change in van der Heijde-modified Sharp Score from baseline to week 48 was relatively low across all groups: 0.45 for active conventional therapy, and 0.62, 0.47, and 0.50 for abatacept, certolizumab pegol, and tocilizumab, respectively.
• No new safety signals appeared, nor did any significantly increased risk associated with glucocorticoid use; at least one adverse event was reported in 88.3%, 89.6%, 85.8%, and 96.7% of patients taking conventional therapy, certolizumab pegol, abatacept, and tocilizumab, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

The results suggest that both abatacept and certolizumab pegol yield higher remission rates than optimized conventional therapy, and “should be considered when the management of patients with newly diagnosed RA is decided, both in clinical practice and in treatment recommendations,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Mikkel Østergaard, MD, PhD, of the Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen. The study was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Disease.  

LIMITATIONS:

The open-label study design could influence some subjective outcomes, and conventional therapy included two slightly different strategies based on national recommendations for the individual countries.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by multiple public sources to centers from countries participating in the study, as well as the Icelandic Society for Rheumatology, the Swedish Rheumatism Association, and the Research Fund of University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland. UCB and Bristol-Myers Squibb provided certolizumab pegol and abatacept, respectively, at no cost, but were not otherwise involved in the study. Many authors, including Dr. Østergaard, report financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies. The full list can be found with the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

In combination with methotrexate, both abatacept (Orencia) and certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), but not tocilizumab (Actemra), showed superiority over different combinations of active conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for promoting remission in patients with early, untreated rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODOLOGY:

The study population included 812 adults from sites in six European countries who had treatment-naive early RA (less than 24 months’ duration) and moderate to severe disease.

Participants were randomly assigned to open-label treatment with methotrexate plus one of four treatments:

• Active conventional therapy (oral , tapered quickly and discontinued after 9 months, or , hydroxychloroquine, and intra-articular glucocorticoid injections in swollen joints).
• Certolizumab pegol.
• Abatacept.
• Tocilizumab.

In all the biologic-treated groups, intra-articular glucocorticoid injections were allowed on demand up to week 12; thereafter, up to 40 mg were allowed every 12 weeks. In all groups, intra-articular glucocorticoids were prohibited in weeks 20-24 and weeks 44-48 to minimize their influence on week 24 and week 48 outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Clinical remission rates at week 48 based on Clinical Disease Activity Index scores of 2.8 or less were 59.3% with abatacept and 52.3% with certolizumab, which were significantly greater than the rate of 39.2% seen with active conventional therapy. The 51.9% rate seen with tocilizumab was not superior to active conventional therapy.
• The co–primary outcome of change in van der Heijde-modified Sharp Score from baseline to week 48 was relatively low across all groups: 0.45 for active conventional therapy, and 0.62, 0.47, and 0.50 for abatacept, certolizumab pegol, and tocilizumab, respectively.
• No new safety signals appeared, nor did any significantly increased risk associated with glucocorticoid use; at least one adverse event was reported in 88.3%, 89.6%, 85.8%, and 96.7% of patients taking conventional therapy, certolizumab pegol, abatacept, and tocilizumab, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

The results suggest that both abatacept and certolizumab pegol yield higher remission rates than optimized conventional therapy, and “should be considered when the management of patients with newly diagnosed RA is decided, both in clinical practice and in treatment recommendations,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Mikkel Østergaard, MD, PhD, of the Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen. The study was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Disease.  

LIMITATIONS:

The open-label study design could influence some subjective outcomes, and conventional therapy included two slightly different strategies based on national recommendations for the individual countries.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by multiple public sources to centers from countries participating in the study, as well as the Icelandic Society for Rheumatology, the Swedish Rheumatism Association, and the Research Fund of University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland. UCB and Bristol-Myers Squibb provided certolizumab pegol and abatacept, respectively, at no cost, but were not otherwise involved in the study. Many authors, including Dr. Østergaard, report financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies. The full list can be found with the original article.

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

VANCOUVER – A highly controlled retrospective analysis suggests that denosumab (Prolia) leads to greater reduction in fracture risk than does zoledronic acid (Reclast) among treatment-naive postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

A previous head-to-head comparison showed that denosumab increased bone mineral density at key skeletal sites compared with zoledronic acid, but only a single, small observational study has examined fracture risk, and it found no difference.

The new study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, used a relatively new method of real-world comparative effectiveness analysis called negative control outcome (NCO) to analyze Medicare fee-for-service data.

NCO analysis takes extra pains to remove bias through data that might be linked to potential confounders but could not reasonably be attributed to a drug. For example, people who have greater contact with the health care system may be more likely to get one drug or another. The researchers used the frequency of receiving a flu or pneumonia vaccine as a proxy for this. If the two comparison groups had a significant difference in a proxy, it suggested a hidden bias and forced the researchers to abandon those groupings. Another example used car accidents as a proxy for cognitive impairment.

“If you find meaningful differences between the two groups, and you can say there’s no way a bone drug could account for these differences, then we shouldn’t do this analysis because these groups just aren’t comparable. They probably differ by that confounding factor we couldn’t measure,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, who presented the study. He is a professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The study strongly suggests superiority for denosumab. “There was a significant difference in multiple different groupings of fractures – beginning at year 2, extending to year 3 and even out to year 5 – that showed that there is a significant reduction in fracture risk if you get treated with denosumab [that was greater] than if you get treated with zoledronic acid,” Dr. Curtis said.

The researchers weighed 118 covariates and ultimately identified a population of 90,805 women taking denosumab and 37,328 taking zoledronic acid that was equally balanced in all patient characteristics. The mean age was about 75 years in the denosumab group and 74 in the zoledronic acid group.

The researchers found a 34% lower risk for hip fracture in the denosumab group by 5 years (relative risk, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90).

Similar patterns in fracture risk reduction were observed at 5 years for nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82), nonhip nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88), and major osteoporotic fracture (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.89).

During the Q&A session after the talk, one audience member commented that the study was limited because the researchers only followed patients who received zoledronic acid for 60 days, which could have missed potential long-term benefits of the drug, especially since bisphosphonates have a lengthy skeletal retention time. Dr. Curtis acknowledged the point but said, “Usually, that’s not something we do, but these are different enough mechanisms of action that it may be warranted at least as a sensitivity analysis,” he said.

The study and its methodology were impressive, according to Yumie Rhee, MD, who comoderated the session where the study was presented. “I think they did a really good job by doing the negative control analysis. We’re not going to have a head-to-head clinical trial, so we don’t know the real fracture reduction differences [between denosumab and zoledronic acid]. [The NCO analysis] is more than the propensity matching score that we do usually,” said Dr. Rhee, who is a professor of endocrinology at Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea.

In particular, the study showed a significantly greater reduction in hip fractures with denosumab. “Even in the RCTs, it was really hard to see the reduction in hip fracture, so I think this is showing much stronger data for denosumab. Especially in patients who have more [general fracture] risk and patients with higher hip fracture risk, I would go with denosumab,” Dr. Rhee said.

Her comoderator, Maria Zanchetta, MD, agreed. “It can have clinical implication, because we think denosumab is better than [zoledronic acid] for higher-risk patients, but we didn’t have the evidence. So at least we have a new [study] to look at, and I think it’s very important for our practice,” said Dr. Zanchetta, who is a professor of osteology at the Institute of Diagnostics and Metabolic Research, Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires.

The study was funded by Amgen, which markets denosumab. Dr. Curtis has consulted for Amgen. Dr. Rhee and Dr. Zanchetta report no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – A highly controlled retrospective analysis suggests that denosumab (Prolia) leads to greater reduction in fracture risk than does zoledronic acid (Reclast) among treatment-naive postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

A previous head-to-head comparison showed that denosumab increased bone mineral density at key skeletal sites compared with zoledronic acid, but only a single, small observational study has examined fracture risk, and it found no difference.

The new study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, used a relatively new method of real-world comparative effectiveness analysis called negative control outcome (NCO) to analyze Medicare fee-for-service data.

NCO analysis takes extra pains to remove bias through data that might be linked to potential confounders but could not reasonably be attributed to a drug. For example, people who have greater contact with the health care system may be more likely to get one drug or another. The researchers used the frequency of receiving a flu or pneumonia vaccine as a proxy for this. If the two comparison groups had a significant difference in a proxy, it suggested a hidden bias and forced the researchers to abandon those groupings. Another example used car accidents as a proxy for cognitive impairment.

“If you find meaningful differences between the two groups, and you can say there’s no way a bone drug could account for these differences, then we shouldn’t do this analysis because these groups just aren’t comparable. They probably differ by that confounding factor we couldn’t measure,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, who presented the study. He is a professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The study strongly suggests superiority for denosumab. “There was a significant difference in multiple different groupings of fractures – beginning at year 2, extending to year 3 and even out to year 5 – that showed that there is a significant reduction in fracture risk if you get treated with denosumab [that was greater] than if you get treated with zoledronic acid,” Dr. Curtis said.

The researchers weighed 118 covariates and ultimately identified a population of 90,805 women taking denosumab and 37,328 taking zoledronic acid that was equally balanced in all patient characteristics. The mean age was about 75 years in the denosumab group and 74 in the zoledronic acid group.

The researchers found a 34% lower risk for hip fracture in the denosumab group by 5 years (relative risk, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90).

Similar patterns in fracture risk reduction were observed at 5 years for nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82), nonhip nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88), and major osteoporotic fracture (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.89).

During the Q&A session after the talk, one audience member commented that the study was limited because the researchers only followed patients who received zoledronic acid for 60 days, which could have missed potential long-term benefits of the drug, especially since bisphosphonates have a lengthy skeletal retention time. Dr. Curtis acknowledged the point but said, “Usually, that’s not something we do, but these are different enough mechanisms of action that it may be warranted at least as a sensitivity analysis,” he said.

The study and its methodology were impressive, according to Yumie Rhee, MD, who comoderated the session where the study was presented. “I think they did a really good job by doing the negative control analysis. We’re not going to have a head-to-head clinical trial, so we don’t know the real fracture reduction differences [between denosumab and zoledronic acid]. [The NCO analysis] is more than the propensity matching score that we do usually,” said Dr. Rhee, who is a professor of endocrinology at Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea.

In particular, the study showed a significantly greater reduction in hip fractures with denosumab. “Even in the RCTs, it was really hard to see the reduction in hip fracture, so I think this is showing much stronger data for denosumab. Especially in patients who have more [general fracture] risk and patients with higher hip fracture risk, I would go with denosumab,” Dr. Rhee said.

Her comoderator, Maria Zanchetta, MD, agreed. “It can have clinical implication, because we think denosumab is better than [zoledronic acid] for higher-risk patients, but we didn’t have the evidence. So at least we have a new [study] to look at, and I think it’s very important for our practice,” said Dr. Zanchetta, who is a professor of osteology at the Institute of Diagnostics and Metabolic Research, Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires.

The study was funded by Amgen, which markets denosumab. Dr. Curtis has consulted for Amgen. Dr. Rhee and Dr. Zanchetta report no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – A highly controlled retrospective analysis suggests that denosumab (Prolia) leads to greater reduction in fracture risk than does zoledronic acid (Reclast) among treatment-naive postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

A previous head-to-head comparison showed that denosumab increased bone mineral density at key skeletal sites compared with zoledronic acid, but only a single, small observational study has examined fracture risk, and it found no difference.

The new study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, used a relatively new method of real-world comparative effectiveness analysis called negative control outcome (NCO) to analyze Medicare fee-for-service data.

NCO analysis takes extra pains to remove bias through data that might be linked to potential confounders but could not reasonably be attributed to a drug. For example, people who have greater contact with the health care system may be more likely to get one drug or another. The researchers used the frequency of receiving a flu or pneumonia vaccine as a proxy for this. If the two comparison groups had a significant difference in a proxy, it suggested a hidden bias and forced the researchers to abandon those groupings. Another example used car accidents as a proxy for cognitive impairment.

“If you find meaningful differences between the two groups, and you can say there’s no way a bone drug could account for these differences, then we shouldn’t do this analysis because these groups just aren’t comparable. They probably differ by that confounding factor we couldn’t measure,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, who presented the study. He is a professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The study strongly suggests superiority for denosumab. “There was a significant difference in multiple different groupings of fractures – beginning at year 2, extending to year 3 and even out to year 5 – that showed that there is a significant reduction in fracture risk if you get treated with denosumab [that was greater] than if you get treated with zoledronic acid,” Dr. Curtis said.

The researchers weighed 118 covariates and ultimately identified a population of 90,805 women taking denosumab and 37,328 taking zoledronic acid that was equally balanced in all patient characteristics. The mean age was about 75 years in the denosumab group and 74 in the zoledronic acid group.

The researchers found a 34% lower risk for hip fracture in the denosumab group by 5 years (relative risk, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90).

Similar patterns in fracture risk reduction were observed at 5 years for nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82), nonhip nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88), and major osteoporotic fracture (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.89).

During the Q&A session after the talk, one audience member commented that the study was limited because the researchers only followed patients who received zoledronic acid for 60 days, which could have missed potential long-term benefits of the drug, especially since bisphosphonates have a lengthy skeletal retention time. Dr. Curtis acknowledged the point but said, “Usually, that’s not something we do, but these are different enough mechanisms of action that it may be warranted at least as a sensitivity analysis,” he said.

The study and its methodology were impressive, according to Yumie Rhee, MD, who comoderated the session where the study was presented. “I think they did a really good job by doing the negative control analysis. We’re not going to have a head-to-head clinical trial, so we don’t know the real fracture reduction differences [between denosumab and zoledronic acid]. [The NCO analysis] is more than the propensity matching score that we do usually,” said Dr. Rhee, who is a professor of endocrinology at Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea.

In particular, the study showed a significantly greater reduction in hip fractures with denosumab. “Even in the RCTs, it was really hard to see the reduction in hip fracture, so I think this is showing much stronger data for denosumab. Especially in patients who have more [general fracture] risk and patients with higher hip fracture risk, I would go with denosumab,” Dr. Rhee said.

Her comoderator, Maria Zanchetta, MD, agreed. “It can have clinical implication, because we think denosumab is better than [zoledronic acid] for higher-risk patients, but we didn’t have the evidence. So at least we have a new [study] to look at, and I think it’s very important for our practice,” said Dr. Zanchetta, who is a professor of osteology at the Institute of Diagnostics and Metabolic Research, Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires.

The study was funded by Amgen, which markets denosumab. Dr. Curtis has consulted for Amgen. Dr. Rhee and Dr. Zanchetta report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Look at this guy – NFL Chargers jersey and shorts with a RVCA hat on backward. And next to him, a woman wearing her spin-class-Lulu gear. There’s also a guy sporting a 2016 San Diego Rock ‘n Roll Marathon Tee. And that young woman is actually wearing slippers. A visitor from the 1950s would be thunderstruck to see such casual wear on people waiting to board a plane. Photos from that era show men buttoned up in white shirt and tie and women wearing Chanel with hats and white gloves. This dramatic transformation from formal to unfussy wear cuts through all social situations, including in my office. As a new doc out of residency, I used to wear a tie and shoes that could hold a shine. Now I wear jogger scrubs and sneakers. Rather than be offended by the lack of formality though, patients seem to appreciate it. Should they?

At first glance this seems to be a modern phenomenon. The reasons for casual wear today are manifold: about one-third of people work from home, Millennials are taking over with their TikTok values and general irreverence, COVID made us all fat and lazy. Heck, even the U.S. Senate briefly abolished the requirement to wear suits on the Senate floor. But getting dressed up was never to signal that you are elite or superior to others. It’s the opposite. To get dressed is a signal that you are serving others, a tradition that is as old as society.

Kaiser Permanente

Think of Downton Abbey as an example. The servants were always required to be smartly dressed when working, whereas members of the family could be dressed up or not. It’s clear who is serving whom. This tradition lives today in the hospitality industry. When you mosey into the lobby of a luxury hotel in your Rainbow sandals you can expect everyone who greets you will be in finery, signaling that they put in effort to serve you. You’ll find the same for all staff at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which is no coincidence.

Suits used to be standard in medicine. In the 19th century, physicians wore formal black-tie when seeing patients. Unlike hospitality however, we had good reason to eschew the tradition: germs. Once we figured out that our pus-stained ties and jackets were doing harm, we switched to wearing sanitized uniforms. Casual wear for doctors isn’t a modern phenomenon after all, then. For proof, compare Thomas Eakins painting “The Gross Clinic” (1875) with his later “The Agnew Clinic” (1889). In the former, Dr. Gross is portrayed in formal black wear, bloody hand and all. In the latter, Dr. Agnew is wearing white FIGS (or the 1890’s equivalent anyway). Similarly, nurses uniforms traditionally resembled kitchen servants, with criss-cross aprons and floor length skirts. It wasn’t until the 1980’s that nurses stopped wearing dresses and white caps.

photo of painting MiguelHermoso/CC-BY-SA-4.0

In the operating theater it’s obviously critical that we wear sanitized scrubs to mitigate the risk of infection. Originally white to signal cleanliness, scrubs were changed to blue-green because surgeons were blinded by the lights bouncing off the uniforms. (Green is also opposite red on the color wheel, supposedly enhancing the ability to distinguish shades of red).

But in outpatient medicine, the effect size for preventing infection by not wearing a tie or jacket is less obvious. In addition to protecting patients, it seems that wearing scrubs and donning On Cloud sneakers might also be a bit of push-back from us. Over time we’ve lost significant autonomy in our practice and lost a little respect from our patients. Payers tell us what to do. Patients question our expertise. Choosing what we wear is one of the few bits of medicine we still have agency. Pewter or pink, joggers or cargo pants, we get to choose.

The last time I flew British Airways everyone was in lounge wear, except the flight crew, of course. They were all smartly dressed. Recently British Airways rolled out updated, slightly more relaxed dress codes. Very modern, but I wonder if in a way we’re not all just a bit worse off.

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

Look at this guy – NFL Chargers jersey and shorts with a RVCA hat on backward. And next to him, a woman wearing her spin-class-Lulu gear. There’s also a guy sporting a 2016 San Diego Rock ‘n Roll Marathon Tee. And that young woman is actually wearing slippers. A visitor from the 1950s would be thunderstruck to see such casual wear on people waiting to board a plane. Photos from that era show men buttoned up in white shirt and tie and women wearing Chanel with hats and white gloves. This dramatic transformation from formal to unfussy wear cuts through all social situations, including in my office. As a new doc out of residency, I used to wear a tie and shoes that could hold a shine. Now I wear jogger scrubs and sneakers. Rather than be offended by the lack of formality though, patients seem to appreciate it. Should they?

At first glance this seems to be a modern phenomenon. The reasons for casual wear today are manifold: about one-third of people work from home, Millennials are taking over with their TikTok values and general irreverence, COVID made us all fat and lazy. Heck, even the U.S. Senate briefly abolished the requirement to wear suits on the Senate floor. But getting dressed up was never to signal that you are elite or superior to others. It’s the opposite. To get dressed is a signal that you are serving others, a tradition that is as old as society.

Kaiser Permanente

Think of Downton Abbey as an example. The servants were always required to be smartly dressed when working, whereas members of the family could be dressed up or not. It’s clear who is serving whom. This tradition lives today in the hospitality industry. When you mosey into the lobby of a luxury hotel in your Rainbow sandals you can expect everyone who greets you will be in finery, signaling that they put in effort to serve you. You’ll find the same for all staff at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which is no coincidence.

Suits used to be standard in medicine. In the 19th century, physicians wore formal black-tie when seeing patients. Unlike hospitality however, we had good reason to eschew the tradition: germs. Once we figured out that our pus-stained ties and jackets were doing harm, we switched to wearing sanitized uniforms. Casual wear for doctors isn’t a modern phenomenon after all, then. For proof, compare Thomas Eakins painting “The Gross Clinic” (1875) with his later “The Agnew Clinic” (1889). In the former, Dr. Gross is portrayed in formal black wear, bloody hand and all. In the latter, Dr. Agnew is wearing white FIGS (or the 1890’s equivalent anyway). Similarly, nurses uniforms traditionally resembled kitchen servants, with criss-cross aprons and floor length skirts. It wasn’t until the 1980’s that nurses stopped wearing dresses and white caps.

photo of painting MiguelHermoso/CC-BY-SA-4.0

In the operating theater it’s obviously critical that we wear sanitized scrubs to mitigate the risk of infection. Originally white to signal cleanliness, scrubs were changed to blue-green because surgeons were blinded by the lights bouncing off the uniforms. (Green is also opposite red on the color wheel, supposedly enhancing the ability to distinguish shades of red).

But in outpatient medicine, the effect size for preventing infection by not wearing a tie or jacket is less obvious. In addition to protecting patients, it seems that wearing scrubs and donning On Cloud sneakers might also be a bit of push-back from us. Over time we’ve lost significant autonomy in our practice and lost a little respect from our patients. Payers tell us what to do. Patients question our expertise. Choosing what we wear is one of the few bits of medicine we still have agency. Pewter or pink, joggers or cargo pants, we get to choose.

The last time I flew British Airways everyone was in lounge wear, except the flight crew, of course. They were all smartly dressed. Recently British Airways rolled out updated, slightly more relaxed dress codes. Very modern, but I wonder if in a way we’re not all just a bit worse off.

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

Look at this guy – NFL Chargers jersey and shorts with a RVCA hat on backward. And next to him, a woman wearing her spin-class-Lulu gear. There’s also a guy sporting a 2016 San Diego Rock ‘n Roll Marathon Tee. And that young woman is actually wearing slippers. A visitor from the 1950s would be thunderstruck to see such casual wear on people waiting to board a plane. Photos from that era show men buttoned up in white shirt and tie and women wearing Chanel with hats and white gloves. This dramatic transformation from formal to unfussy wear cuts through all social situations, including in my office. As a new doc out of residency, I used to wear a tie and shoes that could hold a shine. Now I wear jogger scrubs and sneakers. Rather than be offended by the lack of formality though, patients seem to appreciate it. Should they?

At first glance this seems to be a modern phenomenon. The reasons for casual wear today are manifold: about one-third of people work from home, Millennials are taking over with their TikTok values and general irreverence, COVID made us all fat and lazy. Heck, even the U.S. Senate briefly abolished the requirement to wear suits on the Senate floor. But getting dressed up was never to signal that you are elite or superior to others. It’s the opposite. To get dressed is a signal that you are serving others, a tradition that is as old as society.

Kaiser Permanente

Think of Downton Abbey as an example. The servants were always required to be smartly dressed when working, whereas members of the family could be dressed up or not. It’s clear who is serving whom. This tradition lives today in the hospitality industry. When you mosey into the lobby of a luxury hotel in your Rainbow sandals you can expect everyone who greets you will be in finery, signaling that they put in effort to serve you. You’ll find the same for all staff at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which is no coincidence.

Suits used to be standard in medicine. In the 19th century, physicians wore formal black-tie when seeing patients. Unlike hospitality however, we had good reason to eschew the tradition: germs. Once we figured out that our pus-stained ties and jackets were doing harm, we switched to wearing sanitized uniforms. Casual wear for doctors isn’t a modern phenomenon after all, then. For proof, compare Thomas Eakins painting “The Gross Clinic” (1875) with his later “The Agnew Clinic” (1889). In the former, Dr. Gross is portrayed in formal black wear, bloody hand and all. In the latter, Dr. Agnew is wearing white FIGS (or the 1890’s equivalent anyway). Similarly, nurses uniforms traditionally resembled kitchen servants, with criss-cross aprons and floor length skirts. It wasn’t until the 1980’s that nurses stopped wearing dresses and white caps.

photo of painting MiguelHermoso/CC-BY-SA-4.0

In the operating theater it’s obviously critical that we wear sanitized scrubs to mitigate the risk of infection. Originally white to signal cleanliness, scrubs were changed to blue-green because surgeons were blinded by the lights bouncing off the uniforms. (Green is also opposite red on the color wheel, supposedly enhancing the ability to distinguish shades of red).

But in outpatient medicine, the effect size for preventing infection by not wearing a tie or jacket is less obvious. In addition to protecting patients, it seems that wearing scrubs and donning On Cloud sneakers might also be a bit of push-back from us. Over time we’ve lost significant autonomy in our practice and lost a little respect from our patients. Payers tell us what to do. Patients question our expertise. Choosing what we wear is one of the few bits of medicine we still have agency. Pewter or pink, joggers or cargo pants, we get to choose.

The last time I flew British Airways everyone was in lounge wear, except the flight crew, of course. They were all smartly dressed. Recently British Airways rolled out updated, slightly more relaxed dress codes. Very modern, but I wonder if in a way we’re not all just a bit worse off.

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

Rheumatoid arthritis can’t be cured, but it can significantly improve naturally during pregnancy in 50%-75% of women, prior research has established. It may worsen or stay the same during pregnancy in others.

As of yet, there’s no way to tell which experience a woman with RA will have. RA occurs in 1% of adults globally and is three times more likely to occur in women.

However, a novel study of 19 women with RA suggests that blood biomarkers before pregnancy may predict who will get better or worse during pregnancy. If confirmed with larger studies, the discovery could lead to personalizing medication choices for women with RA who are seeking to become pregnant and change prepregnancy counseling for physicians.

Findings from the research, conducted by first author Matthew Wright, MS, of Children’s Hospital Oakland (Calif.) Research Institute and colleagues were published online in Arthritis Research & Therapy.
 

A risky choice for women

Currently, the choice is difficult because stopping medications during pregnancy could cause disease flare and continuing could risk possible harm to the baby as some of the medications have toxic side effects.

This is the first study to analyze genetic differences in women with RA who plan to get pregnant, senior author Damini Jawaheer, PhD, research associate professor of medicine in rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

Identifying women who have the disease and confirming they were planning to get pregnant has been extremely difficult, she noted, especially since the start of their research predated electronic health records (EHRs).

The researchers were able to develop a cohort from work they were already doing with researchers in Denmark, which has a national registry that included both women with RA and women of reproductive age. From there they could contact women about their pregnancy intentions and build the cohort for this study.

Healthy women and women with RA of Danish descent who planned to get pregnant were enrolled and were prospectively followed.
 

Genetic differences at prepregnancy baseline

Researchers analyzed genetic differences through RNA sequencing before pregnancy from 19 women with RA and 13 healthy women.

Of the 19 women with RA, disease activity improved during pregnancy in 14 and worsened in 5.

Before pregnancy, the researchers found, several neutrophil-related genes were significantly overexpressed in women whose RA later improved during pregnancy. Genes related to B cells were highly expressed among women who worsened. Those elevated B-cell–related gene levels were not seen in the group who improved during pregnancy, Dr. Jawaheer added.

“We don’t understand at this point why that is,” she said.

They also compared the blood samples with women in the control group who did not have RA.

“Comparisons to healthy women revealed that the B-cell signature was specific” to women with worsened RA, the authors wrote. “Thus, at the prepregnancy stage, the two groups of RA women differed significantly from each other in terms of B-cell function.”
 

Information could help to eliminate fear

Dr. Jawaheer said almost all the women in the cohort who have RA said they were afraid to take medications during pregnancy even if the medications they are taking are considered safe.

“If we could reliably predict who’s going to improve, those women would not have to be scared,” she said. They could stop their medications if they know they’re going to improve naturally.

“Women who are predicted to worsen could then work together with their rheumatologist so that they get treatment to prevent them from getting worse,” Dr. Jawaheer said. “Treatment could be focused on that group only.”

Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, a rheumatologist at University of California San Diego Health and director of the UCSD Center for Innovative Therapy, who was not part of the study, said his patients planning pregnancy struggle with the choices the researchers describe and that investigating potential biomarkers is important.

“Ideally, people would not want to be on anything when they’re pregnant,” he says.

He found the results “intriguing and hypothesis-generating,” but he said the small sample size makes it hard to draw conclusions about the work before it is replicated on a larger scale.

Beth L. Jonas, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, also not a part of the study, said the small study size must be considered, but if the findings are validated in larger studies, the potential is “huge.”

She said doctors used to tell their patients years ago that there’s an excellent chance they will be in remission in pregnancy.

Now, she says, “We’ve tempered our advice to say there’s a good chance you’ll still have disease activity during your pregnancy.”

Rheumatologists would be very interested in a predictive biomarker, she said, as would colleagues in obstetrics/gynecology and maternal-fetal medicine physicians who manage high-risk pregnancies and do prepregnancy counseling.

She said she would also like to see these data followed over multiple pregnancies for each woman, noting that some of her patients have seen RA improve in one pregnancy and worsen in another.

A question she has is, “with a single patient with RA, could you measure this multiple times and get different results?”
 

Tackling the unanswered questions

Next, the researchers want to conduct the study with a larger sample in the United States and one that is more diverse than the Danish cohort, which included only White patients. Now, Dr. Jawaheer and her team will have the help of EHRs.

A big part of Dr. Jawaheer’s lab’s focus is to find out why many with RA report “never feeling better” during pregnancy – some even experience remission – and why women who improve during pregnancy report that their disease flares 3-6 months after pregnancy, she said.

Her team is also studying what happens biologically when some women worsen in pregnancy.

Those answers “will give us an indication of what could be a potential drug target,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Kavanaugh and Dr. Jonas reported no relevant financial relationships.

Rheumatoid arthritis can’t be cured, but it can significantly improve naturally during pregnancy in 50%-75% of women, prior research has established. It may worsen or stay the same during pregnancy in others.

As of yet, there’s no way to tell which experience a woman with RA will have. RA occurs in 1% of adults globally and is three times more likely to occur in women.

However, a novel study of 19 women with RA suggests that blood biomarkers before pregnancy may predict who will get better or worse during pregnancy. If confirmed with larger studies, the discovery could lead to personalizing medication choices for women with RA who are seeking to become pregnant and change prepregnancy counseling for physicians.

Findings from the research, conducted by first author Matthew Wright, MS, of Children’s Hospital Oakland (Calif.) Research Institute and colleagues were published online in Arthritis Research & Therapy.
 

A risky choice for women

Currently, the choice is difficult because stopping medications during pregnancy could cause disease flare and continuing could risk possible harm to the baby as some of the medications have toxic side effects.

This is the first study to analyze genetic differences in women with RA who plan to get pregnant, senior author Damini Jawaheer, PhD, research associate professor of medicine in rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

Identifying women who have the disease and confirming they were planning to get pregnant has been extremely difficult, she noted, especially since the start of their research predated electronic health records (EHRs).

The researchers were able to develop a cohort from work they were already doing with researchers in Denmark, which has a national registry that included both women with RA and women of reproductive age. From there they could contact women about their pregnancy intentions and build the cohort for this study.

Healthy women and women with RA of Danish descent who planned to get pregnant were enrolled and were prospectively followed.
 

Genetic differences at prepregnancy baseline

Researchers analyzed genetic differences through RNA sequencing before pregnancy from 19 women with RA and 13 healthy women.

Of the 19 women with RA, disease activity improved during pregnancy in 14 and worsened in 5.

Before pregnancy, the researchers found, several neutrophil-related genes were significantly overexpressed in women whose RA later improved during pregnancy. Genes related to B cells were highly expressed among women who worsened. Those elevated B-cell–related gene levels were not seen in the group who improved during pregnancy, Dr. Jawaheer added.

“We don’t understand at this point why that is,” she said.

They also compared the blood samples with women in the control group who did not have RA.

“Comparisons to healthy women revealed that the B-cell signature was specific” to women with worsened RA, the authors wrote. “Thus, at the prepregnancy stage, the two groups of RA women differed significantly from each other in terms of B-cell function.”
 

Information could help to eliminate fear

Dr. Jawaheer said almost all the women in the cohort who have RA said they were afraid to take medications during pregnancy even if the medications they are taking are considered safe.

“If we could reliably predict who’s going to improve, those women would not have to be scared,” she said. They could stop their medications if they know they’re going to improve naturally.

“Women who are predicted to worsen could then work together with their rheumatologist so that they get treatment to prevent them from getting worse,” Dr. Jawaheer said. “Treatment could be focused on that group only.”

Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, a rheumatologist at University of California San Diego Health and director of the UCSD Center for Innovative Therapy, who was not part of the study, said his patients planning pregnancy struggle with the choices the researchers describe and that investigating potential biomarkers is important.

“Ideally, people would not want to be on anything when they’re pregnant,” he says.

He found the results “intriguing and hypothesis-generating,” but he said the small sample size makes it hard to draw conclusions about the work before it is replicated on a larger scale.

Beth L. Jonas, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, also not a part of the study, said the small study size must be considered, but if the findings are validated in larger studies, the potential is “huge.”

She said doctors used to tell their patients years ago that there’s an excellent chance they will be in remission in pregnancy.

Now, she says, “We’ve tempered our advice to say there’s a good chance you’ll still have disease activity during your pregnancy.”

Rheumatologists would be very interested in a predictive biomarker, she said, as would colleagues in obstetrics/gynecology and maternal-fetal medicine physicians who manage high-risk pregnancies and do prepregnancy counseling.

She said she would also like to see these data followed over multiple pregnancies for each woman, noting that some of her patients have seen RA improve in one pregnancy and worsen in another.

A question she has is, “with a single patient with RA, could you measure this multiple times and get different results?”
 

Tackling the unanswered questions

Next, the researchers want to conduct the study with a larger sample in the United States and one that is more diverse than the Danish cohort, which included only White patients. Now, Dr. Jawaheer and her team will have the help of EHRs.

A big part of Dr. Jawaheer’s lab’s focus is to find out why many with RA report “never feeling better” during pregnancy – some even experience remission – and why women who improve during pregnancy report that their disease flares 3-6 months after pregnancy, she said.

Her team is also studying what happens biologically when some women worsen in pregnancy.

Those answers “will give us an indication of what could be a potential drug target,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Kavanaugh and Dr. Jonas reported no relevant financial relationships.

Rheumatoid arthritis can’t be cured, but it can significantly improve naturally during pregnancy in 50%-75% of women, prior research has established. It may worsen or stay the same during pregnancy in others.

As of yet, there’s no way to tell which experience a woman with RA will have. RA occurs in 1% of adults globally and is three times more likely to occur in women.

However, a novel study of 19 women with RA suggests that blood biomarkers before pregnancy may predict who will get better or worse during pregnancy. If confirmed with larger studies, the discovery could lead to personalizing medication choices for women with RA who are seeking to become pregnant and change prepregnancy counseling for physicians.

Findings from the research, conducted by first author Matthew Wright, MS, of Children’s Hospital Oakland (Calif.) Research Institute and colleagues were published online in Arthritis Research & Therapy.
 

A risky choice for women

Currently, the choice is difficult because stopping medications during pregnancy could cause disease flare and continuing could risk possible harm to the baby as some of the medications have toxic side effects.

This is the first study to analyze genetic differences in women with RA who plan to get pregnant, senior author Damini Jawaheer, PhD, research associate professor of medicine in rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

Identifying women who have the disease and confirming they were planning to get pregnant has been extremely difficult, she noted, especially since the start of their research predated electronic health records (EHRs).

The researchers were able to develop a cohort from work they were already doing with researchers in Denmark, which has a national registry that included both women with RA and women of reproductive age. From there they could contact women about their pregnancy intentions and build the cohort for this study.

Healthy women and women with RA of Danish descent who planned to get pregnant were enrolled and were prospectively followed.
 

Genetic differences at prepregnancy baseline

Researchers analyzed genetic differences through RNA sequencing before pregnancy from 19 women with RA and 13 healthy women.

Of the 19 women with RA, disease activity improved during pregnancy in 14 and worsened in 5.

Before pregnancy, the researchers found, several neutrophil-related genes were significantly overexpressed in women whose RA later improved during pregnancy. Genes related to B cells were highly expressed among women who worsened. Those elevated B-cell–related gene levels were not seen in the group who improved during pregnancy, Dr. Jawaheer added.

“We don’t understand at this point why that is,” she said.

They also compared the blood samples with women in the control group who did not have RA.

“Comparisons to healthy women revealed that the B-cell signature was specific” to women with worsened RA, the authors wrote. “Thus, at the prepregnancy stage, the two groups of RA women differed significantly from each other in terms of B-cell function.”
 

Information could help to eliminate fear

Dr. Jawaheer said almost all the women in the cohort who have RA said they were afraid to take medications during pregnancy even if the medications they are taking are considered safe.

“If we could reliably predict who’s going to improve, those women would not have to be scared,” she said. They could stop their medications if they know they’re going to improve naturally.

“Women who are predicted to worsen could then work together with their rheumatologist so that they get treatment to prevent them from getting worse,” Dr. Jawaheer said. “Treatment could be focused on that group only.”

Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, a rheumatologist at University of California San Diego Health and director of the UCSD Center for Innovative Therapy, who was not part of the study, said his patients planning pregnancy struggle with the choices the researchers describe and that investigating potential biomarkers is important.

“Ideally, people would not want to be on anything when they’re pregnant,” he says.

He found the results “intriguing and hypothesis-generating,” but he said the small sample size makes it hard to draw conclusions about the work before it is replicated on a larger scale.

Beth L. Jonas, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, also not a part of the study, said the small study size must be considered, but if the findings are validated in larger studies, the potential is “huge.”

She said doctors used to tell their patients years ago that there’s an excellent chance they will be in remission in pregnancy.

Now, she says, “We’ve tempered our advice to say there’s a good chance you’ll still have disease activity during your pregnancy.”

Rheumatologists would be very interested in a predictive biomarker, she said, as would colleagues in obstetrics/gynecology and maternal-fetal medicine physicians who manage high-risk pregnancies and do prepregnancy counseling.

She said she would also like to see these data followed over multiple pregnancies for each woman, noting that some of her patients have seen RA improve in one pregnancy and worsen in another.

A question she has is, “with a single patient with RA, could you measure this multiple times and get different results?”
 

Tackling the unanswered questions

Next, the researchers want to conduct the study with a larger sample in the United States and one that is more diverse than the Danish cohort, which included only White patients. Now, Dr. Jawaheer and her team will have the help of EHRs.

A big part of Dr. Jawaheer’s lab’s focus is to find out why many with RA report “never feeling better” during pregnancy – some even experience remission – and why women who improve during pregnancy report that their disease flares 3-6 months after pregnancy, she said.

Her team is also studying what happens biologically when some women worsen in pregnancy.

Those answers “will give us an indication of what could be a potential drug target,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Kavanaugh and Dr. Jonas reported no relevant financial relationships.

BERLIN – Further findings from the PSORRO study suggest that oral roflumilast may be an option for treating patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, particularly if they have a high body mass index (BMI).

Reporting secondary outcomes from the investigator-led trial at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, DMSc, noted that “clinically significant weight loss” was seen among patients who were treated with oral roflumilast, 500 mcg once daily, versus those receiving placebo.

Indeed, after 12 weeks of therapy, one in three patients treated with oral roflumilast experienced at least a 5% drop in their baseline body weight vs no patients who received placebo (35% vs. 0%; P < .05).

Additionally, a respective 17% versus 0% of patients lost 10% or more of their body weight, and 4% versus 0% lost 15% or more of their baseline body weight at 12 weeks.

After 24 weeks’ treatment, a substantial percentage of patients still had greater than or equal to 5%, greater than or equal to 10%, or greater than or equal to 15% weight loss, at 30%, 17%, and 13% for oral roflumilast, compared with 9%, 0%, and 0% for placebo, respectively.

“We saw that the higher baseline weight correlated with the proportion of weight loss, so that the more heavy patients at baseline also were the ones who experienced the greatest weight loss,” said Dr. Egeberg, who is professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen and a senior consultant at the department of dermatology at Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen.
 

A beneficial side effect in psoriasis?

“You may have heard in psoriasis about topical roflumilast, but oral roflumilast is actually also shown to be effective in treating psoriasis,” said Egeberg.

Topical roflumilast is approved in the United States and Canada for treating plaque psoriasis.

Efficacy results from the PSORRO study were published earlier this year and showed a significantly greater improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 with oral roflumilast vs. placebo at 12 weeks (35% vs. 0%), with a sustained effect seen at 24 weeks (44% vs. 40%).

Weight loss was among the most common side effects seen, leading Dr. Egeberg and fellow PSORRO investigators to wonder whether this may actually be a beneficial effect in patients with psoriasis.

“Oral roflumilast is actually a drug that has been on the market for quite a number of years,” Dr. Egeberg said.

Although only currently licensed for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the United States, oral roflumilast, a phosphodiesterase (PDE) 4 inhibitor, is available as a generic, “which also means that it is extremely affordable,” suggested Dr. Edeberg.

Weight loss may be a problem in patients with COPD, he acknowledged; these patients tend to be underweight as a result of their poor state of health caused by the lung condition. Weight loss could be an advantage in patients with psoriasis who are overweight or living with obesity and have poor cardiometabolic parameters.

The psoriasis treatment with oral roflumilast study

The PSORRO study was a phase 2, multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized trial performed between 2021 and 2022. A total of 46 adults with plaque psoriasis participated; half were initially treated with oral roflumilast and half with placebo.

Treatment was double-blind for the first 12 weeks, with all patients then receiving open-label treatment with roflumilast for 12 weeks.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving at least 75% reduction from baseline PASI (PASI75). A host of secondary endpoints were studied, including weight and cardiometabolic parameters, which Dr. Egeberg reported at the EADV meeting.

Looking at the baseline characteristics of the oral roflumilast and placebo groups, the mean age was a respective 38 and 39 years, 65% and 83% were men, and the mean starting body weight was 102 kg and 105.1 kg.

After 12 weeks of treatment, body weight fell by a mean of 5.4 kg in the oral roflumilast group, with a further decrease of 1.4 kg by 24 weeks, bringing the total average weight loss to 6.8 kg. By comparison, weight loss among those in the placebo group was 0 kg at 12 weeks and around 2 kg at 24 weeks.

The majority of participants in both groups had high baseline BMIs; 70% of those who received oral roflumilast and 61% of those who received placebo had a BMI of 30 or higher.

“We wanted to investigate the impact of body weight, [so] we didn’t allow patients to be underweight when they were included,” Dr. Egeberg explained. Thus, for inclusion, patients had to have a BMI of 20 or higher.

An “extraordinary” finding was how some patients’ weight status based on their BMI changed throughout the study.

“We could see people that went from obese class 3, all the way to obese class 1. And we could see people going from being overweight to normal weight, which is really extraordinary for patients with psoriasis,” Dr. Egeberg said.

“But most importantly,” he added, “we didn’t have any patients who became underweight, suggesting that it actually is safe to use also in normal-weight patients.”
 

Reduced appetite behind benefit?

Trying to see why the weight loss occurred, Dr. Egeberg noted that it looked like it could be a result of a reduced appetite.

In common with other PDE-4 inhibitors, oral roflumilast treatment was associated with gastrointestinal symptoms – nausea, diarrhea, and abdominal pain – but all of these “decrease to placebo levels again, quite quickly,” he said.

“This really suggests that it’s not because of diarrhea, it’s not because of nausea and abdominal pain; it is because of a reduced appetite that patients actually lose weight when treated with roflumilast,” Dr. Egeberg said. It’s a potential bonus for the drug’s effects on the skin and could afford clinicians an opportunity to help motivate patients to eat well when they do eat, he observed.

Other cardiometabolic parameters assessed included blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin, total cholesterol and other key lipids, creatinine, alanine aminotransferase, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, but there were no noteworthy differences between the groups.

Roflumilast is an inexpensive drug because it is generic, Dr. Egeberg observed, but that also means that its use is likely to be off-label.

“It will be up to the treating physician to decide if this is an optimal therapy for their patients,” he suggested.
 

Cardiometabolic comorbidities important to target

Obesity is a cardiometabolic comorbidity that is important to consider when treating your patients with psoriasis, Paolo Gisondi, MD, of the University of Verona (Italy), said at a separate presentation at the EADV meeting.

While not directly commenting on the roflumilast study, he noted that moderate to severe psoriasis was “frequently associated” with metabolic disorders that put people at additional risk for cardiovascular and fatty liver diseases.

The PSORRO study was an investigator-initiated and investigator-led study and received no commercial funding. Research funding came from the Danish Psoriasis Foundation, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, and several charitable and humanitarian organizations. Dr. Egeberg acknowledged acting as the principal investigator, speaker, and/or consultant to multiple pharma companies, all of which were unrelated to the study he presented. Dr. Gisondi’s comments were from a separate presentation, and he was not involved in the study.

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

BERLIN – Further findings from the PSORRO study suggest that oral roflumilast may be an option for treating patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, particularly if they have a high body mass index (BMI).

Reporting secondary outcomes from the investigator-led trial at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, DMSc, noted that “clinically significant weight loss” was seen among patients who were treated with oral roflumilast, 500 mcg once daily, versus those receiving placebo.

Indeed, after 12 weeks of therapy, one in three patients treated with oral roflumilast experienced at least a 5% drop in their baseline body weight vs no patients who received placebo (35% vs. 0%; P < .05).

Additionally, a respective 17% versus 0% of patients lost 10% or more of their body weight, and 4% versus 0% lost 15% or more of their baseline body weight at 12 weeks.

After 24 weeks’ treatment, a substantial percentage of patients still had greater than or equal to 5%, greater than or equal to 10%, or greater than or equal to 15% weight loss, at 30%, 17%, and 13% for oral roflumilast, compared with 9%, 0%, and 0% for placebo, respectively.

“We saw that the higher baseline weight correlated with the proportion of weight loss, so that the more heavy patients at baseline also were the ones who experienced the greatest weight loss,” said Dr. Egeberg, who is professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen and a senior consultant at the department of dermatology at Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen.
 

A beneficial side effect in psoriasis?

“You may have heard in psoriasis about topical roflumilast, but oral roflumilast is actually also shown to be effective in treating psoriasis,” said Egeberg.

Topical roflumilast is approved in the United States and Canada for treating plaque psoriasis.

Efficacy results from the PSORRO study were published earlier this year and showed a significantly greater improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 with oral roflumilast vs. placebo at 12 weeks (35% vs. 0%), with a sustained effect seen at 24 weeks (44% vs. 40%).

Weight loss was among the most common side effects seen, leading Dr. Egeberg and fellow PSORRO investigators to wonder whether this may actually be a beneficial effect in patients with psoriasis.

“Oral roflumilast is actually a drug that has been on the market for quite a number of years,” Dr. Egeberg said.

Although only currently licensed for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the United States, oral roflumilast, a phosphodiesterase (PDE) 4 inhibitor, is available as a generic, “which also means that it is extremely affordable,” suggested Dr. Edeberg.

Weight loss may be a problem in patients with COPD, he acknowledged; these patients tend to be underweight as a result of their poor state of health caused by the lung condition. Weight loss could be an advantage in patients with psoriasis who are overweight or living with obesity and have poor cardiometabolic parameters.