Rheumatology News

Are there clinically significant differences between axial spondyloarthritis with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis with axial symptoms? Does it matter?

It all depends on whom you ask, but right now the evidence seems to be tipping in favor of the “splitters” who cite evidence supporting their contention that axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA)/ankylosing spondylitis (AS) with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with axial symptoms are distinct clinical entities that require more precise diagnosis and treatment.

“Lumpers,” in contrast, argue that they are different points on the same clinical spectrum.

The debate is not just of academic interest, but has real consequences for patients, say specialists on both sides of the aisle.
 

Overlapping features, different presentations

“Axial SpA and axPsA have overlapping features but also meaningful differences in genetics, clinical presentation, imaging, and immunophenotype. Efforts are underway to develop classification criteria for axPsA to aid research efforts as well as clinical diagnosis and management,” Philip J. Mease, MD, director of rheumatology research at Swedish Medical Center/Providence–St. Joseph Health in Seattle, and colleagues contend.

In an editorial published in the International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases, Dr. Mease and colleagues noted that, although HLA-B*27 is a genetic risk factor for both axPsA and axSpA, some HLA-B alleles are significantly associated with axPsA, whereas other alleles are associated with axSpA.

In addition, while genes in the interleukin-23 and IL-17 pathway are associated with increased risk for axSpA, genes in the IL-13 pathway have been identified as risk markers for axPsA, they noted.
 

Two cohorts better than one?

Dafna Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and senior scientist at the Schroeder Arthritis Institute at Toronto Western Hospital, and colleagues have a unique perspective on the similarities and differences between the disease entities.

Her group’s research uses data on cohorts of patients treated in two separate clinics at Toronto Western Hospital: one for patients with PsA, and one for patients with axial spondyloarthritis, including those with ankylosing spondylitis, nonradiographic axSpA, and spondylitis associated with inflammatory bowel disease.

“Our work has shown that there are differences, and one of the reasons that it’s now important is that the anti–IL-23 medications, both the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab [Stelara] and the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab [Tremfya] work for psoriatic arthritis, whereas IL-23 did not work in ankylosing spondylitis, so that provided further impetus to look into the distinction between the two groups,” Dr. Gladman said in an interview.

Dr. Gladman and colleagues published a study in Rheumatology in which they compared clinical presentations and features of patients with AS with or without psoriasis with patients with axPsA.

They found that patients with AS with or without psoriasis tended to be younger, had a higher proportion of males to females, and were more likely to be positive for HLA-B*27. Patients with AS also had more back pain at presentation, worse axial disease activity scores, worse global assessments by physicians, and higher grades of sacroiliitis, and they were more likely to be taking biologic agents.

“What that showed, right off the top, that whether we’re looking at the total group or we’re looking specifically at those patients who have psoriasis or don’t have psoriasis, they are different from those with psoriatic arthritis with axial disease,” she said.

They concluded that “axPsA seems to be a distinct entity.”
 

Two clinics, same presentation

Because the aforementioned study included all patients with PsA with or without peripheral disease, the investigators decided to filter out some of the background noise and conduct a second study in which they compared patients who presented to the two clinics with the same presentation, either with spinal disease and psoriasis to the spondylitis clinic, or with psoriasis and isolated axial disease to the PsA clinic.

The results, published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, showed that just 2.03% of patients with PsA had isolated axial disease, and an additional 29.38% had axial and peripheral disease.

In this study, “you can see that even in that group there are distinct differences. The patients that are labeled psoriatic spondylitis are different from those that are labeled ankylosing spondylitis with psoriasis,” Dr. Gladman said.

Isolated axial disease in patients with PsA was associated with HLA-B*27 positivity and lower Health Assessment Questionnaire scores. In addition, patients who were HLA-B*27 positive also had a nearly eightfold higher risk for developing peripheral disease over time.

Patients with isolated axial PsA were significantly more likely to be diagnosed at an older age (mean, 37.44 vs. 29.65 years), had higher Psoriasis Area Severity Index scores and a higher likelihood of having psoriatic nail lesions than patients with AS with isolated axial disease and psoriasis.

In contrast, patients with isolated axSpA with psoriasis were more likely to have inflammatory back pain, spinal pain, joint pain/swelling, and areas of localized tenderness, and they had greater severity of morning stiffness.

Dr. Gladman noted that, although AS and PsA are associated with the same gene that encodes for the IL-23 receptor, each condition is associated with a different single-nucleotide polymorphism.

Same disease, different flavors?

But as Mark Twain said, it is difference of opinion that makes horse races, and some specialists in rheumatology say that axSpA amd axPsA are just two sides of the same coin.

Pramod Rathod

“There are always different schools of thought. I believe that they are not different diseases, but a spectrum of diseases,” said Shailendra Singh, MD, a rheumatologist at Unity Health Medical Center in Searcy, Ark., and past president of the Arkansas Rheumatology Association.

In an interview, Dr. Singh said that the spectrum ranges from diseases with primarily axial involvement, such as AS, to those with primarily peripheral involvement, such as reactive arthritis.

He pointed out that these conditions have overlapping symptoms, including enthesitis, dactylitis, and uveitis, and inflammatory arthritis.

Daniel Wendling, MD, PhD, from the Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Besançon (France), Université de Franche-Comté, and colleagues agreed.

“The criteria currently available for both SpA [ASAS (Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society) criteria] and PsA [CASPAR (Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis) criteria] are classification criteria, not diagnostic criteria. They are not very stringent and are not exclusive. Thus, the same patient can easily be classified simultaneously in both entities, making the distinction between axSpA with psoriasis and axPsA theoretical,” they wrote in an editorial published in Joint Bone Spine.

They cited as an example of the allegedly fuzzy criteria a prospective study conducted by the investigators in Bath, England, in which modified New York criteria for AS were met by 24% of patients with AS, and CASPAR criteria for PsA were met by an equal number of patients with AS.
 

Therapeutic implications

Dr. Wendling and colleagues acknowledge the differences cited in studies by Dr. Gladman, Dr. Mease, and others between patients with axPsA and those with axSpA, but argue that the differences are not that great and not so clear.

“It should also be emphasized that, although some differences between axPsA and axSpA reach statistical significance, they are mostly at the margin, with low odd ratios,” they wrote.

“It is also important to consider the variability in the definition of axPsA, sometimes simply ‘physician reported’ and elsewhere based on the modified New York radiographic criteria; the latter are only present late in the course of the disease, and this may induce bias,” they continued.

Dr. Singh agreed that, as noted by Dr. Gladman, some patients will respond to anti–IL-17, anti–IL-23, and anti–IL-12/23 agents, whereas others will have better responses with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, and still others, such as those with peripheral involvement in the hands and feet may fare better with nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs such as methotrexate.
 

Answers to come?

Dr. Gladman noted that the information available to date about the efficacy of IL-23 inhibition in axPsA is based on a post hoc analysis of the PSUMMIT 1 and 2 controlled trials in PsA, and is not definitive.

The randomized, controlled STAR trial, currently recruiting patients, is designed to see whether guselkumab can reduce axial symptoms and inflammation in patients with active axPsA.

“What I say is, there is a rationale for [anti–IL-23] to work in psoriatic arthritis, and not work in ankylosing spondylitis,” she said.

In contrast, IL-17 inhibitors, anti-TNF agents, and Janus kinase inhibitors show efficacy against both axPsA and AS. Rituximab is ineffective against PsA, but has shown efficacy against AS, especially in patients with neurologic complications from anti-TNF agents.

“There may be other medications that would work more specifically in axial psoriatic arthritis that don’t work in ankylosing spondylitis, but at least recognizing that there may be some differences, and that therefore a correct diagnosis should be obtained, might be important,” she said.

Ideally, the picture will become clearer with results from the ongoing Axial Involvement in Psoriatic Arthritis cohort, a joint project of ASAS and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. The multinational, cross-sectional study is designed “to systematically evaluate clinical and imaging manifestations indicative of axial involvement in patients with PsA and to develop classification criteria and a unified nomenclature for axial involvement in PsA that would allow defining a homogeneous subgroup of patients for research.”

Stay tuned.

Dr. Gladman’s research is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. Dr. Singh disclosed research support from various companies. Funding sources and conflict of interest disclosures from other works cited are contained in their respective references.

Are there clinically significant differences between axial spondyloarthritis with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis with axial symptoms? Does it matter?

It all depends on whom you ask, but right now the evidence seems to be tipping in favor of the “splitters” who cite evidence supporting their contention that axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA)/ankylosing spondylitis (AS) with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with axial symptoms are distinct clinical entities that require more precise diagnosis and treatment.

“Lumpers,” in contrast, argue that they are different points on the same clinical spectrum.

The debate is not just of academic interest, but has real consequences for patients, say specialists on both sides of the aisle.
 

Overlapping features, different presentations

“Axial SpA and axPsA have overlapping features but also meaningful differences in genetics, clinical presentation, imaging, and immunophenotype. Efforts are underway to develop classification criteria for axPsA to aid research efforts as well as clinical diagnosis and management,” Philip J. Mease, MD, director of rheumatology research at Swedish Medical Center/Providence–St. Joseph Health in Seattle, and colleagues contend.

In an editorial published in the International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases, Dr. Mease and colleagues noted that, although HLA-B*27 is a genetic risk factor for both axPsA and axSpA, some HLA-B alleles are significantly associated with axPsA, whereas other alleles are associated with axSpA.

In addition, while genes in the interleukin-23 and IL-17 pathway are associated with increased risk for axSpA, genes in the IL-13 pathway have been identified as risk markers for axPsA, they noted.
 

Two cohorts better than one?

Dafna Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and senior scientist at the Schroeder Arthritis Institute at Toronto Western Hospital, and colleagues have a unique perspective on the similarities and differences between the disease entities.

Her group’s research uses data on cohorts of patients treated in two separate clinics at Toronto Western Hospital: one for patients with PsA, and one for patients with axial spondyloarthritis, including those with ankylosing spondylitis, nonradiographic axSpA, and spondylitis associated with inflammatory bowel disease.

“Our work has shown that there are differences, and one of the reasons that it’s now important is that the anti–IL-23 medications, both the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab [Stelara] and the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab [Tremfya] work for psoriatic arthritis, whereas IL-23 did not work in ankylosing spondylitis, so that provided further impetus to look into the distinction between the two groups,” Dr. Gladman said in an interview.

Dr. Gladman and colleagues published a study in Rheumatology in which they compared clinical presentations and features of patients with AS with or without psoriasis with patients with axPsA.

They found that patients with AS with or without psoriasis tended to be younger, had a higher proportion of males to females, and were more likely to be positive for HLA-B*27. Patients with AS also had more back pain at presentation, worse axial disease activity scores, worse global assessments by physicians, and higher grades of sacroiliitis, and they were more likely to be taking biologic agents.

“What that showed, right off the top, that whether we’re looking at the total group or we’re looking specifically at those patients who have psoriasis or don’t have psoriasis, they are different from those with psoriatic arthritis with axial disease,” she said.

They concluded that “axPsA seems to be a distinct entity.”
 

Two clinics, same presentation

Because the aforementioned study included all patients with PsA with or without peripheral disease, the investigators decided to filter out some of the background noise and conduct a second study in which they compared patients who presented to the two clinics with the same presentation, either with spinal disease and psoriasis to the spondylitis clinic, or with psoriasis and isolated axial disease to the PsA clinic.

The results, published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, showed that just 2.03% of patients with PsA had isolated axial disease, and an additional 29.38% had axial and peripheral disease.

In this study, “you can see that even in that group there are distinct differences. The patients that are labeled psoriatic spondylitis are different from those that are labeled ankylosing spondylitis with psoriasis,” Dr. Gladman said.

Isolated axial disease in patients with PsA was associated with HLA-B*27 positivity and lower Health Assessment Questionnaire scores. In addition, patients who were HLA-B*27 positive also had a nearly eightfold higher risk for developing peripheral disease over time.

Patients with isolated axial PsA were significantly more likely to be diagnosed at an older age (mean, 37.44 vs. 29.65 years), had higher Psoriasis Area Severity Index scores and a higher likelihood of having psoriatic nail lesions than patients with AS with isolated axial disease and psoriasis.

In contrast, patients with isolated axSpA with psoriasis were more likely to have inflammatory back pain, spinal pain, joint pain/swelling, and areas of localized tenderness, and they had greater severity of morning stiffness.

Dr. Gladman noted that, although AS and PsA are associated with the same gene that encodes for the IL-23 receptor, each condition is associated with a different single-nucleotide polymorphism.

Same disease, different flavors?

But as Mark Twain said, it is difference of opinion that makes horse races, and some specialists in rheumatology say that axSpA amd axPsA are just two sides of the same coin.

Pramod Rathod

“There are always different schools of thought. I believe that they are not different diseases, but a spectrum of diseases,” said Shailendra Singh, MD, a rheumatologist at Unity Health Medical Center in Searcy, Ark., and past president of the Arkansas Rheumatology Association.

In an interview, Dr. Singh said that the spectrum ranges from diseases with primarily axial involvement, such as AS, to those with primarily peripheral involvement, such as reactive arthritis.

He pointed out that these conditions have overlapping symptoms, including enthesitis, dactylitis, and uveitis, and inflammatory arthritis.

Daniel Wendling, MD, PhD, from the Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Besançon (France), Université de Franche-Comté, and colleagues agreed.

“The criteria currently available for both SpA [ASAS (Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society) criteria] and PsA [CASPAR (Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis) criteria] are classification criteria, not diagnostic criteria. They are not very stringent and are not exclusive. Thus, the same patient can easily be classified simultaneously in both entities, making the distinction between axSpA with psoriasis and axPsA theoretical,” they wrote in an editorial published in Joint Bone Spine.

They cited as an example of the allegedly fuzzy criteria a prospective study conducted by the investigators in Bath, England, in which modified New York criteria for AS were met by 24% of patients with AS, and CASPAR criteria for PsA were met by an equal number of patients with AS.
 

Therapeutic implications

Dr. Wendling and colleagues acknowledge the differences cited in studies by Dr. Gladman, Dr. Mease, and others between patients with axPsA and those with axSpA, but argue that the differences are not that great and not so clear.

“It should also be emphasized that, although some differences between axPsA and axSpA reach statistical significance, they are mostly at the margin, with low odd ratios,” they wrote.

“It is also important to consider the variability in the definition of axPsA, sometimes simply ‘physician reported’ and elsewhere based on the modified New York radiographic criteria; the latter are only present late in the course of the disease, and this may induce bias,” they continued.

Dr. Singh agreed that, as noted by Dr. Gladman, some patients will respond to anti–IL-17, anti–IL-23, and anti–IL-12/23 agents, whereas others will have better responses with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, and still others, such as those with peripheral involvement in the hands and feet may fare better with nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs such as methotrexate.
 

Answers to come?

Dr. Gladman noted that the information available to date about the efficacy of IL-23 inhibition in axPsA is based on a post hoc analysis of the PSUMMIT 1 and 2 controlled trials in PsA, and is not definitive.

The randomized, controlled STAR trial, currently recruiting patients, is designed to see whether guselkumab can reduce axial symptoms and inflammation in patients with active axPsA.

“What I say is, there is a rationale for [anti–IL-23] to work in psoriatic arthritis, and not work in ankylosing spondylitis,” she said.

In contrast, IL-17 inhibitors, anti-TNF agents, and Janus kinase inhibitors show efficacy against both axPsA and AS. Rituximab is ineffective against PsA, but has shown efficacy against AS, especially in patients with neurologic complications from anti-TNF agents.

“There may be other medications that would work more specifically in axial psoriatic arthritis that don’t work in ankylosing spondylitis, but at least recognizing that there may be some differences, and that therefore a correct diagnosis should be obtained, might be important,” she said.

Ideally, the picture will become clearer with results from the ongoing Axial Involvement in Psoriatic Arthritis cohort, a joint project of ASAS and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. The multinational, cross-sectional study is designed “to systematically evaluate clinical and imaging manifestations indicative of axial involvement in patients with PsA and to develop classification criteria and a unified nomenclature for axial involvement in PsA that would allow defining a homogeneous subgroup of patients for research.”

Stay tuned.

Dr. Gladman’s research is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. Dr. Singh disclosed research support from various companies. Funding sources and conflict of interest disclosures from other works cited are contained in their respective references.

Are there clinically significant differences between axial spondyloarthritis with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis with axial symptoms? Does it matter?

It all depends on whom you ask, but right now the evidence seems to be tipping in favor of the “splitters” who cite evidence supporting their contention that axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA)/ankylosing spondylitis (AS) with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with axial symptoms are distinct clinical entities that require more precise diagnosis and treatment.

“Lumpers,” in contrast, argue that they are different points on the same clinical spectrum.

The debate is not just of academic interest, but has real consequences for patients, say specialists on both sides of the aisle.
 

Overlapping features, different presentations

“Axial SpA and axPsA have overlapping features but also meaningful differences in genetics, clinical presentation, imaging, and immunophenotype. Efforts are underway to develop classification criteria for axPsA to aid research efforts as well as clinical diagnosis and management,” Philip J. Mease, MD, director of rheumatology research at Swedish Medical Center/Providence–St. Joseph Health in Seattle, and colleagues contend.

In an editorial published in the International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases, Dr. Mease and colleagues noted that, although HLA-B*27 is a genetic risk factor for both axPsA and axSpA, some HLA-B alleles are significantly associated with axPsA, whereas other alleles are associated with axSpA.

In addition, while genes in the interleukin-23 and IL-17 pathway are associated with increased risk for axSpA, genes in the IL-13 pathway have been identified as risk markers for axPsA, they noted.
 

Two cohorts better than one?

Dafna Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and senior scientist at the Schroeder Arthritis Institute at Toronto Western Hospital, and colleagues have a unique perspective on the similarities and differences between the disease entities.

Her group’s research uses data on cohorts of patients treated in two separate clinics at Toronto Western Hospital: one for patients with PsA, and one for patients with axial spondyloarthritis, including those with ankylosing spondylitis, nonradiographic axSpA, and spondylitis associated with inflammatory bowel disease.

“Our work has shown that there are differences, and one of the reasons that it’s now important is that the anti–IL-23 medications, both the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab [Stelara] and the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab [Tremfya] work for psoriatic arthritis, whereas IL-23 did not work in ankylosing spondylitis, so that provided further impetus to look into the distinction between the two groups,” Dr. Gladman said in an interview.

Dr. Gladman and colleagues published a study in Rheumatology in which they compared clinical presentations and features of patients with AS with or without psoriasis with patients with axPsA.

They found that patients with AS with or without psoriasis tended to be younger, had a higher proportion of males to females, and were more likely to be positive for HLA-B*27. Patients with AS also had more back pain at presentation, worse axial disease activity scores, worse global assessments by physicians, and higher grades of sacroiliitis, and they were more likely to be taking biologic agents.

“What that showed, right off the top, that whether we’re looking at the total group or we’re looking specifically at those patients who have psoriasis or don’t have psoriasis, they are different from those with psoriatic arthritis with axial disease,” she said.

They concluded that “axPsA seems to be a distinct entity.”
 

Two clinics, same presentation

Because the aforementioned study included all patients with PsA with or without peripheral disease, the investigators decided to filter out some of the background noise and conduct a second study in which they compared patients who presented to the two clinics with the same presentation, either with spinal disease and psoriasis to the spondylitis clinic, or with psoriasis and isolated axial disease to the PsA clinic.

The results, published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, showed that just 2.03% of patients with PsA had isolated axial disease, and an additional 29.38% had axial and peripheral disease.

In this study, “you can see that even in that group there are distinct differences. The patients that are labeled psoriatic spondylitis are different from those that are labeled ankylosing spondylitis with psoriasis,” Dr. Gladman said.

Isolated axial disease in patients with PsA was associated with HLA-B*27 positivity and lower Health Assessment Questionnaire scores. In addition, patients who were HLA-B*27 positive also had a nearly eightfold higher risk for developing peripheral disease over time.

Patients with isolated axial PsA were significantly more likely to be diagnosed at an older age (mean, 37.44 vs. 29.65 years), had higher Psoriasis Area Severity Index scores and a higher likelihood of having psoriatic nail lesions than patients with AS with isolated axial disease and psoriasis.

In contrast, patients with isolated axSpA with psoriasis were more likely to have inflammatory back pain, spinal pain, joint pain/swelling, and areas of localized tenderness, and they had greater severity of morning stiffness.

Dr. Gladman noted that, although AS and PsA are associated with the same gene that encodes for the IL-23 receptor, each condition is associated with a different single-nucleotide polymorphism.

Same disease, different flavors?

But as Mark Twain said, it is difference of opinion that makes horse races, and some specialists in rheumatology say that axSpA amd axPsA are just two sides of the same coin.

Pramod Rathod

“There are always different schools of thought. I believe that they are not different diseases, but a spectrum of diseases,” said Shailendra Singh, MD, a rheumatologist at Unity Health Medical Center in Searcy, Ark., and past president of the Arkansas Rheumatology Association.

In an interview, Dr. Singh said that the spectrum ranges from diseases with primarily axial involvement, such as AS, to those with primarily peripheral involvement, such as reactive arthritis.

He pointed out that these conditions have overlapping symptoms, including enthesitis, dactylitis, and uveitis, and inflammatory arthritis.

Daniel Wendling, MD, PhD, from the Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Besançon (France), Université de Franche-Comté, and colleagues agreed.

“The criteria currently available for both SpA [ASAS (Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society) criteria] and PsA [CASPAR (Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis) criteria] are classification criteria, not diagnostic criteria. They are not very stringent and are not exclusive. Thus, the same patient can easily be classified simultaneously in both entities, making the distinction between axSpA with psoriasis and axPsA theoretical,” they wrote in an editorial published in Joint Bone Spine.

They cited as an example of the allegedly fuzzy criteria a prospective study conducted by the investigators in Bath, England, in which modified New York criteria for AS were met by 24% of patients with AS, and CASPAR criteria for PsA were met by an equal number of patients with AS.
 

Therapeutic implications

Dr. Wendling and colleagues acknowledge the differences cited in studies by Dr. Gladman, Dr. Mease, and others between patients with axPsA and those with axSpA, but argue that the differences are not that great and not so clear.

“It should also be emphasized that, although some differences between axPsA and axSpA reach statistical significance, they are mostly at the margin, with low odd ratios,” they wrote.

“It is also important to consider the variability in the definition of axPsA, sometimes simply ‘physician reported’ and elsewhere based on the modified New York radiographic criteria; the latter are only present late in the course of the disease, and this may induce bias,” they continued.

Dr. Singh agreed that, as noted by Dr. Gladman, some patients will respond to anti–IL-17, anti–IL-23, and anti–IL-12/23 agents, whereas others will have better responses with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, and still others, such as those with peripheral involvement in the hands and feet may fare better with nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs such as methotrexate.
 

Answers to come?

Dr. Gladman noted that the information available to date about the efficacy of IL-23 inhibition in axPsA is based on a post hoc analysis of the PSUMMIT 1 and 2 controlled trials in PsA, and is not definitive.

The randomized, controlled STAR trial, currently recruiting patients, is designed to see whether guselkumab can reduce axial symptoms and inflammation in patients with active axPsA.

“What I say is, there is a rationale for [anti–IL-23] to work in psoriatic arthritis, and not work in ankylosing spondylitis,” she said.

In contrast, IL-17 inhibitors, anti-TNF agents, and Janus kinase inhibitors show efficacy against both axPsA and AS. Rituximab is ineffective against PsA, but has shown efficacy against AS, especially in patients with neurologic complications from anti-TNF agents.

“There may be other medications that would work more specifically in axial psoriatic arthritis that don’t work in ankylosing spondylitis, but at least recognizing that there may be some differences, and that therefore a correct diagnosis should be obtained, might be important,” she said.

Ideally, the picture will become clearer with results from the ongoing Axial Involvement in Psoriatic Arthritis cohort, a joint project of ASAS and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. The multinational, cross-sectional study is designed “to systematically evaluate clinical and imaging manifestations indicative of axial involvement in patients with PsA and to develop classification criteria and a unified nomenclature for axial involvement in PsA that would allow defining a homogeneous subgroup of patients for research.”

Stay tuned.

Dr. Gladman’s research is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. Dr. Singh disclosed research support from various companies. Funding sources and conflict of interest disclosures from other works cited are contained in their respective references.

SAN DIEGO – Gout is one of the most poorly managed diseases and is mostly treated by primary care providers, said a presenter at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians. Failure to understand the disease process and goals of urate-lowering therapy (ULT) is a key barrier to achieving optimal gout therapy.

“There’s too much focus on the flare and too little focus on the urate burden of the disease. Regardless of the clinical setting, the goal should be to manage [high] serum uric acid levels,” said Lawrence Edwards, MD, professor at the University of Florida, Gainesville, during his talk.

Dr. Edwards, who specializes in treating patients with gout and rheumatoid arthritis, discussed the role of primary care providers in the treatment of gout. “We can and must do better,” he said.
 

Understanding the pathology of gout is key to effective treatment

Knowledge of the molecular pathology of gout has advanced drastically over the last few years. “The improved understanding of the molecules involved in disease initiation and progression can help us make better treatment decisions depending on the stage of the disease,” Dr. Edwards said.

Gout is caused by the deposition of monosodium urate (MSU) crystals, which starts as asymptomatic hyperuricemia, he said. Inflammatory responses to MSU crystals are responsible for gout flares, the frequency of which increases as the disease progresses.

Innate immune responses driven by macrophages and neutrophils play a crucial role in acute gout attacks. In the molecular pathway, proinflammatory cytokines IL-1 beta and IL-6 are the mediators of gout flares, whereas IL-8 accumulates over time and contributes to disease progression and systemic illness. If left untreated or undertreated, the repeated inflammatory reaction leads to advanced gout. The urate burden also increases with disease progression.

“Physicians need to better educate themselves on the destructive nature of this inflammatory arthritis and the need for effective urate-lowering therapy in the management of gout,” Dr. Edwards said.
 

Management of acute gout attacks

The management of gout flares involves the use of pharmacological agents to control pain and inflammation. The three most common anti-inflammatory therapies are colchicine, NSAIDs, and corticosteroids (either oral or intramuscular).

The choice of which of these should be used alone or in combination for a flare is based on previous tolerance of the medication or the presence of diabetes, kidney disease, heart disease, or a history of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Dr. Edwards referred internists to the 2020 American College of Rheumatology gout management guideline.

“Regardless of which therapy is chosen, the more important consideration is how quickly the patients can start treatment after the flare begins,” said Dr. Edwards when asked about priorities in the management of gout flares. “This means that the patient should have ready access to whichever the chosen approach is. We call this the ‘pill-in-the-pocket’ approach,” he added.

Reducing the urate burden is also important for effective treatment. The serum urate level is the primary marker of how well a patient’s gout is being managed. ULT should be initiated in patients with subcutaneous tophi, gout-related radiographic damage, or frequent flares (≥ 2 per year). Allopurinol is typically the first-line ULT of choice.

Dr. Edwards noted that far too much focus is placed on flare treatment rather than addressing the underlying sources of gouty symptoms – the elevated serum levels of urate.
 

Management of advanced gout

“The management of advanced gout is challenging, and the dissolution of MSU is slow unless you take an aggressive approach,” Dr. Edwards said.

Switching to pegloticase is recommended for patients with frequent flares, nonresolving tophi, or high serum urate levels that persist despite treatment with xanthine oxidase inhibitors or other ULT agents.

“The frequency and severity of gout flares are what patients focus on, but if that’s the only focus of the treating physicians, then they are leaving the job less than halfway done. Getting the serum urate to below a level of 6.0 mg/dL is the most important aspect in the lifelong management of gout,” said Dr. Edwards.
 

Barriers to effective gout treatment

When asked during an interview after the session about the most important barriers to successful gout management, Allison M. Mays, MD, a geriatric medicine subspecialist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said that “the fact that gout mostly impacts quality of life and not necessarily mortality means that other things may take precedent.” She explained that gout typically coexists with other comorbidities, often multiple ones. Patients may also defer taking an additional medication for a disease like gout, which has only episodic discomfort.

She added that gout management involves shared decision-making between patients and the medical team – including the primary care physician, rheumatologist, orthopedist, and emergency physician. Following a visit to the urgent care or the ED for an acute flare of gout, the patient may not follow up with their primary care doctor or bring it up at their next visit for chronic management, she noted.

Dr. Edwards serves as a consultant to Horizon Pharmaceuticals, Atom Biosciences, Shanton Biosciences, and Aclaris Therapeutics. Horizon marketed pegloticase up until last month when Amgen bought the drug. Dr. Edwards is also president of Gout Education Society, and he has no financial agreement with any of the multiple companies that produce colchicine and allopurinol. Dr. Mays reported no conflicts.

SAN DIEGO – Gout is one of the most poorly managed diseases and is mostly treated by primary care providers, said a presenter at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians. Failure to understand the disease process and goals of urate-lowering therapy (ULT) is a key barrier to achieving optimal gout therapy.

“There’s too much focus on the flare and too little focus on the urate burden of the disease. Regardless of the clinical setting, the goal should be to manage [high] serum uric acid levels,” said Lawrence Edwards, MD, professor at the University of Florida, Gainesville, during his talk.

Dr. Edwards, who specializes in treating patients with gout and rheumatoid arthritis, discussed the role of primary care providers in the treatment of gout. “We can and must do better,” he said.
 

Understanding the pathology of gout is key to effective treatment

Knowledge of the molecular pathology of gout has advanced drastically over the last few years. “The improved understanding of the molecules involved in disease initiation and progression can help us make better treatment decisions depending on the stage of the disease,” Dr. Edwards said.

Gout is caused by the deposition of monosodium urate (MSU) crystals, which starts as asymptomatic hyperuricemia, he said. Inflammatory responses to MSU crystals are responsible for gout flares, the frequency of which increases as the disease progresses.

Innate immune responses driven by macrophages and neutrophils play a crucial role in acute gout attacks. In the molecular pathway, proinflammatory cytokines IL-1 beta and IL-6 are the mediators of gout flares, whereas IL-8 accumulates over time and contributes to disease progression and systemic illness. If left untreated or undertreated, the repeated inflammatory reaction leads to advanced gout. The urate burden also increases with disease progression.

“Physicians need to better educate themselves on the destructive nature of this inflammatory arthritis and the need for effective urate-lowering therapy in the management of gout,” Dr. Edwards said.
 

Management of acute gout attacks

The management of gout flares involves the use of pharmacological agents to control pain and inflammation. The three most common anti-inflammatory therapies are colchicine, NSAIDs, and corticosteroids (either oral or intramuscular).

The choice of which of these should be used alone or in combination for a flare is based on previous tolerance of the medication or the presence of diabetes, kidney disease, heart disease, or a history of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Dr. Edwards referred internists to the 2020 American College of Rheumatology gout management guideline.

“Regardless of which therapy is chosen, the more important consideration is how quickly the patients can start treatment after the flare begins,” said Dr. Edwards when asked about priorities in the management of gout flares. “This means that the patient should have ready access to whichever the chosen approach is. We call this the ‘pill-in-the-pocket’ approach,” he added.

Reducing the urate burden is also important for effective treatment. The serum urate level is the primary marker of how well a patient’s gout is being managed. ULT should be initiated in patients with subcutaneous tophi, gout-related radiographic damage, or frequent flares (≥ 2 per year). Allopurinol is typically the first-line ULT of choice.

Dr. Edwards noted that far too much focus is placed on flare treatment rather than addressing the underlying sources of gouty symptoms – the elevated serum levels of urate.
 

Management of advanced gout

“The management of advanced gout is challenging, and the dissolution of MSU is slow unless you take an aggressive approach,” Dr. Edwards said.

Switching to pegloticase is recommended for patients with frequent flares, nonresolving tophi, or high serum urate levels that persist despite treatment with xanthine oxidase inhibitors or other ULT agents.

“The frequency and severity of gout flares are what patients focus on, but if that’s the only focus of the treating physicians, then they are leaving the job less than halfway done. Getting the serum urate to below a level of 6.0 mg/dL is the most important aspect in the lifelong management of gout,” said Dr. Edwards.
 

Barriers to effective gout treatment

When asked during an interview after the session about the most important barriers to successful gout management, Allison M. Mays, MD, a geriatric medicine subspecialist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said that “the fact that gout mostly impacts quality of life and not necessarily mortality means that other things may take precedent.” She explained that gout typically coexists with other comorbidities, often multiple ones. Patients may also defer taking an additional medication for a disease like gout, which has only episodic discomfort.

She added that gout management involves shared decision-making between patients and the medical team – including the primary care physician, rheumatologist, orthopedist, and emergency physician. Following a visit to the urgent care or the ED for an acute flare of gout, the patient may not follow up with their primary care doctor or bring it up at their next visit for chronic management, she noted.

Dr. Edwards serves as a consultant to Horizon Pharmaceuticals, Atom Biosciences, Shanton Biosciences, and Aclaris Therapeutics. Horizon marketed pegloticase up until last month when Amgen bought the drug. Dr. Edwards is also president of Gout Education Society, and he has no financial agreement with any of the multiple companies that produce colchicine and allopurinol. Dr. Mays reported no conflicts.

SAN DIEGO – Gout is one of the most poorly managed diseases and is mostly treated by primary care providers, said a presenter at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians. Failure to understand the disease process and goals of urate-lowering therapy (ULT) is a key barrier to achieving optimal gout therapy.

“There’s too much focus on the flare and too little focus on the urate burden of the disease. Regardless of the clinical setting, the goal should be to manage [high] serum uric acid levels,” said Lawrence Edwards, MD, professor at the University of Florida, Gainesville, during his talk.

Dr. Edwards, who specializes in treating patients with gout and rheumatoid arthritis, discussed the role of primary care providers in the treatment of gout. “We can and must do better,” he said.
 

Understanding the pathology of gout is key to effective treatment

Knowledge of the molecular pathology of gout has advanced drastically over the last few years. “The improved understanding of the molecules involved in disease initiation and progression can help us make better treatment decisions depending on the stage of the disease,” Dr. Edwards said.

Gout is caused by the deposition of monosodium urate (MSU) crystals, which starts as asymptomatic hyperuricemia, he said. Inflammatory responses to MSU crystals are responsible for gout flares, the frequency of which increases as the disease progresses.

Innate immune responses driven by macrophages and neutrophils play a crucial role in acute gout attacks. In the molecular pathway, proinflammatory cytokines IL-1 beta and IL-6 are the mediators of gout flares, whereas IL-8 accumulates over time and contributes to disease progression and systemic illness. If left untreated or undertreated, the repeated inflammatory reaction leads to advanced gout. The urate burden also increases with disease progression.

“Physicians need to better educate themselves on the destructive nature of this inflammatory arthritis and the need for effective urate-lowering therapy in the management of gout,” Dr. Edwards said.
 

Management of acute gout attacks

The management of gout flares involves the use of pharmacological agents to control pain and inflammation. The three most common anti-inflammatory therapies are colchicine, NSAIDs, and corticosteroids (either oral or intramuscular).

The choice of which of these should be used alone or in combination for a flare is based on previous tolerance of the medication or the presence of diabetes, kidney disease, heart disease, or a history of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Dr. Edwards referred internists to the 2020 American College of Rheumatology gout management guideline.

“Regardless of which therapy is chosen, the more important consideration is how quickly the patients can start treatment after the flare begins,” said Dr. Edwards when asked about priorities in the management of gout flares. “This means that the patient should have ready access to whichever the chosen approach is. We call this the ‘pill-in-the-pocket’ approach,” he added.

Reducing the urate burden is also important for effective treatment. The serum urate level is the primary marker of how well a patient’s gout is being managed. ULT should be initiated in patients with subcutaneous tophi, gout-related radiographic damage, or frequent flares (≥ 2 per year). Allopurinol is typically the first-line ULT of choice.

Dr. Edwards noted that far too much focus is placed on flare treatment rather than addressing the underlying sources of gouty symptoms – the elevated serum levels of urate.
 

Management of advanced gout

“The management of advanced gout is challenging, and the dissolution of MSU is slow unless you take an aggressive approach,” Dr. Edwards said.

Switching to pegloticase is recommended for patients with frequent flares, nonresolving tophi, or high serum urate levels that persist despite treatment with xanthine oxidase inhibitors or other ULT agents.

“The frequency and severity of gout flares are what patients focus on, but if that’s the only focus of the treating physicians, then they are leaving the job less than halfway done. Getting the serum urate to below a level of 6.0 mg/dL is the most important aspect in the lifelong management of gout,” said Dr. Edwards.
 

Barriers to effective gout treatment

When asked during an interview after the session about the most important barriers to successful gout management, Allison M. Mays, MD, a geriatric medicine subspecialist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said that “the fact that gout mostly impacts quality of life and not necessarily mortality means that other things may take precedent.” She explained that gout typically coexists with other comorbidities, often multiple ones. Patients may also defer taking an additional medication for a disease like gout, which has only episodic discomfort.

She added that gout management involves shared decision-making between patients and the medical team – including the primary care physician, rheumatologist, orthopedist, and emergency physician. Following a visit to the urgent care or the ED for an acute flare of gout, the patient may not follow up with their primary care doctor or bring it up at their next visit for chronic management, she noted.

Dr. Edwards serves as a consultant to Horizon Pharmaceuticals, Atom Biosciences, Shanton Biosciences, and Aclaris Therapeutics. Horizon marketed pegloticase up until last month when Amgen bought the drug. Dr. Edwards is also president of Gout Education Society, and he has no financial agreement with any of the multiple companies that produce colchicine and allopurinol. Dr. Mays reported no conflicts.

MANCHESTER, England – Even when C-reactive protein (CRP) levels are normal, patients with seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) could still be experiencing significant disease that persists over time, researchers from University College London have found.

Similar levels of joint erosion and disease activity were observed over a 5-year period; researchers compared patients who had high CRP levels (> 5 mg/L)* with patients whose CRP levels were consistently normal (< 5 mg/L) at the time of an ultrasound-proven disease flare.

“Our data suggests that the phenotype of normal CRP represents at least 5% of our cohort,” Bhavika Sethi, MBChB, reported in a virtual poster presentation at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

“They are more likely to require biologic treatment, and this continues on even though they have equivalent DAS28 [disease activity score in 28 joints] and risk of joint damage” to high-CRP patients, she said.

These patients are a significant minority, Dr. Sethi added, and “we need to think about how we provide care for them and allocate resources.”
 

Diagnostic delay and poor outcomes previously seen

The study is a continuation of a larger project, the corresponding author for the poster, Matthew Hutchinson, MBChB, told this news organization.

A few years ago, Dr. Hutchinson explained, a subset of patients with normal CRP levels during RA flares were identified and were found to be more likely to have experienced diagnostic delay and worse outcomes than did those with high CRP levels.

The aim of the current study was to see whether those findings persisted by longitudinally assessing patient records and seeing what happened 1, 2, and 5 years later. They evaluated 312 patients with seropositive RA, of whom 28 had CRP < 5 mg/L as well as active disease, which was determined on the basis of a DAS28 > 4.5. Of those 28 patients, 16 had persistently low CRP (< 5 mg/L) despite active disease. All patients who were taking tocilizumab were excluded from the study because of its CRP-lowering properties.

“Our project was showing that this group of people exist, trying to characterize them a little better” and that the study serves as a “jumping-off point” for future research, Dr. Hutchinson said.

The study was also conducted to “make people more aware of [patients with normal CRP during flare], because treating clinicians could be falsely reassured by a normal CRP,” he added. “Patients in front of them could actually be undertreated and have worse outcomes if [it is] not picked up,” Dr. Hutchinson suggested.

In comparison with those with high CRP levels, those with normal CRP levels were more likely to be receiving biologic treatment at 5 years (76.6% vs. 44.4%; P =  .0323).

At 5 years, DAS28 was similar (P = .9615) among patients with normal CRP levels and those with high CRP levels, at a median of 2.8 and 3.2, respectively. A similar percentage of patients in these two groups also had joint damage (63.3% vs. 71.4%; P = .7384).
 

Don’t rely only on CRP to diagnose and manage RA flares

“CRP is a generic inflammatory marker in most people,” Dr. Hutchinson said. “In the majority of situations when either there is inflammation or an infection, certainly if it’s systemic infection or inflammation, you will find CRP being elevated on the blood tests.”

For someone presenting with joint pain, high CRP can be a useful indicator that it’s more of an inflammatory process than physical injury, he added. CRP is also frequently used to calculate DAS28 to monitor disease activity.

“This study highlights that CRP may be normal during flares in some people with RA,” Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, told this news organization.

“These patients may still require advanced therapies and can accrue damage,” the rheumatologist from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard University, Boston, added.

“Clinicians should not only rely on CRP to diagnose and manage RA flares,” said Dr. Sparks, who was not involved in the study.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Hutchinson and Dr. Sethi report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sparks is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care; he has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and has performed consultancy for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer.

*Correction, 5/9/2023: This article has been updated to correct the units for C-reactive protein from mg/dL to mg/L.

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

MANCHESTER, England – Even when C-reactive protein (CRP) levels are normal, patients with seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) could still be experiencing significant disease that persists over time, researchers from University College London have found.

Similar levels of joint erosion and disease activity were observed over a 5-year period; researchers compared patients who had high CRP levels (> 5 mg/L)* with patients whose CRP levels were consistently normal (< 5 mg/L) at the time of an ultrasound-proven disease flare.

“Our data suggests that the phenotype of normal CRP represents at least 5% of our cohort,” Bhavika Sethi, MBChB, reported in a virtual poster presentation at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

“They are more likely to require biologic treatment, and this continues on even though they have equivalent DAS28 [disease activity score in 28 joints] and risk of joint damage” to high-CRP patients, she said.

These patients are a significant minority, Dr. Sethi added, and “we need to think about how we provide care for them and allocate resources.”
 

Diagnostic delay and poor outcomes previously seen

The study is a continuation of a larger project, the corresponding author for the poster, Matthew Hutchinson, MBChB, told this news organization.

A few years ago, Dr. Hutchinson explained, a subset of patients with normal CRP levels during RA flares were identified and were found to be more likely to have experienced diagnostic delay and worse outcomes than did those with high CRP levels.

The aim of the current study was to see whether those findings persisted by longitudinally assessing patient records and seeing what happened 1, 2, and 5 years later. They evaluated 312 patients with seropositive RA, of whom 28 had CRP < 5 mg/L as well as active disease, which was determined on the basis of a DAS28 > 4.5. Of those 28 patients, 16 had persistently low CRP (< 5 mg/L) despite active disease. All patients who were taking tocilizumab were excluded from the study because of its CRP-lowering properties.

“Our project was showing that this group of people exist, trying to characterize them a little better” and that the study serves as a “jumping-off point” for future research, Dr. Hutchinson said.

The study was also conducted to “make people more aware of [patients with normal CRP during flare], because treating clinicians could be falsely reassured by a normal CRP,” he added. “Patients in front of them could actually be undertreated and have worse outcomes if [it is] not picked up,” Dr. Hutchinson suggested.

In comparison with those with high CRP levels, those with normal CRP levels were more likely to be receiving biologic treatment at 5 years (76.6% vs. 44.4%; P =  .0323).

At 5 years, DAS28 was similar (P = .9615) among patients with normal CRP levels and those with high CRP levels, at a median of 2.8 and 3.2, respectively. A similar percentage of patients in these two groups also had joint damage (63.3% vs. 71.4%; P = .7384).
 

Don’t rely only on CRP to diagnose and manage RA flares

“CRP is a generic inflammatory marker in most people,” Dr. Hutchinson said. “In the majority of situations when either there is inflammation or an infection, certainly if it’s systemic infection or inflammation, you will find CRP being elevated on the blood tests.”

For someone presenting with joint pain, high CRP can be a useful indicator that it’s more of an inflammatory process than physical injury, he added. CRP is also frequently used to calculate DAS28 to monitor disease activity.

“This study highlights that CRP may be normal during flares in some people with RA,” Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, told this news organization.

“These patients may still require advanced therapies and can accrue damage,” the rheumatologist from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard University, Boston, added.

“Clinicians should not only rely on CRP to diagnose and manage RA flares,” said Dr. Sparks, who was not involved in the study.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Hutchinson and Dr. Sethi report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sparks is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care; he has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and has performed consultancy for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer.

*Correction, 5/9/2023: This article has been updated to correct the units for C-reactive protein from mg/dL to mg/L.

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

MANCHESTER, England – Even when C-reactive protein (CRP) levels are normal, patients with seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) could still be experiencing significant disease that persists over time, researchers from University College London have found.

Similar levels of joint erosion and disease activity were observed over a 5-year period; researchers compared patients who had high CRP levels (> 5 mg/L)* with patients whose CRP levels were consistently normal (< 5 mg/L) at the time of an ultrasound-proven disease flare.

“Our data suggests that the phenotype of normal CRP represents at least 5% of our cohort,” Bhavika Sethi, MBChB, reported in a virtual poster presentation at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

“They are more likely to require biologic treatment, and this continues on even though they have equivalent DAS28 [disease activity score in 28 joints] and risk of joint damage” to high-CRP patients, she said.

These patients are a significant minority, Dr. Sethi added, and “we need to think about how we provide care for them and allocate resources.”
 

Diagnostic delay and poor outcomes previously seen

The study is a continuation of a larger project, the corresponding author for the poster, Matthew Hutchinson, MBChB, told this news organization.

A few years ago, Dr. Hutchinson explained, a subset of patients with normal CRP levels during RA flares were identified and were found to be more likely to have experienced diagnostic delay and worse outcomes than did those with high CRP levels.

The aim of the current study was to see whether those findings persisted by longitudinally assessing patient records and seeing what happened 1, 2, and 5 years later. They evaluated 312 patients with seropositive RA, of whom 28 had CRP < 5 mg/L as well as active disease, which was determined on the basis of a DAS28 > 4.5. Of those 28 patients, 16 had persistently low CRP (< 5 mg/L) despite active disease. All patients who were taking tocilizumab were excluded from the study because of its CRP-lowering properties.

“Our project was showing that this group of people exist, trying to characterize them a little better” and that the study serves as a “jumping-off point” for future research, Dr. Hutchinson said.

The study was also conducted to “make people more aware of [patients with normal CRP during flare], because treating clinicians could be falsely reassured by a normal CRP,” he added. “Patients in front of them could actually be undertreated and have worse outcomes if [it is] not picked up,” Dr. Hutchinson suggested.

In comparison with those with high CRP levels, those with normal CRP levels were more likely to be receiving biologic treatment at 5 years (76.6% vs. 44.4%; P =  .0323).

At 5 years, DAS28 was similar (P = .9615) among patients with normal CRP levels and those with high CRP levels, at a median of 2.8 and 3.2, respectively. A similar percentage of patients in these two groups also had joint damage (63.3% vs. 71.4%; P = .7384).
 

Don’t rely only on CRP to diagnose and manage RA flares

“CRP is a generic inflammatory marker in most people,” Dr. Hutchinson said. “In the majority of situations when either there is inflammation or an infection, certainly if it’s systemic infection or inflammation, you will find CRP being elevated on the blood tests.”

For someone presenting with joint pain, high CRP can be a useful indicator that it’s more of an inflammatory process than physical injury, he added. CRP is also frequently used to calculate DAS28 to monitor disease activity.

“This study highlights that CRP may be normal during flares in some people with RA,” Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, told this news organization.

“These patients may still require advanced therapies and can accrue damage,” the rheumatologist from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard University, Boston, added.

“Clinicians should not only rely on CRP to diagnose and manage RA flares,” said Dr. Sparks, who was not involved in the study.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Hutchinson and Dr. Sethi report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sparks is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care; he has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and has performed consultancy for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer.

*Correction, 5/9/2023: This article has been updated to correct the units for C-reactive protein from mg/dL to mg/L.

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

New research is shedding light on how an infection with COVID-19 may reactivate, or even cause, psoriasis. 

 Psoriasis has several well-established triggers, including stress, skin injury, cold or warm air, and allergies. Illnesses like strep throat can also cause a psoriasis flare in some people – and it appears COVID may also do so. “Psoriasis flares have long been associated with bacterial and viral infections, particularly a form of psoriasis called guttate, which is characterized by tons of tiny red scaly bumps all over the body,” said Joel M. Gelfand, MD, a professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “Infection with COVID-19 has been associated with flares of guttate and pustular psoriasis, and even psoriasis that affects 100% of the skin ... in many published case reports.”

Israeli researchers recently found that psoriasis patients have a slightly higher risk of getting COVID,  although they are not at higher risk of hospitalization or death, which could be related to treatment with immune-modulating therapy, which can increase their risk of infections.
 

How could COVID cause psoriasis to flare? 

Psoriasis is an autoimmune condition, and inflammation can cause symptoms.

Investigators for a study from Albany (N.Y.) Medical College and Weirton (Pa.) Medical Center found that people in the study who were already diagnosed with the skin condition had an unexpected flare within a week to a month after testing positive for COVID. New psoriasis after a COVID infection was also found. The researchers think this could be because COVID causes inflammation in the body, which negatively affects previously well-controlled psoriasis. They also think it’s possible that COVID-related inflammation could trigger a genetic tendency to have psoriasis, which may explain why it can appear for the first time after a positive test.

“A viral infection like COVID-19 can signal the release of proinflammatory factors that can appear as rashes, such as with psoriasis.” said Robert O. Carpenter, MD, director of wellness at Texas A&M University in Bryan.
 

What are the symptoms of COVID-related psoriasis?

The signs are the same as those of any form of psoriasis.
 

For a patient with psoriasis, will COVID automatically make it worse?

Not necessarily.

“Psoriasis is a common condition, so people should be aware that new psoriasis that develops may not be related to COVID-19,” said Esther Freeman MD, PhD, director of global health dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

As with every aspect of COVID, doctors and scientists are still learning about how serious and widespread a problem psoriasis after COVID-19 may be. “We have seen case reports that psoriasis can flare after COVID-19,” said Dr. Freeman, who is also an associate professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School. “I will say, this has not been a tidal wave – more like sporadic cases here and there. So I do not think psoriasis flares are a major post-COVID finding, nor do they necessarily mean you have long COVID. That being said, we know that many different infections can cause psoriasis flares, and so, in that respect, it’s not that surprising that SARS-CoV-2, like other infections, could trigger a psoriasis flare.”

Could getting COVID more than once cause psoriasis to flare? It’s possible.

“Your body can change after having COVID-19,” said Dr. Carpenter. “We don’t know the long-term implications, but having COVID-19 repeatedly can increase the risk of long COVID, which can cause many systemic changes in your body.” 

Another important point: For patients who take biologics for treating psoriasis, getting vaccinated and boosted for COVID is an important step to take to help protect themselves.
 

Is psoriasis itself a potential symptom of COVID? 

“Yes, but we don’t know the frequency at which this may occur, and a causal relationship is difficult to establish from just case reports,” said Dr. Gelfand, who’s also medical director of the clinical studies unit in the department of dermatology at his university. “Typically, if a patient presents with a flare of psoriasis, particularly guttate, pustular, or erythrodermic forms, an infectious trigger should be considered, and testing for strep and possibly COVID-19 may be appropriate.”
 

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

New research is shedding light on how an infection with COVID-19 may reactivate, or even cause, psoriasis. 

 Psoriasis has several well-established triggers, including stress, skin injury, cold or warm air, and allergies. Illnesses like strep throat can also cause a psoriasis flare in some people – and it appears COVID may also do so. “Psoriasis flares have long been associated with bacterial and viral infections, particularly a form of psoriasis called guttate, which is characterized by tons of tiny red scaly bumps all over the body,” said Joel M. Gelfand, MD, a professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “Infection with COVID-19 has been associated with flares of guttate and pustular psoriasis, and even psoriasis that affects 100% of the skin ... in many published case reports.”

Israeli researchers recently found that psoriasis patients have a slightly higher risk of getting COVID,  although they are not at higher risk of hospitalization or death, which could be related to treatment with immune-modulating therapy, which can increase their risk of infections.
 

How could COVID cause psoriasis to flare? 

Psoriasis is an autoimmune condition, and inflammation can cause symptoms.

Investigators for a study from Albany (N.Y.) Medical College and Weirton (Pa.) Medical Center found that people in the study who were already diagnosed with the skin condition had an unexpected flare within a week to a month after testing positive for COVID. New psoriasis after a COVID infection was also found. The researchers think this could be because COVID causes inflammation in the body, which negatively affects previously well-controlled psoriasis. They also think it’s possible that COVID-related inflammation could trigger a genetic tendency to have psoriasis, which may explain why it can appear for the first time after a positive test.

“A viral infection like COVID-19 can signal the release of proinflammatory factors that can appear as rashes, such as with psoriasis.” said Robert O. Carpenter, MD, director of wellness at Texas A&M University in Bryan.
 

What are the symptoms of COVID-related psoriasis?

The signs are the same as those of any form of psoriasis.
 

For a patient with psoriasis, will COVID automatically make it worse?

Not necessarily.

“Psoriasis is a common condition, so people should be aware that new psoriasis that develops may not be related to COVID-19,” said Esther Freeman MD, PhD, director of global health dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

As with every aspect of COVID, doctors and scientists are still learning about how serious and widespread a problem psoriasis after COVID-19 may be. “We have seen case reports that psoriasis can flare after COVID-19,” said Dr. Freeman, who is also an associate professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School. “I will say, this has not been a tidal wave – more like sporadic cases here and there. So I do not think psoriasis flares are a major post-COVID finding, nor do they necessarily mean you have long COVID. That being said, we know that many different infections can cause psoriasis flares, and so, in that respect, it’s not that surprising that SARS-CoV-2, like other infections, could trigger a psoriasis flare.”

Could getting COVID more than once cause psoriasis to flare? It’s possible.

“Your body can change after having COVID-19,” said Dr. Carpenter. “We don’t know the long-term implications, but having COVID-19 repeatedly can increase the risk of long COVID, which can cause many systemic changes in your body.” 

Another important point: For patients who take biologics for treating psoriasis, getting vaccinated and boosted for COVID is an important step to take to help protect themselves.
 

Is psoriasis itself a potential symptom of COVID? 

“Yes, but we don’t know the frequency at which this may occur, and a causal relationship is difficult to establish from just case reports,” said Dr. Gelfand, who’s also medical director of the clinical studies unit in the department of dermatology at his university. “Typically, if a patient presents with a flare of psoriasis, particularly guttate, pustular, or erythrodermic forms, an infectious trigger should be considered, and testing for strep and possibly COVID-19 may be appropriate.”
 

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

New research is shedding light on how an infection with COVID-19 may reactivate, or even cause, psoriasis. 

 Psoriasis has several well-established triggers, including stress, skin injury, cold or warm air, and allergies. Illnesses like strep throat can also cause a psoriasis flare in some people – and it appears COVID may also do so. “Psoriasis flares have long been associated with bacterial and viral infections, particularly a form of psoriasis called guttate, which is characterized by tons of tiny red scaly bumps all over the body,” said Joel M. Gelfand, MD, a professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “Infection with COVID-19 has been associated with flares of guttate and pustular psoriasis, and even psoriasis that affects 100% of the skin ... in many published case reports.”

Israeli researchers recently found that psoriasis patients have a slightly higher risk of getting COVID,  although they are not at higher risk of hospitalization or death, which could be related to treatment with immune-modulating therapy, which can increase their risk of infections.
 

How could COVID cause psoriasis to flare? 

Psoriasis is an autoimmune condition, and inflammation can cause symptoms.

Investigators for a study from Albany (N.Y.) Medical College and Weirton (Pa.) Medical Center found that people in the study who were already diagnosed with the skin condition had an unexpected flare within a week to a month after testing positive for COVID. New psoriasis after a COVID infection was also found. The researchers think this could be because COVID causes inflammation in the body, which negatively affects previously well-controlled psoriasis. They also think it’s possible that COVID-related inflammation could trigger a genetic tendency to have psoriasis, which may explain why it can appear for the first time after a positive test.

“A viral infection like COVID-19 can signal the release of proinflammatory factors that can appear as rashes, such as with psoriasis.” said Robert O. Carpenter, MD, director of wellness at Texas A&M University in Bryan.
 

What are the symptoms of COVID-related psoriasis?

The signs are the same as those of any form of psoriasis.
 

For a patient with psoriasis, will COVID automatically make it worse?

Not necessarily.

“Psoriasis is a common condition, so people should be aware that new psoriasis that develops may not be related to COVID-19,” said Esther Freeman MD, PhD, director of global health dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

As with every aspect of COVID, doctors and scientists are still learning about how serious and widespread a problem psoriasis after COVID-19 may be. “We have seen case reports that psoriasis can flare after COVID-19,” said Dr. Freeman, who is also an associate professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School. “I will say, this has not been a tidal wave – more like sporadic cases here and there. So I do not think psoriasis flares are a major post-COVID finding, nor do they necessarily mean you have long COVID. That being said, we know that many different infections can cause psoriasis flares, and so, in that respect, it’s not that surprising that SARS-CoV-2, like other infections, could trigger a psoriasis flare.”

Could getting COVID more than once cause psoriasis to flare? It’s possible.

“Your body can change after having COVID-19,” said Dr. Carpenter. “We don’t know the long-term implications, but having COVID-19 repeatedly can increase the risk of long COVID, which can cause many systemic changes in your body.” 

Another important point: For patients who take biologics for treating psoriasis, getting vaccinated and boosted for COVID is an important step to take to help protect themselves.
 

Is psoriasis itself a potential symptom of COVID? 

“Yes, but we don’t know the frequency at which this may occur, and a causal relationship is difficult to establish from just case reports,” said Dr. Gelfand, who’s also medical director of the clinical studies unit in the department of dermatology at his university. “Typically, if a patient presents with a flare of psoriasis, particularly guttate, pustular, or erythrodermic forms, an infectious trigger should be considered, and testing for strep and possibly COVID-19 may be appropriate.”
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has asked the manufacturer of the investigational drug for alopecia areata, deuruxolitinib to stop trials of the 12-mg dose because of the potential for thrombotic events, the company said in a press release on May 2.

The announcement came after a pulmonary embolism occurred with the 12-mg twice-daily dose in one of the long-term open-label extension (OLE) studies, the company, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, said.

The company stated that the FDA has placed the Investigational New Drug testing for deuruxolitinib on partial clinical hold, and the agency is requiring that study participants who are currently on the 12-mg twice-daily dose in the OLE studies stop taking that dose. The hold covers only the 12-mg dose.
 

No hold on 8-mg dose

“There have been no thrombotic events reported to date for the 8-mg b.i.d. dose and U.S. FDA has not placed the 8-mg b.i.d. dose on hold,” the company said in the statement.

The statement added, “We are taking immediate steps to transition the patients in the OLE studies to the 8-mg b.i.d. dose arm in the ongoing studies.”

The company said that no thromboembolic events were observed in the phase 2 or phase 3 trials and said that it will work closely with the FDA to address its concerns. A formal letter detailing the FDA’s concerns is expected within 30 days.

Deuruxolitinib is an investigational oral selective inhibitor of Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) and JAK2 enzymes.

The FDA has granted deuruxolitinib breakthrough therapy designation for the treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe alopecia areata as well as fast-track designation for the treatment of alopecia areata.

In March, this news organization reported from the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology that, based on phase 3 studies that demonstrate robust hair growth in about one-third of patients, deuruxolitinib has the potential to become the second JAK inhibitor available for the treatment of alopecia areata. If approved, it will join baricitinib (Olumiant), which received FDA approval almost 1 year ago.

Also at the AAD annual meeting, this news organization reported that principal investigator Brett A. King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in his presentation on the results of THRIVE-AA2, one of the two phase 3 trials of deuruxolitinib, displayed several before-and-after photos and said, “The photos tell the whole story. This is why there is so much excitement about these drugs.” Dr King also was a principal investigator in studies of baricitinib.

With one exception, labeling for baricitinib and other JAK inhibitors with dermatologic indications includes a boxed warning listing serious adverse events including the risk for major adverse cardiac events and thrombosis, including pulmonary embolism, based on the risks in a rheumatoid arthritis study.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has asked the manufacturer of the investigational drug for alopecia areata, deuruxolitinib to stop trials of the 12-mg dose because of the potential for thrombotic events, the company said in a press release on May 2.

The announcement came after a pulmonary embolism occurred with the 12-mg twice-daily dose in one of the long-term open-label extension (OLE) studies, the company, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, said.

The company stated that the FDA has placed the Investigational New Drug testing for deuruxolitinib on partial clinical hold, and the agency is requiring that study participants who are currently on the 12-mg twice-daily dose in the OLE studies stop taking that dose. The hold covers only the 12-mg dose.
 

No hold on 8-mg dose

“There have been no thrombotic events reported to date for the 8-mg b.i.d. dose and U.S. FDA has not placed the 8-mg b.i.d. dose on hold,” the company said in the statement.

The statement added, “We are taking immediate steps to transition the patients in the OLE studies to the 8-mg b.i.d. dose arm in the ongoing studies.”

The company said that no thromboembolic events were observed in the phase 2 or phase 3 trials and said that it will work closely with the FDA to address its concerns. A formal letter detailing the FDA’s concerns is expected within 30 days.

Deuruxolitinib is an investigational oral selective inhibitor of Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) and JAK2 enzymes.

The FDA has granted deuruxolitinib breakthrough therapy designation for the treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe alopecia areata as well as fast-track designation for the treatment of alopecia areata.

In March, this news organization reported from the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology that, based on phase 3 studies that demonstrate robust hair growth in about one-third of patients, deuruxolitinib has the potential to become the second JAK inhibitor available for the treatment of alopecia areata. If approved, it will join baricitinib (Olumiant), which received FDA approval almost 1 year ago.

Also at the AAD annual meeting, this news organization reported that principal investigator Brett A. King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in his presentation on the results of THRIVE-AA2, one of the two phase 3 trials of deuruxolitinib, displayed several before-and-after photos and said, “The photos tell the whole story. This is why there is so much excitement about these drugs.” Dr King also was a principal investigator in studies of baricitinib.

With one exception, labeling for baricitinib and other JAK inhibitors with dermatologic indications includes a boxed warning listing serious adverse events including the risk for major adverse cardiac events and thrombosis, including pulmonary embolism, based on the risks in a rheumatoid arthritis study.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has asked the manufacturer of the investigational drug for alopecia areata, deuruxolitinib to stop trials of the 12-mg dose because of the potential for thrombotic events, the company said in a press release on May 2.

The announcement came after a pulmonary embolism occurred with the 12-mg twice-daily dose in one of the long-term open-label extension (OLE) studies, the company, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, said.

The company stated that the FDA has placed the Investigational New Drug testing for deuruxolitinib on partial clinical hold, and the agency is requiring that study participants who are currently on the 12-mg twice-daily dose in the OLE studies stop taking that dose. The hold covers only the 12-mg dose.
 

No hold on 8-mg dose

“There have been no thrombotic events reported to date for the 8-mg b.i.d. dose and U.S. FDA has not placed the 8-mg b.i.d. dose on hold,” the company said in the statement.

The statement added, “We are taking immediate steps to transition the patients in the OLE studies to the 8-mg b.i.d. dose arm in the ongoing studies.”

The company said that no thromboembolic events were observed in the phase 2 or phase 3 trials and said that it will work closely with the FDA to address its concerns. A formal letter detailing the FDA’s concerns is expected within 30 days.

Deuruxolitinib is an investigational oral selective inhibitor of Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) and JAK2 enzymes.

The FDA has granted deuruxolitinib breakthrough therapy designation for the treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe alopecia areata as well as fast-track designation for the treatment of alopecia areata.

In March, this news organization reported from the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology that, based on phase 3 studies that demonstrate robust hair growth in about one-third of patients, deuruxolitinib has the potential to become the second JAK inhibitor available for the treatment of alopecia areata. If approved, it will join baricitinib (Olumiant), which received FDA approval almost 1 year ago.

Also at the AAD annual meeting, this news organization reported that principal investigator Brett A. King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in his presentation on the results of THRIVE-AA2, one of the two phase 3 trials of deuruxolitinib, displayed several before-and-after photos and said, “The photos tell the whole story. This is why there is so much excitement about these drugs.” Dr King also was a principal investigator in studies of baricitinib.

With one exception, labeling for baricitinib and other JAK inhibitors with dermatologic indications includes a boxed warning listing serious adverse events including the risk for major adverse cardiac events and thrombosis, including pulmonary embolism, based on the risks in a rheumatoid arthritis study.

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

Caution: Robotic uprisings in the rearview mirror are closer than they appear

ChatGPT. If you’ve been even in the proximity of the Internet lately, you may have heard of it. It’s quite an incredible piece of technology, an artificial intelligence that really could up-end a lot of industries. And lest doctors believe they’re safe from robotic replacement, consider this: ChatGPT took a test commonly used as a study resource by ophthalmologists and scored a 46%. Obviously, that’s not a passing grade. Job safe, right?

A month later, the researchers tried again. This time, ChatGPT got a 58%. Still not passing, and ChatGPT did especially poorly on ophthalmology specialty questions (it got 80% of general medicine questions right), but still, the jump in quality after just a month is ... concerning. It’s not like an AI will forget things. That score can only go up, and it’ll go up faster than you think.

Alexandra Koch/Pixabay

“Sure, the robot is smart,” the doctors out there are thinking, “but how can an AI compete with human compassion, understanding, and bedside manner?”

And they’d be right. When it comes to bedside manner, there’s no competition between man and bot. ChatGPT is already winning.

In another study, researchers sampled nearly 200 questions from the subreddit r/AskDocs, which received verified physician responses. The researchers fed ChatGPT the questions – without the doctor’s answer – and a panel of health care professionals evaluated both the human doctor and ChatGPT in terms of quality and empathy.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the robot did better when it came to quality, providing a high-quality response 79% of the time, versus 22% for the human. But empathy? It was a bloodbath. ChatGPT provided an empathetic or very empathetic response 45% of the time, while humans could only do so 4.6% of the time. So much for bedside manner.

The researchers were suspiciously quick to note that ChatGPT isn’t a legitimate replacement for physicians, but could represent a tool to better provide care for patients. But let’s be honest, given ChatGPT’s quick advancement, how long before some intrepid stockholder says: “Hey, instead of paying doctors, why don’t we just use the free robot instead?” We give it a week. Or 11 minutes.
 

This week, on ‘As the sperm turns’

We’ve got a lot of spermy ground to cover, so let’s get right to it, starting with the small and working our way up.

We’re all pretty familiar with the basic structure of a sperm cell, yes? Bulbous head that contains all the important genetic information and a tail-like flagellum to propel it to its ultimate destination. Not much to work with there, you’d think, but what if Mother Nature, who clearly has a robust sense of humor, had something else in mind?

Jason Gallant

We present exhibit A, Paramormyorps kingsleyae, also known as the electric elephantfish, which happens to be the only known vertebrate species with tailless sperm. Sounds crazy to us, too, but Jason Gallant, PhD, of

Michigan State University, Lansing, has a theory: “A general notion in biology is that sperm are cheap, and eggs are expensive – but these fish may be telling us that sperm are more expensive than we might think. They could be saving energy by cutting back on sperm tails.”

He and his team think that finding the gene that turns off development of the flagellum in the elephant fish could benefit humans, specifically those with a genetic disorder called primary ciliary dyskinesia, whose lack of normally functioning cilia and flagella leads to chronic respiratory infection, abnormally positioned organs, fluid on the brain, and infertility.

And that – with “that” being infertility – brings us to exhibit B, a 41-year-old Dutch man named Jonathan Meijer who clearly has too much time on his hands.

A court in the Netherlands recently ordered him, and not for the first time, to stop donating sperm to fertility clinics after it was discovered that he had fathered between 500 and 600 children around the world. He had been banned from donating to Dutch clinics in 2017, at which point he had already fathered 100 children, but managed a workaround by donating internationally and online, sometimes using another name.

The judge ordered Mr. Meijer to contact all of the clinics abroad and ask them to destroy any of his sperm they still had in stock and threatened to fine him over $100,000 for each future violation.

Okay, so here’s the thing. We have been, um, let’s call it ... warned, about the evils of tastelessness in journalism, so we’re going to do what Mr. Meijer should have done and abstain. And we can last for longer than 11 minutes.
 

The realm of lost luggage and lost sleep

It may be convenient to live near an airport if you’re a frequent flyer, but it really doesn’t help your sleep numbers.

The first look at how such a common sound affects sleep duration showed that people exposed to even 45 decibels of airplane noise were less likely to get the 7-9 hours of sleep needed for healthy functioning, investigators said in Environmental Health Perspectives.

pxfuel

How loud is 45 dB exactly? A normal conversation is about 50 dB, while a whisper is 30 dB, to give you an idea. Airplane noise at 45 dB? You might not even notice it amongst the other noises in daily life.

The researchers looked at data from about 35,000 participants in the Nurses’ Health Study who live around 90 major U.S. airports. They examined plane noise every 5 years between 1995 and 2005, focusing on estimates of nighttime and daytime levels. Short sleep was most common among the nurses who lived on the West Coast, near major cargo airports or large bodies of water, and also among those who reported no hearing loss.

The investigators noted, however, that there was no consistent association between airplane noise and quality of sleep and stopped short of making any policy recommendations. Still, sleep is a very important, yet slept-on (pun intended) factor for our overall health, so it’s good to know if anything has the potential to cause disruption.

Caution: Robotic uprisings in the rearview mirror are closer than they appear

ChatGPT. If you’ve been even in the proximity of the Internet lately, you may have heard of it. It’s quite an incredible piece of technology, an artificial intelligence that really could up-end a lot of industries. And lest doctors believe they’re safe from robotic replacement, consider this: ChatGPT took a test commonly used as a study resource by ophthalmologists and scored a 46%. Obviously, that’s not a passing grade. Job safe, right?

A month later, the researchers tried again. This time, ChatGPT got a 58%. Still not passing, and ChatGPT did especially poorly on ophthalmology specialty questions (it got 80% of general medicine questions right), but still, the jump in quality after just a month is ... concerning. It’s not like an AI will forget things. That score can only go up, and it’ll go up faster than you think.

Alexandra Koch/Pixabay

“Sure, the robot is smart,” the doctors out there are thinking, “but how can an AI compete with human compassion, understanding, and bedside manner?”

And they’d be right. When it comes to bedside manner, there’s no competition between man and bot. ChatGPT is already winning.

In another study, researchers sampled nearly 200 questions from the subreddit r/AskDocs, which received verified physician responses. The researchers fed ChatGPT the questions – without the doctor’s answer – and a panel of health care professionals evaluated both the human doctor and ChatGPT in terms of quality and empathy.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the robot did better when it came to quality, providing a high-quality response 79% of the time, versus 22% for the human. But empathy? It was a bloodbath. ChatGPT provided an empathetic or very empathetic response 45% of the time, while humans could only do so 4.6% of the time. So much for bedside manner.

The researchers were suspiciously quick to note that ChatGPT isn’t a legitimate replacement for physicians, but could represent a tool to better provide care for patients. But let’s be honest, given ChatGPT’s quick advancement, how long before some intrepid stockholder says: “Hey, instead of paying doctors, why don’t we just use the free robot instead?” We give it a week. Or 11 minutes.
 

This week, on ‘As the sperm turns’

We’ve got a lot of spermy ground to cover, so let’s get right to it, starting with the small and working our way up.

We’re all pretty familiar with the basic structure of a sperm cell, yes? Bulbous head that contains all the important genetic information and a tail-like flagellum to propel it to its ultimate destination. Not much to work with there, you’d think, but what if Mother Nature, who clearly has a robust sense of humor, had something else in mind?

Jason Gallant

We present exhibit A, Paramormyorps kingsleyae, also known as the electric elephantfish, which happens to be the only known vertebrate species with tailless sperm. Sounds crazy to us, too, but Jason Gallant, PhD, of

Michigan State University, Lansing, has a theory: “A general notion in biology is that sperm are cheap, and eggs are expensive – but these fish may be telling us that sperm are more expensive than we might think. They could be saving energy by cutting back on sperm tails.”

He and his team think that finding the gene that turns off development of the flagellum in the elephant fish could benefit humans, specifically those with a genetic disorder called primary ciliary dyskinesia, whose lack of normally functioning cilia and flagella leads to chronic respiratory infection, abnormally positioned organs, fluid on the brain, and infertility.

And that – with “that” being infertility – brings us to exhibit B, a 41-year-old Dutch man named Jonathan Meijer who clearly has too much time on his hands.

A court in the Netherlands recently ordered him, and not for the first time, to stop donating sperm to fertility clinics after it was discovered that he had fathered between 500 and 600 children around the world. He had been banned from donating to Dutch clinics in 2017, at which point he had already fathered 100 children, but managed a workaround by donating internationally and online, sometimes using another name.

The judge ordered Mr. Meijer to contact all of the clinics abroad and ask them to destroy any of his sperm they still had in stock and threatened to fine him over $100,000 for each future violation.

Okay, so here’s the thing. We have been, um, let’s call it ... warned, about the evils of tastelessness in journalism, so we’re going to do what Mr. Meijer should have done and abstain. And we can last for longer than 11 minutes.
 

The realm of lost luggage and lost sleep

It may be convenient to live near an airport if you’re a frequent flyer, but it really doesn’t help your sleep numbers.

The first look at how such a common sound affects sleep duration showed that people exposed to even 45 decibels of airplane noise were less likely to get the 7-9 hours of sleep needed for healthy functioning, investigators said in Environmental Health Perspectives.

pxfuel

How loud is 45 dB exactly? A normal conversation is about 50 dB, while a whisper is 30 dB, to give you an idea. Airplane noise at 45 dB? You might not even notice it amongst the other noises in daily life.

The researchers looked at data from about 35,000 participants in the Nurses’ Health Study who live around 90 major U.S. airports. They examined plane noise every 5 years between 1995 and 2005, focusing on estimates of nighttime and daytime levels. Short sleep was most common among the nurses who lived on the West Coast, near major cargo airports or large bodies of water, and also among those who reported no hearing loss.

The investigators noted, however, that there was no consistent association between airplane noise and quality of sleep and stopped short of making any policy recommendations. Still, sleep is a very important, yet slept-on (pun intended) factor for our overall health, so it’s good to know if anything has the potential to cause disruption.

Caution: Robotic uprisings in the rearview mirror are closer than they appear

ChatGPT. If you’ve been even in the proximity of the Internet lately, you may have heard of it. It’s quite an incredible piece of technology, an artificial intelligence that really could up-end a lot of industries. And lest doctors believe they’re safe from robotic replacement, consider this: ChatGPT took a test commonly used as a study resource by ophthalmologists and scored a 46%. Obviously, that’s not a passing grade. Job safe, right?

A month later, the researchers tried again. This time, ChatGPT got a 58%. Still not passing, and ChatGPT did especially poorly on ophthalmology specialty questions (it got 80% of general medicine questions right), but still, the jump in quality after just a month is ... concerning. It’s not like an AI will forget things. That score can only go up, and it’ll go up faster than you think.

Alexandra Koch/Pixabay

“Sure, the robot is smart,” the doctors out there are thinking, “but how can an AI compete with human compassion, understanding, and bedside manner?”

And they’d be right. When it comes to bedside manner, there’s no competition between man and bot. ChatGPT is already winning.

In another study, researchers sampled nearly 200 questions from the subreddit r/AskDocs, which received verified physician responses. The researchers fed ChatGPT the questions – without the doctor’s answer – and a panel of health care professionals evaluated both the human doctor and ChatGPT in terms of quality and empathy.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the robot did better when it came to quality, providing a high-quality response 79% of the time, versus 22% for the human. But empathy? It was a bloodbath. ChatGPT provided an empathetic or very empathetic response 45% of the time, while humans could only do so 4.6% of the time. So much for bedside manner.

The researchers were suspiciously quick to note that ChatGPT isn’t a legitimate replacement for physicians, but could represent a tool to better provide care for patients. But let’s be honest, given ChatGPT’s quick advancement, how long before some intrepid stockholder says: “Hey, instead of paying doctors, why don’t we just use the free robot instead?” We give it a week. Or 11 minutes.
 

This week, on ‘As the sperm turns’

We’ve got a lot of spermy ground to cover, so let’s get right to it, starting with the small and working our way up.

We’re all pretty familiar with the basic structure of a sperm cell, yes? Bulbous head that contains all the important genetic information and a tail-like flagellum to propel it to its ultimate destination. Not much to work with there, you’d think, but what if Mother Nature, who clearly has a robust sense of humor, had something else in mind?

Jason Gallant

We present exhibit A, Paramormyorps kingsleyae, also known as the electric elephantfish, which happens to be the only known vertebrate species with tailless sperm. Sounds crazy to us, too, but Jason Gallant, PhD, of

Michigan State University, Lansing, has a theory: “A general notion in biology is that sperm are cheap, and eggs are expensive – but these fish may be telling us that sperm are more expensive than we might think. They could be saving energy by cutting back on sperm tails.”

He and his team think that finding the gene that turns off development of the flagellum in the elephant fish could benefit humans, specifically those with a genetic disorder called primary ciliary dyskinesia, whose lack of normally functioning cilia and flagella leads to chronic respiratory infection, abnormally positioned organs, fluid on the brain, and infertility.

And that – with “that” being infertility – brings us to exhibit B, a 41-year-old Dutch man named Jonathan Meijer who clearly has too much time on his hands.

A court in the Netherlands recently ordered him, and not for the first time, to stop donating sperm to fertility clinics after it was discovered that he had fathered between 500 and 600 children around the world. He had been banned from donating to Dutch clinics in 2017, at which point he had already fathered 100 children, but managed a workaround by donating internationally and online, sometimes using another name.

The judge ordered Mr. Meijer to contact all of the clinics abroad and ask them to destroy any of his sperm they still had in stock and threatened to fine him over $100,000 for each future violation.

Okay, so here’s the thing. We have been, um, let’s call it ... warned, about the evils of tastelessness in journalism, so we’re going to do what Mr. Meijer should have done and abstain. And we can last for longer than 11 minutes.
 

The realm of lost luggage and lost sleep

It may be convenient to live near an airport if you’re a frequent flyer, but it really doesn’t help your sleep numbers.

The first look at how such a common sound affects sleep duration showed that people exposed to even 45 decibels of airplane noise were less likely to get the 7-9 hours of sleep needed for healthy functioning, investigators said in Environmental Health Perspectives.

pxfuel

How loud is 45 dB exactly? A normal conversation is about 50 dB, while a whisper is 30 dB, to give you an idea. Airplane noise at 45 dB? You might not even notice it amongst the other noises in daily life.

The researchers looked at data from about 35,000 participants in the Nurses’ Health Study who live around 90 major U.S. airports. They examined plane noise every 5 years between 1995 and 2005, focusing on estimates of nighttime and daytime levels. Short sleep was most common among the nurses who lived on the West Coast, near major cargo airports or large bodies of water, and also among those who reported no hearing loss.

The investigators noted, however, that there was no consistent association between airplane noise and quality of sleep and stopped short of making any policy recommendations. Still, sleep is a very important, yet slept-on (pun intended) factor for our overall health, so it’s good to know if anything has the potential to cause disruption.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted Fast Track designation for Cabaletta Bio’s cell therapy CABA-201 for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis (LN), the company announced May 1.
 

The FDA cleared Cabaletta to begin a phase 1/2 clinical trial of CABA-201, the statement says, which will be the first trial accessing Cabaletta’s Chimeric Antigen Receptor T cells for Autoimmunity (CARTA) approach. CABA-201, a 4-1BB–containing fully human CD19-CAR T-cell investigational therapy, is designed to target and deplete CD19-positive B cells, “enabling an ‘immune system reset’ with durable remission in patients with SLE,” according to the press release. This news organization previously reported on a small study in Germany, published in Nature Medicine, that also used anti-CD19 CAR T cells to treat five patients with SLE.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

This upcoming open-label study will enroll two cohorts containing six patients each. One cohort will be patients with SLE and active LN, and the other will be patients with SLE without renal involvement. The therapy is designed as a one-time infusion and will be administered at a dose of 1.0 x 106 cells/kg.

“We believe the FDA’s decision to grant Fast Track Designation for CABA-201 underscores the unmet need for a treatment that has the potential to provide deep and durable responses for people living with lupus and potentially other autoimmune diseases where B cells contribute to disease,” David J. Chang, MD, chief medical officer of Cabaletta, said in the press release.

FDA Fast Track is a process designed to expedite the development and review of drugs and other therapeutics that treat serious conditions and address unmet medical needs. Companies that receive Fast Track designation for a drug have the opportunity for more frequent meetings and written communication with the FDA about the drug’s development plan and design of clinical trials. The fast-tracked drug can also be eligible for accelerated approval and priority review if relevant criteria are met.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted Fast Track designation for Cabaletta Bio’s cell therapy CABA-201 for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis (LN), the company announced May 1.
 

The FDA cleared Cabaletta to begin a phase 1/2 clinical trial of CABA-201, the statement says, which will be the first trial accessing Cabaletta’s Chimeric Antigen Receptor T cells for Autoimmunity (CARTA) approach. CABA-201, a 4-1BB–containing fully human CD19-CAR T-cell investigational therapy, is designed to target and deplete CD19-positive B cells, “enabling an ‘immune system reset’ with durable remission in patients with SLE,” according to the press release. This news organization previously reported on a small study in Germany, published in Nature Medicine, that also used anti-CD19 CAR T cells to treat five patients with SLE.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

This upcoming open-label study will enroll two cohorts containing six patients each. One cohort will be patients with SLE and active LN, and the other will be patients with SLE without renal involvement. The therapy is designed as a one-time infusion and will be administered at a dose of 1.0 x 106 cells/kg.

“We believe the FDA’s decision to grant Fast Track Designation for CABA-201 underscores the unmet need for a treatment that has the potential to provide deep and durable responses for people living with lupus and potentially other autoimmune diseases where B cells contribute to disease,” David J. Chang, MD, chief medical officer of Cabaletta, said in the press release.

FDA Fast Track is a process designed to expedite the development and review of drugs and other therapeutics that treat serious conditions and address unmet medical needs. Companies that receive Fast Track designation for a drug have the opportunity for more frequent meetings and written communication with the FDA about the drug’s development plan and design of clinical trials. The fast-tracked drug can also be eligible for accelerated approval and priority review if relevant criteria are met.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted Fast Track designation for Cabaletta Bio’s cell therapy CABA-201 for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis (LN), the company announced May 1.
 

The FDA cleared Cabaletta to begin a phase 1/2 clinical trial of CABA-201, the statement says, which will be the first trial accessing Cabaletta’s Chimeric Antigen Receptor T cells for Autoimmunity (CARTA) approach. CABA-201, a 4-1BB–containing fully human CD19-CAR T-cell investigational therapy, is designed to target and deplete CD19-positive B cells, “enabling an ‘immune system reset’ with durable remission in patients with SLE,” according to the press release. This news organization previously reported on a small study in Germany, published in Nature Medicine, that also used anti-CD19 CAR T cells to treat five patients with SLE.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

This upcoming open-label study will enroll two cohorts containing six patients each. One cohort will be patients with SLE and active LN, and the other will be patients with SLE without renal involvement. The therapy is designed as a one-time infusion and will be administered at a dose of 1.0 x 106 cells/kg.

“We believe the FDA’s decision to grant Fast Track Designation for CABA-201 underscores the unmet need for a treatment that has the potential to provide deep and durable responses for people living with lupus and potentially other autoimmune diseases where B cells contribute to disease,” David J. Chang, MD, chief medical officer of Cabaletta, said in the press release.

FDA Fast Track is a process designed to expedite the development and review of drugs and other therapeutics that treat serious conditions and address unmet medical needs. Companies that receive Fast Track designation for a drug have the opportunity for more frequent meetings and written communication with the FDA about the drug’s development plan and design of clinical trials. The fast-tracked drug can also be eligible for accelerated approval and priority review if relevant criteria are met.

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

MANCHESTER, England – Data from the COVAD-2 e-survey suggest that people with a rheumatic disease are twice as likely as are those without to experience long-term effects after contracting COVID-19.

The prevalence of post–COVID-19 condition (PCC), the term the World Health Organization advocates for describing the widely popularized term long COVID, was 10.8% among people with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) vs. 5.3% among those with no autoimmune condition (designated as “healthy controls”). The odds ratio was 2.1, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.4-3.2 and a P-value of .002.

The prevalence in people with nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases was also higher than it was in the control participants but still lower, at 7.3%, than in those with AIRDs.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Our findings highlight the importance of close monitoring for PCC,” Arvind Nune, MBBCh, MSc, said in a virtual poster presentation at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

They also show the need for “appropriate referral for optimized multidisciplinary care for patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases during the recovery period following COVID-19,” added Dr. Nune, who works for Southport (England) and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust.

In an interview, he noted that it was patients who had a severe COVID-19 course or had other coexisting conditions that appeared to experience more long-term effects than did their less-affected counterparts.

Commenting on the study, Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, told this news organization: “This is one of the first studies to find that the prevalence of long COVID is higher among people with systemic rheumatic diseases than those without.”

Dr. Sparks, who is based at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, added: “Since the symptoms of long COVID and rheumatic diseases can overlap substantially, more work will need to be done to determine whether COVID may have induced flares, new symptoms, or whether the finding is due to the presence of the chronic rheumatic disease.”
 

The COVAD study

Using an electronic survey platform, the COVAD study has been set up to look at the long-term efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccinations in patients with AIRDs. It’s now a large international effort involving more than 150 collaborating clinics in 106 countries.

A huge amount of data has been collected. “We collected demographics, details of autoimmune disease, including treatment, comorbidity, COVID infection, vaccination history and outcomes, date on flares, and validated patient-reported outcomes, including pain, fatigue, physical function, and quality of life,” Dr. Nune said in his presentation.

A total of 12,358 people who were invited to participate responded to the e-survey. Of them, 2,640 were confirmed to have COVID-19. Because the analysis aimed to look at PCC, anyone who had completed the survey less than 3 months after infection was excluded. This left 1,677 eligible respondents, of whom, an overall 8.7% (n = 136) were identified as having PCC.

“The [WHO] definition for PCC was employed, which is persistent signs or symptoms beyond 3 months of COVID-19 infection lasting at least 2 months,” Dr. Nune told this news organization.

“Symptoms could be anything from fatigue to breathlessness to arthralgias,” he added. However, the focus of the present analysis was to look at how many people were experiencing the condition rather than specific symptoms.

A higher risk for PCC was seen in women than in men (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.1-7.7; P = .037) in the entire cohort.

In addition, those with comorbidities were found to have a greater chance of long-term sequelae from COVID-19 than were those without comorbid disease (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.4-5.7; P = .005).

Patients who experienced more severe acute COVID-19, such as those who needed intensive care treatment, oxygen therapy, or advanced treatment for COVID-19 with monoclonal antibodies, were significantly more likely to later have PCC than were those who did not (OR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.1-13.6; P = .039).

Having PCC was also associated with poorer patient-reported outcomes for physical function, compared with not having PCC. “However, no association with disease flares of underlying rheumatic diseases or immunosuppressive drugs used were noted,” Dr. Nune said.

These new findings from the COVAD study should be published soon. Dr. Nune suggested that the findings might be used to help identify patients early so that they can be referred to the appropriate services in good time.

The COVAD study was independently supported. Dr. Nune reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sparks is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care. Dr. Sparks has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and performed consultancy for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer.
 

MANCHESTER, England – Data from the COVAD-2 e-survey suggest that people with a rheumatic disease are twice as likely as are those without to experience long-term effects after contracting COVID-19.

The prevalence of post–COVID-19 condition (PCC), the term the World Health Organization advocates for describing the widely popularized term long COVID, was 10.8% among people with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) vs. 5.3% among those with no autoimmune condition (designated as “healthy controls”). The odds ratio was 2.1, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.4-3.2 and a P-value of .002.

The prevalence in people with nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases was also higher than it was in the control participants but still lower, at 7.3%, than in those with AIRDs.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Our findings highlight the importance of close monitoring for PCC,” Arvind Nune, MBBCh, MSc, said in a virtual poster presentation at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

They also show the need for “appropriate referral for optimized multidisciplinary care for patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases during the recovery period following COVID-19,” added Dr. Nune, who works for Southport (England) and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust.

In an interview, he noted that it was patients who had a severe COVID-19 course or had other coexisting conditions that appeared to experience more long-term effects than did their less-affected counterparts.

Commenting on the study, Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, told this news organization: “This is one of the first studies to find that the prevalence of long COVID is higher among people with systemic rheumatic diseases than those without.”

Dr. Sparks, who is based at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, added: “Since the symptoms of long COVID and rheumatic diseases can overlap substantially, more work will need to be done to determine whether COVID may have induced flares, new symptoms, or whether the finding is due to the presence of the chronic rheumatic disease.”
 

The COVAD study

Using an electronic survey platform, the COVAD study has been set up to look at the long-term efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccinations in patients with AIRDs. It’s now a large international effort involving more than 150 collaborating clinics in 106 countries.

A huge amount of data has been collected. “We collected demographics, details of autoimmune disease, including treatment, comorbidity, COVID infection, vaccination history and outcomes, date on flares, and validated patient-reported outcomes, including pain, fatigue, physical function, and quality of life,” Dr. Nune said in his presentation.

A total of 12,358 people who were invited to participate responded to the e-survey. Of them, 2,640 were confirmed to have COVID-19. Because the analysis aimed to look at PCC, anyone who had completed the survey less than 3 months after infection was excluded. This left 1,677 eligible respondents, of whom, an overall 8.7% (n = 136) were identified as having PCC.

“The [WHO] definition for PCC was employed, which is persistent signs or symptoms beyond 3 months of COVID-19 infection lasting at least 2 months,” Dr. Nune told this news organization.

“Symptoms could be anything from fatigue to breathlessness to arthralgias,” he added. However, the focus of the present analysis was to look at how many people were experiencing the condition rather than specific symptoms.

A higher risk for PCC was seen in women than in men (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.1-7.7; P = .037) in the entire cohort.

In addition, those with comorbidities were found to have a greater chance of long-term sequelae from COVID-19 than were those without comorbid disease (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.4-5.7; P = .005).

Patients who experienced more severe acute COVID-19, such as those who needed intensive care treatment, oxygen therapy, or advanced treatment for COVID-19 with monoclonal antibodies, were significantly more likely to later have PCC than were those who did not (OR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.1-13.6; P = .039).

Having PCC was also associated with poorer patient-reported outcomes for physical function, compared with not having PCC. “However, no association with disease flares of underlying rheumatic diseases or immunosuppressive drugs used were noted,” Dr. Nune said.

These new findings from the COVAD study should be published soon. Dr. Nune suggested that the findings might be used to help identify patients early so that they can be referred to the appropriate services in good time.

The COVAD study was independently supported. Dr. Nune reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sparks is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care. Dr. Sparks has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and performed consultancy for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer.
 

MANCHESTER, England – Data from the COVAD-2 e-survey suggest that people with a rheumatic disease are twice as likely as are those without to experience long-term effects after contracting COVID-19.

The prevalence of post–COVID-19 condition (PCC), the term the World Health Organization advocates for describing the widely popularized term long COVID, was 10.8% among people with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) vs. 5.3% among those with no autoimmune condition (designated as “healthy controls”). The odds ratio was 2.1, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.4-3.2 and a P-value of .002.

The prevalence in people with nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases was also higher than it was in the control participants but still lower, at 7.3%, than in those with AIRDs.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Our findings highlight the importance of close monitoring for PCC,” Arvind Nune, MBBCh, MSc, said in a virtual poster presentation at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

They also show the need for “appropriate referral for optimized multidisciplinary care for patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases during the recovery period following COVID-19,” added Dr. Nune, who works for Southport (England) and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust.

In an interview, he noted that it was patients who had a severe COVID-19 course or had other coexisting conditions that appeared to experience more long-term effects than did their less-affected counterparts.

Commenting on the study, Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, told this news organization: “This is one of the first studies to find that the prevalence of long COVID is higher among people with systemic rheumatic diseases than those without.”

Dr. Sparks, who is based at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, added: “Since the symptoms of long COVID and rheumatic diseases can overlap substantially, more work will need to be done to determine whether COVID may have induced flares, new symptoms, or whether the finding is due to the presence of the chronic rheumatic disease.”
 

The COVAD study

Using an electronic survey platform, the COVAD study has been set up to look at the long-term efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccinations in patients with AIRDs. It’s now a large international effort involving more than 150 collaborating clinics in 106 countries.

A huge amount of data has been collected. “We collected demographics, details of autoimmune disease, including treatment, comorbidity, COVID infection, vaccination history and outcomes, date on flares, and validated patient-reported outcomes, including pain, fatigue, physical function, and quality of life,” Dr. Nune said in his presentation.

A total of 12,358 people who were invited to participate responded to the e-survey. Of them, 2,640 were confirmed to have COVID-19. Because the analysis aimed to look at PCC, anyone who had completed the survey less than 3 months after infection was excluded. This left 1,677 eligible respondents, of whom, an overall 8.7% (n = 136) were identified as having PCC.

“The [WHO] definition for PCC was employed, which is persistent signs or symptoms beyond 3 months of COVID-19 infection lasting at least 2 months,” Dr. Nune told this news organization.

“Symptoms could be anything from fatigue to breathlessness to arthralgias,” he added. However, the focus of the present analysis was to look at how many people were experiencing the condition rather than specific symptoms.

A higher risk for PCC was seen in women than in men (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.1-7.7; P = .037) in the entire cohort.

In addition, those with comorbidities were found to have a greater chance of long-term sequelae from COVID-19 than were those without comorbid disease (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.4-5.7; P = .005).

Patients who experienced more severe acute COVID-19, such as those who needed intensive care treatment, oxygen therapy, or advanced treatment for COVID-19 with monoclonal antibodies, were significantly more likely to later have PCC than were those who did not (OR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.1-13.6; P = .039).

Having PCC was also associated with poorer patient-reported outcomes for physical function, compared with not having PCC. “However, no association with disease flares of underlying rheumatic diseases or immunosuppressive drugs used were noted,” Dr. Nune said.

These new findings from the COVAD study should be published soon. Dr. Nune suggested that the findings might be used to help identify patients early so that they can be referred to the appropriate services in good time.

The COVAD study was independently supported. Dr. Nune reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sparks is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care. Dr. Sparks has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and performed consultancy for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer.
 

When we talk about advocacy in rheumatology, we think about our patients and how we can help them gain access to the best care. Whether it’s filling out a prior authorization form or testifying before Congress, it is an action we perform that ultimately helps our patients achieve that care. We are familiar with many of the obstacles that block the path to the best care and interfere with our patient-doctor relationships. Much work has been done to pass legislation in the states to mitigate some of those obstacles, such as unreasonable step therapy regimens, nonmedical switching, and copay accumulators.

CSRO

Unfortunately, that state legislation does not cover patients who work for companies that are self-insured. Self-insured employers, which account for about 60% of America’s workers, directly pay for the health benefits offered to employees instead of buying “fully funded” insurance plans. Most of those self-funded plans fall under “ERISA” protections and are regulated by the federal Department of Labor. ERISA stands for Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The law, which was enacted in 1974, also covers employee health plans. These plans must act as a fiduciary, meaning they must look after the well-being of the employees, including their finances and those of the plan itself.

The Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO) has learned of a number of issues involving patients who work for self-funded companies, regulated by ERISA. One such issue is that of mandated “white bagging.” White bagging has been discussed in “Rheum for Action” in the past. There is a long list of white-bagging problems, including dosing issues, lack of “chain of custody” with the medications, delays in treatment, mandatory up-front payments by the patient, and wastage of unused medication. However, there is another issue that is of concern not only to the employees (our patients) but to the employer as well.

Employers’ fiduciary responsibility

As mentioned earlier, the employers who self insure are responsible for the financial well-being of their employee and the plan itself. Therefore, if certain practices are mandated within the health plan that harm our patients or the plan financially, the company could be in violation of their fiduciary duty. Rheumatologists have said that buying and billing the drug to the medical side of the health plan in many cases costs much less than white bagging. Conceivably, that could result in breach of an employer’s fiduciary duty to their employee.

Evidence for violating fiduciary duty

CSRO recently received redacted receipts comparing costs between the two models of drug acquisition for a patient in an ERISA plan. White bagging for the patient occurred in 2021, and in 2022 an exemption was granted for the rheumatologist to buy and bill the administered medication. Unfortunately, the exemption to buy and bill in 2023 was denied and continues to be denied (as of this writing). A comparison of the receipts revealed the company was charged over $40,000 for the white-bagged medication in 2021, and the patient’s cost share for that year was $525. Under the traditional buy-and-bill acquisition model in 2022, the company was charged around $12,000 for the medication and the patient’s cost share was $30. There is a clear difference in cost to the employee and plan between the two acquisition models.

Is this major company unknowingly violating its fiduciary duty by mandating white bagging as per their contract with one of the three big pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs)? If so, how does something like this happen with a large national company that has ERISA attorneys looking over the contracts with the PBMs?
 

Why is white bagging mandated?

Often, white bagging is mandated because the cost of infusions in a hospital outpatient facility can be very high. Nationally, it has been shown that hospitals charge four to five times the cost they paid for the drug, and the 100 most expensive hospitals charge 10-18 times the cost of their drugs. With these up-charges, white bagging could easily be a lower cost for employee and company. But across-the-board mandating of white bagging ignores that physician office–based infusions may offer a much lower cost to employees and the employer.

Another reason large and small self-funded companies may unknowingly sign contracts that are often more profitable to the PBM than to the employer is that the employer pharmacy benefit consultants are paid handsomely by the big PBMs and have been known to “rig” the contract in favor of the PBM, according to Paul Holmes, an ERISA attorney with a focus in pharmacy health plan contracts. Clearly, the PBM profits more with white-bagged medicines billed through the pharmacy (PBM) side of insurance as opposed to buy-and-bill medications that are billed on the medical side of insurance. So mandated white bagging is often included in these contracts, ignoring the lower cost in an infusion suite at a physician’s office.
 

Suggestions for employers

Employers and employees should be able to obtain the costs of mandated, white-bagged drugs from their PBMs because the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (CAA) mandates that group health plans ensure access to cost data. The employer should also have access to their consultant’s compensation from the PBM as Section 202 in the CAA states that employer benefit consultants must “disclose actual and anticipated cash and non-cash compensation they expect to earn in connection with the sale, renewal, and extension of group health insurance.”

It would be wise for all self-insured companies to use this section to see how much their consultants are being influenced by the company that they are recommending. Additionally, the companies should consider hiring ERISA attorneys that understand not only the legalese of the contract with a PBM but also the pharmacy lingo, such as the difference between maximum allowable cost, average wholesale price, average sales price, and average manufacturer’s price.
 

Suggestion for the rheumatologist

This leads to a suggestion to rheumatologists trying to get an exemption from mandated white bagging. If a patient has already had white-bagged medication, have them obtain a receipt from the PBM for their charges to the plan for the medication. If the patient has not gone through the white bagging yet, the PBM should be able to tell the plan the cost of the white-bagged medication and the cost to the patient. Compare those costs with what would be charged through buy and bill, and if it is less, present that evidence to the employer and remind them of their fiduciary responsibility to their employees.

Granted, this process may take more effort than filling out a prior authorization, but getting the white-bag exemption will help the patient, the employer, and the rheumatologist in the long run. A win-win-win!

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

When we talk about advocacy in rheumatology, we think about our patients and how we can help them gain access to the best care. Whether it’s filling out a prior authorization form or testifying before Congress, it is an action we perform that ultimately helps our patients achieve that care. We are familiar with many of the obstacles that block the path to the best care and interfere with our patient-doctor relationships. Much work has been done to pass legislation in the states to mitigate some of those obstacles, such as unreasonable step therapy regimens, nonmedical switching, and copay accumulators.

CSRO

Unfortunately, that state legislation does not cover patients who work for companies that are self-insured. Self-insured employers, which account for about 60% of America’s workers, directly pay for the health benefits offered to employees instead of buying “fully funded” insurance plans. Most of those self-funded plans fall under “ERISA” protections and are regulated by the federal Department of Labor. ERISA stands for Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The law, which was enacted in 1974, also covers employee health plans. These plans must act as a fiduciary, meaning they must look after the well-being of the employees, including their finances and those of the plan itself.

The Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO) has learned of a number of issues involving patients who work for self-funded companies, regulated by ERISA. One such issue is that of mandated “white bagging.” White bagging has been discussed in “Rheum for Action” in the past. There is a long list of white-bagging problems, including dosing issues, lack of “chain of custody” with the medications, delays in treatment, mandatory up-front payments by the patient, and wastage of unused medication. However, there is another issue that is of concern not only to the employees (our patients) but to the employer as well.

Employers’ fiduciary responsibility

As mentioned earlier, the employers who self insure are responsible for the financial well-being of their employee and the plan itself. Therefore, if certain practices are mandated within the health plan that harm our patients or the plan financially, the company could be in violation of their fiduciary duty. Rheumatologists have said that buying and billing the drug to the medical side of the health plan in many cases costs much less than white bagging. Conceivably, that could result in breach of an employer’s fiduciary duty to their employee.

Evidence for violating fiduciary duty

CSRO recently received redacted receipts comparing costs between the two models of drug acquisition for a patient in an ERISA plan. White bagging for the patient occurred in 2021, and in 2022 an exemption was granted for the rheumatologist to buy and bill the administered medication. Unfortunately, the exemption to buy and bill in 2023 was denied and continues to be denied (as of this writing). A comparison of the receipts revealed the company was charged over $40,000 for the white-bagged medication in 2021, and the patient’s cost share for that year was $525. Under the traditional buy-and-bill acquisition model in 2022, the company was charged around $12,000 for the medication and the patient’s cost share was $30. There is a clear difference in cost to the employee and plan between the two acquisition models.

Is this major company unknowingly violating its fiduciary duty by mandating white bagging as per their contract with one of the three big pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs)? If so, how does something like this happen with a large national company that has ERISA attorneys looking over the contracts with the PBMs?
 

Why is white bagging mandated?

Often, white bagging is mandated because the cost of infusions in a hospital outpatient facility can be very high. Nationally, it has been shown that hospitals charge four to five times the cost they paid for the drug, and the 100 most expensive hospitals charge 10-18 times the cost of their drugs. With these up-charges, white bagging could easily be a lower cost for employee and company. But across-the-board mandating of white bagging ignores that physician office–based infusions may offer a much lower cost to employees and the employer.

Another reason large and small self-funded companies may unknowingly sign contracts that are often more profitable to the PBM than to the employer is that the employer pharmacy benefit consultants are paid handsomely by the big PBMs and have been known to “rig” the contract in favor of the PBM, according to Paul Holmes, an ERISA attorney with a focus in pharmacy health plan contracts. Clearly, the PBM profits more with white-bagged medicines billed through the pharmacy (PBM) side of insurance as opposed to buy-and-bill medications that are billed on the medical side of insurance. So mandated white bagging is often included in these contracts, ignoring the lower cost in an infusion suite at a physician’s office.
 

Suggestions for employers

Employers and employees should be able to obtain the costs of mandated, white-bagged drugs from their PBMs because the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (CAA) mandates that group health plans ensure access to cost data. The employer should also have access to their consultant’s compensation from the PBM as Section 202 in the CAA states that employer benefit consultants must “disclose actual and anticipated cash and non-cash compensation they expect to earn in connection with the sale, renewal, and extension of group health insurance.”

It would be wise for all self-insured companies to use this section to see how much their consultants are being influenced by the company that they are recommending. Additionally, the companies should consider hiring ERISA attorneys that understand not only the legalese of the contract with a PBM but also the pharmacy lingo, such as the difference between maximum allowable cost, average wholesale price, average sales price, and average manufacturer’s price.
 

Suggestion for the rheumatologist

This leads to a suggestion to rheumatologists trying to get an exemption from mandated white bagging. If a patient has already had white-bagged medication, have them obtain a receipt from the PBM for their charges to the plan for the medication. If the patient has not gone through the white bagging yet, the PBM should be able to tell the plan the cost of the white-bagged medication and the cost to the patient. Compare those costs with what would be charged through buy and bill, and if it is less, present that evidence to the employer and remind them of their fiduciary responsibility to their employees.

Granted, this process may take more effort than filling out a prior authorization, but getting the white-bag exemption will help the patient, the employer, and the rheumatologist in the long run. A win-win-win!

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

When we talk about advocacy in rheumatology, we think about our patients and how we can help them gain access to the best care. Whether it’s filling out a prior authorization form or testifying before Congress, it is an action we perform that ultimately helps our patients achieve that care. We are familiar with many of the obstacles that block the path to the best care and interfere with our patient-doctor relationships. Much work has been done to pass legislation in the states to mitigate some of those obstacles, such as unreasonable step therapy regimens, nonmedical switching, and copay accumulators.

CSRO

Unfortunately, that state legislation does not cover patients who work for companies that are self-insured. Self-insured employers, which account for about 60% of America’s workers, directly pay for the health benefits offered to employees instead of buying “fully funded” insurance plans. Most of those self-funded plans fall under “ERISA” protections and are regulated by the federal Department of Labor. ERISA stands for Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The law, which was enacted in 1974, also covers employee health plans. These plans must act as a fiduciary, meaning they must look after the well-being of the employees, including their finances and those of the plan itself.

The Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO) has learned of a number of issues involving patients who work for self-funded companies, regulated by ERISA. One such issue is that of mandated “white bagging.” White bagging has been discussed in “Rheum for Action” in the past. There is a long list of white-bagging problems, including dosing issues, lack of “chain of custody” with the medications, delays in treatment, mandatory up-front payments by the patient, and wastage of unused medication. However, there is another issue that is of concern not only to the employees (our patients) but to the employer as well.

Employers’ fiduciary responsibility

As mentioned earlier, the employers who self insure are responsible for the financial well-being of their employee and the plan itself. Therefore, if certain practices are mandated within the health plan that harm our patients or the plan financially, the company could be in violation of their fiduciary duty. Rheumatologists have said that buying and billing the drug to the medical side of the health plan in many cases costs much less than white bagging. Conceivably, that could result in breach of an employer’s fiduciary duty to their employee.

Evidence for violating fiduciary duty

CSRO recently received redacted receipts comparing costs between the two models of drug acquisition for a patient in an ERISA plan. White bagging for the patient occurred in 2021, and in 2022 an exemption was granted for the rheumatologist to buy and bill the administered medication. Unfortunately, the exemption to buy and bill in 2023 was denied and continues to be denied (as of this writing). A comparison of the receipts revealed the company was charged over $40,000 for the white-bagged medication in 2021, and the patient’s cost share for that year was $525. Under the traditional buy-and-bill acquisition model in 2022, the company was charged around $12,000 for the medication and the patient’s cost share was $30. There is a clear difference in cost to the employee and plan between the two acquisition models.

Is this major company unknowingly violating its fiduciary duty by mandating white bagging as per their contract with one of the three big pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs)? If so, how does something like this happen with a large national company that has ERISA attorneys looking over the contracts with the PBMs?
 

Why is white bagging mandated?

Often, white bagging is mandated because the cost of infusions in a hospital outpatient facility can be very high. Nationally, it has been shown that hospitals charge four to five times the cost they paid for the drug, and the 100 most expensive hospitals charge 10-18 times the cost of their drugs. With these up-charges, white bagging could easily be a lower cost for employee and company. But across-the-board mandating of white bagging ignores that physician office–based infusions may offer a much lower cost to employees and the employer.

Another reason large and small self-funded companies may unknowingly sign contracts that are often more profitable to the PBM than to the employer is that the employer pharmacy benefit consultants are paid handsomely by the big PBMs and have been known to “rig” the contract in favor of the PBM, according to Paul Holmes, an ERISA attorney with a focus in pharmacy health plan contracts. Clearly, the PBM profits more with white-bagged medicines billed through the pharmacy (PBM) side of insurance as opposed to buy-and-bill medications that are billed on the medical side of insurance. So mandated white bagging is often included in these contracts, ignoring the lower cost in an infusion suite at a physician’s office.
 

Suggestions for employers

Employers and employees should be able to obtain the costs of mandated, white-bagged drugs from their PBMs because the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (CAA) mandates that group health plans ensure access to cost data. The employer should also have access to their consultant’s compensation from the PBM as Section 202 in the CAA states that employer benefit consultants must “disclose actual and anticipated cash and non-cash compensation they expect to earn in connection with the sale, renewal, and extension of group health insurance.”

It would be wise for all self-insured companies to use this section to see how much their consultants are being influenced by the company that they are recommending. Additionally, the companies should consider hiring ERISA attorneys that understand not only the legalese of the contract with a PBM but also the pharmacy lingo, such as the difference between maximum allowable cost, average wholesale price, average sales price, and average manufacturer’s price.
 

Suggestion for the rheumatologist

This leads to a suggestion to rheumatologists trying to get an exemption from mandated white bagging. If a patient has already had white-bagged medication, have them obtain a receipt from the PBM for their charges to the plan for the medication. If the patient has not gone through the white bagging yet, the PBM should be able to tell the plan the cost of the white-bagged medication and the cost to the patient. Compare those costs with what would be charged through buy and bill, and if it is less, present that evidence to the employer and remind them of their fiduciary responsibility to their employees.

Granted, this process may take more effort than filling out a prior authorization, but getting the white-bag exemption will help the patient, the employer, and the rheumatologist in the long run. A win-win-win!

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