Rheumatology News

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – The use of NSAIDs may mask the true level of inflammation of the sacroiliac joint (SIJ), as seen on MRI, among people with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), according to results of the DyNAMISM study.

“We’ve found that in about one in four patients, NSAIDs make a difference to the scan results,” Gareth T. Jones, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

A total of 23% of patients whose MRI results were positive for sacroiliitis when no NSAIDs had been used for a couple of weeks received negative MRI results 6 weeks after the NSAIDs were reinstated.

“This is important in terms of diagnosis, in terms of disease classification, and may be important in terms of future treatment decisions,” added Dr. Jones, professor of epidemiology at the Aberdeen Centre for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Health at the University of Aberdeen, (Scotland).

“Our recommendation from these results is that if a patient is willing to attempt to wash out [NSAIDs] prior to an MRI, we would recommend that they do so,” Dr. Jones said.
 

NSAIDs and AxSpA inflammation

“NSAIDs are often used as the first-line treatment for axial spondyloarthritis due to their ability to effectively reduce pain and stiffness associated with the condition,” Denis Poddubnyy, MD, who was not involved in the research, told this news organization.

“However, there is still a question as to whether NSAIDs have a true anti-inflammatory effect on the axial inflammation, as detected by MRI,” added Dr. Poddubnyy, head of rheumatology at Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany.

With an absence of randomized, controlled trials, it remains “uncertain how much of the observed reduction in inflammation is attributable to the natural course of the disease and spontaneous resolution of inflammation rather than the effect of NSAIDs,” Dr. Poddubnyy said.
 

The DyNAMISM Study

“Sacroiliitis is a painful inflammatory condition. This is investigated looking for the evidence of inflammation on MRI, but many patients are taking anti-inflammatory medication,” Dr. Jones said at the meeting.

“So perhaps patients are taking drugs [that are] hiding the very thing that we’re looking for,” he added. Hence, the DyNAMISM study (Do Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs Mask Inflammation in Spondyloarthritis on MRI) was conceived.

The researchers recruited 311 adults with suspected or established axSpA who were taking daily NSAIDs such as ibuprofen or diclofenac across 34 centers in England and Scotland. Patients taking other anti-inflammatory medications that could not be stopped were excluded, as were patients who were currently taking or had recently taken tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

The study used a standardized MRI protocol. Two independent readers experienced in scoring SIJ scans were employed; a third was used when the two disagreed. The primary outcome was meeting the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society criteria for a positive result on MRI.

The average age of the study subjects was 42 years, 62% were men, and 87% were White. The median duration of symptoms was 9 years, and the median time since diagnosis was 1 year.

The study design required that patients stop NSAID use over a period of 1-2 weeks before undergoing an MRI scan, which 286 did. Of these, 146 received MRI results that were positive for SIJ inflammation; those patients continued in the study. The 140 patients with negative scans were excluded. Patients could then resume taking NSAIDs before being scanned again around 6 weeks later. In all, 129 patients underwent both MRI scans.
 

How much might fluctuating inflammation matter?

‘It’s a shame you didn’t scan the negative people, because the natural history is a fluctuating inflammation,” Fraser Birrell, MBChB, PhD, of Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, pointed out in discussion.

“Nonsteroidals are modestly effective and probably made no difference,” he argued. “I would have expected a certain proportion of the negatives are positive.”

The study had a pragmatic design, Dr. Jones countered. “We had enormous debate before the study; it would have been nice to do a sort of a randomized, crossover design, but it would have resulted in a lot of inefficiency.”

Regarding the duration of the NSAID washout period, Dr. Jones noted that they saw little difference between shorter or longer washout periods and that the data showed that “a 2-week washout is a reasonable target.”

Performing the second scan 6 weeks after NSAIDs were reinstated “exceeds the period where clinical benefits should be expected. It may be that if we’d waited longer, the proportion would have gone up. So, we would argue that actually, if anything, that 23% may be an underestimate of the real effect.”

Although some patients may have declined to participate in the study because they did not want to stop taking NSAIDs, Dr. Jones noted that a good proportion did stop taking them, and so the study shows that patients can tolerate washout. Around 45% of patients reported experiencing disease flares during this time, but this did not have any significant effect on validated disease activity or pain measures, Dr. Jones reported.

So, if patients are willing to stop NSAIDs before a scan, “they should be counseled that they may experience a small increase in disease activity and spinal pain, but also to be counseled that the majority of patients can tolerate this,” Dr. Jones suggested.

Trials are needed, Dr. Poddubnyy said: “Future randomized, controlled studies are needed to conclusively determine the efficacy of NSAIDs in reducing inflammation in the axial skeleton of axSpA patients.”

Dr. Poddubnyy added: “It would also be valuable to assess in a randomized setting whether the use of NSAIDs impacts the diagnostic performance of MRI, which takes into account not only inflammatory but also structural changes, which are not influenced by NSAIDs.”

The DyNAMISM study was funded by Arthritis Research UK and was run by the University of Aberdeen in conjunction with NHS Grampian, Scotland. Dr. Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Poddubnyy disclosed ties with AbbVie, Biocad, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Moonlake, Novartis, PeerVoice, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – The use of NSAIDs may mask the true level of inflammation of the sacroiliac joint (SIJ), as seen on MRI, among people with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), according to results of the DyNAMISM study.

“We’ve found that in about one in four patients, NSAIDs make a difference to the scan results,” Gareth T. Jones, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

A total of 23% of patients whose MRI results were positive for sacroiliitis when no NSAIDs had been used for a couple of weeks received negative MRI results 6 weeks after the NSAIDs were reinstated.

“This is important in terms of diagnosis, in terms of disease classification, and may be important in terms of future treatment decisions,” added Dr. Jones, professor of epidemiology at the Aberdeen Centre for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Health at the University of Aberdeen, (Scotland).

“Our recommendation from these results is that if a patient is willing to attempt to wash out [NSAIDs] prior to an MRI, we would recommend that they do so,” Dr. Jones said.
 

NSAIDs and AxSpA inflammation

“NSAIDs are often used as the first-line treatment for axial spondyloarthritis due to their ability to effectively reduce pain and stiffness associated with the condition,” Denis Poddubnyy, MD, who was not involved in the research, told this news organization.

“However, there is still a question as to whether NSAIDs have a true anti-inflammatory effect on the axial inflammation, as detected by MRI,” added Dr. Poddubnyy, head of rheumatology at Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany.

With an absence of randomized, controlled trials, it remains “uncertain how much of the observed reduction in inflammation is attributable to the natural course of the disease and spontaneous resolution of inflammation rather than the effect of NSAIDs,” Dr. Poddubnyy said.
 

The DyNAMISM Study

“Sacroiliitis is a painful inflammatory condition. This is investigated looking for the evidence of inflammation on MRI, but many patients are taking anti-inflammatory medication,” Dr. Jones said at the meeting.

“So perhaps patients are taking drugs [that are] hiding the very thing that we’re looking for,” he added. Hence, the DyNAMISM study (Do Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs Mask Inflammation in Spondyloarthritis on MRI) was conceived.

The researchers recruited 311 adults with suspected or established axSpA who were taking daily NSAIDs such as ibuprofen or diclofenac across 34 centers in England and Scotland. Patients taking other anti-inflammatory medications that could not be stopped were excluded, as were patients who were currently taking or had recently taken tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

The study used a standardized MRI protocol. Two independent readers experienced in scoring SIJ scans were employed; a third was used when the two disagreed. The primary outcome was meeting the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society criteria for a positive result on MRI.

The average age of the study subjects was 42 years, 62% were men, and 87% were White. The median duration of symptoms was 9 years, and the median time since diagnosis was 1 year.

The study design required that patients stop NSAID use over a period of 1-2 weeks before undergoing an MRI scan, which 286 did. Of these, 146 received MRI results that were positive for SIJ inflammation; those patients continued in the study. The 140 patients with negative scans were excluded. Patients could then resume taking NSAIDs before being scanned again around 6 weeks later. In all, 129 patients underwent both MRI scans.
 

How much might fluctuating inflammation matter?

‘It’s a shame you didn’t scan the negative people, because the natural history is a fluctuating inflammation,” Fraser Birrell, MBChB, PhD, of Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, pointed out in discussion.

“Nonsteroidals are modestly effective and probably made no difference,” he argued. “I would have expected a certain proportion of the negatives are positive.”

The study had a pragmatic design, Dr. Jones countered. “We had enormous debate before the study; it would have been nice to do a sort of a randomized, crossover design, but it would have resulted in a lot of inefficiency.”

Regarding the duration of the NSAID washout period, Dr. Jones noted that they saw little difference between shorter or longer washout periods and that the data showed that “a 2-week washout is a reasonable target.”

Performing the second scan 6 weeks after NSAIDs were reinstated “exceeds the period where clinical benefits should be expected. It may be that if we’d waited longer, the proportion would have gone up. So, we would argue that actually, if anything, that 23% may be an underestimate of the real effect.”

Although some patients may have declined to participate in the study because they did not want to stop taking NSAIDs, Dr. Jones noted that a good proportion did stop taking them, and so the study shows that patients can tolerate washout. Around 45% of patients reported experiencing disease flares during this time, but this did not have any significant effect on validated disease activity or pain measures, Dr. Jones reported.

So, if patients are willing to stop NSAIDs before a scan, “they should be counseled that they may experience a small increase in disease activity and spinal pain, but also to be counseled that the majority of patients can tolerate this,” Dr. Jones suggested.

Trials are needed, Dr. Poddubnyy said: “Future randomized, controlled studies are needed to conclusively determine the efficacy of NSAIDs in reducing inflammation in the axial skeleton of axSpA patients.”

Dr. Poddubnyy added: “It would also be valuable to assess in a randomized setting whether the use of NSAIDs impacts the diagnostic performance of MRI, which takes into account not only inflammatory but also structural changes, which are not influenced by NSAIDs.”

The DyNAMISM study was funded by Arthritis Research UK and was run by the University of Aberdeen in conjunction with NHS Grampian, Scotland. Dr. Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Poddubnyy disclosed ties with AbbVie, Biocad, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Moonlake, Novartis, PeerVoice, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – The use of NSAIDs may mask the true level of inflammation of the sacroiliac joint (SIJ), as seen on MRI, among people with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), according to results of the DyNAMISM study.

“We’ve found that in about one in four patients, NSAIDs make a difference to the scan results,” Gareth T. Jones, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

A total of 23% of patients whose MRI results were positive for sacroiliitis when no NSAIDs had been used for a couple of weeks received negative MRI results 6 weeks after the NSAIDs were reinstated.

“This is important in terms of diagnosis, in terms of disease classification, and may be important in terms of future treatment decisions,” added Dr. Jones, professor of epidemiology at the Aberdeen Centre for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Health at the University of Aberdeen, (Scotland).

“Our recommendation from these results is that if a patient is willing to attempt to wash out [NSAIDs] prior to an MRI, we would recommend that they do so,” Dr. Jones said.
 

NSAIDs and AxSpA inflammation

“NSAIDs are often used as the first-line treatment for axial spondyloarthritis due to their ability to effectively reduce pain and stiffness associated with the condition,” Denis Poddubnyy, MD, who was not involved in the research, told this news organization.

“However, there is still a question as to whether NSAIDs have a true anti-inflammatory effect on the axial inflammation, as detected by MRI,” added Dr. Poddubnyy, head of rheumatology at Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany.

With an absence of randomized, controlled trials, it remains “uncertain how much of the observed reduction in inflammation is attributable to the natural course of the disease and spontaneous resolution of inflammation rather than the effect of NSAIDs,” Dr. Poddubnyy said.
 

The DyNAMISM Study

“Sacroiliitis is a painful inflammatory condition. This is investigated looking for the evidence of inflammation on MRI, but many patients are taking anti-inflammatory medication,” Dr. Jones said at the meeting.

“So perhaps patients are taking drugs [that are] hiding the very thing that we’re looking for,” he added. Hence, the DyNAMISM study (Do Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs Mask Inflammation in Spondyloarthritis on MRI) was conceived.

The researchers recruited 311 adults with suspected or established axSpA who were taking daily NSAIDs such as ibuprofen or diclofenac across 34 centers in England and Scotland. Patients taking other anti-inflammatory medications that could not be stopped were excluded, as were patients who were currently taking or had recently taken tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

The study used a standardized MRI protocol. Two independent readers experienced in scoring SIJ scans were employed; a third was used when the two disagreed. The primary outcome was meeting the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society criteria for a positive result on MRI.

The average age of the study subjects was 42 years, 62% were men, and 87% were White. The median duration of symptoms was 9 years, and the median time since diagnosis was 1 year.

The study design required that patients stop NSAID use over a period of 1-2 weeks before undergoing an MRI scan, which 286 did. Of these, 146 received MRI results that were positive for SIJ inflammation; those patients continued in the study. The 140 patients with negative scans were excluded. Patients could then resume taking NSAIDs before being scanned again around 6 weeks later. In all, 129 patients underwent both MRI scans.
 

How much might fluctuating inflammation matter?

‘It’s a shame you didn’t scan the negative people, because the natural history is a fluctuating inflammation,” Fraser Birrell, MBChB, PhD, of Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, pointed out in discussion.

“Nonsteroidals are modestly effective and probably made no difference,” he argued. “I would have expected a certain proportion of the negatives are positive.”

The study had a pragmatic design, Dr. Jones countered. “We had enormous debate before the study; it would have been nice to do a sort of a randomized, crossover design, but it would have resulted in a lot of inefficiency.”

Regarding the duration of the NSAID washout period, Dr. Jones noted that they saw little difference between shorter or longer washout periods and that the data showed that “a 2-week washout is a reasonable target.”

Performing the second scan 6 weeks after NSAIDs were reinstated “exceeds the period where clinical benefits should be expected. It may be that if we’d waited longer, the proportion would have gone up. So, we would argue that actually, if anything, that 23% may be an underestimate of the real effect.”

Although some patients may have declined to participate in the study because they did not want to stop taking NSAIDs, Dr. Jones noted that a good proportion did stop taking them, and so the study shows that patients can tolerate washout. Around 45% of patients reported experiencing disease flares during this time, but this did not have any significant effect on validated disease activity or pain measures, Dr. Jones reported.

So, if patients are willing to stop NSAIDs before a scan, “they should be counseled that they may experience a small increase in disease activity and spinal pain, but also to be counseled that the majority of patients can tolerate this,” Dr. Jones suggested.

Trials are needed, Dr. Poddubnyy said: “Future randomized, controlled studies are needed to conclusively determine the efficacy of NSAIDs in reducing inflammation in the axial skeleton of axSpA patients.”

Dr. Poddubnyy added: “It would also be valuable to assess in a randomized setting whether the use of NSAIDs impacts the diagnostic performance of MRI, which takes into account not only inflammatory but also structural changes, which are not influenced by NSAIDs.”

The DyNAMISM study was funded by Arthritis Research UK and was run by the University of Aberdeen in conjunction with NHS Grampian, Scotland. Dr. Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Poddubnyy disclosed ties with AbbVie, Biocad, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Moonlake, Novartis, PeerVoice, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB.

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

A new study shows that people with long COVID respond differently to COVID vaccines and that the condition may be caused by a dysfunction of the immune system – possibly explaining why some people experience symptoms for months while others recover and resume normal lives. 

The study compared people who already had long COVID with people who had recovered from the virus. Both groups had not yet been vaccinated prior to the study. When researchers analyzed blood samples after people received an initial vaccine dose, they found that people with long COVID and people who had already recovered from the virus had similar immune responses at first. But after 8 weeks, the long-COVID group’s immune response remained elevated, while the other group’s response had declined.

The long-COVID group also showed an extra immune response that tried to fight the virus in a secondary way that researchers didn’t expect. Both groups showed an initial increase in their blood of antibodies that primarily target what’s known as the “spike” protein of the coronavirus, which allows the virus to invade healthy cells. But the long-COVID group also showed a prolonged increased immune response that tried to fight the part of the virus related to how it replicates.

“Theoretically, the production of these antibodies could mean that people are more protected from infection,” said researcher Catherine Le, MD, in a statement. “We also need to investigate if the elevated immune response corresponds with severity or number of long–COVID-19 symptoms.”

Dr. Le is codirector of the COVID-19 Recovery Program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, where the study was conducted.

Study participants agreed in September 2020 to participate in long-term COVID research at Cedars-Sinai. The new analysis was published earlier this year in BMC Infectious Diseases and included 245 people who had long COVID and 86 health care workers who had recovered from COVID but did not have long-term symptoms. 

For the study, long COVID was defined as having symptoms that lasted more than 12 weeks. Common long-COVID symptoms are fatigue, shortness of breath, and brain dysfunction such as confusion and forgetfulness.

The authors said it’s unclear why the two groups had different immune responses and also noted that their study was limited by a small sample size. Their research of blood samples is ongoing, with the goals of identifying a way to diagnose long COVID with a laboratory test and of better understanding what causes the condition.

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

A new study shows that people with long COVID respond differently to COVID vaccines and that the condition may be caused by a dysfunction of the immune system – possibly explaining why some people experience symptoms for months while others recover and resume normal lives. 

The study compared people who already had long COVID with people who had recovered from the virus. Both groups had not yet been vaccinated prior to the study. When researchers analyzed blood samples after people received an initial vaccine dose, they found that people with long COVID and people who had already recovered from the virus had similar immune responses at first. But after 8 weeks, the long-COVID group’s immune response remained elevated, while the other group’s response had declined.

The long-COVID group also showed an extra immune response that tried to fight the virus in a secondary way that researchers didn’t expect. Both groups showed an initial increase in their blood of antibodies that primarily target what’s known as the “spike” protein of the coronavirus, which allows the virus to invade healthy cells. But the long-COVID group also showed a prolonged increased immune response that tried to fight the part of the virus related to how it replicates.

“Theoretically, the production of these antibodies could mean that people are more protected from infection,” said researcher Catherine Le, MD, in a statement. “We also need to investigate if the elevated immune response corresponds with severity or number of long–COVID-19 symptoms.”

Dr. Le is codirector of the COVID-19 Recovery Program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, where the study was conducted.

Study participants agreed in September 2020 to participate in long-term COVID research at Cedars-Sinai. The new analysis was published earlier this year in BMC Infectious Diseases and included 245 people who had long COVID and 86 health care workers who had recovered from COVID but did not have long-term symptoms. 

For the study, long COVID was defined as having symptoms that lasted more than 12 weeks. Common long-COVID symptoms are fatigue, shortness of breath, and brain dysfunction such as confusion and forgetfulness.

The authors said it’s unclear why the two groups had different immune responses and also noted that their study was limited by a small sample size. Their research of blood samples is ongoing, with the goals of identifying a way to diagnose long COVID with a laboratory test and of better understanding what causes the condition.

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

A new study shows that people with long COVID respond differently to COVID vaccines and that the condition may be caused by a dysfunction of the immune system – possibly explaining why some people experience symptoms for months while others recover and resume normal lives. 

The study compared people who already had long COVID with people who had recovered from the virus. Both groups had not yet been vaccinated prior to the study. When researchers analyzed blood samples after people received an initial vaccine dose, they found that people with long COVID and people who had already recovered from the virus had similar immune responses at first. But after 8 weeks, the long-COVID group’s immune response remained elevated, while the other group’s response had declined.

The long-COVID group also showed an extra immune response that tried to fight the virus in a secondary way that researchers didn’t expect. Both groups showed an initial increase in their blood of antibodies that primarily target what’s known as the “spike” protein of the coronavirus, which allows the virus to invade healthy cells. But the long-COVID group also showed a prolonged increased immune response that tried to fight the part of the virus related to how it replicates.

“Theoretically, the production of these antibodies could mean that people are more protected from infection,” said researcher Catherine Le, MD, in a statement. “We also need to investigate if the elevated immune response corresponds with severity or number of long–COVID-19 symptoms.”

Dr. Le is codirector of the COVID-19 Recovery Program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, where the study was conducted.

Study participants agreed in September 2020 to participate in long-term COVID research at Cedars-Sinai. The new analysis was published earlier this year in BMC Infectious Diseases and included 245 people who had long COVID and 86 health care workers who had recovered from COVID but did not have long-term symptoms. 

For the study, long COVID was defined as having symptoms that lasted more than 12 weeks. Common long-COVID symptoms are fatigue, shortness of breath, and brain dysfunction such as confusion and forgetfulness.

The authors said it’s unclear why the two groups had different immune responses and also noted that their study was limited by a small sample size. Their research of blood samples is ongoing, with the goals of identifying a way to diagnose long COVID with a laboratory test and of better understanding what causes the condition.

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

Taking a swing against arthritis

Osteoarthritis is a tough disease to manage. Exercise helps ease the stiffness and pain of the joints, but at the same time, the disease makes it difficult to do that beneficial exercise. Even a relatively simple activity like jogging can hurt more than it helps. If only there were a low-impact exercise that was incredibly popular among the generally older population who are likely to have arthritis.

We love a good golf study here at LOTME, and a group of Australian and U.K. researchers have provided. Osteoarthritis affects 2 million people in the land down under, making it the most common source of disability there. In that population, only 64% reported their physical health to be good, very good, or excellent. Among the 459 golfers with OA that the study authors surveyed, however, the percentage reporting good health rose to more than 90%.

jacoblund/Getty Images

A similar story emerged when they looked at mental health. Nearly a quarter of nongolfers with OA reported high or very high levels of psychological distress, compared with just 8% of golfers. This pattern of improved physical and mental health remained when the researchers looked at the general, non-OA population.

This isn’t the first time golf’s been connected with improved health, and previous studies have shown golf to reduce the risks of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity, among other things. Just walking one 18-hole round significantly exceeds the CDC’s recommended 150 minutes of physical activity per week. Go out multiple times a week – leaving the cart and beer at home, American golfers – and you’ll be fit for a lifetime.

The golfers on our staff, however, are still waiting for those mental health benefits to kick in. Because when we’re adding up our scorecard after that string of four double bogeys to end the round, we’re most definitely thinking: “Yes, this sport is reducing my psychological distress. I am having fun right now.”
 

Battle of the sexes’ intestines

There are, we’re sure you’ve noticed, some differences between males and females. Females, for one thing, have longer small intestines than males. Everybody knows that, right? You didn’t know? Really? … Really?

Afif Ramdhasuma/Unsplash

Well, then, we’re guessing you haven’t read “Hidden diversity: Comparative functional morphology of humans and other species” by Erin A. McKenney, PhD, of North Carolina State University, Raleigh, and associates, which just appeared in PeerJ. We couldn’t put it down, even in the shower – a real page-turner/scroller. (It’s a great way to clean a phone, for those who also like to scroll, text, or talk on the toilet.)

The researchers got out their rulers, calipers, and string and took many measurements of the digestive systems of 45 human cadavers (21 female and 24 male), which were compared with data from 10 rats, 10 pigs, and 10 bullfrogs, which had been collected (the measurements, not the animals) by undergraduate students enrolled in a comparative anatomy laboratory course at the university.

There was little intestinal-length variation among the four-legged subjects, but when it comes to humans, females have “consistently and significantly longer small intestines than males,” the investigators noted.

The women’s small intestines, almost 14 feet long on average, were about a foot longer than the men’s, which suggests that women are better able to extract nutrients from food and “supports the canalization hypothesis, which posits that women are better able to survive during periods of stress,” coauthor Amanda Hale said in a written statement from the school. The way to a man’s heart may be through his stomach, but the way to a woman’s heart is through her duodenum, it seems.

Fascinating stuff, to be sure, but the thing that really caught our eye in the PeerJ article was the authors’ suggestion “that organs behave independently of one another, both within and across species.” Organs behaving independently? A somewhat ominous concept, no doubt, but it does explain a lot of the sounds we hear coming from our guts, which can get pretty frightening, especially on chili night.
 

Dog walking is dangerous business

Yes, you did read that right. A lot of strange things can send you to the emergency department. Go ahead and add dog walking onto that list.

Investigators from Johns Hopkins University estimate that over 422,000 adults presented to U.S. emergency departments with leash-dependent dog walking-related injuries between 2001 and 2020.

freestocks/Unsplash

With almost 53% of U.S. households owning at least one dog in 2021-2022 in the wake of the COVID pet boom, this kind of occurrence is becoming more common than you think. The annual number of dog-walking injuries more than quadrupled from 7,300 to 32,000 over the course of the study, and the researchers link that spike to the promotion of dog walking for fitness, along with the boost of ownership itself.

The most common injuries listed in the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System database were finger fracture, traumatic brain injury, and shoulder sprain or strain. These mostly involved falls from being pulled, tripped, or tangled up in the leash while walking. For those aged 65 years and older, traumatic brain injury and hip fracture were the most common.

Women were 50% more likely to sustain a fracture than were men, and dog owners aged 65 and older were three times as likely to fall, twice as likely to get a fracture, and 60% more likely to have brain injury than were younger people. Now, that’s not to say younger people don’t also get hurt. After all, dogs aren’t ageists. The researchers have that data but it’s coming out later.

Meanwhile, the pitfalls involved with just trying to get our daily steps in while letting Muffin do her business have us on the lookout for random squirrels.

Taking a swing against arthritis

Osteoarthritis is a tough disease to manage. Exercise helps ease the stiffness and pain of the joints, but at the same time, the disease makes it difficult to do that beneficial exercise. Even a relatively simple activity like jogging can hurt more than it helps. If only there were a low-impact exercise that was incredibly popular among the generally older population who are likely to have arthritis.

We love a good golf study here at LOTME, and a group of Australian and U.K. researchers have provided. Osteoarthritis affects 2 million people in the land down under, making it the most common source of disability there. In that population, only 64% reported their physical health to be good, very good, or excellent. Among the 459 golfers with OA that the study authors surveyed, however, the percentage reporting good health rose to more than 90%.

jacoblund/Getty Images

A similar story emerged when they looked at mental health. Nearly a quarter of nongolfers with OA reported high or very high levels of psychological distress, compared with just 8% of golfers. This pattern of improved physical and mental health remained when the researchers looked at the general, non-OA population.

This isn’t the first time golf’s been connected with improved health, and previous studies have shown golf to reduce the risks of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity, among other things. Just walking one 18-hole round significantly exceeds the CDC’s recommended 150 minutes of physical activity per week. Go out multiple times a week – leaving the cart and beer at home, American golfers – and you’ll be fit for a lifetime.

The golfers on our staff, however, are still waiting for those mental health benefits to kick in. Because when we’re adding up our scorecard after that string of four double bogeys to end the round, we’re most definitely thinking: “Yes, this sport is reducing my psychological distress. I am having fun right now.”
 

Battle of the sexes’ intestines

There are, we’re sure you’ve noticed, some differences between males and females. Females, for one thing, have longer small intestines than males. Everybody knows that, right? You didn’t know? Really? … Really?

Afif Ramdhasuma/Unsplash

Well, then, we’re guessing you haven’t read “Hidden diversity: Comparative functional morphology of humans and other species” by Erin A. McKenney, PhD, of North Carolina State University, Raleigh, and associates, which just appeared in PeerJ. We couldn’t put it down, even in the shower – a real page-turner/scroller. (It’s a great way to clean a phone, for those who also like to scroll, text, or talk on the toilet.)

The researchers got out their rulers, calipers, and string and took many measurements of the digestive systems of 45 human cadavers (21 female and 24 male), which were compared with data from 10 rats, 10 pigs, and 10 bullfrogs, which had been collected (the measurements, not the animals) by undergraduate students enrolled in a comparative anatomy laboratory course at the university.

There was little intestinal-length variation among the four-legged subjects, but when it comes to humans, females have “consistently and significantly longer small intestines than males,” the investigators noted.

The women’s small intestines, almost 14 feet long on average, were about a foot longer than the men’s, which suggests that women are better able to extract nutrients from food and “supports the canalization hypothesis, which posits that women are better able to survive during periods of stress,” coauthor Amanda Hale said in a written statement from the school. The way to a man’s heart may be through his stomach, but the way to a woman’s heart is through her duodenum, it seems.

Fascinating stuff, to be sure, but the thing that really caught our eye in the PeerJ article was the authors’ suggestion “that organs behave independently of one another, both within and across species.” Organs behaving independently? A somewhat ominous concept, no doubt, but it does explain a lot of the sounds we hear coming from our guts, which can get pretty frightening, especially on chili night.
 

Dog walking is dangerous business

Yes, you did read that right. A lot of strange things can send you to the emergency department. Go ahead and add dog walking onto that list.

Investigators from Johns Hopkins University estimate that over 422,000 adults presented to U.S. emergency departments with leash-dependent dog walking-related injuries between 2001 and 2020.

freestocks/Unsplash

With almost 53% of U.S. households owning at least one dog in 2021-2022 in the wake of the COVID pet boom, this kind of occurrence is becoming more common than you think. The annual number of dog-walking injuries more than quadrupled from 7,300 to 32,000 over the course of the study, and the researchers link that spike to the promotion of dog walking for fitness, along with the boost of ownership itself.

The most common injuries listed in the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System database were finger fracture, traumatic brain injury, and shoulder sprain or strain. These mostly involved falls from being pulled, tripped, or tangled up in the leash while walking. For those aged 65 years and older, traumatic brain injury and hip fracture were the most common.

Women were 50% more likely to sustain a fracture than were men, and dog owners aged 65 and older were three times as likely to fall, twice as likely to get a fracture, and 60% more likely to have brain injury than were younger people. Now, that’s not to say younger people don’t also get hurt. After all, dogs aren’t ageists. The researchers have that data but it’s coming out later.

Meanwhile, the pitfalls involved with just trying to get our daily steps in while letting Muffin do her business have us on the lookout for random squirrels.

Taking a swing against arthritis

Osteoarthritis is a tough disease to manage. Exercise helps ease the stiffness and pain of the joints, but at the same time, the disease makes it difficult to do that beneficial exercise. Even a relatively simple activity like jogging can hurt more than it helps. If only there were a low-impact exercise that was incredibly popular among the generally older population who are likely to have arthritis.

We love a good golf study here at LOTME, and a group of Australian and U.K. researchers have provided. Osteoarthritis affects 2 million people in the land down under, making it the most common source of disability there. In that population, only 64% reported their physical health to be good, very good, or excellent. Among the 459 golfers with OA that the study authors surveyed, however, the percentage reporting good health rose to more than 90%.

jacoblund/Getty Images

A similar story emerged when they looked at mental health. Nearly a quarter of nongolfers with OA reported high or very high levels of psychological distress, compared with just 8% of golfers. This pattern of improved physical and mental health remained when the researchers looked at the general, non-OA population.

This isn’t the first time golf’s been connected with improved health, and previous studies have shown golf to reduce the risks of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity, among other things. Just walking one 18-hole round significantly exceeds the CDC’s recommended 150 minutes of physical activity per week. Go out multiple times a week – leaving the cart and beer at home, American golfers – and you’ll be fit for a lifetime.

The golfers on our staff, however, are still waiting for those mental health benefits to kick in. Because when we’re adding up our scorecard after that string of four double bogeys to end the round, we’re most definitely thinking: “Yes, this sport is reducing my psychological distress. I am having fun right now.”
 

Battle of the sexes’ intestines

There are, we’re sure you’ve noticed, some differences between males and females. Females, for one thing, have longer small intestines than males. Everybody knows that, right? You didn’t know? Really? … Really?

Afif Ramdhasuma/Unsplash

Well, then, we’re guessing you haven’t read “Hidden diversity: Comparative functional morphology of humans and other species” by Erin A. McKenney, PhD, of North Carolina State University, Raleigh, and associates, which just appeared in PeerJ. We couldn’t put it down, even in the shower – a real page-turner/scroller. (It’s a great way to clean a phone, for those who also like to scroll, text, or talk on the toilet.)

The researchers got out their rulers, calipers, and string and took many measurements of the digestive systems of 45 human cadavers (21 female and 24 male), which were compared with data from 10 rats, 10 pigs, and 10 bullfrogs, which had been collected (the measurements, not the animals) by undergraduate students enrolled in a comparative anatomy laboratory course at the university.

There was little intestinal-length variation among the four-legged subjects, but when it comes to humans, females have “consistently and significantly longer small intestines than males,” the investigators noted.

The women’s small intestines, almost 14 feet long on average, were about a foot longer than the men’s, which suggests that women are better able to extract nutrients from food and “supports the canalization hypothesis, which posits that women are better able to survive during periods of stress,” coauthor Amanda Hale said in a written statement from the school. The way to a man’s heart may be through his stomach, but the way to a woman’s heart is through her duodenum, it seems.

Fascinating stuff, to be sure, but the thing that really caught our eye in the PeerJ article was the authors’ suggestion “that organs behave independently of one another, both within and across species.” Organs behaving independently? A somewhat ominous concept, no doubt, but it does explain a lot of the sounds we hear coming from our guts, which can get pretty frightening, especially on chili night.
 

Dog walking is dangerous business

Yes, you did read that right. A lot of strange things can send you to the emergency department. Go ahead and add dog walking onto that list.

Investigators from Johns Hopkins University estimate that over 422,000 adults presented to U.S. emergency departments with leash-dependent dog walking-related injuries between 2001 and 2020.

freestocks/Unsplash

With almost 53% of U.S. households owning at least one dog in 2021-2022 in the wake of the COVID pet boom, this kind of occurrence is becoming more common than you think. The annual number of dog-walking injuries more than quadrupled from 7,300 to 32,000 over the course of the study, and the researchers link that spike to the promotion of dog walking for fitness, along with the boost of ownership itself.

The most common injuries listed in the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System database were finger fracture, traumatic brain injury, and shoulder sprain or strain. These mostly involved falls from being pulled, tripped, or tangled up in the leash while walking. For those aged 65 years and older, traumatic brain injury and hip fracture were the most common.

Women were 50% more likely to sustain a fracture than were men, and dog owners aged 65 and older were three times as likely to fall, twice as likely to get a fracture, and 60% more likely to have brain injury than were younger people. Now, that’s not to say younger people don’t also get hurt. After all, dogs aren’t ageists. The researchers have that data but it’s coming out later.

Meanwhile, the pitfalls involved with just trying to get our daily steps in while letting Muffin do her business have us on the lookout for random squirrels.

“BMI is trash. Full stop.” This controversial tweet, which received thousands of likes and retweets, was cited in a recent article by one doctor on when physicians might stop using body mass index (BMI) to diagnose obesity.

BMI has for years been the consensus default method for assessing whether a person is overweight or has obesity, and is still widely used as the gatekeeper metric for treatment eligibility for certain weight-loss agents and bariatric surgery.

But growing appreciation of the limitations of BMI is causing many clinicians to consider alternative measures of obesity that can better assess both the amount of adiposity as well as its body location, an important determinant of the cardiometabolic consequences of fat.

Alternative metrics include waist circumference and/or waist-to-height ratio (WHtR); imaging methods such as CT, MRI, and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA); and bioelectrical impedance to assess fat volume and location. All have made some inroads on the tight grip BMI has had on obesity assessment.

Chances are, however, that BMI will not fade away anytime soon given how entrenched it has become in clinical practice and for insurance coverage, as well as its relative simplicity and precision.

“BMI is embedded in a wide range of guidelines on the use of medications and surgery. It’s embedded in Food and Drug Administration regulations and for billing and insurance coverage. It would take extremely strong data and years of work to undo the infrastructure built around BMI and replace it with something else. I don’t see that happening [anytime soon],” commented Daniel H. Bessesen, MD, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and chief of endocrinology for Denver Health.

“It would be almost impossible to replace all the studies that have used BMI with investigations using some other measure,” he said.
 

BMI Is ‘imperfect’

The entrenched position of BMI as the go-to metric doesn’t keep detractors from weighing in. As noted in a commentary on current clinical challenges surrounding obesity recently published in Annals of Internal Medicine, the journal’s editor-in-chief, Christine Laine, MD, and senior deputy editor Christina C. Wee, MD, listed six top issues clinicians must deal with, one of which, they say, is the need for a better measure of obesity than BMI.

“Unfortunately, BMI is an imperfect measure of body composition that differs with ethnicity, sex, body frame, and muscle mass,” noted Dr. Laine and Dr. Wee.

BMI is based on a person’s weight in kilograms divided by the square of their height in meters. A “healthy” BMI is between 18.5 and 24.9 kg/m2, overweight is 25-29.9, and 30 or greater is considered to represent obesity. However, certain ethnic groups have lower cutoffs for overweight or obesity because of evidence that such individuals can be at higher risk of obesity-related comorbidities at lower BMIs.

“BMI was chosen as the initial screening tool [for obesity] not because anyone thought it was perfect or the best measure but because of its simplicity. All you need is height, weight, and a calculator,” Dr. Wee said in an interview.

Numerous online calculators are available, including one from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention where height in feet and inches and weight in pounds can be entered to generate the BMI.

BMI is also inherently limited by being “a proxy for adiposity” and not a direct measure, added Dr. Wee, who is also director of the Obesity Research Program of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

As such, BMI can’t distinguish between fat and muscle because it relies on weight only to gauge adiposity, noted Tiffany Powell-Wiley, MD, an obesity researcher at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md. Another shortcoming of BMI is that it “is good for distinguishing population-level risk for cardiovascular disease and other chronic diseases, but it does not help as much for distinguishing risk at an individual level,” she said in an interview.

These and other drawbacks have prompted researchers to look for other useful metrics. WHtR, for example, has recently made headway as a potential BMI alternative or complement.
 

The case for WHtR

Concern about overreliance on BMI despite its limitations is not new. In 2015, an American Heart Association scientific statement from the group’s Obesity Committee concluded that “BMI alone, even with lower thresholds, is a useful but not an ideal tool for identification of obesity or assessment of cardiovascular risk,” especially for people from Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander populations.

The writing panel also recommended that clinicians measure waist circumference annually and use that information along with BMI “to better gauge cardiovascular risk in diverse populations.”

Momentum for moving beyond BMI alone has continued to build following the AHA statement.

In September 2022, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which sets policies for the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, revised its guidancefor assessment and management of people with obesity. The updated guidance recommends that when clinicians assess “adults with BMI below 35 kg/m2, measure and use their WHtR, as well as their BMI, as a practical estimate of central adiposity and use these measurements to help to assess and predict health risks.”

NICE released an extensive literature review with the revision, and based on the evidence, said that “using waist-to-height ratio as well as BMI would help give a practical estimate of central adiposity in adults with BMI under 35 kg/m². This would in turn help professionals assess and predict health risks.”

However, the review added that, “because people with a BMI over 35 kg/m² are always likely to have a high WHtR, the committee recognized that it may not be a useful addition for predicting health risks in this group.” The 2022 NICE review also said that it is “important to estimate central adiposity when assessing future health risks, including for people whose BMI is in the healthy-weight category.”

This new emphasis by NICE on measuring and using WHtR as part of obesity assessment “represents an important change in population health policy,” commented Dr. Powell-Wiley. “I expect more professional organizations will endorse use of waist circumference or waist-to-height ratio now that NICE has taken this step,” she predicted.

Waist circumference and WHtR may become standard measures of adiposity in clinical practice over the next 5-10 years.

The recent move by NICE to highlight a complementary role for WHtR “is another acknowledgment that BMI is an imperfect tool for stratifying cardiometabolic risk in a diverse population, especially in people with lower BMIs” because of its variability, commented Jamie Almandoz, MD, medical director of the weight wellness program at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
 

WHtR vs. BMI

Another recent step forward for WHtR came with the publication of a post hoc analysis of data collected in the PARADIGM-HF trial, a study that had the primary purpose of comparing two medications for improving outcomes in more than 8,000 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

The new analysis showed that “two indices that incorporate waist circumference and height, but not weight, showed a clearer association between greater adiposity and a higher risk of heart failure hospitalization,” compared with BMI.

WHtR was one of the two indices identified as being a better correlate for the adverse effect of excess adiposity compared with BMI.

The authors of the post hoc analysis did not design their analysis to compare WHtR with BMI. Instead, their goal was to better understand what’s known as the “obesity paradox” in people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: The recurring observation that, when these patients with heart failure have lower BMIs they fare worse, with higher rates of mortality and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, compared with patients with higher BMIs.

The new analysis showed that this paradox disappeared when WHtR was substituted for BMI as the obesity metric.

This “provides meaningful data about the superiority of WHtR, compared with BMI, for predicting heart failure outcomes,” said Dr. Powell-Wiley, although she cautioned that the analysis was limited by scant data in diverse populations and did not look at other important cardiovascular disease outcomes. While Dr. Powell-Wiley does not think that WHtR needs assessment in a prospective, controlled trial, she called for analysis of pooled prospective studies with more diverse populations to better document the advantages of WHtR over BMI.

The PARADIGM-HF post hoc analysis shows again how flawed BMI is for health assessment and the relative importance of an individualized understanding of a person’s body composition, Dr. Almandoz said in an interview. “As we collect more data, there is increasing awareness of how imperfect BMI is.”
 

Measuring waist circumference is tricky

Although WHtR looks promising as a substitute for or add-on to BMI, it has its own limitations, particularly the challenge of accurately measuring waist circumference.

Measuring waist circumference “not only takes more time but requires the assessor to be well trained about where to put the tape measure and making sure it’s measured at the same place each time,” even when different people take serial measurements from individual patients, noted Dr. Wee. Determining waist circumference can also be technically difficult when done on larger people, she added, and collectively these challenges make waist circumference “less reproducible from measurement to measurement.”

“It’s relatively clear how to standardize measurement of weight and height, but there is a huge amount of variability when the waist is measured,” agreed Dr. Almandoz. “And waist circumference also differs by ethnicity, race, sex, and body frame. There are significant differences in waist circumference levels that associate with increased health risks” between, for example, White and South Asian people.

Another limitation of waist circumference and WHtR is that they “cannot differentiate between visceral and abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue, which are vastly different regarding cardiometabolic risk, commented Ian Neeland, MD, director of cardiovascular prevention at the University Hospitals Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute, Cleveland.
 

The imaging option

“Waist-to-height ratio is not the ultimate answer,” Dr. Neeland said in an interview. He instead endorsed “advanced imaging for body fat distribution,” such as CT or MRI scans, as his pick for what should be the standard obesity metric, “given that it is much more specific and actionable for both risk assessment and response to therapy. I expect slow but steady advancements that move away from BMI cutoffs, for example for bariatric surgery, given that BMI is an imprecise and crude tool.”

But although imaging with methods like CT and MRI may provide the best accuracy and precision for tracking the volume of a person’s cardiometabolically dangerous fat, they are also hampered by relatively high cost and, for CT and DXA, the issue of radiation exposure.

“CT, MRI, and DXA scans give more in-depth assessment of body composition, but should we expose people to the radiation and the cost?” Dr. Almandoz wondered.

“Height, weight, and waist circumference cost nothing to obtain,” creating a big relative disadvantage for imaging, said Naveed Sattar, MD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow.

“Data would need to show that imaging gives clinicians substantially more information about future risk” to justify its price, Dr. Sattar emphasized.
 

BMI’s limits mean adding on

Regardless of whichever alternatives to BMI end up getting used most, experts generally agree that BMI alone is looking increasingly inadequate.

“Over the next 5 years, BMI will come to be seen as a screening tool that categorizes people into general risk groups” that also needs “other metrics and variables, such as age, race, ethnicity, family history, blood glucose, and blood pressure to better describe health risk in an individual,” predicted Dr. Bessesen.

The endorsement of WHtR by NICE “will lead to more research into how to incorporate WHtR into routine practice. We need more evidence to translate what NICE said into practice,” said Dr. Sattar. “I don’t think we’ll see a shift away from BMI, but we’ll add alternative measures that are particularly useful in certain patients.”

“Because we live in diverse societies, we need to individualize risk assessment and couple that with technology that makes analysis of body composition more accessible,” agreed Dr. Almandoz. He noted that the UT Southwestern weight wellness program where he practices has, for about the past decade, routinely collected waist circumference and bioelectrical impedance data as well as BMI on all people seen in the practice for obesity concerns. Making these additional measurements on a routine basis also helps strengthen patient engagement.

“We get into trouble when we make rigid health policy and clinical decisions based on BMI alone without looking at the patient holistically,” said Dr. Wee. “Patients are more than arbitrary numbers, and clinicians should make clinical decisions based on the totality of evidence for each individual patient.”

Dr. Bessesen, Dr. Wee, Dr. Powell-Wiley, and Dr. Almandoz reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Neeland has reported being a consultant for Merck. Dr. Sattar has reported being a consultant or speaker for Abbott Laboratories, Afimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, and Sanofi.

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

“BMI is trash. Full stop.” This controversial tweet, which received thousands of likes and retweets, was cited in a recent article by one doctor on when physicians might stop using body mass index (BMI) to diagnose obesity.

BMI has for years been the consensus default method for assessing whether a person is overweight or has obesity, and is still widely used as the gatekeeper metric for treatment eligibility for certain weight-loss agents and bariatric surgery.

But growing appreciation of the limitations of BMI is causing many clinicians to consider alternative measures of obesity that can better assess both the amount of adiposity as well as its body location, an important determinant of the cardiometabolic consequences of fat.

Alternative metrics include waist circumference and/or waist-to-height ratio (WHtR); imaging methods such as CT, MRI, and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA); and bioelectrical impedance to assess fat volume and location. All have made some inroads on the tight grip BMI has had on obesity assessment.

Chances are, however, that BMI will not fade away anytime soon given how entrenched it has become in clinical practice and for insurance coverage, as well as its relative simplicity and precision.

“BMI is embedded in a wide range of guidelines on the use of medications and surgery. It’s embedded in Food and Drug Administration regulations and for billing and insurance coverage. It would take extremely strong data and years of work to undo the infrastructure built around BMI and replace it with something else. I don’t see that happening [anytime soon],” commented Daniel H. Bessesen, MD, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and chief of endocrinology for Denver Health.

“It would be almost impossible to replace all the studies that have used BMI with investigations using some other measure,” he said.
 

BMI Is ‘imperfect’

The entrenched position of BMI as the go-to metric doesn’t keep detractors from weighing in. As noted in a commentary on current clinical challenges surrounding obesity recently published in Annals of Internal Medicine, the journal’s editor-in-chief, Christine Laine, MD, and senior deputy editor Christina C. Wee, MD, listed six top issues clinicians must deal with, one of which, they say, is the need for a better measure of obesity than BMI.

“Unfortunately, BMI is an imperfect measure of body composition that differs with ethnicity, sex, body frame, and muscle mass,” noted Dr. Laine and Dr. Wee.

BMI is based on a person’s weight in kilograms divided by the square of their height in meters. A “healthy” BMI is between 18.5 and 24.9 kg/m2, overweight is 25-29.9, and 30 or greater is considered to represent obesity. However, certain ethnic groups have lower cutoffs for overweight or obesity because of evidence that such individuals can be at higher risk of obesity-related comorbidities at lower BMIs.

“BMI was chosen as the initial screening tool [for obesity] not because anyone thought it was perfect or the best measure but because of its simplicity. All you need is height, weight, and a calculator,” Dr. Wee said in an interview.

Numerous online calculators are available, including one from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention where height in feet and inches and weight in pounds can be entered to generate the BMI.

BMI is also inherently limited by being “a proxy for adiposity” and not a direct measure, added Dr. Wee, who is also director of the Obesity Research Program of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

As such, BMI can’t distinguish between fat and muscle because it relies on weight only to gauge adiposity, noted Tiffany Powell-Wiley, MD, an obesity researcher at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md. Another shortcoming of BMI is that it “is good for distinguishing population-level risk for cardiovascular disease and other chronic diseases, but it does not help as much for distinguishing risk at an individual level,” she said in an interview.

These and other drawbacks have prompted researchers to look for other useful metrics. WHtR, for example, has recently made headway as a potential BMI alternative or complement.
 

The case for WHtR

Concern about overreliance on BMI despite its limitations is not new. In 2015, an American Heart Association scientific statement from the group’s Obesity Committee concluded that “BMI alone, even with lower thresholds, is a useful but not an ideal tool for identification of obesity or assessment of cardiovascular risk,” especially for people from Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander populations.

The writing panel also recommended that clinicians measure waist circumference annually and use that information along with BMI “to better gauge cardiovascular risk in diverse populations.”

Momentum for moving beyond BMI alone has continued to build following the AHA statement.

In September 2022, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which sets policies for the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, revised its guidancefor assessment and management of people with obesity. The updated guidance recommends that when clinicians assess “adults with BMI below 35 kg/m2, measure and use their WHtR, as well as their BMI, as a practical estimate of central adiposity and use these measurements to help to assess and predict health risks.”

NICE released an extensive literature review with the revision, and based on the evidence, said that “using waist-to-height ratio as well as BMI would help give a practical estimate of central adiposity in adults with BMI under 35 kg/m². This would in turn help professionals assess and predict health risks.”

However, the review added that, “because people with a BMI over 35 kg/m² are always likely to have a high WHtR, the committee recognized that it may not be a useful addition for predicting health risks in this group.” The 2022 NICE review also said that it is “important to estimate central adiposity when assessing future health risks, including for people whose BMI is in the healthy-weight category.”

This new emphasis by NICE on measuring and using WHtR as part of obesity assessment “represents an important change in population health policy,” commented Dr. Powell-Wiley. “I expect more professional organizations will endorse use of waist circumference or waist-to-height ratio now that NICE has taken this step,” she predicted.

Waist circumference and WHtR may become standard measures of adiposity in clinical practice over the next 5-10 years.

The recent move by NICE to highlight a complementary role for WHtR “is another acknowledgment that BMI is an imperfect tool for stratifying cardiometabolic risk in a diverse population, especially in people with lower BMIs” because of its variability, commented Jamie Almandoz, MD, medical director of the weight wellness program at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
 

WHtR vs. BMI

Another recent step forward for WHtR came with the publication of a post hoc analysis of data collected in the PARADIGM-HF trial, a study that had the primary purpose of comparing two medications for improving outcomes in more than 8,000 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

The new analysis showed that “two indices that incorporate waist circumference and height, but not weight, showed a clearer association between greater adiposity and a higher risk of heart failure hospitalization,” compared with BMI.

WHtR was one of the two indices identified as being a better correlate for the adverse effect of excess adiposity compared with BMI.

The authors of the post hoc analysis did not design their analysis to compare WHtR with BMI. Instead, their goal was to better understand what’s known as the “obesity paradox” in people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: The recurring observation that, when these patients with heart failure have lower BMIs they fare worse, with higher rates of mortality and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, compared with patients with higher BMIs.

The new analysis showed that this paradox disappeared when WHtR was substituted for BMI as the obesity metric.

This “provides meaningful data about the superiority of WHtR, compared with BMI, for predicting heart failure outcomes,” said Dr. Powell-Wiley, although she cautioned that the analysis was limited by scant data in diverse populations and did not look at other important cardiovascular disease outcomes. While Dr. Powell-Wiley does not think that WHtR needs assessment in a prospective, controlled trial, she called for analysis of pooled prospective studies with more diverse populations to better document the advantages of WHtR over BMI.

The PARADIGM-HF post hoc analysis shows again how flawed BMI is for health assessment and the relative importance of an individualized understanding of a person’s body composition, Dr. Almandoz said in an interview. “As we collect more data, there is increasing awareness of how imperfect BMI is.”
 

Measuring waist circumference is tricky

Although WHtR looks promising as a substitute for or add-on to BMI, it has its own limitations, particularly the challenge of accurately measuring waist circumference.

Measuring waist circumference “not only takes more time but requires the assessor to be well trained about where to put the tape measure and making sure it’s measured at the same place each time,” even when different people take serial measurements from individual patients, noted Dr. Wee. Determining waist circumference can also be technically difficult when done on larger people, she added, and collectively these challenges make waist circumference “less reproducible from measurement to measurement.”

“It’s relatively clear how to standardize measurement of weight and height, but there is a huge amount of variability when the waist is measured,” agreed Dr. Almandoz. “And waist circumference also differs by ethnicity, race, sex, and body frame. There are significant differences in waist circumference levels that associate with increased health risks” between, for example, White and South Asian people.

Another limitation of waist circumference and WHtR is that they “cannot differentiate between visceral and abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue, which are vastly different regarding cardiometabolic risk, commented Ian Neeland, MD, director of cardiovascular prevention at the University Hospitals Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute, Cleveland.
 

The imaging option

“Waist-to-height ratio is not the ultimate answer,” Dr. Neeland said in an interview. He instead endorsed “advanced imaging for body fat distribution,” such as CT or MRI scans, as his pick for what should be the standard obesity metric, “given that it is much more specific and actionable for both risk assessment and response to therapy. I expect slow but steady advancements that move away from BMI cutoffs, for example for bariatric surgery, given that BMI is an imprecise and crude tool.”

But although imaging with methods like CT and MRI may provide the best accuracy and precision for tracking the volume of a person’s cardiometabolically dangerous fat, they are also hampered by relatively high cost and, for CT and DXA, the issue of radiation exposure.

“CT, MRI, and DXA scans give more in-depth assessment of body composition, but should we expose people to the radiation and the cost?” Dr. Almandoz wondered.

“Height, weight, and waist circumference cost nothing to obtain,” creating a big relative disadvantage for imaging, said Naveed Sattar, MD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow.

“Data would need to show that imaging gives clinicians substantially more information about future risk” to justify its price, Dr. Sattar emphasized.
 

BMI’s limits mean adding on

Regardless of whichever alternatives to BMI end up getting used most, experts generally agree that BMI alone is looking increasingly inadequate.

“Over the next 5 years, BMI will come to be seen as a screening tool that categorizes people into general risk groups” that also needs “other metrics and variables, such as age, race, ethnicity, family history, blood glucose, and blood pressure to better describe health risk in an individual,” predicted Dr. Bessesen.

The endorsement of WHtR by NICE “will lead to more research into how to incorporate WHtR into routine practice. We need more evidence to translate what NICE said into practice,” said Dr. Sattar. “I don’t think we’ll see a shift away from BMI, but we’ll add alternative measures that are particularly useful in certain patients.”

“Because we live in diverse societies, we need to individualize risk assessment and couple that with technology that makes analysis of body composition more accessible,” agreed Dr. Almandoz. He noted that the UT Southwestern weight wellness program where he practices has, for about the past decade, routinely collected waist circumference and bioelectrical impedance data as well as BMI on all people seen in the practice for obesity concerns. Making these additional measurements on a routine basis also helps strengthen patient engagement.

“We get into trouble when we make rigid health policy and clinical decisions based on BMI alone without looking at the patient holistically,” said Dr. Wee. “Patients are more than arbitrary numbers, and clinicians should make clinical decisions based on the totality of evidence for each individual patient.”

Dr. Bessesen, Dr. Wee, Dr. Powell-Wiley, and Dr. Almandoz reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Neeland has reported being a consultant for Merck. Dr. Sattar has reported being a consultant or speaker for Abbott Laboratories, Afimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, and Sanofi.

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

“BMI is trash. Full stop.” This controversial tweet, which received thousands of likes and retweets, was cited in a recent article by one doctor on when physicians might stop using body mass index (BMI) to diagnose obesity.

BMI has for years been the consensus default method for assessing whether a person is overweight or has obesity, and is still widely used as the gatekeeper metric for treatment eligibility for certain weight-loss agents and bariatric surgery.

But growing appreciation of the limitations of BMI is causing many clinicians to consider alternative measures of obesity that can better assess both the amount of adiposity as well as its body location, an important determinant of the cardiometabolic consequences of fat.

Alternative metrics include waist circumference and/or waist-to-height ratio (WHtR); imaging methods such as CT, MRI, and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA); and bioelectrical impedance to assess fat volume and location. All have made some inroads on the tight grip BMI has had on obesity assessment.

Chances are, however, that BMI will not fade away anytime soon given how entrenched it has become in clinical practice and for insurance coverage, as well as its relative simplicity and precision.

“BMI is embedded in a wide range of guidelines on the use of medications and surgery. It’s embedded in Food and Drug Administration regulations and for billing and insurance coverage. It would take extremely strong data and years of work to undo the infrastructure built around BMI and replace it with something else. I don’t see that happening [anytime soon],” commented Daniel H. Bessesen, MD, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and chief of endocrinology for Denver Health.

“It would be almost impossible to replace all the studies that have used BMI with investigations using some other measure,” he said.
 

BMI Is ‘imperfect’

The entrenched position of BMI as the go-to metric doesn’t keep detractors from weighing in. As noted in a commentary on current clinical challenges surrounding obesity recently published in Annals of Internal Medicine, the journal’s editor-in-chief, Christine Laine, MD, and senior deputy editor Christina C. Wee, MD, listed six top issues clinicians must deal with, one of which, they say, is the need for a better measure of obesity than BMI.

“Unfortunately, BMI is an imperfect measure of body composition that differs with ethnicity, sex, body frame, and muscle mass,” noted Dr. Laine and Dr. Wee.

BMI is based on a person’s weight in kilograms divided by the square of their height in meters. A “healthy” BMI is between 18.5 and 24.9 kg/m2, overweight is 25-29.9, and 30 or greater is considered to represent obesity. However, certain ethnic groups have lower cutoffs for overweight or obesity because of evidence that such individuals can be at higher risk of obesity-related comorbidities at lower BMIs.

“BMI was chosen as the initial screening tool [for obesity] not because anyone thought it was perfect or the best measure but because of its simplicity. All you need is height, weight, and a calculator,” Dr. Wee said in an interview.

Numerous online calculators are available, including one from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention where height in feet and inches and weight in pounds can be entered to generate the BMI.

BMI is also inherently limited by being “a proxy for adiposity” and not a direct measure, added Dr. Wee, who is also director of the Obesity Research Program of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

As such, BMI can’t distinguish between fat and muscle because it relies on weight only to gauge adiposity, noted Tiffany Powell-Wiley, MD, an obesity researcher at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md. Another shortcoming of BMI is that it “is good for distinguishing population-level risk for cardiovascular disease and other chronic diseases, but it does not help as much for distinguishing risk at an individual level,” she said in an interview.

These and other drawbacks have prompted researchers to look for other useful metrics. WHtR, for example, has recently made headway as a potential BMI alternative or complement.
 

The case for WHtR

Concern about overreliance on BMI despite its limitations is not new. In 2015, an American Heart Association scientific statement from the group’s Obesity Committee concluded that “BMI alone, even with lower thresholds, is a useful but not an ideal tool for identification of obesity or assessment of cardiovascular risk,” especially for people from Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander populations.

The writing panel also recommended that clinicians measure waist circumference annually and use that information along with BMI “to better gauge cardiovascular risk in diverse populations.”

Momentum for moving beyond BMI alone has continued to build following the AHA statement.

In September 2022, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which sets policies for the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, revised its guidancefor assessment and management of people with obesity. The updated guidance recommends that when clinicians assess “adults with BMI below 35 kg/m2, measure and use their WHtR, as well as their BMI, as a practical estimate of central adiposity and use these measurements to help to assess and predict health risks.”

NICE released an extensive literature review with the revision, and based on the evidence, said that “using waist-to-height ratio as well as BMI would help give a practical estimate of central adiposity in adults with BMI under 35 kg/m². This would in turn help professionals assess and predict health risks.”

However, the review added that, “because people with a BMI over 35 kg/m² are always likely to have a high WHtR, the committee recognized that it may not be a useful addition for predicting health risks in this group.” The 2022 NICE review also said that it is “important to estimate central adiposity when assessing future health risks, including for people whose BMI is in the healthy-weight category.”

This new emphasis by NICE on measuring and using WHtR as part of obesity assessment “represents an important change in population health policy,” commented Dr. Powell-Wiley. “I expect more professional organizations will endorse use of waist circumference or waist-to-height ratio now that NICE has taken this step,” she predicted.

Waist circumference and WHtR may become standard measures of adiposity in clinical practice over the next 5-10 years.

The recent move by NICE to highlight a complementary role for WHtR “is another acknowledgment that BMI is an imperfect tool for stratifying cardiometabolic risk in a diverse population, especially in people with lower BMIs” because of its variability, commented Jamie Almandoz, MD, medical director of the weight wellness program at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
 

WHtR vs. BMI

Another recent step forward for WHtR came with the publication of a post hoc analysis of data collected in the PARADIGM-HF trial, a study that had the primary purpose of comparing two medications for improving outcomes in more than 8,000 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

The new analysis showed that “two indices that incorporate waist circumference and height, but not weight, showed a clearer association between greater adiposity and a higher risk of heart failure hospitalization,” compared with BMI.

WHtR was one of the two indices identified as being a better correlate for the adverse effect of excess adiposity compared with BMI.

The authors of the post hoc analysis did not design their analysis to compare WHtR with BMI. Instead, their goal was to better understand what’s known as the “obesity paradox” in people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: The recurring observation that, when these patients with heart failure have lower BMIs they fare worse, with higher rates of mortality and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, compared with patients with higher BMIs.

The new analysis showed that this paradox disappeared when WHtR was substituted for BMI as the obesity metric.

This “provides meaningful data about the superiority of WHtR, compared with BMI, for predicting heart failure outcomes,” said Dr. Powell-Wiley, although she cautioned that the analysis was limited by scant data in diverse populations and did not look at other important cardiovascular disease outcomes. While Dr. Powell-Wiley does not think that WHtR needs assessment in a prospective, controlled trial, she called for analysis of pooled prospective studies with more diverse populations to better document the advantages of WHtR over BMI.

The PARADIGM-HF post hoc analysis shows again how flawed BMI is for health assessment and the relative importance of an individualized understanding of a person’s body composition, Dr. Almandoz said in an interview. “As we collect more data, there is increasing awareness of how imperfect BMI is.”
 

Measuring waist circumference is tricky

Although WHtR looks promising as a substitute for or add-on to BMI, it has its own limitations, particularly the challenge of accurately measuring waist circumference.

Measuring waist circumference “not only takes more time but requires the assessor to be well trained about where to put the tape measure and making sure it’s measured at the same place each time,” even when different people take serial measurements from individual patients, noted Dr. Wee. Determining waist circumference can also be technically difficult when done on larger people, she added, and collectively these challenges make waist circumference “less reproducible from measurement to measurement.”

“It’s relatively clear how to standardize measurement of weight and height, but there is a huge amount of variability when the waist is measured,” agreed Dr. Almandoz. “And waist circumference also differs by ethnicity, race, sex, and body frame. There are significant differences in waist circumference levels that associate with increased health risks” between, for example, White and South Asian people.

Another limitation of waist circumference and WHtR is that they “cannot differentiate between visceral and abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue, which are vastly different regarding cardiometabolic risk, commented Ian Neeland, MD, director of cardiovascular prevention at the University Hospitals Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute, Cleveland.
 

The imaging option

“Waist-to-height ratio is not the ultimate answer,” Dr. Neeland said in an interview. He instead endorsed “advanced imaging for body fat distribution,” such as CT or MRI scans, as his pick for what should be the standard obesity metric, “given that it is much more specific and actionable for both risk assessment and response to therapy. I expect slow but steady advancements that move away from BMI cutoffs, for example for bariatric surgery, given that BMI is an imprecise and crude tool.”

But although imaging with methods like CT and MRI may provide the best accuracy and precision for tracking the volume of a person’s cardiometabolically dangerous fat, they are also hampered by relatively high cost and, for CT and DXA, the issue of radiation exposure.

“CT, MRI, and DXA scans give more in-depth assessment of body composition, but should we expose people to the radiation and the cost?” Dr. Almandoz wondered.

“Height, weight, and waist circumference cost nothing to obtain,” creating a big relative disadvantage for imaging, said Naveed Sattar, MD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow.

“Data would need to show that imaging gives clinicians substantially more information about future risk” to justify its price, Dr. Sattar emphasized.
 

BMI’s limits mean adding on

Regardless of whichever alternatives to BMI end up getting used most, experts generally agree that BMI alone is looking increasingly inadequate.

“Over the next 5 years, BMI will come to be seen as a screening tool that categorizes people into general risk groups” that also needs “other metrics and variables, such as age, race, ethnicity, family history, blood glucose, and blood pressure to better describe health risk in an individual,” predicted Dr. Bessesen.

The endorsement of WHtR by NICE “will lead to more research into how to incorporate WHtR into routine practice. We need more evidence to translate what NICE said into practice,” said Dr. Sattar. “I don’t think we’ll see a shift away from BMI, but we’ll add alternative measures that are particularly useful in certain patients.”

“Because we live in diverse societies, we need to individualize risk assessment and couple that with technology that makes analysis of body composition more accessible,” agreed Dr. Almandoz. He noted that the UT Southwestern weight wellness program where he practices has, for about the past decade, routinely collected waist circumference and bioelectrical impedance data as well as BMI on all people seen in the practice for obesity concerns. Making these additional measurements on a routine basis also helps strengthen patient engagement.

“We get into trouble when we make rigid health policy and clinical decisions based on BMI alone without looking at the patient holistically,” said Dr. Wee. “Patients are more than arbitrary numbers, and clinicians should make clinical decisions based on the totality of evidence for each individual patient.”

Dr. Bessesen, Dr. Wee, Dr. Powell-Wiley, and Dr. Almandoz reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Neeland has reported being a consultant for Merck. Dr. Sattar has reported being a consultant or speaker for Abbott Laboratories, Afimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, and Sanofi.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors may be associated with a higher risk for cancer relative to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, according to a meta-analysis reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Looking at all phase 2, 3, and 4 trials and long-term extension studies across the indications of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, axial spondyloarthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and atopic dermatitis, the risk ratio for any cancer developing was 1.63 when compared with anti-TNF therapy (95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.09).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

By comparison, JAK inhibitor use was not significantly associated with any greater risk for cancer than methotrexate (RR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.94) or placebo (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.75-1.80).

“Our data suggests that rather than JAK inhibitors necessarily being harmful, it could be more a case of TNF inhibitors being protective,” said Christopher Stovin, MBChB, a specialist registrar in rheumatology at the Princess Royal University Hospital, King’s College Hospital NHS Trust, London.

“We should stress that these are rare events in our study, roughly around 1 in every 100 patient-years of exposure,” Dr. Stovin said.

“Despite having over 80,000 years of patient exposure, the median follow-up duration for JAK inhibitors was still only 118 weeks, which for cancers [that] obviously have long latency periods is still a relatively small duration of time,” the researcher added.

“People worry about the drugs. But there is a possibility that [a] disturbed immune system plays a role per se in development of cancers,” consultant rheumatologist Anurag Bharadwaj, MD, DM, said in an interview.

“Although there are studies which attribute increased risk of cancer to different DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] and biologics like TNF, but on other hand, it’s maybe that we are giving these drugs to patients who have got more serious immunological disease,” suggested Bharadwaj, who serves as the clinical lead for rheumatology at Basildon (England) Hospital, Mid & South Essex Foundation Trust.

“So, a possibility may be that the more severe or the more active the immunological inflammatory disease, the higher the chance of cancer, and these are the patients who go for the stronger medications,” Dr. Bharadwaj said.

There is an “immunological window of opportunity” when treating these inflammatory diseases, said Dr. Bharadwaj, noting that the first few months of treatment are vital. “For all immunological diseases, the more quickly you bring the immunological abnormality down, the chances of long-term complications go down, including [possibly that the] chances of cancer go down, chances of cardiovascular disease go down, and chances of lung disease go down. Hit it early, hit it hard.”

Concern over a possible higher risk for cancer with JAK inhibitors than with TNF inhibitors was raised following the release of data from the ORAL Surveillance trial, a postmarketing trial of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) that had been mandated by the Food and Drug Administration.

“This was a study looking at the coprimary endpoints of malignancy and major adverse cardiovascular events, and it was enriched with patients over the age of 50, with one additional cardiac risk factor, designed to amplify the detection of these rare events,” Dr. Stovin said.

“There was a signal of an increased risk of malignancy in the tofacitinib group, and this led to the FDA issuing a [boxed warning for all licensed JAK inhibitors] at that time,” he added.

Dr. Stovin and colleagues aimed to determine what, if any, cancer risk was associated with all available JAK inhibitors relative to placebo, TNF inhibitors, and methotrexate.

In all, data from 62 randomized controlled trials and 14 long-term extension studies were included in the meta-analysis, accounting for 82,366 patient years of follow-up. The JAK inhibitors analyzed included tofacitinib, baricitinib (Olumiant), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and peficitinib (Smyraf). (Filgotinib and peficitinib have not been approved by the FDA.)

The researchers performed sensitivity analyses that excluded cancers detected within the first 6 months of treatment, the use of higher than licensed JAK inhibitor doses, and patients with non-rheumatoid arthritis diagnoses, but the results remained largely unchanged, Dr. Stovin reported.  

“Perhaps not surprisingly, when we removed ORAL Surveillance” from the analysis comparing JAK inhibitors and TNF inhibitors, “we lost statistical significance,” he said.

“Longitudinal observational data is needed but currently remains limited,” Dr. Stovin concluded.

Dr. Stovin and Dr. Bharadwaj reported no relevant financial relationships. The meta-analysis was independently supported. Dr. Bharadwaj was not involved in the study and provided comment ahead of the presentation.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors may be associated with a higher risk for cancer relative to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, according to a meta-analysis reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Looking at all phase 2, 3, and 4 trials and long-term extension studies across the indications of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, axial spondyloarthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and atopic dermatitis, the risk ratio for any cancer developing was 1.63 when compared with anti-TNF therapy (95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.09).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

By comparison, JAK inhibitor use was not significantly associated with any greater risk for cancer than methotrexate (RR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.94) or placebo (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.75-1.80).

“Our data suggests that rather than JAK inhibitors necessarily being harmful, it could be more a case of TNF inhibitors being protective,” said Christopher Stovin, MBChB, a specialist registrar in rheumatology at the Princess Royal University Hospital, King’s College Hospital NHS Trust, London.

“We should stress that these are rare events in our study, roughly around 1 in every 100 patient-years of exposure,” Dr. Stovin said.

“Despite having over 80,000 years of patient exposure, the median follow-up duration for JAK inhibitors was still only 118 weeks, which for cancers [that] obviously have long latency periods is still a relatively small duration of time,” the researcher added.

“People worry about the drugs. But there is a possibility that [a] disturbed immune system plays a role per se in development of cancers,” consultant rheumatologist Anurag Bharadwaj, MD, DM, said in an interview.

“Although there are studies which attribute increased risk of cancer to different DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] and biologics like TNF, but on other hand, it’s maybe that we are giving these drugs to patients who have got more serious immunological disease,” suggested Bharadwaj, who serves as the clinical lead for rheumatology at Basildon (England) Hospital, Mid & South Essex Foundation Trust.

“So, a possibility may be that the more severe or the more active the immunological inflammatory disease, the higher the chance of cancer, and these are the patients who go for the stronger medications,” Dr. Bharadwaj said.

There is an “immunological window of opportunity” when treating these inflammatory diseases, said Dr. Bharadwaj, noting that the first few months of treatment are vital. “For all immunological diseases, the more quickly you bring the immunological abnormality down, the chances of long-term complications go down, including [possibly that the] chances of cancer go down, chances of cardiovascular disease go down, and chances of lung disease go down. Hit it early, hit it hard.”

Concern over a possible higher risk for cancer with JAK inhibitors than with TNF inhibitors was raised following the release of data from the ORAL Surveillance trial, a postmarketing trial of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) that had been mandated by the Food and Drug Administration.

“This was a study looking at the coprimary endpoints of malignancy and major adverse cardiovascular events, and it was enriched with patients over the age of 50, with one additional cardiac risk factor, designed to amplify the detection of these rare events,” Dr. Stovin said.

“There was a signal of an increased risk of malignancy in the tofacitinib group, and this led to the FDA issuing a [boxed warning for all licensed JAK inhibitors] at that time,” he added.

Dr. Stovin and colleagues aimed to determine what, if any, cancer risk was associated with all available JAK inhibitors relative to placebo, TNF inhibitors, and methotrexate.

In all, data from 62 randomized controlled trials and 14 long-term extension studies were included in the meta-analysis, accounting for 82,366 patient years of follow-up. The JAK inhibitors analyzed included tofacitinib, baricitinib (Olumiant), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and peficitinib (Smyraf). (Filgotinib and peficitinib have not been approved by the FDA.)

The researchers performed sensitivity analyses that excluded cancers detected within the first 6 months of treatment, the use of higher than licensed JAK inhibitor doses, and patients with non-rheumatoid arthritis diagnoses, but the results remained largely unchanged, Dr. Stovin reported.  

“Perhaps not surprisingly, when we removed ORAL Surveillance” from the analysis comparing JAK inhibitors and TNF inhibitors, “we lost statistical significance,” he said.

“Longitudinal observational data is needed but currently remains limited,” Dr. Stovin concluded.

Dr. Stovin and Dr. Bharadwaj reported no relevant financial relationships. The meta-analysis was independently supported. Dr. Bharadwaj was not involved in the study and provided comment ahead of the presentation.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors may be associated with a higher risk for cancer relative to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, according to a meta-analysis reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Looking at all phase 2, 3, and 4 trials and long-term extension studies across the indications of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, axial spondyloarthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and atopic dermatitis, the risk ratio for any cancer developing was 1.63 when compared with anti-TNF therapy (95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.09).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

By comparison, JAK inhibitor use was not significantly associated with any greater risk for cancer than methotrexate (RR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.94) or placebo (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.75-1.80).

“Our data suggests that rather than JAK inhibitors necessarily being harmful, it could be more a case of TNF inhibitors being protective,” said Christopher Stovin, MBChB, a specialist registrar in rheumatology at the Princess Royal University Hospital, King’s College Hospital NHS Trust, London.

“We should stress that these are rare events in our study, roughly around 1 in every 100 patient-years of exposure,” Dr. Stovin said.

“Despite having over 80,000 years of patient exposure, the median follow-up duration for JAK inhibitors was still only 118 weeks, which for cancers [that] obviously have long latency periods is still a relatively small duration of time,” the researcher added.

“People worry about the drugs. But there is a possibility that [a] disturbed immune system plays a role per se in development of cancers,” consultant rheumatologist Anurag Bharadwaj, MD, DM, said in an interview.

“Although there are studies which attribute increased risk of cancer to different DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] and biologics like TNF, but on other hand, it’s maybe that we are giving these drugs to patients who have got more serious immunological disease,” suggested Bharadwaj, who serves as the clinical lead for rheumatology at Basildon (England) Hospital, Mid & South Essex Foundation Trust.

“So, a possibility may be that the more severe or the more active the immunological inflammatory disease, the higher the chance of cancer, and these are the patients who go for the stronger medications,” Dr. Bharadwaj said.

There is an “immunological window of opportunity” when treating these inflammatory diseases, said Dr. Bharadwaj, noting that the first few months of treatment are vital. “For all immunological diseases, the more quickly you bring the immunological abnormality down, the chances of long-term complications go down, including [possibly that the] chances of cancer go down, chances of cardiovascular disease go down, and chances of lung disease go down. Hit it early, hit it hard.”

Concern over a possible higher risk for cancer with JAK inhibitors than with TNF inhibitors was raised following the release of data from the ORAL Surveillance trial, a postmarketing trial of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) that had been mandated by the Food and Drug Administration.

“This was a study looking at the coprimary endpoints of malignancy and major adverse cardiovascular events, and it was enriched with patients over the age of 50, with one additional cardiac risk factor, designed to amplify the detection of these rare events,” Dr. Stovin said.

“There was a signal of an increased risk of malignancy in the tofacitinib group, and this led to the FDA issuing a [boxed warning for all licensed JAK inhibitors] at that time,” he added.

Dr. Stovin and colleagues aimed to determine what, if any, cancer risk was associated with all available JAK inhibitors relative to placebo, TNF inhibitors, and methotrexate.

In all, data from 62 randomized controlled trials and 14 long-term extension studies were included in the meta-analysis, accounting for 82,366 patient years of follow-up. The JAK inhibitors analyzed included tofacitinib, baricitinib (Olumiant), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and peficitinib (Smyraf). (Filgotinib and peficitinib have not been approved by the FDA.)

The researchers performed sensitivity analyses that excluded cancers detected within the first 6 months of treatment, the use of higher than licensed JAK inhibitor doses, and patients with non-rheumatoid arthritis diagnoses, but the results remained largely unchanged, Dr. Stovin reported.  

“Perhaps not surprisingly, when we removed ORAL Surveillance” from the analysis comparing JAK inhibitors and TNF inhibitors, “we lost statistical significance,” he said.

“Longitudinal observational data is needed but currently remains limited,” Dr. Stovin concluded.

Dr. Stovin and Dr. Bharadwaj reported no relevant financial relationships. The meta-analysis was independently supported. Dr. Bharadwaj was not involved in the study and provided comment ahead of the presentation.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Rheumatoid arthritis patients are no more likely to have a heart attack if they are treated with an interleukin-6 inhibitor (IL-6i) than if they are treated with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), according to data presented at the British Society for Rheumatology annual meeting.

Results of a large analysis from the long-running British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register–Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA) found no statistical difference in the rate of myocardial infarction (MI), considering treatment in almost 21,000 patients. The overall propensity-score adjusted hazard ratio for MI risk comparing TNFi and IL-6i was 0.77, but the 95% confidence interval crossed the line for statistical significance.

“This result reassures patients and clinical teams about the long-term treatment effects on myocardial infarction in a real-world setting,” said Tian Zixing, a PhD student at the University of Manchester (England).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Patients with rheumatoid arthritis have an increased risk of myocardial infarction, compared to the general population,” Ms. Tian explained. However, this risk has been “considerably improved” with biologic treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, notably with the TNFi drugs vs. nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The reasoning behind the current analysis was to see if there was any risk associated with IL-6i, as these drugs have been noted to increase low-density cholesterol levels, which in turn can raise the risk for MI.

The study population consisted of all patients registered in the BSRBR-RA over the past 20 years who had started treatment with one of the many TNFi drugs available in the UK – adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), etanercept (Enbrel), infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), and golimumab (Simponi) – or the two available drugs that target the effects of IL-6 – tocilizumab (RoActemra, but Actemra in the U.S.), which targets IL-6 itself, and sarilumab (Kevzara), which targets the IL-6 receptor.

Clinical follow-up forms, death certificates, and patient reports confirmed by the clinical team were used to identify patients who experienced a MI, but only MIs that occurred while on treatment were counted.

More than 30,000 lines of therapy in 20,898 patients were recorded. Ms. Tian noted that most (> 90%) patients had been treated with a TNFi across all lines of therapy.

“It is very important to consider the treatment sequence,” she said. “Most patients start first-line treatment with a TNF inhibitor, with only a few patients starting an IL-6 inhibitor,” she noted. “IL-6 inhibitors are more commonly used in the later stages of disease, when more cardiovascular risk factors have accumulated.”

Thus, to ensure that the MI risk was fairly evaluated, the statistical analyses compared TNFi and IL-6i according to the line of treatment. “That means only patients on their first-line treatment will be compared to each other, and only those on their second-line treatment will be compared to each other, and so on,” Ms. Tian explained.

Baseline characteristics were broadly similar for patients treated with TNFi and IL-6i drugs, except for hyperlipidemia, which was higher in patients treated with an IL-6i. Nevertheless, there was no suggestion of any difference in the MI rates after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors.

There are a lot of strengths to these data, but of course the possibilities of residual confounding and confounding by indication exist, Ms. Tian said. There were also missing data that had to be imputed.

“There has been quite a bit around interleukin-1 blockers being cardiovascular protective,” observed Kenneth Baker, MBChB, PhD, who chaired the RA oral abstracts session during which Ms. Tian presented the findings.

“IL-6 is quite good at suppressing CRP [C-reactive protein],” added Dr. Baker, a senior clinical research fellow at Newcastle University and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Freeman Hospital, both in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“You’ve hypothesized or extrapolated that the differences in the lipid levels may not be relevant,” he said to Ms. Tian, “but do you think there might be an extra element going on here?” Maybe IL-6i drugs such as tocilizumab are better at suppressing inflammation, and that counterbalances the effects on lipids, he suggested.

Ms. Tian and Dr. Baker disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The BSRBR-RA is managed by the University of Manchester on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. The registry is supported by funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and Sanofi, and in the past Hospira, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sandoz, SOBI, and UCB.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Rheumatoid arthritis patients are no more likely to have a heart attack if they are treated with an interleukin-6 inhibitor (IL-6i) than if they are treated with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), according to data presented at the British Society for Rheumatology annual meeting.

Results of a large analysis from the long-running British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register–Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA) found no statistical difference in the rate of myocardial infarction (MI), considering treatment in almost 21,000 patients. The overall propensity-score adjusted hazard ratio for MI risk comparing TNFi and IL-6i was 0.77, but the 95% confidence interval crossed the line for statistical significance.

“This result reassures patients and clinical teams about the long-term treatment effects on myocardial infarction in a real-world setting,” said Tian Zixing, a PhD student at the University of Manchester (England).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Patients with rheumatoid arthritis have an increased risk of myocardial infarction, compared to the general population,” Ms. Tian explained. However, this risk has been “considerably improved” with biologic treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, notably with the TNFi drugs vs. nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The reasoning behind the current analysis was to see if there was any risk associated with IL-6i, as these drugs have been noted to increase low-density cholesterol levels, which in turn can raise the risk for MI.

The study population consisted of all patients registered in the BSRBR-RA over the past 20 years who had started treatment with one of the many TNFi drugs available in the UK – adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), etanercept (Enbrel), infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), and golimumab (Simponi) – or the two available drugs that target the effects of IL-6 – tocilizumab (RoActemra, but Actemra in the U.S.), which targets IL-6 itself, and sarilumab (Kevzara), which targets the IL-6 receptor.

Clinical follow-up forms, death certificates, and patient reports confirmed by the clinical team were used to identify patients who experienced a MI, but only MIs that occurred while on treatment were counted.

More than 30,000 lines of therapy in 20,898 patients were recorded. Ms. Tian noted that most (> 90%) patients had been treated with a TNFi across all lines of therapy.

“It is very important to consider the treatment sequence,” she said. “Most patients start first-line treatment with a TNF inhibitor, with only a few patients starting an IL-6 inhibitor,” she noted. “IL-6 inhibitors are more commonly used in the later stages of disease, when more cardiovascular risk factors have accumulated.”

Thus, to ensure that the MI risk was fairly evaluated, the statistical analyses compared TNFi and IL-6i according to the line of treatment. “That means only patients on their first-line treatment will be compared to each other, and only those on their second-line treatment will be compared to each other, and so on,” Ms. Tian explained.

Baseline characteristics were broadly similar for patients treated with TNFi and IL-6i drugs, except for hyperlipidemia, which was higher in patients treated with an IL-6i. Nevertheless, there was no suggestion of any difference in the MI rates after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors.

There are a lot of strengths to these data, but of course the possibilities of residual confounding and confounding by indication exist, Ms. Tian said. There were also missing data that had to be imputed.

“There has been quite a bit around interleukin-1 blockers being cardiovascular protective,” observed Kenneth Baker, MBChB, PhD, who chaired the RA oral abstracts session during which Ms. Tian presented the findings.

“IL-6 is quite good at suppressing CRP [C-reactive protein],” added Dr. Baker, a senior clinical research fellow at Newcastle University and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Freeman Hospital, both in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“You’ve hypothesized or extrapolated that the differences in the lipid levels may not be relevant,” he said to Ms. Tian, “but do you think there might be an extra element going on here?” Maybe IL-6i drugs such as tocilizumab are better at suppressing inflammation, and that counterbalances the effects on lipids, he suggested.

Ms. Tian and Dr. Baker disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The BSRBR-RA is managed by the University of Manchester on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. The registry is supported by funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and Sanofi, and in the past Hospira, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sandoz, SOBI, and UCB.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Rheumatoid arthritis patients are no more likely to have a heart attack if they are treated with an interleukin-6 inhibitor (IL-6i) than if they are treated with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), according to data presented at the British Society for Rheumatology annual meeting.

Results of a large analysis from the long-running British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register–Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA) found no statistical difference in the rate of myocardial infarction (MI), considering treatment in almost 21,000 patients. The overall propensity-score adjusted hazard ratio for MI risk comparing TNFi and IL-6i was 0.77, but the 95% confidence interval crossed the line for statistical significance.

“This result reassures patients and clinical teams about the long-term treatment effects on myocardial infarction in a real-world setting,” said Tian Zixing, a PhD student at the University of Manchester (England).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Patients with rheumatoid arthritis have an increased risk of myocardial infarction, compared to the general population,” Ms. Tian explained. However, this risk has been “considerably improved” with biologic treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, notably with the TNFi drugs vs. nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The reasoning behind the current analysis was to see if there was any risk associated with IL-6i, as these drugs have been noted to increase low-density cholesterol levels, which in turn can raise the risk for MI.

The study population consisted of all patients registered in the BSRBR-RA over the past 20 years who had started treatment with one of the many TNFi drugs available in the UK – adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), etanercept (Enbrel), infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), and golimumab (Simponi) – or the two available drugs that target the effects of IL-6 – tocilizumab (RoActemra, but Actemra in the U.S.), which targets IL-6 itself, and sarilumab (Kevzara), which targets the IL-6 receptor.

Clinical follow-up forms, death certificates, and patient reports confirmed by the clinical team were used to identify patients who experienced a MI, but only MIs that occurred while on treatment were counted.

More than 30,000 lines of therapy in 20,898 patients were recorded. Ms. Tian noted that most (> 90%) patients had been treated with a TNFi across all lines of therapy.

“It is very important to consider the treatment sequence,” she said. “Most patients start first-line treatment with a TNF inhibitor, with only a few patients starting an IL-6 inhibitor,” she noted. “IL-6 inhibitors are more commonly used in the later stages of disease, when more cardiovascular risk factors have accumulated.”

Thus, to ensure that the MI risk was fairly evaluated, the statistical analyses compared TNFi and IL-6i according to the line of treatment. “That means only patients on their first-line treatment will be compared to each other, and only those on their second-line treatment will be compared to each other, and so on,” Ms. Tian explained.

Baseline characteristics were broadly similar for patients treated with TNFi and IL-6i drugs, except for hyperlipidemia, which was higher in patients treated with an IL-6i. Nevertheless, there was no suggestion of any difference in the MI rates after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors.

There are a lot of strengths to these data, but of course the possibilities of residual confounding and confounding by indication exist, Ms. Tian said. There were also missing data that had to be imputed.

“There has been quite a bit around interleukin-1 blockers being cardiovascular protective,” observed Kenneth Baker, MBChB, PhD, who chaired the RA oral abstracts session during which Ms. Tian presented the findings.

“IL-6 is quite good at suppressing CRP [C-reactive protein],” added Dr. Baker, a senior clinical research fellow at Newcastle University and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Freeman Hospital, both in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“You’ve hypothesized or extrapolated that the differences in the lipid levels may not be relevant,” he said to Ms. Tian, “but do you think there might be an extra element going on here?” Maybe IL-6i drugs such as tocilizumab are better at suppressing inflammation, and that counterbalances the effects on lipids, he suggested.

Ms. Tian and Dr. Baker disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The BSRBR-RA is managed by the University of Manchester on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. The registry is supported by funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and Sanofi, and in the past Hospira, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sandoz, SOBI, and UCB.

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

Doctors’ groups are lining up to support new federal legislation to permanently tie Medicare physician payment updates to inflation.

Introduced by four physician U.S. House representatives, HR 2474 would link Medicare fee schedule updates to the Medicare Economic Index, a measure of inflation related to physicians’ practice costs and wages.

That’s a long-sought goal of the American Medical Association, which is leading 120 state medical societies and medical specialty groups in championing the bill.

The legislation is essential to enabling physician practices to better absorb payment distributions triggered by budget neutrality rules, performance adjustments, and periods of high inflation, the groups wrote in a joint letter sent to the bill’s sponsors. The sponsors say they hope the legislation will improve access to care, as low reimbursements cause some physicians to limit their number of Medicare patients.

Physicians groups for years have urged federal lawmakers to scrap short-term fixes staving off Medicare pay cuts in favor of permanent reforms. Unlike nearly all other Medicare clinicians including hospitals, physicians’ Medicare payment updates aren’t currently tied to inflation.

Adjusted for inflation, Medicare payments to physicians have declined 26% between 2001 and 2023, including a 2% payment reduction in 2023, according to the AMA. Small and rural physician practices have been disproportionately affected by these reductions, as have doctors treating low-income or uninsured patients, the AMA said.

Last month, an influential federal advisory panel recommended permanently tying Medicare physician pay increases to inflation. Clinicians’ cost of providing services, measured by the Medicare Economic Index, rose by 2.6% in 2021 and are estimated to have risen 4.7% in 2022, significantly more than in recent years, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission said.

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

Doctors’ groups are lining up to support new federal legislation to permanently tie Medicare physician payment updates to inflation.

Introduced by four physician U.S. House representatives, HR 2474 would link Medicare fee schedule updates to the Medicare Economic Index, a measure of inflation related to physicians’ practice costs and wages.

That’s a long-sought goal of the American Medical Association, which is leading 120 state medical societies and medical specialty groups in championing the bill.

The legislation is essential to enabling physician practices to better absorb payment distributions triggered by budget neutrality rules, performance adjustments, and periods of high inflation, the groups wrote in a joint letter sent to the bill’s sponsors. The sponsors say they hope the legislation will improve access to care, as low reimbursements cause some physicians to limit their number of Medicare patients.

Physicians groups for years have urged federal lawmakers to scrap short-term fixes staving off Medicare pay cuts in favor of permanent reforms. Unlike nearly all other Medicare clinicians including hospitals, physicians’ Medicare payment updates aren’t currently tied to inflation.

Adjusted for inflation, Medicare payments to physicians have declined 26% between 2001 and 2023, including a 2% payment reduction in 2023, according to the AMA. Small and rural physician practices have been disproportionately affected by these reductions, as have doctors treating low-income or uninsured patients, the AMA said.

Last month, an influential federal advisory panel recommended permanently tying Medicare physician pay increases to inflation. Clinicians’ cost of providing services, measured by the Medicare Economic Index, rose by 2.6% in 2021 and are estimated to have risen 4.7% in 2022, significantly more than in recent years, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission said.

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

Doctors’ groups are lining up to support new federal legislation to permanently tie Medicare physician payment updates to inflation.

Introduced by four physician U.S. House representatives, HR 2474 would link Medicare fee schedule updates to the Medicare Economic Index, a measure of inflation related to physicians’ practice costs and wages.

That’s a long-sought goal of the American Medical Association, which is leading 120 state medical societies and medical specialty groups in championing the bill.

The legislation is essential to enabling physician practices to better absorb payment distributions triggered by budget neutrality rules, performance adjustments, and periods of high inflation, the groups wrote in a joint letter sent to the bill’s sponsors. The sponsors say they hope the legislation will improve access to care, as low reimbursements cause some physicians to limit their number of Medicare patients.

Physicians groups for years have urged federal lawmakers to scrap short-term fixes staving off Medicare pay cuts in favor of permanent reforms. Unlike nearly all other Medicare clinicians including hospitals, physicians’ Medicare payment updates aren’t currently tied to inflation.

Adjusted for inflation, Medicare payments to physicians have declined 26% between 2001 and 2023, including a 2% payment reduction in 2023, according to the AMA. Small and rural physician practices have been disproportionately affected by these reductions, as have doctors treating low-income or uninsured patients, the AMA said.

Last month, an influential federal advisory panel recommended permanently tying Medicare physician pay increases to inflation. Clinicians’ cost of providing services, measured by the Medicare Economic Index, rose by 2.6% in 2021 and are estimated to have risen 4.7% in 2022, significantly more than in recent years, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission said.

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

General and orthopedic surgeons and intensivists earn the highest net reimbursements from private U.S. insurers, a new report estimates.

On average in 2021, they were paid $5.8 million, $4.9 million, and $3.3 million, respectively, according to figures compiled by AMN Healthcare, a Dallas-based health staffing company.

None of 15 other physician specialties topped $3 million in net reimbursement on average, and three – dermatology, pediatrics, and family medicine – didn’t reach $1 million.

The report doesn’t include data about reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid, and its numbers assume that 50% of insurance claims are denied. Denial rates differ from practice to practice.

Still, the findings offer a “benchmark tool” to help clinicians understand how they rank against their peers, Linda Murphy, president of AMN Healthcare’s Revenue Cycle Solutions division, said in an interview.

This is the first year that the company has calculated physician reimbursement levels by using claim and clearinghouse data, Ms. Murphy said. Previously, a division of the firm compiled data by surveying chief financial officers from hospitals.

The report’s estimate that insurers deny 50% of claims is “conservative,” Ms. Murphy said. Miscoding is a significant factor behind that number.

The estimated 2021 net private insurance reimbursements by specialty for direct services, assuming a 50% denial rate:

• Anesthesiology: $1,665,510
• Cardiology: $1,703,013
• Critical Care (intensivist): $3,338,656
• Dermatology: $729,107
• Family medicine: $697,094
• Gastroenterology: $2,765,110
• Internal medicine: $1,297,200
• Neurology: $1,390,181
• Obstetrician/gynecology: $1,880,888
• Otolaryngology: $2,095,277
• Pediatrics: $661,552
• Psychiatry: $1,348,730
• Pulmonology: $1,561,617
• Radiology: $1,015,750
• Rheumatology: $1,705,140
• General surgery: $5,834,508
• Orthopedic surgery: $4,904,757
• Urology: $2,943,381

Among 18 physician specialties overall, the report estimated that the average net reimbursement in 2021 was $1.9 million.

The report also estimated that the net reimbursement amounts at $875,140 for certified registered nurse anesthetists and $388,696 for nurse practitioners.

Surprisingly, Ms. Murphy said, there’s “a really large swing” among reimbursement levels for individual specialties. The quartile of cardiologists with the lowest level of reimbursement, for example, submitted $2.1 million in claims in 2021, netting about $1 million at a 50% denial rate versus the $7.3 million made by those in the highest quartile, netting about $3.6 million.

The gap seems to be due to regional variations, she said, adding that a rural cardiologist will have different billing practices than does one practicing in New York City.

The quartile of general surgeons with the highest reimbursement levels billed for $21.1 million on average in 2021, making about $10.5 million at a 50% denial rate. The lowest quartile billed for $5.5 million, making about $2.7 million at a 50% denial rate.

The report noted that primary care physicians – that is, family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics specialists – have much lower levels of reimbursement, compared with most other specialties. But the work of primary care physicians “may lead to considerable ‘downstream revenue’ through the hospital admissions, tests and treatment they order.”

A previous analysis by a division of AMN Healthcare found that primary care physicians, on average, generate $2,113,273 a year in net annual revenue for their affiliated hospitals, nearing the $2,446,429 in net annual hospital revenue generated by specialists.

AMN Healthcare is preparing another report that will examine Medicare reimbursements, Ms. Murphy said. According to the new report, payments by nonprivate insurers amount to about one-third of the total amount of reimbursement by commercial insurers.

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

General and orthopedic surgeons and intensivists earn the highest net reimbursements from private U.S. insurers, a new report estimates.

On average in 2021, they were paid $5.8 million, $4.9 million, and $3.3 million, respectively, according to figures compiled by AMN Healthcare, a Dallas-based health staffing company.

None of 15 other physician specialties topped $3 million in net reimbursement on average, and three – dermatology, pediatrics, and family medicine – didn’t reach $1 million.

The report doesn’t include data about reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid, and its numbers assume that 50% of insurance claims are denied. Denial rates differ from practice to practice.

Still, the findings offer a “benchmark tool” to help clinicians understand how they rank against their peers, Linda Murphy, president of AMN Healthcare’s Revenue Cycle Solutions division, said in an interview.

This is the first year that the company has calculated physician reimbursement levels by using claim and clearinghouse data, Ms. Murphy said. Previously, a division of the firm compiled data by surveying chief financial officers from hospitals.

The report’s estimate that insurers deny 50% of claims is “conservative,” Ms. Murphy said. Miscoding is a significant factor behind that number.

The estimated 2021 net private insurance reimbursements by specialty for direct services, assuming a 50% denial rate:

• Anesthesiology: $1,665,510
• Cardiology: $1,703,013
• Critical Care (intensivist): $3,338,656
• Dermatology: $729,107
• Family medicine: $697,094
• Gastroenterology: $2,765,110
• Internal medicine: $1,297,200
• Neurology: $1,390,181
• Obstetrician/gynecology: $1,880,888
• Otolaryngology: $2,095,277
• Pediatrics: $661,552
• Psychiatry: $1,348,730
• Pulmonology: $1,561,617
• Radiology: $1,015,750
• Rheumatology: $1,705,140
• General surgery: $5,834,508
• Orthopedic surgery: $4,904,757
• Urology: $2,943,381

Among 18 physician specialties overall, the report estimated that the average net reimbursement in 2021 was $1.9 million.

The report also estimated that the net reimbursement amounts at $875,140 for certified registered nurse anesthetists and $388,696 for nurse practitioners.

Surprisingly, Ms. Murphy said, there’s “a really large swing” among reimbursement levels for individual specialties. The quartile of cardiologists with the lowest level of reimbursement, for example, submitted $2.1 million in claims in 2021, netting about $1 million at a 50% denial rate versus the $7.3 million made by those in the highest quartile, netting about $3.6 million.

The gap seems to be due to regional variations, she said, adding that a rural cardiologist will have different billing practices than does one practicing in New York City.

The quartile of general surgeons with the highest reimbursement levels billed for $21.1 million on average in 2021, making about $10.5 million at a 50% denial rate. The lowest quartile billed for $5.5 million, making about $2.7 million at a 50% denial rate.

The report noted that primary care physicians – that is, family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics specialists – have much lower levels of reimbursement, compared with most other specialties. But the work of primary care physicians “may lead to considerable ‘downstream revenue’ through the hospital admissions, tests and treatment they order.”

A previous analysis by a division of AMN Healthcare found that primary care physicians, on average, generate $2,113,273 a year in net annual revenue for their affiliated hospitals, nearing the $2,446,429 in net annual hospital revenue generated by specialists.

AMN Healthcare is preparing another report that will examine Medicare reimbursements, Ms. Murphy said. According to the new report, payments by nonprivate insurers amount to about one-third of the total amount of reimbursement by commercial insurers.

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

General and orthopedic surgeons and intensivists earn the highest net reimbursements from private U.S. insurers, a new report estimates.

On average in 2021, they were paid $5.8 million, $4.9 million, and $3.3 million, respectively, according to figures compiled by AMN Healthcare, a Dallas-based health staffing company.

None of 15 other physician specialties topped $3 million in net reimbursement on average, and three – dermatology, pediatrics, and family medicine – didn’t reach $1 million.

The report doesn’t include data about reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid, and its numbers assume that 50% of insurance claims are denied. Denial rates differ from practice to practice.

Still, the findings offer a “benchmark tool” to help clinicians understand how they rank against their peers, Linda Murphy, president of AMN Healthcare’s Revenue Cycle Solutions division, said in an interview.

This is the first year that the company has calculated physician reimbursement levels by using claim and clearinghouse data, Ms. Murphy said. Previously, a division of the firm compiled data by surveying chief financial officers from hospitals.

The report’s estimate that insurers deny 50% of claims is “conservative,” Ms. Murphy said. Miscoding is a significant factor behind that number.

The estimated 2021 net private insurance reimbursements by specialty for direct services, assuming a 50% denial rate:

• Anesthesiology: $1,665,510
• Cardiology: $1,703,013
• Critical Care (intensivist): $3,338,656
• Dermatology: $729,107
• Family medicine: $697,094
• Gastroenterology: $2,765,110
• Internal medicine: $1,297,200
• Neurology: $1,390,181
• Obstetrician/gynecology: $1,880,888
• Otolaryngology: $2,095,277
• Pediatrics: $661,552
• Psychiatry: $1,348,730
• Pulmonology: $1,561,617
• Radiology: $1,015,750
• Rheumatology: $1,705,140
• General surgery: $5,834,508
• Orthopedic surgery: $4,904,757
• Urology: $2,943,381

Among 18 physician specialties overall, the report estimated that the average net reimbursement in 2021 was $1.9 million.

The report also estimated that the net reimbursement amounts at $875,140 for certified registered nurse anesthetists and $388,696 for nurse practitioners.

Surprisingly, Ms. Murphy said, there’s “a really large swing” among reimbursement levels for individual specialties. The quartile of cardiologists with the lowest level of reimbursement, for example, submitted $2.1 million in claims in 2021, netting about $1 million at a 50% denial rate versus the $7.3 million made by those in the highest quartile, netting about $3.6 million.

The gap seems to be due to regional variations, she said, adding that a rural cardiologist will have different billing practices than does one practicing in New York City.

The quartile of general surgeons with the highest reimbursement levels billed for $21.1 million on average in 2021, making about $10.5 million at a 50% denial rate. The lowest quartile billed for $5.5 million, making about $2.7 million at a 50% denial rate.

The report noted that primary care physicians – that is, family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics specialists – have much lower levels of reimbursement, compared with most other specialties. But the work of primary care physicians “may lead to considerable ‘downstream revenue’ through the hospital admissions, tests and treatment they order.”

A previous analysis by a division of AMN Healthcare found that primary care physicians, on average, generate $2,113,273 a year in net annual revenue for their affiliated hospitals, nearing the $2,446,429 in net annual hospital revenue generated by specialists.

AMN Healthcare is preparing another report that will examine Medicare reimbursements, Ms. Murphy said. According to the new report, payments by nonprivate insurers amount to about one-third of the total amount of reimbursement by commercial insurers.

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