Rheumatology

A new study has found that methotrexate plus leflunomide outperforms methotrexate alone as a treatment option for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

“We believe that prescribing this combination in routine practice is viable when combined with shared decision-making and strict monitoring of side effects,” write Michelle L.M. Mulder, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and her coauthors. Their findings were published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

The latest treatment guidelines from the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommend conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for patients with active PsA, but Dr. Mulder and her colleagues note a distinct lack of information on their effectiveness, especially this particular combination.

To assess the efficacy and safety of methotrexate plus leflunomide, they launched a single-center, double-blind, randomized trial that included 78 Dutch patients with PsA. The majority of the participants in this trial – dubbed COMPLETE-PsA – were men (64%), and the median age of the patients was 55 years. All had active disease at baseline; the median swollen joint count (SJC) and tender joint count were 4.0 in both groups.

Participants were assigned to receive either methotrexate plus leflunomide (n = 39) or methotrexate plus placebo (n = 39). After 16 weeks, mean Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) had improved for patients in the combination therapy group in comparison with the monotherapy group (3.1; standard deviation, 1.4 vs. 3.7; SD, 1.3; treatment difference, –0.6; 90% confidence interval, –1.0 to –0.1; P = .025). The combination therapy group also achieved PASDAS low disease activity at a higher rate (59%) than did the monotherapy group (34%; P = .019).

Other notable differences after 16 weeks included improvements in SJC for 66 joints (–3.0 in the combination therapy group vs. –2.0 in the monotherapy group) and significantly better skin and nail measures – such as active psoriasis and change in body surface area – in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group.

When asked who should be prescribed the combination therapy and who should be prescribed methotrexate going forward, Dr. Mulder told this news organization, “At the moment, we have insufficient knowledge on who will benefit most or who will develop clinically relevant side effects. It seems warranted to discuss with every patient which approach they would prefer. This could be a step-down or -up approach.

“We hope to be able to better predict treatment response and side effects in the future via post hoc analysis of our study and via extensive flow-cytometric phenotyping of immune blood cells taken at baseline,” she added.

Three patients in the combination therapy group experienced serious adverse events, two of which were deemed unrelated to leflunomide. The most frequently occurring adverse events were nausea or vomiting, tiredness, and elevated alanine aminotransferase. Mild adverse events were more common in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group. No participants died, and all patients with adverse events recovered completely.

“It appears good practice to do blood draws for laboratory tests on liver enzymes at least monthly for the first 4 months and every 4 months after that once stable dosing is achieved, as well as have a telephone consultation after 6-8 weeks to talk about possible side effects a patient might experience and change or add therapy if necessary,” Dr. Mulder added.

Study turns perception of combination therapy into reality

It had already been perceived by rheumatologists that methotrexate plus leflunomide was an effective combo for PsA, and this study reinforces those beliefs, Clementina López-Medina, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the University of Cordoba (Spain), write in an accompanying editorial.

They highlight this study’s notable strengths, one of which was defining “active disease” as two or more swollen joints, which opened the study up to a larger patient population. The editorialists also underline the confirmation that leflunomide plus methotrexate reduces both joint symptoms and skin involvement in this subset of patients, which had also been found in a previous study.

“Leflunomide is usually considered as a second-line option after methotrexate is unsuccessful,” they note, “despite the fact that methotrexate did not show superiority over placebo in previous trials.”

The editorialists were not surprised that the combination therapy was more toxic than the monotherapy. Rheumatologists could use these data to individualize treatment accordingly, they write, while keeping an eye on “gastrointestinal disturbances.”

Overall, Dr. López-Medina and colleagues say that the study results should “be considered not only in daily clinical practice but also in the development of future recommendations.”

Leflunomide: Forgotten no longer, at least for PsA

“I think we probably underutilize leflunomide,” Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Innovative Therapy at the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization. “Sometimes medicines get ‘old,’ for lack of a better term, and fall a little bit of out of favor, sometimes unnecessarily. Leflunomide falls into that category. Because it’s older, it doesn’t get as much buzz as what’s new and shiny.

“I was not surprised by the results on the joints,” he said, “because we know from previous studies that leflunomide works in that regard. What did surprise me is that the skin got better, especially with the combination.”

Regarding the side effects for the combination therapy, he commended the authors for limiting potential uncertainty by using such a high dose of methotrexate.

“By going with a dose of 25 mg [per week], no one can say, ‘They pulled their punches and methotrexate monotherapy would’ve been just as good if it was given at a higher dose,’ “ he said. “And they also used leflunomide at a high dose. It makes you wonder: Could you use lower doses, and do lower doses mean fewer lab test abnormalities? This positive study does lend itself to some other permutations in terms of study design.

“Even though this was a small study,” he added, “it brings us right back to: We should really consider leflunomide in the treatment of PsA.”

The authors acknowledge their study’s limitations, including the fact that it was conducted in a single country and the absence of a nontreatment placebo group. They also note the higher percentage of women in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group, “which might have lowered the treatment response and increased the adverse event rate, resulting in bias.”

The study was funded by a Regional Junior Researcher Grant from Sint Maartenskliniek. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving payment, research grants, and consulting and speaker fees from various pharmaceutical companies.

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

A new study has found that methotrexate plus leflunomide outperforms methotrexate alone as a treatment option for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

“We believe that prescribing this combination in routine practice is viable when combined with shared decision-making and strict monitoring of side effects,” write Michelle L.M. Mulder, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and her coauthors. Their findings were published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

The latest treatment guidelines from the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommend conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for patients with active PsA, but Dr. Mulder and her colleagues note a distinct lack of information on their effectiveness, especially this particular combination.

To assess the efficacy and safety of methotrexate plus leflunomide, they launched a single-center, double-blind, randomized trial that included 78 Dutch patients with PsA. The majority of the participants in this trial – dubbed COMPLETE-PsA – were men (64%), and the median age of the patients was 55 years. All had active disease at baseline; the median swollen joint count (SJC) and tender joint count were 4.0 in both groups.

Participants were assigned to receive either methotrexate plus leflunomide (n = 39) or methotrexate plus placebo (n = 39). After 16 weeks, mean Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) had improved for patients in the combination therapy group in comparison with the monotherapy group (3.1; standard deviation, 1.4 vs. 3.7; SD, 1.3; treatment difference, –0.6; 90% confidence interval, –1.0 to –0.1; P = .025). The combination therapy group also achieved PASDAS low disease activity at a higher rate (59%) than did the monotherapy group (34%; P = .019).

Other notable differences after 16 weeks included improvements in SJC for 66 joints (–3.0 in the combination therapy group vs. –2.0 in the monotherapy group) and significantly better skin and nail measures – such as active psoriasis and change in body surface area – in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group.

When asked who should be prescribed the combination therapy and who should be prescribed methotrexate going forward, Dr. Mulder told this news organization, “At the moment, we have insufficient knowledge on who will benefit most or who will develop clinically relevant side effects. It seems warranted to discuss with every patient which approach they would prefer. This could be a step-down or -up approach.

“We hope to be able to better predict treatment response and side effects in the future via post hoc analysis of our study and via extensive flow-cytometric phenotyping of immune blood cells taken at baseline,” she added.

Three patients in the combination therapy group experienced serious adverse events, two of which were deemed unrelated to leflunomide. The most frequently occurring adverse events were nausea or vomiting, tiredness, and elevated alanine aminotransferase. Mild adverse events were more common in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group. No participants died, and all patients with adverse events recovered completely.

“It appears good practice to do blood draws for laboratory tests on liver enzymes at least monthly for the first 4 months and every 4 months after that once stable dosing is achieved, as well as have a telephone consultation after 6-8 weeks to talk about possible side effects a patient might experience and change or add therapy if necessary,” Dr. Mulder added.

Study turns perception of combination therapy into reality

It had already been perceived by rheumatologists that methotrexate plus leflunomide was an effective combo for PsA, and this study reinforces those beliefs, Clementina López-Medina, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the University of Cordoba (Spain), write in an accompanying editorial.

They highlight this study’s notable strengths, one of which was defining “active disease” as two or more swollen joints, which opened the study up to a larger patient population. The editorialists also underline the confirmation that leflunomide plus methotrexate reduces both joint symptoms and skin involvement in this subset of patients, which had also been found in a previous study.

“Leflunomide is usually considered as a second-line option after methotrexate is unsuccessful,” they note, “despite the fact that methotrexate did not show superiority over placebo in previous trials.”

The editorialists were not surprised that the combination therapy was more toxic than the monotherapy. Rheumatologists could use these data to individualize treatment accordingly, they write, while keeping an eye on “gastrointestinal disturbances.”

Overall, Dr. López-Medina and colleagues say that the study results should “be considered not only in daily clinical practice but also in the development of future recommendations.”

Leflunomide: Forgotten no longer, at least for PsA

“I think we probably underutilize leflunomide,” Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Innovative Therapy at the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization. “Sometimes medicines get ‘old,’ for lack of a better term, and fall a little bit of out of favor, sometimes unnecessarily. Leflunomide falls into that category. Because it’s older, it doesn’t get as much buzz as what’s new and shiny.

“I was not surprised by the results on the joints,” he said, “because we know from previous studies that leflunomide works in that regard. What did surprise me is that the skin got better, especially with the combination.”

Regarding the side effects for the combination therapy, he commended the authors for limiting potential uncertainty by using such a high dose of methotrexate.

“By going with a dose of 25 mg [per week], no one can say, ‘They pulled their punches and methotrexate monotherapy would’ve been just as good if it was given at a higher dose,’ “ he said. “And they also used leflunomide at a high dose. It makes you wonder: Could you use lower doses, and do lower doses mean fewer lab test abnormalities? This positive study does lend itself to some other permutations in terms of study design.

“Even though this was a small study,” he added, “it brings us right back to: We should really consider leflunomide in the treatment of PsA.”

The authors acknowledge their study’s limitations, including the fact that it was conducted in a single country and the absence of a nontreatment placebo group. They also note the higher percentage of women in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group, “which might have lowered the treatment response and increased the adverse event rate, resulting in bias.”

The study was funded by a Regional Junior Researcher Grant from Sint Maartenskliniek. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving payment, research grants, and consulting and speaker fees from various pharmaceutical companies.

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

A new study has found that methotrexate plus leflunomide outperforms methotrexate alone as a treatment option for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

“We believe that prescribing this combination in routine practice is viable when combined with shared decision-making and strict monitoring of side effects,” write Michelle L.M. Mulder, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and her coauthors. Their findings were published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

The latest treatment guidelines from the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommend conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for patients with active PsA, but Dr. Mulder and her colleagues note a distinct lack of information on their effectiveness, especially this particular combination.

To assess the efficacy and safety of methotrexate plus leflunomide, they launched a single-center, double-blind, randomized trial that included 78 Dutch patients with PsA. The majority of the participants in this trial – dubbed COMPLETE-PsA – were men (64%), and the median age of the patients was 55 years. All had active disease at baseline; the median swollen joint count (SJC) and tender joint count were 4.0 in both groups.

Participants were assigned to receive either methotrexate plus leflunomide (n = 39) or methotrexate plus placebo (n = 39). After 16 weeks, mean Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) had improved for patients in the combination therapy group in comparison with the monotherapy group (3.1; standard deviation, 1.4 vs. 3.7; SD, 1.3; treatment difference, –0.6; 90% confidence interval, –1.0 to –0.1; P = .025). The combination therapy group also achieved PASDAS low disease activity at a higher rate (59%) than did the monotherapy group (34%; P = .019).

Other notable differences after 16 weeks included improvements in SJC for 66 joints (–3.0 in the combination therapy group vs. –2.0 in the monotherapy group) and significantly better skin and nail measures – such as active psoriasis and change in body surface area – in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group.

When asked who should be prescribed the combination therapy and who should be prescribed methotrexate going forward, Dr. Mulder told this news organization, “At the moment, we have insufficient knowledge on who will benefit most or who will develop clinically relevant side effects. It seems warranted to discuss with every patient which approach they would prefer. This could be a step-down or -up approach.

“We hope to be able to better predict treatment response and side effects in the future via post hoc analysis of our study and via extensive flow-cytometric phenotyping of immune blood cells taken at baseline,” she added.

Three patients in the combination therapy group experienced serious adverse events, two of which were deemed unrelated to leflunomide. The most frequently occurring adverse events were nausea or vomiting, tiredness, and elevated alanine aminotransferase. Mild adverse events were more common in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group. No participants died, and all patients with adverse events recovered completely.

“It appears good practice to do blood draws for laboratory tests on liver enzymes at least monthly for the first 4 months and every 4 months after that once stable dosing is achieved, as well as have a telephone consultation after 6-8 weeks to talk about possible side effects a patient might experience and change or add therapy if necessary,” Dr. Mulder added.

Study turns perception of combination therapy into reality

It had already been perceived by rheumatologists that methotrexate plus leflunomide was an effective combo for PsA, and this study reinforces those beliefs, Clementina López-Medina, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the University of Cordoba (Spain), write in an accompanying editorial.

They highlight this study’s notable strengths, one of which was defining “active disease” as two or more swollen joints, which opened the study up to a larger patient population. The editorialists also underline the confirmation that leflunomide plus methotrexate reduces both joint symptoms and skin involvement in this subset of patients, which had also been found in a previous study.

“Leflunomide is usually considered as a second-line option after methotrexate is unsuccessful,” they note, “despite the fact that methotrexate did not show superiority over placebo in previous trials.”

The editorialists were not surprised that the combination therapy was more toxic than the monotherapy. Rheumatologists could use these data to individualize treatment accordingly, they write, while keeping an eye on “gastrointestinal disturbances.”

Overall, Dr. López-Medina and colleagues say that the study results should “be considered not only in daily clinical practice but also in the development of future recommendations.”

Leflunomide: Forgotten no longer, at least for PsA

“I think we probably underutilize leflunomide,” Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Innovative Therapy at the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization. “Sometimes medicines get ‘old,’ for lack of a better term, and fall a little bit of out of favor, sometimes unnecessarily. Leflunomide falls into that category. Because it’s older, it doesn’t get as much buzz as what’s new and shiny.

“I was not surprised by the results on the joints,” he said, “because we know from previous studies that leflunomide works in that regard. What did surprise me is that the skin got better, especially with the combination.”

Regarding the side effects for the combination therapy, he commended the authors for limiting potential uncertainty by using such a high dose of methotrexate.

“By going with a dose of 25 mg [per week], no one can say, ‘They pulled their punches and methotrexate monotherapy would’ve been just as good if it was given at a higher dose,’ “ he said. “And they also used leflunomide at a high dose. It makes you wonder: Could you use lower doses, and do lower doses mean fewer lab test abnormalities? This positive study does lend itself to some other permutations in terms of study design.

“Even though this was a small study,” he added, “it brings us right back to: We should really consider leflunomide in the treatment of PsA.”

The authors acknowledge their study’s limitations, including the fact that it was conducted in a single country and the absence of a nontreatment placebo group. They also note the higher percentage of women in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group, “which might have lowered the treatment response and increased the adverse event rate, resulting in bias.”

The study was funded by a Regional Junior Researcher Grant from Sint Maartenskliniek. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving payment, research grants, and consulting and speaker fees from various pharmaceutical companies.

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

Patients with undifferentiated arthritis (UA) that is defined according to contemporary criteria don’t appear to have the same excess mortality that is associated with rheumatoid arthritis, despite links between the two conditions.

UA has long been considered an earlier phase of RA, so similar management strategies are often used based on the assumption that outcomes and elevated mortality risk were similar between the two, but new findings reported in a research letter published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases challenge that assumption.

The change in the definition of UA that accompanied the introduction of new RA criteria in 2010 meant that some of the patients who previously met the criteria for UA now were classified as having RA, and “the remaining contemporary UA population (not fulfilling the 1987/2010 RA criteria) is largely autoantibody negative, presents with monoarthritis or oligoarthritis, and progresses less frequently to RA,” PhD candidate Marloes Verstappen of Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center, and coauthors wrote.

As the first large study on excess mortality in patients meeting contemporary criteria for UA, the authors said it suggests that the change in criteria for UA has served to increase the differences in mortality between it and RA.

“Further research and discussions are needed as to whether the management of contemporary UA should be similar to or different from that of RA,” they wrote.

The researchers conducted a longitudinal cohort study of 860 patients who met the conventional criteria for UA – they did not meet the 1987 RA criteria or other diagnosis – at baseline and 561 who met contemporary criteria for UA based on the fact that they did not meet the 1987 or 2010 RA criteria. There were also 762 patients who were diagnosed with RA according to the 1987 criteria, and 828 diagnosed according to the 2010 criteria. All of these patients were diagnosed between 1993 and 2008 and their median follow-up times ranged from 16.0 to 17.3 years, with a minimum of 10 years of follow-up.

The study found that, while there was a trend toward excess mortality in the conventional UA group (standardized mortality ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.27), there was no significant excess mortality in the contemporary UA patients (SMR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.87-1.26).

In comparison, patients in both the 1987 RA criteria group and the 2010 criteria group showed significantly higher mortality. Among patients with anti–citrullinated protein antibody–positive disease, even early treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and treat-to-target strategies didn’t reduce the excess mortality.

The study did find some suggestion of excess mortality among patients with contemporary UA and who were anti–citrullinated protein antibody positive, but the number of patients was small.

“Only a few percent of patients presenting with contemporary UA are autoantibody positive; these patients may be considered at increased risk to progress to RA,” the authors wrote.

The data also suggested that disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs didn’t alter excess mortality among patients with contemporary UA.

The study was supported by the Dutch Arthritis Foundation and the European Research Council. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Patients with undifferentiated arthritis (UA) that is defined according to contemporary criteria don’t appear to have the same excess mortality that is associated with rheumatoid arthritis, despite links between the two conditions.

UA has long been considered an earlier phase of RA, so similar management strategies are often used based on the assumption that outcomes and elevated mortality risk were similar between the two, but new findings reported in a research letter published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases challenge that assumption.

The change in the definition of UA that accompanied the introduction of new RA criteria in 2010 meant that some of the patients who previously met the criteria for UA now were classified as having RA, and “the remaining contemporary UA population (not fulfilling the 1987/2010 RA criteria) is largely autoantibody negative, presents with monoarthritis or oligoarthritis, and progresses less frequently to RA,” PhD candidate Marloes Verstappen of Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center, and coauthors wrote.

As the first large study on excess mortality in patients meeting contemporary criteria for UA, the authors said it suggests that the change in criteria for UA has served to increase the differences in mortality between it and RA.

“Further research and discussions are needed as to whether the management of contemporary UA should be similar to or different from that of RA,” they wrote.

The researchers conducted a longitudinal cohort study of 860 patients who met the conventional criteria for UA – they did not meet the 1987 RA criteria or other diagnosis – at baseline and 561 who met contemporary criteria for UA based on the fact that they did not meet the 1987 or 2010 RA criteria. There were also 762 patients who were diagnosed with RA according to the 1987 criteria, and 828 diagnosed according to the 2010 criteria. All of these patients were diagnosed between 1993 and 2008 and their median follow-up times ranged from 16.0 to 17.3 years, with a minimum of 10 years of follow-up.

The study found that, while there was a trend toward excess mortality in the conventional UA group (standardized mortality ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.27), there was no significant excess mortality in the contemporary UA patients (SMR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.87-1.26).

In comparison, patients in both the 1987 RA criteria group and the 2010 criteria group showed significantly higher mortality. Among patients with anti–citrullinated protein antibody–positive disease, even early treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and treat-to-target strategies didn’t reduce the excess mortality.

The study did find some suggestion of excess mortality among patients with contemporary UA and who were anti–citrullinated protein antibody positive, but the number of patients was small.

“Only a few percent of patients presenting with contemporary UA are autoantibody positive; these patients may be considered at increased risk to progress to RA,” the authors wrote.

The data also suggested that disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs didn’t alter excess mortality among patients with contemporary UA.

The study was supported by the Dutch Arthritis Foundation and the European Research Council. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Patients with undifferentiated arthritis (UA) that is defined according to contemporary criteria don’t appear to have the same excess mortality that is associated with rheumatoid arthritis, despite links between the two conditions.

UA has long been considered an earlier phase of RA, so similar management strategies are often used based on the assumption that outcomes and elevated mortality risk were similar between the two, but new findings reported in a research letter published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases challenge that assumption.

The change in the definition of UA that accompanied the introduction of new RA criteria in 2010 meant that some of the patients who previously met the criteria for UA now were classified as having RA, and “the remaining contemporary UA population (not fulfilling the 1987/2010 RA criteria) is largely autoantibody negative, presents with monoarthritis or oligoarthritis, and progresses less frequently to RA,” PhD candidate Marloes Verstappen of Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center, and coauthors wrote.

As the first large study on excess mortality in patients meeting contemporary criteria for UA, the authors said it suggests that the change in criteria for UA has served to increase the differences in mortality between it and RA.

“Further research and discussions are needed as to whether the management of contemporary UA should be similar to or different from that of RA,” they wrote.

The researchers conducted a longitudinal cohort study of 860 patients who met the conventional criteria for UA – they did not meet the 1987 RA criteria or other diagnosis – at baseline and 561 who met contemporary criteria for UA based on the fact that they did not meet the 1987 or 2010 RA criteria. There were also 762 patients who were diagnosed with RA according to the 1987 criteria, and 828 diagnosed according to the 2010 criteria. All of these patients were diagnosed between 1993 and 2008 and their median follow-up times ranged from 16.0 to 17.3 years, with a minimum of 10 years of follow-up.

The study found that, while there was a trend toward excess mortality in the conventional UA group (standardized mortality ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.27), there was no significant excess mortality in the contemporary UA patients (SMR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.87-1.26).

In comparison, patients in both the 1987 RA criteria group and the 2010 criteria group showed significantly higher mortality. Among patients with anti–citrullinated protein antibody–positive disease, even early treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and treat-to-target strategies didn’t reduce the excess mortality.

The study did find some suggestion of excess mortality among patients with contemporary UA and who were anti–citrullinated protein antibody positive, but the number of patients was small.

“Only a few percent of patients presenting with contemporary UA are autoantibody positive; these patients may be considered at increased risk to progress to RA,” the authors wrote.

The data also suggested that disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs didn’t alter excess mortality among patients with contemporary UA.

The study was supported by the Dutch Arthritis Foundation and the European Research Council. No conflicts of interest were declared.

The American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons have released updated guidelines regarding whether to withhold drugs such as biologics and immunosuppressives for patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease who are scheduled to undergo elective total hip or knee replacement surgery.

The guidelines, published in a summary by the societies on Feb. 28, include revised and new recommendations about biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for patients with several types of inflammatory arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In general, the guidelines recommend that the most powerful medications be withheld prior to surgery except for patients whose SLE is so severe that it threatens organs. They also recommend a shorter period of withholding drugs – 3 days instead of 7 – for JAK inhibitors.
 

The previous guidelines were published in 2017.

“These recommendations seek to balance flares of disease that are likely when medications are stopped vs. the risk of infection,” Susan M. Goodman, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, and co–principal investigator of the guideline, told this news organization. “Patients and physicians may want to be either more conservative or more aggressive with their medications, depending on their personal priorities or specific medical history.”

According to Dr. Goodman, patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases are especially likely to undergo joint replacement surgery because the conditions can damage the joints. “While the introduction of potent biologics has been linked to a decrease in surgery of soft tissues and small joints, there has been little impact on large-joint surgeries,” she said.

The risk of infection in these patients is about 50% higher than in the general population, she said. However, “it is hard to determine the magnitude of the effect of withholding medications, given the low rate of infection. In fact, using pharmaco-epidemiologic methods in large Medicare databases, no difference was seen in patients whose immunosuppressant medication infusions were close to the time of surgery compared to those patients whose medication infusions were months prior to surgery.”

The guidelines add a recommendation for the first time for apremilast (Otezla), saying that when it is administered twice daily it is okay to schedule surgery at any time.

Withholding drugs in patients with SLE

“We now recommend continuing biologics used to treat SLE – rituximab and belimumab – in patients with severe SLE but continue to recommend withholding them in less severe cases where there is little risk of organ damage,” Bryan D. Springer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Charlotte, N.C., first vice president of the AAHKS, and co–principal investigator of the new guidelines, told this news organization.

In severe SLE cases, the guidelines recommend timing total joint replacement surgery for 4-6 months after the latest IV dose of rituximab (Rituxan), which is given every 4-6 months. For patients taking belimumab (Benlysta), time surgery anytime when weekly subcutaneous doses are administered or at week 4 when monthly IV doses are given.

The guidelines also make recommendations regarding two new drugs for the treatment of severe SLE:

• Anifrolumab (Saphnelo): Time surgery at week 4 when IV treatment is given every 4 weeks.
• Voclosporin (Lupkynis): Continue doses when they’re given twice daily.

An ACR statement cautions that there are no published, peer-reviewed data regarding the use of these two drugs prior to total joint surgery. “The medications do increase the risk of infection,” the statement says, “and therefore their use in patients with severe SLE would merit review by the treating rheumatologist in consideration of surgery.”

Timing of stopping and restarting medication

The guidelines also recommend that certain drugs be withheld for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or any type of SLE and then “restarting the antirheumatic therapy once the wound shows evidence of healing, any sutures/staples are out, there is no significant swelling, erythema, or drainage, and there is no ongoing nonsurgical site infection, which is typically about 14 days.”

In regard to biologics, “we continue to recommend withholding biologic medications in patients with inflammatory arthritis, withholding the medication for a dosing cycle prior to surgery, and scheduling the surgery after that dose would be due,” Dr. Springer said. “For example, if a patient takes the medication every 4 weeks, the patient would withhold the dose of the medication and schedule surgery in the 5th week.”

The new recommendations for biologics suggest scheduling surgery at week 5 when the interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor ixekizumab (Taltz) is given once every 4 weeks and at week 9 when the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya) is given every 8 weeks.

The guidelines also revise the previous recommendation about tofacitinib (Xeljanz): Surgery should be scheduled on day 4 when the drug is given once or twice daily. New recommendations for fellow JAK inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant, daily) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq, daily) are the same: Withhold for 3 days prior to surgery and perform surgery on the 4th day.

“We shortened the time between the last dose of JAK inhibitors and surgery to 3 days from 7 based on trial data demonstrating early flares when the drug was withheld, suggesting the immunosuppressant effect wears off sooner than we previously thought,” Dr. Springer said.

The guidelines caution that the recommendations for JAK inhibitors are for infection risk but do not consider the risk of cardiac events or venous thromboembolism.

In patients with nonsevere SLE, the guidelines revise the recommendations for mycophenolate mofetil (twice daily), cyclosporine (twice daily), and tacrolimus (twice daily, IV and oral). The new advice is to withhold the drugs for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery. New recommendations offer the same advice for belimumab, both IV and subcutaneous: Withhold for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery.

The board of the ACR approved the guidelines summary; the full manuscript has been submitted for peer review with an eye toward later publication in the journals Arthritis and Rheumatology and Arthritis Care and Research.

The ACR and AAHKS funded the guidelines. Dr. Goodman and Dr. Springer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons have released updated guidelines regarding whether to withhold drugs such as biologics and immunosuppressives for patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease who are scheduled to undergo elective total hip or knee replacement surgery.

The guidelines, published in a summary by the societies on Feb. 28, include revised and new recommendations about biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for patients with several types of inflammatory arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In general, the guidelines recommend that the most powerful medications be withheld prior to surgery except for patients whose SLE is so severe that it threatens organs. They also recommend a shorter period of withholding drugs – 3 days instead of 7 – for JAK inhibitors.
 

The previous guidelines were published in 2017.

“These recommendations seek to balance flares of disease that are likely when medications are stopped vs. the risk of infection,” Susan M. Goodman, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, and co–principal investigator of the guideline, told this news organization. “Patients and physicians may want to be either more conservative or more aggressive with their medications, depending on their personal priorities or specific medical history.”

According to Dr. Goodman, patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases are especially likely to undergo joint replacement surgery because the conditions can damage the joints. “While the introduction of potent biologics has been linked to a decrease in surgery of soft tissues and small joints, there has been little impact on large-joint surgeries,” she said.

The risk of infection in these patients is about 50% higher than in the general population, she said. However, “it is hard to determine the magnitude of the effect of withholding medications, given the low rate of infection. In fact, using pharmaco-epidemiologic methods in large Medicare databases, no difference was seen in patients whose immunosuppressant medication infusions were close to the time of surgery compared to those patients whose medication infusions were months prior to surgery.”

The guidelines add a recommendation for the first time for apremilast (Otezla), saying that when it is administered twice daily it is okay to schedule surgery at any time.

Withholding drugs in patients with SLE

“We now recommend continuing biologics used to treat SLE – rituximab and belimumab – in patients with severe SLE but continue to recommend withholding them in less severe cases where there is little risk of organ damage,” Bryan D. Springer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Charlotte, N.C., first vice president of the AAHKS, and co–principal investigator of the new guidelines, told this news organization.

In severe SLE cases, the guidelines recommend timing total joint replacement surgery for 4-6 months after the latest IV dose of rituximab (Rituxan), which is given every 4-6 months. For patients taking belimumab (Benlysta), time surgery anytime when weekly subcutaneous doses are administered or at week 4 when monthly IV doses are given.

The guidelines also make recommendations regarding two new drugs for the treatment of severe SLE:

• Anifrolumab (Saphnelo): Time surgery at week 4 when IV treatment is given every 4 weeks.
• Voclosporin (Lupkynis): Continue doses when they’re given twice daily.

An ACR statement cautions that there are no published, peer-reviewed data regarding the use of these two drugs prior to total joint surgery. “The medications do increase the risk of infection,” the statement says, “and therefore their use in patients with severe SLE would merit review by the treating rheumatologist in consideration of surgery.”

Timing of stopping and restarting medication

The guidelines also recommend that certain drugs be withheld for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or any type of SLE and then “restarting the antirheumatic therapy once the wound shows evidence of healing, any sutures/staples are out, there is no significant swelling, erythema, or drainage, and there is no ongoing nonsurgical site infection, which is typically about 14 days.”

In regard to biologics, “we continue to recommend withholding biologic medications in patients with inflammatory arthritis, withholding the medication for a dosing cycle prior to surgery, and scheduling the surgery after that dose would be due,” Dr. Springer said. “For example, if a patient takes the medication every 4 weeks, the patient would withhold the dose of the medication and schedule surgery in the 5th week.”

The new recommendations for biologics suggest scheduling surgery at week 5 when the interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor ixekizumab (Taltz) is given once every 4 weeks and at week 9 when the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya) is given every 8 weeks.

The guidelines also revise the previous recommendation about tofacitinib (Xeljanz): Surgery should be scheduled on day 4 when the drug is given once or twice daily. New recommendations for fellow JAK inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant, daily) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq, daily) are the same: Withhold for 3 days prior to surgery and perform surgery on the 4th day.

“We shortened the time between the last dose of JAK inhibitors and surgery to 3 days from 7 based on trial data demonstrating early flares when the drug was withheld, suggesting the immunosuppressant effect wears off sooner than we previously thought,” Dr. Springer said.

The guidelines caution that the recommendations for JAK inhibitors are for infection risk but do not consider the risk of cardiac events or venous thromboembolism.

In patients with nonsevere SLE, the guidelines revise the recommendations for mycophenolate mofetil (twice daily), cyclosporine (twice daily), and tacrolimus (twice daily, IV and oral). The new advice is to withhold the drugs for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery. New recommendations offer the same advice for belimumab, both IV and subcutaneous: Withhold for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery.

The board of the ACR approved the guidelines summary; the full manuscript has been submitted for peer review with an eye toward later publication in the journals Arthritis and Rheumatology and Arthritis Care and Research.

The ACR and AAHKS funded the guidelines. Dr. Goodman and Dr. Springer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons have released updated guidelines regarding whether to withhold drugs such as biologics and immunosuppressives for patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease who are scheduled to undergo elective total hip or knee replacement surgery.

The guidelines, published in a summary by the societies on Feb. 28, include revised and new recommendations about biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for patients with several types of inflammatory arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In general, the guidelines recommend that the most powerful medications be withheld prior to surgery except for patients whose SLE is so severe that it threatens organs. They also recommend a shorter period of withholding drugs – 3 days instead of 7 – for JAK inhibitors.
 

The previous guidelines were published in 2017.

“These recommendations seek to balance flares of disease that are likely when medications are stopped vs. the risk of infection,” Susan M. Goodman, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, and co–principal investigator of the guideline, told this news organization. “Patients and physicians may want to be either more conservative or more aggressive with their medications, depending on their personal priorities or specific medical history.”

According to Dr. Goodman, patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases are especially likely to undergo joint replacement surgery because the conditions can damage the joints. “While the introduction of potent biologics has been linked to a decrease in surgery of soft tissues and small joints, there has been little impact on large-joint surgeries,” she said.

The risk of infection in these patients is about 50% higher than in the general population, she said. However, “it is hard to determine the magnitude of the effect of withholding medications, given the low rate of infection. In fact, using pharmaco-epidemiologic methods in large Medicare databases, no difference was seen in patients whose immunosuppressant medication infusions were close to the time of surgery compared to those patients whose medication infusions were months prior to surgery.”

The guidelines add a recommendation for the first time for apremilast (Otezla), saying that when it is administered twice daily it is okay to schedule surgery at any time.

Withholding drugs in patients with SLE

“We now recommend continuing biologics used to treat SLE – rituximab and belimumab – in patients with severe SLE but continue to recommend withholding them in less severe cases where there is little risk of organ damage,” Bryan D. Springer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Charlotte, N.C., first vice president of the AAHKS, and co–principal investigator of the new guidelines, told this news organization.

In severe SLE cases, the guidelines recommend timing total joint replacement surgery for 4-6 months after the latest IV dose of rituximab (Rituxan), which is given every 4-6 months. For patients taking belimumab (Benlysta), time surgery anytime when weekly subcutaneous doses are administered or at week 4 when monthly IV doses are given.

The guidelines also make recommendations regarding two new drugs for the treatment of severe SLE:

• Anifrolumab (Saphnelo): Time surgery at week 4 when IV treatment is given every 4 weeks.
• Voclosporin (Lupkynis): Continue doses when they’re given twice daily.

An ACR statement cautions that there are no published, peer-reviewed data regarding the use of these two drugs prior to total joint surgery. “The medications do increase the risk of infection,” the statement says, “and therefore their use in patients with severe SLE would merit review by the treating rheumatologist in consideration of surgery.”

Timing of stopping and restarting medication

The guidelines also recommend that certain drugs be withheld for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or any type of SLE and then “restarting the antirheumatic therapy once the wound shows evidence of healing, any sutures/staples are out, there is no significant swelling, erythema, or drainage, and there is no ongoing nonsurgical site infection, which is typically about 14 days.”

In regard to biologics, “we continue to recommend withholding biologic medications in patients with inflammatory arthritis, withholding the medication for a dosing cycle prior to surgery, and scheduling the surgery after that dose would be due,” Dr. Springer said. “For example, if a patient takes the medication every 4 weeks, the patient would withhold the dose of the medication and schedule surgery in the 5th week.”

The new recommendations for biologics suggest scheduling surgery at week 5 when the interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor ixekizumab (Taltz) is given once every 4 weeks and at week 9 when the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya) is given every 8 weeks.

The guidelines also revise the previous recommendation about tofacitinib (Xeljanz): Surgery should be scheduled on day 4 when the drug is given once or twice daily. New recommendations for fellow JAK inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant, daily) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq, daily) are the same: Withhold for 3 days prior to surgery and perform surgery on the 4th day.

“We shortened the time between the last dose of JAK inhibitors and surgery to 3 days from 7 based on trial data demonstrating early flares when the drug was withheld, suggesting the immunosuppressant effect wears off sooner than we previously thought,” Dr. Springer said.

The guidelines caution that the recommendations for JAK inhibitors are for infection risk but do not consider the risk of cardiac events or venous thromboembolism.

In patients with nonsevere SLE, the guidelines revise the recommendations for mycophenolate mofetil (twice daily), cyclosporine (twice daily), and tacrolimus (twice daily, IV and oral). The new advice is to withhold the drugs for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery. New recommendations offer the same advice for belimumab, both IV and subcutaneous: Withhold for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery.

The board of the ACR approved the guidelines summary; the full manuscript has been submitted for peer review with an eye toward later publication in the journals Arthritis and Rheumatology and Arthritis Care and Research.

The ACR and AAHKS funded the guidelines. Dr. Goodman and Dr. Springer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The prevalence of metabolic syndrome varies according to how it is defined, but approximately 30% of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients met the criteria in a cohort study of 724 individuals, as did approximately 23%-63% of patients across multiple studies, investigators from Spain report.

Previous studies of people with PsA in particular suggest they are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and have a higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome, prompting recommendations on cardiovascular risk management for patients with PsA, wrote the authors, Ana Urruticoechea-Arana, MD, of the department of rheumatology, Hospital Can Misses, Ibiza, Spain, and colleagues.

However, assessing the prevalence of metabolic syndrome remains a challenge because the definition varies across studies, they noted.

For a more thorough assessment of the prevalence of metabolic syndrome in this population, the researchers conducted a study using two sources: a systematic literature review of 18 studies published up to March 2019, and data on patients with PsA enrolled in the CARMA (Spanish Cardiovascular in Rheumatology) project, a longitudinal cohort observational study of adults with inflammatory diseases in Spain. The findings were published March 1 in the Journal of Clinical Rheumatology.

The literature review included a total of a total of 2,452 patients with PsA, with a mean age between 42 and 59 years, and a mean disease duration ranging from 3 to 14 years.

The definitions of metabolic syndrome varied; the most common was the definition from the National Cholesterol Education Program (NECP ATP III). Other definitions used in the studies included those issued by the International Diabetes Federation, the World Health Organization, and the American Heart Association.

Across these studies, the rate of metabolic syndrome ranged from 23.5% to 62.9%. Prevalence was similar between men and women. One study that included patients with a PsA disease duration of only 3 years showed a prevalence of 38%, similar to the average prevalence overall. Another study showed a significantly higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome in patients with PsA and cutaneous psoriasis, compared with those without psoriasis (40.8% vs. 13.16%; P = .006).

The CARMA study included 724 patients with PsA; 45.4% were women and 21.8% were smokers. The mean age of the population in this study was 51 years, and the mean disease duration was 9 years. Overall, 222 patients (30.7%) met at least three criteria for metabolic syndrome, based on the NCEP ATP III definition. The most common abnormal findings for traditional cardiovascular risk factors in the CARMA cohort were high blood pressure (66.8%), hyperglycemia (42.6%), and hypertriglyceridemia (30.6%).

Despite the variation in prevalence of metabolic syndrome, depending on the definition used, the authors wrote, “It can be stated that the rate of [metabolic syndrome] in patients with PsA is in general very high, especially if we take into account the mean age of patients included in the studies.”

“These findings support the hypotheses that this increase in the inflammatory pathway in PsA may contribute a higher risk of cardiovascular events and [metabolic syndrome] in patients with PsA than patients with psoriasis alone, the risk being even higher in severe PsA,” and that insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and atherosclerotic events “may have a common inflammatory basis,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the results.

The study findings were limited by several factors, most importantly the variation in definitions of metabolic syndrome in the literature review, which limits the generalizability of the results, the researchers said. Limitations of the CARMA study include the focus only on patients who were being cared for in hospitals, which might yield an overestimation of metabolic syndrome, they added.

However, the results support findings from previous studies and highlight the need for proper assessment of body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with PsA at the onset of disease, they said.

“Furthermore, it is necessary to conduct more research to standardize (and modify as appropriate) the definition of [metabolic syndrome] and establish the best strategy for managing it in these patients,” they concluded.

The study was funded by an independent grant from UCB Pharma. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, UCB, Sanofi, BMS, Lilly, MSD, and Janssen. Lead author Dr. Urruticoechea-Arana and the other authors had no disclosures.

The prevalence of metabolic syndrome varies according to how it is defined, but approximately 30% of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients met the criteria in a cohort study of 724 individuals, as did approximately 23%-63% of patients across multiple studies, investigators from Spain report.

Previous studies of people with PsA in particular suggest they are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and have a higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome, prompting recommendations on cardiovascular risk management for patients with PsA, wrote the authors, Ana Urruticoechea-Arana, MD, of the department of rheumatology, Hospital Can Misses, Ibiza, Spain, and colleagues.

However, assessing the prevalence of metabolic syndrome remains a challenge because the definition varies across studies, they noted.

For a more thorough assessment of the prevalence of metabolic syndrome in this population, the researchers conducted a study using two sources: a systematic literature review of 18 studies published up to March 2019, and data on patients with PsA enrolled in the CARMA (Spanish Cardiovascular in Rheumatology) project, a longitudinal cohort observational study of adults with inflammatory diseases in Spain. The findings were published March 1 in the Journal of Clinical Rheumatology.

The literature review included a total of a total of 2,452 patients with PsA, with a mean age between 42 and 59 years, and a mean disease duration ranging from 3 to 14 years.

The definitions of metabolic syndrome varied; the most common was the definition from the National Cholesterol Education Program (NECP ATP III). Other definitions used in the studies included those issued by the International Diabetes Federation, the World Health Organization, and the American Heart Association.

Across these studies, the rate of metabolic syndrome ranged from 23.5% to 62.9%. Prevalence was similar between men and women. One study that included patients with a PsA disease duration of only 3 years showed a prevalence of 38%, similar to the average prevalence overall. Another study showed a significantly higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome in patients with PsA and cutaneous psoriasis, compared with those without psoriasis (40.8% vs. 13.16%; P = .006).

The CARMA study included 724 patients with PsA; 45.4% were women and 21.8% were smokers. The mean age of the population in this study was 51 years, and the mean disease duration was 9 years. Overall, 222 patients (30.7%) met at least three criteria for metabolic syndrome, based on the NCEP ATP III definition. The most common abnormal findings for traditional cardiovascular risk factors in the CARMA cohort were high blood pressure (66.8%), hyperglycemia (42.6%), and hypertriglyceridemia (30.6%).

Despite the variation in prevalence of metabolic syndrome, depending on the definition used, the authors wrote, “It can be stated that the rate of [metabolic syndrome] in patients with PsA is in general very high, especially if we take into account the mean age of patients included in the studies.”

“These findings support the hypotheses that this increase in the inflammatory pathway in PsA may contribute a higher risk of cardiovascular events and [metabolic syndrome] in patients with PsA than patients with psoriasis alone, the risk being even higher in severe PsA,” and that insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and atherosclerotic events “may have a common inflammatory basis,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the results.

The study findings were limited by several factors, most importantly the variation in definitions of metabolic syndrome in the literature review, which limits the generalizability of the results, the researchers said. Limitations of the CARMA study include the focus only on patients who were being cared for in hospitals, which might yield an overestimation of metabolic syndrome, they added.

However, the results support findings from previous studies and highlight the need for proper assessment of body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with PsA at the onset of disease, they said.

“Furthermore, it is necessary to conduct more research to standardize (and modify as appropriate) the definition of [metabolic syndrome] and establish the best strategy for managing it in these patients,” they concluded.

The study was funded by an independent grant from UCB Pharma. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, UCB, Sanofi, BMS, Lilly, MSD, and Janssen. Lead author Dr. Urruticoechea-Arana and the other authors had no disclosures.

The prevalence of metabolic syndrome varies according to how it is defined, but approximately 30% of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients met the criteria in a cohort study of 724 individuals, as did approximately 23%-63% of patients across multiple studies, investigators from Spain report.

Previous studies of people with PsA in particular suggest they are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and have a higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome, prompting recommendations on cardiovascular risk management for patients with PsA, wrote the authors, Ana Urruticoechea-Arana, MD, of the department of rheumatology, Hospital Can Misses, Ibiza, Spain, and colleagues.

However, assessing the prevalence of metabolic syndrome remains a challenge because the definition varies across studies, they noted.

For a more thorough assessment of the prevalence of metabolic syndrome in this population, the researchers conducted a study using two sources: a systematic literature review of 18 studies published up to March 2019, and data on patients with PsA enrolled in the CARMA (Spanish Cardiovascular in Rheumatology) project, a longitudinal cohort observational study of adults with inflammatory diseases in Spain. The findings were published March 1 in the Journal of Clinical Rheumatology.

The literature review included a total of a total of 2,452 patients with PsA, with a mean age between 42 and 59 years, and a mean disease duration ranging from 3 to 14 years.

The definitions of metabolic syndrome varied; the most common was the definition from the National Cholesterol Education Program (NECP ATP III). Other definitions used in the studies included those issued by the International Diabetes Federation, the World Health Organization, and the American Heart Association.

Across these studies, the rate of metabolic syndrome ranged from 23.5% to 62.9%. Prevalence was similar between men and women. One study that included patients with a PsA disease duration of only 3 years showed a prevalence of 38%, similar to the average prevalence overall. Another study showed a significantly higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome in patients with PsA and cutaneous psoriasis, compared with those without psoriasis (40.8% vs. 13.16%; P = .006).

The CARMA study included 724 patients with PsA; 45.4% were women and 21.8% were smokers. The mean age of the population in this study was 51 years, and the mean disease duration was 9 years. Overall, 222 patients (30.7%) met at least three criteria for metabolic syndrome, based on the NCEP ATP III definition. The most common abnormal findings for traditional cardiovascular risk factors in the CARMA cohort were high blood pressure (66.8%), hyperglycemia (42.6%), and hypertriglyceridemia (30.6%).

Despite the variation in prevalence of metabolic syndrome, depending on the definition used, the authors wrote, “It can be stated that the rate of [metabolic syndrome] in patients with PsA is in general very high, especially if we take into account the mean age of patients included in the studies.”

“These findings support the hypotheses that this increase in the inflammatory pathway in PsA may contribute a higher risk of cardiovascular events and [metabolic syndrome] in patients with PsA than patients with psoriasis alone, the risk being even higher in severe PsA,” and that insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and atherosclerotic events “may have a common inflammatory basis,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the results.

The study findings were limited by several factors, most importantly the variation in definitions of metabolic syndrome in the literature review, which limits the generalizability of the results, the researchers said. Limitations of the CARMA study include the focus only on patients who were being cared for in hospitals, which might yield an overestimation of metabolic syndrome, they added.

However, the results support findings from previous studies and highlight the need for proper assessment of body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with PsA at the onset of disease, they said.

“Furthermore, it is necessary to conduct more research to standardize (and modify as appropriate) the definition of [metabolic syndrome] and establish the best strategy for managing it in these patients,” they concluded.

The study was funded by an independent grant from UCB Pharma. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, UCB, Sanofi, BMS, Lilly, MSD, and Janssen. Lead author Dr. Urruticoechea-Arana and the other authors had no disclosures.

Prevalent cases of osteoarthritis increased significantly worldwide from 1990 to 2019, based on data from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.

OA remains a highly prevalent condition worldwide, with no nonsurgical interventions to prevent progression, wrote Huibin Long, MD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, and colleagues.

Courtesy National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS)

Data from previous studies show that the prevalence of OA varies depending on the joints involved, with the knee being most frequently affected. However, site-specific data on OA trends and disease burden across regions or territories has not been well documented, they said.

In a study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, the researchers analyzed data from the Global Burden of Disease Study, an ongoing project involving researchers in approximately 200 countries and territories to provide up-to-date information on the disease burdens of more than 350 types of diseases and injuries.

The Global Burden of Disease study for 2019 (GBD 2019) included data on age- and sex-specific incidence, prevalence, mortality, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life-years for 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories. Countries were divided into five groups based on a composite sociodemographic index (SDI) of factors including fertility, income, and educational attainment; the SDI represents the quality and availability of health care, the researchers wrote.

OA was defined as radiologically confirmed Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2-4 and pain for at least 1 month during the past 12 months.

Overall, prevalent OA cases increased by 113.25% worldwide, from 247.51 million in 1990 to 527.81 million in 2019. China had the highest number of cases in 2019 (132.81 million), followed by India (62.36 million), and the United States (51.87 million). The percentage increases for these three countries from 1990 to 2019 were 156.58%, 165.75%, and 79.63%, respectively.

To further calculate trends in OA, the researchers used age-standardized prevalence rates (ASRs). The overall ASRs increased from 6,173.38 per 100,000 individuals in 1990 to 6,348.25 per 100,000 individuals in 2019, for an estimated annual percentage change of 0.12%. The ASR of OA varied substantially across countries in 2019, with the highest level observed in the United States (9,960.88 per 100,000) and the lowest in Timor-Leste (3,768.44 per 100,000). The prevalence of OA was higher in countries with higher SDI levels, such as the United States and the Republic of Korea, and increased life expectancy may play a role, they said.

OA prevalence increased with age; the prevalence of OA among adults peaked at 60-64 years in both 1990 and 2019. The absolute number of cases rose most sharply among individuals aged 95 years and older, increasing nearly fourfold during the 30-year period. The ASR of OA was also highest for people aged 95 years or older.

As for site-specific prevalence in 2019, OA of the knee was the most common site worldwide (60.6% of cases), followed by OA of the hand (23.7%), other joint sites (10.2%), and the hip (5.5%).

The ASR of OA increased for knee, hip, and other joints, with estimated annual percentage changes of 0.32%, 0.28%, and 0.18%, respectively, but decreased by 0.36% for the hand.

OA in large joints, such as the knee and hip, is often associated with higher disease burden, the researchers said. However, this held true for only knee OA because in this study, “globally as well as in most regions and countries, joints with the main disease burden were the knee, followed by the hand, [and] other joints except spine, while OA [of the] hip contributed the least,” they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the adjustments from individual studies in the GBD and the exclusion of spinal symptoms, which might have contributed to an underestimation of disease burden, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of assessment of the effect of health systems as part of the SDI, they said.

Overall, the results support a trend of increasing OA worldwide that is expected to continue in part because of the aging global population and the ongoing epidemic of obesity, the researchers said.

“Public awareness of the modifiable risk factors, and potential education programs of prevention of disease occurrence are essential to alleviate the enormous burden of OA,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Beijing Postdoctoral Research Foundation and National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Prevalent cases of osteoarthritis increased significantly worldwide from 1990 to 2019, based on data from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.

OA remains a highly prevalent condition worldwide, with no nonsurgical interventions to prevent progression, wrote Huibin Long, MD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, and colleagues.

Courtesy National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS)

Data from previous studies show that the prevalence of OA varies depending on the joints involved, with the knee being most frequently affected. However, site-specific data on OA trends and disease burden across regions or territories has not been well documented, they said.

In a study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, the researchers analyzed data from the Global Burden of Disease Study, an ongoing project involving researchers in approximately 200 countries and territories to provide up-to-date information on the disease burdens of more than 350 types of diseases and injuries.

The Global Burden of Disease study for 2019 (GBD 2019) included data on age- and sex-specific incidence, prevalence, mortality, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life-years for 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories. Countries were divided into five groups based on a composite sociodemographic index (SDI) of factors including fertility, income, and educational attainment; the SDI represents the quality and availability of health care, the researchers wrote.

OA was defined as radiologically confirmed Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2-4 and pain for at least 1 month during the past 12 months.

Overall, prevalent OA cases increased by 113.25% worldwide, from 247.51 million in 1990 to 527.81 million in 2019. China had the highest number of cases in 2019 (132.81 million), followed by India (62.36 million), and the United States (51.87 million). The percentage increases for these three countries from 1990 to 2019 were 156.58%, 165.75%, and 79.63%, respectively.

To further calculate trends in OA, the researchers used age-standardized prevalence rates (ASRs). The overall ASRs increased from 6,173.38 per 100,000 individuals in 1990 to 6,348.25 per 100,000 individuals in 2019, for an estimated annual percentage change of 0.12%. The ASR of OA varied substantially across countries in 2019, with the highest level observed in the United States (9,960.88 per 100,000) and the lowest in Timor-Leste (3,768.44 per 100,000). The prevalence of OA was higher in countries with higher SDI levels, such as the United States and the Republic of Korea, and increased life expectancy may play a role, they said.

OA prevalence increased with age; the prevalence of OA among adults peaked at 60-64 years in both 1990 and 2019. The absolute number of cases rose most sharply among individuals aged 95 years and older, increasing nearly fourfold during the 30-year period. The ASR of OA was also highest for people aged 95 years or older.

As for site-specific prevalence in 2019, OA of the knee was the most common site worldwide (60.6% of cases), followed by OA of the hand (23.7%), other joint sites (10.2%), and the hip (5.5%).

The ASR of OA increased for knee, hip, and other joints, with estimated annual percentage changes of 0.32%, 0.28%, and 0.18%, respectively, but decreased by 0.36% for the hand.

OA in large joints, such as the knee and hip, is often associated with higher disease burden, the researchers said. However, this held true for only knee OA because in this study, “globally as well as in most regions and countries, joints with the main disease burden were the knee, followed by the hand, [and] other joints except spine, while OA [of the] hip contributed the least,” they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the adjustments from individual studies in the GBD and the exclusion of spinal symptoms, which might have contributed to an underestimation of disease burden, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of assessment of the effect of health systems as part of the SDI, they said.

Overall, the results support a trend of increasing OA worldwide that is expected to continue in part because of the aging global population and the ongoing epidemic of obesity, the researchers said.

“Public awareness of the modifiable risk factors, and potential education programs of prevention of disease occurrence are essential to alleviate the enormous burden of OA,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Beijing Postdoctoral Research Foundation and National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Prevalent cases of osteoarthritis increased significantly worldwide from 1990 to 2019, based on data from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.

OA remains a highly prevalent condition worldwide, with no nonsurgical interventions to prevent progression, wrote Huibin Long, MD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, and colleagues.

Courtesy National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS)

Data from previous studies show that the prevalence of OA varies depending on the joints involved, with the knee being most frequently affected. However, site-specific data on OA trends and disease burden across regions or territories has not been well documented, they said.

In a study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, the researchers analyzed data from the Global Burden of Disease Study, an ongoing project involving researchers in approximately 200 countries and territories to provide up-to-date information on the disease burdens of more than 350 types of diseases and injuries.

The Global Burden of Disease study for 2019 (GBD 2019) included data on age- and sex-specific incidence, prevalence, mortality, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life-years for 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories. Countries were divided into five groups based on a composite sociodemographic index (SDI) of factors including fertility, income, and educational attainment; the SDI represents the quality and availability of health care, the researchers wrote.

OA was defined as radiologically confirmed Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2-4 and pain for at least 1 month during the past 12 months.

Overall, prevalent OA cases increased by 113.25% worldwide, from 247.51 million in 1990 to 527.81 million in 2019. China had the highest number of cases in 2019 (132.81 million), followed by India (62.36 million), and the United States (51.87 million). The percentage increases for these three countries from 1990 to 2019 were 156.58%, 165.75%, and 79.63%, respectively.

To further calculate trends in OA, the researchers used age-standardized prevalence rates (ASRs). The overall ASRs increased from 6,173.38 per 100,000 individuals in 1990 to 6,348.25 per 100,000 individuals in 2019, for an estimated annual percentage change of 0.12%. The ASR of OA varied substantially across countries in 2019, with the highest level observed in the United States (9,960.88 per 100,000) and the lowest in Timor-Leste (3,768.44 per 100,000). The prevalence of OA was higher in countries with higher SDI levels, such as the United States and the Republic of Korea, and increased life expectancy may play a role, they said.

OA prevalence increased with age; the prevalence of OA among adults peaked at 60-64 years in both 1990 and 2019. The absolute number of cases rose most sharply among individuals aged 95 years and older, increasing nearly fourfold during the 30-year period. The ASR of OA was also highest for people aged 95 years or older.

As for site-specific prevalence in 2019, OA of the knee was the most common site worldwide (60.6% of cases), followed by OA of the hand (23.7%), other joint sites (10.2%), and the hip (5.5%).

The ASR of OA increased for knee, hip, and other joints, with estimated annual percentage changes of 0.32%, 0.28%, and 0.18%, respectively, but decreased by 0.36% for the hand.

OA in large joints, such as the knee and hip, is often associated with higher disease burden, the researchers said. However, this held true for only knee OA because in this study, “globally as well as in most regions and countries, joints with the main disease burden were the knee, followed by the hand, [and] other joints except spine, while OA [of the] hip contributed the least,” they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the adjustments from individual studies in the GBD and the exclusion of spinal symptoms, which might have contributed to an underestimation of disease burden, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of assessment of the effect of health systems as part of the SDI, they said.

Overall, the results support a trend of increasing OA worldwide that is expected to continue in part because of the aging global population and the ongoing epidemic of obesity, the researchers said.

“Public awareness of the modifiable risk factors, and potential education programs of prevention of disease occurrence are essential to alleviate the enormous burden of OA,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Beijing Postdoctoral Research Foundation and National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Four years ago, I was fully employed in a “traditional” rheumatology clinic. I met Alan, a 42-year-old gentleman who was a high school math teacher in my town. He was the first patient on my panel that day. Once I entered the examining room, Alan greeted me with: “You are the third rheumatologist who I have consulted for what everybody believes is fibromyalgia. I am paying out of pocket to see you as you are not on my insurance panel. I have researched your background, and I have high expectations of you.” He was cutting to the chase.

Alan had struggled with pain for about 1½ years. He insisted that he was very healthy before his symptoms started abruptly. In the past 2 years, his personal life had been under much stress as he was caring for a disabled child and facing an imminent divorce. While his symptoms were suggestive of an inflammatory arthritis, his workup was not. Unfortunately, the allocated time with Alan was 15 minutes – too short to cover both medical and personal struggles. Meanwhile, my nurses had to room in another two patients. I felt rushed and responsible for not letting the others wait. I asked Alan to keep a diary of his symptoms and come back in 2 weeks. A few minutes after discharging Alan, my nurse followed and asked me: “Where would you like me to add this patient, as you have no openings for 4 months ?”

“Overbook him!” I said.

This was happening almost every day. Scheduled patients, overbooked patients, tens of emails, calls to patients, and fights with insurance companies to approve tests and medications. Nearly every day I was getting home, preparing dinner, feeding my family, and going back to writing notes, as I would be financially penalized if my notes were not submitted in 24-48 hours. I had no time for my family and didn’t even think about any hobbies.

In 2 weeks, Alan came back for his visit. That day, I paid someone to take my kids to school and came to my office earlier. We had 1 hour to talk about his history. At the end of the visit, Alan said: “What kind of doctor are you? You looked into my eyes while I was talking, and you didn’t touch the computer keyboard?!” His remark was not uncommon for me. Most patients complain that physicians spend more time typing than looking at them. Maybe patients do not realize, but this is the only way that physicians get paid: writing the “proper notes” and placing the correct billing code.

Alan was diagnosed and treated successfully for seronegative rheumatoid arthritis. In 1 year, paying out of pocket to see me, he ended up spending many, many thousands of dollars. As you can imagine, I was not in control of those bills.

After 4 years in the traditional system, I decided to change something for my patients and for myself as their physician, and as a mother of three kids, a wife, a daughter, and a sister.

I decided to create a clinic where I am comfortable practicing “uncomplicated” medicine, as a friend of mine said. Today, insurance companies are restricting patients to limited panels of specialists. They dictate patients’ care, giving the false impression that they will save money. Insurance companies interfere with the physician’s medical judgment. They make algorithms to approve tests and have preferred lists of medication. They decide whether a test or a medication is appropriate for you. In addition, they don’t disclose how much they pay for your consultation, tests, and medication, and they ban the contracted parties from disclosing this information. They force patients to use their testing facilities and mailing pharmacies. Although patients and employers are the payers, they do not have access to their insurance companies’ “real” prices.

I decided that it was time to take control of my time spent with patients to make my services available when patients need me, without becoming a financial burden. I created a clinic where patients do not have copayments and will never receive a “surprise bill.” All costs are transparent to patients, including laboratory and imaging tests. Patients can talk to me on the phone, send a text, or email. A clinic where patients can talk to the physician on the phone or send a text or email? This is direct specialty care.

Is direct care a new concept? No, not at all. Is direct care the same as concierge medicine? I think it is a type of concierge service, but without the price tag.

Why?

Physicians practicing the traditional concierge medicine model here in the United States still bill patients’ insurance. In addition, to make their practice profitable, they charge a retainer fee that will allow them to keep a small patient panel. In contrast, direct care specialists do not have a contract with insurance companies.

I believe that both concierge medicine and direct care specialists offer exceptional care and better access to physicians. The difference is in costs: One is more expensive than the other. Traditional concierge medicine practices usually ask for high retainer fees in addition to copayments for visits. They do not offer any access to discounted pricing for laboratory or imaging tests. Patients continue to receive surprise bills from their insurance company.

Why don’t direct specialty care practices contract with insurance companies? Contracting with insurance companies increases a practice’s overhead costs (as more money is spent on coding and billing services and more office staff). When practice overhead is lower, the cost of patient care can be significantly lower. Patients pay a monthly membership to become a direct specialty care practice member. The membership covers the cost of visits and access to the benefits of the practice. In addition, direct care specialists do not charge copayments or send surprise bills. They can contract directly with laboratory and imaging centers and offer discounted prices. Patients with insurance are welcome to use it to cover tests, imaging, and medication. The patient has the power to choose between paying a cash price versus a “covered” service.

Most young patients, like Alan, have a high-deductible plan. A few regular blood tests might cost a patient hundreds of dollars before meeting a deductible. One MRI scan costs $4,000-$6,000. Patients who join a direct specialty care practice pay $30-$40 for regular labs and $400-$500 for an MRI.

I am now 2 years into practicing medicine as a direct care specialist. It is not a dream anymore. Yes, you may call it “concierge medicine without the price tag.” I call it “direct specialty care.” My patients and I are both accountable to one another. Together, we make a plan, and we have the time to implement it.

I am not alone. Other specialists are embracing this model. That is why we created the Direct Specialty Care Alliance, a place where physicians are welcome to network and share with others what they have learned along their journeys.

After I started my company, Alan was one of the first patients to join. He embraced my practice model and became one of the ambassadors of the direct specialty care movement. He is back to a normal life of taking care of his family, getting his wife back, and teaching math to high school kids.

Dr Girnita is the CEO and founder of RheumatologistOnCall, actively seeing patients via telemedicine in 10 U.S. states. She is an advocate for digital health and telemedicine that will empower physicians and patients to take charge of their medical care. She is a cofounder of the Direct Specialty Care Alliance. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Four years ago, I was fully employed in a “traditional” rheumatology clinic. I met Alan, a 42-year-old gentleman who was a high school math teacher in my town. He was the first patient on my panel that day. Once I entered the examining room, Alan greeted me with: “You are the third rheumatologist who I have consulted for what everybody believes is fibromyalgia. I am paying out of pocket to see you as you are not on my insurance panel. I have researched your background, and I have high expectations of you.” He was cutting to the chase.

Alan had struggled with pain for about 1½ years. He insisted that he was very healthy before his symptoms started abruptly. In the past 2 years, his personal life had been under much stress as he was caring for a disabled child and facing an imminent divorce. While his symptoms were suggestive of an inflammatory arthritis, his workup was not. Unfortunately, the allocated time with Alan was 15 minutes – too short to cover both medical and personal struggles. Meanwhile, my nurses had to room in another two patients. I felt rushed and responsible for not letting the others wait. I asked Alan to keep a diary of his symptoms and come back in 2 weeks. A few minutes after discharging Alan, my nurse followed and asked me: “Where would you like me to add this patient, as you have no openings for 4 months ?”

“Overbook him!” I said.

This was happening almost every day. Scheduled patients, overbooked patients, tens of emails, calls to patients, and fights with insurance companies to approve tests and medications. Nearly every day I was getting home, preparing dinner, feeding my family, and going back to writing notes, as I would be financially penalized if my notes were not submitted in 24-48 hours. I had no time for my family and didn’t even think about any hobbies.

In 2 weeks, Alan came back for his visit. That day, I paid someone to take my kids to school and came to my office earlier. We had 1 hour to talk about his history. At the end of the visit, Alan said: “What kind of doctor are you? You looked into my eyes while I was talking, and you didn’t touch the computer keyboard?!” His remark was not uncommon for me. Most patients complain that physicians spend more time typing than looking at them. Maybe patients do not realize, but this is the only way that physicians get paid: writing the “proper notes” and placing the correct billing code.

Alan was diagnosed and treated successfully for seronegative rheumatoid arthritis. In 1 year, paying out of pocket to see me, he ended up spending many, many thousands of dollars. As you can imagine, I was not in control of those bills.

After 4 years in the traditional system, I decided to change something for my patients and for myself as their physician, and as a mother of three kids, a wife, a daughter, and a sister.

I decided to create a clinic where I am comfortable practicing “uncomplicated” medicine, as a friend of mine said. Today, insurance companies are restricting patients to limited panels of specialists. They dictate patients’ care, giving the false impression that they will save money. Insurance companies interfere with the physician’s medical judgment. They make algorithms to approve tests and have preferred lists of medication. They decide whether a test or a medication is appropriate for you. In addition, they don’t disclose how much they pay for your consultation, tests, and medication, and they ban the contracted parties from disclosing this information. They force patients to use their testing facilities and mailing pharmacies. Although patients and employers are the payers, they do not have access to their insurance companies’ “real” prices.

I decided that it was time to take control of my time spent with patients to make my services available when patients need me, without becoming a financial burden. I created a clinic where patients do not have copayments and will never receive a “surprise bill.” All costs are transparent to patients, including laboratory and imaging tests. Patients can talk to me on the phone, send a text, or email. A clinic where patients can talk to the physician on the phone or send a text or email? This is direct specialty care.

Is direct care a new concept? No, not at all. Is direct care the same as concierge medicine? I think it is a type of concierge service, but without the price tag.

Why?

Physicians practicing the traditional concierge medicine model here in the United States still bill patients’ insurance. In addition, to make their practice profitable, they charge a retainer fee that will allow them to keep a small patient panel. In contrast, direct care specialists do not have a contract with insurance companies.

I believe that both concierge medicine and direct care specialists offer exceptional care and better access to physicians. The difference is in costs: One is more expensive than the other. Traditional concierge medicine practices usually ask for high retainer fees in addition to copayments for visits. They do not offer any access to discounted pricing for laboratory or imaging tests. Patients continue to receive surprise bills from their insurance company.

Why don’t direct specialty care practices contract with insurance companies? Contracting with insurance companies increases a practice’s overhead costs (as more money is spent on coding and billing services and more office staff). When practice overhead is lower, the cost of patient care can be significantly lower. Patients pay a monthly membership to become a direct specialty care practice member. The membership covers the cost of visits and access to the benefits of the practice. In addition, direct care specialists do not charge copayments or send surprise bills. They can contract directly with laboratory and imaging centers and offer discounted prices. Patients with insurance are welcome to use it to cover tests, imaging, and medication. The patient has the power to choose between paying a cash price versus a “covered” service.

Most young patients, like Alan, have a high-deductible plan. A few regular blood tests might cost a patient hundreds of dollars before meeting a deductible. One MRI scan costs $4,000-$6,000. Patients who join a direct specialty care practice pay $30-$40 for regular labs and $400-$500 for an MRI.

I am now 2 years into practicing medicine as a direct care specialist. It is not a dream anymore. Yes, you may call it “concierge medicine without the price tag.” I call it “direct specialty care.” My patients and I are both accountable to one another. Together, we make a plan, and we have the time to implement it.

I am not alone. Other specialists are embracing this model. That is why we created the Direct Specialty Care Alliance, a place where physicians are welcome to network and share with others what they have learned along their journeys.

After I started my company, Alan was one of the first patients to join. He embraced my practice model and became one of the ambassadors of the direct specialty care movement. He is back to a normal life of taking care of his family, getting his wife back, and teaching math to high school kids.

Dr Girnita is the CEO and founder of RheumatologistOnCall, actively seeing patients via telemedicine in 10 U.S. states. She is an advocate for digital health and telemedicine that will empower physicians and patients to take charge of their medical care. She is a cofounder of the Direct Specialty Care Alliance. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Four years ago, I was fully employed in a “traditional” rheumatology clinic. I met Alan, a 42-year-old gentleman who was a high school math teacher in my town. He was the first patient on my panel that day. Once I entered the examining room, Alan greeted me with: “You are the third rheumatologist who I have consulted for what everybody believes is fibromyalgia. I am paying out of pocket to see you as you are not on my insurance panel. I have researched your background, and I have high expectations of you.” He was cutting to the chase.

Alan had struggled with pain for about 1½ years. He insisted that he was very healthy before his symptoms started abruptly. In the past 2 years, his personal life had been under much stress as he was caring for a disabled child and facing an imminent divorce. While his symptoms were suggestive of an inflammatory arthritis, his workup was not. Unfortunately, the allocated time with Alan was 15 minutes – too short to cover both medical and personal struggles. Meanwhile, my nurses had to room in another two patients. I felt rushed and responsible for not letting the others wait. I asked Alan to keep a diary of his symptoms and come back in 2 weeks. A few minutes after discharging Alan, my nurse followed and asked me: “Where would you like me to add this patient, as you have no openings for 4 months ?”

“Overbook him!” I said.

This was happening almost every day. Scheduled patients, overbooked patients, tens of emails, calls to patients, and fights with insurance companies to approve tests and medications. Nearly every day I was getting home, preparing dinner, feeding my family, and going back to writing notes, as I would be financially penalized if my notes were not submitted in 24-48 hours. I had no time for my family and didn’t even think about any hobbies.

In 2 weeks, Alan came back for his visit. That day, I paid someone to take my kids to school and came to my office earlier. We had 1 hour to talk about his history. At the end of the visit, Alan said: “What kind of doctor are you? You looked into my eyes while I was talking, and you didn’t touch the computer keyboard?!” His remark was not uncommon for me. Most patients complain that physicians spend more time typing than looking at them. Maybe patients do not realize, but this is the only way that physicians get paid: writing the “proper notes” and placing the correct billing code.

Alan was diagnosed and treated successfully for seronegative rheumatoid arthritis. In 1 year, paying out of pocket to see me, he ended up spending many, many thousands of dollars. As you can imagine, I was not in control of those bills.

After 4 years in the traditional system, I decided to change something for my patients and for myself as their physician, and as a mother of three kids, a wife, a daughter, and a sister.

I decided to create a clinic where I am comfortable practicing “uncomplicated” medicine, as a friend of mine said. Today, insurance companies are restricting patients to limited panels of specialists. They dictate patients’ care, giving the false impression that they will save money. Insurance companies interfere with the physician’s medical judgment. They make algorithms to approve tests and have preferred lists of medication. They decide whether a test or a medication is appropriate for you. In addition, they don’t disclose how much they pay for your consultation, tests, and medication, and they ban the contracted parties from disclosing this information. They force patients to use their testing facilities and mailing pharmacies. Although patients and employers are the payers, they do not have access to their insurance companies’ “real” prices.

I decided that it was time to take control of my time spent with patients to make my services available when patients need me, without becoming a financial burden. I created a clinic where patients do not have copayments and will never receive a “surprise bill.” All costs are transparent to patients, including laboratory and imaging tests. Patients can talk to me on the phone, send a text, or email. A clinic where patients can talk to the physician on the phone or send a text or email? This is direct specialty care.

Is direct care a new concept? No, not at all. Is direct care the same as concierge medicine? I think it is a type of concierge service, but without the price tag.

Why?

Physicians practicing the traditional concierge medicine model here in the United States still bill patients’ insurance. In addition, to make their practice profitable, they charge a retainer fee that will allow them to keep a small patient panel. In contrast, direct care specialists do not have a contract with insurance companies.

I believe that both concierge medicine and direct care specialists offer exceptional care and better access to physicians. The difference is in costs: One is more expensive than the other. Traditional concierge medicine practices usually ask for high retainer fees in addition to copayments for visits. They do not offer any access to discounted pricing for laboratory or imaging tests. Patients continue to receive surprise bills from their insurance company.

Why don’t direct specialty care practices contract with insurance companies? Contracting with insurance companies increases a practice’s overhead costs (as more money is spent on coding and billing services and more office staff). When practice overhead is lower, the cost of patient care can be significantly lower. Patients pay a monthly membership to become a direct specialty care practice member. The membership covers the cost of visits and access to the benefits of the practice. In addition, direct care specialists do not charge copayments or send surprise bills. They can contract directly with laboratory and imaging centers and offer discounted prices. Patients with insurance are welcome to use it to cover tests, imaging, and medication. The patient has the power to choose between paying a cash price versus a “covered” service.

Most young patients, like Alan, have a high-deductible plan. A few regular blood tests might cost a patient hundreds of dollars before meeting a deductible. One MRI scan costs $4,000-$6,000. Patients who join a direct specialty care practice pay $30-$40 for regular labs and $400-$500 for an MRI.

I am now 2 years into practicing medicine as a direct care specialist. It is not a dream anymore. Yes, you may call it “concierge medicine without the price tag.” I call it “direct specialty care.” My patients and I are both accountable to one another. Together, we make a plan, and we have the time to implement it.

I am not alone. Other specialists are embracing this model. That is why we created the Direct Specialty Care Alliance, a place where physicians are welcome to network and share with others what they have learned along their journeys.

After I started my company, Alan was one of the first patients to join. He embraced my practice model and became one of the ambassadors of the direct specialty care movement. He is back to a normal life of taking care of his family, getting his wife back, and teaching math to high school kids.

Dr Girnita is the CEO and founder of RheumatologistOnCall, actively seeing patients via telemedicine in 10 U.S. states. She is an advocate for digital health and telemedicine that will empower physicians and patients to take charge of their medical care. She is a cofounder of the Direct Specialty Care Alliance. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Although there is a lack of evidence for use of cannabidiol (CBD) products and cannabis in rheumatology, many patients are using them anyway and want to discuss the use of these products with their rheumatologists, according to a speaker at the 2022 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

While cannabis is still regulated as a Schedule I drug in the United States, CBD products are “all over the place,” Orrin Troum, MD, a rheumatologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in his presentation. “You can get it at the pharmacy; you can get it at the dispensaries.”

Patients in rheumatology are also increasingly using cannabis across the United States, Dr. Troum said. In an abstract from the 2019 American College of Rheumatology annual meeting, researchers examined data from FORWARD, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, and found 17.6% of 11,006 respondents reported using cannabis in 2017, an increase from 6.3% of respondents in 2014.

“Putting your personal biases aside, you have to be able to discuss this, and I try to do that openly with my patients,” he said.

According to a 2018 report from the World Health Organization, CBD is “generally well tolerated with a good safety profile.” While CBD itself is safe, CBD products offered over the counter as pills, lotions, foods, drinks, shampoos, cosmetics, oils, and other products carry the risk of being manufactured with “unverified contents” because they are not subject to regulatory oversight.

“There may be heavy metals, pesticides, microbes, [and] mycotoxins that are in these substances that you’re recommending to patients,” Dr. Troum said. There may also be tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in certain CBD products, he added. Other concerns about CBD products include potential drug-drug interactions with medications used in rheumatology, and potential inhibition of drug metabolism through the CYP450 pathway.

Rheumatologists should be careful when recommending CBD products for this reason, Dr. Troum cautioned. In the absence of products approved by the Food and Drug Administration, “try to get at least products that have a good manufacturing practices certification.”

RWCS 2022 screenshot

Dr. Troum highlighted the additional problem of dispensaries recommending specific products, and emphasized that treatment shouldn’t be managed by dispensary personnel without a medical background. “Our patients are being promoted this, either from the dispensaries or even in some clinicians’ offices, without the real true knowledge as to what we’re dealing with,” he said.
 

Evidence of health effects of CBD, cannabis

When it comes to actual evidence of clinical benefit, “I can tell you there’s lacking data for the majority of what we’re being asked every day in our practices,” Dr. Troum said.

The greatest evidence for the health benefits of cannabinoids appears to be for chronic pain, according to a 2017 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Within rheumatology, a position statement released by the Canadian Rheumatology Association in 2019 found insufficient evidence to recommend cannabinoids for use in fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, RA, or back pain, but acknowledged medical cannabis may relieve symptoms based on evidence from other conditions.

There is some preliminary evidence that cannabis can be used as a substitute for opioids when treating chronic pain, to improve symptoms of fibromyalgia and inflammatory bowel disease, and although a trial of patients with Crohn’s disease failed its primary outcome of disease remission, 10 of 11 patients who smoked cigarettes with THC saw significant improvements in clinical outcomes (P = .028).

In RA, “clinical research focusing on the cannabinoids’ disease-modifying qualities is still lacking,” Dr. Troum said, although an active randomized, controlled trial led by researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, is testing patients for clinical response to CBD. A separate randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in Denmark is evaluating whether CBD, followed by open-label add-on of THC, improves chronic pain for patients with RA or ankylosing spondylitis.

The lack of data in this area largely has to do with how cannabis is regulated at the federal level and the differing regulations between U.S. states. “There’s a lot of hurdles you have to go through, and therefore, I think, really has decreased the availability of good studies,” he said.

Overarching principles for medical cannabis in rheumatology

For the rheumatologist counseling a patient who either is self-medicating or wants to start using medical cannabis, the Canadian Rheumatology Association created overarching principles as part of their position statement to guide decision-making for clinicians.

First, clinicians should know that cannabis shouldn’t be used as an alternative treatment for standard of care in rheumatology, and the CRA noted that patients aged under 25 years should not use cannabis. CRA also recommended that clinicians try currently available treatment strategies for common reasons patients seek to use medical cannabis, such as pain relief or a sleep aid, before attempting to use medical cannabis. The CRA noted long-term effects of medical cannabis are not known for patients with rheumatic diseases.

In an interview, Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and director of RWCS, said that CBD and cannabis “come up quite frequently” at his clinic. “Many patients have already tried CBD, especially the topical formulation, prior to discussing it with me. In general, I do not dissuade patients from trying CBD, especially topical.”

Typically, he said his practice situation gives him access to a counselor from the anesthesia department with “significant expertise” in dosing and formulations. “It would be great if there were proper controlled trials of specific formulations to allow us to have real scientific data that may help the patients make optimal choices.”

One issue that is brought up by patients is cost. “These preparations can be relatively expensive,” Dr. Kavanaugh said, but noted that this is also a consideration when patients decide to use any therapy.

Dr. Troum reported having financial relationships with eight pharmaceutical companies.

Although there is a lack of evidence for use of cannabidiol (CBD) products and cannabis in rheumatology, many patients are using them anyway and want to discuss the use of these products with their rheumatologists, according to a speaker at the 2022 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

While cannabis is still regulated as a Schedule I drug in the United States, CBD products are “all over the place,” Orrin Troum, MD, a rheumatologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in his presentation. “You can get it at the pharmacy; you can get it at the dispensaries.”

Patients in rheumatology are also increasingly using cannabis across the United States, Dr. Troum said. In an abstract from the 2019 American College of Rheumatology annual meeting, researchers examined data from FORWARD, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, and found 17.6% of 11,006 respondents reported using cannabis in 2017, an increase from 6.3% of respondents in 2014.

“Putting your personal biases aside, you have to be able to discuss this, and I try to do that openly with my patients,” he said.

According to a 2018 report from the World Health Organization, CBD is “generally well tolerated with a good safety profile.” While CBD itself is safe, CBD products offered over the counter as pills, lotions, foods, drinks, shampoos, cosmetics, oils, and other products carry the risk of being manufactured with “unverified contents” because they are not subject to regulatory oversight.

“There may be heavy metals, pesticides, microbes, [and] mycotoxins that are in these substances that you’re recommending to patients,” Dr. Troum said. There may also be tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in certain CBD products, he added. Other concerns about CBD products include potential drug-drug interactions with medications used in rheumatology, and potential inhibition of drug metabolism through the CYP450 pathway.

Rheumatologists should be careful when recommending CBD products for this reason, Dr. Troum cautioned. In the absence of products approved by the Food and Drug Administration, “try to get at least products that have a good manufacturing practices certification.”

RWCS 2022 screenshot

Dr. Troum highlighted the additional problem of dispensaries recommending specific products, and emphasized that treatment shouldn’t be managed by dispensary personnel without a medical background. “Our patients are being promoted this, either from the dispensaries or even in some clinicians’ offices, without the real true knowledge as to what we’re dealing with,” he said.
 

Evidence of health effects of CBD, cannabis

When it comes to actual evidence of clinical benefit, “I can tell you there’s lacking data for the majority of what we’re being asked every day in our practices,” Dr. Troum said.

The greatest evidence for the health benefits of cannabinoids appears to be for chronic pain, according to a 2017 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Within rheumatology, a position statement released by the Canadian Rheumatology Association in 2019 found insufficient evidence to recommend cannabinoids for use in fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, RA, or back pain, but acknowledged medical cannabis may relieve symptoms based on evidence from other conditions.

There is some preliminary evidence that cannabis can be used as a substitute for opioids when treating chronic pain, to improve symptoms of fibromyalgia and inflammatory bowel disease, and although a trial of patients with Crohn’s disease failed its primary outcome of disease remission, 10 of 11 patients who smoked cigarettes with THC saw significant improvements in clinical outcomes (P = .028).

In RA, “clinical research focusing on the cannabinoids’ disease-modifying qualities is still lacking,” Dr. Troum said, although an active randomized, controlled trial led by researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, is testing patients for clinical response to CBD. A separate randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in Denmark is evaluating whether CBD, followed by open-label add-on of THC, improves chronic pain for patients with RA or ankylosing spondylitis.

The lack of data in this area largely has to do with how cannabis is regulated at the federal level and the differing regulations between U.S. states. “There’s a lot of hurdles you have to go through, and therefore, I think, really has decreased the availability of good studies,” he said.

Overarching principles for medical cannabis in rheumatology

For the rheumatologist counseling a patient who either is self-medicating or wants to start using medical cannabis, the Canadian Rheumatology Association created overarching principles as part of their position statement to guide decision-making for clinicians.

First, clinicians should know that cannabis shouldn’t be used as an alternative treatment for standard of care in rheumatology, and the CRA noted that patients aged under 25 years should not use cannabis. CRA also recommended that clinicians try currently available treatment strategies for common reasons patients seek to use medical cannabis, such as pain relief or a sleep aid, before attempting to use medical cannabis. The CRA noted long-term effects of medical cannabis are not known for patients with rheumatic diseases.

In an interview, Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and director of RWCS, said that CBD and cannabis “come up quite frequently” at his clinic. “Many patients have already tried CBD, especially the topical formulation, prior to discussing it with me. In general, I do not dissuade patients from trying CBD, especially topical.”

Typically, he said his practice situation gives him access to a counselor from the anesthesia department with “significant expertise” in dosing and formulations. “It would be great if there were proper controlled trials of specific formulations to allow us to have real scientific data that may help the patients make optimal choices.”

One issue that is brought up by patients is cost. “These preparations can be relatively expensive,” Dr. Kavanaugh said, but noted that this is also a consideration when patients decide to use any therapy.

Dr. Troum reported having financial relationships with eight pharmaceutical companies.

Although there is a lack of evidence for use of cannabidiol (CBD) products and cannabis in rheumatology, many patients are using them anyway and want to discuss the use of these products with their rheumatologists, according to a speaker at the 2022 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

While cannabis is still regulated as a Schedule I drug in the United States, CBD products are “all over the place,” Orrin Troum, MD, a rheumatologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in his presentation. “You can get it at the pharmacy; you can get it at the dispensaries.”

Patients in rheumatology are also increasingly using cannabis across the United States, Dr. Troum said. In an abstract from the 2019 American College of Rheumatology annual meeting, researchers examined data from FORWARD, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, and found 17.6% of 11,006 respondents reported using cannabis in 2017, an increase from 6.3% of respondents in 2014.

“Putting your personal biases aside, you have to be able to discuss this, and I try to do that openly with my patients,” he said.

According to a 2018 report from the World Health Organization, CBD is “generally well tolerated with a good safety profile.” While CBD itself is safe, CBD products offered over the counter as pills, lotions, foods, drinks, shampoos, cosmetics, oils, and other products carry the risk of being manufactured with “unverified contents” because they are not subject to regulatory oversight.

“There may be heavy metals, pesticides, microbes, [and] mycotoxins that are in these substances that you’re recommending to patients,” Dr. Troum said. There may also be tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in certain CBD products, he added. Other concerns about CBD products include potential drug-drug interactions with medications used in rheumatology, and potential inhibition of drug metabolism through the CYP450 pathway.

Rheumatologists should be careful when recommending CBD products for this reason, Dr. Troum cautioned. In the absence of products approved by the Food and Drug Administration, “try to get at least products that have a good manufacturing practices certification.”

RWCS 2022 screenshot

Dr. Troum highlighted the additional problem of dispensaries recommending specific products, and emphasized that treatment shouldn’t be managed by dispensary personnel without a medical background. “Our patients are being promoted this, either from the dispensaries or even in some clinicians’ offices, without the real true knowledge as to what we’re dealing with,” he said.
 

Evidence of health effects of CBD, cannabis

When it comes to actual evidence of clinical benefit, “I can tell you there’s lacking data for the majority of what we’re being asked every day in our practices,” Dr. Troum said.

The greatest evidence for the health benefits of cannabinoids appears to be for chronic pain, according to a 2017 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Within rheumatology, a position statement released by the Canadian Rheumatology Association in 2019 found insufficient evidence to recommend cannabinoids for use in fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, RA, or back pain, but acknowledged medical cannabis may relieve symptoms based on evidence from other conditions.

There is some preliminary evidence that cannabis can be used as a substitute for opioids when treating chronic pain, to improve symptoms of fibromyalgia and inflammatory bowel disease, and although a trial of patients with Crohn’s disease failed its primary outcome of disease remission, 10 of 11 patients who smoked cigarettes with THC saw significant improvements in clinical outcomes (P = .028).

In RA, “clinical research focusing on the cannabinoids’ disease-modifying qualities is still lacking,” Dr. Troum said, although an active randomized, controlled trial led by researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, is testing patients for clinical response to CBD. A separate randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in Denmark is evaluating whether CBD, followed by open-label add-on of THC, improves chronic pain for patients with RA or ankylosing spondylitis.

The lack of data in this area largely has to do with how cannabis is regulated at the federal level and the differing regulations between U.S. states. “There’s a lot of hurdles you have to go through, and therefore, I think, really has decreased the availability of good studies,” he said.

Overarching principles for medical cannabis in rheumatology

For the rheumatologist counseling a patient who either is self-medicating or wants to start using medical cannabis, the Canadian Rheumatology Association created overarching principles as part of their position statement to guide decision-making for clinicians.

First, clinicians should know that cannabis shouldn’t be used as an alternative treatment for standard of care in rheumatology, and the CRA noted that patients aged under 25 years should not use cannabis. CRA also recommended that clinicians try currently available treatment strategies for common reasons patients seek to use medical cannabis, such as pain relief or a sleep aid, before attempting to use medical cannabis. The CRA noted long-term effects of medical cannabis are not known for patients with rheumatic diseases.

In an interview, Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and director of RWCS, said that CBD and cannabis “come up quite frequently” at his clinic. “Many patients have already tried CBD, especially the topical formulation, prior to discussing it with me. In general, I do not dissuade patients from trying CBD, especially topical.”

Typically, he said his practice situation gives him access to a counselor from the anesthesia department with “significant expertise” in dosing and formulations. “It would be great if there were proper controlled trials of specific formulations to allow us to have real scientific data that may help the patients make optimal choices.”

One issue that is brought up by patients is cost. “These preparations can be relatively expensive,” Dr. Kavanaugh said, but noted that this is also a consideration when patients decide to use any therapy.

Dr. Troum reported having financial relationships with eight pharmaceutical companies.

New recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology provide both broad and detailed advice for cardiovascular risk management in various rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), many of which can lead to an increased possibility of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

“The panel believes that these recommendations will enable health care providers and patients to mutually engage in a long-term care pathway tailored to patients’ needs and expectations for improving cardiovascular health in RMDs,” write George C. Drosos, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues. The recommendations were published in February in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases).

EULAR assembled a task force to generate best practices for preventing CVD in patients with gout, vasculitis, systemic sclerosis (SSc), myositis, mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), Sjögren syndrome (SS), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and antiphospholipid syndrome (APS).

The cardiovascular risk management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis was covered in prior EULAR recommendations.

The task force included 20 members from 11 European countries, including 12 rheumatologists, 2 cardiologists, 1 metabolic medicine physician, 1 health care professional, 2 patient representatives, and 2 EMEUNET (Emerging EULAR Network) members. One group of task force members conducted a systematic literature review of 105 articles about gout, vasculitis, SSc, myositis, MCTD, and SS, and another group evaluated 75 articles about SLE and APS. Together, they decided on four overarching principles:

Clinicians need to be aware of increased cardiovascular risk in patients with RMDs, with disease reduction likely decreasing risk.

Rheumatologists – in tandem with other health care providers – are responsible for their patients’ cardiovascular risk assessment and management.

Screening for cardiovascular risk should be performed regularly in all patients with RMDs, with an emphasis on factors like smoking and blood pressure management.

Patient education and counseling on cardiovascular risk, including important lifestyle modifications, is key for RMD patients.

Specific recommendations from the gout, vasculitis, SSc, myositis, MCTD, and SS group include deploying existing cardiovascular prediction tools as they are used in the general population, with the European Vasculitis Society model suggesting to supplement the Framingham Risk Score for patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis. They also recommended avoiding diuretics in patients with gout and beta-blockers in patients with SSc, as well as following the same blood pressure and lipid management strategies that are used among the general population.

Recommendations from the SLE and APS group include thoroughly assessing traditional cardiovascular risk factors in all patients, following typical blood pressure management strategies in patients with APS, and setting a blood pressure target of less than 130/80 mm Hg in patients with SLE. They also recommended administering the lowest possible glucocorticoid dose in patients with SLE, along with treatment with hydroxychloroquine – unless contraindicated – and even common preventive strategies like low-dose aspirin if it suits their cardiovascular risk profile.

As for next steps, the task force noted several areas where additional focus is needed, such as identifying patient subgroups with increased cardiovascular risk. This could include patients with a longer disease duration or more flare-ups, older patients, and those with certain disease characteristics like antiphospholipid positivity in SLE.

Can EULAR’s recommendations be implemented in U.S. rheumatology practices?

“We have been hearing for years that patients with rheumatic diseases have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease,” Ali A. Duarte Garcia, MD, a rheumatologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “That has been consistently published for more than a decade now. But any further guidance about it has not been issued. I think there was a void there.”

“Certainly, cardiovascular disease risk in rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis has been front of mind for the last decade or so,” Christie M. Bartels, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said when asked to comment on the recommendations. “But in some of these other conditions, it hasn’t been.”

When asked if rheumatologists would be ready and willing to implement these recommendations, Dr. Duarte Garcia acknowledged that it could be challenging for some.

“It’s a different workflow,” he said. “You’ve been trained traditionally to assess inflammation, to keep the disease under control, which is something they recommend, by the way. If you control the disease, patients do better. But I think lipid screening, for example, and testing for cholesterol, smoking cessation, those well-established programs are harder to bring to a rheumatology clinic. It’s doable, but it’s something that needs to be implemented within the current workflows and could take a few years to take hold.”

Dr. Bartels, however, noted that her group has done extensive work over the last 5 years incorporating certain interventions into practice, including sending patients with high blood pressure back to primary care.

“It’s a sustainable intervention in our clinic that basically our medical assistants and nurses do as a routine operation,” she said. “Our primary care providers are grateful to get these patients back. Our patients are grateful because otherwise when they come to the rheumatologist, get their blood pressure measured, and don’t get feedback, they assume they’re OK. So, we’re giving them a false signal.

“We have a similar intervention with smoking,” she added. “Often our patients aren’t even aware that they’re at increased risk of cardiovascular disease or that smoking might make their rheumatic disease and their cardiovascular outcomes worse. No one has had that conversation with them. They really welcome engaging in those discussions.

“Our tobacco intervention takes 90 seconds at point of care. Our blood pressure intervention at point of care, we’ve timed it, takes 3 minutes. There are ways that we can hardwire this into care.”

Along those lines, Dr. Duarte Garcia stated that the recommendations – although released by EULAR – are largely intuitive and should be very adaptable to an American health care context. He also recognized this moment as an opportunity for rheumatologists to consider patient outcomes beyond what they usually encounter firsthand.

“I don’t think we have many rheumatologists with patients who get a stroke or heart attack because if that happens, it’s in a hospital context or they go see a cardiologist,” he said. “You may see it once it happens if they survive and come and see you – or perhaps if you’re in a more integrated practice – but I don’t think it’s as apparent in our clinics because it is a predominantly outpatient practice and many times those are emergencies or inpatient complications.

“The bottom line,” he added, “is these are practical guidelines. It’s a push in the right direction, but there is still work to be done. And hopefully some of the recommendations, like measuring high blood pressure and addressing it just as in the general population, are something we can start to implement.”

Dr. Duarte Garcia reported receiving grant funding from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Bartels reported that her group’s tobacco cessation work is funded by Pfizer’s Independent Grants for Learning and Change.

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

New recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology provide both broad and detailed advice for cardiovascular risk management in various rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), many of which can lead to an increased possibility of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

“The panel believes that these recommendations will enable health care providers and patients to mutually engage in a long-term care pathway tailored to patients’ needs and expectations for improving cardiovascular health in RMDs,” write George C. Drosos, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues. The recommendations were published in February in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases).

EULAR assembled a task force to generate best practices for preventing CVD in patients with gout, vasculitis, systemic sclerosis (SSc), myositis, mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), Sjögren syndrome (SS), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and antiphospholipid syndrome (APS).

The cardiovascular risk management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis was covered in prior EULAR recommendations.

The task force included 20 members from 11 European countries, including 12 rheumatologists, 2 cardiologists, 1 metabolic medicine physician, 1 health care professional, 2 patient representatives, and 2 EMEUNET (Emerging EULAR Network) members. One group of task force members conducted a systematic literature review of 105 articles about gout, vasculitis, SSc, myositis, MCTD, and SS, and another group evaluated 75 articles about SLE and APS. Together, they decided on four overarching principles:

Clinicians need to be aware of increased cardiovascular risk in patients with RMDs, with disease reduction likely decreasing risk.

Rheumatologists – in tandem with other health care providers – are responsible for their patients’ cardiovascular risk assessment and management.

Screening for cardiovascular risk should be performed regularly in all patients with RMDs, with an emphasis on factors like smoking and blood pressure management.

Patient education and counseling on cardiovascular risk, including important lifestyle modifications, is key for RMD patients.

Specific recommendations from the gout, vasculitis, SSc, myositis, MCTD, and SS group include deploying existing cardiovascular prediction tools as they are used in the general population, with the European Vasculitis Society model suggesting to supplement the Framingham Risk Score for patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis. They also recommended avoiding diuretics in patients with gout and beta-blockers in patients with SSc, as well as following the same blood pressure and lipid management strategies that are used among the general population.

Recommendations from the SLE and APS group include thoroughly assessing traditional cardiovascular risk factors in all patients, following typical blood pressure management strategies in patients with APS, and setting a blood pressure target of less than 130/80 mm Hg in patients with SLE. They also recommended administering the lowest possible glucocorticoid dose in patients with SLE, along with treatment with hydroxychloroquine – unless contraindicated – and even common preventive strategies like low-dose aspirin if it suits their cardiovascular risk profile.

As for next steps, the task force noted several areas where additional focus is needed, such as identifying patient subgroups with increased cardiovascular risk. This could include patients with a longer disease duration or more flare-ups, older patients, and those with certain disease characteristics like antiphospholipid positivity in SLE.

Can EULAR’s recommendations be implemented in U.S. rheumatology practices?

“We have been hearing for years that patients with rheumatic diseases have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease,” Ali A. Duarte Garcia, MD, a rheumatologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “That has been consistently published for more than a decade now. But any further guidance about it has not been issued. I think there was a void there.”

“Certainly, cardiovascular disease risk in rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis has been front of mind for the last decade or so,” Christie M. Bartels, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said when asked to comment on the recommendations. “But in some of these other conditions, it hasn’t been.”

When asked if rheumatologists would be ready and willing to implement these recommendations, Dr. Duarte Garcia acknowledged that it could be challenging for some.

“It’s a different workflow,” he said. “You’ve been trained traditionally to assess inflammation, to keep the disease under control, which is something they recommend, by the way. If you control the disease, patients do better. But I think lipid screening, for example, and testing for cholesterol, smoking cessation, those well-established programs are harder to bring to a rheumatology clinic. It’s doable, but it’s something that needs to be implemented within the current workflows and could take a few years to take hold.”

Dr. Bartels, however, noted that her group has done extensive work over the last 5 years incorporating certain interventions into practice, including sending patients with high blood pressure back to primary care.

“It’s a sustainable intervention in our clinic that basically our medical assistants and nurses do as a routine operation,” she said. “Our primary care providers are grateful to get these patients back. Our patients are grateful because otherwise when they come to the rheumatologist, get their blood pressure measured, and don’t get feedback, they assume they’re OK. So, we’re giving them a false signal.

“We have a similar intervention with smoking,” she added. “Often our patients aren’t even aware that they’re at increased risk of cardiovascular disease or that smoking might make their rheumatic disease and their cardiovascular outcomes worse. No one has had that conversation with them. They really welcome engaging in those discussions.

“Our tobacco intervention takes 90 seconds at point of care. Our blood pressure intervention at point of care, we’ve timed it, takes 3 minutes. There are ways that we can hardwire this into care.”

Along those lines, Dr. Duarte Garcia stated that the recommendations – although released by EULAR – are largely intuitive and should be very adaptable to an American health care context. He also recognized this moment as an opportunity for rheumatologists to consider patient outcomes beyond what they usually encounter firsthand.

“I don’t think we have many rheumatologists with patients who get a stroke or heart attack because if that happens, it’s in a hospital context or they go see a cardiologist,” he said. “You may see it once it happens if they survive and come and see you – or perhaps if you’re in a more integrated practice – but I don’t think it’s as apparent in our clinics because it is a predominantly outpatient practice and many times those are emergencies or inpatient complications.

“The bottom line,” he added, “is these are practical guidelines. It’s a push in the right direction, but there is still work to be done. And hopefully some of the recommendations, like measuring high blood pressure and addressing it just as in the general population, are something we can start to implement.”

Dr. Duarte Garcia reported receiving grant funding from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Bartels reported that her group’s tobacco cessation work is funded by Pfizer’s Independent Grants for Learning and Change.

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

New recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology provide both broad and detailed advice for cardiovascular risk management in various rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), many of which can lead to an increased possibility of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

“The panel believes that these recommendations will enable health care providers and patients to mutually engage in a long-term care pathway tailored to patients’ needs and expectations for improving cardiovascular health in RMDs,” write George C. Drosos, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues. The recommendations were published in February in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases).

EULAR assembled a task force to generate best practices for preventing CVD in patients with gout, vasculitis, systemic sclerosis (SSc), myositis, mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), Sjögren syndrome (SS), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and antiphospholipid syndrome (APS).

The cardiovascular risk management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis was covered in prior EULAR recommendations.

The task force included 20 members from 11 European countries, including 12 rheumatologists, 2 cardiologists, 1 metabolic medicine physician, 1 health care professional, 2 patient representatives, and 2 EMEUNET (Emerging EULAR Network) members. One group of task force members conducted a systematic literature review of 105 articles about gout, vasculitis, SSc, myositis, MCTD, and SS, and another group evaluated 75 articles about SLE and APS. Together, they decided on four overarching principles:

Clinicians need to be aware of increased cardiovascular risk in patients with RMDs, with disease reduction likely decreasing risk.

Rheumatologists – in tandem with other health care providers – are responsible for their patients’ cardiovascular risk assessment and management.

Screening for cardiovascular risk should be performed regularly in all patients with RMDs, with an emphasis on factors like smoking and blood pressure management.

Patient education and counseling on cardiovascular risk, including important lifestyle modifications, is key for RMD patients.

Specific recommendations from the gout, vasculitis, SSc, myositis, MCTD, and SS group include deploying existing cardiovascular prediction tools as they are used in the general population, with the European Vasculitis Society model suggesting to supplement the Framingham Risk Score for patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis. They also recommended avoiding diuretics in patients with gout and beta-blockers in patients with SSc, as well as following the same blood pressure and lipid management strategies that are used among the general population.

Recommendations from the SLE and APS group include thoroughly assessing traditional cardiovascular risk factors in all patients, following typical blood pressure management strategies in patients with APS, and setting a blood pressure target of less than 130/80 mm Hg in patients with SLE. They also recommended administering the lowest possible glucocorticoid dose in patients with SLE, along with treatment with hydroxychloroquine – unless contraindicated – and even common preventive strategies like low-dose aspirin if it suits their cardiovascular risk profile.

As for next steps, the task force noted several areas where additional focus is needed, such as identifying patient subgroups with increased cardiovascular risk. This could include patients with a longer disease duration or more flare-ups, older patients, and those with certain disease characteristics like antiphospholipid positivity in SLE.

Can EULAR’s recommendations be implemented in U.S. rheumatology practices?

“We have been hearing for years that patients with rheumatic diseases have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease,” Ali A. Duarte Garcia, MD, a rheumatologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “That has been consistently published for more than a decade now. But any further guidance about it has not been issued. I think there was a void there.”

“Certainly, cardiovascular disease risk in rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis has been front of mind for the last decade or so,” Christie M. Bartels, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said when asked to comment on the recommendations. “But in some of these other conditions, it hasn’t been.”

When asked if rheumatologists would be ready and willing to implement these recommendations, Dr. Duarte Garcia acknowledged that it could be challenging for some.

“It’s a different workflow,” he said. “You’ve been trained traditionally to assess inflammation, to keep the disease under control, which is something they recommend, by the way. If you control the disease, patients do better. But I think lipid screening, for example, and testing for cholesterol, smoking cessation, those well-established programs are harder to bring to a rheumatology clinic. It’s doable, but it’s something that needs to be implemented within the current workflows and could take a few years to take hold.”

Dr. Bartels, however, noted that her group has done extensive work over the last 5 years incorporating certain interventions into practice, including sending patients with high blood pressure back to primary care.

“It’s a sustainable intervention in our clinic that basically our medical assistants and nurses do as a routine operation,” she said. “Our primary care providers are grateful to get these patients back. Our patients are grateful because otherwise when they come to the rheumatologist, get their blood pressure measured, and don’t get feedback, they assume they’re OK. So, we’re giving them a false signal.

“We have a similar intervention with smoking,” she added. “Often our patients aren’t even aware that they’re at increased risk of cardiovascular disease or that smoking might make their rheumatic disease and their cardiovascular outcomes worse. No one has had that conversation with them. They really welcome engaging in those discussions.

“Our tobacco intervention takes 90 seconds at point of care. Our blood pressure intervention at point of care, we’ve timed it, takes 3 minutes. There are ways that we can hardwire this into care.”

Along those lines, Dr. Duarte Garcia stated that the recommendations – although released by EULAR – are largely intuitive and should be very adaptable to an American health care context. He also recognized this moment as an opportunity for rheumatologists to consider patient outcomes beyond what they usually encounter firsthand.

“I don’t think we have many rheumatologists with patients who get a stroke or heart attack because if that happens, it’s in a hospital context or they go see a cardiologist,” he said. “You may see it once it happens if they survive and come and see you – or perhaps if you’re in a more integrated practice – but I don’t think it’s as apparent in our clinics because it is a predominantly outpatient practice and many times those are emergencies or inpatient complications.

“The bottom line,” he added, “is these are practical guidelines. It’s a push in the right direction, but there is still work to be done. And hopefully some of the recommendations, like measuring high blood pressure and addressing it just as in the general population, are something we can start to implement.”

Dr. Duarte Garcia reported receiving grant funding from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Bartels reported that her group’s tobacco cessation work is funded by Pfizer’s Independent Grants for Learning and Change.

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

The roots of treat-to-target (T2T) in rheumatology extend back over 30 years to the development of the 28-joint Disease Activity Score. Although it has been shown to be effective in clinical trials and has been included in guidelines, it has yet to be widely adopted in practice. The question remains: What is the role of T2T in rheumatology?

That’s what Jack Cush, MD, and Martin Bergman, MD, sought to answer in a point-counterpoint session at the 2022 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

RWCS 2022 screenshot

“I do think that this is a concept we need to keep in mind, and it is a concept whose time is long overdue,” Dr. Bergman said in his presentation arguing in favor of T2T. “As good as you think you are – your ability to see the patient and determine how they’re doing – you’re not.”

But metrics alone are not enough to make clinical decisions, said Dr. Bergman, clinical professor of medicine at Drexel University, Philadelphia, citing a recommendation from 2014 recommendations on T2T published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. “You don’t just follow a number. You have to take into consideration structural changes, functional impairment, comorbidities – and that’s going to adjust how you approach your patient and what you do with them.”

However, implementation of T2T to make changes in clinical practice in RA has been inconsistent. Referencing an abstract from the 2021 American College of Rheumatology annual meeting on 15-year follow-up for changing therapy in RA, Dr. Bergman argued it is not the patient who is unwilling to switch treatments. Between 2006 and 2021, patient unwillingness to change therapies decreased from 64% to 51%.

“What’s driving it mostly here [is] the doctor’s recommendation,” Dr. Bergman said. “And we know this is true because we’ve seen it in other studies.”

Many rheumatologists are “asleep at the wheel” when it comes to administering T2T, he said. “What we need to do is, after we wake up from this nap, we need to get back on the highway and drive to where we should be, which is treat-to-target.”

Dr. Bergman also shared his paradigm for administering T2T, which he noted does not typically take more than a few minutes to administer regardless of the measure chosen. “Pick a measure. I don’t care which measure you take. I personally use two: I like the RAPID3 and the CDAI,” he said. “But then, after you have the measure, evaluate the entire patient. Don’t just look at the number. Look at the patient, what’s going on, solid history, solid physical. And most importantly: Be a doctor, don’t be a computer screen.”

Problems in measurement of RA remission and adoption of T2T

Dr. Cush, who admitted early in his presentation that he is in favor of T2T, delivered his counterpoint somewhat tongue-in-cheek. However, he pointed out that there are several concerns about the goals in measuring outcomes in RA with T2T.

The goal in RA is disease remission, but how you define remission can vary, especially since sometimes there is evidence of synovitis or other disease activity visible through an exam or imaging, said Dr. Cush, a rheumatologist based in Dallas, and executive editor of RheumNow.com. Most of the evidence for T2T is in clinical trials, but adoption is inconsistent in clinical practice, and patients in general appear to be improving without widespread adoption, he argued.

“Are clinical trials the same as clinical practice?” he asked. “I think that this boils down to: Is this a quest for remissions, or the best-you-can-get, low disease activity state? Or is this a quest for physician change, which is actually the path you have to go through to get to remissions?”

“In the end, evidence that the metrics should drive prescribing, especially in private practice is, I think, lacking,” he said.

RWCS 2022 screenshot

Roy Fleischmann, MD, agreed with Dr. Cush’s point of how one defines disease remission, as well as Dr. Bergman’s paradigm for T2T. “If you’re a good rheumatologist, you really do examine joints,” but you also “take a look at patient function, patient global [assessment], your global [assessment], joint count,” he said. “You can put a number to it, but you have to take a look at all of that. Really, treat-to-target – it is all of that. It isn’t just looking at a number, it’s looking at everything. And the better that the patient can do, assuming comorbidities and everything else, the better it is.”

“The problem isn’t the patient. The problem isn’t the metric. The problem is the rheumatologist, because the rheumatologist isn’t putting in enough effort in order to reach that goal,” added Dr. Fleischmann, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas, Dallas, and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, also in in Dallas.

Eric Ruderman, MD, professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, commented that T2T is “great for somebody who’s been doing it for a while, and seeing a lot of patients and has that comfort zone,” but he questioned whether new rheumatologists without a lot of clinical experience could apply the approach. “What information do they use to integrate, and how do they get to that point?” he asked. “I don’t have the answer to that.”

During a rebuttal, Dr. Bergman pushed back on the idea that clinical experience alone was enough. “You need something. You need a benchmark. You need something more than, ‘I say so.’ ”

“The problem is, we still haven’t convinced people to adopt them,” Dr. Bergman said. “And I think it’s failure of training because, in my opinion, I don’t know how you can do a modern current fellowship program and not teach metrics.”

Dr. Cush and Dr. Bergman used the same trials to argue for their side. “I think that us using the same slides, but maybe having different points, speaks to the problem,” Dr. Cush said. “And I choose not to make it the problem of the rheumatologists.”

“You’re in the field of pattern recognition,” Dr. Cush argued. “It’s a visual art. You can have all the numbers you want. You make the most of your decisions based on pattern recognition, which is not rooted in metrics, and that’s why you’re successful at what you do.

“I am a big believer in T2T, but I think you have to measure something, and you have to use it,” Dr. Cush closed. “And the problem is, we can’t be forced into this.”

Dr. Bergman and Dr. Cush reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

The roots of treat-to-target (T2T) in rheumatology extend back over 30 years to the development of the 28-joint Disease Activity Score. Although it has been shown to be effective in clinical trials and has been included in guidelines, it has yet to be widely adopted in practice. The question remains: What is the role of T2T in rheumatology?

That’s what Jack Cush, MD, and Martin Bergman, MD, sought to answer in a point-counterpoint session at the 2022 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

RWCS 2022 screenshot

“I do think that this is a concept we need to keep in mind, and it is a concept whose time is long overdue,” Dr. Bergman said in his presentation arguing in favor of T2T. “As good as you think you are – your ability to see the patient and determine how they’re doing – you’re not.”

But metrics alone are not enough to make clinical decisions, said Dr. Bergman, clinical professor of medicine at Drexel University, Philadelphia, citing a recommendation from 2014 recommendations on T2T published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. “You don’t just follow a number. You have to take into consideration structural changes, functional impairment, comorbidities – and that’s going to adjust how you approach your patient and what you do with them.”

However, implementation of T2T to make changes in clinical practice in RA has been inconsistent. Referencing an abstract from the 2021 American College of Rheumatology annual meeting on 15-year follow-up for changing therapy in RA, Dr. Bergman argued it is not the patient who is unwilling to switch treatments. Between 2006 and 2021, patient unwillingness to change therapies decreased from 64% to 51%.

“What’s driving it mostly here [is] the doctor’s recommendation,” Dr. Bergman said. “And we know this is true because we’ve seen it in other studies.”

Many rheumatologists are “asleep at the wheel” when it comes to administering T2T, he said. “What we need to do is, after we wake up from this nap, we need to get back on the highway and drive to where we should be, which is treat-to-target.”

Dr. Bergman also shared his paradigm for administering T2T, which he noted does not typically take more than a few minutes to administer regardless of the measure chosen. “Pick a measure. I don’t care which measure you take. I personally use two: I like the RAPID3 and the CDAI,” he said. “But then, after you have the measure, evaluate the entire patient. Don’t just look at the number. Look at the patient, what’s going on, solid history, solid physical. And most importantly: Be a doctor, don’t be a computer screen.”

Problems in measurement of RA remission and adoption of T2T

Dr. Cush, who admitted early in his presentation that he is in favor of T2T, delivered his counterpoint somewhat tongue-in-cheek. However, he pointed out that there are several concerns about the goals in measuring outcomes in RA with T2T.

The goal in RA is disease remission, but how you define remission can vary, especially since sometimes there is evidence of synovitis or other disease activity visible through an exam or imaging, said Dr. Cush, a rheumatologist based in Dallas, and executive editor of RheumNow.com. Most of the evidence for T2T is in clinical trials, but adoption is inconsistent in clinical practice, and patients in general appear to be improving without widespread adoption, he argued.

“Are clinical trials the same as clinical practice?” he asked. “I think that this boils down to: Is this a quest for remissions, or the best-you-can-get, low disease activity state? Or is this a quest for physician change, which is actually the path you have to go through to get to remissions?”

“In the end, evidence that the metrics should drive prescribing, especially in private practice is, I think, lacking,” he said.

RWCS 2022 screenshot

Roy Fleischmann, MD, agreed with Dr. Cush’s point of how one defines disease remission, as well as Dr. Bergman’s paradigm for T2T. “If you’re a good rheumatologist, you really do examine joints,” but you also “take a look at patient function, patient global [assessment], your global [assessment], joint count,” he said. “You can put a number to it, but you have to take a look at all of that. Really, treat-to-target – it is all of that. It isn’t just looking at a number, it’s looking at everything. And the better that the patient can do, assuming comorbidities and everything else, the better it is.”

“The problem isn’t the patient. The problem isn’t the metric. The problem is the rheumatologist, because the rheumatologist isn’t putting in enough effort in order to reach that goal,” added Dr. Fleischmann, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas, Dallas, and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, also in in Dallas.

Eric Ruderman, MD, professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, commented that T2T is “great for somebody who’s been doing it for a while, and seeing a lot of patients and has that comfort zone,” but he questioned whether new rheumatologists without a lot of clinical experience could apply the approach. “What information do they use to integrate, and how do they get to that point?” he asked. “I don’t have the answer to that.”

During a rebuttal, Dr. Bergman pushed back on the idea that clinical experience alone was enough. “You need something. You need a benchmark. You need something more than, ‘I say so.’ ”

“The problem is, we still haven’t convinced people to adopt them,” Dr. Bergman said. “And I think it’s failure of training because, in my opinion, I don’t know how you can do a modern current fellowship program and not teach metrics.”

Dr. Cush and Dr. Bergman used the same trials to argue for their side. “I think that us using the same slides, but maybe having different points, speaks to the problem,” Dr. Cush said. “And I choose not to make it the problem of the rheumatologists.”

“You’re in the field of pattern recognition,” Dr. Cush argued. “It’s a visual art. You can have all the numbers you want. You make the most of your decisions based on pattern recognition, which is not rooted in metrics, and that’s why you’re successful at what you do.

“I am a big believer in T2T, but I think you have to measure something, and you have to use it,” Dr. Cush closed. “And the problem is, we can’t be forced into this.”

Dr. Bergman and Dr. Cush reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

The roots of treat-to-target (T2T) in rheumatology extend back over 30 years to the development of the 28-joint Disease Activity Score. Although it has been shown to be effective in clinical trials and has been included in guidelines, it has yet to be widely adopted in practice. The question remains: What is the role of T2T in rheumatology?

That’s what Jack Cush, MD, and Martin Bergman, MD, sought to answer in a point-counterpoint session at the 2022 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

RWCS 2022 screenshot

“I do think that this is a concept we need to keep in mind, and it is a concept whose time is long overdue,” Dr. Bergman said in his presentation arguing in favor of T2T. “As good as you think you are – your ability to see the patient and determine how they’re doing – you’re not.”

But metrics alone are not enough to make clinical decisions, said Dr. Bergman, clinical professor of medicine at Drexel University, Philadelphia, citing a recommendation from 2014 recommendations on T2T published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. “You don’t just follow a number. You have to take into consideration structural changes, functional impairment, comorbidities – and that’s going to adjust how you approach your patient and what you do with them.”

However, implementation of T2T to make changes in clinical practice in RA has been inconsistent. Referencing an abstract from the 2021 American College of Rheumatology annual meeting on 15-year follow-up for changing therapy in RA, Dr. Bergman argued it is not the patient who is unwilling to switch treatments. Between 2006 and 2021, patient unwillingness to change therapies decreased from 64% to 51%.

“What’s driving it mostly here [is] the doctor’s recommendation,” Dr. Bergman said. “And we know this is true because we’ve seen it in other studies.”

Many rheumatologists are “asleep at the wheel” when it comes to administering T2T, he said. “What we need to do is, after we wake up from this nap, we need to get back on the highway and drive to where we should be, which is treat-to-target.”

Dr. Bergman also shared his paradigm for administering T2T, which he noted does not typically take more than a few minutes to administer regardless of the measure chosen. “Pick a measure. I don’t care which measure you take. I personally use two: I like the RAPID3 and the CDAI,” he said. “But then, after you have the measure, evaluate the entire patient. Don’t just look at the number. Look at the patient, what’s going on, solid history, solid physical. And most importantly: Be a doctor, don’t be a computer screen.”

Problems in measurement of RA remission and adoption of T2T

Dr. Cush, who admitted early in his presentation that he is in favor of T2T, delivered his counterpoint somewhat tongue-in-cheek. However, he pointed out that there are several concerns about the goals in measuring outcomes in RA with T2T.

The goal in RA is disease remission, but how you define remission can vary, especially since sometimes there is evidence of synovitis or other disease activity visible through an exam or imaging, said Dr. Cush, a rheumatologist based in Dallas, and executive editor of RheumNow.com. Most of the evidence for T2T is in clinical trials, but adoption is inconsistent in clinical practice, and patients in general appear to be improving without widespread adoption, he argued.

“Are clinical trials the same as clinical practice?” he asked. “I think that this boils down to: Is this a quest for remissions, or the best-you-can-get, low disease activity state? Or is this a quest for physician change, which is actually the path you have to go through to get to remissions?”

“In the end, evidence that the metrics should drive prescribing, especially in private practice is, I think, lacking,” he said.

RWCS 2022 screenshot

Roy Fleischmann, MD, agreed with Dr. Cush’s point of how one defines disease remission, as well as Dr. Bergman’s paradigm for T2T. “If you’re a good rheumatologist, you really do examine joints,” but you also “take a look at patient function, patient global [assessment], your global [assessment], joint count,” he said. “You can put a number to it, but you have to take a look at all of that. Really, treat-to-target – it is all of that. It isn’t just looking at a number, it’s looking at everything. And the better that the patient can do, assuming comorbidities and everything else, the better it is.”

“The problem isn’t the patient. The problem isn’t the metric. The problem is the rheumatologist, because the rheumatologist isn’t putting in enough effort in order to reach that goal,” added Dr. Fleischmann, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas, Dallas, and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, also in in Dallas.

Eric Ruderman, MD, professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, commented that T2T is “great for somebody who’s been doing it for a while, and seeing a lot of patients and has that comfort zone,” but he questioned whether new rheumatologists without a lot of clinical experience could apply the approach. “What information do they use to integrate, and how do they get to that point?” he asked. “I don’t have the answer to that.”

During a rebuttal, Dr. Bergman pushed back on the idea that clinical experience alone was enough. “You need something. You need a benchmark. You need something more than, ‘I say so.’ ”

“The problem is, we still haven’t convinced people to adopt them,” Dr. Bergman said. “And I think it’s failure of training because, in my opinion, I don’t know how you can do a modern current fellowship program and not teach metrics.”

Dr. Cush and Dr. Bergman used the same trials to argue for their side. “I think that us using the same slides, but maybe having different points, speaks to the problem,” Dr. Cush said. “And I choose not to make it the problem of the rheumatologists.”

“You’re in the field of pattern recognition,” Dr. Cush argued. “It’s a visual art. You can have all the numbers you want. You make the most of your decisions based on pattern recognition, which is not rooted in metrics, and that’s why you’re successful at what you do.

“I am a big believer in T2T, but I think you have to measure something, and you have to use it,” Dr. Cush closed. “And the problem is, we can’t be forced into this.”

Dr. Bergman and Dr. Cush reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

Updated guidance for health care providers on multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) recognizes the evolving nature of the disease and offers strategies for pediatric rheumatologists, who also may be asked to recommend treatment for hyperinflammation in children with acute COVID-19.

Guidance is needed for many reasons, including the variable case definitions for MIS-C, the presence of MIS-C features in other infections and childhood rheumatic diseases, the extrapolation of treatment strategies from other conditions with similar presentations, and the issue of myocardial dysfunction, wrote Lauren A. Henderson, MD, MMSC, of Boston Children’s Hospital, and members of the American College of Rheumatology MIS-C and COVID-19–Related Hyperinflammation Task Force.

However, “modifications to treatment plans, particularly in patients with complex conditions, are highly disease, patient, geography, and time specific, and therefore must be individualized as part of a shared decision-making process,” the authors said. The updated guidance was published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
 

Update needed in wake of Omicron

“We continue to see cases of MIS-C across the United States due to the spike in SARS-CoV-2 infections from the Omicron variant,” and therefore updated guidance is important at this time, Dr. Henderson told this news organization.

“MIS-C remains a serious complication of COVID-19 in children and the ACR wanted to continue to provide pediatricians with up-to-date recommendations for the management of MIS-C,” she said.

“Children began to present with MIS-C in April 2020. At that time, little was known about this entity. Most of the recommendations in the first version of the MIS-C guidance were based on expert opinion,” she explained. However, “over the last 2 years, pediatricians have worked very hard to conduct high-quality research studies to better understand MIS-C, so we now have more scientific evidence to guide our recommendations.

“In version three of the MIS-C guidance, there are new recommendations on treatment. Previously, it was unclear what medications should be used for first-line treatment in patients with MIS-C. Some children were given intravenous immunoglobulin while others were given IVIg and steroids together. Several new studies show that children with MIS-C who are treated with a combination of IVIg and steroids have better outcomes. Accordingly, the MIS-C guidance now recommends dual therapy with IVIg and steroids in children with MIS-C.”

Diagnostic evaluation

The guidance calls for maintaining a broad differential diagnosis of MIS-C, given that the condition remains rare, and that most children with COVID-19 present with mild symptoms and have excellent outcomes, the authors noted. The range of clinical features associated with MIS-C include fever, mucocutaneous findings, myocardial dysfunction, cardiac conduction abnormalities, shock, gastrointestinal symptoms, and lymphadenopathy.

Some patients also experience neurologic involvement in the form of severe headache, altered mental status, seizures, cranial nerve palsies, meningismus, cerebral edema, and ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. Given the nonspecific nature of these symptoms, “it is imperative that a diagnostic evaluation for MIS-C include investigation for other possible causes, as deemed appropriate by the treating provider,” the authors emphasized. Other diagnostic considerations include the prevalence and chronology of COVID-19 in the community, which may change over time.
 

MIS-C and Kawasaki disease phenotypes

Earlier in the pandemic, when MIS-C first emerged, it was compared with Kawasaki disease (KD). “However, a closer examination of the literature shows that only about one-quarter to half of patients with a reported diagnosis of MIS-C meet the full diagnostic criteria for KD,” the authors wrote. Key features that separate MIS-C from KD include the greater incidence of KD among children in Japan and East Asia versus the higher incidence of MIS-C among non-Hispanic Black children. In addition, children with MIS-C have shown a wider age range, more prominent gastrointestinal and neurologic symptoms, and more frequent cardiac dysfunction, compared with those with KD.

Cardiac management

Close follow-up with cardiology is essential for children with MIS-C, according to the authors. The recommendations call for repeat echocardiograms for all children with MIS-C at a minimum of 7-14 days, then again at 4-6 weeks after the initial presentation. The authors also recommended additional echocardiograms for children with left ventricular dysfunction and cardiac aortic aneurysms. 

MIS-C treatment

Current treatment recommendations emphasize that patients under investigation for MIS-C with life-threatening manifestations may need immunomodulatory therapy before a full diagnostic evaluation is complete, the authors said. However, patients without life-threatening manifestations should be evaluated before starting immunomodulatory treatment to avoid potentially harmful therapies for pediatric patients who don’t need them.

When MIS-C is refractory to initial immunomodulatory treatment, a second dose of IVIg is not recommended, but intensification therapy is advised with either high-dose (10-30 mg/kg per day) glucocorticoids, anakinra, or infliximab. However, there is little evidence available for selecting a specific agent for intensification therapy.

The task force also advises giving low-dose aspirin (3-5 mg/kg per day, up to 81 mg once daily) to all MIS-C patients without active bleeding or significant bleeding risk until normalization of the platelet count and confirmed normal coronary arteries at least 4 weeks after diagnosis.
 

COVID-19 and hyperinflammation

The task force also noted a distinction between MIS-C and severe COVID-19 in children. Although many children with MIS-C are previously healthy, most children who develop severe COVID-19 during an initial infection have complex conditions or comorbidities such as developmental delay or genetic anomaly, or chronic conditions such as congenital heart disease, type 1 diabetes, or asthma, the authors said. They recommend that “hospitalized children with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen or respiratory support should be considered for immunomodulatory therapy in addition to supportive care and antiviral medications.”

The authors acknowledged the limitations and evolving nature of the recommendations, which will continue to change and do not replace clinical judgment for the management of individual patients. In the meantime, the ACR will support the task force in reviewing new evidence and providing revised versions of the current document.

Many questions about MIS-C remain, Dr. Henderson said in an interview. “It can be very hard to diagnose children with MIS-C because many of the symptoms are similar to those seen in other febrile illness of childhood. We need to identify better biomarkers to help us make the diagnosis of MIS-C. In addition, we need studies to provide information about what treatments should be used if children fail to respond to IVIg and steroids. Finally, it appears that vaccination [against SARS-CoV-2] protects against severe forms of MIS-C, and studies are needed to see how vaccination protects children from MIS-C.”

The development of the guidance was supported by the American College of Rheumatology. Dr. Henderson disclosed relationships with companies including Sobi, Pfizer, and Adaptive Biotechnologies (less than $10,000) and research support from the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and research grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

Updated guidance for health care providers on multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) recognizes the evolving nature of the disease and offers strategies for pediatric rheumatologists, who also may be asked to recommend treatment for hyperinflammation in children with acute COVID-19.

Guidance is needed for many reasons, including the variable case definitions for MIS-C, the presence of MIS-C features in other infections and childhood rheumatic diseases, the extrapolation of treatment strategies from other conditions with similar presentations, and the issue of myocardial dysfunction, wrote Lauren A. Henderson, MD, MMSC, of Boston Children’s Hospital, and members of the American College of Rheumatology MIS-C and COVID-19–Related Hyperinflammation Task Force.

However, “modifications to treatment plans, particularly in patients with complex conditions, are highly disease, patient, geography, and time specific, and therefore must be individualized as part of a shared decision-making process,” the authors said. The updated guidance was published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
 

Update needed in wake of Omicron

“We continue to see cases of MIS-C across the United States due to the spike in SARS-CoV-2 infections from the Omicron variant,” and therefore updated guidance is important at this time, Dr. Henderson told this news organization.

“MIS-C remains a serious complication of COVID-19 in children and the ACR wanted to continue to provide pediatricians with up-to-date recommendations for the management of MIS-C,” she said.

“Children began to present with MIS-C in April 2020. At that time, little was known about this entity. Most of the recommendations in the first version of the MIS-C guidance were based on expert opinion,” she explained. However, “over the last 2 years, pediatricians have worked very hard to conduct high-quality research studies to better understand MIS-C, so we now have more scientific evidence to guide our recommendations.

“In version three of the MIS-C guidance, there are new recommendations on treatment. Previously, it was unclear what medications should be used for first-line treatment in patients with MIS-C. Some children were given intravenous immunoglobulin while others were given IVIg and steroids together. Several new studies show that children with MIS-C who are treated with a combination of IVIg and steroids have better outcomes. Accordingly, the MIS-C guidance now recommends dual therapy with IVIg and steroids in children with MIS-C.”

Diagnostic evaluation

The guidance calls for maintaining a broad differential diagnosis of MIS-C, given that the condition remains rare, and that most children with COVID-19 present with mild symptoms and have excellent outcomes, the authors noted. The range of clinical features associated with MIS-C include fever, mucocutaneous findings, myocardial dysfunction, cardiac conduction abnormalities, shock, gastrointestinal symptoms, and lymphadenopathy.

Some patients also experience neurologic involvement in the form of severe headache, altered mental status, seizures, cranial nerve palsies, meningismus, cerebral edema, and ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. Given the nonspecific nature of these symptoms, “it is imperative that a diagnostic evaluation for MIS-C include investigation for other possible causes, as deemed appropriate by the treating provider,” the authors emphasized. Other diagnostic considerations include the prevalence and chronology of COVID-19 in the community, which may change over time.
 

MIS-C and Kawasaki disease phenotypes

Earlier in the pandemic, when MIS-C first emerged, it was compared with Kawasaki disease (KD). “However, a closer examination of the literature shows that only about one-quarter to half of patients with a reported diagnosis of MIS-C meet the full diagnostic criteria for KD,” the authors wrote. Key features that separate MIS-C from KD include the greater incidence of KD among children in Japan and East Asia versus the higher incidence of MIS-C among non-Hispanic Black children. In addition, children with MIS-C have shown a wider age range, more prominent gastrointestinal and neurologic symptoms, and more frequent cardiac dysfunction, compared with those with KD.

Cardiac management

Close follow-up with cardiology is essential for children with MIS-C, according to the authors. The recommendations call for repeat echocardiograms for all children with MIS-C at a minimum of 7-14 days, then again at 4-6 weeks after the initial presentation. The authors also recommended additional echocardiograms for children with left ventricular dysfunction and cardiac aortic aneurysms. 

MIS-C treatment

Current treatment recommendations emphasize that patients under investigation for MIS-C with life-threatening manifestations may need immunomodulatory therapy before a full diagnostic evaluation is complete, the authors said. However, patients without life-threatening manifestations should be evaluated before starting immunomodulatory treatment to avoid potentially harmful therapies for pediatric patients who don’t need them.

When MIS-C is refractory to initial immunomodulatory treatment, a second dose of IVIg is not recommended, but intensification therapy is advised with either high-dose (10-30 mg/kg per day) glucocorticoids, anakinra, or infliximab. However, there is little evidence available for selecting a specific agent for intensification therapy.

The task force also advises giving low-dose aspirin (3-5 mg/kg per day, up to 81 mg once daily) to all MIS-C patients without active bleeding or significant bleeding risk until normalization of the platelet count and confirmed normal coronary arteries at least 4 weeks after diagnosis.
 

COVID-19 and hyperinflammation

The task force also noted a distinction between MIS-C and severe COVID-19 in children. Although many children with MIS-C are previously healthy, most children who develop severe COVID-19 during an initial infection have complex conditions or comorbidities such as developmental delay or genetic anomaly, or chronic conditions such as congenital heart disease, type 1 diabetes, or asthma, the authors said. They recommend that “hospitalized children with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen or respiratory support should be considered for immunomodulatory therapy in addition to supportive care and antiviral medications.”

The authors acknowledged the limitations and evolving nature of the recommendations, which will continue to change and do not replace clinical judgment for the management of individual patients. In the meantime, the ACR will support the task force in reviewing new evidence and providing revised versions of the current document.

Many questions about MIS-C remain, Dr. Henderson said in an interview. “It can be very hard to diagnose children with MIS-C because many of the symptoms are similar to those seen in other febrile illness of childhood. We need to identify better biomarkers to help us make the diagnosis of MIS-C. In addition, we need studies to provide information about what treatments should be used if children fail to respond to IVIg and steroids. Finally, it appears that vaccination [against SARS-CoV-2] protects against severe forms of MIS-C, and studies are needed to see how vaccination protects children from MIS-C.”

The development of the guidance was supported by the American College of Rheumatology. Dr. Henderson disclosed relationships with companies including Sobi, Pfizer, and Adaptive Biotechnologies (less than $10,000) and research support from the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and research grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

Updated guidance for health care providers on multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) recognizes the evolving nature of the disease and offers strategies for pediatric rheumatologists, who also may be asked to recommend treatment for hyperinflammation in children with acute COVID-19.

Guidance is needed for many reasons, including the variable case definitions for MIS-C, the presence of MIS-C features in other infections and childhood rheumatic diseases, the extrapolation of treatment strategies from other conditions with similar presentations, and the issue of myocardial dysfunction, wrote Lauren A. Henderson, MD, MMSC, of Boston Children’s Hospital, and members of the American College of Rheumatology MIS-C and COVID-19–Related Hyperinflammation Task Force.

However, “modifications to treatment plans, particularly in patients with complex conditions, are highly disease, patient, geography, and time specific, and therefore must be individualized as part of a shared decision-making process,” the authors said. The updated guidance was published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
 

Update needed in wake of Omicron

“We continue to see cases of MIS-C across the United States due to the spike in SARS-CoV-2 infections from the Omicron variant,” and therefore updated guidance is important at this time, Dr. Henderson told this news organization.

“MIS-C remains a serious complication of COVID-19 in children and the ACR wanted to continue to provide pediatricians with up-to-date recommendations for the management of MIS-C,” she said.

“Children began to present with MIS-C in April 2020. At that time, little was known about this entity. Most of the recommendations in the first version of the MIS-C guidance were based on expert opinion,” she explained. However, “over the last 2 years, pediatricians have worked very hard to conduct high-quality research studies to better understand MIS-C, so we now have more scientific evidence to guide our recommendations.

“In version three of the MIS-C guidance, there are new recommendations on treatment. Previously, it was unclear what medications should be used for first-line treatment in patients with MIS-C. Some children were given intravenous immunoglobulin while others were given IVIg and steroids together. Several new studies show that children with MIS-C who are treated with a combination of IVIg and steroids have better outcomes. Accordingly, the MIS-C guidance now recommends dual therapy with IVIg and steroids in children with MIS-C.”

Diagnostic evaluation

The guidance calls for maintaining a broad differential diagnosis of MIS-C, given that the condition remains rare, and that most children with COVID-19 present with mild symptoms and have excellent outcomes, the authors noted. The range of clinical features associated with MIS-C include fever, mucocutaneous findings, myocardial dysfunction, cardiac conduction abnormalities, shock, gastrointestinal symptoms, and lymphadenopathy.

Some patients also experience neurologic involvement in the form of severe headache, altered mental status, seizures, cranial nerve palsies, meningismus, cerebral edema, and ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. Given the nonspecific nature of these symptoms, “it is imperative that a diagnostic evaluation for MIS-C include investigation for other possible causes, as deemed appropriate by the treating provider,” the authors emphasized. Other diagnostic considerations include the prevalence and chronology of COVID-19 in the community, which may change over time.
 

MIS-C and Kawasaki disease phenotypes

Earlier in the pandemic, when MIS-C first emerged, it was compared with Kawasaki disease (KD). “However, a closer examination of the literature shows that only about one-quarter to half of patients with a reported diagnosis of MIS-C meet the full diagnostic criteria for KD,” the authors wrote. Key features that separate MIS-C from KD include the greater incidence of KD among children in Japan and East Asia versus the higher incidence of MIS-C among non-Hispanic Black children. In addition, children with MIS-C have shown a wider age range, more prominent gastrointestinal and neurologic symptoms, and more frequent cardiac dysfunction, compared with those with KD.

Cardiac management

Close follow-up with cardiology is essential for children with MIS-C, according to the authors. The recommendations call for repeat echocardiograms for all children with MIS-C at a minimum of 7-14 days, then again at 4-6 weeks after the initial presentation. The authors also recommended additional echocardiograms for children with left ventricular dysfunction and cardiac aortic aneurysms. 

MIS-C treatment

Current treatment recommendations emphasize that patients under investigation for MIS-C with life-threatening manifestations may need immunomodulatory therapy before a full diagnostic evaluation is complete, the authors said. However, patients without life-threatening manifestations should be evaluated before starting immunomodulatory treatment to avoid potentially harmful therapies for pediatric patients who don’t need them.

When MIS-C is refractory to initial immunomodulatory treatment, a second dose of IVIg is not recommended, but intensification therapy is advised with either high-dose (10-30 mg/kg per day) glucocorticoids, anakinra, or infliximab. However, there is little evidence available for selecting a specific agent for intensification therapy.

The task force also advises giving low-dose aspirin (3-5 mg/kg per day, up to 81 mg once daily) to all MIS-C patients without active bleeding or significant bleeding risk until normalization of the platelet count and confirmed normal coronary arteries at least 4 weeks after diagnosis.
 

COVID-19 and hyperinflammation

The task force also noted a distinction between MIS-C and severe COVID-19 in children. Although many children with MIS-C are previously healthy, most children who develop severe COVID-19 during an initial infection have complex conditions or comorbidities such as developmental delay or genetic anomaly, or chronic conditions such as congenital heart disease, type 1 diabetes, or asthma, the authors said. They recommend that “hospitalized children with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen or respiratory support should be considered for immunomodulatory therapy in addition to supportive care and antiviral medications.”

The authors acknowledged the limitations and evolving nature of the recommendations, which will continue to change and do not replace clinical judgment for the management of individual patients. In the meantime, the ACR will support the task force in reviewing new evidence and providing revised versions of the current document.

Many questions about MIS-C remain, Dr. Henderson said in an interview. “It can be very hard to diagnose children with MIS-C because many of the symptoms are similar to those seen in other febrile illness of childhood. We need to identify better biomarkers to help us make the diagnosis of MIS-C. In addition, we need studies to provide information about what treatments should be used if children fail to respond to IVIg and steroids. Finally, it appears that vaccination [against SARS-CoV-2] protects against severe forms of MIS-C, and studies are needed to see how vaccination protects children from MIS-C.”

The development of the guidance was supported by the American College of Rheumatology. Dr. Henderson disclosed relationships with companies including Sobi, Pfizer, and Adaptive Biotechnologies (less than $10,000) and research support from the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and research grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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