Rheumatology News

Physiotherapy conducted via video conference is noninferior to in-person sessions for the treatment of chronic knee pain, according to new research.

In the trial, participants assigned to in-person or telehealth sessions had similar improvements in knee pain and physical function over 3 months, while the online group had better session attendance and reported higher convenience.

While the COVID-19 pandemic increased the use of telerehabilitation physiotherapy services, it is not clear how these teleservices will be utilized moving forward, the study authors wrote. There is some research suggesting that both in-person and online physiotherapy are equally effective, but surveys suggest that both providers and patients remain unconvinced.

“Based on pandemic telerehabilitation experiences, less than half of allied health clinicians believe telerehabilitation is as effective as in-person care and almost half of patients think video conferencing with a physiotherapist provides lower quality care,” study first author Rana Hinman, PhD, professor of physiotherapy at the University of Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues wrote in their report published online in The Lancet.
 

‘A Game Changer’ for Physical Therapy

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Daniel White, ScD, an associate professor in the department of physical therapy at the University of Delaware in Newark, Delaware, called the research “a game changer” for physical therapy. 

“It’s showing that in-person care can be replicated in terms of efficacy,” in telehealth settings, he said. “From a telehealth perspective, it really opens the doors to access to people who have difficulty reaching physical therapists,” he added, “and puts us on stage with other modes of telehealth that are given as part of modern medicine.”

Dr. White noted that physical therapy treatment for knee osteoarthritis is underused, with just 10% of patients seeing a physical therapist prior to undergoing knee replacement. While knee replacements are effective interventions, he said, access to physical therapy could allow many patients to put off having surgery.

The findings not only provide solutions for access issues but also assuage concerns “that you’re going to get ‘physical therapy lite’” with telehealth, Dr. White added. 

“You can deliver physical therapy to this group that typically is not getting enough of it,” he said, “and it is just as effective when delivered online than if it were to be delivered in person.”
 

Noninferiority Maintained at 9 Months’ Follow-up

To understand how video conferencing physiotherapy consultations compared to in-person care, the researchers designed a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial. 

For the trial, researchers enrolled 394 adults with chronic knee pain who were aged ≥ 45 years, had activity-related joint pain, and either had no morning stiffness or morning stiffness lasting < 30 minutes. Other inclusion criteria were history of knee pain of ≥ 3 months, knee pain most days of the previous month, average walking pain score of four or more on the 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) over the previous week, and difficulty walking and climbing stairs.

Participants also needed access to a computer device with internet as well as the ability to travel to the nearest trial physiotherapist.

The study recruited 15 physiotherapists across 27 practices in metropolitan Queensland and Victoria, Australia, of which 60% had no previous telerehabilitation experience. Physiotherapists were trained to conduct video sessions via e-learning, practice video consultations, and a competency video conferencing evaluation.

Participants were randomly assigned to in-person or video physiotherapist consultations, with both groups receiving five consultations over 3 months. All clients were prescribed a home-based strength training program and physical activity plan.

The primary outcomes were changes at 3 months in patient-reported knee pain (on a scale of 0-10), with an inferiority margin of 0.95, and physical function — assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) — with an inferiority margin of −5.44.

From December 10, 2019, to June 17, 2022, 204 participants were assigned to in-person sessions and 190 were assigned to telerehabilitation. At 3 months, both groups reported improved pain and physical function, with no significant differences between the two groups with either measure. The mean between-group difference was 0.16 (95% CI, −0.26 to 0.57) for knee pain and 1.65 (−0.23 to 3.53) for physical function. Noninferiority was also maintained at 9 months’ follow-up.

The trial took place over the COVID-19 pandemic, which limited participant ability to attend in-person consultations. In total, 84% of participants assigned to in-person rehabilitation attended at least three or more consultations compared with 96% of those assigned to telerehabilitation. In an additional analysis including only participants attending three or more sessions, improvement in knee pain and physical function was similar between the in-person or tele-rehabilitation groups “showing that the findings are robust,” the authors noted.

At 3 months, the telerehabilitation group ranked their sessions as more convenient that their in-person counterparts and reported greater adherence to their strengthening program. At 9 months’ follow-up, the telerehabilitation group had higher physical activity scores than the in-person group.

This research was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Two authors reported grant funding paid to the University of Melbourne from the National Health & Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, Medical Research Future Fund, and Medibank for research. Dr. White has been a paid speaker for Viatris.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physiotherapy conducted via video conference is noninferior to in-person sessions for the treatment of chronic knee pain, according to new research.

In the trial, participants assigned to in-person or telehealth sessions had similar improvements in knee pain and physical function over 3 months, while the online group had better session attendance and reported higher convenience.

While the COVID-19 pandemic increased the use of telerehabilitation physiotherapy services, it is not clear how these teleservices will be utilized moving forward, the study authors wrote. There is some research suggesting that both in-person and online physiotherapy are equally effective, but surveys suggest that both providers and patients remain unconvinced.

“Based on pandemic telerehabilitation experiences, less than half of allied health clinicians believe telerehabilitation is as effective as in-person care and almost half of patients think video conferencing with a physiotherapist provides lower quality care,” study first author Rana Hinman, PhD, professor of physiotherapy at the University of Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues wrote in their report published online in The Lancet.
 

‘A Game Changer’ for Physical Therapy

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Daniel White, ScD, an associate professor in the department of physical therapy at the University of Delaware in Newark, Delaware, called the research “a game changer” for physical therapy. 

“It’s showing that in-person care can be replicated in terms of efficacy,” in telehealth settings, he said. “From a telehealth perspective, it really opens the doors to access to people who have difficulty reaching physical therapists,” he added, “and puts us on stage with other modes of telehealth that are given as part of modern medicine.”

Dr. White noted that physical therapy treatment for knee osteoarthritis is underused, with just 10% of patients seeing a physical therapist prior to undergoing knee replacement. While knee replacements are effective interventions, he said, access to physical therapy could allow many patients to put off having surgery.

The findings not only provide solutions for access issues but also assuage concerns “that you’re going to get ‘physical therapy lite’” with telehealth, Dr. White added. 

“You can deliver physical therapy to this group that typically is not getting enough of it,” he said, “and it is just as effective when delivered online than if it were to be delivered in person.”
 

Noninferiority Maintained at 9 Months’ Follow-up

To understand how video conferencing physiotherapy consultations compared to in-person care, the researchers designed a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial. 

For the trial, researchers enrolled 394 adults with chronic knee pain who were aged ≥ 45 years, had activity-related joint pain, and either had no morning stiffness or morning stiffness lasting < 30 minutes. Other inclusion criteria were history of knee pain of ≥ 3 months, knee pain most days of the previous month, average walking pain score of four or more on the 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) over the previous week, and difficulty walking and climbing stairs.

Participants also needed access to a computer device with internet as well as the ability to travel to the nearest trial physiotherapist.

The study recruited 15 physiotherapists across 27 practices in metropolitan Queensland and Victoria, Australia, of which 60% had no previous telerehabilitation experience. Physiotherapists were trained to conduct video sessions via e-learning, practice video consultations, and a competency video conferencing evaluation.

Participants were randomly assigned to in-person or video physiotherapist consultations, with both groups receiving five consultations over 3 months. All clients were prescribed a home-based strength training program and physical activity plan.

The primary outcomes were changes at 3 months in patient-reported knee pain (on a scale of 0-10), with an inferiority margin of 0.95, and physical function — assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) — with an inferiority margin of −5.44.

From December 10, 2019, to June 17, 2022, 204 participants were assigned to in-person sessions and 190 were assigned to telerehabilitation. At 3 months, both groups reported improved pain and physical function, with no significant differences between the two groups with either measure. The mean between-group difference was 0.16 (95% CI, −0.26 to 0.57) for knee pain and 1.65 (−0.23 to 3.53) for physical function. Noninferiority was also maintained at 9 months’ follow-up.

The trial took place over the COVID-19 pandemic, which limited participant ability to attend in-person consultations. In total, 84% of participants assigned to in-person rehabilitation attended at least three or more consultations compared with 96% of those assigned to telerehabilitation. In an additional analysis including only participants attending three or more sessions, improvement in knee pain and physical function was similar between the in-person or tele-rehabilitation groups “showing that the findings are robust,” the authors noted.

At 3 months, the telerehabilitation group ranked their sessions as more convenient that their in-person counterparts and reported greater adherence to their strengthening program. At 9 months’ follow-up, the telerehabilitation group had higher physical activity scores than the in-person group.

This research was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Two authors reported grant funding paid to the University of Melbourne from the National Health & Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, Medical Research Future Fund, and Medibank for research. Dr. White has been a paid speaker for Viatris.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physiotherapy conducted via video conference is noninferior to in-person sessions for the treatment of chronic knee pain, according to new research.

In the trial, participants assigned to in-person or telehealth sessions had similar improvements in knee pain and physical function over 3 months, while the online group had better session attendance and reported higher convenience.

While the COVID-19 pandemic increased the use of telerehabilitation physiotherapy services, it is not clear how these teleservices will be utilized moving forward, the study authors wrote. There is some research suggesting that both in-person and online physiotherapy are equally effective, but surveys suggest that both providers and patients remain unconvinced.

“Based on pandemic telerehabilitation experiences, less than half of allied health clinicians believe telerehabilitation is as effective as in-person care and almost half of patients think video conferencing with a physiotherapist provides lower quality care,” study first author Rana Hinman, PhD, professor of physiotherapy at the University of Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues wrote in their report published online in The Lancet.
 

‘A Game Changer’ for Physical Therapy

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Daniel White, ScD, an associate professor in the department of physical therapy at the University of Delaware in Newark, Delaware, called the research “a game changer” for physical therapy. 

“It’s showing that in-person care can be replicated in terms of efficacy,” in telehealth settings, he said. “From a telehealth perspective, it really opens the doors to access to people who have difficulty reaching physical therapists,” he added, “and puts us on stage with other modes of telehealth that are given as part of modern medicine.”

Dr. White noted that physical therapy treatment for knee osteoarthritis is underused, with just 10% of patients seeing a physical therapist prior to undergoing knee replacement. While knee replacements are effective interventions, he said, access to physical therapy could allow many patients to put off having surgery.

The findings not only provide solutions for access issues but also assuage concerns “that you’re going to get ‘physical therapy lite’” with telehealth, Dr. White added. 

“You can deliver physical therapy to this group that typically is not getting enough of it,” he said, “and it is just as effective when delivered online than if it were to be delivered in person.”
 

Noninferiority Maintained at 9 Months’ Follow-up

To understand how video conferencing physiotherapy consultations compared to in-person care, the researchers designed a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial. 

For the trial, researchers enrolled 394 adults with chronic knee pain who were aged ≥ 45 years, had activity-related joint pain, and either had no morning stiffness or morning stiffness lasting < 30 minutes. Other inclusion criteria were history of knee pain of ≥ 3 months, knee pain most days of the previous month, average walking pain score of four or more on the 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) over the previous week, and difficulty walking and climbing stairs.

Participants also needed access to a computer device with internet as well as the ability to travel to the nearest trial physiotherapist.

The study recruited 15 physiotherapists across 27 practices in metropolitan Queensland and Victoria, Australia, of which 60% had no previous telerehabilitation experience. Physiotherapists were trained to conduct video sessions via e-learning, practice video consultations, and a competency video conferencing evaluation.

Participants were randomly assigned to in-person or video physiotherapist consultations, with both groups receiving five consultations over 3 months. All clients were prescribed a home-based strength training program and physical activity plan.

The primary outcomes were changes at 3 months in patient-reported knee pain (on a scale of 0-10), with an inferiority margin of 0.95, and physical function — assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) — with an inferiority margin of −5.44.

From December 10, 2019, to June 17, 2022, 204 participants were assigned to in-person sessions and 190 were assigned to telerehabilitation. At 3 months, both groups reported improved pain and physical function, with no significant differences between the two groups with either measure. The mean between-group difference was 0.16 (95% CI, −0.26 to 0.57) for knee pain and 1.65 (−0.23 to 3.53) for physical function. Noninferiority was also maintained at 9 months’ follow-up.

The trial took place over the COVID-19 pandemic, which limited participant ability to attend in-person consultations. In total, 84% of participants assigned to in-person rehabilitation attended at least three or more consultations compared with 96% of those assigned to telerehabilitation. In an additional analysis including only participants attending three or more sessions, improvement in knee pain and physical function was similar between the in-person or tele-rehabilitation groups “showing that the findings are robust,” the authors noted.

At 3 months, the telerehabilitation group ranked their sessions as more convenient that their in-person counterparts and reported greater adherence to their strengthening program. At 9 months’ follow-up, the telerehabilitation group had higher physical activity scores than the in-person group.

This research was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Two authors reported grant funding paid to the University of Melbourne from the National Health & Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, Medical Research Future Fund, and Medibank for research. Dr. White has been a paid speaker for Viatris.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The following scenario was discussed during a forum at a meeting recently:

Two employees managing the front desk are clock watchers, always the first to leave at 11:59 a.m. for lunch and at 4:59 p.m. for the end of the day no matter what is happening. This leaves the other employees stuck with their work.

I have seen clock watching often enough to know that it is widely practiced, and widely reviled by coworkers and managers alike. Generally, clock watchers — sometimes referred to in modern parlance as “quiet quitters” — radiate a palpable sense of “I don’t want to be here.”

Physicians typically can’t identify with clock watching behavior, because we learned early on that patient-care tasks must be pursued to completion; if that involves working past the usual “quitting time,” so be it. So your first task in dealing with this problem is to determine its cause. The clock watcher label may be unfair. There may be legitimate reasons for certain employees to leave work at precisely 4:59 every day. Perhaps they must pick up children, or they have a second job to get to. The label usually comes from a pattern of consistent, repeated behavior. And if more than one employee is exhibiting the same behavior in the same office, the likelihood of a valid explanation decreases proportionally.

Utamaru Kido/Moment/Getty Images

A common cause of clock watching is a lack of employees’ commitment to their jobs. They don’t see the point in putting in extra effort, so they run out the door as soon as possible. There are many reasons why this might be the case. For example, the workload in your office may be too large to be accomplished in the time available by the number of people you employ. The solution might be to simply hire additional personnel.

Another common cause is a lack of communication between physicians, managers, and lower-level employees. If staffers are raising concerns or potential solutions, and management is not listening to their opinions or ideas, they will stop offering them. Alternatively, other staff members may not be pulling their weight. When there is a large imbalance in the contribution of team members, the higher performers will stop trying.

Over my 40 plus years in practice, I have had my share of clock watchers. I try the best I can not to let employees’ time commitment practices impact my valuation of their work. I always attempt to focus on quality and productivity. It isn’t easy, but I always try to address the issues behind clock watching behavior. As such, I can’t recall ever having to fire anyone for clock watching. Here are some of the strategies that have worked for me over the years:

1. Set clear expectations. Clearly communicate job responsibilities and expectations regarding time management and patient care. Ensure that all staff understand the importance of dedicating the necessary time to each patient, regardless of the time of day.

2. Foster a patient-centered culture. Cultivate a work environment that prioritizes patient care above all. This can help shift the focus from watching the clock to ensuring high-quality patient care.

3. Provide adequate breaks. Ensure that staff schedules include sufficient breaks. Overworked staff are more likely to watch the clock. Adequate rest periods can help alleviate this issue.

4. Offer flexibility where possible. If feasible, offer some degree of scheduling flexibility. This can help staff manage their personal time more effectively, potentially reducing the tendency to watch the clock.

5. Implement time management training. Offer training sessions focused on time management and efficiency. This can help staff manage their duties more effectively, reducing the need to constantly check the time.

6. Encourage open communication. Create an environment where staff feel comfortable discussing their concerns, including issues related to workload and time management. This can help identify and address specific factors contributing to clock watching.

7. Monitor and provide feedback. Regularly monitor staff performance and provide constructive feedback. If clock watching is observed, discuss it directly with the employee, focusing on the impact on patient care and the work environment.

8. Recognize and reward. Acknowledge and reward staff who consistently provide high-quality care and demonstrate effective time management. Recognition can motivate others to adjust their behavior.

9. Evaluate workloads. Regularly assess staff workloads to ensure they are manageable. Overburdened employees are more likely to engage in clock watching.

10. Lead by example. Management should model the behavior they wish to see in their staff. Demonstrating a commitment to patient care and effective time management can set a positive example.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

The following scenario was discussed during a forum at a meeting recently:

Two employees managing the front desk are clock watchers, always the first to leave at 11:59 a.m. for lunch and at 4:59 p.m. for the end of the day no matter what is happening. This leaves the other employees stuck with their work.

I have seen clock watching often enough to know that it is widely practiced, and widely reviled by coworkers and managers alike. Generally, clock watchers — sometimes referred to in modern parlance as “quiet quitters” — radiate a palpable sense of “I don’t want to be here.”

Physicians typically can’t identify with clock watching behavior, because we learned early on that patient-care tasks must be pursued to completion; if that involves working past the usual “quitting time,” so be it. So your first task in dealing with this problem is to determine its cause. The clock watcher label may be unfair. There may be legitimate reasons for certain employees to leave work at precisely 4:59 every day. Perhaps they must pick up children, or they have a second job to get to. The label usually comes from a pattern of consistent, repeated behavior. And if more than one employee is exhibiting the same behavior in the same office, the likelihood of a valid explanation decreases proportionally.

Utamaru Kido/Moment/Getty Images

A common cause of clock watching is a lack of employees’ commitment to their jobs. They don’t see the point in putting in extra effort, so they run out the door as soon as possible. There are many reasons why this might be the case. For example, the workload in your office may be too large to be accomplished in the time available by the number of people you employ. The solution might be to simply hire additional personnel.

Another common cause is a lack of communication between physicians, managers, and lower-level employees. If staffers are raising concerns or potential solutions, and management is not listening to their opinions or ideas, they will stop offering them. Alternatively, other staff members may not be pulling their weight. When there is a large imbalance in the contribution of team members, the higher performers will stop trying.

Over my 40 plus years in practice, I have had my share of clock watchers. I try the best I can not to let employees’ time commitment practices impact my valuation of their work. I always attempt to focus on quality and productivity. It isn’t easy, but I always try to address the issues behind clock watching behavior. As such, I can’t recall ever having to fire anyone for clock watching. Here are some of the strategies that have worked for me over the years:

1. Set clear expectations. Clearly communicate job responsibilities and expectations regarding time management and patient care. Ensure that all staff understand the importance of dedicating the necessary time to each patient, regardless of the time of day.

2. Foster a patient-centered culture. Cultivate a work environment that prioritizes patient care above all. This can help shift the focus from watching the clock to ensuring high-quality patient care.

3. Provide adequate breaks. Ensure that staff schedules include sufficient breaks. Overworked staff are more likely to watch the clock. Adequate rest periods can help alleviate this issue.

4. Offer flexibility where possible. If feasible, offer some degree of scheduling flexibility. This can help staff manage their personal time more effectively, potentially reducing the tendency to watch the clock.

5. Implement time management training. Offer training sessions focused on time management and efficiency. This can help staff manage their duties more effectively, reducing the need to constantly check the time.

6. Encourage open communication. Create an environment where staff feel comfortable discussing their concerns, including issues related to workload and time management. This can help identify and address specific factors contributing to clock watching.

7. Monitor and provide feedback. Regularly monitor staff performance and provide constructive feedback. If clock watching is observed, discuss it directly with the employee, focusing on the impact on patient care and the work environment.

8. Recognize and reward. Acknowledge and reward staff who consistently provide high-quality care and demonstrate effective time management. Recognition can motivate others to adjust their behavior.

9. Evaluate workloads. Regularly assess staff workloads to ensure they are manageable. Overburdened employees are more likely to engage in clock watching.

10. Lead by example. Management should model the behavior they wish to see in their staff. Demonstrating a commitment to patient care and effective time management can set a positive example.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

The following scenario was discussed during a forum at a meeting recently:

Two employees managing the front desk are clock watchers, always the first to leave at 11:59 a.m. for lunch and at 4:59 p.m. for the end of the day no matter what is happening. This leaves the other employees stuck with their work.

I have seen clock watching often enough to know that it is widely practiced, and widely reviled by coworkers and managers alike. Generally, clock watchers — sometimes referred to in modern parlance as “quiet quitters” — radiate a palpable sense of “I don’t want to be here.”

Physicians typically can’t identify with clock watching behavior, because we learned early on that patient-care tasks must be pursued to completion; if that involves working past the usual “quitting time,” so be it. So your first task in dealing with this problem is to determine its cause. The clock watcher label may be unfair. There may be legitimate reasons for certain employees to leave work at precisely 4:59 every day. Perhaps they must pick up children, or they have a second job to get to. The label usually comes from a pattern of consistent, repeated behavior. And if more than one employee is exhibiting the same behavior in the same office, the likelihood of a valid explanation decreases proportionally.

Utamaru Kido/Moment/Getty Images

A common cause of clock watching is a lack of employees’ commitment to their jobs. They don’t see the point in putting in extra effort, so they run out the door as soon as possible. There are many reasons why this might be the case. For example, the workload in your office may be too large to be accomplished in the time available by the number of people you employ. The solution might be to simply hire additional personnel.

Another common cause is a lack of communication between physicians, managers, and lower-level employees. If staffers are raising concerns or potential solutions, and management is not listening to their opinions or ideas, they will stop offering them. Alternatively, other staff members may not be pulling their weight. When there is a large imbalance in the contribution of team members, the higher performers will stop trying.

Over my 40 plus years in practice, I have had my share of clock watchers. I try the best I can not to let employees’ time commitment practices impact my valuation of their work. I always attempt to focus on quality and productivity. It isn’t easy, but I always try to address the issues behind clock watching behavior. As such, I can’t recall ever having to fire anyone for clock watching. Here are some of the strategies that have worked for me over the years:

1. Set clear expectations. Clearly communicate job responsibilities and expectations regarding time management and patient care. Ensure that all staff understand the importance of dedicating the necessary time to each patient, regardless of the time of day.

2. Foster a patient-centered culture. Cultivate a work environment that prioritizes patient care above all. This can help shift the focus from watching the clock to ensuring high-quality patient care.

3. Provide adequate breaks. Ensure that staff schedules include sufficient breaks. Overworked staff are more likely to watch the clock. Adequate rest periods can help alleviate this issue.

4. Offer flexibility where possible. If feasible, offer some degree of scheduling flexibility. This can help staff manage their personal time more effectively, potentially reducing the tendency to watch the clock.

5. Implement time management training. Offer training sessions focused on time management and efficiency. This can help staff manage their duties more effectively, reducing the need to constantly check the time.

6. Encourage open communication. Create an environment where staff feel comfortable discussing their concerns, including issues related to workload and time management. This can help identify and address specific factors contributing to clock watching.

7. Monitor and provide feedback. Regularly monitor staff performance and provide constructive feedback. If clock watching is observed, discuss it directly with the employee, focusing on the impact on patient care and the work environment.

8. Recognize and reward. Acknowledge and reward staff who consistently provide high-quality care and demonstrate effective time management. Recognition can motivate others to adjust their behavior.

9. Evaluate workloads. Regularly assess staff workloads to ensure they are manageable. Overburdened employees are more likely to engage in clock watching.

10. Lead by example. Management should model the behavior they wish to see in their staff. Demonstrating a commitment to patient care and effective time management can set a positive example.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Fractures, particularly hip and spine fractures, are a major cause of mortality and morbidity among older individuals. The term “osteoporosis” indicates increased porosity of bones resulting in low bone density; increased bone fragility; and an increased risk for fracture, often with minimal trauma.

During the adolescent years, bone accrues at a rapid rate, and optimal bone accrual during this time is essential to attain optimal peak bone mass, typically achieved in the third decade of life. Bone mass then stays stable until the 40s-50s, after which it starts to decline. One’s peak bone mass sets the stage for both immediate and future bone health. Individuals with lower peak bone mass tend to have less optimal bone health throughout their lives, and this becomes particularly problematic in older men and in the postmenopausal years for women.

The best strategy to optimize bone health is to prevent osteoporosis from occurring in the first place. This requires attention to factors that contribute to optimal bone health. One’s genes have a major impact on bone density and are currently not modifiable.

Modifiable factors include mechanical loading of bones through exercise activity, maintaining a normal body weight, and ensuring adequate intake of micronutrients (including calcium and vitamin D) and macronutrients. Medications such as glucocorticoids that have deleterious effects on bones should be limited as far as possible. Endocrine, gastrointestinal, renal, and rheumatologic conditions and others, such as cancer, which are known to be associated with reduced bone density and increased fracture risk, should be managed appropriately.

A deficiency of the gonadal hormones (estrogen and testosterone) and high blood concentrations of cortisol are particularly deleterious to bone. Hormone replacement therapy in those with gonadal hormone deficiency and strategies to reduce cortisol levels in those with hypercortisolemia are essential to prevent osteoporosis and also improve bone density over time. The same applies to management of conditions such as anorexia nervosa, relative energy deficiency in sports, inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, cystic fibrosis, chronic kidney disease, and chronic arthritis.

Once osteoporosis has developed, depending on the cause, these strategies may not be sufficient to completely reverse the condition, and pharmacologic therapy may be necessary to improve bone density and reduce fracture risk. This is particularly an issue with postmenopausal women and older men. In these individuals, medications that increase bone formation or reduce bone loss may be necessary.

Medications that reduce bone loss include bisphosphonates and denosumab; these are also called “antiresorptive medications” because they reduce bone resorption by cells called osteoclasts. Bisphosphonates include alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, pamidronate, and zoledronic acid, and these medications have direct effects on osteoclasts, reducing their activity. Some bisphosphonates, such as alendronate and risedronate, are taken orally (daily, weekly, or monthly, depending on the medication and its strength), whereas others, such as pamidronate and zoledronic acid, are administered intravenously: every 3-4 months for pamidronate and every 6-12 months for zoledronic acid. Ibandronate is available both orally and intravenously.

Denosumab is a medication that inhibits the action of receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa ligand 1 (RANKL), which otherwise increases osteoclast activity. It is administered as a subcutaneous injection every 6 months to treat osteoporosis. One concern with denosumab is a rapid increase in bone loss after its discontinuation.

Medications that increase bone formation are called bone anabolics and include teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab. Teriparatide is a synthetic form of parathyroid hormone (recombinant PTH1-34) administered daily for up to 2 years. Abaloparatide is a synthetic analog of parathyroid hormone–related peptide (PTHrP), which is also administered daily as a subcutaneous injection. Romosozumab inhibits sclerostin (a substance that otherwise reduces bone formation and increases bone resorption) and is administered as a subcutaneous injection once a month. Effects of these medications tend to be lost after they are discontinued.

In 2019, the Endocrine Society published guidelines for managing postmenopausal osteoporosis. The guidelines recommend lifestyle modifications, including attention to diet, calcium and vitamin D supplements, and weight-bearing exercise for all postmenopausal women. They also recommend assessing fracture risk using country-specific existing models.

Guidelines vary depending on whether fracture risk is low, moderate, or high. Patients at low risk are followed and reassessed every 2-4 years for fracture risk. Those at moderate risk may be followed similarly or prescribed bisphosphonates. Those at high risk are prescribed an antiresorptive, such as a bisphosphonate or denosumab, or a bone anabolic, such as teriparatide or abaloparatide (for up to 2 years) or romosozumab (for a year), with calcium and vitamin D and are reassessed at defined intervals for fracture risk; subsequent management then depends on the assessed fracture risk.

People who are on a bone anabolic should typically follow this with an antiresorptive medication to maintain the gains achieved with the former after that medication is discontinued. Patients who discontinue denosumab should be switched to bisphosphonates to prevent the increase in bone loss that typically occurs.

In postmenopausal women who are intolerant to or inappropriate for use of these medications, guidelines vary depending on age (younger or older than 60 years) and presence or absence of vasomotor symptoms (such as hot flashes). Options could include the use of calcium and vitamin D supplements; hormone replacement therapy with estrogen with or without a progestin; or selective estrogen receptor modulators (such as raloxifene or bazedoxifene), tibolone, or calcitonin.

It’s important to recognize that all pharmacologic therapy carries the risk for adverse events, and it’s essential to take the necessary steps to prevent, monitor for, and manage any adverse effects that may develop.

Managing osteoporosis in older men could include the use of bone anabolics and/or antiresorptives. In younger individuals, use of pharmacologic therapy is less common but sometimes necessary, particularly when bone density is very low and associated with a problematic fracture history — for example, in those with genetic conditions such as osteogenesis imperfecta. Furthermore, the occurrence of vertebral compression fractures often requires bisphosphonate treatment regardless of bone density, particularly in patients on chronic glucocorticoid therapy.

Preventing osteoporosis is best managed by paying attention to lifestyle; optimizing nutrition and calcium and vitamin D intake; and managing conditions and limiting the use of medications that reduce bone density.

However, in certain patients, these measures are not enough, and pharmacologic therapy with bone anabolics or antiresorptives may be necessary to improve bone density and reduce fracture risk.

Dr. Misra, of the University of Virginia and UVA Health Children’s Hospital, Charlottesville, disclosed ties with AbbVie, Sanofi, and Ipsen.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Fractures, particularly hip and spine fractures, are a major cause of mortality and morbidity among older individuals. The term “osteoporosis” indicates increased porosity of bones resulting in low bone density; increased bone fragility; and an increased risk for fracture, often with minimal trauma.

During the adolescent years, bone accrues at a rapid rate, and optimal bone accrual during this time is essential to attain optimal peak bone mass, typically achieved in the third decade of life. Bone mass then stays stable until the 40s-50s, after which it starts to decline. One’s peak bone mass sets the stage for both immediate and future bone health. Individuals with lower peak bone mass tend to have less optimal bone health throughout their lives, and this becomes particularly problematic in older men and in the postmenopausal years for women.

The best strategy to optimize bone health is to prevent osteoporosis from occurring in the first place. This requires attention to factors that contribute to optimal bone health. One’s genes have a major impact on bone density and are currently not modifiable.

Modifiable factors include mechanical loading of bones through exercise activity, maintaining a normal body weight, and ensuring adequate intake of micronutrients (including calcium and vitamin D) and macronutrients. Medications such as glucocorticoids that have deleterious effects on bones should be limited as far as possible. Endocrine, gastrointestinal, renal, and rheumatologic conditions and others, such as cancer, which are known to be associated with reduced bone density and increased fracture risk, should be managed appropriately.

A deficiency of the gonadal hormones (estrogen and testosterone) and high blood concentrations of cortisol are particularly deleterious to bone. Hormone replacement therapy in those with gonadal hormone deficiency and strategies to reduce cortisol levels in those with hypercortisolemia are essential to prevent osteoporosis and also improve bone density over time. The same applies to management of conditions such as anorexia nervosa, relative energy deficiency in sports, inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, cystic fibrosis, chronic kidney disease, and chronic arthritis.

Once osteoporosis has developed, depending on the cause, these strategies may not be sufficient to completely reverse the condition, and pharmacologic therapy may be necessary to improve bone density and reduce fracture risk. This is particularly an issue with postmenopausal women and older men. In these individuals, medications that increase bone formation or reduce bone loss may be necessary.

Medications that reduce bone loss include bisphosphonates and denosumab; these are also called “antiresorptive medications” because they reduce bone resorption by cells called osteoclasts. Bisphosphonates include alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, pamidronate, and zoledronic acid, and these medications have direct effects on osteoclasts, reducing their activity. Some bisphosphonates, such as alendronate and risedronate, are taken orally (daily, weekly, or monthly, depending on the medication and its strength), whereas others, such as pamidronate and zoledronic acid, are administered intravenously: every 3-4 months for pamidronate and every 6-12 months for zoledronic acid. Ibandronate is available both orally and intravenously.

Denosumab is a medication that inhibits the action of receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa ligand 1 (RANKL), which otherwise increases osteoclast activity. It is administered as a subcutaneous injection every 6 months to treat osteoporosis. One concern with denosumab is a rapid increase in bone loss after its discontinuation.

Medications that increase bone formation are called bone anabolics and include teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab. Teriparatide is a synthetic form of parathyroid hormone (recombinant PTH1-34) administered daily for up to 2 years. Abaloparatide is a synthetic analog of parathyroid hormone–related peptide (PTHrP), which is also administered daily as a subcutaneous injection. Romosozumab inhibits sclerostin (a substance that otherwise reduces bone formation and increases bone resorption) and is administered as a subcutaneous injection once a month. Effects of these medications tend to be lost after they are discontinued.

In 2019, the Endocrine Society published guidelines for managing postmenopausal osteoporosis. The guidelines recommend lifestyle modifications, including attention to diet, calcium and vitamin D supplements, and weight-bearing exercise for all postmenopausal women. They also recommend assessing fracture risk using country-specific existing models.

Guidelines vary depending on whether fracture risk is low, moderate, or high. Patients at low risk are followed and reassessed every 2-4 years for fracture risk. Those at moderate risk may be followed similarly or prescribed bisphosphonates. Those at high risk are prescribed an antiresorptive, such as a bisphosphonate or denosumab, or a bone anabolic, such as teriparatide or abaloparatide (for up to 2 years) or romosozumab (for a year), with calcium and vitamin D and are reassessed at defined intervals for fracture risk; subsequent management then depends on the assessed fracture risk.

People who are on a bone anabolic should typically follow this with an antiresorptive medication to maintain the gains achieved with the former after that medication is discontinued. Patients who discontinue denosumab should be switched to bisphosphonates to prevent the increase in bone loss that typically occurs.

In postmenopausal women who are intolerant to or inappropriate for use of these medications, guidelines vary depending on age (younger or older than 60 years) and presence or absence of vasomotor symptoms (such as hot flashes). Options could include the use of calcium and vitamin D supplements; hormone replacement therapy with estrogen with or without a progestin; or selective estrogen receptor modulators (such as raloxifene or bazedoxifene), tibolone, or calcitonin.

It’s important to recognize that all pharmacologic therapy carries the risk for adverse events, and it’s essential to take the necessary steps to prevent, monitor for, and manage any adverse effects that may develop.

Managing osteoporosis in older men could include the use of bone anabolics and/or antiresorptives. In younger individuals, use of pharmacologic therapy is less common but sometimes necessary, particularly when bone density is very low and associated with a problematic fracture history — for example, in those with genetic conditions such as osteogenesis imperfecta. Furthermore, the occurrence of vertebral compression fractures often requires bisphosphonate treatment regardless of bone density, particularly in patients on chronic glucocorticoid therapy.

Preventing osteoporosis is best managed by paying attention to lifestyle; optimizing nutrition and calcium and vitamin D intake; and managing conditions and limiting the use of medications that reduce bone density.

However, in certain patients, these measures are not enough, and pharmacologic therapy with bone anabolics or antiresorptives may be necessary to improve bone density and reduce fracture risk.

Dr. Misra, of the University of Virginia and UVA Health Children’s Hospital, Charlottesville, disclosed ties with AbbVie, Sanofi, and Ipsen.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Fractures, particularly hip and spine fractures, are a major cause of mortality and morbidity among older individuals. The term “osteoporosis” indicates increased porosity of bones resulting in low bone density; increased bone fragility; and an increased risk for fracture, often with minimal trauma.

During the adolescent years, bone accrues at a rapid rate, and optimal bone accrual during this time is essential to attain optimal peak bone mass, typically achieved in the third decade of life. Bone mass then stays stable until the 40s-50s, after which it starts to decline. One’s peak bone mass sets the stage for both immediate and future bone health. Individuals with lower peak bone mass tend to have less optimal bone health throughout their lives, and this becomes particularly problematic in older men and in the postmenopausal years for women.

The best strategy to optimize bone health is to prevent osteoporosis from occurring in the first place. This requires attention to factors that contribute to optimal bone health. One’s genes have a major impact on bone density and are currently not modifiable.

Modifiable factors include mechanical loading of bones through exercise activity, maintaining a normal body weight, and ensuring adequate intake of micronutrients (including calcium and vitamin D) and macronutrients. Medications such as glucocorticoids that have deleterious effects on bones should be limited as far as possible. Endocrine, gastrointestinal, renal, and rheumatologic conditions and others, such as cancer, which are known to be associated with reduced bone density and increased fracture risk, should be managed appropriately.

A deficiency of the gonadal hormones (estrogen and testosterone) and high blood concentrations of cortisol are particularly deleterious to bone. Hormone replacement therapy in those with gonadal hormone deficiency and strategies to reduce cortisol levels in those with hypercortisolemia are essential to prevent osteoporosis and also improve bone density over time. The same applies to management of conditions such as anorexia nervosa, relative energy deficiency in sports, inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, cystic fibrosis, chronic kidney disease, and chronic arthritis.

Once osteoporosis has developed, depending on the cause, these strategies may not be sufficient to completely reverse the condition, and pharmacologic therapy may be necessary to improve bone density and reduce fracture risk. This is particularly an issue with postmenopausal women and older men. In these individuals, medications that increase bone formation or reduce bone loss may be necessary.

Medications that reduce bone loss include bisphosphonates and denosumab; these are also called “antiresorptive medications” because they reduce bone resorption by cells called osteoclasts. Bisphosphonates include alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, pamidronate, and zoledronic acid, and these medications have direct effects on osteoclasts, reducing their activity. Some bisphosphonates, such as alendronate and risedronate, are taken orally (daily, weekly, or monthly, depending on the medication and its strength), whereas others, such as pamidronate and zoledronic acid, are administered intravenously: every 3-4 months for pamidronate and every 6-12 months for zoledronic acid. Ibandronate is available both orally and intravenously.

Denosumab is a medication that inhibits the action of receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa ligand 1 (RANKL), which otherwise increases osteoclast activity. It is administered as a subcutaneous injection every 6 months to treat osteoporosis. One concern with denosumab is a rapid increase in bone loss after its discontinuation.

Medications that increase bone formation are called bone anabolics and include teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab. Teriparatide is a synthetic form of parathyroid hormone (recombinant PTH1-34) administered daily for up to 2 years. Abaloparatide is a synthetic analog of parathyroid hormone–related peptide (PTHrP), which is also administered daily as a subcutaneous injection. Romosozumab inhibits sclerostin (a substance that otherwise reduces bone formation and increases bone resorption) and is administered as a subcutaneous injection once a month. Effects of these medications tend to be lost after they are discontinued.

In 2019, the Endocrine Society published guidelines for managing postmenopausal osteoporosis. The guidelines recommend lifestyle modifications, including attention to diet, calcium and vitamin D supplements, and weight-bearing exercise for all postmenopausal women. They also recommend assessing fracture risk using country-specific existing models.

Guidelines vary depending on whether fracture risk is low, moderate, or high. Patients at low risk are followed and reassessed every 2-4 years for fracture risk. Those at moderate risk may be followed similarly or prescribed bisphosphonates. Those at high risk are prescribed an antiresorptive, such as a bisphosphonate or denosumab, or a bone anabolic, such as teriparatide or abaloparatide (for up to 2 years) or romosozumab (for a year), with calcium and vitamin D and are reassessed at defined intervals for fracture risk; subsequent management then depends on the assessed fracture risk.

People who are on a bone anabolic should typically follow this with an antiresorptive medication to maintain the gains achieved with the former after that medication is discontinued. Patients who discontinue denosumab should be switched to bisphosphonates to prevent the increase in bone loss that typically occurs.

In postmenopausal women who are intolerant to or inappropriate for use of these medications, guidelines vary depending on age (younger or older than 60 years) and presence or absence of vasomotor symptoms (such as hot flashes). Options could include the use of calcium and vitamin D supplements; hormone replacement therapy with estrogen with or without a progestin; or selective estrogen receptor modulators (such as raloxifene or bazedoxifene), tibolone, or calcitonin.

It’s important to recognize that all pharmacologic therapy carries the risk for adverse events, and it’s essential to take the necessary steps to prevent, monitor for, and manage any adverse effects that may develop.

Managing osteoporosis in older men could include the use of bone anabolics and/or antiresorptives. In younger individuals, use of pharmacologic therapy is less common but sometimes necessary, particularly when bone density is very low and associated with a problematic fracture history — for example, in those with genetic conditions such as osteogenesis imperfecta. Furthermore, the occurrence of vertebral compression fractures often requires bisphosphonate treatment regardless of bone density, particularly in patients on chronic glucocorticoid therapy.

Preventing osteoporosis is best managed by paying attention to lifestyle; optimizing nutrition and calcium and vitamin D intake; and managing conditions and limiting the use of medications that reduce bone density.

However, in certain patients, these measures are not enough, and pharmacologic therapy with bone anabolics or antiresorptives may be necessary to improve bone density and reduce fracture risk.

Dr. Misra, of the University of Virginia and UVA Health Children’s Hospital, Charlottesville, disclosed ties with AbbVie, Sanofi, and Ipsen.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with non–tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) may not pose an increased risk for cancer, compared with TNFis and conventional synthetic DMARDs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research has presented conflicting results on the association between non-TNFi bDMARDs and the risk for cancer, with abatacept drawing particular attention owing to its mode of action.
• By utilizing information from Danish registers (January 2006-December 2020), researchers compared the risk for cancer in 14,944 patients with RA (age > 18 years) who were initiated on non-TNFi bDMARDs (tocilizumab/sarilumab, abatacept, or rituximab), TNFis, or were in the conventional synthetic DMARDs (bDMARD-naive) group.
• The patient population contributed to 21,982 treatment initiations, which corresponded to 1457, 1016, 690, 7458, and 11,361 treatment initiations for the tocilizumab/sarilumab, abatacept, rituximab, TNFi, and bDMARD-naive groups, respectively.
• Patients were followed up until a diagnosis was obtained for cancer, death, emigration, the initiation of a different bDMARD or a targeted synthetic DMARD, or the end of the study, whichever was earlier.
• The primary outcome was defined as any primary cancer diagnosis (except nonmelanoma skin cancer).

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for overall cancer was not significantly higher in the tocilizumab/sarilumab-, abatacept-, or rituximab-initiated groups than in the TNFi-treated and bDMARD-naive groups.

• The likelihood of cancer appeared to be higher in patients with more than 5 years of exposure to abatacept than in the TNFi-treated (hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% CI, 0.60-2.60) and bDMARD-naive groups (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.51-2.33). However, the results were not statistically significant.
• Treatment with rituximab may be associated with a lower risk for hematologic cancers than for TNFi-treated (HR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.00-2.06) or bDMARD-naive groups (HR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.00-1.89), although the findings did not show statistical significance.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “bDMARD-associated cancer risk remains a clinically important research question, and more future studies specifically investigating non-TNFi bDMARDs in terms of cancer risk in patients with RA are warranted.”

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Rasmus Westermann, MD, of Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark, was published online on March 7 in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Many patients received more than one type of non-TNFi bDMARD treatment during the study. Because the temporal relationship of DMARD treatment with cancer was not certain, potential carcinogenic treatment effects could not be distinguished. Limited data were available on cancer risk factors.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Danish Rheumatism Association and the Danish Cancer Society. Some authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies outside of the submitted work.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with non–tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) may not pose an increased risk for cancer, compared with TNFis and conventional synthetic DMARDs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research has presented conflicting results on the association between non-TNFi bDMARDs and the risk for cancer, with abatacept drawing particular attention owing to its mode of action.
• By utilizing information from Danish registers (January 2006-December 2020), researchers compared the risk for cancer in 14,944 patients with RA (age > 18 years) who were initiated on non-TNFi bDMARDs (tocilizumab/sarilumab, abatacept, or rituximab), TNFis, or were in the conventional synthetic DMARDs (bDMARD-naive) group.
• The patient population contributed to 21,982 treatment initiations, which corresponded to 1457, 1016, 690, 7458, and 11,361 treatment initiations for the tocilizumab/sarilumab, abatacept, rituximab, TNFi, and bDMARD-naive groups, respectively.
• Patients were followed up until a diagnosis was obtained for cancer, death, emigration, the initiation of a different bDMARD or a targeted synthetic DMARD, or the end of the study, whichever was earlier.
• The primary outcome was defined as any primary cancer diagnosis (except nonmelanoma skin cancer).

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for overall cancer was not significantly higher in the tocilizumab/sarilumab-, abatacept-, or rituximab-initiated groups than in the TNFi-treated and bDMARD-naive groups.

• The likelihood of cancer appeared to be higher in patients with more than 5 years of exposure to abatacept than in the TNFi-treated (hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% CI, 0.60-2.60) and bDMARD-naive groups (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.51-2.33). However, the results were not statistically significant.
• Treatment with rituximab may be associated with a lower risk for hematologic cancers than for TNFi-treated (HR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.00-2.06) or bDMARD-naive groups (HR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.00-1.89), although the findings did not show statistical significance.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “bDMARD-associated cancer risk remains a clinically important research question, and more future studies specifically investigating non-TNFi bDMARDs in terms of cancer risk in patients with RA are warranted.”

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Rasmus Westermann, MD, of Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark, was published online on March 7 in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Many patients received more than one type of non-TNFi bDMARD treatment during the study. Because the temporal relationship of DMARD treatment with cancer was not certain, potential carcinogenic treatment effects could not be distinguished. Limited data were available on cancer risk factors.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Danish Rheumatism Association and the Danish Cancer Society. Some authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies outside of the submitted work.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with non–tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) may not pose an increased risk for cancer, compared with TNFis and conventional synthetic DMARDs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research has presented conflicting results on the association between non-TNFi bDMARDs and the risk for cancer, with abatacept drawing particular attention owing to its mode of action.
• By utilizing information from Danish registers (January 2006-December 2020), researchers compared the risk for cancer in 14,944 patients with RA (age > 18 years) who were initiated on non-TNFi bDMARDs (tocilizumab/sarilumab, abatacept, or rituximab), TNFis, or were in the conventional synthetic DMARDs (bDMARD-naive) group.
• The patient population contributed to 21,982 treatment initiations, which corresponded to 1457, 1016, 690, 7458, and 11,361 treatment initiations for the tocilizumab/sarilumab, abatacept, rituximab, TNFi, and bDMARD-naive groups, respectively.
• Patients were followed up until a diagnosis was obtained for cancer, death, emigration, the initiation of a different bDMARD or a targeted synthetic DMARD, or the end of the study, whichever was earlier.
• The primary outcome was defined as any primary cancer diagnosis (except nonmelanoma skin cancer).

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for overall cancer was not significantly higher in the tocilizumab/sarilumab-, abatacept-, or rituximab-initiated groups than in the TNFi-treated and bDMARD-naive groups.

• The likelihood of cancer appeared to be higher in patients with more than 5 years of exposure to abatacept than in the TNFi-treated (hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% CI, 0.60-2.60) and bDMARD-naive groups (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.51-2.33). However, the results were not statistically significant.
• Treatment with rituximab may be associated with a lower risk for hematologic cancers than for TNFi-treated (HR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.00-2.06) or bDMARD-naive groups (HR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.00-1.89), although the findings did not show statistical significance.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “bDMARD-associated cancer risk remains a clinically important research question, and more future studies specifically investigating non-TNFi bDMARDs in terms of cancer risk in patients with RA are warranted.”

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Rasmus Westermann, MD, of Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark, was published online on March 7 in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Many patients received more than one type of non-TNFi bDMARD treatment during the study. Because the temporal relationship of DMARD treatment with cancer was not certain, potential carcinogenic treatment effects could not be distinguished. Limited data were available on cancer risk factors.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Danish Rheumatism Association and the Danish Cancer Society. Some authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies outside of the submitted work.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An earlier diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) following symptom onset increases the likelihood of achieving improved clinical outcomes, highlighting the presence of a diagnostic window of opportunity in PsA.

METHODOLOGY:

• A diagnostic delay in PsA leads to increased joint erosions and functional impairment; however, whether a “window of opportunity” (< 12 weeks) exists in PsA requires further evaluation.
• Researchers assessed the impact of diagnostic delay on clinical outcomes in 708 newly diagnosed, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naive patients with PsA from the Dutch southwest Early PsA cohort.
• Total diagnostic delay was calculated as the time period between symptom onset and PsA diagnosis made by a rheumatologist.
• On the basis of the total diagnostic delay, patients were categorized into those with a short delay of < 12 weeks (n = 136), intermediate delay of 12 weeks to 1 year (n = 237), and a long delay of > 1 year (n = 335).
• The groups were compared for clinical (Minimal Disease Activity [MDA] and Disease Activity index for Psoriatic Arthritis [DAPSA] remission) and patient-reported outcomes during 3 years of follow-up.

TAKEAWAY:

• The probability of achieving MDA was higher in patients with a short vs long diagnostic delay (odds ratio [OR], 2.55; 95% CI, 1.37-4.76).
• Compared with patients in the long diagnostic delay group, those in the short (OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.32-4.19) and intermediate (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.19-3.15) diagnostic delay groups were more likely to achieve DAPSA remission.
• Compared with patients in the long diagnostic delay group, those in the short (estimated mean difference [Δ], −1.09; 95% CI, −1.88 to −0.30) or intermediate (Δ, −0.85; 95% CI, −1.50 to −0.19) groups had slightly less tender joints.

IN PRACTICE:

“A delay of > 1 year is associated with worse clinical outcomes, which includes almost 50% of the PsA population” in this study, wrote the authors, adding that for better long-term outcomes, “it is important that PsA patients are diagnosed by a rheumatologist within 1 year after symptom onset.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Selinde V.J. Snoeck Henkemans, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was published online February 27, 2024, in RMD Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s dropout rates (25%-31% across groups) may have influenced the findings. Patients with a long diagnostic delay might have dropped out owing to treatment dissatisfaction, and those with a short or intermediate delay might have dropped out due to inactive disease.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not declare any specific source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An earlier diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) following symptom onset increases the likelihood of achieving improved clinical outcomes, highlighting the presence of a diagnostic window of opportunity in PsA.

METHODOLOGY:

• A diagnostic delay in PsA leads to increased joint erosions and functional impairment; however, whether a “window of opportunity” (< 12 weeks) exists in PsA requires further evaluation.
• Researchers assessed the impact of diagnostic delay on clinical outcomes in 708 newly diagnosed, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naive patients with PsA from the Dutch southwest Early PsA cohort.
• Total diagnostic delay was calculated as the time period between symptom onset and PsA diagnosis made by a rheumatologist.
• On the basis of the total diagnostic delay, patients were categorized into those with a short delay of < 12 weeks (n = 136), intermediate delay of 12 weeks to 1 year (n = 237), and a long delay of > 1 year (n = 335).
• The groups were compared for clinical (Minimal Disease Activity [MDA] and Disease Activity index for Psoriatic Arthritis [DAPSA] remission) and patient-reported outcomes during 3 years of follow-up.

TAKEAWAY:

• The probability of achieving MDA was higher in patients with a short vs long diagnostic delay (odds ratio [OR], 2.55; 95% CI, 1.37-4.76).
• Compared with patients in the long diagnostic delay group, those in the short (OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.32-4.19) and intermediate (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.19-3.15) diagnostic delay groups were more likely to achieve DAPSA remission.
• Compared with patients in the long diagnostic delay group, those in the short (estimated mean difference [Δ], −1.09; 95% CI, −1.88 to −0.30) or intermediate (Δ, −0.85; 95% CI, −1.50 to −0.19) groups had slightly less tender joints.

IN PRACTICE:

“A delay of > 1 year is associated with worse clinical outcomes, which includes almost 50% of the PsA population” in this study, wrote the authors, adding that for better long-term outcomes, “it is important that PsA patients are diagnosed by a rheumatologist within 1 year after symptom onset.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Selinde V.J. Snoeck Henkemans, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was published online February 27, 2024, in RMD Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s dropout rates (25%-31% across groups) may have influenced the findings. Patients with a long diagnostic delay might have dropped out owing to treatment dissatisfaction, and those with a short or intermediate delay might have dropped out due to inactive disease.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not declare any specific source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An earlier diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) following symptom onset increases the likelihood of achieving improved clinical outcomes, highlighting the presence of a diagnostic window of opportunity in PsA.

METHODOLOGY:

• A diagnostic delay in PsA leads to increased joint erosions and functional impairment; however, whether a “window of opportunity” (< 12 weeks) exists in PsA requires further evaluation.
• Researchers assessed the impact of diagnostic delay on clinical outcomes in 708 newly diagnosed, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naive patients with PsA from the Dutch southwest Early PsA cohort.
• Total diagnostic delay was calculated as the time period between symptom onset and PsA diagnosis made by a rheumatologist.
• On the basis of the total diagnostic delay, patients were categorized into those with a short delay of < 12 weeks (n = 136), intermediate delay of 12 weeks to 1 year (n = 237), and a long delay of > 1 year (n = 335).
• The groups were compared for clinical (Minimal Disease Activity [MDA] and Disease Activity index for Psoriatic Arthritis [DAPSA] remission) and patient-reported outcomes during 3 years of follow-up.

TAKEAWAY:

• The probability of achieving MDA was higher in patients with a short vs long diagnostic delay (odds ratio [OR], 2.55; 95% CI, 1.37-4.76).
• Compared with patients in the long diagnostic delay group, those in the short (OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.32-4.19) and intermediate (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.19-3.15) diagnostic delay groups were more likely to achieve DAPSA remission.
• Compared with patients in the long diagnostic delay group, those in the short (estimated mean difference [Δ], −1.09; 95% CI, −1.88 to −0.30) or intermediate (Δ, −0.85; 95% CI, −1.50 to −0.19) groups had slightly less tender joints.

IN PRACTICE:

“A delay of > 1 year is associated with worse clinical outcomes, which includes almost 50% of the PsA population” in this study, wrote the authors, adding that for better long-term outcomes, “it is important that PsA patients are diagnosed by a rheumatologist within 1 year after symptom onset.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Selinde V.J. Snoeck Henkemans, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was published online February 27, 2024, in RMD Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s dropout rates (25%-31% across groups) may have influenced the findings. Patients with a long diagnostic delay might have dropped out owing to treatment dissatisfaction, and those with a short or intermediate delay might have dropped out due to inactive disease.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not declare any specific source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The number of clinically active rheumatology providers in the United States grew more than 20% from 2009 to 2019, according to a new analysis.

The number of advanced practice providers (APPs) in rheumatology more than doubled during that same time. However, these numerical increases are not enough to meet the projected demand in care, the authors reported.

University of Alabama Medical Center

“Even though we found growth, and if that same growth continued, we’d still be well below the projected needs for the overall aging population of the United States,” lead author Melissa Mannion, MD, MSPH, a pediatric rheumatologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

In a 2015 workforce study by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), researchers projected that the supply of rheumatologists would decrease by 25% from 2015 to 2030, with an estimated shortage of over 4000 clinical full-time equivalent (cFTE) rheumatology providers.

While the previous study’s findings seem to contrast with this newest analysis, Dr. Dr. Mannion said the findings are complementary, with both studies using different data sources.

The newest findings were published online on February 24 in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Leveraging Medicare Data

The ACR study estimated the adult rheumatology workforce and cFTEs using both primary and secondary sources, including published data from the American Medical Association and other professional societies, as well as electronic surveys of ACR members and rheumatology fellows in training.

By contrast, this newest study identified rheumatology providers using Medicare administrative data from 2006 to 2020, supplemented by national provider identifier taxonomy codes. Rheumatologists were considered “clinically active” if they provided care for at least five patients in 1 year. To account for rheumatology fellows, who can be categorized as internal medicine physicians, researchers also included internists who prescribed biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to more than 10 patients a year.

The count also included APPs, both nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs), who were attached to practices with only rheumatologists, internists, or one other specialty. Like physicians, APPs were included in the count if they prescribed more than 10 patients biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs in a calendar year and billed at least five patients with a rheumatic condition per year.

Researchers also estimated the number of cFTEs for 2019, using a variety of assumptions to generate an upper and lower range.

Different Numbers, Complementary Conclusions

For the 2019 calendar year, researchers counted 5667 clinically active rheumatologists and 379 NPs/PAs.

This represented a 23% increase in rheumatologists and a 141% increase in the number of APPs in the rheumatology workforce from 2009. The active rheumatology workforce increased by about 100 providers per year over the study period, although growth flattened off in more recent years.

The estimated cFTEs for 2019 ranged from 3457 to 5396, which are “comparable” to the projected 2020 cFTE estimates made in the ACR 2015 workforce study: 3888 to 5777 cFTEs.

American College of Rheumatology

Daniel Battafarano, DO, chair of the ACR Workforce Solutions Committee, agreed with Dr. Mannion that these findings complement each other, telling a similar story “but with different numbers,” he told this news organization. Dr. Battafarano, a professor of medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, led the ACR workforce study.

“Both studies project estimates of rheumatology providers and workforce trends, but neither study can claim accurate numbers of rheumatology providers due to the true limitation of either workforce study model,” he said.

The ACR study began with a higher count of rheumatologists, estimating 6013 practicing providers in 2015, while Dr. Mannion’s team calculated 5474 providers for the same year. The ACR study projected that provider numbers would fall to 5886 by 2020, which was higher than the 2019 count in this most recent study.

Dr. Battafarano noted that the studies also dealt with different time frames: While the ACR study used 2015 data to project trends in 5-year increments, this most recent study looked trends in the previous decade.

“We found an increase over time, although toward the end of our study — from 2019 to 2020 — we did have a drop off in number of providers, so maybe we are finding the beginning of what [the ACR researchers] anticipated, or maybe that will be corrected in the future,” Dr. Dr. Mannion said. “I think that our estimates really coordinate with what they found just using a different data source.”

Geographic Disparities and Solutions

The new study also highlighted the scarcity of rheumatology providers in rural counties, which was also an important take away from the 2015 ACR study. In the new analysis, researchers found that 95% of rheumatology practices were in urban settings, which did not change over the study period. Most counties in the United States had fewer than 30 rheumatologists per 1 million adults, with 93% of rural counties having zero adult rheumatologists. In comparison, 48% of urban counties had no adult rheumatologists.

“There’s not enough people, and they’re in very specific locations,” Dr. Dr. Mannion said. “Both things make it harder for people to get care.”

Dr. Battafarano noted that leveraging APPs would be key to increasing patient access to care moving forward — a resource that has more than doubled in the past decade, according to Dr. Dr. Mannion’s analysis.

“Recruiting a significant number of APPs into rheumatology practice should be a primary goal to increase the rheumatology workforce,” he said. Other potential solutions, he added, include employing telemedicine and educating primary care providers on rheumatic disease to help them comanage these conditions with rheumatologists.

This study was partially funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Mannion was supported by the Rheumatology Research Foundation Norman B. Gaylis, MD Clinical Research Award, paid to her institution. Dr. Battafarano had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The number of clinically active rheumatology providers in the United States grew more than 20% from 2009 to 2019, according to a new analysis.

The number of advanced practice providers (APPs) in rheumatology more than doubled during that same time. However, these numerical increases are not enough to meet the projected demand in care, the authors reported.

University of Alabama Medical Center

“Even though we found growth, and if that same growth continued, we’d still be well below the projected needs for the overall aging population of the United States,” lead author Melissa Mannion, MD, MSPH, a pediatric rheumatologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

In a 2015 workforce study by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), researchers projected that the supply of rheumatologists would decrease by 25% from 2015 to 2030, with an estimated shortage of over 4000 clinical full-time equivalent (cFTE) rheumatology providers.

While the previous study’s findings seem to contrast with this newest analysis, Dr. Dr. Mannion said the findings are complementary, with both studies using different data sources.

The newest findings were published online on February 24 in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Leveraging Medicare Data

The ACR study estimated the adult rheumatology workforce and cFTEs using both primary and secondary sources, including published data from the American Medical Association and other professional societies, as well as electronic surveys of ACR members and rheumatology fellows in training.

By contrast, this newest study identified rheumatology providers using Medicare administrative data from 2006 to 2020, supplemented by national provider identifier taxonomy codes. Rheumatologists were considered “clinically active” if they provided care for at least five patients in 1 year. To account for rheumatology fellows, who can be categorized as internal medicine physicians, researchers also included internists who prescribed biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to more than 10 patients a year.

The count also included APPs, both nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs), who were attached to practices with only rheumatologists, internists, or one other specialty. Like physicians, APPs were included in the count if they prescribed more than 10 patients biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs in a calendar year and billed at least five patients with a rheumatic condition per year.

Researchers also estimated the number of cFTEs for 2019, using a variety of assumptions to generate an upper and lower range.

Different Numbers, Complementary Conclusions

For the 2019 calendar year, researchers counted 5667 clinically active rheumatologists and 379 NPs/PAs.

This represented a 23% increase in rheumatologists and a 141% increase in the number of APPs in the rheumatology workforce from 2009. The active rheumatology workforce increased by about 100 providers per year over the study period, although growth flattened off in more recent years.

The estimated cFTEs for 2019 ranged from 3457 to 5396, which are “comparable” to the projected 2020 cFTE estimates made in the ACR 2015 workforce study: 3888 to 5777 cFTEs.

American College of Rheumatology

Daniel Battafarano, DO, chair of the ACR Workforce Solutions Committee, agreed with Dr. Mannion that these findings complement each other, telling a similar story “but with different numbers,” he told this news organization. Dr. Battafarano, a professor of medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, led the ACR workforce study.

“Both studies project estimates of rheumatology providers and workforce trends, but neither study can claim accurate numbers of rheumatology providers due to the true limitation of either workforce study model,” he said.

The ACR study began with a higher count of rheumatologists, estimating 6013 practicing providers in 2015, while Dr. Mannion’s team calculated 5474 providers for the same year. The ACR study projected that provider numbers would fall to 5886 by 2020, which was higher than the 2019 count in this most recent study.

Dr. Battafarano noted that the studies also dealt with different time frames: While the ACR study used 2015 data to project trends in 5-year increments, this most recent study looked trends in the previous decade.

“We found an increase over time, although toward the end of our study — from 2019 to 2020 — we did have a drop off in number of providers, so maybe we are finding the beginning of what [the ACR researchers] anticipated, or maybe that will be corrected in the future,” Dr. Dr. Mannion said. “I think that our estimates really coordinate with what they found just using a different data source.”

Geographic Disparities and Solutions

The new study also highlighted the scarcity of rheumatology providers in rural counties, which was also an important take away from the 2015 ACR study. In the new analysis, researchers found that 95% of rheumatology practices were in urban settings, which did not change over the study period. Most counties in the United States had fewer than 30 rheumatologists per 1 million adults, with 93% of rural counties having zero adult rheumatologists. In comparison, 48% of urban counties had no adult rheumatologists.

“There’s not enough people, and they’re in very specific locations,” Dr. Dr. Mannion said. “Both things make it harder for people to get care.”

Dr. Battafarano noted that leveraging APPs would be key to increasing patient access to care moving forward — a resource that has more than doubled in the past decade, according to Dr. Dr. Mannion’s analysis.

“Recruiting a significant number of APPs into rheumatology practice should be a primary goal to increase the rheumatology workforce,” he said. Other potential solutions, he added, include employing telemedicine and educating primary care providers on rheumatic disease to help them comanage these conditions with rheumatologists.

This study was partially funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Mannion was supported by the Rheumatology Research Foundation Norman B. Gaylis, MD Clinical Research Award, paid to her institution. Dr. Battafarano had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The number of clinically active rheumatology providers in the United States grew more than 20% from 2009 to 2019, according to a new analysis.

The number of advanced practice providers (APPs) in rheumatology more than doubled during that same time. However, these numerical increases are not enough to meet the projected demand in care, the authors reported.

University of Alabama Medical Center

“Even though we found growth, and if that same growth continued, we’d still be well below the projected needs for the overall aging population of the United States,” lead author Melissa Mannion, MD, MSPH, a pediatric rheumatologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

In a 2015 workforce study by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), researchers projected that the supply of rheumatologists would decrease by 25% from 2015 to 2030, with an estimated shortage of over 4000 clinical full-time equivalent (cFTE) rheumatology providers.

While the previous study’s findings seem to contrast with this newest analysis, Dr. Dr. Mannion said the findings are complementary, with both studies using different data sources.

The newest findings were published online on February 24 in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Leveraging Medicare Data

The ACR study estimated the adult rheumatology workforce and cFTEs using both primary and secondary sources, including published data from the American Medical Association and other professional societies, as well as electronic surveys of ACR members and rheumatology fellows in training.

By contrast, this newest study identified rheumatology providers using Medicare administrative data from 2006 to 2020, supplemented by national provider identifier taxonomy codes. Rheumatologists were considered “clinically active” if they provided care for at least five patients in 1 year. To account for rheumatology fellows, who can be categorized as internal medicine physicians, researchers also included internists who prescribed biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to more than 10 patients a year.

The count also included APPs, both nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs), who were attached to practices with only rheumatologists, internists, or one other specialty. Like physicians, APPs were included in the count if they prescribed more than 10 patients biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs in a calendar year and billed at least five patients with a rheumatic condition per year.

Researchers also estimated the number of cFTEs for 2019, using a variety of assumptions to generate an upper and lower range.

Different Numbers, Complementary Conclusions

For the 2019 calendar year, researchers counted 5667 clinically active rheumatologists and 379 NPs/PAs.

This represented a 23% increase in rheumatologists and a 141% increase in the number of APPs in the rheumatology workforce from 2009. The active rheumatology workforce increased by about 100 providers per year over the study period, although growth flattened off in more recent years.

The estimated cFTEs for 2019 ranged from 3457 to 5396, which are “comparable” to the projected 2020 cFTE estimates made in the ACR 2015 workforce study: 3888 to 5777 cFTEs.

American College of Rheumatology

Daniel Battafarano, DO, chair of the ACR Workforce Solutions Committee, agreed with Dr. Mannion that these findings complement each other, telling a similar story “but with different numbers,” he told this news organization. Dr. Battafarano, a professor of medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, led the ACR workforce study.

“Both studies project estimates of rheumatology providers and workforce trends, but neither study can claim accurate numbers of rheumatology providers due to the true limitation of either workforce study model,” he said.

The ACR study began with a higher count of rheumatologists, estimating 6013 practicing providers in 2015, while Dr. Mannion’s team calculated 5474 providers for the same year. The ACR study projected that provider numbers would fall to 5886 by 2020, which was higher than the 2019 count in this most recent study.

Dr. Battafarano noted that the studies also dealt with different time frames: While the ACR study used 2015 data to project trends in 5-year increments, this most recent study looked trends in the previous decade.

“We found an increase over time, although toward the end of our study — from 2019 to 2020 — we did have a drop off in number of providers, so maybe we are finding the beginning of what [the ACR researchers] anticipated, or maybe that will be corrected in the future,” Dr. Dr. Mannion said. “I think that our estimates really coordinate with what they found just using a different data source.”

Geographic Disparities and Solutions

The new study also highlighted the scarcity of rheumatology providers in rural counties, which was also an important take away from the 2015 ACR study. In the new analysis, researchers found that 95% of rheumatology practices were in urban settings, which did not change over the study period. Most counties in the United States had fewer than 30 rheumatologists per 1 million adults, with 93% of rural counties having zero adult rheumatologists. In comparison, 48% of urban counties had no adult rheumatologists.

“There’s not enough people, and they’re in very specific locations,” Dr. Dr. Mannion said. “Both things make it harder for people to get care.”

Dr. Battafarano noted that leveraging APPs would be key to increasing patient access to care moving forward — a resource that has more than doubled in the past decade, according to Dr. Dr. Mannion’s analysis.

“Recruiting a significant number of APPs into rheumatology practice should be a primary goal to increase the rheumatology workforce,” he said. Other potential solutions, he added, include employing telemedicine and educating primary care providers on rheumatic disease to help them comanage these conditions with rheumatologists.

This study was partially funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Mannion was supported by the Rheumatology Research Foundation Norman B. Gaylis, MD Clinical Research Award, paid to her institution. Dr. Battafarano had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In published trials, both an interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitor and an IL-23 inhibitor achieved impressive rates of clear or almost clear responses in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, but late-breaker data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology show that these types of responses are sustained for as long as patients have remained on therapy.

Of the two, the longer follow up is with the IL-17 inhibitor bimekizumab (Bimzelx). In a 4-year open-label extension study, the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 rate was approximately 85% in treated patients, according to Mark Lebwohl, MD, professor and chairman emeritus of the Department of Dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City

A PASI 90 score signifies that 90% of skin surface area is cleared. The proportion of patients who achieved a PASI 100 score, signifying total clearance, approached 70% at 4 years in the group with the greatest response. PASI 90 and PASI 100 rates at this point were only modestly lower than those reported at the end of the double-blind phase 3 trial when evaluated 3 years earlier. 

Follow-up with a novel oral anti-IL-23 inhibitor JNJ-2113 (JNJ-77242113) was only 52 weeks, far shorter. But again, the response for the most effective dose at the end of this period was essentially unchanged from that at 16 weeks. Among those on the highest and most effective test dose of once-daily 100 mg, the PASI 90 at 1 year was 64.3%, a rate that was essentially unchanged from week 16.

No Apparent Loss of Benefit Over Time

“We can really look at those dose-response curves and see that there is, overall, a maintenance of response,” reported Laura K. Ferris, MD, PhD, professor and director of clinical trials, Department of Dermatology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In her presentation of the data, she showed similar sustained control for the most effective doses of JNJ-2113 for multiple clinical outcomes, including an investigator’s global assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1, also signifying clear or near clear skin.

Bimekizumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits both IL-17A and IL-17F, is already approved for the treatment of plaque psoriasis. The 52-week BE SURE trial, which provided the 478 patients who entered into the BE BRIGHT open label extension study, was published in The New England Journal of Medicine in July 2021. 

In the 4-year data reported by Dr. Lebwohl, three groups were compared: Those initially randomized to an every-4-week dosing schedule of bimekizumab over the course of the 52-week BE SURE trial; those randomized to an every-4-week bimekizumab schedule who were then subsequently switched to an every-8-week schedule; and those initiated on the TNF-inhibitor adalimumab (Humira) and were then switched at week 24 to every-4-week bimekizumab.

The PASI 90 responses at 52 weeks in these three groups, respectively, were 91.2%, 89.3%, and 95.2%. At 4 years, this almost clear response was observed in 82.4%, 83.2%, and 87.6%, respectively. At 52 weeks, the PASI 100 responses in these three groups, respectively, were 75.3%, 74.2%, and 72.9%. At 4 years, 61.9%, 58.5%, and 69.5% still had complete skin clearance.

Bimekizumab was well tolerated during the randomized trial, reported Dr. Lebwohl. The rates of nasopharyngitis and oral candidiasis, which were observed in approximately 12% and 8%, respectively, of treated patients during the randomized phase remained at about the same level in the long-term follow up. There were no new safety signals, he said.
 

JNJ-2113 Is First Potential Oral IL-23 Inhibitor

JNJ-2113 is a first-in-class oral peptide that binds to the IL-23 receptor, blocking the IL-23 signaling pathway. If approved, it would be the first oral therapy targeting IL-23. The 16-week outcomes of the dose-finding FRONTIER 1 phase 2b trial were published in The New England Journal of Medicine earlier this year. The primary endpoint was PASI 75, achieved by 79% of those on the 100 mg twice daily dose at week 16, vs 9% on placebo, and at 52 weeks, was 76%. 

“The proportion of patients achieving the FRONTIER 1 primary endpoint was maintained from week 16 to the end of week 52 in the extension study,” Dr. Ferris said, but further pointed out that rates of near or complete clearance achieved at week 16 were also essentially unchanged at week 52. This was true of PASI scores and IGA. 

Clearance of psoriatic lesions on the scalp was particularly impressive. By scalp-specific IGA, rates of clear or near clear (0/1) were not just maintained but improved over the course of follow-up, reaching 75.1% at 52 weeks in the highest dose group, she said.

JNJ-2113 was well tolerated in FRONTIER 1 and remained so during long-term follow-up, in the FRONTIER 2 extension study, according to Dr. Ferris. The most common complaints with JNJ-2113, such as nasopharyngitis (18.1% vs 25.7% in placebo), did not appear to differ significantly from placebo and the treatment remained well tolerated over the course of the extended follow-up.

There are limited direct comparisons of different biologics active in the treatment of plaque psoriasis for efficacy and safety, but these data appear to show a depth and durability of benefit for psoriasis that is exceptional, Dr. Lebwohl told this news organization. “The PASI 100 scores achieved by bimekizumab exceed anything we have seen to date,” he said. “And the durability of those exceedingly high scores is remarkable.”

Dr. Lebwohl reports financial relationships with approximately 40 pharmaceutical companies, including UCB Pharma, which developed bimekizumab. Dr. Ferris reports financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Janssen, which is developing JNJ-2113. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In published trials, both an interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitor and an IL-23 inhibitor achieved impressive rates of clear or almost clear responses in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, but late-breaker data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology show that these types of responses are sustained for as long as patients have remained on therapy.

Of the two, the longer follow up is with the IL-17 inhibitor bimekizumab (Bimzelx). In a 4-year open-label extension study, the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 rate was approximately 85% in treated patients, according to Mark Lebwohl, MD, professor and chairman emeritus of the Department of Dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City

A PASI 90 score signifies that 90% of skin surface area is cleared. The proportion of patients who achieved a PASI 100 score, signifying total clearance, approached 70% at 4 years in the group with the greatest response. PASI 90 and PASI 100 rates at this point were only modestly lower than those reported at the end of the double-blind phase 3 trial when evaluated 3 years earlier. 

Follow-up with a novel oral anti-IL-23 inhibitor JNJ-2113 (JNJ-77242113) was only 52 weeks, far shorter. But again, the response for the most effective dose at the end of this period was essentially unchanged from that at 16 weeks. Among those on the highest and most effective test dose of once-daily 100 mg, the PASI 90 at 1 year was 64.3%, a rate that was essentially unchanged from week 16.

No Apparent Loss of Benefit Over Time

“We can really look at those dose-response curves and see that there is, overall, a maintenance of response,” reported Laura K. Ferris, MD, PhD, professor and director of clinical trials, Department of Dermatology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In her presentation of the data, she showed similar sustained control for the most effective doses of JNJ-2113 for multiple clinical outcomes, including an investigator’s global assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1, also signifying clear or near clear skin.

Bimekizumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits both IL-17A and IL-17F, is already approved for the treatment of plaque psoriasis. The 52-week BE SURE trial, which provided the 478 patients who entered into the BE BRIGHT open label extension study, was published in The New England Journal of Medicine in July 2021. 

In the 4-year data reported by Dr. Lebwohl, three groups were compared: Those initially randomized to an every-4-week dosing schedule of bimekizumab over the course of the 52-week BE SURE trial; those randomized to an every-4-week bimekizumab schedule who were then subsequently switched to an every-8-week schedule; and those initiated on the TNF-inhibitor adalimumab (Humira) and were then switched at week 24 to every-4-week bimekizumab.

The PASI 90 responses at 52 weeks in these three groups, respectively, were 91.2%, 89.3%, and 95.2%. At 4 years, this almost clear response was observed in 82.4%, 83.2%, and 87.6%, respectively. At 52 weeks, the PASI 100 responses in these three groups, respectively, were 75.3%, 74.2%, and 72.9%. At 4 years, 61.9%, 58.5%, and 69.5% still had complete skin clearance.

Bimekizumab was well tolerated during the randomized trial, reported Dr. Lebwohl. The rates of nasopharyngitis and oral candidiasis, which were observed in approximately 12% and 8%, respectively, of treated patients during the randomized phase remained at about the same level in the long-term follow up. There were no new safety signals, he said.
 

JNJ-2113 Is First Potential Oral IL-23 Inhibitor

JNJ-2113 is a first-in-class oral peptide that binds to the IL-23 receptor, blocking the IL-23 signaling pathway. If approved, it would be the first oral therapy targeting IL-23. The 16-week outcomes of the dose-finding FRONTIER 1 phase 2b trial were published in The New England Journal of Medicine earlier this year. The primary endpoint was PASI 75, achieved by 79% of those on the 100 mg twice daily dose at week 16, vs 9% on placebo, and at 52 weeks, was 76%. 

“The proportion of patients achieving the FRONTIER 1 primary endpoint was maintained from week 16 to the end of week 52 in the extension study,” Dr. Ferris said, but further pointed out that rates of near or complete clearance achieved at week 16 were also essentially unchanged at week 52. This was true of PASI scores and IGA. 

Clearance of psoriatic lesions on the scalp was particularly impressive. By scalp-specific IGA, rates of clear or near clear (0/1) were not just maintained but improved over the course of follow-up, reaching 75.1% at 52 weeks in the highest dose group, she said.

JNJ-2113 was well tolerated in FRONTIER 1 and remained so during long-term follow-up, in the FRONTIER 2 extension study, according to Dr. Ferris. The most common complaints with JNJ-2113, such as nasopharyngitis (18.1% vs 25.7% in placebo), did not appear to differ significantly from placebo and the treatment remained well tolerated over the course of the extended follow-up.

There are limited direct comparisons of different biologics active in the treatment of plaque psoriasis for efficacy and safety, but these data appear to show a depth and durability of benefit for psoriasis that is exceptional, Dr. Lebwohl told this news organization. “The PASI 100 scores achieved by bimekizumab exceed anything we have seen to date,” he said. “And the durability of those exceedingly high scores is remarkable.”

Dr. Lebwohl reports financial relationships with approximately 40 pharmaceutical companies, including UCB Pharma, which developed bimekizumab. Dr. Ferris reports financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Janssen, which is developing JNJ-2113. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In published trials, both an interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitor and an IL-23 inhibitor achieved impressive rates of clear or almost clear responses in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, but late-breaker data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology show that these types of responses are sustained for as long as patients have remained on therapy.

Of the two, the longer follow up is with the IL-17 inhibitor bimekizumab (Bimzelx). In a 4-year open-label extension study, the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 rate was approximately 85% in treated patients, according to Mark Lebwohl, MD, professor and chairman emeritus of the Department of Dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City

A PASI 90 score signifies that 90% of skin surface area is cleared. The proportion of patients who achieved a PASI 100 score, signifying total clearance, approached 70% at 4 years in the group with the greatest response. PASI 90 and PASI 100 rates at this point were only modestly lower than those reported at the end of the double-blind phase 3 trial when evaluated 3 years earlier. 

Follow-up with a novel oral anti-IL-23 inhibitor JNJ-2113 (JNJ-77242113) was only 52 weeks, far shorter. But again, the response for the most effective dose at the end of this period was essentially unchanged from that at 16 weeks. Among those on the highest and most effective test dose of once-daily 100 mg, the PASI 90 at 1 year was 64.3%, a rate that was essentially unchanged from week 16.

No Apparent Loss of Benefit Over Time

“We can really look at those dose-response curves and see that there is, overall, a maintenance of response,” reported Laura K. Ferris, MD, PhD, professor and director of clinical trials, Department of Dermatology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In her presentation of the data, she showed similar sustained control for the most effective doses of JNJ-2113 for multiple clinical outcomes, including an investigator’s global assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1, also signifying clear or near clear skin.

Bimekizumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits both IL-17A and IL-17F, is already approved for the treatment of plaque psoriasis. The 52-week BE SURE trial, which provided the 478 patients who entered into the BE BRIGHT open label extension study, was published in The New England Journal of Medicine in July 2021. 

In the 4-year data reported by Dr. Lebwohl, three groups were compared: Those initially randomized to an every-4-week dosing schedule of bimekizumab over the course of the 52-week BE SURE trial; those randomized to an every-4-week bimekizumab schedule who were then subsequently switched to an every-8-week schedule; and those initiated on the TNF-inhibitor adalimumab (Humira) and were then switched at week 24 to every-4-week bimekizumab.

The PASI 90 responses at 52 weeks in these three groups, respectively, were 91.2%, 89.3%, and 95.2%. At 4 years, this almost clear response was observed in 82.4%, 83.2%, and 87.6%, respectively. At 52 weeks, the PASI 100 responses in these three groups, respectively, were 75.3%, 74.2%, and 72.9%. At 4 years, 61.9%, 58.5%, and 69.5% still had complete skin clearance.

Bimekizumab was well tolerated during the randomized trial, reported Dr. Lebwohl. The rates of nasopharyngitis and oral candidiasis, which were observed in approximately 12% and 8%, respectively, of treated patients during the randomized phase remained at about the same level in the long-term follow up. There were no new safety signals, he said.
 

JNJ-2113 Is First Potential Oral IL-23 Inhibitor

JNJ-2113 is a first-in-class oral peptide that binds to the IL-23 receptor, blocking the IL-23 signaling pathway. If approved, it would be the first oral therapy targeting IL-23. The 16-week outcomes of the dose-finding FRONTIER 1 phase 2b trial were published in The New England Journal of Medicine earlier this year. The primary endpoint was PASI 75, achieved by 79% of those on the 100 mg twice daily dose at week 16, vs 9% on placebo, and at 52 weeks, was 76%. 

“The proportion of patients achieving the FRONTIER 1 primary endpoint was maintained from week 16 to the end of week 52 in the extension study,” Dr. Ferris said, but further pointed out that rates of near or complete clearance achieved at week 16 were also essentially unchanged at week 52. This was true of PASI scores and IGA. 

Clearance of psoriatic lesions on the scalp was particularly impressive. By scalp-specific IGA, rates of clear or near clear (0/1) were not just maintained but improved over the course of follow-up, reaching 75.1% at 52 weeks in the highest dose group, she said.

JNJ-2113 was well tolerated in FRONTIER 1 and remained so during long-term follow-up, in the FRONTIER 2 extension study, according to Dr. Ferris. The most common complaints with JNJ-2113, such as nasopharyngitis (18.1% vs 25.7% in placebo), did not appear to differ significantly from placebo and the treatment remained well tolerated over the course of the extended follow-up.

There are limited direct comparisons of different biologics active in the treatment of plaque psoriasis for efficacy and safety, but these data appear to show a depth and durability of benefit for psoriasis that is exceptional, Dr. Lebwohl told this news organization. “The PASI 100 scores achieved by bimekizumab exceed anything we have seen to date,” he said. “And the durability of those exceedingly high scores is remarkable.”

Dr. Lebwohl reports financial relationships with approximately 40 pharmaceutical companies, including UCB Pharma, which developed bimekizumab. Dr. Ferris reports financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Janssen, which is developing JNJ-2113. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recently filed lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson can serve as an example to use when advocating for patients who have insurance through their employers that can potentially hurt them physically and financially. When your patient has an employer-funded health insurance plan where the employer directly pays for all medical costs — called an ERISA plan for the federal law that governs employee benefit plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act — there are certain accountability, fairness, and fiduciary responsibilities that the employers must meet. These so-called ERISA plans do not have to follow state utilization management legislation that addresses harmful changes in insurers’ formularies and other policies, so when the plans are not properly overseen and do not mandate the delivery of proper care at the lowest cost, both the patient and employer may be losing out.

The J&J lawsuit serves as a bellwether warning to self-insured employers to demand transparency from their third-party administrators so as not to (knowingly or unknowingly) breach their fiduciary duty to their health plans and employees. These duties include ensuring reasonable plan costs as well as acting in the best interest of their employees. There were multiple complaints in the lawsuit by a J&J employee, stating that she paid a much higher price for her multiple sclerosis drug through the plan than the price she eventually found at a lower cost pharmacy. The allegations state that J&J failed to show prudence in its selection of a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM). In addition, the company failed to negotiate better drug pricing terms, and the design of the drug plan steered patients to the PBM specialty pharmacy, resulting in higher prices for the employees. All of these led to higher drug costs and premiums for employees, which, according to the lawsuit, is a breach of J&J’s fiduciary duties.

Why Should Rheumatologists Care About This?

With all insurance plans, it feels as though we are dealing with obstacles every day that keep us from giving the excellent rheumatologic care that our patients deserve. Self-insured employers now account for over 50% of commercial health plans, and as rheumatologists caring for the employees of these companies, we can use those transparency, accountability, and fiduciary responsibilities of the employer to ensure that our patients are getting the proper care at the lowest cost.

Not only is the J&J lawsuit a warning to self-insured employers, but a reminder to rheumatologists to be on the lookout for drug pricing issues and formulary construction that leads to higher pricing for employees and the plan. For example, make note if your patient is forced to fail a much higher priced self-injectable biologic before using a much lower cost infusible medication. Or if the plan mandates the use of the much higher priced adalimumab biosimilars over the lower priced biosimilars or even the highest priced JAK inhibitor over the lowest priced one. Let’s not forget mandated white bagging, which is often much more expensive to the plan than the buy-and-bill model through a rheumatologist’s office.

Recently, we have been able to help rheumatology practices get exemptions from white-bagging mandates that large self-insured employers often have in their plan documents. We have been able to show that the cost of obtaining the medication through specialty pharmacy (SP) is much higher than through the buy-and-bill model. Mandating that the plan spend more money on SP drugs, as opposed to allowing the rheumatologist to buy and bill, could easily be interpreted as a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the employer by mandating a higher cost model.
 

CSRO Payer Issue Response Team

I have written about the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO)’s Payer Issue Response Team (PIRT) in the past. Rheumatologists around the country can send to PIRT any problems that they are having with payers. A recent PIRT submission involved a white-bagging mandate for an employee of a very large international Fortune 500 company. This particular example is important because of the response by the VP of Global Benefits for this company. Express Scripts is the administrator of pharmacy benefits for this company. The rheumatologist was told that he could not buy and bill for an infusible medicine but would have to obtain the drug through Express Scripts’ SP. He then asked Express Scripts for the SP medication’s cost to the health plan in order to compare the SP price versus what the buy-and-bill model would cost this company. Express Scripts would not respond to this simple transparency question; often, PBMs claim that this is proprietary information.

I was able to speak with the company’s VP of Global Benefits regarding this issue. First of all, he stated that his company was not mandating white bagging. I explained to him that the plan documents had white bagging as the only option for acquisition of provider-administered drugs. A rheumatologist would have to apply for an exemption to buy and bill, and in this case, it was denied. This is essentially a mandate.

I gave the VP of Global Benefits an example of another large Fortune 500 company (UPS) that spent over $30,000 per year more on an infusible medication when obtained through SP than what it cost them under a buy-and-bill model. I had hoped that this example would impress upon the VP the importance of transparency in pricing and claims to prevent his company from unknowingly costing the health plan more and its being construed as a breach of fiduciary duty. It was explained to me by the VP of Global Benefits that his company is part of the National Drug Purchasers Coalition and they trust Express Scripts to do the right thing for them. As they say, “You can lead a horse to water, but can’t make it drink.”
 

Liability of a Plan That Physically Harms an Employee?

A slightly different example of a self-insured employer, presumably unknowingly, allowing its third-party administrator to mishandle the care of an employee was recently brought to me by a rheumatologist in North Carolina. She takes care of an employee who has rheumatoid arthritis with severe interstitial lung disease (ILD). The employee’s pulmonary status was stabilized on several courses of Rituxan (reference product of rituximab). Recently, BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina, the third-party administrator of this employer’s plan, mandated a switch to a biosimilar of rituximab for the treatment of the ILD. The rheumatologist appealed the nonmedical switch but gave the patient the biosimilar so as not to delay care. Her patient’s condition is now deteriorating with progression of the ILD, and she once again has asked for an exemption to use Rituxan, which had initially stabilized the patient. Her staff told her that the BCBSNC rep said that the patient would have to have a life-threatening infusion reaction (and present the bill for the ambulance) before they would approve a return to the reference product. An employer that knowingly or unknowingly allows a third-party administrator to act in such a way as to endanger the life of an employee could be considered to be breaching its fiduciary duty. (Disclaimer: I am not an attorney — merely a rheumatologist with common sense. Nor am I making any qualitative statement about biosimilars.)

We now have a lawsuit to which you can refer when advocating for our patients who are employed by large, self-insured employers. It is unfortunate that it is not the third-party administrators or PBMs that can be sued, as they are generally not the fiduciaries for the plan. It is the unsuspecting employers who “trust” their brokers/consultants and the third-party administrators to do the right thing. Please continue to send us your payer issues. And if your patient works for a self-insured employer, I will continue to remind the CEO, CFO, and chief compliance officer that an employer with an ERISA health plan can potentially face legal action if the health plan’s actions or decisions cause harm to an employee’s health — physically or in the wallet.

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

A recently filed lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson can serve as an example to use when advocating for patients who have insurance through their employers that can potentially hurt them physically and financially. When your patient has an employer-funded health insurance plan where the employer directly pays for all medical costs — called an ERISA plan for the federal law that governs employee benefit plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act — there are certain accountability, fairness, and fiduciary responsibilities that the employers must meet. These so-called ERISA plans do not have to follow state utilization management legislation that addresses harmful changes in insurers’ formularies and other policies, so when the plans are not properly overseen and do not mandate the delivery of proper care at the lowest cost, both the patient and employer may be losing out.

The J&J lawsuit serves as a bellwether warning to self-insured employers to demand transparency from their third-party administrators so as not to (knowingly or unknowingly) breach their fiduciary duty to their health plans and employees. These duties include ensuring reasonable plan costs as well as acting in the best interest of their employees. There were multiple complaints in the lawsuit by a J&J employee, stating that she paid a much higher price for her multiple sclerosis drug through the plan than the price she eventually found at a lower cost pharmacy. The allegations state that J&J failed to show prudence in its selection of a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM). In addition, the company failed to negotiate better drug pricing terms, and the design of the drug plan steered patients to the PBM specialty pharmacy, resulting in higher prices for the employees. All of these led to higher drug costs and premiums for employees, which, according to the lawsuit, is a breach of J&J’s fiduciary duties.

Why Should Rheumatologists Care About This?

With all insurance plans, it feels as though we are dealing with obstacles every day that keep us from giving the excellent rheumatologic care that our patients deserve. Self-insured employers now account for over 50% of commercial health plans, and as rheumatologists caring for the employees of these companies, we can use those transparency, accountability, and fiduciary responsibilities of the employer to ensure that our patients are getting the proper care at the lowest cost.

Not only is the J&J lawsuit a warning to self-insured employers, but a reminder to rheumatologists to be on the lookout for drug pricing issues and formulary construction that leads to higher pricing for employees and the plan. For example, make note if your patient is forced to fail a much higher priced self-injectable biologic before using a much lower cost infusible medication. Or if the plan mandates the use of the much higher priced adalimumab biosimilars over the lower priced biosimilars or even the highest priced JAK inhibitor over the lowest priced one. Let’s not forget mandated white bagging, which is often much more expensive to the plan than the buy-and-bill model through a rheumatologist’s office.

Recently, we have been able to help rheumatology practices get exemptions from white-bagging mandates that large self-insured employers often have in their plan documents. We have been able to show that the cost of obtaining the medication through specialty pharmacy (SP) is much higher than through the buy-and-bill model. Mandating that the plan spend more money on SP drugs, as opposed to allowing the rheumatologist to buy and bill, could easily be interpreted as a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the employer by mandating a higher cost model.
 

CSRO Payer Issue Response Team

I have written about the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO)’s Payer Issue Response Team (PIRT) in the past. Rheumatologists around the country can send to PIRT any problems that they are having with payers. A recent PIRT submission involved a white-bagging mandate for an employee of a very large international Fortune 500 company. This particular example is important because of the response by the VP of Global Benefits for this company. Express Scripts is the administrator of pharmacy benefits for this company. The rheumatologist was told that he could not buy and bill for an infusible medicine but would have to obtain the drug through Express Scripts’ SP. He then asked Express Scripts for the SP medication’s cost to the health plan in order to compare the SP price versus what the buy-and-bill model would cost this company. Express Scripts would not respond to this simple transparency question; often, PBMs claim that this is proprietary information.

I was able to speak with the company’s VP of Global Benefits regarding this issue. First of all, he stated that his company was not mandating white bagging. I explained to him that the plan documents had white bagging as the only option for acquisition of provider-administered drugs. A rheumatologist would have to apply for an exemption to buy and bill, and in this case, it was denied. This is essentially a mandate.

I gave the VP of Global Benefits an example of another large Fortune 500 company (UPS) that spent over $30,000 per year more on an infusible medication when obtained through SP than what it cost them under a buy-and-bill model. I had hoped that this example would impress upon the VP the importance of transparency in pricing and claims to prevent his company from unknowingly costing the health plan more and its being construed as a breach of fiduciary duty. It was explained to me by the VP of Global Benefits that his company is part of the National Drug Purchasers Coalition and they trust Express Scripts to do the right thing for them. As they say, “You can lead a horse to water, but can’t make it drink.”
 

Liability of a Plan That Physically Harms an Employee?

A slightly different example of a self-insured employer, presumably unknowingly, allowing its third-party administrator to mishandle the care of an employee was recently brought to me by a rheumatologist in North Carolina. She takes care of an employee who has rheumatoid arthritis with severe interstitial lung disease (ILD). The employee’s pulmonary status was stabilized on several courses of Rituxan (reference product of rituximab). Recently, BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina, the third-party administrator of this employer’s plan, mandated a switch to a biosimilar of rituximab for the treatment of the ILD. The rheumatologist appealed the nonmedical switch but gave the patient the biosimilar so as not to delay care. Her patient’s condition is now deteriorating with progression of the ILD, and she once again has asked for an exemption to use Rituxan, which had initially stabilized the patient. Her staff told her that the BCBSNC rep said that the patient would have to have a life-threatening infusion reaction (and present the bill for the ambulance) before they would approve a return to the reference product. An employer that knowingly or unknowingly allows a third-party administrator to act in such a way as to endanger the life of an employee could be considered to be breaching its fiduciary duty. (Disclaimer: I am not an attorney — merely a rheumatologist with common sense. Nor am I making any qualitative statement about biosimilars.)

We now have a lawsuit to which you can refer when advocating for our patients who are employed by large, self-insured employers. It is unfortunate that it is not the third-party administrators or PBMs that can be sued, as they are generally not the fiduciaries for the plan. It is the unsuspecting employers who “trust” their brokers/consultants and the third-party administrators to do the right thing. Please continue to send us your payer issues. And if your patient works for a self-insured employer, I will continue to remind the CEO, CFO, and chief compliance officer that an employer with an ERISA health plan can potentially face legal action if the health plan’s actions or decisions cause harm to an employee’s health — physically or in the wallet.

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

A recently filed lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson can serve as an example to use when advocating for patients who have insurance through their employers that can potentially hurt them physically and financially. When your patient has an employer-funded health insurance plan where the employer directly pays for all medical costs — called an ERISA plan for the federal law that governs employee benefit plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act — there are certain accountability, fairness, and fiduciary responsibilities that the employers must meet. These so-called ERISA plans do not have to follow state utilization management legislation that addresses harmful changes in insurers’ formularies and other policies, so when the plans are not properly overseen and do not mandate the delivery of proper care at the lowest cost, both the patient and employer may be losing out.

The J&J lawsuit serves as a bellwether warning to self-insured employers to demand transparency from their third-party administrators so as not to (knowingly or unknowingly) breach their fiduciary duty to their health plans and employees. These duties include ensuring reasonable plan costs as well as acting in the best interest of their employees. There were multiple complaints in the lawsuit by a J&J employee, stating that she paid a much higher price for her multiple sclerosis drug through the plan than the price she eventually found at a lower cost pharmacy. The allegations state that J&J failed to show prudence in its selection of a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM). In addition, the company failed to negotiate better drug pricing terms, and the design of the drug plan steered patients to the PBM specialty pharmacy, resulting in higher prices for the employees. All of these led to higher drug costs and premiums for employees, which, according to the lawsuit, is a breach of J&J’s fiduciary duties.

Why Should Rheumatologists Care About This?

With all insurance plans, it feels as though we are dealing with obstacles every day that keep us from giving the excellent rheumatologic care that our patients deserve. Self-insured employers now account for over 50% of commercial health plans, and as rheumatologists caring for the employees of these companies, we can use those transparency, accountability, and fiduciary responsibilities of the employer to ensure that our patients are getting the proper care at the lowest cost.

Not only is the J&J lawsuit a warning to self-insured employers, but a reminder to rheumatologists to be on the lookout for drug pricing issues and formulary construction that leads to higher pricing for employees and the plan. For example, make note if your patient is forced to fail a much higher priced self-injectable biologic before using a much lower cost infusible medication. Or if the plan mandates the use of the much higher priced adalimumab biosimilars over the lower priced biosimilars or even the highest priced JAK inhibitor over the lowest priced one. Let’s not forget mandated white bagging, which is often much more expensive to the plan than the buy-and-bill model through a rheumatologist’s office.

Recently, we have been able to help rheumatology practices get exemptions from white-bagging mandates that large self-insured employers often have in their plan documents. We have been able to show that the cost of obtaining the medication through specialty pharmacy (SP) is much higher than through the buy-and-bill model. Mandating that the plan spend more money on SP drugs, as opposed to allowing the rheumatologist to buy and bill, could easily be interpreted as a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the employer by mandating a higher cost model.
 

CSRO Payer Issue Response Team

I have written about the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO)’s Payer Issue Response Team (PIRT) in the past. Rheumatologists around the country can send to PIRT any problems that they are having with payers. A recent PIRT submission involved a white-bagging mandate for an employee of a very large international Fortune 500 company. This particular example is important because of the response by the VP of Global Benefits for this company. Express Scripts is the administrator of pharmacy benefits for this company. The rheumatologist was told that he could not buy and bill for an infusible medicine but would have to obtain the drug through Express Scripts’ SP. He then asked Express Scripts for the SP medication’s cost to the health plan in order to compare the SP price versus what the buy-and-bill model would cost this company. Express Scripts would not respond to this simple transparency question; often, PBMs claim that this is proprietary information.

I was able to speak with the company’s VP of Global Benefits regarding this issue. First of all, he stated that his company was not mandating white bagging. I explained to him that the plan documents had white bagging as the only option for acquisition of provider-administered drugs. A rheumatologist would have to apply for an exemption to buy and bill, and in this case, it was denied. This is essentially a mandate.

I gave the VP of Global Benefits an example of another large Fortune 500 company (UPS) that spent over $30,000 per year more on an infusible medication when obtained through SP than what it cost them under a buy-and-bill model. I had hoped that this example would impress upon the VP the importance of transparency in pricing and claims to prevent his company from unknowingly costing the health plan more and its being construed as a breach of fiduciary duty. It was explained to me by the VP of Global Benefits that his company is part of the National Drug Purchasers Coalition and they trust Express Scripts to do the right thing for them. As they say, “You can lead a horse to water, but can’t make it drink.”
 

Liability of a Plan That Physically Harms an Employee?

A slightly different example of a self-insured employer, presumably unknowingly, allowing its third-party administrator to mishandle the care of an employee was recently brought to me by a rheumatologist in North Carolina. She takes care of an employee who has rheumatoid arthritis with severe interstitial lung disease (ILD). The employee’s pulmonary status was stabilized on several courses of Rituxan (reference product of rituximab). Recently, BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina, the third-party administrator of this employer’s plan, mandated a switch to a biosimilar of rituximab for the treatment of the ILD. The rheumatologist appealed the nonmedical switch but gave the patient the biosimilar so as not to delay care. Her patient’s condition is now deteriorating with progression of the ILD, and she once again has asked for an exemption to use Rituxan, which had initially stabilized the patient. Her staff told her that the BCBSNC rep said that the patient would have to have a life-threatening infusion reaction (and present the bill for the ambulance) before they would approve a return to the reference product. An employer that knowingly or unknowingly allows a third-party administrator to act in such a way as to endanger the life of an employee could be considered to be breaching its fiduciary duty. (Disclaimer: I am not an attorney — merely a rheumatologist with common sense. Nor am I making any qualitative statement about biosimilars.)

We now have a lawsuit to which you can refer when advocating for our patients who are employed by large, self-insured employers. It is unfortunate that it is not the third-party administrators or PBMs that can be sued, as they are generally not the fiduciaries for the plan. It is the unsuspecting employers who “trust” their brokers/consultants and the third-party administrators to do the right thing. Please continue to send us your payer issues. And if your patient works for a self-insured employer, I will continue to remind the CEO, CFO, and chief compliance officer that an employer with an ERISA health plan can potentially face legal action if the health plan’s actions or decisions cause harm to an employee’s health — physically or in the wallet.

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

President Joe Biden on March 9 signed into law a measure that softened — but did not completely eliminate — a 2024 cut in a key rate used to determine how physicians are paid for treating Medicare patients.

While physician groups hailed the move as partial relief, they say they’ll continue to press for broader changes in the Medicare physician fee schedule.

The Medicare provision was tucked into a larger spending package approved by the US House and Senate.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and other groups have lobbied Congress for months to undo a 3.4% cut in the base rate, or conversion factor, in the physician fee schedule for 2024.

The conversion factor is used in calculations to determine reimbursement for myriad other services. Federal Medicare officials said the cut would mean a 1.25% decrease in overall payments in 2024, compared with 2023.

“With the passage of this legislation, Congress has offset 2.93% of that payment cut,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president in a statement. “We appreciate this temporary measure but continue to urge Congress to advance comprehensive, long-term Medicare payment reform.”

In a statement, Representative Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), said the payment cut could not be completely eliminated because of budget constraints.

The Medicare physician fee schedule covers much of the care clinicians provide to people older than 65 and those with disabilities. It covers about 8000 different types of services, ranging from office visits to surgical procedures, imaging, and tests, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).

Along with physicians, the fee schedule sets payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, physical therapists, psychologists, and other clinicians.

In 2021, the Medicare program and its beneficiaries paid $92.8 billion for services provided by almost 1.3 million clinicians, MedPAC said.
 

Larger Changes Ahead?

Rep. Bucshon is among the physicians serving in the House who are pressing for a permanent revamp of the Medicare physician fee schedule. He cosponsored a bill (HR 2474) that would peg future annual increases in the physician fee schedule to the Medicare Economic Index, which would reflect inflation’s effect.

In April, more than 120 state and national medical groups signed onto an AMA-led letter urging Congress to pass this bill.

The measure is a key priority for the AMA. The organization reached out repeatedly last year to federal officials about it through its own in-house lobbyists, this news organization found through a review of congressional lobbying forms submitted by AMA.

These required disclosure forms reveal how much AMA and other organizations spend each quarter to appeal to members of Congress and federal agencies on specific issues. The disclosure forms do not include a detailed accounting of spending on each issue.

But they do show which issues are priorities for an organization. AMA’s in-house lobbyists reported raising dozens of issues in 2024 within contacts in Congress and federal agencies. These issues included abortion access, maternal health, physician burnout, and potential for bias in clinical use of algorithms, as well as Medicare payment for physicians.

AMA reported spending estimated cost of $20.6 million. (AMA spent $6.7 million in the first quarter, $4.75 million in the second quarter, $3.42 million in the third quarter, and $5.74 million in the fourth quarter.)

In a March 6 statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, AMA president, urged Congress to turn to more serious consideration of Medicare physician pay beyond short-term tweaks attached to other larger bills.

“As physicians, we are trained to run toward emergencies. We urge Congress to do the same,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We encourage Congress to act if this policy decision is an emergency because — in fact — it is. It is well past time to put an end to stopgap measures that fail to address the underlying causes of the continuing decline in Medicare physician payments.”

There’s bipartisan interest in a revamp of the physician fee schedule amid widespread criticism of the last such overhaul, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.

For example, Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has proposed the creation of a technical advisory committee to improve how Medicare sets the physician fee schedule. The existing fee schedule provides too little money for primary care services and primary care provider pay, contributing to shortages, Sen. Whitehouse said.

Sen. Whitehouse on March 6 held a hearing on ways to beef up US primary care. Among the experts who appeared was Amol Navathe, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Dr. Navathe said the current Medicare physician fee schedule tilts in favor of procedural services, leading to “underinvestment in cognitive, diagnostic, and supportive services such as primary care.”

In addition, much of what primary care clinicians do, “such as addressing social challenges, is not included in the codes of the fee schedule itself,” said Dr. Navathe, who also serves as the vice chairman of MedPAC.

It’s unclear when Congress will attempt a serious revision to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Lawmakers are unlikely to take on such a major challenge in this election year.

There would be significant opposition and challenges for lawmakers in trying to clear a bill that added an inflation adjustment for what’s already seen as an imperfect physician fee schedule, said Mark E. Miller, PhD, executive vice president of healthcare at the philanthropy Arnold Ventures, which studies how payment decisions affect medical care.

“That bill could cost a lot of money and raise a lot of questions,” Dr. Miller said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

President Joe Biden on March 9 signed into law a measure that softened — but did not completely eliminate — a 2024 cut in a key rate used to determine how physicians are paid for treating Medicare patients.

While physician groups hailed the move as partial relief, they say they’ll continue to press for broader changes in the Medicare physician fee schedule.

The Medicare provision was tucked into a larger spending package approved by the US House and Senate.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and other groups have lobbied Congress for months to undo a 3.4% cut in the base rate, or conversion factor, in the physician fee schedule for 2024.

The conversion factor is used in calculations to determine reimbursement for myriad other services. Federal Medicare officials said the cut would mean a 1.25% decrease in overall payments in 2024, compared with 2023.

“With the passage of this legislation, Congress has offset 2.93% of that payment cut,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president in a statement. “We appreciate this temporary measure but continue to urge Congress to advance comprehensive, long-term Medicare payment reform.”

In a statement, Representative Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), said the payment cut could not be completely eliminated because of budget constraints.

The Medicare physician fee schedule covers much of the care clinicians provide to people older than 65 and those with disabilities. It covers about 8000 different types of services, ranging from office visits to surgical procedures, imaging, and tests, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).

Along with physicians, the fee schedule sets payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, physical therapists, psychologists, and other clinicians.

In 2021, the Medicare program and its beneficiaries paid $92.8 billion for services provided by almost 1.3 million clinicians, MedPAC said.
 

Larger Changes Ahead?

Rep. Bucshon is among the physicians serving in the House who are pressing for a permanent revamp of the Medicare physician fee schedule. He cosponsored a bill (HR 2474) that would peg future annual increases in the physician fee schedule to the Medicare Economic Index, which would reflect inflation’s effect.

In April, more than 120 state and national medical groups signed onto an AMA-led letter urging Congress to pass this bill.

The measure is a key priority for the AMA. The organization reached out repeatedly last year to federal officials about it through its own in-house lobbyists, this news organization found through a review of congressional lobbying forms submitted by AMA.

These required disclosure forms reveal how much AMA and other organizations spend each quarter to appeal to members of Congress and federal agencies on specific issues. The disclosure forms do not include a detailed accounting of spending on each issue.

But they do show which issues are priorities for an organization. AMA’s in-house lobbyists reported raising dozens of issues in 2024 within contacts in Congress and federal agencies. These issues included abortion access, maternal health, physician burnout, and potential for bias in clinical use of algorithms, as well as Medicare payment for physicians.

AMA reported spending estimated cost of $20.6 million. (AMA spent $6.7 million in the first quarter, $4.75 million in the second quarter, $3.42 million in the third quarter, and $5.74 million in the fourth quarter.)

In a March 6 statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, AMA president, urged Congress to turn to more serious consideration of Medicare physician pay beyond short-term tweaks attached to other larger bills.

“As physicians, we are trained to run toward emergencies. We urge Congress to do the same,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We encourage Congress to act if this policy decision is an emergency because — in fact — it is. It is well past time to put an end to stopgap measures that fail to address the underlying causes of the continuing decline in Medicare physician payments.”

There’s bipartisan interest in a revamp of the physician fee schedule amid widespread criticism of the last such overhaul, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.

For example, Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has proposed the creation of a technical advisory committee to improve how Medicare sets the physician fee schedule. The existing fee schedule provides too little money for primary care services and primary care provider pay, contributing to shortages, Sen. Whitehouse said.

Sen. Whitehouse on March 6 held a hearing on ways to beef up US primary care. Among the experts who appeared was Amol Navathe, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Dr. Navathe said the current Medicare physician fee schedule tilts in favor of procedural services, leading to “underinvestment in cognitive, diagnostic, and supportive services such as primary care.”

In addition, much of what primary care clinicians do, “such as addressing social challenges, is not included in the codes of the fee schedule itself,” said Dr. Navathe, who also serves as the vice chairman of MedPAC.

It’s unclear when Congress will attempt a serious revision to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Lawmakers are unlikely to take on such a major challenge in this election year.

There would be significant opposition and challenges for lawmakers in trying to clear a bill that added an inflation adjustment for what’s already seen as an imperfect physician fee schedule, said Mark E. Miller, PhD, executive vice president of healthcare at the philanthropy Arnold Ventures, which studies how payment decisions affect medical care.

“That bill could cost a lot of money and raise a lot of questions,” Dr. Miller said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

President Joe Biden on March 9 signed into law a measure that softened — but did not completely eliminate — a 2024 cut in a key rate used to determine how physicians are paid for treating Medicare patients.

While physician groups hailed the move as partial relief, they say they’ll continue to press for broader changes in the Medicare physician fee schedule.

The Medicare provision was tucked into a larger spending package approved by the US House and Senate.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and other groups have lobbied Congress for months to undo a 3.4% cut in the base rate, or conversion factor, in the physician fee schedule for 2024.

The conversion factor is used in calculations to determine reimbursement for myriad other services. Federal Medicare officials said the cut would mean a 1.25% decrease in overall payments in 2024, compared with 2023.

“With the passage of this legislation, Congress has offset 2.93% of that payment cut,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president in a statement. “We appreciate this temporary measure but continue to urge Congress to advance comprehensive, long-term Medicare payment reform.”

In a statement, Representative Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), said the payment cut could not be completely eliminated because of budget constraints.

The Medicare physician fee schedule covers much of the care clinicians provide to people older than 65 and those with disabilities. It covers about 8000 different types of services, ranging from office visits to surgical procedures, imaging, and tests, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).

Along with physicians, the fee schedule sets payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, physical therapists, psychologists, and other clinicians.

In 2021, the Medicare program and its beneficiaries paid $92.8 billion for services provided by almost 1.3 million clinicians, MedPAC said.
 

Larger Changes Ahead?

Rep. Bucshon is among the physicians serving in the House who are pressing for a permanent revamp of the Medicare physician fee schedule. He cosponsored a bill (HR 2474) that would peg future annual increases in the physician fee schedule to the Medicare Economic Index, which would reflect inflation’s effect.

In April, more than 120 state and national medical groups signed onto an AMA-led letter urging Congress to pass this bill.

The measure is a key priority for the AMA. The organization reached out repeatedly last year to federal officials about it through its own in-house lobbyists, this news organization found through a review of congressional lobbying forms submitted by AMA.

These required disclosure forms reveal how much AMA and other organizations spend each quarter to appeal to members of Congress and federal agencies on specific issues. The disclosure forms do not include a detailed accounting of spending on each issue.

But they do show which issues are priorities for an organization. AMA’s in-house lobbyists reported raising dozens of issues in 2024 within contacts in Congress and federal agencies. These issues included abortion access, maternal health, physician burnout, and potential for bias in clinical use of algorithms, as well as Medicare payment for physicians.

AMA reported spending estimated cost of $20.6 million. (AMA spent $6.7 million in the first quarter, $4.75 million in the second quarter, $3.42 million in the third quarter, and $5.74 million in the fourth quarter.)

In a March 6 statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, AMA president, urged Congress to turn to more serious consideration of Medicare physician pay beyond short-term tweaks attached to other larger bills.

“As physicians, we are trained to run toward emergencies. We urge Congress to do the same,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We encourage Congress to act if this policy decision is an emergency because — in fact — it is. It is well past time to put an end to stopgap measures that fail to address the underlying causes of the continuing decline in Medicare physician payments.”

There’s bipartisan interest in a revamp of the physician fee schedule amid widespread criticism of the last such overhaul, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.

For example, Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has proposed the creation of a technical advisory committee to improve how Medicare sets the physician fee schedule. The existing fee schedule provides too little money for primary care services and primary care provider pay, contributing to shortages, Sen. Whitehouse said.

Sen. Whitehouse on March 6 held a hearing on ways to beef up US primary care. Among the experts who appeared was Amol Navathe, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Dr. Navathe said the current Medicare physician fee schedule tilts in favor of procedural services, leading to “underinvestment in cognitive, diagnostic, and supportive services such as primary care.”

In addition, much of what primary care clinicians do, “such as addressing social challenges, is not included in the codes of the fee schedule itself,” said Dr. Navathe, who also serves as the vice chairman of MedPAC.

It’s unclear when Congress will attempt a serious revision to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Lawmakers are unlikely to take on such a major challenge in this election year.

There would be significant opposition and challenges for lawmakers in trying to clear a bill that added an inflation adjustment for what’s already seen as an imperfect physician fee schedule, said Mark E. Miller, PhD, executive vice president of healthcare at the philanthropy Arnold Ventures, which studies how payment decisions affect medical care.

“That bill could cost a lot of money and raise a lot of questions,” Dr. Miller said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medtronic Neurosurgery has recalled Duet External Drainage and Monitoring System (EDMS) catheter tubing because the catheter may disconnect from the patient line stopcock connectors.

If this happens, potential harm to patients may include infections, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage, overdrainage of CSF, and abnormality of the ventricles. Uncontrolled overdrainage of CSF could lead to neurological injury or death if the disconnection is undetected.

The Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a Class I recall — the most serious type — due to the risk for serious injury or death. To date, there have been 26 reported injuries and no deaths related to this issue. 

The recall includes 45,176 devices distributed in the United States between May 3, 2021, and January 9, 2024, with model numbers 46913, 46914, 46915, 46916, and 46917.

The Duet EDMS is used for temporary CSF drainage or sampling in patients who have surgery for open descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) or descending thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) or patients who have TAA/TAAA repair surgery and develop symptoms such as paraplegia.

Medtronic has sent an urgent medical device recall letter to all affected customers asking them to identify, quarantine, and return any unused recalled products. 

Customers are also advised to check all Duet EDMS components for damage and ensure that all connections are secure and leak-free. 

If a patient is currently connected to an impacted Duet EDMS and a leak or disconnection is detected, the device should be changed to a new alternative device utilizing a sterile technique. 

It is not recommended that a Duet system device that is connected to a patient and working as intended be removed or replaced.

Customers in the United States with questions about this recall should contact Medtronic at 1-800-874-5797.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medtronic Neurosurgery has recalled Duet External Drainage and Monitoring System (EDMS) catheter tubing because the catheter may disconnect from the patient line stopcock connectors.

If this happens, potential harm to patients may include infections, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage, overdrainage of CSF, and abnormality of the ventricles. Uncontrolled overdrainage of CSF could lead to neurological injury or death if the disconnection is undetected.

The Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a Class I recall — the most serious type — due to the risk for serious injury or death. To date, there have been 26 reported injuries and no deaths related to this issue. 

The recall includes 45,176 devices distributed in the United States between May 3, 2021, and January 9, 2024, with model numbers 46913, 46914, 46915, 46916, and 46917.

The Duet EDMS is used for temporary CSF drainage or sampling in patients who have surgery for open descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) or descending thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) or patients who have TAA/TAAA repair surgery and develop symptoms such as paraplegia.

Medtronic has sent an urgent medical device recall letter to all affected customers asking them to identify, quarantine, and return any unused recalled products. 

Customers are also advised to check all Duet EDMS components for damage and ensure that all connections are secure and leak-free. 

If a patient is currently connected to an impacted Duet EDMS and a leak or disconnection is detected, the device should be changed to a new alternative device utilizing a sterile technique. 

It is not recommended that a Duet system device that is connected to a patient and working as intended be removed or replaced.

Customers in the United States with questions about this recall should contact Medtronic at 1-800-874-5797.