Jeff Craven

Headache as a symptom of COVID-19 could help predict survival for inpatients with the disease, according to recent research published in the journal Headache.

In the systematic review and meta-analysis, Víctor J. Gallardo, MSc, of the headache and neurologic pain research group, Vall d’Hebron Research Institute at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, and colleagues performed a search of studies in PubMed involving headache symptoms, disease survival, and inpatient COVID-19 cases published between December 2019 and December 2020. Overall, 48 studies were identified, consisting of 43,169 inpatients with COVID-19. Using random-effects pooling models, Mr. Gallardo and colleagues estimated the prevalence of headache for inpatients who survived COVID-19, compared with those who did not survive.

Within those studies, 35,132 inpatients (81.4%) survived, while 8,037 inpatients (18.6%) died from COVID-19. The researchers found that inpatients with COVID-19 and headache symptoms had a significantly higher survival rate compared with inpatients with COVID-19 without headache symptoms (risk ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.46-2.47; P < .0001). There was an overall pooled prevalence of headache as a COVID-19 symptom in 10.4% of inpatients, which was reduced to an estimated pooled prevalence of 9.7% after the researchers removed outlier studies in a sensitivity analysis.

Other COVID-19 symptoms that led to improved rates of survival among inpatients were anosmia (RR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.94-4.45) and myalgia (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.34-1.83) as well as nausea or vomiting (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.08-1.82), while symptoms such as dyspnea, diabetes, chronic liver diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, and chronic kidney diseases were more likely to increase the risk of dying from COVID-19.

The researchers noted several limitations in their meta-analysis that may make their findings less generalizable to future SARS-CoV-2 variants, such as including only studies that were published before COVID-19 vaccines were available and before more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants like the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant emerged. They also included studies where inpatients were not tested for COVID-19 because access to testing was not widely available.

“Our meta-analysis points toward a novel possibility: Headache arising secondary to an infection is not a ‘nonspecific’ symptom, but rather it may be a marker of enhanced likelihood of survival. That is, we find that patients reporting headache in the setting of COVID-19 are at reduced risk of death,” Mr. Gallardo and colleagues wrote.
 

More data needed on association between headache and COVID-19

While headache appeared to affect a small proportion of overall inpatients with COVID-19, the researchers noted this might be because individuals with COVID-19 and headache symptoms are less likely to require hospitalization or a visit to the ED. Another potential explanation is that “people with primary headache disorders, including migraine, may be more likely to report symptoms of COVID-19, but they also may be relatively less likely to experience a life-threatening COVID-19 disease course.”

The researchers said this potential association should be explored in future studies as well as in other viral infections or postviral syndromes such as long COVID. “Defining specific headache mechanisms that could enhance survival from viral infections represents an opportunity for the potential discovery of improved viral therapeutics, as well as for understanding whether, and how, primary headache disorders may be adaptive.”

In a comment, Morris Levin, MD, director of the University of California San Francisco Headache Center, said the findings “of this very thought-provoking review suggest that reporting a headache during a COVID-19 infection seems to be associated with better recovery in hospitalized patients.”

Dr. Levin, who was not involved with the study, acknowledged the researchers’ explanation for the overall low rate of headache in these inpatients as one possible explanation.

“Another could be that sick COVID patients were much more troubled by other symptoms like respiratory distress, which overshadowed their headache symptoms, particularly if they were very ill or if the headache pain was of only mild to moderate severity,” he said. “That could also be an alternate explanation for why less dangerously ill hospitalized patients seemed to have more headaches.”

One limitation he saw in the meta-analysis was how clearly the clinicians characterized headache symptoms in each reviewed study. Dr. Levin suggested a retrospective assessment of premorbid migraine history in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, including survivors and fatalities, might have helped clarify this issue. “The headaches themselves were not characterized so drawing conclusions regarding migraine is challenging.”

Dr. Levin noted it is still not well understood how acute and persistent headaches and other neurological symptoms like mental fog occur in patients with COVID-19. We also do not fully understand the natural history of post-COVID headaches and other neurologic sequelae and the management options for acute and persistent neurological sequelae.

Three authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of grants, consultancies, speaker’s bureau positions, guidelines committee member appointments, and editorial board positions for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, societies, and other organizations. Mr. Gallardo reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Levin reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Headache as a symptom of COVID-19 could help predict survival for inpatients with the disease, according to recent research published in the journal Headache.

In the systematic review and meta-analysis, Víctor J. Gallardo, MSc, of the headache and neurologic pain research group, Vall d’Hebron Research Institute at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, and colleagues performed a search of studies in PubMed involving headache symptoms, disease survival, and inpatient COVID-19 cases published between December 2019 and December 2020. Overall, 48 studies were identified, consisting of 43,169 inpatients with COVID-19. Using random-effects pooling models, Mr. Gallardo and colleagues estimated the prevalence of headache for inpatients who survived COVID-19, compared with those who did not survive.

Within those studies, 35,132 inpatients (81.4%) survived, while 8,037 inpatients (18.6%) died from COVID-19. The researchers found that inpatients with COVID-19 and headache symptoms had a significantly higher survival rate compared with inpatients with COVID-19 without headache symptoms (risk ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.46-2.47; P < .0001). There was an overall pooled prevalence of headache as a COVID-19 symptom in 10.4% of inpatients, which was reduced to an estimated pooled prevalence of 9.7% after the researchers removed outlier studies in a sensitivity analysis.

Other COVID-19 symptoms that led to improved rates of survival among inpatients were anosmia (RR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.94-4.45) and myalgia (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.34-1.83) as well as nausea or vomiting (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.08-1.82), while symptoms such as dyspnea, diabetes, chronic liver diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, and chronic kidney diseases were more likely to increase the risk of dying from COVID-19.

The researchers noted several limitations in their meta-analysis that may make their findings less generalizable to future SARS-CoV-2 variants, such as including only studies that were published before COVID-19 vaccines were available and before more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants like the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant emerged. They also included studies where inpatients were not tested for COVID-19 because access to testing was not widely available.

“Our meta-analysis points toward a novel possibility: Headache arising secondary to an infection is not a ‘nonspecific’ symptom, but rather it may be a marker of enhanced likelihood of survival. That is, we find that patients reporting headache in the setting of COVID-19 are at reduced risk of death,” Mr. Gallardo and colleagues wrote.
 

More data needed on association between headache and COVID-19

While headache appeared to affect a small proportion of overall inpatients with COVID-19, the researchers noted this might be because individuals with COVID-19 and headache symptoms are less likely to require hospitalization or a visit to the ED. Another potential explanation is that “people with primary headache disorders, including migraine, may be more likely to report symptoms of COVID-19, but they also may be relatively less likely to experience a life-threatening COVID-19 disease course.”

The researchers said this potential association should be explored in future studies as well as in other viral infections or postviral syndromes such as long COVID. “Defining specific headache mechanisms that could enhance survival from viral infections represents an opportunity for the potential discovery of improved viral therapeutics, as well as for understanding whether, and how, primary headache disorders may be adaptive.”

In a comment, Morris Levin, MD, director of the University of California San Francisco Headache Center, said the findings “of this very thought-provoking review suggest that reporting a headache during a COVID-19 infection seems to be associated with better recovery in hospitalized patients.”

Dr. Levin, who was not involved with the study, acknowledged the researchers’ explanation for the overall low rate of headache in these inpatients as one possible explanation.

“Another could be that sick COVID patients were much more troubled by other symptoms like respiratory distress, which overshadowed their headache symptoms, particularly if they were very ill or if the headache pain was of only mild to moderate severity,” he said. “That could also be an alternate explanation for why less dangerously ill hospitalized patients seemed to have more headaches.”

One limitation he saw in the meta-analysis was how clearly the clinicians characterized headache symptoms in each reviewed study. Dr. Levin suggested a retrospective assessment of premorbid migraine history in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, including survivors and fatalities, might have helped clarify this issue. “The headaches themselves were not characterized so drawing conclusions regarding migraine is challenging.”

Dr. Levin noted it is still not well understood how acute and persistent headaches and other neurological symptoms like mental fog occur in patients with COVID-19. We also do not fully understand the natural history of post-COVID headaches and other neurologic sequelae and the management options for acute and persistent neurological sequelae.

Three authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of grants, consultancies, speaker’s bureau positions, guidelines committee member appointments, and editorial board positions for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, societies, and other organizations. Mr. Gallardo reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Levin reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Headache as a symptom of COVID-19 could help predict survival for inpatients with the disease, according to recent research published in the journal Headache.

In the systematic review and meta-analysis, Víctor J. Gallardo, MSc, of the headache and neurologic pain research group, Vall d’Hebron Research Institute at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, and colleagues performed a search of studies in PubMed involving headache symptoms, disease survival, and inpatient COVID-19 cases published between December 2019 and December 2020. Overall, 48 studies were identified, consisting of 43,169 inpatients with COVID-19. Using random-effects pooling models, Mr. Gallardo and colleagues estimated the prevalence of headache for inpatients who survived COVID-19, compared with those who did not survive.

Within those studies, 35,132 inpatients (81.4%) survived, while 8,037 inpatients (18.6%) died from COVID-19. The researchers found that inpatients with COVID-19 and headache symptoms had a significantly higher survival rate compared with inpatients with COVID-19 without headache symptoms (risk ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.46-2.47; P < .0001). There was an overall pooled prevalence of headache as a COVID-19 symptom in 10.4% of inpatients, which was reduced to an estimated pooled prevalence of 9.7% after the researchers removed outlier studies in a sensitivity analysis.

Other COVID-19 symptoms that led to improved rates of survival among inpatients were anosmia (RR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.94-4.45) and myalgia (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.34-1.83) as well as nausea or vomiting (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.08-1.82), while symptoms such as dyspnea, diabetes, chronic liver diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, and chronic kidney diseases were more likely to increase the risk of dying from COVID-19.

The researchers noted several limitations in their meta-analysis that may make their findings less generalizable to future SARS-CoV-2 variants, such as including only studies that were published before COVID-19 vaccines were available and before more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants like the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant emerged. They also included studies where inpatients were not tested for COVID-19 because access to testing was not widely available.

“Our meta-analysis points toward a novel possibility: Headache arising secondary to an infection is not a ‘nonspecific’ symptom, but rather it may be a marker of enhanced likelihood of survival. That is, we find that patients reporting headache in the setting of COVID-19 are at reduced risk of death,” Mr. Gallardo and colleagues wrote.
 

More data needed on association between headache and COVID-19

While headache appeared to affect a small proportion of overall inpatients with COVID-19, the researchers noted this might be because individuals with COVID-19 and headache symptoms are less likely to require hospitalization or a visit to the ED. Another potential explanation is that “people with primary headache disorders, including migraine, may be more likely to report symptoms of COVID-19, but they also may be relatively less likely to experience a life-threatening COVID-19 disease course.”

The researchers said this potential association should be explored in future studies as well as in other viral infections or postviral syndromes such as long COVID. “Defining specific headache mechanisms that could enhance survival from viral infections represents an opportunity for the potential discovery of improved viral therapeutics, as well as for understanding whether, and how, primary headache disorders may be adaptive.”

In a comment, Morris Levin, MD, director of the University of California San Francisco Headache Center, said the findings “of this very thought-provoking review suggest that reporting a headache during a COVID-19 infection seems to be associated with better recovery in hospitalized patients.”

Dr. Levin, who was not involved with the study, acknowledged the researchers’ explanation for the overall low rate of headache in these inpatients as one possible explanation.

“Another could be that sick COVID patients were much more troubled by other symptoms like respiratory distress, which overshadowed their headache symptoms, particularly if they were very ill or if the headache pain was of only mild to moderate severity,” he said. “That could also be an alternate explanation for why less dangerously ill hospitalized patients seemed to have more headaches.”

One limitation he saw in the meta-analysis was how clearly the clinicians characterized headache symptoms in each reviewed study. Dr. Levin suggested a retrospective assessment of premorbid migraine history in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, including survivors and fatalities, might have helped clarify this issue. “The headaches themselves were not characterized so drawing conclusions regarding migraine is challenging.”

Dr. Levin noted it is still not well understood how acute and persistent headaches and other neurological symptoms like mental fog occur in patients with COVID-19. We also do not fully understand the natural history of post-COVID headaches and other neurologic sequelae and the management options for acute and persistent neurological sequelae.

Three authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of grants, consultancies, speaker’s bureau positions, guidelines committee member appointments, and editorial board positions for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, societies, and other organizations. Mr. Gallardo reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Levin reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Researchers have developed a hypothesis that may explain how chronic neuroinflammation contributes to conditions such as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection through a continuing relapse-recovery cycle.

ME/CFS has been established as resulting from infections, environmental exposures, stressors, and surgery. Similarities have been drawn during the COVID-19 pandemic between ME/CFS and a large subgroup of patients with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection – also known as post-COVID conditions, or long COVID – who continue to have viral fatigue and other lingering symptoms after their infection resolves.

What has been less clearly understood, the researchers said, is the reason behind why ME/CFS and other postviral fatigue tends to be chronic and can sometime develop into a lifelong condition.

“These diseases are very closely related, and it is clear the biological basis of long COVID is unequivocally connected to the original COVID infection – so there should no longer be any debate and doubt about the fact that postviral fatigue syndromes like ME/CFS are biologically based and involve much disturbed physiology,” Warren Tate, MSc, PhD, emeritus professor in the department of biochemistry at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, stated in a press release.

Their hypothesis, set forth in a study published in Frontiers of Neurology, proposes that the systemic immune/inflammatory response that occurs after an infection or stressful event does not revolve, which results in a “fluctuating chronic neuroinflammation that sustains and controls the complex neurological symptoms of ME/CFS and long COVID and facilitates frequent more serious relapses in response to life stress, as evidenced from a comprehensive disruption to the cellular molecular biology and body’s physiological pathways.”

Dr. Tate and colleagues said that it is still unclear how the neuroinflammation occurs, why it’s persistent in ME/CFS, and how it causes symptoms associated with ME/CFS. In their hypothesis, “abnormal signaling or transport of molecules/cells occurs through one or both of neurovascular pathways and/or a dysfunctional blood brain barrier,” they said, noting “the normally separate and contained brain/CNS compartment in the healthy person becomes more porous.” The neurological symptoms associated with ME/CFS occur due to strong signals sent because of persistent “inflammatory signals or immune cells/molecules migrating into the brain,” they explained.

This results in a continuous loop where the central nervous system sends signals back to the body through the hypothalamus/paraventricular nucleus and the brain stem. “The resulting symptoms and the neurologically driven ‘sickness response’ for the ME/CFS patient would persist, preventing healing and a return to the preinfectious/stress-related state,” Dr. Tate and colleagues said.
 

Lingering inflammation may be the culprit

Commenting on the study, Achillefs Ntranos, MD, a board-certified neurologist in private practice in Scarsdale, N.Y., who was not involved with the research, said previous studies have shown that long COVID is linked to chronic activation of microglia in the brain, which has also been seen to activate in patients with ME/CFS.

“The hypothesis that lingering inflammation in the brain is the culprit behind the neurological symptoms of long COVID and ME/CFS is valid,” he said. “If these cells remain activated in the brain, they can cause a state of increased and lingering inflammation, which can interfere with the function of neurons, thus producing neurological symptoms. Since the neurological symptoms are similar between these entities, the mechanisms that produce them might also be similar.”

While the exact cause of ME/CFS is still unclear, it is often tied to the aftereffects of a flu-like illness, Dr. Ntranos said. “This has led researchers to propose that it arises after a viral infection, with many different types of viruses being associated with it. Other ways researchers think ME/CFS is being brought on after a viral illness is via changes in the immune system, such as chronic production of cytokines, neuroinflammation, and disruption of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, which regulates the body’s response to stress,” he explained.

While a newer condition, long COVID is not all that different from ME/CFS, Dr. Ntranos noted, sharing the catalyst of a viral infection and core neurological symptoms such as fatigue, postexertional malaise, a “brain fog” that makes thinking or concentrating difficult, sleep problems, and lightheadedness, but there are differences that set it apart from ME/CFS.

“Long COVID is unique in having additional symptoms that are specific to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, such as respiratory and cardiovascular symptoms and loss of smell and taste. However most central nervous system effects are the same between these two entities,” he said.

Dr. Ntranos said long COVID’s neurological symptoms are similar to that of multiple sclerosis (MS), such as “brain fog” and postexertional malaise. “Since MS only affects the brain and spinal cord, there are no symptoms from other organ systems, such as the lungs, heart, or digestive system, contrary to long COVID. Furthermore, MS rarely affects smell and taste, making these symptoms unique to COVID,” he said.

However, he pointed out that brain fog and fatigue symptoms on their own can be nonspecific and attributed to many different conditions, such as obstructive sleep apnea, migraines, depression, anxiety, thyroid problems, vitamin deficiencies, dehydration, sleep disorders, and side effects of medications.

“More research needs to be done to understand how these cells are being activated, how they interfere with neuronal function, and why they remain in that state in some people, who then go on to develop fatigue and brain fog,” he said.

This study was funded by the Healthcare Otago Charitable Trust, the Associated New Zealand Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Society, and donations from families of patients with ME/CFS. The authors and Dr. Ntranos report no relevant financial disclosures.

Researchers have developed a hypothesis that may explain how chronic neuroinflammation contributes to conditions such as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection through a continuing relapse-recovery cycle.

ME/CFS has been established as resulting from infections, environmental exposures, stressors, and surgery. Similarities have been drawn during the COVID-19 pandemic between ME/CFS and a large subgroup of patients with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection – also known as post-COVID conditions, or long COVID – who continue to have viral fatigue and other lingering symptoms after their infection resolves.

What has been less clearly understood, the researchers said, is the reason behind why ME/CFS and other postviral fatigue tends to be chronic and can sometime develop into a lifelong condition.

“These diseases are very closely related, and it is clear the biological basis of long COVID is unequivocally connected to the original COVID infection – so there should no longer be any debate and doubt about the fact that postviral fatigue syndromes like ME/CFS are biologically based and involve much disturbed physiology,” Warren Tate, MSc, PhD, emeritus professor in the department of biochemistry at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, stated in a press release.

Their hypothesis, set forth in a study published in Frontiers of Neurology, proposes that the systemic immune/inflammatory response that occurs after an infection or stressful event does not revolve, which results in a “fluctuating chronic neuroinflammation that sustains and controls the complex neurological symptoms of ME/CFS and long COVID and facilitates frequent more serious relapses in response to life stress, as evidenced from a comprehensive disruption to the cellular molecular biology and body’s physiological pathways.”

Dr. Tate and colleagues said that it is still unclear how the neuroinflammation occurs, why it’s persistent in ME/CFS, and how it causes symptoms associated with ME/CFS. In their hypothesis, “abnormal signaling or transport of molecules/cells occurs through one or both of neurovascular pathways and/or a dysfunctional blood brain barrier,” they said, noting “the normally separate and contained brain/CNS compartment in the healthy person becomes more porous.” The neurological symptoms associated with ME/CFS occur due to strong signals sent because of persistent “inflammatory signals or immune cells/molecules migrating into the brain,” they explained.

This results in a continuous loop where the central nervous system sends signals back to the body through the hypothalamus/paraventricular nucleus and the brain stem. “The resulting symptoms and the neurologically driven ‘sickness response’ for the ME/CFS patient would persist, preventing healing and a return to the preinfectious/stress-related state,” Dr. Tate and colleagues said.
 

Lingering inflammation may be the culprit

Commenting on the study, Achillefs Ntranos, MD, a board-certified neurologist in private practice in Scarsdale, N.Y., who was not involved with the research, said previous studies have shown that long COVID is linked to chronic activation of microglia in the brain, which has also been seen to activate in patients with ME/CFS.

“The hypothesis that lingering inflammation in the brain is the culprit behind the neurological symptoms of long COVID and ME/CFS is valid,” he said. “If these cells remain activated in the brain, they can cause a state of increased and lingering inflammation, which can interfere with the function of neurons, thus producing neurological symptoms. Since the neurological symptoms are similar between these entities, the mechanisms that produce them might also be similar.”

While the exact cause of ME/CFS is still unclear, it is often tied to the aftereffects of a flu-like illness, Dr. Ntranos said. “This has led researchers to propose that it arises after a viral infection, with many different types of viruses being associated with it. Other ways researchers think ME/CFS is being brought on after a viral illness is via changes in the immune system, such as chronic production of cytokines, neuroinflammation, and disruption of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, which regulates the body’s response to stress,” he explained.

While a newer condition, long COVID is not all that different from ME/CFS, Dr. Ntranos noted, sharing the catalyst of a viral infection and core neurological symptoms such as fatigue, postexertional malaise, a “brain fog” that makes thinking or concentrating difficult, sleep problems, and lightheadedness, but there are differences that set it apart from ME/CFS.

“Long COVID is unique in having additional symptoms that are specific to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, such as respiratory and cardiovascular symptoms and loss of smell and taste. However most central nervous system effects are the same between these two entities,” he said.

Dr. Ntranos said long COVID’s neurological symptoms are similar to that of multiple sclerosis (MS), such as “brain fog” and postexertional malaise. “Since MS only affects the brain and spinal cord, there are no symptoms from other organ systems, such as the lungs, heart, or digestive system, contrary to long COVID. Furthermore, MS rarely affects smell and taste, making these symptoms unique to COVID,” he said.

However, he pointed out that brain fog and fatigue symptoms on their own can be nonspecific and attributed to many different conditions, such as obstructive sleep apnea, migraines, depression, anxiety, thyroid problems, vitamin deficiencies, dehydration, sleep disorders, and side effects of medications.

“More research needs to be done to understand how these cells are being activated, how they interfere with neuronal function, and why they remain in that state in some people, who then go on to develop fatigue and brain fog,” he said.

This study was funded by the Healthcare Otago Charitable Trust, the Associated New Zealand Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Society, and donations from families of patients with ME/CFS. The authors and Dr. Ntranos report no relevant financial disclosures.

Researchers have developed a hypothesis that may explain how chronic neuroinflammation contributes to conditions such as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection through a continuing relapse-recovery cycle.

ME/CFS has been established as resulting from infections, environmental exposures, stressors, and surgery. Similarities have been drawn during the COVID-19 pandemic between ME/CFS and a large subgroup of patients with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection – also known as post-COVID conditions, or long COVID – who continue to have viral fatigue and other lingering symptoms after their infection resolves.

What has been less clearly understood, the researchers said, is the reason behind why ME/CFS and other postviral fatigue tends to be chronic and can sometime develop into a lifelong condition.

“These diseases are very closely related, and it is clear the biological basis of long COVID is unequivocally connected to the original COVID infection – so there should no longer be any debate and doubt about the fact that postviral fatigue syndromes like ME/CFS are biologically based and involve much disturbed physiology,” Warren Tate, MSc, PhD, emeritus professor in the department of biochemistry at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, stated in a press release.

Their hypothesis, set forth in a study published in Frontiers of Neurology, proposes that the systemic immune/inflammatory response that occurs after an infection or stressful event does not revolve, which results in a “fluctuating chronic neuroinflammation that sustains and controls the complex neurological symptoms of ME/CFS and long COVID and facilitates frequent more serious relapses in response to life stress, as evidenced from a comprehensive disruption to the cellular molecular biology and body’s physiological pathways.”

Dr. Tate and colleagues said that it is still unclear how the neuroinflammation occurs, why it’s persistent in ME/CFS, and how it causes symptoms associated with ME/CFS. In their hypothesis, “abnormal signaling or transport of molecules/cells occurs through one or both of neurovascular pathways and/or a dysfunctional blood brain barrier,” they said, noting “the normally separate and contained brain/CNS compartment in the healthy person becomes more porous.” The neurological symptoms associated with ME/CFS occur due to strong signals sent because of persistent “inflammatory signals or immune cells/molecules migrating into the brain,” they explained.

This results in a continuous loop where the central nervous system sends signals back to the body through the hypothalamus/paraventricular nucleus and the brain stem. “The resulting symptoms and the neurologically driven ‘sickness response’ for the ME/CFS patient would persist, preventing healing and a return to the preinfectious/stress-related state,” Dr. Tate and colleagues said.
 

Lingering inflammation may be the culprit

Commenting on the study, Achillefs Ntranos, MD, a board-certified neurologist in private practice in Scarsdale, N.Y., who was not involved with the research, said previous studies have shown that long COVID is linked to chronic activation of microglia in the brain, which has also been seen to activate in patients with ME/CFS.

“The hypothesis that lingering inflammation in the brain is the culprit behind the neurological symptoms of long COVID and ME/CFS is valid,” he said. “If these cells remain activated in the brain, they can cause a state of increased and lingering inflammation, which can interfere with the function of neurons, thus producing neurological symptoms. Since the neurological symptoms are similar between these entities, the mechanisms that produce them might also be similar.”

While the exact cause of ME/CFS is still unclear, it is often tied to the aftereffects of a flu-like illness, Dr. Ntranos said. “This has led researchers to propose that it arises after a viral infection, with many different types of viruses being associated with it. Other ways researchers think ME/CFS is being brought on after a viral illness is via changes in the immune system, such as chronic production of cytokines, neuroinflammation, and disruption of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, which regulates the body’s response to stress,” he explained.

While a newer condition, long COVID is not all that different from ME/CFS, Dr. Ntranos noted, sharing the catalyst of a viral infection and core neurological symptoms such as fatigue, postexertional malaise, a “brain fog” that makes thinking or concentrating difficult, sleep problems, and lightheadedness, but there are differences that set it apart from ME/CFS.

“Long COVID is unique in having additional symptoms that are specific to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, such as respiratory and cardiovascular symptoms and loss of smell and taste. However most central nervous system effects are the same between these two entities,” he said.

Dr. Ntranos said long COVID’s neurological symptoms are similar to that of multiple sclerosis (MS), such as “brain fog” and postexertional malaise. “Since MS only affects the brain and spinal cord, there are no symptoms from other organ systems, such as the lungs, heart, or digestive system, contrary to long COVID. Furthermore, MS rarely affects smell and taste, making these symptoms unique to COVID,” he said.

However, he pointed out that brain fog and fatigue symptoms on their own can be nonspecific and attributed to many different conditions, such as obstructive sleep apnea, migraines, depression, anxiety, thyroid problems, vitamin deficiencies, dehydration, sleep disorders, and side effects of medications.

“More research needs to be done to understand how these cells are being activated, how they interfere with neuronal function, and why they remain in that state in some people, who then go on to develop fatigue and brain fog,” he said.

This study was funded by the Healthcare Otago Charitable Trust, the Associated New Zealand Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Society, and donations from families of patients with ME/CFS. The authors and Dr. Ntranos report no relevant financial disclosures.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) taking a tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor (TNFi) have about a two-fold higher risk of developing psoriasis, compared with patients receiving conventional treatment, according to a new study published in JAMA Dermatology.

Despite this finding, the authors of the large Danish nationwide cohort study noted that TNFi-induced psoriasis is still a rare adverse event. “Practitioners and patients should be aware and observant of the potential for TNFi-associated psoriasis during TNFi treatment but keep in mind that the absolute risk appears to be low,” David Thein, MB, of the department of dermatology at Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, and colleagues wrote in the study.

They analyzed 109,085 patients with RA and IBD enrolled in Danish national registries between 1995 and 2018 without a previous diagnosis of psoriasis, who received either TNFi (20,910 patients) or conventional treatments (108,024 patients) and were followed for 5 years. They were a mean of 50 years old when they started treatment, 62% were women, with 87.8% of patients in the TNFi group receiving prior conventional therapy and 1% of patients in the conventional therapy group receiving prior TNFi treatment.

The investigators assessed the risk of developing any psoriasis, nonpustular psoriasis, and pustular psoriasis in the two groups using ICD-10 codes as well as a record of two consecutive prescriptions for topical vitamin D analogs.

Overall, 1,471 patients (1.4%) developed psoriasis of any type; 1,332 had non-pustular psoriasis, 127 had palmoplantar pustulosis, and 12 had generalized pustulosis.

The incidence rate of developing any psoriasis was 3.0 per 1,000 patient-years (95% confidence interval, 2.9-3.2) for patients receiving conventional therapy and 7.8 per 1,000 patient-years (95% CI, 7.5-8.9) for patients receiving TNFi treatment. Compared with conventional treatment, the risk of developing nonpustular psoriasis was twofold higher among patients receiving TNFi treatment (hazard ratio, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.87-2.40; P < .001). The risk of developing pustular psoriasis was more than sixfold higher among those on a TNFi (HR, 6.50; 95% CI, 4.60-9.23; P < .001).

Dr. Thein and colleagues estimated that the exposure needed to harm 1 additional patient was 241 patient-years for any psoriasis type, 342 patient-years for nonpustular psoriasis, and 909 patient-years for pustular psoriasis, with an estimated absolute risk difference of 5 per 1,000 patient-years.
 

Best evidence to date on risk

Asked to comment on the study findings, Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, director of medical dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic, said that he applauded the researchers for performing this well-designed study to determine the risk of TNF inhibitor–induced psoriasis in patients with RA and IBD.

The strengths of the study include excluding patients with a history of psoriasis to rule out disease recurrence and having a large comparator group of patients with IBD and RA who were taking medications other than TNF inhibitors, while one limitation was the potential accuracy of the ICD-10 codes used as the basis for diagnosing psoriasis. “It’s probably closer to the truth of what the true risk is compared to studies done in the past,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Fernandez noted that the results aren’t likely to change how dermatologists, rheumatologists, or gastroenterologists practice, but the message to stay the course in initially treating TNFi-induced psoriasis also holds value. “We don’t need to change anything in our clinical practice when it comes to TNF-alpha inhibitors.”

For patients with RA or IBD who develop TNFi-induced psoriasis with disease that is well controlled with TNFi treatment, keeping them on that treatment is a priority, Dr. Fernandez explained. “The first and foremost goal is, if the TNF inhibitor is working very well to control the disease that it was prescribed for, then you exhaust your efforts to try to control the psoriasis and allow those patients to stay on the TNF inhibitor.”

In his experience, most patients with RA and IBD who develop TNFi-induced psoriasis are controlled with topical medications. Switching to another TNFi is not recommended, he noted, as patients are “likely to have that reaction with any TNF inhibitor.”

However, Dr. Fernandez said that won’t be an option for all patients with RA and IBD. “In some patients you do simply have to stop the TNF inhibitor” and try an alternative treatment with a different mechanism of action.

The cause of TNFi-induced psoriasis is still not well understood. “There certainly is evidence to support that interferon alpha production by plasmacytoid dendritic cells is playing some role in this phenomenon,” but there is “more to the story” and unanswered questions remain, Dr. Fernandez said.

What’s most interesting about this phenomenon, he added, is that “patients can develop it at any time when exposed to a TNF inhibitor.” For instance, most patients develop drug reactions within 2­-3 weeks of starting a treatment, but TNFi-induced psoriasis can appear after a single dose or several years after initiating treatment.

“Why so few patients, and why is there such variability in terms of how long they’re on the TNF inhibitor before the reaction occurs?” he asked. “That really points to ... some other trigger besides exposure to the TNF inhibitor needed for the initiation of this reaction.”

He noted that it would be valuable to identify triggers – or the most likely triggers – which would be challenging, but could “potentially impact clinical practice.”

The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of personal and institutional research grants, honoraria, personal fees, investigator fees paid to university, consultancies, and speaker’s bureau positions for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, data companies, hospitals, and foundations. Dr. Fernandez reported he has nonbranded speaking, consulting, and research relationships with AbbVie and Novartis; and is a consultant for UCB, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Boehringer Ingelheim on related products.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) taking a tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor (TNFi) have about a two-fold higher risk of developing psoriasis, compared with patients receiving conventional treatment, according to a new study published in JAMA Dermatology.

Despite this finding, the authors of the large Danish nationwide cohort study noted that TNFi-induced psoriasis is still a rare adverse event. “Practitioners and patients should be aware and observant of the potential for TNFi-associated psoriasis during TNFi treatment but keep in mind that the absolute risk appears to be low,” David Thein, MB, of the department of dermatology at Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, and colleagues wrote in the study.

They analyzed 109,085 patients with RA and IBD enrolled in Danish national registries between 1995 and 2018 without a previous diagnosis of psoriasis, who received either TNFi (20,910 patients) or conventional treatments (108,024 patients) and were followed for 5 years. They were a mean of 50 years old when they started treatment, 62% were women, with 87.8% of patients in the TNFi group receiving prior conventional therapy and 1% of patients in the conventional therapy group receiving prior TNFi treatment.

The investigators assessed the risk of developing any psoriasis, nonpustular psoriasis, and pustular psoriasis in the two groups using ICD-10 codes as well as a record of two consecutive prescriptions for topical vitamin D analogs.

Overall, 1,471 patients (1.4%) developed psoriasis of any type; 1,332 had non-pustular psoriasis, 127 had palmoplantar pustulosis, and 12 had generalized pustulosis.

The incidence rate of developing any psoriasis was 3.0 per 1,000 patient-years (95% confidence interval, 2.9-3.2) for patients receiving conventional therapy and 7.8 per 1,000 patient-years (95% CI, 7.5-8.9) for patients receiving TNFi treatment. Compared with conventional treatment, the risk of developing nonpustular psoriasis was twofold higher among patients receiving TNFi treatment (hazard ratio, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.87-2.40; P < .001). The risk of developing pustular psoriasis was more than sixfold higher among those on a TNFi (HR, 6.50; 95% CI, 4.60-9.23; P < .001).

Dr. Thein and colleagues estimated that the exposure needed to harm 1 additional patient was 241 patient-years for any psoriasis type, 342 patient-years for nonpustular psoriasis, and 909 patient-years for pustular psoriasis, with an estimated absolute risk difference of 5 per 1,000 patient-years.
 

Best evidence to date on risk

Asked to comment on the study findings, Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, director of medical dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic, said that he applauded the researchers for performing this well-designed study to determine the risk of TNF inhibitor–induced psoriasis in patients with RA and IBD.

The strengths of the study include excluding patients with a history of psoriasis to rule out disease recurrence and having a large comparator group of patients with IBD and RA who were taking medications other than TNF inhibitors, while one limitation was the potential accuracy of the ICD-10 codes used as the basis for diagnosing psoriasis. “It’s probably closer to the truth of what the true risk is compared to studies done in the past,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Fernandez noted that the results aren’t likely to change how dermatologists, rheumatologists, or gastroenterologists practice, but the message to stay the course in initially treating TNFi-induced psoriasis also holds value. “We don’t need to change anything in our clinical practice when it comes to TNF-alpha inhibitors.”

For patients with RA or IBD who develop TNFi-induced psoriasis with disease that is well controlled with TNFi treatment, keeping them on that treatment is a priority, Dr. Fernandez explained. “The first and foremost goal is, if the TNF inhibitor is working very well to control the disease that it was prescribed for, then you exhaust your efforts to try to control the psoriasis and allow those patients to stay on the TNF inhibitor.”

In his experience, most patients with RA and IBD who develop TNFi-induced psoriasis are controlled with topical medications. Switching to another TNFi is not recommended, he noted, as patients are “likely to have that reaction with any TNF inhibitor.”

However, Dr. Fernandez said that won’t be an option for all patients with RA and IBD. “In some patients you do simply have to stop the TNF inhibitor” and try an alternative treatment with a different mechanism of action.

The cause of TNFi-induced psoriasis is still not well understood. “There certainly is evidence to support that interferon alpha production by plasmacytoid dendritic cells is playing some role in this phenomenon,” but there is “more to the story” and unanswered questions remain, Dr. Fernandez said.

What’s most interesting about this phenomenon, he added, is that “patients can develop it at any time when exposed to a TNF inhibitor.” For instance, most patients develop drug reactions within 2­-3 weeks of starting a treatment, but TNFi-induced psoriasis can appear after a single dose or several years after initiating treatment.

“Why so few patients, and why is there such variability in terms of how long they’re on the TNF inhibitor before the reaction occurs?” he asked. “That really points to ... some other trigger besides exposure to the TNF inhibitor needed for the initiation of this reaction.”

He noted that it would be valuable to identify triggers – or the most likely triggers – which would be challenging, but could “potentially impact clinical practice.”

The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of personal and institutional research grants, honoraria, personal fees, investigator fees paid to university, consultancies, and speaker’s bureau positions for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, data companies, hospitals, and foundations. Dr. Fernandez reported he has nonbranded speaking, consulting, and research relationships with AbbVie and Novartis; and is a consultant for UCB, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Boehringer Ingelheim on related products.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) taking a tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor (TNFi) have about a two-fold higher risk of developing psoriasis, compared with patients receiving conventional treatment, according to a new study published in JAMA Dermatology.

Despite this finding, the authors of the large Danish nationwide cohort study noted that TNFi-induced psoriasis is still a rare adverse event. “Practitioners and patients should be aware and observant of the potential for TNFi-associated psoriasis during TNFi treatment but keep in mind that the absolute risk appears to be low,” David Thein, MB, of the department of dermatology at Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, and colleagues wrote in the study.

They analyzed 109,085 patients with RA and IBD enrolled in Danish national registries between 1995 and 2018 without a previous diagnosis of psoriasis, who received either TNFi (20,910 patients) or conventional treatments (108,024 patients) and were followed for 5 years. They were a mean of 50 years old when they started treatment, 62% were women, with 87.8% of patients in the TNFi group receiving prior conventional therapy and 1% of patients in the conventional therapy group receiving prior TNFi treatment.

The investigators assessed the risk of developing any psoriasis, nonpustular psoriasis, and pustular psoriasis in the two groups using ICD-10 codes as well as a record of two consecutive prescriptions for topical vitamin D analogs.

Overall, 1,471 patients (1.4%) developed psoriasis of any type; 1,332 had non-pustular psoriasis, 127 had palmoplantar pustulosis, and 12 had generalized pustulosis.

The incidence rate of developing any psoriasis was 3.0 per 1,000 patient-years (95% confidence interval, 2.9-3.2) for patients receiving conventional therapy and 7.8 per 1,000 patient-years (95% CI, 7.5-8.9) for patients receiving TNFi treatment. Compared with conventional treatment, the risk of developing nonpustular psoriasis was twofold higher among patients receiving TNFi treatment (hazard ratio, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.87-2.40; P < .001). The risk of developing pustular psoriasis was more than sixfold higher among those on a TNFi (HR, 6.50; 95% CI, 4.60-9.23; P < .001).

Dr. Thein and colleagues estimated that the exposure needed to harm 1 additional patient was 241 patient-years for any psoriasis type, 342 patient-years for nonpustular psoriasis, and 909 patient-years for pustular psoriasis, with an estimated absolute risk difference of 5 per 1,000 patient-years.
 

Best evidence to date on risk

Asked to comment on the study findings, Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, director of medical dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic, said that he applauded the researchers for performing this well-designed study to determine the risk of TNF inhibitor–induced psoriasis in patients with RA and IBD.

The strengths of the study include excluding patients with a history of psoriasis to rule out disease recurrence and having a large comparator group of patients with IBD and RA who were taking medications other than TNF inhibitors, while one limitation was the potential accuracy of the ICD-10 codes used as the basis for diagnosing psoriasis. “It’s probably closer to the truth of what the true risk is compared to studies done in the past,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Fernandez noted that the results aren’t likely to change how dermatologists, rheumatologists, or gastroenterologists practice, but the message to stay the course in initially treating TNFi-induced psoriasis also holds value. “We don’t need to change anything in our clinical practice when it comes to TNF-alpha inhibitors.”

For patients with RA or IBD who develop TNFi-induced psoriasis with disease that is well controlled with TNFi treatment, keeping them on that treatment is a priority, Dr. Fernandez explained. “The first and foremost goal is, if the TNF inhibitor is working very well to control the disease that it was prescribed for, then you exhaust your efforts to try to control the psoriasis and allow those patients to stay on the TNF inhibitor.”

In his experience, most patients with RA and IBD who develop TNFi-induced psoriasis are controlled with topical medications. Switching to another TNFi is not recommended, he noted, as patients are “likely to have that reaction with any TNF inhibitor.”

However, Dr. Fernandez said that won’t be an option for all patients with RA and IBD. “In some patients you do simply have to stop the TNF inhibitor” and try an alternative treatment with a different mechanism of action.

The cause of TNFi-induced psoriasis is still not well understood. “There certainly is evidence to support that interferon alpha production by plasmacytoid dendritic cells is playing some role in this phenomenon,” but there is “more to the story” and unanswered questions remain, Dr. Fernandez said.

What’s most interesting about this phenomenon, he added, is that “patients can develop it at any time when exposed to a TNF inhibitor.” For instance, most patients develop drug reactions within 2­-3 weeks of starting a treatment, but TNFi-induced psoriasis can appear after a single dose or several years after initiating treatment.

“Why so few patients, and why is there such variability in terms of how long they’re on the TNF inhibitor before the reaction occurs?” he asked. “That really points to ... some other trigger besides exposure to the TNF inhibitor needed for the initiation of this reaction.”

He noted that it would be valuable to identify triggers – or the most likely triggers – which would be challenging, but could “potentially impact clinical practice.”

The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of personal and institutional research grants, honoraria, personal fees, investigator fees paid to university, consultancies, and speaker’s bureau positions for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, data companies, hospitals, and foundations. Dr. Fernandez reported he has nonbranded speaking, consulting, and research relationships with AbbVie and Novartis; and is a consultant for UCB, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Boehringer Ingelheim on related products.

Therapeutic patient education is an important, effective, and well-defined intervention for patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), Andreas Wollenberg, MD, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.

A major goal of patient education is increasing medication adherence, noted Dr. Wollenberg, professor in the department of dermatology and allergy at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. Quoting former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, MD, he said, “drugs don’t work in patients who don’t take them.”

While this is a simple message, it is important, Dr. Wollenberg said, noting that there can be a gap between a physician’s well-intentioned message and how it is interpreted by the patient. “Our messages may not be heard, not understood, not accepted, and even if they are put into place, how long will they last?” he asked. “We need to find a way [to] place sticky messages in the brains of our patients who are sitting and interacting with us.”

One way to improve treatment adherence is through patient education, such as using a written action plan or graphics; simplifying treatment regimens; minimizing treatment costs; setting up reminder programs, early follow-up visits, and short-term treatment goals; and minimizing nocebo effects. “This is more than providing just leaflets to patients. It is a complete program. It is a holistic approach. It should be structured and should be interdisciplinary, and it should contain a psychological component,” Dr. Wollenberg said.

Therapeutic patient education is recommended at baseline for children and adults with moderate to severe AD in the 2020 European Task Force on Atopic Dermatitis (ETFAD) and European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) position paper on the diagnosis and treatment of AD in adults and children, alongside other interventions, such as emollients, bath oils, and avoidance of clinically relevant allergens, noted Dr. Wollenberg, the first author . “Therapeutic patient education is an extremely helpful tool to address patient beliefs and questions regarding disease and treatment,” he and his coauthors wrote in the paper.

When considering a therapeutic patient education program for AD, content is key, but just as important is consideration of legal and cultural conditions in the local area, Dr. Wollenberg explained. Every country will need some degree of standardization of content, he noted. Clinicians interested in adopting a patient education program need to consider who will pay for it – patients, foundations, or insurance companies – as well as the time commitment needed.

Dr. Wollenberg said that his team uses an evidence-based education program for AD in Germany that works across patients with different personalities, with a multidisciplinary team that includes a dermatologist, a specialist nurse, a nutrition expert, and a psychologist. “Sometimes we replace the specialized nurse with the dermatology resident because, in Germany, it’s difficult to find any type of specialized nurse,” although this is not an issue in many other countries, he said.

The model for children involves six 90-minute sessions, which cover topics that include emollients and basic care, food allergies and diet, medical treatment, and psychology of itch. The program for adults involves six 2-hour sessions, which cover topics that include psychology, skin care/nutrition, and medical treatment.

While this education program improves adherence in patients with AD, he acknowledged it is time consuming, and may not work for people who live far away from a clinic or who have other time commitments, making an alternative format necessary.

In terms of improving patient adherence to a doctor’s recommendations regarding chronic skin disease, “we cannot change our patients, we cannot change the disease, but we can strongly influence the treatment that we choose and how we interact as physicians with our patients,” said Dr. Wollenberg.

“Therapeutic patient education is virtually free of side effects, but evidence based. Have a look [at] it and adapt it to your own practice,” he added.

Dr. Wollenberg is a consultant, speaker and receives fees from numerous pharmaceutical companies.

Therapeutic patient education is an important, effective, and well-defined intervention for patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), Andreas Wollenberg, MD, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.

A major goal of patient education is increasing medication adherence, noted Dr. Wollenberg, professor in the department of dermatology and allergy at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. Quoting former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, MD, he said, “drugs don’t work in patients who don’t take them.”

While this is a simple message, it is important, Dr. Wollenberg said, noting that there can be a gap between a physician’s well-intentioned message and how it is interpreted by the patient. “Our messages may not be heard, not understood, not accepted, and even if they are put into place, how long will they last?” he asked. “We need to find a way [to] place sticky messages in the brains of our patients who are sitting and interacting with us.”

One way to improve treatment adherence is through patient education, such as using a written action plan or graphics; simplifying treatment regimens; minimizing treatment costs; setting up reminder programs, early follow-up visits, and short-term treatment goals; and minimizing nocebo effects. “This is more than providing just leaflets to patients. It is a complete program. It is a holistic approach. It should be structured and should be interdisciplinary, and it should contain a psychological component,” Dr. Wollenberg said.

Therapeutic patient education is recommended at baseline for children and adults with moderate to severe AD in the 2020 European Task Force on Atopic Dermatitis (ETFAD) and European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) position paper on the diagnosis and treatment of AD in adults and children, alongside other interventions, such as emollients, bath oils, and avoidance of clinically relevant allergens, noted Dr. Wollenberg, the first author . “Therapeutic patient education is an extremely helpful tool to address patient beliefs and questions regarding disease and treatment,” he and his coauthors wrote in the paper.

When considering a therapeutic patient education program for AD, content is key, but just as important is consideration of legal and cultural conditions in the local area, Dr. Wollenberg explained. Every country will need some degree of standardization of content, he noted. Clinicians interested in adopting a patient education program need to consider who will pay for it – patients, foundations, or insurance companies – as well as the time commitment needed.

Dr. Wollenberg said that his team uses an evidence-based education program for AD in Germany that works across patients with different personalities, with a multidisciplinary team that includes a dermatologist, a specialist nurse, a nutrition expert, and a psychologist. “Sometimes we replace the specialized nurse with the dermatology resident because, in Germany, it’s difficult to find any type of specialized nurse,” although this is not an issue in many other countries, he said.

The model for children involves six 90-minute sessions, which cover topics that include emollients and basic care, food allergies and diet, medical treatment, and psychology of itch. The program for adults involves six 2-hour sessions, which cover topics that include psychology, skin care/nutrition, and medical treatment.

While this education program improves adherence in patients with AD, he acknowledged it is time consuming, and may not work for people who live far away from a clinic or who have other time commitments, making an alternative format necessary.

In terms of improving patient adherence to a doctor’s recommendations regarding chronic skin disease, “we cannot change our patients, we cannot change the disease, but we can strongly influence the treatment that we choose and how we interact as physicians with our patients,” said Dr. Wollenberg.

“Therapeutic patient education is virtually free of side effects, but evidence based. Have a look [at] it and adapt it to your own practice,” he added.

Dr. Wollenberg is a consultant, speaker and receives fees from numerous pharmaceutical companies.

Therapeutic patient education is an important, effective, and well-defined intervention for patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), Andreas Wollenberg, MD, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.

A major goal of patient education is increasing medication adherence, noted Dr. Wollenberg, professor in the department of dermatology and allergy at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. Quoting former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, MD, he said, “drugs don’t work in patients who don’t take them.”

While this is a simple message, it is important, Dr. Wollenberg said, noting that there can be a gap between a physician’s well-intentioned message and how it is interpreted by the patient. “Our messages may not be heard, not understood, not accepted, and even if they are put into place, how long will they last?” he asked. “We need to find a way [to] place sticky messages in the brains of our patients who are sitting and interacting with us.”

One way to improve treatment adherence is through patient education, such as using a written action plan or graphics; simplifying treatment regimens; minimizing treatment costs; setting up reminder programs, early follow-up visits, and short-term treatment goals; and minimizing nocebo effects. “This is more than providing just leaflets to patients. It is a complete program. It is a holistic approach. It should be structured and should be interdisciplinary, and it should contain a psychological component,” Dr. Wollenberg said.

Therapeutic patient education is recommended at baseline for children and adults with moderate to severe AD in the 2020 European Task Force on Atopic Dermatitis (ETFAD) and European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) position paper on the diagnosis and treatment of AD in adults and children, alongside other interventions, such as emollients, bath oils, and avoidance of clinically relevant allergens, noted Dr. Wollenberg, the first author . “Therapeutic patient education is an extremely helpful tool to address patient beliefs and questions regarding disease and treatment,” he and his coauthors wrote in the paper.

When considering a therapeutic patient education program for AD, content is key, but just as important is consideration of legal and cultural conditions in the local area, Dr. Wollenberg explained. Every country will need some degree of standardization of content, he noted. Clinicians interested in adopting a patient education program need to consider who will pay for it – patients, foundations, or insurance companies – as well as the time commitment needed.

Dr. Wollenberg said that his team uses an evidence-based education program for AD in Germany that works across patients with different personalities, with a multidisciplinary team that includes a dermatologist, a specialist nurse, a nutrition expert, and a psychologist. “Sometimes we replace the specialized nurse with the dermatology resident because, in Germany, it’s difficult to find any type of specialized nurse,” although this is not an issue in many other countries, he said.

The model for children involves six 90-minute sessions, which cover topics that include emollients and basic care, food allergies and diet, medical treatment, and psychology of itch. The program for adults involves six 2-hour sessions, which cover topics that include psychology, skin care/nutrition, and medical treatment.

While this education program improves adherence in patients with AD, he acknowledged it is time consuming, and may not work for people who live far away from a clinic or who have other time commitments, making an alternative format necessary.

In terms of improving patient adherence to a doctor’s recommendations regarding chronic skin disease, “we cannot change our patients, we cannot change the disease, but we can strongly influence the treatment that we choose and how we interact as physicians with our patients,” said Dr. Wollenberg.

“Therapeutic patient education is virtually free of side effects, but evidence based. Have a look [at] it and adapt it to your own practice,” he added.

Dr. Wollenberg is a consultant, speaker and receives fees from numerous pharmaceutical companies.

Concerns about the side effects of topical corticosteroids continue to be a source of anxiety for parents of children with atopic dermatitis (AD), leading some medical providers to prescribe weaker products, Nanette B. Silverberg, MD, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis meeting.

Up to 40% of parents of children with chronic AD cite anxiety surrounding corticosteroids, according to Dr. Silverberg, chief of pediatric dermatology at the Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

When the potential for adverse events are explained to parents who are anxious about a drug, “they take it in a different way than other individuals,” noted Dr. Silverberg, clinical professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

In a systematic review of 16 studies examining topical corticosteroid phobia in AD, published between 1946 and 2016, the prevalence of corticosteroid phobia among patients with AD or their caregivers ranged from 21% to 83.7%, with definitions of phobia that ranged from “concern” to “irrational fear.” In two studies where adherence was evaluated, patients with corticosteroid phobia had a higher rate of partial adherence (49.4%) or nonadherence (14.1%) when compared with patients who didn’t have a phobia of corticosteroids (29.3 % and 9.8%, respectively)..

The source of these fears can be information from friends, relatives, media, the Internet, as well as doctors, Dr. Silverberg noted. “We have to be responsible for providing proper data to these individuals,” she said.

Primary care providers also treat young children with AD differently from older children, when compared with other specialties, according to the results of one study that involved a survey and a retrospective chart review, published in 2020. In the survey, 88% of primary care providers in Chicago said they managed AD differently in children under aged 2 years than in older children, with 65% reporting they were more likely to refer a child under 2 years to a specialist, and 64% said they were less likely to prescribe high-potency topical corticosteroids to children in this age group. The retrospective review found that at PCP visits, significantly more children with AD between aged 2 and 5 years were more likely to be prescribed medium-potency topical corticosteroids (0.66% vs. 0.37%, P < .01) and high-potency topical corticosteroids (0.15% vs. 0.05%; P < .01) than children under 2 years old, respectively.

Of the children who had seen a specialist, more dermatologists (57%) prescribed medium-potency and high-potency topical corticosteroids for children under aged 2 years than did allergists (30%) and pediatricians (15%) (P < .01), according to the study.

“These are our colleagues who are often very strong prescribers using systemic agents, and only 15% of pediatricians will do this,” Dr. Silverberg said. “We’re really looking at a big divide between us and other subspecialties and primary care, and [topical corticosteroids] are frequently underutilized because of these fears.”

In another study looking at the use of topical corticosteroids for AD in the pediatric emergency department (mean age of patients, 6.3 years), from 2012 to 2017, patients at 46 of 167 visits were prescribed over-the-counter topical hydrocortisone, while at 63 of 167 visits, patients were not prescribed or recommended any corticosteroid.

The mean class of the topical corticosteroid prescribed was 5.5, and the most commonly recommended corticosteroid was class 7 (the least potent available) in 61 of 104 patients (P < .001). A dermatologist was consulted in 14 of 167 visits (8.6%), and in those cases, topical corticosteroids were often prescribed (P = .018), as was a higher class of corticosteroids (a mean of 3.1 vs. 5.9; P < .001).

Topical corticosteroids also tend to be prescribed less by internal medicine physicians than by family medicine physicians or dermatologists. A 2020 study of ambulatory care data in the United States from 2006 to 2016 found that internists were 22 times less likely to prescribe topical corticosteroids for AD compared with dermatologists (5.1% vs. 52.2%; P = .001). But there was no significant difference in prescribing between family medicine physicians and dermatologists (39.1% vs. 52.2%, P = .27).

“We know they [corticosteroids] work, but so many people are fearful of them ... even with a low, low side effect profile,” Dr. Silverberg said.

For children with AD, corticosteroid use is “suboptimal” across the United States, with evidence that Medicaid-insured pediatric patients with AD are less likely to see a specialist and less likely to be prescribed high-potency topical corticosteroids compared with commercially-insured patients.

 

Discussing efficacy and safety
 

Dr. Silverberg said providers who care for children with AD should talk about the fear surrounding these medications and educate parents with anxiety surrounding corticosteroids. “Side effects are usually short term and limited, so we really can assure parents that there is a long safety profile,” she said.

Asked to comment on this topic, Adelaide Hebert, MD, professor of dermatology and director of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas, Houston, said that she often sees concerns surrounding the use of topical corticosteroids, both in her practice with parents and when teaching residents in other disciplines, such as pediatrics, family medicine, and emergency medicine.

“We don’t do a good job in medical school educating the students about the safety, applicability, and proper use of topical steroids, and I think that leads to some of the confusion when it comes to properly using this class of medications in treating atopic dermatitis,” she said in an interview.

The use of a high-potency topical steroid is important, she noted, as lower doses may not adequately control AD. “If the patient has very mild disease, this may be just fine,” she noted. Those patients often do not see a pediatric dermatologist, “but the ones with moderate or severe atopic dermatitis often do, and I would say [the problem of] undertreatment is all too common.”

Like Dr. Silverberg, Dr. Hebert said that in her clinical experience, side effects from topical corticosteroids have been rare. “I could count on one hand the number of patients in a 38-year pediatric dermatology practice where they had an adverse effect from a topical steroid,” she said.

Dr. Silverberg reports receiving consulting fees from Amryt Pharma, Galderma, Incyte, and Vyne; non-CME related fees from Pfizer and Regeneron; and contracted research fees from Incyte and the Vitiligo Research Foundation. Dr. Hebert reports receiving research funds from GSK, Leo, Ortho Dermatologics, Galderma, Dermavant, Pfizer, and Arcutis Biotherapeutics paid to her institution; honoraria from Pfizer, Arcutis, Incyte; and having served on the data safety monitoring board for Regeneron-Sanofi, GSK, and Ortho Dermatologics.

Concerns about the side effects of topical corticosteroids continue to be a source of anxiety for parents of children with atopic dermatitis (AD), leading some medical providers to prescribe weaker products, Nanette B. Silverberg, MD, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis meeting.

Up to 40% of parents of children with chronic AD cite anxiety surrounding corticosteroids, according to Dr. Silverberg, chief of pediatric dermatology at the Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

When the potential for adverse events are explained to parents who are anxious about a drug, “they take it in a different way than other individuals,” noted Dr. Silverberg, clinical professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

In a systematic review of 16 studies examining topical corticosteroid phobia in AD, published between 1946 and 2016, the prevalence of corticosteroid phobia among patients with AD or their caregivers ranged from 21% to 83.7%, with definitions of phobia that ranged from “concern” to “irrational fear.” In two studies where adherence was evaluated, patients with corticosteroid phobia had a higher rate of partial adherence (49.4%) or nonadherence (14.1%) when compared with patients who didn’t have a phobia of corticosteroids (29.3 % and 9.8%, respectively)..

The source of these fears can be information from friends, relatives, media, the Internet, as well as doctors, Dr. Silverberg noted. “We have to be responsible for providing proper data to these individuals,” she said.

Primary care providers also treat young children with AD differently from older children, when compared with other specialties, according to the results of one study that involved a survey and a retrospective chart review, published in 2020. In the survey, 88% of primary care providers in Chicago said they managed AD differently in children under aged 2 years than in older children, with 65% reporting they were more likely to refer a child under 2 years to a specialist, and 64% said they were less likely to prescribe high-potency topical corticosteroids to children in this age group. The retrospective review found that at PCP visits, significantly more children with AD between aged 2 and 5 years were more likely to be prescribed medium-potency topical corticosteroids (0.66% vs. 0.37%, P < .01) and high-potency topical corticosteroids (0.15% vs. 0.05%; P < .01) than children under 2 years old, respectively.

Of the children who had seen a specialist, more dermatologists (57%) prescribed medium-potency and high-potency topical corticosteroids for children under aged 2 years than did allergists (30%) and pediatricians (15%) (P < .01), according to the study.

“These are our colleagues who are often very strong prescribers using systemic agents, and only 15% of pediatricians will do this,” Dr. Silverberg said. “We’re really looking at a big divide between us and other subspecialties and primary care, and [topical corticosteroids] are frequently underutilized because of these fears.”

In another study looking at the use of topical corticosteroids for AD in the pediatric emergency department (mean age of patients, 6.3 years), from 2012 to 2017, patients at 46 of 167 visits were prescribed over-the-counter topical hydrocortisone, while at 63 of 167 visits, patients were not prescribed or recommended any corticosteroid.

The mean class of the topical corticosteroid prescribed was 5.5, and the most commonly recommended corticosteroid was class 7 (the least potent available) in 61 of 104 patients (P < .001). A dermatologist was consulted in 14 of 167 visits (8.6%), and in those cases, topical corticosteroids were often prescribed (P = .018), as was a higher class of corticosteroids (a mean of 3.1 vs. 5.9; P < .001).

Topical corticosteroids also tend to be prescribed less by internal medicine physicians than by family medicine physicians or dermatologists. A 2020 study of ambulatory care data in the United States from 2006 to 2016 found that internists were 22 times less likely to prescribe topical corticosteroids for AD compared with dermatologists (5.1% vs. 52.2%; P = .001). But there was no significant difference in prescribing between family medicine physicians and dermatologists (39.1% vs. 52.2%, P = .27).

“We know they [corticosteroids] work, but so many people are fearful of them ... even with a low, low side effect profile,” Dr. Silverberg said.

For children with AD, corticosteroid use is “suboptimal” across the United States, with evidence that Medicaid-insured pediatric patients with AD are less likely to see a specialist and less likely to be prescribed high-potency topical corticosteroids compared with commercially-insured patients.

 

Discussing efficacy and safety
 

Dr. Silverberg said providers who care for children with AD should talk about the fear surrounding these medications and educate parents with anxiety surrounding corticosteroids. “Side effects are usually short term and limited, so we really can assure parents that there is a long safety profile,” she said.

Asked to comment on this topic, Adelaide Hebert, MD, professor of dermatology and director of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas, Houston, said that she often sees concerns surrounding the use of topical corticosteroids, both in her practice with parents and when teaching residents in other disciplines, such as pediatrics, family medicine, and emergency medicine.

“We don’t do a good job in medical school educating the students about the safety, applicability, and proper use of topical steroids, and I think that leads to some of the confusion when it comes to properly using this class of medications in treating atopic dermatitis,” she said in an interview.

The use of a high-potency topical steroid is important, she noted, as lower doses may not adequately control AD. “If the patient has very mild disease, this may be just fine,” she noted. Those patients often do not see a pediatric dermatologist, “but the ones with moderate or severe atopic dermatitis often do, and I would say [the problem of] undertreatment is all too common.”

Like Dr. Silverberg, Dr. Hebert said that in her clinical experience, side effects from topical corticosteroids have been rare. “I could count on one hand the number of patients in a 38-year pediatric dermatology practice where they had an adverse effect from a topical steroid,” she said.

Dr. Silverberg reports receiving consulting fees from Amryt Pharma, Galderma, Incyte, and Vyne; non-CME related fees from Pfizer and Regeneron; and contracted research fees from Incyte and the Vitiligo Research Foundation. Dr. Hebert reports receiving research funds from GSK, Leo, Ortho Dermatologics, Galderma, Dermavant, Pfizer, and Arcutis Biotherapeutics paid to her institution; honoraria from Pfizer, Arcutis, Incyte; and having served on the data safety monitoring board for Regeneron-Sanofi, GSK, and Ortho Dermatologics.

Concerns about the side effects of topical corticosteroids continue to be a source of anxiety for parents of children with atopic dermatitis (AD), leading some medical providers to prescribe weaker products, Nanette B. Silverberg, MD, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis meeting.

Up to 40% of parents of children with chronic AD cite anxiety surrounding corticosteroids, according to Dr. Silverberg, chief of pediatric dermatology at the Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

When the potential for adverse events are explained to parents who are anxious about a drug, “they take it in a different way than other individuals,” noted Dr. Silverberg, clinical professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

In a systematic review of 16 studies examining topical corticosteroid phobia in AD, published between 1946 and 2016, the prevalence of corticosteroid phobia among patients with AD or their caregivers ranged from 21% to 83.7%, with definitions of phobia that ranged from “concern” to “irrational fear.” In two studies where adherence was evaluated, patients with corticosteroid phobia had a higher rate of partial adherence (49.4%) or nonadherence (14.1%) when compared with patients who didn’t have a phobia of corticosteroids (29.3 % and 9.8%, respectively)..

The source of these fears can be information from friends, relatives, media, the Internet, as well as doctors, Dr. Silverberg noted. “We have to be responsible for providing proper data to these individuals,” she said.

Primary care providers also treat young children with AD differently from older children, when compared with other specialties, according to the results of one study that involved a survey and a retrospective chart review, published in 2020. In the survey, 88% of primary care providers in Chicago said they managed AD differently in children under aged 2 years than in older children, with 65% reporting they were more likely to refer a child under 2 years to a specialist, and 64% said they were less likely to prescribe high-potency topical corticosteroids to children in this age group. The retrospective review found that at PCP visits, significantly more children with AD between aged 2 and 5 years were more likely to be prescribed medium-potency topical corticosteroids (0.66% vs. 0.37%, P < .01) and high-potency topical corticosteroids (0.15% vs. 0.05%; P < .01) than children under 2 years old, respectively.

Of the children who had seen a specialist, more dermatologists (57%) prescribed medium-potency and high-potency topical corticosteroids for children under aged 2 years than did allergists (30%) and pediatricians (15%) (P < .01), according to the study.

“These are our colleagues who are often very strong prescribers using systemic agents, and only 15% of pediatricians will do this,” Dr. Silverberg said. “We’re really looking at a big divide between us and other subspecialties and primary care, and [topical corticosteroids] are frequently underutilized because of these fears.”

In another study looking at the use of topical corticosteroids for AD in the pediatric emergency department (mean age of patients, 6.3 years), from 2012 to 2017, patients at 46 of 167 visits were prescribed over-the-counter topical hydrocortisone, while at 63 of 167 visits, patients were not prescribed or recommended any corticosteroid.

The mean class of the topical corticosteroid prescribed was 5.5, and the most commonly recommended corticosteroid was class 7 (the least potent available) in 61 of 104 patients (P < .001). A dermatologist was consulted in 14 of 167 visits (8.6%), and in those cases, topical corticosteroids were often prescribed (P = .018), as was a higher class of corticosteroids (a mean of 3.1 vs. 5.9; P < .001).

Topical corticosteroids also tend to be prescribed less by internal medicine physicians than by family medicine physicians or dermatologists. A 2020 study of ambulatory care data in the United States from 2006 to 2016 found that internists were 22 times less likely to prescribe topical corticosteroids for AD compared with dermatologists (5.1% vs. 52.2%; P = .001). But there was no significant difference in prescribing between family medicine physicians and dermatologists (39.1% vs. 52.2%, P = .27).

“We know they [corticosteroids] work, but so many people are fearful of them ... even with a low, low side effect profile,” Dr. Silverberg said.

For children with AD, corticosteroid use is “suboptimal” across the United States, with evidence that Medicaid-insured pediatric patients with AD are less likely to see a specialist and less likely to be prescribed high-potency topical corticosteroids compared with commercially-insured patients.

 

Discussing efficacy and safety
 

Dr. Silverberg said providers who care for children with AD should talk about the fear surrounding these medications and educate parents with anxiety surrounding corticosteroids. “Side effects are usually short term and limited, so we really can assure parents that there is a long safety profile,” she said.

Asked to comment on this topic, Adelaide Hebert, MD, professor of dermatology and director of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas, Houston, said that she often sees concerns surrounding the use of topical corticosteroids, both in her practice with parents and when teaching residents in other disciplines, such as pediatrics, family medicine, and emergency medicine.

“We don’t do a good job in medical school educating the students about the safety, applicability, and proper use of topical steroids, and I think that leads to some of the confusion when it comes to properly using this class of medications in treating atopic dermatitis,” she said in an interview.

The use of a high-potency topical steroid is important, she noted, as lower doses may not adequately control AD. “If the patient has very mild disease, this may be just fine,” she noted. Those patients often do not see a pediatric dermatologist, “but the ones with moderate or severe atopic dermatitis often do, and I would say [the problem of] undertreatment is all too common.”

Like Dr. Silverberg, Dr. Hebert said that in her clinical experience, side effects from topical corticosteroids have been rare. “I could count on one hand the number of patients in a 38-year pediatric dermatology practice where they had an adverse effect from a topical steroid,” she said.

Dr. Silverberg reports receiving consulting fees from Amryt Pharma, Galderma, Incyte, and Vyne; non-CME related fees from Pfizer and Regeneron; and contracted research fees from Incyte and the Vitiligo Research Foundation. Dr. Hebert reports receiving research funds from GSK, Leo, Ortho Dermatologics, Galderma, Dermavant, Pfizer, and Arcutis Biotherapeutics paid to her institution; honoraria from Pfizer, Arcutis, Incyte; and having served on the data safety monitoring board for Regeneron-Sanofi, GSK, and Ortho Dermatologics.

When the Food and Drug Administration approved abatacept in December 2021 as prophylaxis for acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) in adults and children 2 years and older who are undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), the announcement was notable for couple of key reasons.

Firstly, abatacept – initially approved in 2005 as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis – was being repurposed for a different indication. Secondly, the new use for abatacept held promise for patients who are receiving HSCT and have trouble finding available, matched unrelated donors, a problem that disproportionately affects people of color.

Abatacept was approved based on results from the ABA2 trial, which evaluated 142 adults and children with hematologic malignancies who received a four-dose regimen of abatacept in addition to standard of care – a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) plus methotrexate (MTX) – prior to undergoing an 8/8 HLA-matched, unrelated donor (URD) HSCT, or standard of care alone.

Another arm of the trial examined 43 recipients of a 7/8 HLA-mismatched URD HSCT who received abatacept plus standard of care, compared with a prespecified registry cohort group provided by the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research, who received CNI and MTX.

Results published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed the proportion of patients in the 8/8 group with severe aGVHD in the abatacept group 100 days after HSCT was not significantly lower, compared with the standard of care group (6.8% vs. 14.8%; P = .13), but there was a significant improvement in severe aGVHD–free survival (SGFS) 180 days after HSCT in the abatacept group, compared with the group that received standard of care (93.2% vs. 80%; P = .05).

Among patients in the 7/8 group, there was a significant difference in the proportion of patients with severe aGVHD favoring the abatacept group (2.3% vs. 30.2%; P < .001), and significantly improved SGFS, compared with the CIBMTR registry cohort (97.7% vs. 58.7%; P < .001)

A post hoc analysis of ABA2 published as a research letter in Blood Advances assessed abatacept using real-world data from CIBMTR. Researchers compared the 8/8 group that received standard of care with the 7/8 group that received abatacept plus standard of care and found no significant differences between relapse-free survival and overall survival for patients in the 8/8 group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-1.28; P = .19) and 7/8 group (aHR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.34-1.71; P = .51).

The results suggest “abatacept may eliminate that risk of a mismatched transplant in the setting of that analysis and that small cohort that was assessed there, which is good news for patients that may not have a fully matched donor on the registry,” said Stephen Spellman, vice president at Be The Match Research (operated by the National Marrow Donor Program), and senior scientific director of CIBMTR. The findings from ABA2 “were even more impressive than necessarily expected, especially in the 7/8 arm. This is a truly substantial reduction in acute GVHD risk in that patient population,” he said in an interview.
 

Could abatacept fuel greater use of mismatched, unrelated donors?

One downside of using an HLA-mismatched donor is the potential risk of developing aGVHD, Doris M. Ponce, MD, a hematologic oncologist with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who was not involved with the research, said in an interview.

Potential risk factors for aGVHD include “having a female multiparous donor, HLA-mismatched donor, unrelated donor, donor and recipient age (>40 years), [peripheral blood stem cell] stem cell graft, recipient [cytomegalovirus] serostatus (recipient/donor), myeloablative conditioning, [total body irradiation]–based conditioning, [and] gut microbiome dysbiosis,” Dr. Ponce explained.

Abatacept’s approval may have particular relevance for people of color. “It’s been understood for a long time that the likelihood of finding an 8/8 well-matched, volunteer unrelated donor varies by race or ethnicity,” Steven Devine, MD, a board-certified oncologist who is chief medical officer of Be The Match and associate scientific director at CIBMTR, said in an interview.

Mr. Spellman noted that, of the more than 35 million donors on worldwide registries accessible through the National Marrow Donor Program’s Be The Match Registry, “the match rates differ quite substantially by race and ethnicity.” Approximately 29% of African Americans find a full match on the registry, compared with 81% of Whites, 49% of Hispanics, and 47% Asian/Pacific Islanders.

“Being able to utilize a 7/8 match in a safe, effective manner using abatacept, which abatacept has been approved for, does increase those match rates quite substantially,” he explained. Among African Americans, this means the match rate increases to 84%, among Hispanics and Asian/Pacific Islanders to approximately 90%, and among Whites to about 98%.

That kind of improvement in the match rate is “the equivalent of adding more than more than 10 million ethnically diverse donors to the registry in 1 day,” Dr. Devine said. “The availability of abatacept could really level the playing field for patients in need of a lifesaving transplant.”
 

Further study of abatacept

With abatacept, “I think the results are really encouraging, and I think that further studies [are needed] to better define how the drug would work and whether it can later prevent chronic graft versus host disease,” Dr. Devine said. He said the ABA3 trial has been designed around this question, with the hypothesis that extending abatacept to an eight-dose regimen may help with chronic GVHD.

Although the FDA’s approval of abatacept was recent, Mr. Spellman said, Be The Match has seen early indications that mismatched donors in the registry are being used, which may point to an increased utilization of abatacept. “Through October to December of 2021, there was a pretty substantial increase in the use of mismatched, unrelated donors in that time frame.”

Dr. Devine noted that he is seeing a lot of interest in using abatacept. “I think people are still learning how best to incorporate it into their standard of care right now.”

Meanwhile, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center is already planning to use abatacept, Dr. Ponce noted. “We have abatacept in our formulary for adult and children, and are planning on using it for patients receiving an unmodified graft from a [matched unrelated donor] or 1-allele [mismatched unrelated donor] using CNI and MTX-based GVHD prophylaxis.”

Dr. Devine and Mr. Spellman are employees of Be The Match and CIBMTR, which provided the registry control group for the ABA2 trial. Dr. Devine also reported that he has been a scientific advisory board member for Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Ponce reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

When the Food and Drug Administration approved abatacept in December 2021 as prophylaxis for acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) in adults and children 2 years and older who are undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), the announcement was notable for couple of key reasons.

Firstly, abatacept – initially approved in 2005 as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis – was being repurposed for a different indication. Secondly, the new use for abatacept held promise for patients who are receiving HSCT and have trouble finding available, matched unrelated donors, a problem that disproportionately affects people of color.

Abatacept was approved based on results from the ABA2 trial, which evaluated 142 adults and children with hematologic malignancies who received a four-dose regimen of abatacept in addition to standard of care – a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) plus methotrexate (MTX) – prior to undergoing an 8/8 HLA-matched, unrelated donor (URD) HSCT, or standard of care alone.

Another arm of the trial examined 43 recipients of a 7/8 HLA-mismatched URD HSCT who received abatacept plus standard of care, compared with a prespecified registry cohort group provided by the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research, who received CNI and MTX.

Results published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed the proportion of patients in the 8/8 group with severe aGVHD in the abatacept group 100 days after HSCT was not significantly lower, compared with the standard of care group (6.8% vs. 14.8%; P = .13), but there was a significant improvement in severe aGVHD–free survival (SGFS) 180 days after HSCT in the abatacept group, compared with the group that received standard of care (93.2% vs. 80%; P = .05).

Among patients in the 7/8 group, there was a significant difference in the proportion of patients with severe aGVHD favoring the abatacept group (2.3% vs. 30.2%; P < .001), and significantly improved SGFS, compared with the CIBMTR registry cohort (97.7% vs. 58.7%; P < .001)

A post hoc analysis of ABA2 published as a research letter in Blood Advances assessed abatacept using real-world data from CIBMTR. Researchers compared the 8/8 group that received standard of care with the 7/8 group that received abatacept plus standard of care and found no significant differences between relapse-free survival and overall survival for patients in the 8/8 group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-1.28; P = .19) and 7/8 group (aHR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.34-1.71; P = .51).

The results suggest “abatacept may eliminate that risk of a mismatched transplant in the setting of that analysis and that small cohort that was assessed there, which is good news for patients that may not have a fully matched donor on the registry,” said Stephen Spellman, vice president at Be The Match Research (operated by the National Marrow Donor Program), and senior scientific director of CIBMTR. The findings from ABA2 “were even more impressive than necessarily expected, especially in the 7/8 arm. This is a truly substantial reduction in acute GVHD risk in that patient population,” he said in an interview.
 

Could abatacept fuel greater use of mismatched, unrelated donors?

One downside of using an HLA-mismatched donor is the potential risk of developing aGVHD, Doris M. Ponce, MD, a hematologic oncologist with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who was not involved with the research, said in an interview.

Potential risk factors for aGVHD include “having a female multiparous donor, HLA-mismatched donor, unrelated donor, donor and recipient age (>40 years), [peripheral blood stem cell] stem cell graft, recipient [cytomegalovirus] serostatus (recipient/donor), myeloablative conditioning, [total body irradiation]–based conditioning, [and] gut microbiome dysbiosis,” Dr. Ponce explained.

Abatacept’s approval may have particular relevance for people of color. “It’s been understood for a long time that the likelihood of finding an 8/8 well-matched, volunteer unrelated donor varies by race or ethnicity,” Steven Devine, MD, a board-certified oncologist who is chief medical officer of Be The Match and associate scientific director at CIBMTR, said in an interview.

Mr. Spellman noted that, of the more than 35 million donors on worldwide registries accessible through the National Marrow Donor Program’s Be The Match Registry, “the match rates differ quite substantially by race and ethnicity.” Approximately 29% of African Americans find a full match on the registry, compared with 81% of Whites, 49% of Hispanics, and 47% Asian/Pacific Islanders.

“Being able to utilize a 7/8 match in a safe, effective manner using abatacept, which abatacept has been approved for, does increase those match rates quite substantially,” he explained. Among African Americans, this means the match rate increases to 84%, among Hispanics and Asian/Pacific Islanders to approximately 90%, and among Whites to about 98%.

That kind of improvement in the match rate is “the equivalent of adding more than more than 10 million ethnically diverse donors to the registry in 1 day,” Dr. Devine said. “The availability of abatacept could really level the playing field for patients in need of a lifesaving transplant.”
 

Further study of abatacept

With abatacept, “I think the results are really encouraging, and I think that further studies [are needed] to better define how the drug would work and whether it can later prevent chronic graft versus host disease,” Dr. Devine said. He said the ABA3 trial has been designed around this question, with the hypothesis that extending abatacept to an eight-dose regimen may help with chronic GVHD.

Although the FDA’s approval of abatacept was recent, Mr. Spellman said, Be The Match has seen early indications that mismatched donors in the registry are being used, which may point to an increased utilization of abatacept. “Through October to December of 2021, there was a pretty substantial increase in the use of mismatched, unrelated donors in that time frame.”

Dr. Devine noted that he is seeing a lot of interest in using abatacept. “I think people are still learning how best to incorporate it into their standard of care right now.”

Meanwhile, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center is already planning to use abatacept, Dr. Ponce noted. “We have abatacept in our formulary for adult and children, and are planning on using it for patients receiving an unmodified graft from a [matched unrelated donor] or 1-allele [mismatched unrelated donor] using CNI and MTX-based GVHD prophylaxis.”

Dr. Devine and Mr. Spellman are employees of Be The Match and CIBMTR, which provided the registry control group for the ABA2 trial. Dr. Devine also reported that he has been a scientific advisory board member for Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Ponce reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

When the Food and Drug Administration approved abatacept in December 2021 as prophylaxis for acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) in adults and children 2 years and older who are undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), the announcement was notable for couple of key reasons.

Firstly, abatacept – initially approved in 2005 as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis – was being repurposed for a different indication. Secondly, the new use for abatacept held promise for patients who are receiving HSCT and have trouble finding available, matched unrelated donors, a problem that disproportionately affects people of color.

Abatacept was approved based on results from the ABA2 trial, which evaluated 142 adults and children with hematologic malignancies who received a four-dose regimen of abatacept in addition to standard of care – a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) plus methotrexate (MTX) – prior to undergoing an 8/8 HLA-matched, unrelated donor (URD) HSCT, or standard of care alone.

Another arm of the trial examined 43 recipients of a 7/8 HLA-mismatched URD HSCT who received abatacept plus standard of care, compared with a prespecified registry cohort group provided by the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research, who received CNI and MTX.

Results published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed the proportion of patients in the 8/8 group with severe aGVHD in the abatacept group 100 days after HSCT was not significantly lower, compared with the standard of care group (6.8% vs. 14.8%; P = .13), but there was a significant improvement in severe aGVHD–free survival (SGFS) 180 days after HSCT in the abatacept group, compared with the group that received standard of care (93.2% vs. 80%; P = .05).

Among patients in the 7/8 group, there was a significant difference in the proportion of patients with severe aGVHD favoring the abatacept group (2.3% vs. 30.2%; P < .001), and significantly improved SGFS, compared with the CIBMTR registry cohort (97.7% vs. 58.7%; P < .001)

A post hoc analysis of ABA2 published as a research letter in Blood Advances assessed abatacept using real-world data from CIBMTR. Researchers compared the 8/8 group that received standard of care with the 7/8 group that received abatacept plus standard of care and found no significant differences between relapse-free survival and overall survival for patients in the 8/8 group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-1.28; P = .19) and 7/8 group (aHR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.34-1.71; P = .51).

The results suggest “abatacept may eliminate that risk of a mismatched transplant in the setting of that analysis and that small cohort that was assessed there, which is good news for patients that may not have a fully matched donor on the registry,” said Stephen Spellman, vice president at Be The Match Research (operated by the National Marrow Donor Program), and senior scientific director of CIBMTR. The findings from ABA2 “were even more impressive than necessarily expected, especially in the 7/8 arm. This is a truly substantial reduction in acute GVHD risk in that patient population,” he said in an interview.
 

Could abatacept fuel greater use of mismatched, unrelated donors?

One downside of using an HLA-mismatched donor is the potential risk of developing aGVHD, Doris M. Ponce, MD, a hematologic oncologist with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who was not involved with the research, said in an interview.

Potential risk factors for aGVHD include “having a female multiparous donor, HLA-mismatched donor, unrelated donor, donor and recipient age (>40 years), [peripheral blood stem cell] stem cell graft, recipient [cytomegalovirus] serostatus (recipient/donor), myeloablative conditioning, [total body irradiation]–based conditioning, [and] gut microbiome dysbiosis,” Dr. Ponce explained.

Abatacept’s approval may have particular relevance for people of color. “It’s been understood for a long time that the likelihood of finding an 8/8 well-matched, volunteer unrelated donor varies by race or ethnicity,” Steven Devine, MD, a board-certified oncologist who is chief medical officer of Be The Match and associate scientific director at CIBMTR, said in an interview.

Mr. Spellman noted that, of the more than 35 million donors on worldwide registries accessible through the National Marrow Donor Program’s Be The Match Registry, “the match rates differ quite substantially by race and ethnicity.” Approximately 29% of African Americans find a full match on the registry, compared with 81% of Whites, 49% of Hispanics, and 47% Asian/Pacific Islanders.

“Being able to utilize a 7/8 match in a safe, effective manner using abatacept, which abatacept has been approved for, does increase those match rates quite substantially,” he explained. Among African Americans, this means the match rate increases to 84%, among Hispanics and Asian/Pacific Islanders to approximately 90%, and among Whites to about 98%.

That kind of improvement in the match rate is “the equivalent of adding more than more than 10 million ethnically diverse donors to the registry in 1 day,” Dr. Devine said. “The availability of abatacept could really level the playing field for patients in need of a lifesaving transplant.”
 

Further study of abatacept

With abatacept, “I think the results are really encouraging, and I think that further studies [are needed] to better define how the drug would work and whether it can later prevent chronic graft versus host disease,” Dr. Devine said. He said the ABA3 trial has been designed around this question, with the hypothesis that extending abatacept to an eight-dose regimen may help with chronic GVHD.

Although the FDA’s approval of abatacept was recent, Mr. Spellman said, Be The Match has seen early indications that mismatched donors in the registry are being used, which may point to an increased utilization of abatacept. “Through October to December of 2021, there was a pretty substantial increase in the use of mismatched, unrelated donors in that time frame.”

Dr. Devine noted that he is seeing a lot of interest in using abatacept. “I think people are still learning how best to incorporate it into their standard of care right now.”

Meanwhile, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center is already planning to use abatacept, Dr. Ponce noted. “We have abatacept in our formulary for adult and children, and are planning on using it for patients receiving an unmodified graft from a [matched unrelated donor] or 1-allele [mismatched unrelated donor] using CNI and MTX-based GVHD prophylaxis.”

Dr. Devine and Mr. Spellman are employees of Be The Match and CIBMTR, which provided the registry control group for the ABA2 trial. Dr. Devine also reported that he has been a scientific advisory board member for Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Ponce reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

Patients with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) who start lipid-lowering treatment earlier in life may reduce their cardiovascular risk, compared with those who don’t begin treatment early, according to results of a recent meta-analysis.

They showed a difference in the carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) between patients with and without FH that increased with age, but there was also a difference in IMT seen among patients with FH who started treatment early, compared with untreated patients with FH, Kika van Bergen en Henegouwen, of the departments of pediatrics and epidemiology and data science at Amsterdam University Medical Center, and colleagues wrote in their report, published in the Journal of Clinical Lipidology.

“The fact that the difference in IMT increases with age between FH patients and unaffected controls, and is more pronounced in studies with untreated FH patients than in studies with treated patients, suggests that starting treatment already at a young age in patients with FH is preferred,” the researchers wrote. “However, despite treatment, IMT in treated FH patients is still thicker in comparison to subjects without FH.”

The researchers identified 42 studies with among patients with FH and healthy control groups across the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Trials.gov databases up to a cutoff date of April 2020, with 39 studies specifically examining carotid IMT, 2 studies evaluating carotid and femoral IMT, and 1 study evaluating femoral IMT alone. Overall, the researchers examined IMT measurements in 3,796 patients with FH and 2,363 control group participants.

Although data on age and gender for FH and control groups were not available in 6 studies, the mean age ranged from 9 to 57 years for patients with FH and from 8 to 61 years in the control group. Men comprised just under half of both the FH and control groups.

The mean between-group difference in carotid IMT in 34 studies was 0.11 mm (95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.15 mm; P < .001) for patients with FH, compared with the control group, while the mean difference in femoral IMT in three studies was 0.47 mm (95% CI, 0.19-0.74 mm; P < .001) between FH and control groups.

In 13 studies in which data on differences between partly treated and untreated FH were available, there was a significant between-group difference in carotid IMT with partly treated patients with FH, compared with the control group (0.05 mm; 95% CI, 0.03-0.08 mm; P < .001), but a larger mean between-group difference in carotid IMT among untreated patients with FH, compared with a control group (0.12 mm; 95% CI, 0.03-0.21 mm; P = .009).

The researchers also analyzed how age impacts carotid IMT, and they found patients with FH had a mean increase of 0.0018 mm (95% CI, –0.0007 to 0.0042 mm) over a control group in 34 studies. For patients with partly treated FH, compared with patients with untreated FH, the mean between-group increase per year was smaller (0.0023 mm; 95% CI, 0.0021-0.0025 mm), compared with the control group (0.0104 mm; 95% CI, 0.0100-0.0108 mm).

“This sign of residual risk might suggest that more robust cholesterol-lowering treatment and achieving treatment targets, or earlier treatment initiation, is needed to reduce IMT progression to non-FH conditions,” the researchers said. “Therefore, we must find and diagnose these patients, and treat them according to current guidelines.”

Limitations of the authors’ meta-analyses include heterogeneity among studies, differences in IMT measurement protocols, and inclusion of studies with an open-label design. Although randomized clinical trials would be preferable to compare treatment effect, “since statin therapy is indicated in FH patients to reduce [cardiovascular disease], it would be unethical to have a placebo group,” they said.

The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Patients with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) who start lipid-lowering treatment earlier in life may reduce their cardiovascular risk, compared with those who don’t begin treatment early, according to results of a recent meta-analysis.

They showed a difference in the carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) between patients with and without FH that increased with age, but there was also a difference in IMT seen among patients with FH who started treatment early, compared with untreated patients with FH, Kika van Bergen en Henegouwen, of the departments of pediatrics and epidemiology and data science at Amsterdam University Medical Center, and colleagues wrote in their report, published in the Journal of Clinical Lipidology.

“The fact that the difference in IMT increases with age between FH patients and unaffected controls, and is more pronounced in studies with untreated FH patients than in studies with treated patients, suggests that starting treatment already at a young age in patients with FH is preferred,” the researchers wrote. “However, despite treatment, IMT in treated FH patients is still thicker in comparison to subjects without FH.”

The researchers identified 42 studies with among patients with FH and healthy control groups across the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Trials.gov databases up to a cutoff date of April 2020, with 39 studies specifically examining carotid IMT, 2 studies evaluating carotid and femoral IMT, and 1 study evaluating femoral IMT alone. Overall, the researchers examined IMT measurements in 3,796 patients with FH and 2,363 control group participants.

Although data on age and gender for FH and control groups were not available in 6 studies, the mean age ranged from 9 to 57 years for patients with FH and from 8 to 61 years in the control group. Men comprised just under half of both the FH and control groups.

The mean between-group difference in carotid IMT in 34 studies was 0.11 mm (95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.15 mm; P < .001) for patients with FH, compared with the control group, while the mean difference in femoral IMT in three studies was 0.47 mm (95% CI, 0.19-0.74 mm; P < .001) between FH and control groups.

In 13 studies in which data on differences between partly treated and untreated FH were available, there was a significant between-group difference in carotid IMT with partly treated patients with FH, compared with the control group (0.05 mm; 95% CI, 0.03-0.08 mm; P < .001), but a larger mean between-group difference in carotid IMT among untreated patients with FH, compared with a control group (0.12 mm; 95% CI, 0.03-0.21 mm; P = .009).

The researchers also analyzed how age impacts carotid IMT, and they found patients with FH had a mean increase of 0.0018 mm (95% CI, –0.0007 to 0.0042 mm) over a control group in 34 studies. For patients with partly treated FH, compared with patients with untreated FH, the mean between-group increase per year was smaller (0.0023 mm; 95% CI, 0.0021-0.0025 mm), compared with the control group (0.0104 mm; 95% CI, 0.0100-0.0108 mm).

“This sign of residual risk might suggest that more robust cholesterol-lowering treatment and achieving treatment targets, or earlier treatment initiation, is needed to reduce IMT progression to non-FH conditions,” the researchers said. “Therefore, we must find and diagnose these patients, and treat them according to current guidelines.”

Limitations of the authors’ meta-analyses include heterogeneity among studies, differences in IMT measurement protocols, and inclusion of studies with an open-label design. Although randomized clinical trials would be preferable to compare treatment effect, “since statin therapy is indicated in FH patients to reduce [cardiovascular disease], it would be unethical to have a placebo group,” they said.

The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Patients with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) who start lipid-lowering treatment earlier in life may reduce their cardiovascular risk, compared with those who don’t begin treatment early, according to results of a recent meta-analysis.

They showed a difference in the carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) between patients with and without FH that increased with age, but there was also a difference in IMT seen among patients with FH who started treatment early, compared with untreated patients with FH, Kika van Bergen en Henegouwen, of the departments of pediatrics and epidemiology and data science at Amsterdam University Medical Center, and colleagues wrote in their report, published in the Journal of Clinical Lipidology.

“The fact that the difference in IMT increases with age between FH patients and unaffected controls, and is more pronounced in studies with untreated FH patients than in studies with treated patients, suggests that starting treatment already at a young age in patients with FH is preferred,” the researchers wrote. “However, despite treatment, IMT in treated FH patients is still thicker in comparison to subjects without FH.”

The researchers identified 42 studies with among patients with FH and healthy control groups across the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Trials.gov databases up to a cutoff date of April 2020, with 39 studies specifically examining carotid IMT, 2 studies evaluating carotid and femoral IMT, and 1 study evaluating femoral IMT alone. Overall, the researchers examined IMT measurements in 3,796 patients with FH and 2,363 control group participants.

Although data on age and gender for FH and control groups were not available in 6 studies, the mean age ranged from 9 to 57 years for patients with FH and from 8 to 61 years in the control group. Men comprised just under half of both the FH and control groups.

The mean between-group difference in carotid IMT in 34 studies was 0.11 mm (95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.15 mm; P < .001) for patients with FH, compared with the control group, while the mean difference in femoral IMT in three studies was 0.47 mm (95% CI, 0.19-0.74 mm; P < .001) between FH and control groups.

In 13 studies in which data on differences between partly treated and untreated FH were available, there was a significant between-group difference in carotid IMT with partly treated patients with FH, compared with the control group (0.05 mm; 95% CI, 0.03-0.08 mm; P < .001), but a larger mean between-group difference in carotid IMT among untreated patients with FH, compared with a control group (0.12 mm; 95% CI, 0.03-0.21 mm; P = .009).

The researchers also analyzed how age impacts carotid IMT, and they found patients with FH had a mean increase of 0.0018 mm (95% CI, –0.0007 to 0.0042 mm) over a control group in 34 studies. For patients with partly treated FH, compared with patients with untreated FH, the mean between-group increase per year was smaller (0.0023 mm; 95% CI, 0.0021-0.0025 mm), compared with the control group (0.0104 mm; 95% CI, 0.0100-0.0108 mm).

“This sign of residual risk might suggest that more robust cholesterol-lowering treatment and achieving treatment targets, or earlier treatment initiation, is needed to reduce IMT progression to non-FH conditions,” the researchers said. “Therefore, we must find and diagnose these patients, and treat them according to current guidelines.”

Limitations of the authors’ meta-analyses include heterogeneity among studies, differences in IMT measurement protocols, and inclusion of studies with an open-label design. Although randomized clinical trials would be preferable to compare treatment effect, “since statin therapy is indicated in FH patients to reduce [cardiovascular disease], it would be unethical to have a placebo group,” they said.

The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Disparities in health care exist in every specialty. In rheumatology, health disparities look like lack of access to care and lack of education on the part of rheumatologists and their patients, according to a speaker at the 2022 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Health disparities can affect people based on their racial or ethnic group, gender, sexual orientation, a mental or physical disability, socioeconomic status, or religion, Alvin Wells, MD, PhD, director of the department of rheumatology at Advocate Aurora Health in Franklin, Wisc., said in his presentation. But a person’s environment also plays a role – “where you live, work, play, and worship.”

Screenshot RWCS 2022

Social determinants of health can affect short-term and long-term health outcomes, functioning, and quality of life, he noted. “It’s economic stability, it’s access not only to health care, but also to education. And indeed, in my lifetime, as you know, some individuals weren’t allowed to read and write. They weren’t allowed to go to schools. You didn’t get the same type of education, and so that made a dramatic impact in moving forward with future, subsequent generations.”

In a survey of executives, clinical leaders, and clinicians in NEJM Catalyst Innovations in Care Delivery, 48% said widespread disparities in care delivery were present in their organizations. According to the social psychologist James S. House, PhD, some of these disparities like race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, genetics, and geography are fixed, while others like psychosocial, medical care/insurance, and environmental hazards are modifiable. While factors like education, work, and location might be modifiable for some patients, others don’t have the ability to make these changes, Dr. Wells explained. “It’s not that easy when you think about it.”

Within rheumatology, racial and ethnic disparities exist in rheumatoid arthritis when it comes to disease activity and use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Disparities in outcomes based on race and geographic location have also been identified for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, lupus nephritis, and based on race in osteoarthritis and psoriatic arthritis. “Where people live, where they reside, where their zip code is,” makes a difference for patients with rheumatic diseases, Dr. Wells said.

“We’ve heard at this meeting [about] some amazing drugs in treating our patients, both [for] skin and joint disease, but not everybody has the same kind of access,” he said.
 

What actions can medical stakeholders take?

Health equity should be a “desirable goal” for patients who experience health disparities, but it needs to be a “continuous effort,” Dr. Wells said. Focusing on the “how” of eliminating disparities should be a focus rather than checking a box.

Pharmacoequity is also a component of health equity, according to Dr. Wells. Where a person lives can affect their health based on their neighborhood’s level of air pollution, access to green space, and food deserts, but where a person lives also affects what parts of the health system they have access to, according to an editorial published in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. When patients aren’t taking their medication, it might be because that person doesn’t have easy access to a pharmacy, noted Dr. Wells. “It really kind of blows you away when you look at the data.”

Different stakeholders in medicine can tackle various aspects of this problem. For example, health care organizations and medical schools can make long-term commitments to prioritizing health equality, Dr. Wells said. “You want to make this a part of your practice, your group, or your university. And then once you get a process in place, don’t just check that box and move on. You want to see it. If you haven’t reached your goal, you need to revamp. If you met your goal, how do [you] improve upon that?”

Medical schools can also do better at improving misconceptions about patients of different races and ethnicities. Dr. Wells cited a striking paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. that compared false beliefs in biological differences between Black and White people held by White laypeople and medical students. The study found that 58% of laypeople and 40% of first-year medical students believed that Black people have thicker skin than White people. “It’s absolutely amazing when you think about what medical schools can do,” he said.

Increased access to care is another area for improvement, Dr. Wells noted. “If you take people who are uninsured and you look at their health once they get Medicare, the gaps begin to close between the different races.”

In terms of individual actions, Dr. Wells noted that researchers and clinicians can help to make clinical trials better represent the overall population. At your practice, “treat all your patients like a VIP.” Instead of being concerned about the cost of a treatment, ask “is your patient worth it?”

“I have one of my patients on Medicaid. She’s on a biologic drug. And one of the VPs of my hospital is on the same drug. We don’t treat them any differently.”

The private sector is also acting, Dr. Wells said. He cited Novartis’ pledge to partner with 26 historically Black colleges to improve disparities in health and education. “We need to see more of that done from corporate America.”

Are there any short-term solutions?

Eric Ruderman, MD, professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, commented that institutions have been forming committees and focus groups, but “not a lot of action.”

“They’re checking boxes,” he said, “which is very frustrating.” What can rheumatologists do in the short term, he asked?

Dr. Wells noted that there has been some success in using a “carrot” model of using payment models to reduce racial disparities. For example, a recent study analyzing the effects of the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement model highlighted the need for payment reform that incentivizes clinicians to spend wisely on patient treatment. Under a payment model that rewards clinicians for treating patients cost effectively, “if I do a great job cost effectively, I could just have more of that money back to my group,” he said.

George Martin, MD, a clinical dermatologist practicing in Maui, recalled the disparity in health care he observed as a child growing up in Philadelphia. “There’s really, within the city, there’s two different levels of health care,” he said. “There’s a tremendous disparity in the quality of the physician in hospital, and way out in the community. Because that’s the point of contact. That’s when either you’re going to prescribe a biologic, or [you’re] going to give them some aspirin and tell them go home. That’s where it starts, point of contact.”

Dr. Wells agreed that it is a big challenge, noting that cities also contribute to pollution, crowding, and other factors that adversely impact health care.

“It’s a shared responsibility. How do we solve that?” Dr. Martin asked. “And if you tell me, I’m going to give you a Nobel Prize.”

Dr. Wells reported he is a reviewer for the Journal of Racial and Ethnic Disparities.

Disparities in health care exist in every specialty. In rheumatology, health disparities look like lack of access to care and lack of education on the part of rheumatologists and their patients, according to a speaker at the 2022 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Health disparities can affect people based on their racial or ethnic group, gender, sexual orientation, a mental or physical disability, socioeconomic status, or religion, Alvin Wells, MD, PhD, director of the department of rheumatology at Advocate Aurora Health in Franklin, Wisc., said in his presentation. But a person’s environment also plays a role – “where you live, work, play, and worship.”

Screenshot RWCS 2022

Social determinants of health can affect short-term and long-term health outcomes, functioning, and quality of life, he noted. “It’s economic stability, it’s access not only to health care, but also to education. And indeed, in my lifetime, as you know, some individuals weren’t allowed to read and write. They weren’t allowed to go to schools. You didn’t get the same type of education, and so that made a dramatic impact in moving forward with future, subsequent generations.”

In a survey of executives, clinical leaders, and clinicians in NEJM Catalyst Innovations in Care Delivery, 48% said widespread disparities in care delivery were present in their organizations. According to the social psychologist James S. House, PhD, some of these disparities like race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, genetics, and geography are fixed, while others like psychosocial, medical care/insurance, and environmental hazards are modifiable. While factors like education, work, and location might be modifiable for some patients, others don’t have the ability to make these changes, Dr. Wells explained. “It’s not that easy when you think about it.”

Within rheumatology, racial and ethnic disparities exist in rheumatoid arthritis when it comes to disease activity and use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Disparities in outcomes based on race and geographic location have also been identified for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, lupus nephritis, and based on race in osteoarthritis and psoriatic arthritis. “Where people live, where they reside, where their zip code is,” makes a difference for patients with rheumatic diseases, Dr. Wells said.

“We’ve heard at this meeting [about] some amazing drugs in treating our patients, both [for] skin and joint disease, but not everybody has the same kind of access,” he said.
 

What actions can medical stakeholders take?

Health equity should be a “desirable goal” for patients who experience health disparities, but it needs to be a “continuous effort,” Dr. Wells said. Focusing on the “how” of eliminating disparities should be a focus rather than checking a box.

Pharmacoequity is also a component of health equity, according to Dr. Wells. Where a person lives can affect their health based on their neighborhood’s level of air pollution, access to green space, and food deserts, but where a person lives also affects what parts of the health system they have access to, according to an editorial published in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. When patients aren’t taking their medication, it might be because that person doesn’t have easy access to a pharmacy, noted Dr. Wells. “It really kind of blows you away when you look at the data.”

Different stakeholders in medicine can tackle various aspects of this problem. For example, health care organizations and medical schools can make long-term commitments to prioritizing health equality, Dr. Wells said. “You want to make this a part of your practice, your group, or your university. And then once you get a process in place, don’t just check that box and move on. You want to see it. If you haven’t reached your goal, you need to revamp. If you met your goal, how do [you] improve upon that?”

Medical schools can also do better at improving misconceptions about patients of different races and ethnicities. Dr. Wells cited a striking paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. that compared false beliefs in biological differences between Black and White people held by White laypeople and medical students. The study found that 58% of laypeople and 40% of first-year medical students believed that Black people have thicker skin than White people. “It’s absolutely amazing when you think about what medical schools can do,” he said.

Increased access to care is another area for improvement, Dr. Wells noted. “If you take people who are uninsured and you look at their health once they get Medicare, the gaps begin to close between the different races.”

In terms of individual actions, Dr. Wells noted that researchers and clinicians can help to make clinical trials better represent the overall population. At your practice, “treat all your patients like a VIP.” Instead of being concerned about the cost of a treatment, ask “is your patient worth it?”

“I have one of my patients on Medicaid. She’s on a biologic drug. And one of the VPs of my hospital is on the same drug. We don’t treat them any differently.”

The private sector is also acting, Dr. Wells said. He cited Novartis’ pledge to partner with 26 historically Black colleges to improve disparities in health and education. “We need to see more of that done from corporate America.”

Are there any short-term solutions?

Eric Ruderman, MD, professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, commented that institutions have been forming committees and focus groups, but “not a lot of action.”

“They’re checking boxes,” he said, “which is very frustrating.” What can rheumatologists do in the short term, he asked?

Dr. Wells noted that there has been some success in using a “carrot” model of using payment models to reduce racial disparities. For example, a recent study analyzing the effects of the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement model highlighted the need for payment reform that incentivizes clinicians to spend wisely on patient treatment. Under a payment model that rewards clinicians for treating patients cost effectively, “if I do a great job cost effectively, I could just have more of that money back to my group,” he said.

George Martin, MD, a clinical dermatologist practicing in Maui, recalled the disparity in health care he observed as a child growing up in Philadelphia. “There’s really, within the city, there’s two different levels of health care,” he said. “There’s a tremendous disparity in the quality of the physician in hospital, and way out in the community. Because that’s the point of contact. That’s when either you’re going to prescribe a biologic, or [you’re] going to give them some aspirin and tell them go home. That’s where it starts, point of contact.”

Dr. Wells agreed that it is a big challenge, noting that cities also contribute to pollution, crowding, and other factors that adversely impact health care.

“It’s a shared responsibility. How do we solve that?” Dr. Martin asked. “And if you tell me, I’m going to give you a Nobel Prize.”

Dr. Wells reported he is a reviewer for the Journal of Racial and Ethnic Disparities.

Disparities in health care exist in every specialty. In rheumatology, health disparities look like lack of access to care and lack of education on the part of rheumatologists and their patients, according to a speaker at the 2022 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Health disparities can affect people based on their racial or ethnic group, gender, sexual orientation, a mental or physical disability, socioeconomic status, or religion, Alvin Wells, MD, PhD, director of the department of rheumatology at Advocate Aurora Health in Franklin, Wisc., said in his presentation. But a person’s environment also plays a role – “where you live, work, play, and worship.”

Screenshot RWCS 2022

Social determinants of health can affect short-term and long-term health outcomes, functioning, and quality of life, he noted. “It’s economic stability, it’s access not only to health care, but also to education. And indeed, in my lifetime, as you know, some individuals weren’t allowed to read and write. They weren’t allowed to go to schools. You didn’t get the same type of education, and so that made a dramatic impact in moving forward with future, subsequent generations.”

In a survey of executives, clinical leaders, and clinicians in NEJM Catalyst Innovations in Care Delivery, 48% said widespread disparities in care delivery were present in their organizations. According to the social psychologist James S. House, PhD, some of these disparities like race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, genetics, and geography are fixed, while others like psychosocial, medical care/insurance, and environmental hazards are modifiable. While factors like education, work, and location might be modifiable for some patients, others don’t have the ability to make these changes, Dr. Wells explained. “It’s not that easy when you think about it.”

Within rheumatology, racial and ethnic disparities exist in rheumatoid arthritis when it comes to disease activity and use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Disparities in outcomes based on race and geographic location have also been identified for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, lupus nephritis, and based on race in osteoarthritis and psoriatic arthritis. “Where people live, where they reside, where their zip code is,” makes a difference for patients with rheumatic diseases, Dr. Wells said.

“We’ve heard at this meeting [about] some amazing drugs in treating our patients, both [for] skin and joint disease, but not everybody has the same kind of access,” he said.
 

What actions can medical stakeholders take?

Health equity should be a “desirable goal” for patients who experience health disparities, but it needs to be a “continuous effort,” Dr. Wells said. Focusing on the “how” of eliminating disparities should be a focus rather than checking a box.

Pharmacoequity is also a component of health equity, according to Dr. Wells. Where a person lives can affect their health based on their neighborhood’s level of air pollution, access to green space, and food deserts, but where a person lives also affects what parts of the health system they have access to, according to an editorial published in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. When patients aren’t taking their medication, it might be because that person doesn’t have easy access to a pharmacy, noted Dr. Wells. “It really kind of blows you away when you look at the data.”

Different stakeholders in medicine can tackle various aspects of this problem. For example, health care organizations and medical schools can make long-term commitments to prioritizing health equality, Dr. Wells said. “You want to make this a part of your practice, your group, or your university. And then once you get a process in place, don’t just check that box and move on. You want to see it. If you haven’t reached your goal, you need to revamp. If you met your goal, how do [you] improve upon that?”

Medical schools can also do better at improving misconceptions about patients of different races and ethnicities. Dr. Wells cited a striking paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. that compared false beliefs in biological differences between Black and White people held by White laypeople and medical students. The study found that 58% of laypeople and 40% of first-year medical students believed that Black people have thicker skin than White people. “It’s absolutely amazing when you think about what medical schools can do,” he said.

Increased access to care is another area for improvement, Dr. Wells noted. “If you take people who are uninsured and you look at their health once they get Medicare, the gaps begin to close between the different races.”

In terms of individual actions, Dr. Wells noted that researchers and clinicians can help to make clinical trials better represent the overall population. At your practice, “treat all your patients like a VIP.” Instead of being concerned about the cost of a treatment, ask “is your patient worth it?”

“I have one of my patients on Medicaid. She’s on a biologic drug. And one of the VPs of my hospital is on the same drug. We don’t treat them any differently.”

The private sector is also acting, Dr. Wells said. He cited Novartis’ pledge to partner with 26 historically Black colleges to improve disparities in health and education. “We need to see more of that done from corporate America.”

Are there any short-term solutions?

Eric Ruderman, MD, professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, commented that institutions have been forming committees and focus groups, but “not a lot of action.”

“They’re checking boxes,” he said, “which is very frustrating.” What can rheumatologists do in the short term, he asked?

Dr. Wells noted that there has been some success in using a “carrot” model of using payment models to reduce racial disparities. For example, a recent study analyzing the effects of the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement model highlighted the need for payment reform that incentivizes clinicians to spend wisely on patient treatment. Under a payment model that rewards clinicians for treating patients cost effectively, “if I do a great job cost effectively, I could just have more of that money back to my group,” he said.

George Martin, MD, a clinical dermatologist practicing in Maui, recalled the disparity in health care he observed as a child growing up in Philadelphia. “There’s really, within the city, there’s two different levels of health care,” he said. “There’s a tremendous disparity in the quality of the physician in hospital, and way out in the community. Because that’s the point of contact. That’s when either you’re going to prescribe a biologic, or [you’re] going to give them some aspirin and tell them go home. That’s where it starts, point of contact.”

Dr. Wells agreed that it is a big challenge, noting that cities also contribute to pollution, crowding, and other factors that adversely impact health care.

“It’s a shared responsibility. How do we solve that?” Dr. Martin asked. “And if you tell me, I’m going to give you a Nobel Prize.”

Dr. Wells reported he is a reviewer for the Journal of Racial and Ethnic Disparities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RWCS 2022 screenshot

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

Evidence of health effects of CBD, cannabis

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

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

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

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

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

Overarching principles for medical cannabis in rheumatology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RWCS 2022 screenshot

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

Evidence of health effects of CBD, cannabis

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

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

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

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

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

Overarching principles for medical cannabis in rheumatology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RWCS 2022 screenshot

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

Evidence of health effects of CBD, cannabis

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

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

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

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

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

Overarching principles for medical cannabis in rheumatology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RWCS 2022 screenshot

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problems in measurement of RA remission and adoption of T2T

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

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

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

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

RWCS 2022 screenshot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RWCS 2022 screenshot

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problems in measurement of RA remission and adoption of T2T

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

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

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

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

RWCS 2022 screenshot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RWCS 2022 screenshot

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problems in measurement of RA remission and adoption of T2T

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

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

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

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

RWCS 2022 screenshot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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