Rheumatology News

A recent report by this news organization of a vitamin D clinical practice guideline released by the Endocrine Society in June triggered an outpouring of objections in the comments section from doctors and other readers.

A society press release listed the key new recommendations on the use of vitamin D supplementation and screening to reduce disease risks in individuals without established indications for such treatment or testing:

• For healthy adults younger than 75, no supplementation at doses above the recommended dietary intakes.
• Populations that may benefit from higher doses include: children and adolescents 18 and younger to prevent rickets and to reduce risk for respiratory infection, individuals 75 and older to possibly lower mortality risk, “pregnant people” to potentially reduce various risks, and people with prediabetes to potentially reduce risk of progression.
• No routine testing for 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels because outcome-specific benefits based on those levels have not been identified (including screening in people with dark complexion or obesity).
• Based on insufficient evidence, the panel could not determine specific blood-level thresholds for 25-hydroxyvitamin D for adequacy or for target levels for disease prevention.

This news organization covered the guideline release and simultaneous presentation at the Endocrine Society annual meeting. In response to the coverage, more than 200 doctors and other readers expressed concerns about the guideline, and some said outright that they would not follow it (readers quoted below are identified by the usernames they registered with on the website).

One reader who posted as Dr. Joseph Destefano went so far as to call the guideline “dangerous” and “almost ... evil.” Ironically, some readers attacked this news organization, thinking that the coverage implied an endorsement, rather than a news report.
 

Ignores Potential Benefits

Although the guideline is said to be for people who are “otherwise healthy” (other than the exceptions noted above), many readers were concerned that the recommendations ignore the potential benefits of supplementation for other health conditions relevant to patients and other populations.

“They address issues dealing only with endocrinology and bone health for the most part,” Dr. Emilio Gonzalez wrote. “However, vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency are not rare, and they impact the treatment of autoimmune disorders, chronic pain control, immunosuppression, cancer prevention, cardiovascular health, etc. There is plenty of literature in this regard.”

“They make these claims as if quality studies contradicting their guidelines have not been out there for years,” Dr. Brian Batcheldor said. “What about the huge demographic with diseases that impact intestinal absorption, eg, Crohn’s and celiac disease, cystic fibrosis, and ulcerative colitis? What about the one in nine that now have autoimmune diseases still awaiting diagnosis? What about night workers or anyone with more restricted access to sun exposure? How about those whose cultural or religious dress code limit skin exposure?”

The latter group was also mentioned in a post from Dr. Eve Finkelstein who said, “They don’t take into account women who are totally covered for religious reasons. They have no skin other than part of their face exposed. It does not make sense not to supplement them. Ignoring women’s health needs seems to be the norm.”

“I don’t think they considered the oral health effects of vitamin D deficiency,” pointed out commenter Corie Lewis. “Excess dental calculus (tartar) from excess calcium/phosphate in saliva significantly increases an individual’s periodontal disease risks (gum disease), and low saliva calcium/phosphate increases dental caries (cavities) risks, which generally indicates an imbalance of the oral microbiome. Vitamin D can help create balance and reduce those oral health risks.”

Noted Kimberley Morris-Windisch, “Having worked in rheumatology and pain for most of my career, I have seen too many people benefit from correcting deficiency of vitamin D. To ignore this is to miss opportunities to improve patient health.” Furthermore, “I find it unlikely that it would only improve mortality after age 75. That makes no sense.”

“Also,” she added, “what is the number [needed] to harm? In my 25 years, I have seen vitamin D toxicity once and an excessively high level without symptoms one other time.”

“WHY? Just WHY?” lamented Anne Kinchen. “Low levels in pregnant women have long-term effects on the developing fetus — higher and earlier rates of osteopenia in female children, weaker immune systems overall. There are just SO many reasons to test. These guidelines for no testing are absurd!”
 

No Screening, No Need for Decision-Making?

Several readers questioned the society’s rationale for not screening, as expressed by session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine.

“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it,” Dr. Rosen said. “That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen. ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life. ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”

Among the reader comments in this regard:

“So misguided. Don’t look because we don’t know what do to with data. That’s the message this article exposes. The recommendation is do nothing. But, doing nothing IS an action — not a default.” (Lisa Tracy)

“So now, you will not screen for vitamin D because you do not know what to do next? See a naturopathic doctor — we know what to do next!” (Dr. Joyce Roberson)

“Gee, how do we treat it? ... What to do? Sounds incompetent at minimum. I suspect it’s vital, easy, and inexpensive ... so hide it.” (Holly Kohley)

“Just because we do not know is not a rationale for not testing. The opposite should be done.” (Dr. JJ Gold)
 

Caters to Industry?

Many commentators intimated that pharma and/or insurance company considerations played a role in the recommendations. Their comments included the following:

“I have been under the impression people do routine checkups to verify there are no hidden problems. If only some testing is done, the probability of not finding a problem is huge. ... Preventive healthcare should be looking for something to prevent instead of waiting until they can cure it. Of course, it might come back to ‘follow the money.’ It is much more profitable to diagnose and treat than it is to prevent.” (Grace Kyser)

“The current irrational ‘recommendation’ gives insurance companies an excuse to deny ALL tests of vitamin D — even if the proper code is supplied. The result is — people suffer. This recommendation does harm!” (Dr JJ Gold)

“Essentially, they are saying let’s not screen ‘healthy’ individuals and ignore it altogether. Better to wait till they’re old, pregnant, or already sick and diagnosed with a disease. This is the problem with the healthcare in this country.” (Brittney Lesher)

“Until allopathic medicine stops waiting for severe symptoms to develop before even screening for potential health problems, the most expensive healthcare (aka, sick care) system in the world will continue to be content to focus on medical emergencies and ignore prevention. ...” (Dean Raffelock)

“Don’t test? Are you kidding me? Especially when people are supplementing? That is akin to taking a blood pressure medication without measuring blood pressures! ... Don’t test? Don’t supplement? ... I have only one explanation for such nonsense: Pharma lives off sick people, not healthy ones.” (Georg Schlomka)

On a somewhat conciliatory and pointed note, Dr Francesca Luna-Rudin commented, “I would like to remind all of my fellow physicians that recommendations should be regarded as just that, a ‘recommendation.’ As doctors, we can use guidelines and recommendations in our practice, but if a new one is presented that does not make sense or would lead to harm based on our education and training, then we are not bound to follow it!”

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

A recent report by this news organization of a vitamin D clinical practice guideline released by the Endocrine Society in June triggered an outpouring of objections in the comments section from doctors and other readers.

A society press release listed the key new recommendations on the use of vitamin D supplementation and screening to reduce disease risks in individuals without established indications for such treatment or testing:

• For healthy adults younger than 75, no supplementation at doses above the recommended dietary intakes.
• Populations that may benefit from higher doses include: children and adolescents 18 and younger to prevent rickets and to reduce risk for respiratory infection, individuals 75 and older to possibly lower mortality risk, “pregnant people” to potentially reduce various risks, and people with prediabetes to potentially reduce risk of progression.
• No routine testing for 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels because outcome-specific benefits based on those levels have not been identified (including screening in people with dark complexion or obesity).
• Based on insufficient evidence, the panel could not determine specific blood-level thresholds for 25-hydroxyvitamin D for adequacy or for target levels for disease prevention.

This news organization covered the guideline release and simultaneous presentation at the Endocrine Society annual meeting. In response to the coverage, more than 200 doctors and other readers expressed concerns about the guideline, and some said outright that they would not follow it (readers quoted below are identified by the usernames they registered with on the website).

One reader who posted as Dr. Joseph Destefano went so far as to call the guideline “dangerous” and “almost ... evil.” Ironically, some readers attacked this news organization, thinking that the coverage implied an endorsement, rather than a news report.
 

Ignores Potential Benefits

Although the guideline is said to be for people who are “otherwise healthy” (other than the exceptions noted above), many readers were concerned that the recommendations ignore the potential benefits of supplementation for other health conditions relevant to patients and other populations.

“They address issues dealing only with endocrinology and bone health for the most part,” Dr. Emilio Gonzalez wrote. “However, vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency are not rare, and they impact the treatment of autoimmune disorders, chronic pain control, immunosuppression, cancer prevention, cardiovascular health, etc. There is plenty of literature in this regard.”

“They make these claims as if quality studies contradicting their guidelines have not been out there for years,” Dr. Brian Batcheldor said. “What about the huge demographic with diseases that impact intestinal absorption, eg, Crohn’s and celiac disease, cystic fibrosis, and ulcerative colitis? What about the one in nine that now have autoimmune diseases still awaiting diagnosis? What about night workers or anyone with more restricted access to sun exposure? How about those whose cultural or religious dress code limit skin exposure?”

The latter group was also mentioned in a post from Dr. Eve Finkelstein who said, “They don’t take into account women who are totally covered for religious reasons. They have no skin other than part of their face exposed. It does not make sense not to supplement them. Ignoring women’s health needs seems to be the norm.”

“I don’t think they considered the oral health effects of vitamin D deficiency,” pointed out commenter Corie Lewis. “Excess dental calculus (tartar) from excess calcium/phosphate in saliva significantly increases an individual’s periodontal disease risks (gum disease), and low saliva calcium/phosphate increases dental caries (cavities) risks, which generally indicates an imbalance of the oral microbiome. Vitamin D can help create balance and reduce those oral health risks.”

Noted Kimberley Morris-Windisch, “Having worked in rheumatology and pain for most of my career, I have seen too many people benefit from correcting deficiency of vitamin D. To ignore this is to miss opportunities to improve patient health.” Furthermore, “I find it unlikely that it would only improve mortality after age 75. That makes no sense.”

“Also,” she added, “what is the number [needed] to harm? In my 25 years, I have seen vitamin D toxicity once and an excessively high level without symptoms one other time.”

“WHY? Just WHY?” lamented Anne Kinchen. “Low levels in pregnant women have long-term effects on the developing fetus — higher and earlier rates of osteopenia in female children, weaker immune systems overall. There are just SO many reasons to test. These guidelines for no testing are absurd!”
 

No Screening, No Need for Decision-Making?

Several readers questioned the society’s rationale for not screening, as expressed by session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine.

“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it,” Dr. Rosen said. “That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen. ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life. ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”

Among the reader comments in this regard:

“So misguided. Don’t look because we don’t know what do to with data. That’s the message this article exposes. The recommendation is do nothing. But, doing nothing IS an action — not a default.” (Lisa Tracy)

“So now, you will not screen for vitamin D because you do not know what to do next? See a naturopathic doctor — we know what to do next!” (Dr. Joyce Roberson)

“Gee, how do we treat it? ... What to do? Sounds incompetent at minimum. I suspect it’s vital, easy, and inexpensive ... so hide it.” (Holly Kohley)

“Just because we do not know is not a rationale for not testing. The opposite should be done.” (Dr. JJ Gold)
 

Caters to Industry?

Many commentators intimated that pharma and/or insurance company considerations played a role in the recommendations. Their comments included the following:

“I have been under the impression people do routine checkups to verify there are no hidden problems. If only some testing is done, the probability of not finding a problem is huge. ... Preventive healthcare should be looking for something to prevent instead of waiting until they can cure it. Of course, it might come back to ‘follow the money.’ It is much more profitable to diagnose and treat than it is to prevent.” (Grace Kyser)

“The current irrational ‘recommendation’ gives insurance companies an excuse to deny ALL tests of vitamin D — even if the proper code is supplied. The result is — people suffer. This recommendation does harm!” (Dr JJ Gold)

“Essentially, they are saying let’s not screen ‘healthy’ individuals and ignore it altogether. Better to wait till they’re old, pregnant, or already sick and diagnosed with a disease. This is the problem with the healthcare in this country.” (Brittney Lesher)

“Until allopathic medicine stops waiting for severe symptoms to develop before even screening for potential health problems, the most expensive healthcare (aka, sick care) system in the world will continue to be content to focus on medical emergencies and ignore prevention. ...” (Dean Raffelock)

“Don’t test? Are you kidding me? Especially when people are supplementing? That is akin to taking a blood pressure medication without measuring blood pressures! ... Don’t test? Don’t supplement? ... I have only one explanation for such nonsense: Pharma lives off sick people, not healthy ones.” (Georg Schlomka)

On a somewhat conciliatory and pointed note, Dr Francesca Luna-Rudin commented, “I would like to remind all of my fellow physicians that recommendations should be regarded as just that, a ‘recommendation.’ As doctors, we can use guidelines and recommendations in our practice, but if a new one is presented that does not make sense or would lead to harm based on our education and training, then we are not bound to follow it!”

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

A recent report by this news organization of a vitamin D clinical practice guideline released by the Endocrine Society in June triggered an outpouring of objections in the comments section from doctors and other readers.

A society press release listed the key new recommendations on the use of vitamin D supplementation and screening to reduce disease risks in individuals without established indications for such treatment or testing:

• For healthy adults younger than 75, no supplementation at doses above the recommended dietary intakes.
• Populations that may benefit from higher doses include: children and adolescents 18 and younger to prevent rickets and to reduce risk for respiratory infection, individuals 75 and older to possibly lower mortality risk, “pregnant people” to potentially reduce various risks, and people with prediabetes to potentially reduce risk of progression.
• No routine testing for 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels because outcome-specific benefits based on those levels have not been identified (including screening in people with dark complexion or obesity).
• Based on insufficient evidence, the panel could not determine specific blood-level thresholds for 25-hydroxyvitamin D for adequacy or for target levels for disease prevention.

This news organization covered the guideline release and simultaneous presentation at the Endocrine Society annual meeting. In response to the coverage, more than 200 doctors and other readers expressed concerns about the guideline, and some said outright that they would not follow it (readers quoted below are identified by the usernames they registered with on the website).

One reader who posted as Dr. Joseph Destefano went so far as to call the guideline “dangerous” and “almost ... evil.” Ironically, some readers attacked this news organization, thinking that the coverage implied an endorsement, rather than a news report.
 

Ignores Potential Benefits

Although the guideline is said to be for people who are “otherwise healthy” (other than the exceptions noted above), many readers were concerned that the recommendations ignore the potential benefits of supplementation for other health conditions relevant to patients and other populations.

“They address issues dealing only with endocrinology and bone health for the most part,” Dr. Emilio Gonzalez wrote. “However, vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency are not rare, and they impact the treatment of autoimmune disorders, chronic pain control, immunosuppression, cancer prevention, cardiovascular health, etc. There is plenty of literature in this regard.”

“They make these claims as if quality studies contradicting their guidelines have not been out there for years,” Dr. Brian Batcheldor said. “What about the huge demographic with diseases that impact intestinal absorption, eg, Crohn’s and celiac disease, cystic fibrosis, and ulcerative colitis? What about the one in nine that now have autoimmune diseases still awaiting diagnosis? What about night workers or anyone with more restricted access to sun exposure? How about those whose cultural or religious dress code limit skin exposure?”

The latter group was also mentioned in a post from Dr. Eve Finkelstein who said, “They don’t take into account women who are totally covered for religious reasons. They have no skin other than part of their face exposed. It does not make sense not to supplement them. Ignoring women’s health needs seems to be the norm.”

“I don’t think they considered the oral health effects of vitamin D deficiency,” pointed out commenter Corie Lewis. “Excess dental calculus (tartar) from excess calcium/phosphate in saliva significantly increases an individual’s periodontal disease risks (gum disease), and low saliva calcium/phosphate increases dental caries (cavities) risks, which generally indicates an imbalance of the oral microbiome. Vitamin D can help create balance and reduce those oral health risks.”

Noted Kimberley Morris-Windisch, “Having worked in rheumatology and pain for most of my career, I have seen too many people benefit from correcting deficiency of vitamin D. To ignore this is to miss opportunities to improve patient health.” Furthermore, “I find it unlikely that it would only improve mortality after age 75. That makes no sense.”

“Also,” she added, “what is the number [needed] to harm? In my 25 years, I have seen vitamin D toxicity once and an excessively high level without symptoms one other time.”

“WHY? Just WHY?” lamented Anne Kinchen. “Low levels in pregnant women have long-term effects on the developing fetus — higher and earlier rates of osteopenia in female children, weaker immune systems overall. There are just SO many reasons to test. These guidelines for no testing are absurd!”
 

No Screening, No Need for Decision-Making?

Several readers questioned the society’s rationale for not screening, as expressed by session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine.

“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it,” Dr. Rosen said. “That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen. ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life. ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”

Among the reader comments in this regard:

“So misguided. Don’t look because we don’t know what do to with data. That’s the message this article exposes. The recommendation is do nothing. But, doing nothing IS an action — not a default.” (Lisa Tracy)

“So now, you will not screen for vitamin D because you do not know what to do next? See a naturopathic doctor — we know what to do next!” (Dr. Joyce Roberson)

“Gee, how do we treat it? ... What to do? Sounds incompetent at minimum. I suspect it’s vital, easy, and inexpensive ... so hide it.” (Holly Kohley)

“Just because we do not know is not a rationale for not testing. The opposite should be done.” (Dr. JJ Gold)
 

Caters to Industry?

Many commentators intimated that pharma and/or insurance company considerations played a role in the recommendations. Their comments included the following:

“I have been under the impression people do routine checkups to verify there are no hidden problems. If only some testing is done, the probability of not finding a problem is huge. ... Preventive healthcare should be looking for something to prevent instead of waiting until they can cure it. Of course, it might come back to ‘follow the money.’ It is much more profitable to diagnose and treat than it is to prevent.” (Grace Kyser)

“The current irrational ‘recommendation’ gives insurance companies an excuse to deny ALL tests of vitamin D — even if the proper code is supplied. The result is — people suffer. This recommendation does harm!” (Dr JJ Gold)

“Essentially, they are saying let’s not screen ‘healthy’ individuals and ignore it altogether. Better to wait till they’re old, pregnant, or already sick and diagnosed with a disease. This is the problem with the healthcare in this country.” (Brittney Lesher)

“Until allopathic medicine stops waiting for severe symptoms to develop before even screening for potential health problems, the most expensive healthcare (aka, sick care) system in the world will continue to be content to focus on medical emergencies and ignore prevention. ...” (Dean Raffelock)

“Don’t test? Are you kidding me? Especially when people are supplementing? That is akin to taking a blood pressure medication without measuring blood pressures! ... Don’t test? Don’t supplement? ... I have only one explanation for such nonsense: Pharma lives off sick people, not healthy ones.” (Georg Schlomka)

On a somewhat conciliatory and pointed note, Dr Francesca Luna-Rudin commented, “I would like to remind all of my fellow physicians that recommendations should be regarded as just that, a ‘recommendation.’ As doctors, we can use guidelines and recommendations in our practice, but if a new one is presented that does not make sense or would lead to harm based on our education and training, then we are not bound to follow it!”

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

Federal officials on July 11 proposed Medicare rates that effectively would cut physician pay by about 3% in 2025, touching off a fresh round of protests from medical associations.

The 2025 draft base rate, or conversion factor, is slated to drop to $32.36 from the current level of $33.29, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said.

The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and other groups on July 10 reiterated calls on Congress to revise the law on Medicare payment for physicians and move away from short-term tweaks.

This proposed cut is mostly due to the 5-year freeze in the physician schedule base rate mandated by the 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). Congress designed MACRA with an aim of shifting clinicians toward programs that would peg pay increases to quality measures.

Lawmakers have since had to soften the blow of that freeze, acknowledging flaws in MACRA and inflation’s significant toll on medical practices. Yet lawmakers have made temporary fixes, such as a 2.93% increase in current payment that’s set to expire.

“Previous quick fixes have been insufficient — this situation requires a bold, substantial approach,” Bruce A. Scott, MD, the AMA president, said in a statement. “A Band-Aid goes only so far when the patient is in dire need.”

Dr. Scott noted that the Medicare Economic Index — a measure of practice cost inflation — is expected to rise by 3.6% in 2025.

“As a first step, Congress must enact an annual inflationary update to help physician payment rates keep pace with rising practice costs,” Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president, said in a statement released July 10. “Any payment reductions will threaten practices and exacerbate workforce shortages, preventing patients from accessing the primary care, behavioral health care, and other critical preventive services they need.”

Many medical groups, including the AMA, AAFP, and the Medical Group Management Association, are pressing Congress to pass a law that would tie the conversion factor of the physician fee schedule to inflation.

Influential advisory groups also have backed the idea of increasing the conversion factor. For example, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in March recommended to Congress that it increase the 2025 conversion factor, suggesting a bump of half of the projected increase in the Medicare Economic Index.

Congress seems unlikely to revamp the physician fee schedule this year, with members spending significant time away from Washington ahead of the November election.

That could make it likely that Congress’ next action on Medicare payment rates would be another short-term tweak — instead of long-lasting change.

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

Federal officials on July 11 proposed Medicare rates that effectively would cut physician pay by about 3% in 2025, touching off a fresh round of protests from medical associations.

The 2025 draft base rate, or conversion factor, is slated to drop to $32.36 from the current level of $33.29, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said.

The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and other groups on July 10 reiterated calls on Congress to revise the law on Medicare payment for physicians and move away from short-term tweaks.

This proposed cut is mostly due to the 5-year freeze in the physician schedule base rate mandated by the 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). Congress designed MACRA with an aim of shifting clinicians toward programs that would peg pay increases to quality measures.

Lawmakers have since had to soften the blow of that freeze, acknowledging flaws in MACRA and inflation’s significant toll on medical practices. Yet lawmakers have made temporary fixes, such as a 2.93% increase in current payment that’s set to expire.

“Previous quick fixes have been insufficient — this situation requires a bold, substantial approach,” Bruce A. Scott, MD, the AMA president, said in a statement. “A Band-Aid goes only so far when the patient is in dire need.”

Dr. Scott noted that the Medicare Economic Index — a measure of practice cost inflation — is expected to rise by 3.6% in 2025.

“As a first step, Congress must enact an annual inflationary update to help physician payment rates keep pace with rising practice costs,” Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president, said in a statement released July 10. “Any payment reductions will threaten practices and exacerbate workforce shortages, preventing patients from accessing the primary care, behavioral health care, and other critical preventive services they need.”

Many medical groups, including the AMA, AAFP, and the Medical Group Management Association, are pressing Congress to pass a law that would tie the conversion factor of the physician fee schedule to inflation.

Influential advisory groups also have backed the idea of increasing the conversion factor. For example, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in March recommended to Congress that it increase the 2025 conversion factor, suggesting a bump of half of the projected increase in the Medicare Economic Index.

Congress seems unlikely to revamp the physician fee schedule this year, with members spending significant time away from Washington ahead of the November election.

That could make it likely that Congress’ next action on Medicare payment rates would be another short-term tweak — instead of long-lasting change.

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

Federal officials on July 11 proposed Medicare rates that effectively would cut physician pay by about 3% in 2025, touching off a fresh round of protests from medical associations.

The 2025 draft base rate, or conversion factor, is slated to drop to $32.36 from the current level of $33.29, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said.

The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and other groups on July 10 reiterated calls on Congress to revise the law on Medicare payment for physicians and move away from short-term tweaks.

This proposed cut is mostly due to the 5-year freeze in the physician schedule base rate mandated by the 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). Congress designed MACRA with an aim of shifting clinicians toward programs that would peg pay increases to quality measures.

Lawmakers have since had to soften the blow of that freeze, acknowledging flaws in MACRA and inflation’s significant toll on medical practices. Yet lawmakers have made temporary fixes, such as a 2.93% increase in current payment that’s set to expire.

“Previous quick fixes have been insufficient — this situation requires a bold, substantial approach,” Bruce A. Scott, MD, the AMA president, said in a statement. “A Band-Aid goes only so far when the patient is in dire need.”

Dr. Scott noted that the Medicare Economic Index — a measure of practice cost inflation — is expected to rise by 3.6% in 2025.

“As a first step, Congress must enact an annual inflationary update to help physician payment rates keep pace with rising practice costs,” Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president, said in a statement released July 10. “Any payment reductions will threaten practices and exacerbate workforce shortages, preventing patients from accessing the primary care, behavioral health care, and other critical preventive services they need.”

Many medical groups, including the AMA, AAFP, and the Medical Group Management Association, are pressing Congress to pass a law that would tie the conversion factor of the physician fee schedule to inflation.

Influential advisory groups also have backed the idea of increasing the conversion factor. For example, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in March recommended to Congress that it increase the 2025 conversion factor, suggesting a bump of half of the projected increase in the Medicare Economic Index.

Congress seems unlikely to revamp the physician fee schedule this year, with members spending significant time away from Washington ahead of the November election.

That could make it likely that Congress’ next action on Medicare payment rates would be another short-term tweak — instead of long-lasting change.

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

TOPLINE:

A higher intake of ultraprocessed foods increases the risk for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) by over 50% in women. The risk doubled in those with anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers assessed 204,175 women from two Nurses’ Health Study cohorts from 1984 to 2016.
• Participants completed semiquantitative food frequency questionnaires every 4 years for the assessment of dietary intake.
• Incident SLE cases were self-reported and confirmed using medical records, with 212 cases identified.

TAKEAWAY:

• A higher cumulative average daily intake of ultraprocessed foods was associated with a 56% increased risk for SLE (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.32).
• The risk for anti–double-stranded DNA antibody-positive SLE was more than doubled (hazard ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.15-3.65).
• Sugar or artificially sweetened beverages were associated with a 45% increased risk for SLE (95% CI, 1.01-2.09).
• No significant interactions with body mass index were observed in the association between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE.

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practical application.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sinara Rossato, PhD, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. It was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s generalizability is limited due to the predominantly White female population of registered nurses. The relatively high baseline age of participants may not fully capture the peak incidence age range for SLE. The observational nature of the study cannot establish causality between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE risk.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors did not declare any competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

A higher intake of ultraprocessed foods increases the risk for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) by over 50% in women. The risk doubled in those with anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers assessed 204,175 women from two Nurses’ Health Study cohorts from 1984 to 2016.
• Participants completed semiquantitative food frequency questionnaires every 4 years for the assessment of dietary intake.
• Incident SLE cases were self-reported and confirmed using medical records, with 212 cases identified.

TAKEAWAY:

• A higher cumulative average daily intake of ultraprocessed foods was associated with a 56% increased risk for SLE (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.32).
• The risk for anti–double-stranded DNA antibody-positive SLE was more than doubled (hazard ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.15-3.65).
• Sugar or artificially sweetened beverages were associated with a 45% increased risk for SLE (95% CI, 1.01-2.09).
• No significant interactions with body mass index were observed in the association between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE.

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practical application.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sinara Rossato, PhD, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. It was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s generalizability is limited due to the predominantly White female population of registered nurses. The relatively high baseline age of participants may not fully capture the peak incidence age range for SLE. The observational nature of the study cannot establish causality between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE risk.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors did not declare any competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

A higher intake of ultraprocessed foods increases the risk for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) by over 50% in women. The risk doubled in those with anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers assessed 204,175 women from two Nurses’ Health Study cohorts from 1984 to 2016.
• Participants completed semiquantitative food frequency questionnaires every 4 years for the assessment of dietary intake.
• Incident SLE cases were self-reported and confirmed using medical records, with 212 cases identified.

TAKEAWAY:

• A higher cumulative average daily intake of ultraprocessed foods was associated with a 56% increased risk for SLE (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.32).
• The risk for anti–double-stranded DNA antibody-positive SLE was more than doubled (hazard ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.15-3.65).
• Sugar or artificially sweetened beverages were associated with a 45% increased risk for SLE (95% CI, 1.01-2.09).
• No significant interactions with body mass index were observed in the association between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE.

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practical application.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sinara Rossato, PhD, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. It was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s generalizability is limited due to the predominantly White female population of registered nurses. The relatively high baseline age of participants may not fully capture the peak incidence age range for SLE. The observational nature of the study cannot establish causality between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE risk.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors did not declare any competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

Moving for any new opportunity in medicine can feel like starting a new life, not just a new job. This is especially true for residency or fellowships, as taking a step forward in your career is exciting. But in the process, you may be leaving family and friends for an unknown city or region where you will need to find a community. And the changes could be long-term. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges’ 2023 Report on Residents, 57.1% of the individuals who completed residency training between 2013 and 2022 are still practicing in the state where they completed their residency.

The process of planning out the right timeline; securing a comfortable, convenient, and affordable place to live; and meeting people while working long hours in an unfamiliar location can be overwhelming. And in the case of many residency programs and healthcare settings, financial assistance, relocation information, and other resources are scarce.

This news organization spoke to recent residents and medical school faculty members about how to navigate a medical move and set yourself up for success.
 

1. Find Relocation Resources

First things first. Find out what your program or hospital has to offer.

Some institutions help incoming residents by providing housing options or information. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai’s Real Estate Division, for example, provides off-campus housing resources that guide new residents and faculty toward safe, convenient places to live in New York City. It also guarantees on-campus or block-leased housing offers to all incoming residents who apply.

Michael Leitman, MD, FACS, professor of surgery and medical education and dean for Graduate Medical Education at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, recommends connecting with colleagues at your program for guidance on navigating a new city and a new healthcare setting. He encourages incoming residents to use the contact information they receive during the interview and orientation processes to reach out to co-residents and faculty members.

Other residency programs offer partial reimbursement or need-based financial aid to help with the expense of relocation. But this is unlikely to cover all or even most of the cost of a cross-country move.

When Morgen Owens, MD, moved from Alabama to New York City for a physical medicine and rehabilitation residency at Mount Sinai in 2021, her program offered subsidized housing options. But there was little reimbursement for relocation. She paid around $3000 for a one-way rental truck, gas, one night in a hotel, and movers to unload her belongings. She says driving herself kept the price down because full-service movers would have cost her between $4000 and $6000.

If this will strain your finances, several banks offer loans specifically for medical school graduates to cover residency and internship expenses. But be aware that these loans tend to have higher interest rates than federal student loans because they are based on credit score rather than fixed.
 

2. Reach Out and Buddy Up

Reaching out to more senior residents is essential, and some programs facilitate a buddy system for relocation advice.

Family physician Mursal Sekandari, MD, known as “Dr. Mursi,” attended a residency program at St. Luke’s University Hospital–Bethlehem Campus, in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The program’s official buddy system paired her with a senior resident who advised her on the area and gave tips for her apartment search.

On the other hand, when America Revere, MD, moved from Texas to Georgia for a surgery residency, she found that her program offered little relocation assistance, financial or otherwise. She leaned on her co-residents, and especially senior ones, for support while she settled in.

Dr. Revere also discovered the importance of accepting invitations to events hosted by both her fellow residents and her program itself, especially in the early stages of residency. “Accepting social invitations is really the only way to get to know people,” she said. “Sure, you’ll meet people at work and get to know their ‘work’ personalities.” But Dr. Revere’s attendings also threw parties, which she says were a great way to connect with a wider group and build a community.

To meet people both within and beyond her own residency program, Dr. Owens joined a group chat for physical medicine and rehab residents in the New York City area. She suggests looking into GroupMe or WhatsApp groups specific to your specialty.
 

3. Play the ‘Doctor Card’

Finding a place to live in an unfamiliar and competitive housing market can be one of the biggest challenges of any move. Dr. Owens’ options were limited by owning a dog, which wouldn’t be allowed in her hospital’s subsidized housing. Instead, she opted to find her own apartment in New York City. Her strategy: Playing the “doctor card.”

“I explained my situation: ‘I’m a doctor moving from out of state,’ ” Owens said. “Own that! These companies and brokers will look at you as a student and think, ‘Oh, she has no money, she has no savings, she’s got all of these loans, how is she going to pay for this apartment?’ But you have to say, ‘I’m a doctor. I’m an incoming resident who has X amount of years of job security. I’m not going to lose my job while living here.’ ”
 

4. Move Early

Dr. Revere found it important to move into her new home 2 weeks before the start of her residency program. Moving in early allowed her to settle in, get to know her area, neighbors, and co-residents, and generally prepare for her first day. It also gave her time to put furniture together — her new vanity alone took 12 hours.

Having a larger window of time before residency can also benefit those who hire movers or have their furniture shipped. When it comes to a cross-country move, it can take a few days to a few weeks for the truck to arrive — which could translate to a few nights or a few weeks without a bed.

“When residency comes, it comes fast,” Dr. Revere said. “It’s very confusing, and the last thing you need is to have half of your stuff unpacked or have no idea where you are or know nobody around you.”
 

5. Make Your New Home Your Sanctuary

During the stress of residency, your home can be a source of peace, and finding that might require trade-offs.

Dr. Sekandari’s parents urged her to live with roommates to save money on rent, but she insisted that spending more for solitude would be worth it. For her first year of residency, she barely saw her apartment. But when she did, she felt grateful to be in such a tranquil place to ease some of the stress of studying. “If you feel uncomfortable while you’re dealing with something stressful, the stress just exponentially increases,” she said. Creating an environment where you can really relax “makes a difference in how you respond to everything else around you.”

Dr. Revere agrees, urging medical professionals — and particularly residents — to invest in the most comfortable mattresses and bedding they can. Whether you are working nights, she also recommends blackout curtains to help facilitate daytime naps or better sleep in general, especially among the bright lights of bigger cities.

“You’re going to need somewhere to decompress,” she said. “That will look different for everyone. But I would definitely invest in your apartment to make it a sanctuary away from work.”
 

6. Consider a ‘Live’ Stress Reliever

When it comes to crucial stress relief during residency, “I like mine live,” Dr. Revere said in a YouTube vlog while petting her cat, Calyx.

Taking on the added responsibility of a pet during residency or any medical role may seem counterintuitive. But Revere has zero regrets about bringing Calyx along on her journey. “Cats are very easy,” she said. “I have nothing but wonderful things to say about having a cat during my difficult surgical residency.”

Dr. Owens admits that moving to New York City with her dog was difficult during her first years of residency. She worked an average of 80 hours each week and had little time for walks. She made room in her budget for dog walkers. Thankfully, her hours have eased up as she has progressed through her program, and she can now take her dog on longer walks every day. “He definitely has a better life now that I work fewer hours,” she said.

Once you’ve prepared, made the move, and found your village, it’s time for the real work to begin. “The first couple of months are certainly a challenge of adjusting to a new hospital, a new electronic medical record, a new culture, and a new geographic location,” said Dr. Leitman, who has relocated several times. “But at the end of the day ... it’s you and the patient.” By minimizing stress and getting the support you need, it can even be “a fun process,” Dr. Mursi added, “so make it an exciting chapter in your life.”

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

Moving for any new opportunity in medicine can feel like starting a new life, not just a new job. This is especially true for residency or fellowships, as taking a step forward in your career is exciting. But in the process, you may be leaving family and friends for an unknown city or region where you will need to find a community. And the changes could be long-term. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges’ 2023 Report on Residents, 57.1% of the individuals who completed residency training between 2013 and 2022 are still practicing in the state where they completed their residency.

The process of planning out the right timeline; securing a comfortable, convenient, and affordable place to live; and meeting people while working long hours in an unfamiliar location can be overwhelming. And in the case of many residency programs and healthcare settings, financial assistance, relocation information, and other resources are scarce.

This news organization spoke to recent residents and medical school faculty members about how to navigate a medical move and set yourself up for success.
 

1. Find Relocation Resources

First things first. Find out what your program or hospital has to offer.

Some institutions help incoming residents by providing housing options or information. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai’s Real Estate Division, for example, provides off-campus housing resources that guide new residents and faculty toward safe, convenient places to live in New York City. It also guarantees on-campus or block-leased housing offers to all incoming residents who apply.

Michael Leitman, MD, FACS, professor of surgery and medical education and dean for Graduate Medical Education at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, recommends connecting with colleagues at your program for guidance on navigating a new city and a new healthcare setting. He encourages incoming residents to use the contact information they receive during the interview and orientation processes to reach out to co-residents and faculty members.

Other residency programs offer partial reimbursement or need-based financial aid to help with the expense of relocation. But this is unlikely to cover all or even most of the cost of a cross-country move.

When Morgen Owens, MD, moved from Alabama to New York City for a physical medicine and rehabilitation residency at Mount Sinai in 2021, her program offered subsidized housing options. But there was little reimbursement for relocation. She paid around $3000 for a one-way rental truck, gas, one night in a hotel, and movers to unload her belongings. She says driving herself kept the price down because full-service movers would have cost her between $4000 and $6000.

If this will strain your finances, several banks offer loans specifically for medical school graduates to cover residency and internship expenses. But be aware that these loans tend to have higher interest rates than federal student loans because they are based on credit score rather than fixed.
 

2. Reach Out and Buddy Up

Reaching out to more senior residents is essential, and some programs facilitate a buddy system for relocation advice.

Family physician Mursal Sekandari, MD, known as “Dr. Mursi,” attended a residency program at St. Luke’s University Hospital–Bethlehem Campus, in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The program’s official buddy system paired her with a senior resident who advised her on the area and gave tips for her apartment search.

On the other hand, when America Revere, MD, moved from Texas to Georgia for a surgery residency, she found that her program offered little relocation assistance, financial or otherwise. She leaned on her co-residents, and especially senior ones, for support while she settled in.

Dr. Revere also discovered the importance of accepting invitations to events hosted by both her fellow residents and her program itself, especially in the early stages of residency. “Accepting social invitations is really the only way to get to know people,” she said. “Sure, you’ll meet people at work and get to know their ‘work’ personalities.” But Dr. Revere’s attendings also threw parties, which she says were a great way to connect with a wider group and build a community.

To meet people both within and beyond her own residency program, Dr. Owens joined a group chat for physical medicine and rehab residents in the New York City area. She suggests looking into GroupMe or WhatsApp groups specific to your specialty.
 

3. Play the ‘Doctor Card’

Finding a place to live in an unfamiliar and competitive housing market can be one of the biggest challenges of any move. Dr. Owens’ options were limited by owning a dog, which wouldn’t be allowed in her hospital’s subsidized housing. Instead, she opted to find her own apartment in New York City. Her strategy: Playing the “doctor card.”

“I explained my situation: ‘I’m a doctor moving from out of state,’ ” Owens said. “Own that! These companies and brokers will look at you as a student and think, ‘Oh, she has no money, she has no savings, she’s got all of these loans, how is she going to pay for this apartment?’ But you have to say, ‘I’m a doctor. I’m an incoming resident who has X amount of years of job security. I’m not going to lose my job while living here.’ ”
 

4. Move Early

Dr. Revere found it important to move into her new home 2 weeks before the start of her residency program. Moving in early allowed her to settle in, get to know her area, neighbors, and co-residents, and generally prepare for her first day. It also gave her time to put furniture together — her new vanity alone took 12 hours.

Having a larger window of time before residency can also benefit those who hire movers or have their furniture shipped. When it comes to a cross-country move, it can take a few days to a few weeks for the truck to arrive — which could translate to a few nights or a few weeks without a bed.

“When residency comes, it comes fast,” Dr. Revere said. “It’s very confusing, and the last thing you need is to have half of your stuff unpacked or have no idea where you are or know nobody around you.”
 

5. Make Your New Home Your Sanctuary

During the stress of residency, your home can be a source of peace, and finding that might require trade-offs.

Dr. Sekandari’s parents urged her to live with roommates to save money on rent, but she insisted that spending more for solitude would be worth it. For her first year of residency, she barely saw her apartment. But when she did, she felt grateful to be in such a tranquil place to ease some of the stress of studying. “If you feel uncomfortable while you’re dealing with something stressful, the stress just exponentially increases,” she said. Creating an environment where you can really relax “makes a difference in how you respond to everything else around you.”

Dr. Revere agrees, urging medical professionals — and particularly residents — to invest in the most comfortable mattresses and bedding they can. Whether you are working nights, she also recommends blackout curtains to help facilitate daytime naps or better sleep in general, especially among the bright lights of bigger cities.

“You’re going to need somewhere to decompress,” she said. “That will look different for everyone. But I would definitely invest in your apartment to make it a sanctuary away from work.”
 

6. Consider a ‘Live’ Stress Reliever

When it comes to crucial stress relief during residency, “I like mine live,” Dr. Revere said in a YouTube vlog while petting her cat, Calyx.

Taking on the added responsibility of a pet during residency or any medical role may seem counterintuitive. But Revere has zero regrets about bringing Calyx along on her journey. “Cats are very easy,” she said. “I have nothing but wonderful things to say about having a cat during my difficult surgical residency.”

Dr. Owens admits that moving to New York City with her dog was difficult during her first years of residency. She worked an average of 80 hours each week and had little time for walks. She made room in her budget for dog walkers. Thankfully, her hours have eased up as she has progressed through her program, and she can now take her dog on longer walks every day. “He definitely has a better life now that I work fewer hours,” she said.

Once you’ve prepared, made the move, and found your village, it’s time for the real work to begin. “The first couple of months are certainly a challenge of adjusting to a new hospital, a new electronic medical record, a new culture, and a new geographic location,” said Dr. Leitman, who has relocated several times. “But at the end of the day ... it’s you and the patient.” By minimizing stress and getting the support you need, it can even be “a fun process,” Dr. Mursi added, “so make it an exciting chapter in your life.”

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

Moving for any new opportunity in medicine can feel like starting a new life, not just a new job. This is especially true for residency or fellowships, as taking a step forward in your career is exciting. But in the process, you may be leaving family and friends for an unknown city or region where you will need to find a community. And the changes could be long-term. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges’ 2023 Report on Residents, 57.1% of the individuals who completed residency training between 2013 and 2022 are still practicing in the state where they completed their residency.

The process of planning out the right timeline; securing a comfortable, convenient, and affordable place to live; and meeting people while working long hours in an unfamiliar location can be overwhelming. And in the case of many residency programs and healthcare settings, financial assistance, relocation information, and other resources are scarce.

This news organization spoke to recent residents and medical school faculty members about how to navigate a medical move and set yourself up for success.
 

1. Find Relocation Resources

First things first. Find out what your program or hospital has to offer.

Some institutions help incoming residents by providing housing options or information. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai’s Real Estate Division, for example, provides off-campus housing resources that guide new residents and faculty toward safe, convenient places to live in New York City. It also guarantees on-campus or block-leased housing offers to all incoming residents who apply.

Michael Leitman, MD, FACS, professor of surgery and medical education and dean for Graduate Medical Education at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, recommends connecting with colleagues at your program for guidance on navigating a new city and a new healthcare setting. He encourages incoming residents to use the contact information they receive during the interview and orientation processes to reach out to co-residents and faculty members.

Other residency programs offer partial reimbursement or need-based financial aid to help with the expense of relocation. But this is unlikely to cover all or even most of the cost of a cross-country move.

When Morgen Owens, MD, moved from Alabama to New York City for a physical medicine and rehabilitation residency at Mount Sinai in 2021, her program offered subsidized housing options. But there was little reimbursement for relocation. She paid around $3000 for a one-way rental truck, gas, one night in a hotel, and movers to unload her belongings. She says driving herself kept the price down because full-service movers would have cost her between $4000 and $6000.

If this will strain your finances, several banks offer loans specifically for medical school graduates to cover residency and internship expenses. But be aware that these loans tend to have higher interest rates than federal student loans because they are based on credit score rather than fixed.
 

2. Reach Out and Buddy Up

Reaching out to more senior residents is essential, and some programs facilitate a buddy system for relocation advice.

Family physician Mursal Sekandari, MD, known as “Dr. Mursi,” attended a residency program at St. Luke’s University Hospital–Bethlehem Campus, in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The program’s official buddy system paired her with a senior resident who advised her on the area and gave tips for her apartment search.

On the other hand, when America Revere, MD, moved from Texas to Georgia for a surgery residency, she found that her program offered little relocation assistance, financial or otherwise. She leaned on her co-residents, and especially senior ones, for support while she settled in.

Dr. Revere also discovered the importance of accepting invitations to events hosted by both her fellow residents and her program itself, especially in the early stages of residency. “Accepting social invitations is really the only way to get to know people,” she said. “Sure, you’ll meet people at work and get to know their ‘work’ personalities.” But Dr. Revere’s attendings also threw parties, which she says were a great way to connect with a wider group and build a community.

To meet people both within and beyond her own residency program, Dr. Owens joined a group chat for physical medicine and rehab residents in the New York City area. She suggests looking into GroupMe or WhatsApp groups specific to your specialty.
 

3. Play the ‘Doctor Card’

Finding a place to live in an unfamiliar and competitive housing market can be one of the biggest challenges of any move. Dr. Owens’ options were limited by owning a dog, which wouldn’t be allowed in her hospital’s subsidized housing. Instead, she opted to find her own apartment in New York City. Her strategy: Playing the “doctor card.”

“I explained my situation: ‘I’m a doctor moving from out of state,’ ” Owens said. “Own that! These companies and brokers will look at you as a student and think, ‘Oh, she has no money, she has no savings, she’s got all of these loans, how is she going to pay for this apartment?’ But you have to say, ‘I’m a doctor. I’m an incoming resident who has X amount of years of job security. I’m not going to lose my job while living here.’ ”
 

4. Move Early

Dr. Revere found it important to move into her new home 2 weeks before the start of her residency program. Moving in early allowed her to settle in, get to know her area, neighbors, and co-residents, and generally prepare for her first day. It also gave her time to put furniture together — her new vanity alone took 12 hours.

Having a larger window of time before residency can also benefit those who hire movers or have their furniture shipped. When it comes to a cross-country move, it can take a few days to a few weeks for the truck to arrive — which could translate to a few nights or a few weeks without a bed.

“When residency comes, it comes fast,” Dr. Revere said. “It’s very confusing, and the last thing you need is to have half of your stuff unpacked or have no idea where you are or know nobody around you.”
 

5. Make Your New Home Your Sanctuary

During the stress of residency, your home can be a source of peace, and finding that might require trade-offs.

Dr. Sekandari’s parents urged her to live with roommates to save money on rent, but she insisted that spending more for solitude would be worth it. For her first year of residency, she barely saw her apartment. But when she did, she felt grateful to be in such a tranquil place to ease some of the stress of studying. “If you feel uncomfortable while you’re dealing with something stressful, the stress just exponentially increases,” she said. Creating an environment where you can really relax “makes a difference in how you respond to everything else around you.”

Dr. Revere agrees, urging medical professionals — and particularly residents — to invest in the most comfortable mattresses and bedding they can. Whether you are working nights, she also recommends blackout curtains to help facilitate daytime naps or better sleep in general, especially among the bright lights of bigger cities.

“You’re going to need somewhere to decompress,” she said. “That will look different for everyone. But I would definitely invest in your apartment to make it a sanctuary away from work.”
 

6. Consider a ‘Live’ Stress Reliever

When it comes to crucial stress relief during residency, “I like mine live,” Dr. Revere said in a YouTube vlog while petting her cat, Calyx.

Taking on the added responsibility of a pet during residency or any medical role may seem counterintuitive. But Revere has zero regrets about bringing Calyx along on her journey. “Cats are very easy,” she said. “I have nothing but wonderful things to say about having a cat during my difficult surgical residency.”

Dr. Owens admits that moving to New York City with her dog was difficult during her first years of residency. She worked an average of 80 hours each week and had little time for walks. She made room in her budget for dog walkers. Thankfully, her hours have eased up as she has progressed through her program, and she can now take her dog on longer walks every day. “He definitely has a better life now that I work fewer hours,” she said.

Once you’ve prepared, made the move, and found your village, it’s time for the real work to begin. “The first couple of months are certainly a challenge of adjusting to a new hospital, a new electronic medical record, a new culture, and a new geographic location,” said Dr. Leitman, who has relocated several times. “But at the end of the day ... it’s you and the patient.” By minimizing stress and getting the support you need, it can even be “a fun process,” Dr. Mursi added, “so make it an exciting chapter in your life.”

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

More than 90% of internet users are active on social media, which had 4.76 billion users worldwide in January 2023. The digital revolution has reshaped the news landscape and changed how users interact with information. Social media has fostered an active relationship with the media, including the ability to interact directly with the content presented. It also has augmented media’s ability to reach a large audience with tight deadlines.

These developments suggest that social media can be a useful tool in everyday medical practice for professionals and patients. But social media also can spread misinformation, as happened during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This characteristic is the focus of the latest research by Fabiana Zollo, a computer science professor at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Italy, and coordinator of the Data Science for Society laboratory. The research was published in The BMJ. Ms. Zollo’s research group aims to assess the effect of social media on misinformation and consequent behaviors related to health. “The study results focus primarily on two topics, the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccinations, but can also be applied to other health-related behaviors such as smoking and diet,” Ms. Zollo told Univadis Italy.

Social media has become an important tool for public health organizations to inform and educate citizens. Institutions can use it to monitor choices and understand which topics are being discussed most at a given time, thus comprehending how the topics evolve and take shape in public discourse. “This could lead to the emergence of people’s perceptions, allowing us to understand, among other things, what the population’s needs might be, including informational needs,” said Ms. Zollo.
 

Tenuous Causal Link

While social media offers public health organizations the opportunity to inform and engage the public, it also raises concerns about misinformation and the difficulty of measuring its effect on health behavior. Although some studies have observed correlations between exposure to misinformation on social media and levels of adherence to vaccination campaigns, establishing a causal link is complex. As the authors emphasize, “despite the importance of the effect of social media and misinformation on people’s behavior and the broad hypotheses within public and political debates, the current state of the art cannot provide definitive conclusions on a clear causal association between social media and health behaviors.” Establishing a clear causal link between information obtained from social media and offline behavior is challenging due to methodologic limitations and the complexity of connections between online and offline behaviors. Studies often rely on self-reported data, which may not accurately reflect real behaviors, and struggle to isolate the effect of social media from other external influences. Moreover, many studies primarily focus on Western countries, limiting the generalizability of the results to other cultural and geographical conditions.

Another issue highlighted by Ms. Zollo and colleagues is the lack of complete and representative data. Studies often lack detailed information about participants, such as demographic or geolocation data, and rely on limited samples. This lack makes it difficult to assess the effect of misinformation on different segments of the population and in different geographic areas.

“The main methodologic difficulty concerns behavior, which is difficult to measure because it would require tracking a person’s actions over time and having a shared methodology to do so. We need to understand whether online stated intentions do or do not translate into actual behaviors,” said Ms. Zollo. Therefore, despite the recognized importance of the effect of social media and misinformation on people’s general behavior and the broad hypotheses expressed within public and political debates, the current state of the art cannot provide definitive conclusions on a causal association between social media and health behaviors.
 

Institutions’ Role

Social media is a fertile ground for the formation of echo chambers (where users find themselves dialoguing with like-minded people, forming a distorted impression of the real prevalence of that opinion) and for reinforcing polarized positions around certain topics. “We know that on certain topics, especially those related to health, there is a lot of misinformation circulating precisely because it is easy to leverage factors such as fear and beliefs, even the difficulties in understanding the technical aspects of a message,” said Ms. Zollo. Moreover, institutions have not always provided timely information during the pandemic. “Often, when there is a gap in response to a specific informational need, people turn elsewhere, where those questions find answers. And even if the response is not of high quality, it sometimes confirms the idea that the user had already created in their mind.”

The article published in The BMJ aims primarily to provide information and evaluation insights to institutions rather than professionals or healthcare workers. “We would like to spark the interest of institutions and ministries that can analyze this type of data and integrate it into their monitoring system. Social monitoring (the observation of what happens on social media) is a practice that the World Health Organization is also evaluating and trying to integrate with more traditional tools, such as questionnaires. The aim is to understand as well as possible what a population thinks about a particular health measure, such as a vaccine: Through data obtained from social monitoring, a more realistic and comprehensive view of the problem could be achieved,” said Ms. Zollo.
 

A Doctor’s Role

And this is where the doctor comes in: All the information thus obtained allows for identifying the needs that the population expresses and that “could push a patient to turn elsewhere, toward sources that provide answers even if of dubious quality or extremely oversimplified.” The doctor can enter this landscape by trying to understand, even with the data provided by institutions, what needs the patients are trying to fill and what drives them to seek elsewhere and to look for a reference community that offers the relevant confirmations.

From the doctor’s perspective, therefore, it can be useful to understand how these dynamics arise and evolve because they could help improve interactions with patients. At the institutional level, social monitoring would be an excellent tool for providing services to doctors who, in turn, offer a service to patients. If it were possible to identify areas where a disinformation narrative is developing from the outset, both the doctor and the institutions would benefit.
 

Misinformation vs Disinformation

The rapid spread of false or misleading information on social media can undermine trust in healthcare institutions and negatively influence health-related behaviors. Ms. Zollo and colleagues, in fact, speak of misinformation in their discussion, not disinformation. “In English, a distinction is made between misinformation and disinformation, a distinction that we are also adopting in Italian. When we talk about misinformation, we mean information that is generally false, inaccurate, or misleading but has not been created with the intention to harm, an intention that is present in disinformation,” said Ms. Zollo.

The distinction is often not easy to define even at the operational level, but in her studies, Ms. Zollo is mainly interested in understanding how the end user interacts with content, not the purposes for which that content was created. “This allows us to focus on users and the relationships that are created on various social platforms, thus bypassing the author of that information and focusing on how misinformation arises and evolves so that it can be effectively combated before it translates into action (ie, into incorrect health choices),” said Ms. Zollo.
 

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 90% of internet users are active on social media, which had 4.76 billion users worldwide in January 2023. The digital revolution has reshaped the news landscape and changed how users interact with information. Social media has fostered an active relationship with the media, including the ability to interact directly with the content presented. It also has augmented media’s ability to reach a large audience with tight deadlines.

These developments suggest that social media can be a useful tool in everyday medical practice for professionals and patients. But social media also can spread misinformation, as happened during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This characteristic is the focus of the latest research by Fabiana Zollo, a computer science professor at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Italy, and coordinator of the Data Science for Society laboratory. The research was published in The BMJ. Ms. Zollo’s research group aims to assess the effect of social media on misinformation and consequent behaviors related to health. “The study results focus primarily on two topics, the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccinations, but can also be applied to other health-related behaviors such as smoking and diet,” Ms. Zollo told Univadis Italy.

Social media has become an important tool for public health organizations to inform and educate citizens. Institutions can use it to monitor choices and understand which topics are being discussed most at a given time, thus comprehending how the topics evolve and take shape in public discourse. “This could lead to the emergence of people’s perceptions, allowing us to understand, among other things, what the population’s needs might be, including informational needs,” said Ms. Zollo.
 

Tenuous Causal Link

While social media offers public health organizations the opportunity to inform and engage the public, it also raises concerns about misinformation and the difficulty of measuring its effect on health behavior. Although some studies have observed correlations between exposure to misinformation on social media and levels of adherence to vaccination campaigns, establishing a causal link is complex. As the authors emphasize, “despite the importance of the effect of social media and misinformation on people’s behavior and the broad hypotheses within public and political debates, the current state of the art cannot provide definitive conclusions on a clear causal association between social media and health behaviors.” Establishing a clear causal link between information obtained from social media and offline behavior is challenging due to methodologic limitations and the complexity of connections between online and offline behaviors. Studies often rely on self-reported data, which may not accurately reflect real behaviors, and struggle to isolate the effect of social media from other external influences. Moreover, many studies primarily focus on Western countries, limiting the generalizability of the results to other cultural and geographical conditions.

Another issue highlighted by Ms. Zollo and colleagues is the lack of complete and representative data. Studies often lack detailed information about participants, such as demographic or geolocation data, and rely on limited samples. This lack makes it difficult to assess the effect of misinformation on different segments of the population and in different geographic areas.

“The main methodologic difficulty concerns behavior, which is difficult to measure because it would require tracking a person’s actions over time and having a shared methodology to do so. We need to understand whether online stated intentions do or do not translate into actual behaviors,” said Ms. Zollo. Therefore, despite the recognized importance of the effect of social media and misinformation on people’s general behavior and the broad hypotheses expressed within public and political debates, the current state of the art cannot provide definitive conclusions on a causal association between social media and health behaviors.
 

Institutions’ Role

Social media is a fertile ground for the formation of echo chambers (where users find themselves dialoguing with like-minded people, forming a distorted impression of the real prevalence of that opinion) and for reinforcing polarized positions around certain topics. “We know that on certain topics, especially those related to health, there is a lot of misinformation circulating precisely because it is easy to leverage factors such as fear and beliefs, even the difficulties in understanding the technical aspects of a message,” said Ms. Zollo. Moreover, institutions have not always provided timely information during the pandemic. “Often, when there is a gap in response to a specific informational need, people turn elsewhere, where those questions find answers. And even if the response is not of high quality, it sometimes confirms the idea that the user had already created in their mind.”

The article published in The BMJ aims primarily to provide information and evaluation insights to institutions rather than professionals or healthcare workers. “We would like to spark the interest of institutions and ministries that can analyze this type of data and integrate it into their monitoring system. Social monitoring (the observation of what happens on social media) is a practice that the World Health Organization is also evaluating and trying to integrate with more traditional tools, such as questionnaires. The aim is to understand as well as possible what a population thinks about a particular health measure, such as a vaccine: Through data obtained from social monitoring, a more realistic and comprehensive view of the problem could be achieved,” said Ms. Zollo.
 

A Doctor’s Role

And this is where the doctor comes in: All the information thus obtained allows for identifying the needs that the population expresses and that “could push a patient to turn elsewhere, toward sources that provide answers even if of dubious quality or extremely oversimplified.” The doctor can enter this landscape by trying to understand, even with the data provided by institutions, what needs the patients are trying to fill and what drives them to seek elsewhere and to look for a reference community that offers the relevant confirmations.

From the doctor’s perspective, therefore, it can be useful to understand how these dynamics arise and evolve because they could help improve interactions with patients. At the institutional level, social monitoring would be an excellent tool for providing services to doctors who, in turn, offer a service to patients. If it were possible to identify areas where a disinformation narrative is developing from the outset, both the doctor and the institutions would benefit.
 

Misinformation vs Disinformation

The rapid spread of false or misleading information on social media can undermine trust in healthcare institutions and negatively influence health-related behaviors. Ms. Zollo and colleagues, in fact, speak of misinformation in their discussion, not disinformation. “In English, a distinction is made between misinformation and disinformation, a distinction that we are also adopting in Italian. When we talk about misinformation, we mean information that is generally false, inaccurate, or misleading but has not been created with the intention to harm, an intention that is present in disinformation,” said Ms. Zollo.

The distinction is often not easy to define even at the operational level, but in her studies, Ms. Zollo is mainly interested in understanding how the end user interacts with content, not the purposes for which that content was created. “This allows us to focus on users and the relationships that are created on various social platforms, thus bypassing the author of that information and focusing on how misinformation arises and evolves so that it can be effectively combated before it translates into action (ie, into incorrect health choices),” said Ms. Zollo.
 

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 90% of internet users are active on social media, which had 4.76 billion users worldwide in January 2023. The digital revolution has reshaped the news landscape and changed how users interact with information. Social media has fostered an active relationship with the media, including the ability to interact directly with the content presented. It also has augmented media’s ability to reach a large audience with tight deadlines.

These developments suggest that social media can be a useful tool in everyday medical practice for professionals and patients. But social media also can spread misinformation, as happened during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This characteristic is the focus of the latest research by Fabiana Zollo, a computer science professor at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Italy, and coordinator of the Data Science for Society laboratory. The research was published in The BMJ. Ms. Zollo’s research group aims to assess the effect of social media on misinformation and consequent behaviors related to health. “The study results focus primarily on two topics, the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccinations, but can also be applied to other health-related behaviors such as smoking and diet,” Ms. Zollo told Univadis Italy.

Social media has become an important tool for public health organizations to inform and educate citizens. Institutions can use it to monitor choices and understand which topics are being discussed most at a given time, thus comprehending how the topics evolve and take shape in public discourse. “This could lead to the emergence of people’s perceptions, allowing us to understand, among other things, what the population’s needs might be, including informational needs,” said Ms. Zollo.
 

Tenuous Causal Link

While social media offers public health organizations the opportunity to inform and engage the public, it also raises concerns about misinformation and the difficulty of measuring its effect on health behavior. Although some studies have observed correlations between exposure to misinformation on social media and levels of adherence to vaccination campaigns, establishing a causal link is complex. As the authors emphasize, “despite the importance of the effect of social media and misinformation on people’s behavior and the broad hypotheses within public and political debates, the current state of the art cannot provide definitive conclusions on a clear causal association between social media and health behaviors.” Establishing a clear causal link between information obtained from social media and offline behavior is challenging due to methodologic limitations and the complexity of connections between online and offline behaviors. Studies often rely on self-reported data, which may not accurately reflect real behaviors, and struggle to isolate the effect of social media from other external influences. Moreover, many studies primarily focus on Western countries, limiting the generalizability of the results to other cultural and geographical conditions.

Another issue highlighted by Ms. Zollo and colleagues is the lack of complete and representative data. Studies often lack detailed information about participants, such as demographic or geolocation data, and rely on limited samples. This lack makes it difficult to assess the effect of misinformation on different segments of the population and in different geographic areas.

“The main methodologic difficulty concerns behavior, which is difficult to measure because it would require tracking a person’s actions over time and having a shared methodology to do so. We need to understand whether online stated intentions do or do not translate into actual behaviors,” said Ms. Zollo. Therefore, despite the recognized importance of the effect of social media and misinformation on people’s general behavior and the broad hypotheses expressed within public and political debates, the current state of the art cannot provide definitive conclusions on a causal association between social media and health behaviors.
 

Institutions’ Role

Social media is a fertile ground for the formation of echo chambers (where users find themselves dialoguing with like-minded people, forming a distorted impression of the real prevalence of that opinion) and for reinforcing polarized positions around certain topics. “We know that on certain topics, especially those related to health, there is a lot of misinformation circulating precisely because it is easy to leverage factors such as fear and beliefs, even the difficulties in understanding the technical aspects of a message,” said Ms. Zollo. Moreover, institutions have not always provided timely information during the pandemic. “Often, when there is a gap in response to a specific informational need, people turn elsewhere, where those questions find answers. And even if the response is not of high quality, it sometimes confirms the idea that the user had already created in their mind.”

The article published in The BMJ aims primarily to provide information and evaluation insights to institutions rather than professionals or healthcare workers. “We would like to spark the interest of institutions and ministries that can analyze this type of data and integrate it into their monitoring system. Social monitoring (the observation of what happens on social media) is a practice that the World Health Organization is also evaluating and trying to integrate with more traditional tools, such as questionnaires. The aim is to understand as well as possible what a population thinks about a particular health measure, such as a vaccine: Through data obtained from social monitoring, a more realistic and comprehensive view of the problem could be achieved,” said Ms. Zollo.
 

A Doctor’s Role

And this is where the doctor comes in: All the information thus obtained allows for identifying the needs that the population expresses and that “could push a patient to turn elsewhere, toward sources that provide answers even if of dubious quality or extremely oversimplified.” The doctor can enter this landscape by trying to understand, even with the data provided by institutions, what needs the patients are trying to fill and what drives them to seek elsewhere and to look for a reference community that offers the relevant confirmations.

From the doctor’s perspective, therefore, it can be useful to understand how these dynamics arise and evolve because they could help improve interactions with patients. At the institutional level, social monitoring would be an excellent tool for providing services to doctors who, in turn, offer a service to patients. If it were possible to identify areas where a disinformation narrative is developing from the outset, both the doctor and the institutions would benefit.
 

Misinformation vs Disinformation

The rapid spread of false or misleading information on social media can undermine trust in healthcare institutions and negatively influence health-related behaviors. Ms. Zollo and colleagues, in fact, speak of misinformation in their discussion, not disinformation. “In English, a distinction is made between misinformation and disinformation, a distinction that we are also adopting in Italian. When we talk about misinformation, we mean information that is generally false, inaccurate, or misleading but has not been created with the intention to harm, an intention that is present in disinformation,” said Ms. Zollo.

The distinction is often not easy to define even at the operational level, but in her studies, Ms. Zollo is mainly interested in understanding how the end user interacts with content, not the purposes for which that content was created. “This allows us to focus on users and the relationships that are created on various social platforms, thus bypassing the author of that information and focusing on how misinformation arises and evolves so that it can be effectively combated before it translates into action (ie, into incorrect health choices),” said Ms. Zollo.
 

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly half of patients with difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA) no longer met the criteria for that status at the end of a 5-year period by achieving disease remission or low disease activity with additional treatment modifications.

METHODOLOGY:

• This retrospective cohort study included 150 patients with D2T RA, as defined by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, in 2018 at Keio University Hospital, Tokyo.
• The researchers followed patients until 2023 and collected data on demographics, treatment changes, disease activity, and outcomes.
• D2T RA resolution was defined as achieving remission or low disease activity for ≥ 3 consecutive months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 45% of patients achieved resolution of D2T RA at a mean duration of 24.1 months.
• Treatment changes were more frequent in patients with resolved disease vs those with persistent D2T RA (83.6% vs 58.7%; P = .002).
• Patients with resolved D2T RA were more frequently treated with interleukin-6 receptor inhibitors in 2023 vs 2018 (35.8% vs 20.0%; P = .04) and less often treated with prednisolone (14.9% vs 38.7%; P < .001).
• Over 5 years, 5% of the patients died; increased glucocorticoid doses were linked to mortality (P = .002).

IN PRACTICE:

“Although a treatment strategy for difficult-to-treat RA has not yet been established, our study suggests that the optimal treatment choice for patients with difficult-to-treat RA is distinct, based on the causes,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Satoshi Takanashi, MD, PhD, from Keio University School of Medicine in Tokyo. It was published online in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s single-center design and relatively small sample size may limit the generalizability of the findings. Treatment changes were decided by attending doctors, which could introduce bias. The investigators were also unable to determine the impact of any comorbid fibromyalgia in the patients.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the JCR Grant for Promoting Research for Difficult-to-Treat Rheumatoid Arthritis, a KAKENHI grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and Keio University Medical Science Fund. Each of the study’s three authors reported financial relationships with various manufacturers of drugs for RA.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly half of patients with difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA) no longer met the criteria for that status at the end of a 5-year period by achieving disease remission or low disease activity with additional treatment modifications.

METHODOLOGY:

• This retrospective cohort study included 150 patients with D2T RA, as defined by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, in 2018 at Keio University Hospital, Tokyo.
• The researchers followed patients until 2023 and collected data on demographics, treatment changes, disease activity, and outcomes.
• D2T RA resolution was defined as achieving remission or low disease activity for ≥ 3 consecutive months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 45% of patients achieved resolution of D2T RA at a mean duration of 24.1 months.
• Treatment changes were more frequent in patients with resolved disease vs those with persistent D2T RA (83.6% vs 58.7%; P = .002).
• Patients with resolved D2T RA were more frequently treated with interleukin-6 receptor inhibitors in 2023 vs 2018 (35.8% vs 20.0%; P = .04) and less often treated with prednisolone (14.9% vs 38.7%; P < .001).
• Over 5 years, 5% of the patients died; increased glucocorticoid doses were linked to mortality (P = .002).

IN PRACTICE:

“Although a treatment strategy for difficult-to-treat RA has not yet been established, our study suggests that the optimal treatment choice for patients with difficult-to-treat RA is distinct, based on the causes,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Satoshi Takanashi, MD, PhD, from Keio University School of Medicine in Tokyo. It was published online in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s single-center design and relatively small sample size may limit the generalizability of the findings. Treatment changes were decided by attending doctors, which could introduce bias. The investigators were also unable to determine the impact of any comorbid fibromyalgia in the patients.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the JCR Grant for Promoting Research for Difficult-to-Treat Rheumatoid Arthritis, a KAKENHI grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and Keio University Medical Science Fund. Each of the study’s three authors reported financial relationships with various manufacturers of drugs for RA.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly half of patients with difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA) no longer met the criteria for that status at the end of a 5-year period by achieving disease remission or low disease activity with additional treatment modifications.

METHODOLOGY:

• This retrospective cohort study included 150 patients with D2T RA, as defined by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, in 2018 at Keio University Hospital, Tokyo.
• The researchers followed patients until 2023 and collected data on demographics, treatment changes, disease activity, and outcomes.
• D2T RA resolution was defined as achieving remission or low disease activity for ≥ 3 consecutive months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 45% of patients achieved resolution of D2T RA at a mean duration of 24.1 months.
• Treatment changes were more frequent in patients with resolved disease vs those with persistent D2T RA (83.6% vs 58.7%; P = .002).
• Patients with resolved D2T RA were more frequently treated with interleukin-6 receptor inhibitors in 2023 vs 2018 (35.8% vs 20.0%; P = .04) and less often treated with prednisolone (14.9% vs 38.7%; P < .001).
• Over 5 years, 5% of the patients died; increased glucocorticoid doses were linked to mortality (P = .002).

IN PRACTICE:

“Although a treatment strategy for difficult-to-treat RA has not yet been established, our study suggests that the optimal treatment choice for patients with difficult-to-treat RA is distinct, based on the causes,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Satoshi Takanashi, MD, PhD, from Keio University School of Medicine in Tokyo. It was published online in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s single-center design and relatively small sample size may limit the generalizability of the findings. Treatment changes were decided by attending doctors, which could introduce bias. The investigators were also unable to determine the impact of any comorbid fibromyalgia in the patients.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the JCR Grant for Promoting Research for Difficult-to-Treat Rheumatoid Arthritis, a KAKENHI grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and Keio University Medical Science Fund. Each of the study’s three authors reported financial relationships with various manufacturers of drugs for RA.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Safe and effective options for lowering serum uric acid (sUA) in patients with gout who are refractory to conventional therapies appear to be near, judging from phase 2 and 3 trials that produced positive results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Reports from the meeting included two phase 2 studies with novel urate anion transporter 1 (URAT1) inhibitors for patients with refractory gout, in addition to extension data from the phase 3 trial program for SEL-212. In all cases, efficacy appeared to be on the same order of currently available drugs with potentially better tolerability, an important unmet need for patients with gout refractory to traditional therapies.
 

12-Month Outcomes With SEL-212

The extension data with SEL-212 follow the 6-month results presented from the DISSOLVE I and II trials at EULAR 2023. Now at 12 months, the benefits have proven to be generally sustained with no new safety signals, according to Herbert S.B. Baraf, MD, The Center for Rheumatology and Bone Research, Wheaton, Maryland.

Arthritis Foundation

SEL-212 is a drug platform involving two components delivered by intravenous infusion once monthly in sequence. The first, SEL-110, consists of tolerogenic nanoparticles containing sirolimus. The second, SEL-037, is the pegylated uricase pegadricase.

On the 1-month dosing schedule, most patients who had responded at 6 months were still responding at 12 months, and both of the two study doses of SEL-212 in the DISSOLVE trials were well tolerated over the extension, Dr. Baraf reported.

On the basis of the data so far, “this will be an effective and well tolerated therapy for refractory gout over a period of at least 12 months,” Dr. Baraf said.

The DISSOLVE I and II trials were identically designed. Patients with refractory gout, defined as failure to normalize sUA or control symptoms with a xanthine oxidase inhibitor, were randomly assigned to receive 0.15 mg SEL-212, 1.0 mg SEL-212, or placebo.

There was a stopping rule for patients who reached a sUA level < 2 mg/dL 1 hour after the infusion.

The primary endpoint was sUA level < 6 mg/dL for at least 80% of the sixth month of the 6-month trial. About 50% of patients on either dose of SEL-212 met this endpoint (vs 4% of those receiving placebo; P < .0001). There was a numerical advantage for the higher dose in both studies.

Patients who completed the 6-month trial were eligible for a 6-month extension, during which they remained on their assigned therapy, including placebo. This phase was also blinded. Patients who met the stopping rule in either the main study or extension did not take the study drug but remained in the study for final analysis.

Of the 265 patients who participated in the main phase of the study, 143 (54%) completed the 6-month extension. Most discontinuations were the result of the stopping rule. Reasons for other patients discontinuing the study included withdrawal of consent in about 10% of each treatment arm and adverse events in 13.8%, 6.8%, and 2.2% of the high-dose, low-dose, and placebo groups, respectively.

At 12 months, when the data from the two trials were pooled, the proportion of patients on therapy and responding remained at about 50% in the high-dose group and 43% in the low-dose group on an intention-to-treat analysis. Relative to the 8% response rate for placebo, the advantage for either dose was highly significant (P < .0001).

In the subgroup of patients with tophi at baseline, representing about half the study group, responses were low at 12 months, whether on high- (41%) or low-dose (43%) SEL-212. The rate of response among placebo patients with baseline tophi was 9%.
 

Safety of SEL-212

The safety over the 6-month extension did not differ substantially from that observed during the first 6 months, according to Dr. Baraf. This was reiterated in more detail by Alan Kivitz, MD, Altoona Center for Clinical Research, Duncansville, Pennsylvania. He delivered a separate safety presentation focused on DISSOLVE I.

Specifically, there were no serious adverse events thought to be related to treatment. Besides gout flares, which affected approximately 27% of patients regardless of active treatment or placebo assignment, the most common adverse effect was hypertriglyceridemia, which was observed in 5.4% of patients on active treatment vs 0% of those receiving placebo. Independent of the treatment arm, less than 5% of patients developed stomatitis or cellulitis during the 6-month extension period.

In the 6-month extension phase, there were no infusion reactions observed within 1 hour after SEL-212 administration and just two overall that occurred with low-dose SEL-212, according to Kivitz.

New Selective URAT1 Inhibitors

The other potential advance in the treatment of refractory gout is coming from newer selective URAT1 inhibitors. According to the lead investigators of two phase 2 trials evaluating a novel URAT1 inhibitor, the urate transporter protein has long been considered the most promising target for gout treatment. As this protein regulates the absorption of uric acid from the renal tubule, it has a direct uric acid–lowering effect. However, the adverse events of current agents, such as probenecid, benzbromarone, and sulfinpyrazone, have created a need for drugs with a better benefit-to-risk ratio.

In one of two multicenter phase 2 studies on refractory gout, the experimental agent ruzinurad was tested as an adjunct to the xanthine oxidase inhibitor febuxostat. In the other, the objective was to evaluate whether the experimental agent AR882 or AR882 plus allopurinol is better than allopurinol alone for reducing tophi at 12 months.
 

Ruzinurad Plus Febuxostat

In the ruzinurad trial, 151 patients with symptomatic gout and elevated sUA (> 6 mg/dL) for at least 6 weeks on stable doses of febuxostat were randomized to receive 5 mg ruzinurad, 10 mg ruzinurad, or placebo. All remained on febuxostat. In the active treatment arms, the starting ruzinurad dose was 1 mg before titrating up to the assigned target.

For the primary endpoint of sUA < 6 mg/dL at 12 weeks, the rates were 56.9%, 53.1%, and 13.7% in the high-dose, low-dose, and placebo groups, respectively (P < .0001 for both ruzinurad arms), reported Huihua Ding, MD, a clinician and researcher at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.

“Consistently, subgroup analyses based on baseline eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate], sUA, and tophus demonstrated superior effective of ruzinurad plus febuxostat over placebo plus febuxostat,” reported Dr. Ding, who noted that previous clinical studies suggested the potential for synergism between ruzinurad and febuxostat.

The proportion of patients achieving the more rigorous target of < 0.5 mg/dL was also higher with the higher and lower doses of ruzinurad vs placebo (43.1% and 38.8% vs 9.8%, respectively).

The proportion of patients with treatment-emergent side effects did not differ between the three groups. The most common were gout flares, which were observed in 39.2%, 49.0%, and 45.1% in the high-dose, low-dose, and placebo groups, respectively. Most adverse events were mild or moderate, and none led to treatment discontinuation.

The favorable benefit-to-risk profile of ruzinurad was attributed by Dr. Ding to its high relative selectivity and potent inhibition of URAT1, an advantage that might be relevant to avoiding side effects at higher doses.

AR882 in Patients With Tophi

In the trial with AR882, 42 patients with refractory gout and at least one subcutaneous tophus were randomized to receive 75 mg AR882, 50 mg AR882 plus allopurinol, or allopurinol alone. All drugs were taken once daily. Doses of allopurinol of up to 300 mg were permitted.

The changes in the target tophus area and crystal volume at month 6 were compared, and patients who completed this phase were invited into a 6-month extension. In the 6-month extension, 75 mg AR882 was additionally provided to those who had been in the single-agent allopurinol arm. The other arms were unchanged.

Tophi measurements were performed with calipers at regular intervals. Change from baseline in sUA levels was also an efficacy measure, according to Robert Keenan, MD, chief medical officer of Arthrosi Therapeutics, which is developing AR882.

From average baseline sUA levels of > 9 mg/dL, all three treatments reduced sUA levels by an average of at least 4.5 mg by month 3. At month 6, complete resolution of at least one target tophus was observed in 29% of the group randomized to receive 75 mg AR882 alone, 8% of those randomized to receive 50 mg AR882 plus allopurinol, and 8% of those on allopurinol alone.

At month 12, the average sUA levels were 4.3 mg/dL for 75 mg AR882, 3.7 mg/dL for 50 mg AR882 plus allopurinol, and 2.9 mg/dL for the 75 mg AR882 plus allopurinol extension-switch arm.

At the 12-month mark, the proportions of patients with complete resolution of any tophus were 50.0% for 75 mg AR882, 12.5% for 50 mg AR882 plus allopurinol, and 36.4% for the 75 mg AR882 plus allopurinol extension-switch arm, according to Dr. Keenan.

Compared with allopurinol alone at 6 months, 75 mg AR882 led to a reduction in total urate crystal volume, and this reduction was sustained at 12 months, he added.

Alone or in combination with allopurinol, AR882 was well tolerated. Gout flares were the most common adverse events, but they declined with continued AR882 treatment, according to Dr. Keenan. Diarrhea, headache, and upper respiratory infections were reported but were of mild or moderate severity.

Again, the take-home message from this study, like the other phase 2 study of a novel URAT1 inhibitor, is that these newer drugs might offer a better benefit-to-risk ratio, particularly in those with refractory disease.

“AR882 may offer improved efficacy and better safety compared to existing therapies in the treatment of patients with gout, including those with both clinically visible and subclinical crystal deposition,” Dr. Keenan said.

Dr. Baraf reported financial relationships with Horizon Therapeutics, Fresenius Kabi, Grünenthal, Olatec, Selecta Biosciences, and Sobi, which provided funding for the trials he discussed. Dr. Kivitz also reported a financial relationship with Sobi, which funded the DISSOLVE trials, along with AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Flexion, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi Regeneron. Dr. Ding reported no potential conflicts. The study she discussed was funded by Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Keenan is an employee of Arthrosi Therapeutics, which provided funding for the trial he presented.

August 1, 2024 — Editor's note: This article has been updated to reflect the correct number of infusion reactions reported in the 6-month extension phase of the DISSOLVE I trial.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Safe and effective options for lowering serum uric acid (sUA) in patients with gout who are refractory to conventional therapies appear to be near, judging from phase 2 and 3 trials that produced positive results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Reports from the meeting included two phase 2 studies with novel urate anion transporter 1 (URAT1) inhibitors for patients with refractory gout, in addition to extension data from the phase 3 trial program for SEL-212. In all cases, efficacy appeared to be on the same order of currently available drugs with potentially better tolerability, an important unmet need for patients with gout refractory to traditional therapies.
 

12-Month Outcomes With SEL-212

The extension data with SEL-212 follow the 6-month results presented from the DISSOLVE I and II trials at EULAR 2023. Now at 12 months, the benefits have proven to be generally sustained with no new safety signals, according to Herbert S.B. Baraf, MD, The Center for Rheumatology and Bone Research, Wheaton, Maryland.

Arthritis Foundation

SEL-212 is a drug platform involving two components delivered by intravenous infusion once monthly in sequence. The first, SEL-110, consists of tolerogenic nanoparticles containing sirolimus. The second, SEL-037, is the pegylated uricase pegadricase.

On the 1-month dosing schedule, most patients who had responded at 6 months were still responding at 12 months, and both of the two study doses of SEL-212 in the DISSOLVE trials were well tolerated over the extension, Dr. Baraf reported.

On the basis of the data so far, “this will be an effective and well tolerated therapy for refractory gout over a period of at least 12 months,” Dr. Baraf said.

The DISSOLVE I and II trials were identically designed. Patients with refractory gout, defined as failure to normalize sUA or control symptoms with a xanthine oxidase inhibitor, were randomly assigned to receive 0.15 mg SEL-212, 1.0 mg SEL-212, or placebo.

There was a stopping rule for patients who reached a sUA level < 2 mg/dL 1 hour after the infusion.

The primary endpoint was sUA level < 6 mg/dL for at least 80% of the sixth month of the 6-month trial. About 50% of patients on either dose of SEL-212 met this endpoint (vs 4% of those receiving placebo; P < .0001). There was a numerical advantage for the higher dose in both studies.

Patients who completed the 6-month trial were eligible for a 6-month extension, during which they remained on their assigned therapy, including placebo. This phase was also blinded. Patients who met the stopping rule in either the main study or extension did not take the study drug but remained in the study for final analysis.

Of the 265 patients who participated in the main phase of the study, 143 (54%) completed the 6-month extension. Most discontinuations were the result of the stopping rule. Reasons for other patients discontinuing the study included withdrawal of consent in about 10% of each treatment arm and adverse events in 13.8%, 6.8%, and 2.2% of the high-dose, low-dose, and placebo groups, respectively.

At 12 months, when the data from the two trials were pooled, the proportion of patients on therapy and responding remained at about 50% in the high-dose group and 43% in the low-dose group on an intention-to-treat analysis. Relative to the 8% response rate for placebo, the advantage for either dose was highly significant (P < .0001).

In the subgroup of patients with tophi at baseline, representing about half the study group, responses were low at 12 months, whether on high- (41%) or low-dose (43%) SEL-212. The rate of response among placebo patients with baseline tophi was 9%.
 

Safety of SEL-212

The safety over the 6-month extension did not differ substantially from that observed during the first 6 months, according to Dr. Baraf. This was reiterated in more detail by Alan Kivitz, MD, Altoona Center for Clinical Research, Duncansville, Pennsylvania. He delivered a separate safety presentation focused on DISSOLVE I.

Specifically, there were no serious adverse events thought to be related to treatment. Besides gout flares, which affected approximately 27% of patients regardless of active treatment or placebo assignment, the most common adverse effect was hypertriglyceridemia, which was observed in 5.4% of patients on active treatment vs 0% of those receiving placebo. Independent of the treatment arm, less than 5% of patients developed stomatitis or cellulitis during the 6-month extension period.

In the 6-month extension phase, there were no infusion reactions observed within 1 hour after SEL-212 administration and just two overall that occurred with low-dose SEL-212, according to Kivitz.

New Selective URAT1 Inhibitors

The other potential advance in the treatment of refractory gout is coming from newer selective URAT1 inhibitors. According to the lead investigators of two phase 2 trials evaluating a novel URAT1 inhibitor, the urate transporter protein has long been considered the most promising target for gout treatment. As this protein regulates the absorption of uric acid from the renal tubule, it has a direct uric acid–lowering effect. However, the adverse events of current agents, such as probenecid, benzbromarone, and sulfinpyrazone, have created a need for drugs with a better benefit-to-risk ratio.

In one of two multicenter phase 2 studies on refractory gout, the experimental agent ruzinurad was tested as an adjunct to the xanthine oxidase inhibitor febuxostat. In the other, the objective was to evaluate whether the experimental agent AR882 or AR882 plus allopurinol is better than allopurinol alone for reducing tophi at 12 months.
 

Ruzinurad Plus Febuxostat

In the ruzinurad trial, 151 patients with symptomatic gout and elevated sUA (> 6 mg/dL) for at least 6 weeks on stable doses of febuxostat were randomized to receive 5 mg ruzinurad, 10 mg ruzinurad, or placebo. All remained on febuxostat. In the active treatment arms, the starting ruzinurad dose was 1 mg before titrating up to the assigned target.

For the primary endpoint of sUA < 6 mg/dL at 12 weeks, the rates were 56.9%, 53.1%, and 13.7% in the high-dose, low-dose, and placebo groups, respectively (P < .0001 for both ruzinurad arms), reported Huihua Ding, MD, a clinician and researcher at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.

“Consistently, subgroup analyses based on baseline eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate], sUA, and tophus demonstrated superior effective of ruzinurad plus febuxostat over placebo plus febuxostat,” reported Dr. Ding, who noted that previous clinical studies suggested the potential for synergism between ruzinurad and febuxostat.

The proportion of patients achieving the more rigorous target of < 0.5 mg/dL was also higher with the higher and lower doses of ruzinurad vs placebo (43.1% and 38.8% vs 9.8%, respectively).

The proportion of patients with treatment-emergent side effects did not differ between the three groups. The most common were gout flares, which were observed in 39.2%, 49.0%, and 45.1% in the high-dose, low-dose, and placebo groups, respectively. Most adverse events were mild or moderate, and none led to treatment discontinuation.

The favorable benefit-to-risk profile of ruzinurad was attributed by Dr. Ding to its high relative selectivity and potent inhibition of URAT1, an advantage that might be relevant to avoiding side effects at higher doses.

AR882 in Patients With Tophi

In the trial with AR882, 42 patients with refractory gout and at least one subcutaneous tophus were randomized to receive 75 mg AR882, 50 mg AR882 plus allopurinol, or allopurinol alone. All drugs were taken once daily. Doses of allopurinol of up to 300 mg were permitted.

The changes in the target tophus area and crystal volume at month 6 were compared, and patients who completed this phase were invited into a 6-month extension. In the 6-month extension, 75 mg AR882 was additionally provided to those who had been in the single-agent allopurinol arm. The other arms were unchanged.

Tophi measurements were performed with calipers at regular intervals. Change from baseline in sUA levels was also an efficacy measure, according to Robert Keenan, MD, chief medical officer of Arthrosi Therapeutics, which is developing AR882.

From average baseline sUA levels of > 9 mg/dL, all three treatments reduced sUA levels by an average of at least 4.5 mg by month 3. At month 6, complete resolution of at least one target tophus was observed in 29% of the group randomized to receive 75 mg AR882 alone, 8% of those randomized to receive 50 mg AR882 plus allopurinol, and 8% of those on allopurinol alone.

At month 12, the average sUA levels were 4.3 mg/dL for 75 mg AR882, 3.7 mg/dL for 50 mg AR882 plus allopurinol, and 2.9 mg/dL for the 75 mg AR882 plus allopurinol extension-switch arm.

At the 12-month mark, the proportions of patients with complete resolution of any tophus were 50.0% for 75 mg AR882, 12.5% for 50 mg AR882 plus allopurinol, and 36.4% for the 75 mg AR882 plus allopurinol extension-switch arm, according to Dr. Keenan.

Compared with allopurinol alone at 6 months, 75 mg AR882 led to a reduction in total urate crystal volume, and this reduction was sustained at 12 months, he added.

Alone or in combination with allopurinol, AR882 was well tolerated. Gout flares were the most common adverse events, but they declined with continued AR882 treatment, according to Dr. Keenan. Diarrhea, headache, and upper respiratory infections were reported but were of mild or moderate severity.

Again, the take-home message from this study, like the other phase 2 study of a novel URAT1 inhibitor, is that these newer drugs might offer a better benefit-to-risk ratio, particularly in those with refractory disease.

“AR882 may offer improved efficacy and better safety compared to existing therapies in the treatment of patients with gout, including those with both clinically visible and subclinical crystal deposition,” Dr. Keenan said.

Dr. Baraf reported financial relationships with Horizon Therapeutics, Fresenius Kabi, Grünenthal, Olatec, Selecta Biosciences, and Sobi, which provided funding for the trials he discussed. Dr. Kivitz also reported a financial relationship with Sobi, which funded the DISSOLVE trials, along with AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Flexion, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi Regeneron. Dr. Ding reported no potential conflicts. The study she discussed was funded by Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Keenan is an employee of Arthrosi Therapeutics, which provided funding for the trial he presented.

August 1, 2024 — Editor's note: This article has been updated to reflect the correct number of infusion reactions reported in the 6-month extension phase of the DISSOLVE I trial.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Safe and effective options for lowering serum uric acid (sUA) in patients with gout who are refractory to conventional therapies appear to be near, judging from phase 2 and 3 trials that produced positive results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Reports from the meeting included two phase 2 studies with novel urate anion transporter 1 (URAT1) inhibitors for patients with refractory gout, in addition to extension data from the phase 3 trial program for SEL-212. In all cases, efficacy appeared to be on the same order of currently available drugs with potentially better tolerability, an important unmet need for patients with gout refractory to traditional therapies.
 

12-Month Outcomes With SEL-212

The extension data with SEL-212 follow the 6-month results presented from the DISSOLVE I and II trials at EULAR 2023. Now at 12 months, the benefits have proven to be generally sustained with no new safety signals, according to Herbert S.B. Baraf, MD, The Center for Rheumatology and Bone Research, Wheaton, Maryland.

Arthritis Foundation

SEL-212 is a drug platform involving two components delivered by intravenous infusion once monthly in sequence. The first, SEL-110, consists of tolerogenic nanoparticles containing sirolimus. The second, SEL-037, is the pegylated uricase pegadricase.

On the 1-month dosing schedule, most patients who had responded at 6 months were still responding at 12 months, and both of the two study doses of SEL-212 in the DISSOLVE trials were well tolerated over the extension, Dr. Baraf reported.

On the basis of the data so far, “this will be an effective and well tolerated therapy for refractory gout over a period of at least 12 months,” Dr. Baraf said.

The DISSOLVE I and II trials were identically designed. Patients with refractory gout, defined as failure to normalize sUA or control symptoms with a xanthine oxidase inhibitor, were randomly assigned to receive 0.15 mg SEL-212, 1.0 mg SEL-212, or placebo.

There was a stopping rule for patients who reached a sUA level < 2 mg/dL 1 hour after the infusion.

The primary endpoint was sUA level < 6 mg/dL for at least 80% of the sixth month of the 6-month trial. About 50% of patients on either dose of SEL-212 met this endpoint (vs 4% of those receiving placebo; P < .0001). There was a numerical advantage for the higher dose in both studies.

Patients who completed the 6-month trial were eligible for a 6-month extension, during which they remained on their assigned therapy, including placebo. This phase was also blinded. Patients who met the stopping rule in either the main study or extension did not take the study drug but remained in the study for final analysis.

Of the 265 patients who participated in the main phase of the study, 143 (54%) completed the 6-month extension. Most discontinuations were the result of the stopping rule. Reasons for other patients discontinuing the study included withdrawal of consent in about 10% of each treatment arm and adverse events in 13.8%, 6.8%, and 2.2% of the high-dose, low-dose, and placebo groups, respectively.

At 12 months, when the data from the two trials were pooled, the proportion of patients on therapy and responding remained at about 50% in the high-dose group and 43% in the low-dose group on an intention-to-treat analysis. Relative to the 8% response rate for placebo, the advantage for either dose was highly significant (P < .0001).

In the subgroup of patients with tophi at baseline, representing about half the study group, responses were low at 12 months, whether on high- (41%) or low-dose (43%) SEL-212. The rate of response among placebo patients with baseline tophi was 9%.
 

Safety of SEL-212

The safety over the 6-month extension did not differ substantially from that observed during the first 6 months, according to Dr. Baraf. This was reiterated in more detail by Alan Kivitz, MD, Altoona Center for Clinical Research, Duncansville, Pennsylvania. He delivered a separate safety presentation focused on DISSOLVE I.

Specifically, there were no serious adverse events thought to be related to treatment. Besides gout flares, which affected approximately 27% of patients regardless of active treatment or placebo assignment, the most common adverse effect was hypertriglyceridemia, which was observed in 5.4% of patients on active treatment vs 0% of those receiving placebo. Independent of the treatment arm, less than 5% of patients developed stomatitis or cellulitis during the 6-month extension period.

In the 6-month extension phase, there were no infusion reactions observed within 1 hour after SEL-212 administration and just two overall that occurred with low-dose SEL-212, according to Kivitz.

New Selective URAT1 Inhibitors

The other potential advance in the treatment of refractory gout is coming from newer selective URAT1 inhibitors. According to the lead investigators of two phase 2 trials evaluating a novel URAT1 inhibitor, the urate transporter protein has long been considered the most promising target for gout treatment. As this protein regulates the absorption of uric acid from the renal tubule, it has a direct uric acid–lowering effect. However, the adverse events of current agents, such as probenecid, benzbromarone, and sulfinpyrazone, have created a need for drugs with a better benefit-to-risk ratio.

In one of two multicenter phase 2 studies on refractory gout, the experimental agent ruzinurad was tested as an adjunct to the xanthine oxidase inhibitor febuxostat. In the other, the objective was to evaluate whether the experimental agent AR882 or AR882 plus allopurinol is better than allopurinol alone for reducing tophi at 12 months.
 

Ruzinurad Plus Febuxostat

In the ruzinurad trial, 151 patients with symptomatic gout and elevated sUA (> 6 mg/dL) for at least 6 weeks on stable doses of febuxostat were randomized to receive 5 mg ruzinurad, 10 mg ruzinurad, or placebo. All remained on febuxostat. In the active treatment arms, the starting ruzinurad dose was 1 mg before titrating up to the assigned target.

For the primary endpoint of sUA < 6 mg/dL at 12 weeks, the rates were 56.9%, 53.1%, and 13.7% in the high-dose, low-dose, and placebo groups, respectively (P < .0001 for both ruzinurad arms), reported Huihua Ding, MD, a clinician and researcher at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.

“Consistently, subgroup analyses based on baseline eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate], sUA, and tophus demonstrated superior effective of ruzinurad plus febuxostat over placebo plus febuxostat,” reported Dr. Ding, who noted that previous clinical studies suggested the potential for synergism between ruzinurad and febuxostat.

The proportion of patients achieving the more rigorous target of < 0.5 mg/dL was also higher with the higher and lower doses of ruzinurad vs placebo (43.1% and 38.8% vs 9.8%, respectively).

The proportion of patients with treatment-emergent side effects did not differ between the three groups. The most common were gout flares, which were observed in 39.2%, 49.0%, and 45.1% in the high-dose, low-dose, and placebo groups, respectively. Most adverse events were mild or moderate, and none led to treatment discontinuation.

The favorable benefit-to-risk profile of ruzinurad was attributed by Dr. Ding to its high relative selectivity and potent inhibition of URAT1, an advantage that might be relevant to avoiding side effects at higher doses.

AR882 in Patients With Tophi

In the trial with AR882, 42 patients with refractory gout and at least one subcutaneous tophus were randomized to receive 75 mg AR882, 50 mg AR882 plus allopurinol, or allopurinol alone. All drugs were taken once daily. Doses of allopurinol of up to 300 mg were permitted.

The changes in the target tophus area and crystal volume at month 6 were compared, and patients who completed this phase were invited into a 6-month extension. In the 6-month extension, 75 mg AR882 was additionally provided to those who had been in the single-agent allopurinol arm. The other arms were unchanged.

Tophi measurements were performed with calipers at regular intervals. Change from baseline in sUA levels was also an efficacy measure, according to Robert Keenan, MD, chief medical officer of Arthrosi Therapeutics, which is developing AR882.

From average baseline sUA levels of > 9 mg/dL, all three treatments reduced sUA levels by an average of at least 4.5 mg by month 3. At month 6, complete resolution of at least one target tophus was observed in 29% of the group randomized to receive 75 mg AR882 alone, 8% of those randomized to receive 50 mg AR882 plus allopurinol, and 8% of those on allopurinol alone.

At month 12, the average sUA levels were 4.3 mg/dL for 75 mg AR882, 3.7 mg/dL for 50 mg AR882 plus allopurinol, and 2.9 mg/dL for the 75 mg AR882 plus allopurinol extension-switch arm.

At the 12-month mark, the proportions of patients with complete resolution of any tophus were 50.0% for 75 mg AR882, 12.5% for 50 mg AR882 plus allopurinol, and 36.4% for the 75 mg AR882 plus allopurinol extension-switch arm, according to Dr. Keenan.

Compared with allopurinol alone at 6 months, 75 mg AR882 led to a reduction in total urate crystal volume, and this reduction was sustained at 12 months, he added.

Alone or in combination with allopurinol, AR882 was well tolerated. Gout flares were the most common adverse events, but they declined with continued AR882 treatment, according to Dr. Keenan. Diarrhea, headache, and upper respiratory infections were reported but were of mild or moderate severity.

Again, the take-home message from this study, like the other phase 2 study of a novel URAT1 inhibitor, is that these newer drugs might offer a better benefit-to-risk ratio, particularly in those with refractory disease.

“AR882 may offer improved efficacy and better safety compared to existing therapies in the treatment of patients with gout, including those with both clinically visible and subclinical crystal deposition,” Dr. Keenan said.

Dr. Baraf reported financial relationships with Horizon Therapeutics, Fresenius Kabi, Grünenthal, Olatec, Selecta Biosciences, and Sobi, which provided funding for the trials he discussed. Dr. Kivitz also reported a financial relationship with Sobi, which funded the DISSOLVE trials, along with AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Flexion, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi Regeneron. Dr. Ding reported no potential conflicts. The study she discussed was funded by Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Keenan is an employee of Arthrosi Therapeutics, which provided funding for the trial he presented.

August 1, 2024 — Editor's note: This article has been updated to reflect the correct number of infusion reactions reported in the 6-month extension phase of the DISSOLVE I trial.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A threshold of sustained lupus low disease activity state (LLDAS) or remission for 3 months significantly reduces the risk for damage accrual and flares in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), with longer durations offering even greater protection. 

METHODOLOGY:

• This large, prospective, multicenter study aimed to quantify the impact of sustained LLDAS on irreversible damage and flares.
• It included 3449 patients (age, ≥ 18 years; 92.2% women) with SLE from 25 centers across 12 countries, analyzing a total of 37,662 visits.
• Sustained LLDAS or remission was defined as at least two consecutive visits over > 3 months in the respective state.
• The primary outcome measured was the accrual of irreversible organ damage, with flares as a key secondary outcome.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up of 2.8 years, 80.2% of patients achieved LLDAS at least once, with 72.7% experiencing at least one episode of sustained LLDAS.
• Sustained LLDAS for > 3 months was linked to a reduced risk for damage accrual (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; P < .0001).
• Protection from flares also increased with all durations of sustained LLDAS > 3 months (> 3 months: HR, 0.56; P < .0001; > 36 months: HR, 0.17; P < .0001).
• Longer periods of sustained LLDAS or remission were associated with significantly higher degrees of protection.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support the use of these treat-to-target endpoints in clinical practice and provide a practical target to aim for in SLE treatment,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Vera Golder, MBBS, Monash University, Clayton, Australia. It was published online in The Lancet Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

While the study’s large scale and multinational cohort provided robust data, its observational design limited the ability to establish causality. The predominance of Asian ethnicity among the participants may have affected the generalizability of the findings to other populations. Additionally, the median follow-up duration of 2.8 years might not have captured long-term outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors declared receiving grants, consulting fees, payments, and honoraria and having other ties with various sources. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A threshold of sustained lupus low disease activity state (LLDAS) or remission for 3 months significantly reduces the risk for damage accrual and flares in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), with longer durations offering even greater protection. 

METHODOLOGY:

• This large, prospective, multicenter study aimed to quantify the impact of sustained LLDAS on irreversible damage and flares.
• It included 3449 patients (age, ≥ 18 years; 92.2% women) with SLE from 25 centers across 12 countries, analyzing a total of 37,662 visits.
• Sustained LLDAS or remission was defined as at least two consecutive visits over > 3 months in the respective state.
• The primary outcome measured was the accrual of irreversible organ damage, with flares as a key secondary outcome.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up of 2.8 years, 80.2% of patients achieved LLDAS at least once, with 72.7% experiencing at least one episode of sustained LLDAS.
• Sustained LLDAS for > 3 months was linked to a reduced risk for damage accrual (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; P < .0001).
• Protection from flares also increased with all durations of sustained LLDAS > 3 months (> 3 months: HR, 0.56; P < .0001; > 36 months: HR, 0.17; P < .0001).
• Longer periods of sustained LLDAS or remission were associated with significantly higher degrees of protection.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support the use of these treat-to-target endpoints in clinical practice and provide a practical target to aim for in SLE treatment,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Vera Golder, MBBS, Monash University, Clayton, Australia. It was published online in The Lancet Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

While the study’s large scale and multinational cohort provided robust data, its observational design limited the ability to establish causality. The predominance of Asian ethnicity among the participants may have affected the generalizability of the findings to other populations. Additionally, the median follow-up duration of 2.8 years might not have captured long-term outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors declared receiving grants, consulting fees, payments, and honoraria and having other ties with various sources. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A threshold of sustained lupus low disease activity state (LLDAS) or remission for 3 months significantly reduces the risk for damage accrual and flares in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), with longer durations offering even greater protection. 

METHODOLOGY:

• This large, prospective, multicenter study aimed to quantify the impact of sustained LLDAS on irreversible damage and flares.
• It included 3449 patients (age, ≥ 18 years; 92.2% women) with SLE from 25 centers across 12 countries, analyzing a total of 37,662 visits.
• Sustained LLDAS or remission was defined as at least two consecutive visits over > 3 months in the respective state.
• The primary outcome measured was the accrual of irreversible organ damage, with flares as a key secondary outcome.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up of 2.8 years, 80.2% of patients achieved LLDAS at least once, with 72.7% experiencing at least one episode of sustained LLDAS.
• Sustained LLDAS for > 3 months was linked to a reduced risk for damage accrual (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; P < .0001).
• Protection from flares also increased with all durations of sustained LLDAS > 3 months (> 3 months: HR, 0.56; P < .0001; > 36 months: HR, 0.17; P < .0001).
• Longer periods of sustained LLDAS or remission were associated with significantly higher degrees of protection.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support the use of these treat-to-target endpoints in clinical practice and provide a practical target to aim for in SLE treatment,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Vera Golder, MBBS, Monash University, Clayton, Australia. It was published online in The Lancet Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

While the study’s large scale and multinational cohort provided robust data, its observational design limited the ability to establish causality. The predominance of Asian ethnicity among the participants may have affected the generalizability of the findings to other populations. Additionally, the median follow-up duration of 2.8 years might not have captured long-term outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors declared receiving grants, consulting fees, payments, and honoraria and having other ties with various sources. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — From a dozen or so studies and sessions devoted to the role of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells in rheumatic diseases at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, the message was uniformly positive, supporting growing evidence that drugs in this class are heading toward a paradigm shift in refractory rheumatic diseases.

Of the reports, an update from a 15-patient case series with at least 1 year of follow-up provides “the first long-term evidence of safety and efficacy in multiple rheumatic diseases,” according to Georg Schett, MD, PhD, director of rheumatology and immunology, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.

Ted Bosworth/Medscape Medical News

The report of high rates of activity and low relative risk of serious adverse events from the same series was published earlier this year in The New England Journal of Medicine when the median follow-up was 15 months. Almost all of the patients have now completed at least 1 year of follow-up and about a third have completed more than 2 years.
 

SLE Is Frequently Targeted in CAR T-Cell Studies

The three rheumatic diseases represented in this series of patients, all of whom had failed multiple previous immune suppressive treatments, were systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIM), and systemic sclerosis (SSc). After the autologous T cells were harvested, they were expanded and transfected with the CD19 CAR. The proprietary investigational product, called MB-CART19.1 (Miltenyi Biotec), was administered in a single dose of one million cells per kg bodyweight.

The response rates have been, and continue to be, impressive. For the eight patients with SLE, all achieved the definition of remission in SLE criteria after one dose of treatment. Complete resolution of all major symptom types was achieved after 6 months of follow-up. So far, no patient has relapsed.

For the three patients with IIM, all reached the American College of Rheumatology–EULAR criteria for a major response. All creatine kinase levels had normalized by 3 months. In this group, there was one relapse, which occurred after 18 months of follow-up.

All four patients with SSc achieved a major response on the European Scleroderma Trials and Research (EUSTAR) group activity index. The median reduction from baseline in the EUSTAR score was 4.2 points, and this has been maintained in follow-up to date.
 

Remissions Have Persisted Off All Therapies

These remissions were achieved and maintained after a single dose of CAR T-cell therapy despite discontinuation of all immunosuppressive therapies. With the exception of the single relapse, all remissions have persisted through follow-up to date.

These responses were achieved with manageable side effects, according to Dr. Schett. The most serious adverse event was a grade 4 neutropenia that developed 4 months after receiving CAR T cells. It resolved with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor treatment. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) has occurred in 10 patients, but it was grade 1 in eight patients and grade 2 in the others. There has been no neurotoxicity.

Almost all patients have experienced an infection during follow-up, but there has been no discernible pattern in relationship to the timing or types of infections. The most common have involved the upper respiratory tract and have been of mild severity, with cases disseminated similarly over early vs late follow-up. There was one case of pneumonia involving antibiotic treatment and a hospital stay, but it resolved.

Dr. Schett acknowledged that safety is a bigger concern in autoimmune diseases, which are often serious but rarely fatal, than in the hematologic malignancies for which CAR T cells were initially tested, but the low rates of serious adverse events in his and other early studies have supported the premise that the risks are not the same.

Asked specifically if CAR T cells can be considered a game changer in autoimmune rheumatic diseases, Dr. Schett was cautious. One reason is the CAR T cells are a complex therapy relative to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. He thinks, therefore, that much more data are needed to confirm safety and efficacy. In addition, they are expensive, so it is not yet clear how they will be integrated with other options.

Yet, he thinks the evidence so far suggests a profound effect on the fundamental drivers of autoimmune disease. Their specific mechanism of benefit is still being evaluated, but he considers the clinical responses consistent with a “reset” hypothesis.

After a response, “we are seeing drug-free remissions in some patients as long as they have been followed,” Dr. Schett said. Based on the fact that disease control is being observed off all other therapies, “this only makes sense to me if there is some sort of immunologic reset.”
 

CAR T-Cell Studies in Autoimmune Diseases Are Proliferating

At last count, there were about 40 studies being performed with CAR T cells in various autoimmune diseases, most of which were rheumatologic disorders, according to Dr. Schett. He noted that funding is coming from multinational drug companies, small biotech startups, and investigator-initiated studies at academic centers.

At EULAR, beyond case studies and anecdotal reports, all of the clinical studies were still at the level of phase 1 or 1/2. Consistent with the data presented by Dr. Schett, the drugs have been nearly uniformly effective, with major responses persisting in patients off other therapies. Adverse events have been manageable.

Examples include a phase 1/2 multinational study with the investigational CAR T-cell therapy YTB323 (Novartis), which demonstrated acceptable safety and a strong signal of benefit in six patients with SLE. In this report, CRS was also common, but no case of CRS was more severe than grade 2. There was no neurotoxicity. Infections did occur but were of relatively mild grades and resolved with treatment.

For efficacy in the ongoing follow-up, SLE symptoms as measured with the SLE Disease Activity Index began to abate at about 14 days after the single-infusion treatment. Improvement on the Physician Global Assessment was also observed between 14 and 28 days. C3 and C4 complement levels started to rise at about 28 days. While the responses have correlated with the observed changes in biomarkers of immune function, they have endured through a median follow-up that now exceeds 6 months.
 

Complete B-Cell Depletion Is Followed by Full Recovery

“Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies revealed peak expansion of CAR T cells approximately 13-21 days post infusion, which was accompanied by deep B-cell depletion followed by subsequent B-cell recovery,” reported Josefina Cortés-Hernández, MD, PhD, a senior lecturer at Vall d’Hebron Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain.

Dr. Schett had reported the same pattern of expansion followed by a rapid elimination of detectable CAR T cells despite the sustained clinical benefit.

Dr. Cortés-Hernández said that the signal of efficacy in the context of acceptable safety supports an expansion of clinical studies with this CAR T-cell product in SLE and perhaps other autoimmune disorders.

In another early-stage study, patients with SLE who had failed multiple prior lines of therapy have been enrolled in an ongoing study with a compound CAR (cCAR) T cell. This experimental proprietary product (iCAR Bio Therapeutics, Zhongshan, China) targets both the B-cell maturation antigen and CD19, according to Greg Deener, the chief executive officer of iCell Gene Therapeutics, New York City.

Ted Bosworth/Medscape Medical News

cCAR T-Cell Construct Targets Immune Reset

With this construct, the goal is to deplete long-lived plasma cells as well as B cells in order to achieve a more complete humoral reset. While preliminary data from the phase 1 trial were published earlier this year in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Mr. Deener focused his presentation at EULAR 2024 on 12 patients with SLE and lupus nephritis, a severe form of SLE that threatens glomerular structures and can lead to end-stage liver disease.

B cells in the peripheral blood could not be detected within 10 days of the cCAR infusion, and the immunoglobulins IgM and IgA were undetectable by day 42.

However, after B-cell recovery by day 150, “flow cytometry and B-cell receptor sequencing confirmed full humoral reset was achieved,” Mr. Deener said.

The remission has been durable in 11 of the 12 patients after a mean follow-up of 458 days, Mr. Deener reported. He noted that an improvement in renal function has been observed in the majority of patients.

Like others, he reported that treatment has been relatively well tolerated. In this series of patients, there have been no cases of CRS more severe than grade 1.

Overall, the cCAR data in lupus nephritis support the hypothesis that CAR T cells are reprogramming the immune system, according to Mr. Deener.

Combined with a reasonable safety profile, the consistency of benefit from CAR T cells in autoimmune rheumatic diseases is good news, but all of the investigators who spoke at EULAR agreed that there are still many unanswered questions. Not least, it is unclear whether patients can be effectively and safely retreated when and if relapses occur. Even though Dr. Schett did report a response with retreatment following a relapse, he said that there is no conclusion to draw from a single patient.

Yet, the high rates of remissions in patients with disease refractory to other therapeutic options is highly encouraging, particularly with the manageable side effects now reported by multiple investigators using different CAR T-cell products.

“Roughly 100 patients with rheumatic diseases have been treated with CAR T-cells, and we have not seen a high-grade CRS or neurotoxicity,” he said.

Long-term efficacy is less clear. With the first clinical studies in autoimmune diseases initiated in 2021, few patients have been followed for more than 2 years. Even with the high rates of response that will certainly fuel efforts to rapidly bring these treatments forward, long-term data are now the missing piece.
 

Other Case Series Presented at EULAR

Several other abstracts reported on patients with SSc who were treated with CD19-targeting CAR T cells:

Three patients for whom autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation was contraindicated or unsuccessful were successfully and safely treated.

Six patients with diffuse and progressive disease achieved stable disease activity without additional immunosuppression for up to 1 year after treatment.

Dr. Schett reported no potential conflicts of interest, and the study he presented was not funded by industry. Dr. Cortés-Hernández reported a financial relationship with Novartis, which funded the study of the CAR T-cell therapy YTB323, as well as with GlaxoSmithKline, which was not involved in the study she presented.  Mr. Deener is an employee of iCell Gene Therapeutics, which provided funding for the trial he presented.

August 7, 2024 — Editor's note: This article was updated with additional disclosure information for Dr. Josefina Cortés-Hernández.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — From a dozen or so studies and sessions devoted to the role of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells in rheumatic diseases at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, the message was uniformly positive, supporting growing evidence that drugs in this class are heading toward a paradigm shift in refractory rheumatic diseases.

Of the reports, an update from a 15-patient case series with at least 1 year of follow-up provides “the first long-term evidence of safety and efficacy in multiple rheumatic diseases,” according to Georg Schett, MD, PhD, director of rheumatology and immunology, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.

Ted Bosworth/Medscape Medical News

The report of high rates of activity and low relative risk of serious adverse events from the same series was published earlier this year in The New England Journal of Medicine when the median follow-up was 15 months. Almost all of the patients have now completed at least 1 year of follow-up and about a third have completed more than 2 years.
 

SLE Is Frequently Targeted in CAR T-Cell Studies

The three rheumatic diseases represented in this series of patients, all of whom had failed multiple previous immune suppressive treatments, were systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIM), and systemic sclerosis (SSc). After the autologous T cells were harvested, they were expanded and transfected with the CD19 CAR. The proprietary investigational product, called MB-CART19.1 (Miltenyi Biotec), was administered in a single dose of one million cells per kg bodyweight.

The response rates have been, and continue to be, impressive. For the eight patients with SLE, all achieved the definition of remission in SLE criteria after one dose of treatment. Complete resolution of all major symptom types was achieved after 6 months of follow-up. So far, no patient has relapsed.

For the three patients with IIM, all reached the American College of Rheumatology–EULAR criteria for a major response. All creatine kinase levels had normalized by 3 months. In this group, there was one relapse, which occurred after 18 months of follow-up.

All four patients with SSc achieved a major response on the European Scleroderma Trials and Research (EUSTAR) group activity index. The median reduction from baseline in the EUSTAR score was 4.2 points, and this has been maintained in follow-up to date.
 

Remissions Have Persisted Off All Therapies

These remissions were achieved and maintained after a single dose of CAR T-cell therapy despite discontinuation of all immunosuppressive therapies. With the exception of the single relapse, all remissions have persisted through follow-up to date.

These responses were achieved with manageable side effects, according to Dr. Schett. The most serious adverse event was a grade 4 neutropenia that developed 4 months after receiving CAR T cells. It resolved with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor treatment. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) has occurred in 10 patients, but it was grade 1 in eight patients and grade 2 in the others. There has been no neurotoxicity.

Almost all patients have experienced an infection during follow-up, but there has been no discernible pattern in relationship to the timing or types of infections. The most common have involved the upper respiratory tract and have been of mild severity, with cases disseminated similarly over early vs late follow-up. There was one case of pneumonia involving antibiotic treatment and a hospital stay, but it resolved.

Dr. Schett acknowledged that safety is a bigger concern in autoimmune diseases, which are often serious but rarely fatal, than in the hematologic malignancies for which CAR T cells were initially tested, but the low rates of serious adverse events in his and other early studies have supported the premise that the risks are not the same.

Asked specifically if CAR T cells can be considered a game changer in autoimmune rheumatic diseases, Dr. Schett was cautious. One reason is the CAR T cells are a complex therapy relative to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. He thinks, therefore, that much more data are needed to confirm safety and efficacy. In addition, they are expensive, so it is not yet clear how they will be integrated with other options.

Yet, he thinks the evidence so far suggests a profound effect on the fundamental drivers of autoimmune disease. Their specific mechanism of benefit is still being evaluated, but he considers the clinical responses consistent with a “reset” hypothesis.

After a response, “we are seeing drug-free remissions in some patients as long as they have been followed,” Dr. Schett said. Based on the fact that disease control is being observed off all other therapies, “this only makes sense to me if there is some sort of immunologic reset.”
 

CAR T-Cell Studies in Autoimmune Diseases Are Proliferating

At last count, there were about 40 studies being performed with CAR T cells in various autoimmune diseases, most of which were rheumatologic disorders, according to Dr. Schett. He noted that funding is coming from multinational drug companies, small biotech startups, and investigator-initiated studies at academic centers.

At EULAR, beyond case studies and anecdotal reports, all of the clinical studies were still at the level of phase 1 or 1/2. Consistent with the data presented by Dr. Schett, the drugs have been nearly uniformly effective, with major responses persisting in patients off other therapies. Adverse events have been manageable.

Examples include a phase 1/2 multinational study with the investigational CAR T-cell therapy YTB323 (Novartis), which demonstrated acceptable safety and a strong signal of benefit in six patients with SLE. In this report, CRS was also common, but no case of CRS was more severe than grade 2. There was no neurotoxicity. Infections did occur but were of relatively mild grades and resolved with treatment.

For efficacy in the ongoing follow-up, SLE symptoms as measured with the SLE Disease Activity Index began to abate at about 14 days after the single-infusion treatment. Improvement on the Physician Global Assessment was also observed between 14 and 28 days. C3 and C4 complement levels started to rise at about 28 days. While the responses have correlated with the observed changes in biomarkers of immune function, they have endured through a median follow-up that now exceeds 6 months.
 

Complete B-Cell Depletion Is Followed by Full Recovery

“Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies revealed peak expansion of CAR T cells approximately 13-21 days post infusion, which was accompanied by deep B-cell depletion followed by subsequent B-cell recovery,” reported Josefina Cortés-Hernández, MD, PhD, a senior lecturer at Vall d’Hebron Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain.

Dr. Schett had reported the same pattern of expansion followed by a rapid elimination of detectable CAR T cells despite the sustained clinical benefit.

Dr. Cortés-Hernández said that the signal of efficacy in the context of acceptable safety supports an expansion of clinical studies with this CAR T-cell product in SLE and perhaps other autoimmune disorders.

In another early-stage study, patients with SLE who had failed multiple prior lines of therapy have been enrolled in an ongoing study with a compound CAR (cCAR) T cell. This experimental proprietary product (iCAR Bio Therapeutics, Zhongshan, China) targets both the B-cell maturation antigen and CD19, according to Greg Deener, the chief executive officer of iCell Gene Therapeutics, New York City.

Ted Bosworth/Medscape Medical News

cCAR T-Cell Construct Targets Immune Reset

With this construct, the goal is to deplete long-lived plasma cells as well as B cells in order to achieve a more complete humoral reset. While preliminary data from the phase 1 trial were published earlier this year in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Mr. Deener focused his presentation at EULAR 2024 on 12 patients with SLE and lupus nephritis, a severe form of SLE that threatens glomerular structures and can lead to end-stage liver disease.

B cells in the peripheral blood could not be detected within 10 days of the cCAR infusion, and the immunoglobulins IgM and IgA were undetectable by day 42.

However, after B-cell recovery by day 150, “flow cytometry and B-cell receptor sequencing confirmed full humoral reset was achieved,” Mr. Deener said.

The remission has been durable in 11 of the 12 patients after a mean follow-up of 458 days, Mr. Deener reported. He noted that an improvement in renal function has been observed in the majority of patients.

Like others, he reported that treatment has been relatively well tolerated. In this series of patients, there have been no cases of CRS more severe than grade 1.

Overall, the cCAR data in lupus nephritis support the hypothesis that CAR T cells are reprogramming the immune system, according to Mr. Deener.

Combined with a reasonable safety profile, the consistency of benefit from CAR T cells in autoimmune rheumatic diseases is good news, but all of the investigators who spoke at EULAR agreed that there are still many unanswered questions. Not least, it is unclear whether patients can be effectively and safely retreated when and if relapses occur. Even though Dr. Schett did report a response with retreatment following a relapse, he said that there is no conclusion to draw from a single patient.

Yet, the high rates of remissions in patients with disease refractory to other therapeutic options is highly encouraging, particularly with the manageable side effects now reported by multiple investigators using different CAR T-cell products.

“Roughly 100 patients with rheumatic diseases have been treated with CAR T-cells, and we have not seen a high-grade CRS or neurotoxicity,” he said.

Long-term efficacy is less clear. With the first clinical studies in autoimmune diseases initiated in 2021, few patients have been followed for more than 2 years. Even with the high rates of response that will certainly fuel efforts to rapidly bring these treatments forward, long-term data are now the missing piece.
 

Other Case Series Presented at EULAR

Several other abstracts reported on patients with SSc who were treated with CD19-targeting CAR T cells:

Three patients for whom autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation was contraindicated or unsuccessful were successfully and safely treated.

Six patients with diffuse and progressive disease achieved stable disease activity without additional immunosuppression for up to 1 year after treatment.

Dr. Schett reported no potential conflicts of interest, and the study he presented was not funded by industry. Dr. Cortés-Hernández reported a financial relationship with Novartis, which funded the study of the CAR T-cell therapy YTB323, as well as with GlaxoSmithKline, which was not involved in the study she presented.  Mr. Deener is an employee of iCell Gene Therapeutics, which provided funding for the trial he presented.

August 7, 2024 — Editor's note: This article was updated with additional disclosure information for Dr. Josefina Cortés-Hernández.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — From a dozen or so studies and sessions devoted to the role of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells in rheumatic diseases at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, the message was uniformly positive, supporting growing evidence that drugs in this class are heading toward a paradigm shift in refractory rheumatic diseases.

Of the reports, an update from a 15-patient case series with at least 1 year of follow-up provides “the first long-term evidence of safety and efficacy in multiple rheumatic diseases,” according to Georg Schett, MD, PhD, director of rheumatology and immunology, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.

Ted Bosworth/Medscape Medical News

The report of high rates of activity and low relative risk of serious adverse events from the same series was published earlier this year in The New England Journal of Medicine when the median follow-up was 15 months. Almost all of the patients have now completed at least 1 year of follow-up and about a third have completed more than 2 years.
 

SLE Is Frequently Targeted in CAR T-Cell Studies

The three rheumatic diseases represented in this series of patients, all of whom had failed multiple previous immune suppressive treatments, were systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIM), and systemic sclerosis (SSc). After the autologous T cells were harvested, they were expanded and transfected with the CD19 CAR. The proprietary investigational product, called MB-CART19.1 (Miltenyi Biotec), was administered in a single dose of one million cells per kg bodyweight.

The response rates have been, and continue to be, impressive. For the eight patients with SLE, all achieved the definition of remission in SLE criteria after one dose of treatment. Complete resolution of all major symptom types was achieved after 6 months of follow-up. So far, no patient has relapsed.

For the three patients with IIM, all reached the American College of Rheumatology–EULAR criteria for a major response. All creatine kinase levels had normalized by 3 months. In this group, there was one relapse, which occurred after 18 months of follow-up.

All four patients with SSc achieved a major response on the European Scleroderma Trials and Research (EUSTAR) group activity index. The median reduction from baseline in the EUSTAR score was 4.2 points, and this has been maintained in follow-up to date.
 

Remissions Have Persisted Off All Therapies

These remissions were achieved and maintained after a single dose of CAR T-cell therapy despite discontinuation of all immunosuppressive therapies. With the exception of the single relapse, all remissions have persisted through follow-up to date.

These responses were achieved with manageable side effects, according to Dr. Schett. The most serious adverse event was a grade 4 neutropenia that developed 4 months after receiving CAR T cells. It resolved with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor treatment. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) has occurred in 10 patients, but it was grade 1 in eight patients and grade 2 in the others. There has been no neurotoxicity.

Almost all patients have experienced an infection during follow-up, but there has been no discernible pattern in relationship to the timing or types of infections. The most common have involved the upper respiratory tract and have been of mild severity, with cases disseminated similarly over early vs late follow-up. There was one case of pneumonia involving antibiotic treatment and a hospital stay, but it resolved.

Dr. Schett acknowledged that safety is a bigger concern in autoimmune diseases, which are often serious but rarely fatal, than in the hematologic malignancies for which CAR T cells were initially tested, but the low rates of serious adverse events in his and other early studies have supported the premise that the risks are not the same.

Asked specifically if CAR T cells can be considered a game changer in autoimmune rheumatic diseases, Dr. Schett was cautious. One reason is the CAR T cells are a complex therapy relative to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. He thinks, therefore, that much more data are needed to confirm safety and efficacy. In addition, they are expensive, so it is not yet clear how they will be integrated with other options.

Yet, he thinks the evidence so far suggests a profound effect on the fundamental drivers of autoimmune disease. Their specific mechanism of benefit is still being evaluated, but he considers the clinical responses consistent with a “reset” hypothesis.

After a response, “we are seeing drug-free remissions in some patients as long as they have been followed,” Dr. Schett said. Based on the fact that disease control is being observed off all other therapies, “this only makes sense to me if there is some sort of immunologic reset.”
 

CAR T-Cell Studies in Autoimmune Diseases Are Proliferating

At last count, there were about 40 studies being performed with CAR T cells in various autoimmune diseases, most of which were rheumatologic disorders, according to Dr. Schett. He noted that funding is coming from multinational drug companies, small biotech startups, and investigator-initiated studies at academic centers.

At EULAR, beyond case studies and anecdotal reports, all of the clinical studies were still at the level of phase 1 or 1/2. Consistent with the data presented by Dr. Schett, the drugs have been nearly uniformly effective, with major responses persisting in patients off other therapies. Adverse events have been manageable.

Examples include a phase 1/2 multinational study with the investigational CAR T-cell therapy YTB323 (Novartis), which demonstrated acceptable safety and a strong signal of benefit in six patients with SLE. In this report, CRS was also common, but no case of CRS was more severe than grade 2. There was no neurotoxicity. Infections did occur but were of relatively mild grades and resolved with treatment.

For efficacy in the ongoing follow-up, SLE symptoms as measured with the SLE Disease Activity Index began to abate at about 14 days after the single-infusion treatment. Improvement on the Physician Global Assessment was also observed between 14 and 28 days. C3 and C4 complement levels started to rise at about 28 days. While the responses have correlated with the observed changes in biomarkers of immune function, they have endured through a median follow-up that now exceeds 6 months.
 

Complete B-Cell Depletion Is Followed by Full Recovery

“Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies revealed peak expansion of CAR T cells approximately 13-21 days post infusion, which was accompanied by deep B-cell depletion followed by subsequent B-cell recovery,” reported Josefina Cortés-Hernández, MD, PhD, a senior lecturer at Vall d’Hebron Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain.

Dr. Schett had reported the same pattern of expansion followed by a rapid elimination of detectable CAR T cells despite the sustained clinical benefit.

Dr. Cortés-Hernández said that the signal of efficacy in the context of acceptable safety supports an expansion of clinical studies with this CAR T-cell product in SLE and perhaps other autoimmune disorders.

In another early-stage study, patients with SLE who had failed multiple prior lines of therapy have been enrolled in an ongoing study with a compound CAR (cCAR) T cell. This experimental proprietary product (iCAR Bio Therapeutics, Zhongshan, China) targets both the B-cell maturation antigen and CD19, according to Greg Deener, the chief executive officer of iCell Gene Therapeutics, New York City.

Ted Bosworth/Medscape Medical News

cCAR T-Cell Construct Targets Immune Reset

With this construct, the goal is to deplete long-lived plasma cells as well as B cells in order to achieve a more complete humoral reset. While preliminary data from the phase 1 trial were published earlier this year in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Mr. Deener focused his presentation at EULAR 2024 on 12 patients with SLE and lupus nephritis, a severe form of SLE that threatens glomerular structures and can lead to end-stage liver disease.

B cells in the peripheral blood could not be detected within 10 days of the cCAR infusion, and the immunoglobulins IgM and IgA were undetectable by day 42.

However, after B-cell recovery by day 150, “flow cytometry and B-cell receptor sequencing confirmed full humoral reset was achieved,” Mr. Deener said.

The remission has been durable in 11 of the 12 patients after a mean follow-up of 458 days, Mr. Deener reported. He noted that an improvement in renal function has been observed in the majority of patients.

Like others, he reported that treatment has been relatively well tolerated. In this series of patients, there have been no cases of CRS more severe than grade 1.

Overall, the cCAR data in lupus nephritis support the hypothesis that CAR T cells are reprogramming the immune system, according to Mr. Deener.

Combined with a reasonable safety profile, the consistency of benefit from CAR T cells in autoimmune rheumatic diseases is good news, but all of the investigators who spoke at EULAR agreed that there are still many unanswered questions. Not least, it is unclear whether patients can be effectively and safely retreated when and if relapses occur. Even though Dr. Schett did report a response with retreatment following a relapse, he said that there is no conclusion to draw from a single patient.

Yet, the high rates of remissions in patients with disease refractory to other therapeutic options is highly encouraging, particularly with the manageable side effects now reported by multiple investigators using different CAR T-cell products.

“Roughly 100 patients with rheumatic diseases have been treated with CAR T-cells, and we have not seen a high-grade CRS or neurotoxicity,” he said.

Long-term efficacy is less clear. With the first clinical studies in autoimmune diseases initiated in 2021, few patients have been followed for more than 2 years. Even with the high rates of response that will certainly fuel efforts to rapidly bring these treatments forward, long-term data are now the missing piece.
 

Other Case Series Presented at EULAR

Several other abstracts reported on patients with SSc who were treated with CD19-targeting CAR T cells:

Three patients for whom autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation was contraindicated or unsuccessful were successfully and safely treated.

Six patients with diffuse and progressive disease achieved stable disease activity without additional immunosuppression for up to 1 year after treatment.

Dr. Schett reported no potential conflicts of interest, and the study he presented was not funded by industry. Dr. Cortés-Hernández reported a financial relationship with Novartis, which funded the study of the CAR T-cell therapy YTB323, as well as with GlaxoSmithKline, which was not involved in the study she presented.  Mr. Deener is an employee of iCell Gene Therapeutics, which provided funding for the trial he presented.

August 7, 2024 — Editor's note: This article was updated with additional disclosure information for Dr. Josefina Cortés-Hernández.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.