Rheumatology News

TOPLINE: 

Patients with psoriasis, uveitis, or colitis who present with undiagnosed chronic back pain should be referred to a rheumatologist for the assessment of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), with MRI being a more accurate diagnostic method than clinical features.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers assessed the prevalence of axSpA according to the extra-articular presentation and human leukocyte antigen B27 (HLA-B27) status in two Canadian cohorts (SASPIC 1 and 2).
• Overall, 363 adult patients aged ≤ 45 years with psoriasis, uveitis, or colitis who presented with chronic undiagnosed back and/or buttock pain lasting 3 months or more were included.
• Participants were referred to rheumatologists with expertise in axSpA for structured diagnostic evaluations, including history, physical exam, levels of C-reactive protein, HLA-B27 status, and imaging studies.
• An MRI of the sacroiliac joints was conducted in all patients in the SASPIC-2 cohort and in 62.3% of those in the SASPIC-1 cohort.
• The primary outcome was the proportion of patients diagnosed with axSpA after final global evaluation, and the secondary outcome was the impact of MRI on diagnosis and classification.

TAKEAWAY:

• AxSpA diagnoses were made in 46.7% with psoriasis, 61.6% with uveitis, and 46.8% with colitis in the SASPIC-1 cohort and in 23.5%, 57.9%, and 23.3%, respectively, in the SASPIC-2 cohort.
• Being positive for HLA-B27 was linked to the presence of axSpA in 56%-88% of those in both the cohorts.
• Musculoskeletal clinical features were not helpful in differentiating between patients with and without axSpA.
• In both the cohorts, the MRI of the sacroiliac joints was indicative of axSpA in a significantly greater number of patients with psoriasis, uveitis, or colitis who were diagnosed with axSpA than in those not diagnosed with axSpA (P < .05 for all).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our data supports the benefit of recent referral recommendations that advocate referral to a rheumatologist of patients with chronic back pain and extra-articular features related to axSpA,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Walter P. Maksymowych, MB ChB, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. It was published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

MRI readers had to rely on their own expertise to decide if an MRI was indeed positive and thus indicative of axSpA. This study included only patients with undiagnosed back pain, and a longer follow-up duration could have led to a higher number of patients being diagnosed with axial inflammation. In SASPIC-1, local rheumatologists conducted MRI evaluations of the spinal lesions only when necessary, while in SASPIC-2, MRI of only the sacroiliac joints was required.

DISCLOSURES:

SASPIC-1 was supported by AbbVie Canada and Janssen Canada, and SASPIC-2 was supported by AbbVie Canada. The authors disclosed receiving grants, consulting fees, speaking fees, and/or honoraria and having other ties with AbbVie and several other pharmaceutical companies.

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: 

Patients with psoriasis, uveitis, or colitis who present with undiagnosed chronic back pain should be referred to a rheumatologist for the assessment of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), with MRI being a more accurate diagnostic method than clinical features.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers assessed the prevalence of axSpA according to the extra-articular presentation and human leukocyte antigen B27 (HLA-B27) status in two Canadian cohorts (SASPIC 1 and 2).
• Overall, 363 adult patients aged ≤ 45 years with psoriasis, uveitis, or colitis who presented with chronic undiagnosed back and/or buttock pain lasting 3 months or more were included.
• Participants were referred to rheumatologists with expertise in axSpA for structured diagnostic evaluations, including history, physical exam, levels of C-reactive protein, HLA-B27 status, and imaging studies.
• An MRI of the sacroiliac joints was conducted in all patients in the SASPIC-2 cohort and in 62.3% of those in the SASPIC-1 cohort.
• The primary outcome was the proportion of patients diagnosed with axSpA after final global evaluation, and the secondary outcome was the impact of MRI on diagnosis and classification.

TAKEAWAY:

• AxSpA diagnoses were made in 46.7% with psoriasis, 61.6% with uveitis, and 46.8% with colitis in the SASPIC-1 cohort and in 23.5%, 57.9%, and 23.3%, respectively, in the SASPIC-2 cohort.
• Being positive for HLA-B27 was linked to the presence of axSpA in 56%-88% of those in both the cohorts.
• Musculoskeletal clinical features were not helpful in differentiating between patients with and without axSpA.
• In both the cohorts, the MRI of the sacroiliac joints was indicative of axSpA in a significantly greater number of patients with psoriasis, uveitis, or colitis who were diagnosed with axSpA than in those not diagnosed with axSpA (P < .05 for all).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our data supports the benefit of recent referral recommendations that advocate referral to a rheumatologist of patients with chronic back pain and extra-articular features related to axSpA,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Walter P. Maksymowych, MB ChB, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. It was published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

MRI readers had to rely on their own expertise to decide if an MRI was indeed positive and thus indicative of axSpA. This study included only patients with undiagnosed back pain, and a longer follow-up duration could have led to a higher number of patients being diagnosed with axial inflammation. In SASPIC-1, local rheumatologists conducted MRI evaluations of the spinal lesions only when necessary, while in SASPIC-2, MRI of only the sacroiliac joints was required.

DISCLOSURES:

SASPIC-1 was supported by AbbVie Canada and Janssen Canada, and SASPIC-2 was supported by AbbVie Canada. The authors disclosed receiving grants, consulting fees, speaking fees, and/or honoraria and having other ties with AbbVie and several other pharmaceutical companies.

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: 

Patients with psoriasis, uveitis, or colitis who present with undiagnosed chronic back pain should be referred to a rheumatologist for the assessment of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), with MRI being a more accurate diagnostic method than clinical features.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers assessed the prevalence of axSpA according to the extra-articular presentation and human leukocyte antigen B27 (HLA-B27) status in two Canadian cohorts (SASPIC 1 and 2).
• Overall, 363 adult patients aged ≤ 45 years with psoriasis, uveitis, or colitis who presented with chronic undiagnosed back and/or buttock pain lasting 3 months or more were included.
• Participants were referred to rheumatologists with expertise in axSpA for structured diagnostic evaluations, including history, physical exam, levels of C-reactive protein, HLA-B27 status, and imaging studies.
• An MRI of the sacroiliac joints was conducted in all patients in the SASPIC-2 cohort and in 62.3% of those in the SASPIC-1 cohort.
• The primary outcome was the proportion of patients diagnosed with axSpA after final global evaluation, and the secondary outcome was the impact of MRI on diagnosis and classification.

TAKEAWAY:

• AxSpA diagnoses were made in 46.7% with psoriasis, 61.6% with uveitis, and 46.8% with colitis in the SASPIC-1 cohort and in 23.5%, 57.9%, and 23.3%, respectively, in the SASPIC-2 cohort.
• Being positive for HLA-B27 was linked to the presence of axSpA in 56%-88% of those in both the cohorts.
• Musculoskeletal clinical features were not helpful in differentiating between patients with and without axSpA.
• In both the cohorts, the MRI of the sacroiliac joints was indicative of axSpA in a significantly greater number of patients with psoriasis, uveitis, or colitis who were diagnosed with axSpA than in those not diagnosed with axSpA (P < .05 for all).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our data supports the benefit of recent referral recommendations that advocate referral to a rheumatologist of patients with chronic back pain and extra-articular features related to axSpA,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Walter P. Maksymowych, MB ChB, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. It was published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

MRI readers had to rely on their own expertise to decide if an MRI was indeed positive and thus indicative of axSpA. This study included only patients with undiagnosed back pain, and a longer follow-up duration could have led to a higher number of patients being diagnosed with axial inflammation. In SASPIC-1, local rheumatologists conducted MRI evaluations of the spinal lesions only when necessary, while in SASPIC-2, MRI of only the sacroiliac joints was required.

DISCLOSURES:

SASPIC-1 was supported by AbbVie Canada and Janssen Canada, and SASPIC-2 was supported by AbbVie Canada. The authors disclosed receiving grants, consulting fees, speaking fees, and/or honoraria and having other ties with AbbVie and several other pharmaceutical companies.

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.

Rising consolidation among pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) allows the companies to profit at the expense of patients and independent pharmacists. That’s the conclusion of a recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report on interim findings from the agency’s ongoing investigation of PBMs. 

Lawmakers are increasingly scrutinizing the industry amid growing concern among physicians and consumers about how PBMs exploit their market dominance. The top six PBMs managed 94% of US drug claims in 2023, with the majority handled by the industry’s three giants: CVS Caremark, Cigna’s Express Scripts, and United Healthcare’s OptumRx.

PBMs manage prescription drug benefits for health insurers, Medicare Part D drug plans, and large employers. They act as middlemen between health insurers and pharmacies, developing formularies of covered drugs and promising savings from the discounts and rebates they negotiate with drugmakers.

The FTC’s interim report found that the giant PBMs often exercise significant control over what drugs are available and at what price and which pharmacies patients can use to access their prescribed medications. Consumers suffer as a result, the report concluded.

Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, shared her perspective on the FTC report in an email Q&A with this news organization. She is affiliated with The Rheumatology Group, based in Metairie, Louisiana. 

Dr. Feldman has long tracked the PBM industry and appeared as a witness before influential government panels, including the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She has highlighted for lawmakers the challenges physicians face in helping patients get needed medicines. 

For example, she shared cases of PBMs steering patients toward the more expensive of three widely used rheumatoid arthritis medicines that have a similar mechanism of action, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Feldman said. 

One of the drugs cost roughly half of the other two — about $30,000 per year vs $65,000-$70,000. Yet only the two expensive drugs were included in the PBM formulary. As a result, the cheapest drug holds only a sliver of market share; the remainder is dominated by the two expensive products, she told the House Oversight and Accountability Committee in 2021.

This Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.

What would you want federal and state policymakers to do in response to the FTC’s report?

I think Congress needs to clearly delineate the differences between anticompetitive pharmacy issues, drug pricing issues, and their effect on formulary construction issues.

Lawmakers should demand more transparency and consider legislation that would remove perverse incentives that prompt PBMs to choose higher priced drugs for their formularies. 

That may require other regulatory or legislative actions to ensure lower prices (not higher kickbacks) are incentivized. Ultimately, in order to gain true competition within the health insurance business, these oligopolies of multiple businesses need to be broken up. Anything less seems to be nibbling around the edges and allows the Big Three to continue their “whack-a mole” in circumventing piecemeal regulatory and legislative policies.

You’ve followed PBM practices closely for many years. Was there anything in this interim FTC report that surprised you?

Though not surprised, I am glad that it was released because it had been a year in investigation and there were many requests for some type of substantive report. 

Two things that are missing that I feel are paramount are investigating how the three big PBMs are causing physical harm to patients as a result of the profit component in formulary construction and the profound financial impact of hidden PBM profit centers in self-insured employer health plans.

What we have seen over the years is the result of the perverse incentives for the PBMs to prefer the most profitable medications on their formularies. 

They use utilization management tools such as step therapy, nonmedical switching, and exclusions to maintain their formularies’ profitability. These tools have been shown to delay and deny the proper care of patients, resulting in not just monetary but physical harm as well. 

I would think the physical harm done to patients in manipulating the formularies should be addressed in this report as well and, in fact, may be the most important aspect of consumer protection of this issue.

In terms of the FTC’s mission to not “unduly burden” legitimate business, I would like to see the sector of self-insured employers addressed. 

The report details how PBMs steer prescriptions to their affiliated pharmacies. The FTC says that can push smaller pharmacies out of the market, ultimately leading to higher costs and lower quality services for people. What’s your perspective? 

Having more community pharmacies is better than having less. We are seeing more “pharmacy deserts” in rural areas as a result of many community pharmacies having to close.

The FTC voted 4-1 to allow staff to issue the interim report, with Commissioner Melissa Holyoak voting no. And some FTC commissioners seem divided on the usefulness of the report. Why?

Commissioner Holyoak states the “the Report leaves us without a better understanding of the competition concerns surrounding PBMs or how consumers are impacted by PBM practices.” 

I do agree with her that the harm to patients’ medical status was not even addressed as far as I could tell in this report. There are multiple news articles and reports on the harms inflicted upon patients by the UM tools that drive the construction of ever changing formularies, all based on contracting with manufacturers that result in the highest profit for the PBM.

Holyoak also states, “Among other critical conclusions, the Report does not address the seemingly contradictory conclusions in the 2005 Report that PBMs, including vertically owned PBMs, generated cost savings for consumers.” 

That may be true, but in 2005, the rise of PBMs was just beginning and the huge vertical and horizontal integration had yet to begin. Also, 2005 was still in the beginning of the biologic drug deluge, which did create competition to get on the formulary. Since then, PBMs have done nothing to control the rise in prices but instead, apparently have used the competition to get higher price concessions from manufacturers based on a percentage of the list price to line their pockets.

Commissioner Ferguson agreed with releasing the report but he had many issues with this report including the lack of PBM response. 

I do agree with him that the FTC should have used some type of “force” to get the information they needed from the PBMs. The Big Three are known for obfuscation and delaying providing information to legislative and regulatory agencies.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rising consolidation among pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) allows the companies to profit at the expense of patients and independent pharmacists. That’s the conclusion of a recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report on interim findings from the agency’s ongoing investigation of PBMs. 

Lawmakers are increasingly scrutinizing the industry amid growing concern among physicians and consumers about how PBMs exploit their market dominance. The top six PBMs managed 94% of US drug claims in 2023, with the majority handled by the industry’s three giants: CVS Caremark, Cigna’s Express Scripts, and United Healthcare’s OptumRx.

PBMs manage prescription drug benefits for health insurers, Medicare Part D drug plans, and large employers. They act as middlemen between health insurers and pharmacies, developing formularies of covered drugs and promising savings from the discounts and rebates they negotiate with drugmakers.

The FTC’s interim report found that the giant PBMs often exercise significant control over what drugs are available and at what price and which pharmacies patients can use to access their prescribed medications. Consumers suffer as a result, the report concluded.

Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, shared her perspective on the FTC report in an email Q&A with this news organization. She is affiliated with The Rheumatology Group, based in Metairie, Louisiana. 

Dr. Feldman has long tracked the PBM industry and appeared as a witness before influential government panels, including the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She has highlighted for lawmakers the challenges physicians face in helping patients get needed medicines. 

For example, she shared cases of PBMs steering patients toward the more expensive of three widely used rheumatoid arthritis medicines that have a similar mechanism of action, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Feldman said. 

One of the drugs cost roughly half of the other two — about $30,000 per year vs $65,000-$70,000. Yet only the two expensive drugs were included in the PBM formulary. As a result, the cheapest drug holds only a sliver of market share; the remainder is dominated by the two expensive products, she told the House Oversight and Accountability Committee in 2021.

This Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.

What would you want federal and state policymakers to do in response to the FTC’s report?

I think Congress needs to clearly delineate the differences between anticompetitive pharmacy issues, drug pricing issues, and their effect on formulary construction issues.

Lawmakers should demand more transparency and consider legislation that would remove perverse incentives that prompt PBMs to choose higher priced drugs for their formularies. 

That may require other regulatory or legislative actions to ensure lower prices (not higher kickbacks) are incentivized. Ultimately, in order to gain true competition within the health insurance business, these oligopolies of multiple businesses need to be broken up. Anything less seems to be nibbling around the edges and allows the Big Three to continue their “whack-a mole” in circumventing piecemeal regulatory and legislative policies.

You’ve followed PBM practices closely for many years. Was there anything in this interim FTC report that surprised you?

Though not surprised, I am glad that it was released because it had been a year in investigation and there were many requests for some type of substantive report. 

Two things that are missing that I feel are paramount are investigating how the three big PBMs are causing physical harm to patients as a result of the profit component in formulary construction and the profound financial impact of hidden PBM profit centers in self-insured employer health plans.

What we have seen over the years is the result of the perverse incentives for the PBMs to prefer the most profitable medications on their formularies. 

They use utilization management tools such as step therapy, nonmedical switching, and exclusions to maintain their formularies’ profitability. These tools have been shown to delay and deny the proper care of patients, resulting in not just monetary but physical harm as well. 

I would think the physical harm done to patients in manipulating the formularies should be addressed in this report as well and, in fact, may be the most important aspect of consumer protection of this issue.

In terms of the FTC’s mission to not “unduly burden” legitimate business, I would like to see the sector of self-insured employers addressed. 

The report details how PBMs steer prescriptions to their affiliated pharmacies. The FTC says that can push smaller pharmacies out of the market, ultimately leading to higher costs and lower quality services for people. What’s your perspective? 

Having more community pharmacies is better than having less. We are seeing more “pharmacy deserts” in rural areas as a result of many community pharmacies having to close.

The FTC voted 4-1 to allow staff to issue the interim report, with Commissioner Melissa Holyoak voting no. And some FTC commissioners seem divided on the usefulness of the report. Why?

Commissioner Holyoak states the “the Report leaves us without a better understanding of the competition concerns surrounding PBMs or how consumers are impacted by PBM practices.” 

I do agree with her that the harm to patients’ medical status was not even addressed as far as I could tell in this report. There are multiple news articles and reports on the harms inflicted upon patients by the UM tools that drive the construction of ever changing formularies, all based on contracting with manufacturers that result in the highest profit for the PBM.

Holyoak also states, “Among other critical conclusions, the Report does not address the seemingly contradictory conclusions in the 2005 Report that PBMs, including vertically owned PBMs, generated cost savings for consumers.” 

That may be true, but in 2005, the rise of PBMs was just beginning and the huge vertical and horizontal integration had yet to begin. Also, 2005 was still in the beginning of the biologic drug deluge, which did create competition to get on the formulary. Since then, PBMs have done nothing to control the rise in prices but instead, apparently have used the competition to get higher price concessions from manufacturers based on a percentage of the list price to line their pockets.

Commissioner Ferguson agreed with releasing the report but he had many issues with this report including the lack of PBM response. 

I do agree with him that the FTC should have used some type of “force” to get the information they needed from the PBMs. The Big Three are known for obfuscation and delaying providing information to legislative and regulatory agencies.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rising consolidation among pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) allows the companies to profit at the expense of patients and independent pharmacists. That’s the conclusion of a recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report on interim findings from the agency’s ongoing investigation of PBMs. 

Lawmakers are increasingly scrutinizing the industry amid growing concern among physicians and consumers about how PBMs exploit their market dominance. The top six PBMs managed 94% of US drug claims in 2023, with the majority handled by the industry’s three giants: CVS Caremark, Cigna’s Express Scripts, and United Healthcare’s OptumRx.

PBMs manage prescription drug benefits for health insurers, Medicare Part D drug plans, and large employers. They act as middlemen between health insurers and pharmacies, developing formularies of covered drugs and promising savings from the discounts and rebates they negotiate with drugmakers.

The FTC’s interim report found that the giant PBMs often exercise significant control over what drugs are available and at what price and which pharmacies patients can use to access their prescribed medications. Consumers suffer as a result, the report concluded.

Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, shared her perspective on the FTC report in an email Q&A with this news organization. She is affiliated with The Rheumatology Group, based in Metairie, Louisiana. 

Dr. Feldman has long tracked the PBM industry and appeared as a witness before influential government panels, including the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She has highlighted for lawmakers the challenges physicians face in helping patients get needed medicines. 

For example, she shared cases of PBMs steering patients toward the more expensive of three widely used rheumatoid arthritis medicines that have a similar mechanism of action, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Feldman said. 

One of the drugs cost roughly half of the other two — about $30,000 per year vs $65,000-$70,000. Yet only the two expensive drugs were included in the PBM formulary. As a result, the cheapest drug holds only a sliver of market share; the remainder is dominated by the two expensive products, she told the House Oversight and Accountability Committee in 2021.

This Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.

What would you want federal and state policymakers to do in response to the FTC’s report?

I think Congress needs to clearly delineate the differences between anticompetitive pharmacy issues, drug pricing issues, and their effect on formulary construction issues.

Lawmakers should demand more transparency and consider legislation that would remove perverse incentives that prompt PBMs to choose higher priced drugs for their formularies. 

That may require other regulatory or legislative actions to ensure lower prices (not higher kickbacks) are incentivized. Ultimately, in order to gain true competition within the health insurance business, these oligopolies of multiple businesses need to be broken up. Anything less seems to be nibbling around the edges and allows the Big Three to continue their “whack-a mole” in circumventing piecemeal regulatory and legislative policies.

You’ve followed PBM practices closely for many years. Was there anything in this interim FTC report that surprised you?

Though not surprised, I am glad that it was released because it had been a year in investigation and there were many requests for some type of substantive report. 

Two things that are missing that I feel are paramount are investigating how the three big PBMs are causing physical harm to patients as a result of the profit component in formulary construction and the profound financial impact of hidden PBM profit centers in self-insured employer health plans.

What we have seen over the years is the result of the perverse incentives for the PBMs to prefer the most profitable medications on their formularies. 

They use utilization management tools such as step therapy, nonmedical switching, and exclusions to maintain their formularies’ profitability. These tools have been shown to delay and deny the proper care of patients, resulting in not just monetary but physical harm as well. 

I would think the physical harm done to patients in manipulating the formularies should be addressed in this report as well and, in fact, may be the most important aspect of consumer protection of this issue.

In terms of the FTC’s mission to not “unduly burden” legitimate business, I would like to see the sector of self-insured employers addressed. 

The report details how PBMs steer prescriptions to their affiliated pharmacies. The FTC says that can push smaller pharmacies out of the market, ultimately leading to higher costs and lower quality services for people. What’s your perspective? 

Having more community pharmacies is better than having less. We are seeing more “pharmacy deserts” in rural areas as a result of many community pharmacies having to close.

The FTC voted 4-1 to allow staff to issue the interim report, with Commissioner Melissa Holyoak voting no. And some FTC commissioners seem divided on the usefulness of the report. Why?

Commissioner Holyoak states the “the Report leaves us without a better understanding of the competition concerns surrounding PBMs or how consumers are impacted by PBM practices.” 

I do agree with her that the harm to patients’ medical status was not even addressed as far as I could tell in this report. There are multiple news articles and reports on the harms inflicted upon patients by the UM tools that drive the construction of ever changing formularies, all based on contracting with manufacturers that result in the highest profit for the PBM.

Holyoak also states, “Among other critical conclusions, the Report does not address the seemingly contradictory conclusions in the 2005 Report that PBMs, including vertically owned PBMs, generated cost savings for consumers.” 

That may be true, but in 2005, the rise of PBMs was just beginning and the huge vertical and horizontal integration had yet to begin. Also, 2005 was still in the beginning of the biologic drug deluge, which did create competition to get on the formulary. Since then, PBMs have done nothing to control the rise in prices but instead, apparently have used the competition to get higher price concessions from manufacturers based on a percentage of the list price to line their pockets.

Commissioner Ferguson agreed with releasing the report but he had many issues with this report including the lack of PBM response. 

I do agree with him that the FTC should have used some type of “force” to get the information they needed from the PBMs. The Big Three are known for obfuscation and delaying providing information to legislative and regulatory agencies.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) has revoked certification for two physicians known for leading an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

Pierre Kory, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine, pulmonary disease, and internal medicine, according to the ABIM website. Paul Ellis Marik, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine or internal medicine. 

Dr. Marik is the chief scientific officer and Dr. Kory is president emeritus of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, a group they founded in March 2020. The FLCCC gained notoriety during the height of the pandemic for advocating ivermectin as a treatment for COVID. It now espouses regimens of supplements to treat “vaccine injury” and also offers treatments for Lyme disease.

Ivermectin was proven to not be of use in treating COVID. Studies purporting to show a benefit were later linked to errors, and some were found to have been based on potentially fraudulent research.

The ABIM declined to comment when asked by this news organization about its action. Its website indicates that “revoked” indicates “loss of certification due to disciplinary action for which ABIM has determined that the conduct underlying the sanction does not warrant a defined pathway for restoration of certification at the time of disciplinary sanction.”

In a statement emailed to this news organization, Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik said, “we believe this decision represents a dangerous shift away from the foundation principles of medical discourse and scientific debate that have historically been the bedrock of medical education associations.”

The FLCCC said in the statement that it, along with Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik, are “evaluating options to challenge these decisions.”

Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik said they were notified in May 2022 that they were facing a potential ABIM disciplinary action. An ABIM committee recommended the revocation in July 2023, saying the two men were spreading “false or inaccurate medical information,” according to FLCCC. Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik lost an appeal. 

In a 2023 statement, Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik called the ABIM action an “attack on freedom of speech.”

“This isn’t a free speech question,” said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, the Drs. William F. and Virginia Connolly Mitty Professor of Bioethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine’s Department of Population Health, New York City. “You do have the right to free speech, but you don’t have the right to practice outside of the standard of care boundaries,” he told this news organization.

The ABIM action “is the field standing up and saying, ‘These are the limits of what you can do,’” said Dr. Caplan. It means the profession is rejecting those “who are involved in things that harm patients or delay them getting accepted treatments,” he said. Caplan noted that a disciplinary action had been a long time in coming — 3 years since the first battles over ivermectin. 

Wendy Parmet, JD, Matthews Distinguished University Professor of Law at Northeastern University School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs, Boston, said that misinformation spread by physicians is especially harmful because it comes with an air of credibility.

“We certainly want people to be able to dissent,” Ms. Parmet told this news organization. To engender trust, any sanctions by a professional board should be done in a deliberative process with a strong evidentiary base, she said. 

“You want to leave sufficient room for discourse and discussion within the profession, and you don’t want the board to enforce a narrow, rigid orthodoxy,” she said. But in cases where people are “peddling information that is way outside the consensus” or are “profiting off of it, for the profession to take no action, that is, I think, detrimental also to the trust in the profession,” she said.

She was not surprised that Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik would fight to retain certification. “Board certification is an important, very worthwhile thing to have,” she said. “Losing it is not trivial.”

Dr. Kory, who is licensed in California, New York, and Wisconsin, “does not require this certification for his independent practice but is evaluating next steps with attorneys,” according to the statement from FLCCC.

Dr. Marik, whose Virginia medical license expired in 2022, “is no longer treating patients and has dedicated his time and efforts to the FLCCC Alliance,” the statement said.

Dr. Caplan served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position) and is a contributing author and advisor for this news organization. Ms. Parmet reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) has revoked certification for two physicians known for leading an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

Pierre Kory, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine, pulmonary disease, and internal medicine, according to the ABIM website. Paul Ellis Marik, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine or internal medicine. 

Dr. Marik is the chief scientific officer and Dr. Kory is president emeritus of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, a group they founded in March 2020. The FLCCC gained notoriety during the height of the pandemic for advocating ivermectin as a treatment for COVID. It now espouses regimens of supplements to treat “vaccine injury” and also offers treatments for Lyme disease.

Ivermectin was proven to not be of use in treating COVID. Studies purporting to show a benefit were later linked to errors, and some were found to have been based on potentially fraudulent research.

The ABIM declined to comment when asked by this news organization about its action. Its website indicates that “revoked” indicates “loss of certification due to disciplinary action for which ABIM has determined that the conduct underlying the sanction does not warrant a defined pathway for restoration of certification at the time of disciplinary sanction.”

In a statement emailed to this news organization, Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik said, “we believe this decision represents a dangerous shift away from the foundation principles of medical discourse and scientific debate that have historically been the bedrock of medical education associations.”

The FLCCC said in the statement that it, along with Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik, are “evaluating options to challenge these decisions.”

Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik said they were notified in May 2022 that they were facing a potential ABIM disciplinary action. An ABIM committee recommended the revocation in July 2023, saying the two men were spreading “false or inaccurate medical information,” according to FLCCC. Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik lost an appeal. 

In a 2023 statement, Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik called the ABIM action an “attack on freedom of speech.”

“This isn’t a free speech question,” said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, the Drs. William F. and Virginia Connolly Mitty Professor of Bioethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine’s Department of Population Health, New York City. “You do have the right to free speech, but you don’t have the right to practice outside of the standard of care boundaries,” he told this news organization.

The ABIM action “is the field standing up and saying, ‘These are the limits of what you can do,’” said Dr. Caplan. It means the profession is rejecting those “who are involved in things that harm patients or delay them getting accepted treatments,” he said. Caplan noted that a disciplinary action had been a long time in coming — 3 years since the first battles over ivermectin. 

Wendy Parmet, JD, Matthews Distinguished University Professor of Law at Northeastern University School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs, Boston, said that misinformation spread by physicians is especially harmful because it comes with an air of credibility.

“We certainly want people to be able to dissent,” Ms. Parmet told this news organization. To engender trust, any sanctions by a professional board should be done in a deliberative process with a strong evidentiary base, she said. 

“You want to leave sufficient room for discourse and discussion within the profession, and you don’t want the board to enforce a narrow, rigid orthodoxy,” she said. But in cases where people are “peddling information that is way outside the consensus” or are “profiting off of it, for the profession to take no action, that is, I think, detrimental also to the trust in the profession,” she said.

She was not surprised that Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik would fight to retain certification. “Board certification is an important, very worthwhile thing to have,” she said. “Losing it is not trivial.”

Dr. Kory, who is licensed in California, New York, and Wisconsin, “does not require this certification for his independent practice but is evaluating next steps with attorneys,” according to the statement from FLCCC.

Dr. Marik, whose Virginia medical license expired in 2022, “is no longer treating patients and has dedicated his time and efforts to the FLCCC Alliance,” the statement said.

Dr. Caplan served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position) and is a contributing author and advisor for this news organization. Ms. Parmet reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) has revoked certification for two physicians known for leading an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

Pierre Kory, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine, pulmonary disease, and internal medicine, according to the ABIM website. Paul Ellis Marik, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine or internal medicine. 

Dr. Marik is the chief scientific officer and Dr. Kory is president emeritus of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, a group they founded in March 2020. The FLCCC gained notoriety during the height of the pandemic for advocating ivermectin as a treatment for COVID. It now espouses regimens of supplements to treat “vaccine injury” and also offers treatments for Lyme disease.

Ivermectin was proven to not be of use in treating COVID. Studies purporting to show a benefit were later linked to errors, and some were found to have been based on potentially fraudulent research.

The ABIM declined to comment when asked by this news organization about its action. Its website indicates that “revoked” indicates “loss of certification due to disciplinary action for which ABIM has determined that the conduct underlying the sanction does not warrant a defined pathway for restoration of certification at the time of disciplinary sanction.”

In a statement emailed to this news organization, Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik said, “we believe this decision represents a dangerous shift away from the foundation principles of medical discourse and scientific debate that have historically been the bedrock of medical education associations.”

The FLCCC said in the statement that it, along with Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik, are “evaluating options to challenge these decisions.”

Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik said they were notified in May 2022 that they were facing a potential ABIM disciplinary action. An ABIM committee recommended the revocation in July 2023, saying the two men were spreading “false or inaccurate medical information,” according to FLCCC. Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik lost an appeal. 

In a 2023 statement, Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik called the ABIM action an “attack on freedom of speech.”

“This isn’t a free speech question,” said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, the Drs. William F. and Virginia Connolly Mitty Professor of Bioethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine’s Department of Population Health, New York City. “You do have the right to free speech, but you don’t have the right to practice outside of the standard of care boundaries,” he told this news organization.

The ABIM action “is the field standing up and saying, ‘These are the limits of what you can do,’” said Dr. Caplan. It means the profession is rejecting those “who are involved in things that harm patients or delay them getting accepted treatments,” he said. Caplan noted that a disciplinary action had been a long time in coming — 3 years since the first battles over ivermectin. 

Wendy Parmet, JD, Matthews Distinguished University Professor of Law at Northeastern University School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs, Boston, said that misinformation spread by physicians is especially harmful because it comes with an air of credibility.

“We certainly want people to be able to dissent,” Ms. Parmet told this news organization. To engender trust, any sanctions by a professional board should be done in a deliberative process with a strong evidentiary base, she said. 

“You want to leave sufficient room for discourse and discussion within the profession, and you don’t want the board to enforce a narrow, rigid orthodoxy,” she said. But in cases where people are “peddling information that is way outside the consensus” or are “profiting off of it, for the profession to take no action, that is, I think, detrimental also to the trust in the profession,” she said.

She was not surprised that Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik would fight to retain certification. “Board certification is an important, very worthwhile thing to have,” she said. “Losing it is not trivial.”

Dr. Kory, who is licensed in California, New York, and Wisconsin, “does not require this certification for his independent practice but is evaluating next steps with attorneys,” according to the statement from FLCCC.

Dr. Marik, whose Virginia medical license expired in 2022, “is no longer treating patients and has dedicated his time and efforts to the FLCCC Alliance,” the statement said.

Dr. Caplan served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position) and is a contributing author and advisor for this news organization. Ms. Parmet reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly 10% of patients with chronic pain treated with opioids develop opioid use disorder, whereas 30% show signs and symptoms of dependence, highlighting the need for monitoring and alternative pain management strategies. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases from inception to January 27, 2021.
• The studies analyzed were predominantly from the United States (n = 115) as well as high-income countries such as the United Kingdom (n = 5), France (n = 3), Spain (n = 4), Germany (n = 4), and Australia (n = 2).
• A total of 148 studies from various settings with over 4.3 million participants were included, focusing on patients aged ≥ 12 years with chronic non-cancer pain of ≥ 3 months duration, treated with opioid analgesics.
• Problematic opioid use was categorized into four categories: dependence and opioid use disorder, signs and symptoms of dependence and opioid use disorder, aberrant behavior, and at risk for dependence and opioid use disorder.

TAKEAWAY:

• The pooled prevalence of dependence and opioid use disorder was 9.3% (95% CI, 5.7%-14.8%), with significant heterogeneity across studies.
• Signs and symptoms of dependence were observed in 29.6% (95% CI, 22.1%-38.3%) of patients, indicating a high prevalence of problematic opioid use.
• Aberrant behavior was reported in 22% (95% CI, 17.4%-27.3%) of patients, highlighting the need for careful monitoring and intervention.
• The prevalence of patients at risk of developing dependence was 12.4% (95% CI, 4.3%-30.7%), suggesting the importance of early identification and prevention strategies.

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians and policymakers need a more accurate estimate of the prevalence of problematic opioid use in pain patients so that they can gauge the true extent of the problem, change prescribing guidance if necessary, and develop and implement effective interventions to manage the problem,” Kyla H. Thomas, PhD, the lead author, noted in a press release. Knowing the size of the problem is a necessary step to managing it, she added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Dr. Thomas, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol in England. It was published online, in Addiction. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s high heterogeneity across included studies suggests caution in interpreting the findings. The reliance on self-reported data and varying definitions of problematic opioid use may affect the accuracy of prevalence estimates. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries, limiting the generalizability to other settings. 

DISCLOSURES: 

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). Dr. Thomas reported receiving financial support from the NIHR for this study.

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:

Nearly 10% of patients with chronic pain treated with opioids develop opioid use disorder, whereas 30% show signs and symptoms of dependence, highlighting the need for monitoring and alternative pain management strategies. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases from inception to January 27, 2021.
• The studies analyzed were predominantly from the United States (n = 115) as well as high-income countries such as the United Kingdom (n = 5), France (n = 3), Spain (n = 4), Germany (n = 4), and Australia (n = 2).
• A total of 148 studies from various settings with over 4.3 million participants were included, focusing on patients aged ≥ 12 years with chronic non-cancer pain of ≥ 3 months duration, treated with opioid analgesics.
• Problematic opioid use was categorized into four categories: dependence and opioid use disorder, signs and symptoms of dependence and opioid use disorder, aberrant behavior, and at risk for dependence and opioid use disorder.

TAKEAWAY:

• The pooled prevalence of dependence and opioid use disorder was 9.3% (95% CI, 5.7%-14.8%), with significant heterogeneity across studies.
• Signs and symptoms of dependence were observed in 29.6% (95% CI, 22.1%-38.3%) of patients, indicating a high prevalence of problematic opioid use.
• Aberrant behavior was reported in 22% (95% CI, 17.4%-27.3%) of patients, highlighting the need for careful monitoring and intervention.
• The prevalence of patients at risk of developing dependence was 12.4% (95% CI, 4.3%-30.7%), suggesting the importance of early identification and prevention strategies.

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians and policymakers need a more accurate estimate of the prevalence of problematic opioid use in pain patients so that they can gauge the true extent of the problem, change prescribing guidance if necessary, and develop and implement effective interventions to manage the problem,” Kyla H. Thomas, PhD, the lead author, noted in a press release. Knowing the size of the problem is a necessary step to managing it, she added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Dr. Thomas, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol in England. It was published online, in Addiction. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s high heterogeneity across included studies suggests caution in interpreting the findings. The reliance on self-reported data and varying definitions of problematic opioid use may affect the accuracy of prevalence estimates. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries, limiting the generalizability to other settings. 

DISCLOSURES: 

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). Dr. Thomas reported receiving financial support from the NIHR for this study.

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:

Nearly 10% of patients with chronic pain treated with opioids develop opioid use disorder, whereas 30% show signs and symptoms of dependence, highlighting the need for monitoring and alternative pain management strategies. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases from inception to January 27, 2021.
• The studies analyzed were predominantly from the United States (n = 115) as well as high-income countries such as the United Kingdom (n = 5), France (n = 3), Spain (n = 4), Germany (n = 4), and Australia (n = 2).
• A total of 148 studies from various settings with over 4.3 million participants were included, focusing on patients aged ≥ 12 years with chronic non-cancer pain of ≥ 3 months duration, treated with opioid analgesics.
• Problematic opioid use was categorized into four categories: dependence and opioid use disorder, signs and symptoms of dependence and opioid use disorder, aberrant behavior, and at risk for dependence and opioid use disorder.

TAKEAWAY:

• The pooled prevalence of dependence and opioid use disorder was 9.3% (95% CI, 5.7%-14.8%), with significant heterogeneity across studies.
• Signs and symptoms of dependence were observed in 29.6% (95% CI, 22.1%-38.3%) of patients, indicating a high prevalence of problematic opioid use.
• Aberrant behavior was reported in 22% (95% CI, 17.4%-27.3%) of patients, highlighting the need for careful monitoring and intervention.
• The prevalence of patients at risk of developing dependence was 12.4% (95% CI, 4.3%-30.7%), suggesting the importance of early identification and prevention strategies.

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians and policymakers need a more accurate estimate of the prevalence of problematic opioid use in pain patients so that they can gauge the true extent of the problem, change prescribing guidance if necessary, and develop and implement effective interventions to manage the problem,” Kyla H. Thomas, PhD, the lead author, noted in a press release. Knowing the size of the problem is a necessary step to managing it, she added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Dr. Thomas, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol in England. It was published online, in Addiction. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s high heterogeneity across included studies suggests caution in interpreting the findings. The reliance on self-reported data and varying definitions of problematic opioid use may affect the accuracy of prevalence estimates. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries, limiting the generalizability to other settings. 

DISCLOSURES: 

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). Dr. Thomas reported receiving financial support from the NIHR for this study.

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.

The Heritage Foundation sponsored and developed Project 2025 for the explicit, stated purpose of building a conservative victory through policy, personnel, and training with a 180-day game plan after a sympathetic new President of the United States takes office. To date, Project 2025 has not been formally endorsed by any presidential campaign.

More than 100 conservative organizations are said to be participating. More than 400 conservative scholars and experts have collaborated in authorship of the mandate’s 40 chapters. Chapter 14 of the “Mandate for Leadership” is an exhaustive proposed overhaul of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), one of the major existing arms of the executive branch of the US government. 

The mandate’s sweeping recommendations, if implemented, would impact the lives of all Americans and all healthcare workers, as outlined in the following excerpts. 
 

Healthcare-Related Excerpts From Project 2025

• “From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.”
• “Unfortunately, family policies and programs under President Biden’s HHS are fraught with agenda items focusing on ‘LGBTQ+ equity,’ subsidizing single motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage. These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families.”
• “The next Administration should guard against the regulatory capture of our public health agencies by pharmaceutical companies, insurers, hospital conglomerates, and related economic interests that these agencies are meant to regulate. We must erect robust firewalls to mitigate these obvious financial conflicts of interest.”
• “All National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Food and Drug Administration regulators should be entirely free from private biopharmaceutical funding. In this realm, ‘public–private partnerships’ is a euphemism for agency capture, a thin veneer for corporatism. Funding for agencies and individual government researchers must come directly from the government with robust congressional oversight.”
• “The CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] operates several programs related to vaccine safety including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS); Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD); and Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Project. Those functions and their associated funding should be transferred to the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], which is responsible for post-market surveillance and evaluation of all other drugs and biological products.”
• “Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism, HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method. It should also ensure that statistics are separated by category: spontaneous miscarriage; treatments that incidentally result in the death of a child (such as chemotherapy); stillbirths; and induced abortion. In addition, CDC should require monitoring and reporting for complications due to abortion and every instance of children being born alive after an abortion.”
• “The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities.”
• “A test developed by a lab in accordance with the protocols developed by another lab (non-commercial sharing) currently constitutes a ‘new’ laboratory-developed test because the lab in which it will be used is different from the initial developing lab. To encourage interlaboratory collaboration and discourage duplicative test creation (and associated regulatory and logistical burdens), the FDA should introduce mechanisms through which laboratory-developed tests can easily be shared with other laboratories without the current regulatory burdens.”
• “[FDA should] Reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs because the politicized approval process was illegal from the start. The FDA failed to abide by its legal obligations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of girls and women.”
• “[FDA should] Stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions in violation of long-standing federal laws that prohibit the mailing and interstate carriage of abortion drugs.”
• “[HHS should] Promptly restore the ethics advisory committee to oversee abortion-derived fetal tissue research, and Congress should prohibit such research altogether.”
• “[HHS should] End intramural research projects using tissue from aborted children within the NIH, which should end its human embryonic stem cell registry.”
• “Under Francis Collins, NIH became so focused on the #MeToo movement that it refused to sponsor scientific conferences unless there were a certain number of women panelists, which violates federal civil rights law against sex discrimination. This quota practice should be ended, and the NIH Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, which pushes such unlawful actions, should be abolished.”
• “Make Medicare Advantage [MA] the default enrollment option.”
• “[Legislation reforming legacy (non-MA) Medicare should] Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program and Inflation Reduction Act.”
• “…the next Administration should] Add work requirements and match Medicaid benefits to beneficiary needs. Because Medicaid serves a broad and diverse group of individuals, it should be flexible enough to accommodate different designs for different groups.”
• “The No Surprises Act should scrap the dispute resolution process in favor of a truth-in-advertising approach that will protect consumers and free doctors, insurers, and arbiters from confused and conflicting standards for resolving disputes that the disputing parties can best resolve themselves.”
• “Prohibit abortion travel funding. Providing funding for abortions increases the number of abortions and violates the conscience and religious freedom rights of Americans who object to subsidizing the taking of life.”
• “Prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. During the 2020–2021 reporting period, Planned Parenthood performed more than 383,000 abortions.”
• “Protect faith-based grant recipients from religious liberty violations and maintain a biblically based, social science–reinforced definition of marriage and family. Social science reports that assess the objective outcomes for children raised in homes aside from a heterosexual, intact marriage are clear.”
• “Allocate funding to strategy programs promoting father involvement or terminate parental rights quickly.”
• “Eliminate the Head Start program.”
• “Support palliative care. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is legal in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Legalizing PAS is a grave mistake that endangers the weak and vulnerable, corrupts the practice of medicine and the doctor–patient relationship, compromises the family and intergenerational commitments, and betrays human dignity and equality before the law.”
• “Eliminate men’s preventive services from the women’s preventive services mandate. In December 2021, HRSA [Health Resources and Services Administration] updated its women’s preventive services guidelines to include male condoms.”
• “Prioritize funding for home-based childcare, not universal day care.”
• “ The Office of the Secretary should eliminate the HHS Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force and install a pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children.”
• “The ASH [Assistant Secretary for Health] and SG [Surgeon General] positions should be combined into one four-star position with the rank, responsibilities, and authority of the ASH retained but with the title of Surgeon General.”
• “OCR [Office for Civil Rights] should withdraw its Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) guidance on abortion.”

Dr. Lundberg is Editor in Chief, Cancer Commons, and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Heritage Foundation sponsored and developed Project 2025 for the explicit, stated purpose of building a conservative victory through policy, personnel, and training with a 180-day game plan after a sympathetic new President of the United States takes office. To date, Project 2025 has not been formally endorsed by any presidential campaign.

More than 100 conservative organizations are said to be participating. More than 400 conservative scholars and experts have collaborated in authorship of the mandate’s 40 chapters. Chapter 14 of the “Mandate for Leadership” is an exhaustive proposed overhaul of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), one of the major existing arms of the executive branch of the US government. 

The mandate’s sweeping recommendations, if implemented, would impact the lives of all Americans and all healthcare workers, as outlined in the following excerpts. 
 

Healthcare-Related Excerpts From Project 2025

• “From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.”
• “Unfortunately, family policies and programs under President Biden’s HHS are fraught with agenda items focusing on ‘LGBTQ+ equity,’ subsidizing single motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage. These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families.”
• “The next Administration should guard against the regulatory capture of our public health agencies by pharmaceutical companies, insurers, hospital conglomerates, and related economic interests that these agencies are meant to regulate. We must erect robust firewalls to mitigate these obvious financial conflicts of interest.”
• “All National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Food and Drug Administration regulators should be entirely free from private biopharmaceutical funding. In this realm, ‘public–private partnerships’ is a euphemism for agency capture, a thin veneer for corporatism. Funding for agencies and individual government researchers must come directly from the government with robust congressional oversight.”
• “The CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] operates several programs related to vaccine safety including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS); Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD); and Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Project. Those functions and their associated funding should be transferred to the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], which is responsible for post-market surveillance and evaluation of all other drugs and biological products.”
• “Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism, HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method. It should also ensure that statistics are separated by category: spontaneous miscarriage; treatments that incidentally result in the death of a child (such as chemotherapy); stillbirths; and induced abortion. In addition, CDC should require monitoring and reporting for complications due to abortion and every instance of children being born alive after an abortion.”
• “The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities.”
• “A test developed by a lab in accordance with the protocols developed by another lab (non-commercial sharing) currently constitutes a ‘new’ laboratory-developed test because the lab in which it will be used is different from the initial developing lab. To encourage interlaboratory collaboration and discourage duplicative test creation (and associated regulatory and logistical burdens), the FDA should introduce mechanisms through which laboratory-developed tests can easily be shared with other laboratories without the current regulatory burdens.”
• “[FDA should] Reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs because the politicized approval process was illegal from the start. The FDA failed to abide by its legal obligations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of girls and women.”
• “[FDA should] Stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions in violation of long-standing federal laws that prohibit the mailing and interstate carriage of abortion drugs.”
• “[HHS should] Promptly restore the ethics advisory committee to oversee abortion-derived fetal tissue research, and Congress should prohibit such research altogether.”
• “[HHS should] End intramural research projects using tissue from aborted children within the NIH, which should end its human embryonic stem cell registry.”
• “Under Francis Collins, NIH became so focused on the #MeToo movement that it refused to sponsor scientific conferences unless there were a certain number of women panelists, which violates federal civil rights law against sex discrimination. This quota practice should be ended, and the NIH Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, which pushes such unlawful actions, should be abolished.”
• “Make Medicare Advantage [MA] the default enrollment option.”
• “[Legislation reforming legacy (non-MA) Medicare should] Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program and Inflation Reduction Act.”
• “…the next Administration should] Add work requirements and match Medicaid benefits to beneficiary needs. Because Medicaid serves a broad and diverse group of individuals, it should be flexible enough to accommodate different designs for different groups.”
• “The No Surprises Act should scrap the dispute resolution process in favor of a truth-in-advertising approach that will protect consumers and free doctors, insurers, and arbiters from confused and conflicting standards for resolving disputes that the disputing parties can best resolve themselves.”
• “Prohibit abortion travel funding. Providing funding for abortions increases the number of abortions and violates the conscience and religious freedom rights of Americans who object to subsidizing the taking of life.”
• “Prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. During the 2020–2021 reporting period, Planned Parenthood performed more than 383,000 abortions.”
• “Protect faith-based grant recipients from religious liberty violations and maintain a biblically based, social science–reinforced definition of marriage and family. Social science reports that assess the objective outcomes for children raised in homes aside from a heterosexual, intact marriage are clear.”
• “Allocate funding to strategy programs promoting father involvement or terminate parental rights quickly.”
• “Eliminate the Head Start program.”
• “Support palliative care. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is legal in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Legalizing PAS is a grave mistake that endangers the weak and vulnerable, corrupts the practice of medicine and the doctor–patient relationship, compromises the family and intergenerational commitments, and betrays human dignity and equality before the law.”
• “Eliminate men’s preventive services from the women’s preventive services mandate. In December 2021, HRSA [Health Resources and Services Administration] updated its women’s preventive services guidelines to include male condoms.”
• “Prioritize funding for home-based childcare, not universal day care.”
• “ The Office of the Secretary should eliminate the HHS Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force and install a pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children.”
• “The ASH [Assistant Secretary for Health] and SG [Surgeon General] positions should be combined into one four-star position with the rank, responsibilities, and authority of the ASH retained but with the title of Surgeon General.”
• “OCR [Office for Civil Rights] should withdraw its Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) guidance on abortion.”

Dr. Lundberg is Editor in Chief, Cancer Commons, and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Heritage Foundation sponsored and developed Project 2025 for the explicit, stated purpose of building a conservative victory through policy, personnel, and training with a 180-day game plan after a sympathetic new President of the United States takes office. To date, Project 2025 has not been formally endorsed by any presidential campaign.

More than 100 conservative organizations are said to be participating. More than 400 conservative scholars and experts have collaborated in authorship of the mandate’s 40 chapters. Chapter 14 of the “Mandate for Leadership” is an exhaustive proposed overhaul of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), one of the major existing arms of the executive branch of the US government. 

The mandate’s sweeping recommendations, if implemented, would impact the lives of all Americans and all healthcare workers, as outlined in the following excerpts. 
 

Healthcare-Related Excerpts From Project 2025

• “From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.”
• “Unfortunately, family policies and programs under President Biden’s HHS are fraught with agenda items focusing on ‘LGBTQ+ equity,’ subsidizing single motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage. These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families.”
• “The next Administration should guard against the regulatory capture of our public health agencies by pharmaceutical companies, insurers, hospital conglomerates, and related economic interests that these agencies are meant to regulate. We must erect robust firewalls to mitigate these obvious financial conflicts of interest.”
• “All National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Food and Drug Administration regulators should be entirely free from private biopharmaceutical funding. In this realm, ‘public–private partnerships’ is a euphemism for agency capture, a thin veneer for corporatism. Funding for agencies and individual government researchers must come directly from the government with robust congressional oversight.”
• “The CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] operates several programs related to vaccine safety including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS); Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD); and Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Project. Those functions and their associated funding should be transferred to the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], which is responsible for post-market surveillance and evaluation of all other drugs and biological products.”
• “Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism, HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method. It should also ensure that statistics are separated by category: spontaneous miscarriage; treatments that incidentally result in the death of a child (such as chemotherapy); stillbirths; and induced abortion. In addition, CDC should require monitoring and reporting for complications due to abortion and every instance of children being born alive after an abortion.”
• “The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities.”
• “A test developed by a lab in accordance with the protocols developed by another lab (non-commercial sharing) currently constitutes a ‘new’ laboratory-developed test because the lab in which it will be used is different from the initial developing lab. To encourage interlaboratory collaboration and discourage duplicative test creation (and associated regulatory and logistical burdens), the FDA should introduce mechanisms through which laboratory-developed tests can easily be shared with other laboratories without the current regulatory burdens.”
• “[FDA should] Reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs because the politicized approval process was illegal from the start. The FDA failed to abide by its legal obligations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of girls and women.”
• “[FDA should] Stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions in violation of long-standing federal laws that prohibit the mailing and interstate carriage of abortion drugs.”
• “[HHS should] Promptly restore the ethics advisory committee to oversee abortion-derived fetal tissue research, and Congress should prohibit such research altogether.”
• “[HHS should] End intramural research projects using tissue from aborted children within the NIH, which should end its human embryonic stem cell registry.”
• “Under Francis Collins, NIH became so focused on the #MeToo movement that it refused to sponsor scientific conferences unless there were a certain number of women panelists, which violates federal civil rights law against sex discrimination. This quota practice should be ended, and the NIH Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, which pushes such unlawful actions, should be abolished.”
• “Make Medicare Advantage [MA] the default enrollment option.”
• “[Legislation reforming legacy (non-MA) Medicare should] Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program and Inflation Reduction Act.”
• “…the next Administration should] Add work requirements and match Medicaid benefits to beneficiary needs. Because Medicaid serves a broad and diverse group of individuals, it should be flexible enough to accommodate different designs for different groups.”
• “The No Surprises Act should scrap the dispute resolution process in favor of a truth-in-advertising approach that will protect consumers and free doctors, insurers, and arbiters from confused and conflicting standards for resolving disputes that the disputing parties can best resolve themselves.”
• “Prohibit abortion travel funding. Providing funding for abortions increases the number of abortions and violates the conscience and religious freedom rights of Americans who object to subsidizing the taking of life.”
• “Prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. During the 2020–2021 reporting period, Planned Parenthood performed more than 383,000 abortions.”
• “Protect faith-based grant recipients from religious liberty violations and maintain a biblically based, social science–reinforced definition of marriage and family. Social science reports that assess the objective outcomes for children raised in homes aside from a heterosexual, intact marriage are clear.”
• “Allocate funding to strategy programs promoting father involvement or terminate parental rights quickly.”
• “Eliminate the Head Start program.”
• “Support palliative care. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is legal in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Legalizing PAS is a grave mistake that endangers the weak and vulnerable, corrupts the practice of medicine and the doctor–patient relationship, compromises the family and intergenerational commitments, and betrays human dignity and equality before the law.”
• “Eliminate men’s preventive services from the women’s preventive services mandate. In December 2021, HRSA [Health Resources and Services Administration] updated its women’s preventive services guidelines to include male condoms.”
• “Prioritize funding for home-based childcare, not universal day care.”
• “ The Office of the Secretary should eliminate the HHS Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force and install a pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children.”
• “The ASH [Assistant Secretary for Health] and SG [Surgeon General] positions should be combined into one four-star position with the rank, responsibilities, and authority of the ASH retained but with the title of Surgeon General.”
• “OCR [Office for Civil Rights] should withdraw its Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) guidance on abortion.”

Dr. Lundberg is Editor in Chief, Cancer Commons, and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

The first year after the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is crucial, with the highest percentage of patients experiencing organ damage. Cardiovascular issues are the second most prevalent after musculoskeletal damage in both early and later stages of SLE.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers assessed organ damage persisting at least 6 months over different stages of lupus in 4219 patients with SLE (mean age, 35.9 years; 89.6% women) from the Spanish Society of Rheumatology Lupus Registry.
• Damage was assessed using the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index (SDI).
• Longitudinal analysis was conducted globally and by each SDI domain on 1274 patients with recorded damage event dates.
• Follow-up data were available out to 10 years in 1113 patients and to 20 years in 601.

TAKEAWAY:

• New damage was recorded in 20% of the patients with SLE within the first year after diagnosis, with the annual percentage of patients with new damage decreasing to 5% after the first 5 years of follow-up.
• In the first year, musculoskeletal damage was reported by the highest proportion of patients (21%), followed by cardiovascular damage inclusive of cerebrovascular accidents and claudication for 6 months (19%).
• The cardiovascular system remained the second most affected system even during the later stages of the diseases at years 10 and 20 of follow-up (20%-25%).
• Apart from musculoskeletal and cardiovascular damage, patients with lupus also showed renal and ocular damage in the early and later stages of the disease, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study highlights the importance of cardiovascular damage and the need for its prevention during the earliest stages of the disease,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Irene Altabás-González, MD, PhD, Rheumatology Department, Vigo University Hospital Group, Vigo, Spain. It was published online in Lupus Science & Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective collection of data in the study may have led to missing items; for example, the dates of damage events for the whole cohort were not available. 

DISCLOSURES:

The registry was supported by the Spanish Society of Rheumatology. No specific funding was received for the study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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:

The first year after the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is crucial, with the highest percentage of patients experiencing organ damage. Cardiovascular issues are the second most prevalent after musculoskeletal damage in both early and later stages of SLE.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers assessed organ damage persisting at least 6 months over different stages of lupus in 4219 patients with SLE (mean age, 35.9 years; 89.6% women) from the Spanish Society of Rheumatology Lupus Registry.
• Damage was assessed using the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index (SDI).
• Longitudinal analysis was conducted globally and by each SDI domain on 1274 patients with recorded damage event dates.
• Follow-up data were available out to 10 years in 1113 patients and to 20 years in 601.

TAKEAWAY:

• New damage was recorded in 20% of the patients with SLE within the first year after diagnosis, with the annual percentage of patients with new damage decreasing to 5% after the first 5 years of follow-up.
• In the first year, musculoskeletal damage was reported by the highest proportion of patients (21%), followed by cardiovascular damage inclusive of cerebrovascular accidents and claudication for 6 months (19%).
• The cardiovascular system remained the second most affected system even during the later stages of the diseases at years 10 and 20 of follow-up (20%-25%).
• Apart from musculoskeletal and cardiovascular damage, patients with lupus also showed renal and ocular damage in the early and later stages of the disease, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study highlights the importance of cardiovascular damage and the need for its prevention during the earliest stages of the disease,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Irene Altabás-González, MD, PhD, Rheumatology Department, Vigo University Hospital Group, Vigo, Spain. It was published online in Lupus Science & Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective collection of data in the study may have led to missing items; for example, the dates of damage events for the whole cohort were not available. 

DISCLOSURES:

The registry was supported by the Spanish Society of Rheumatology. No specific funding was received for the study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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:

The first year after the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is crucial, with the highest percentage of patients experiencing organ damage. Cardiovascular issues are the second most prevalent after musculoskeletal damage in both early and later stages of SLE.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers assessed organ damage persisting at least 6 months over different stages of lupus in 4219 patients with SLE (mean age, 35.9 years; 89.6% women) from the Spanish Society of Rheumatology Lupus Registry.
• Damage was assessed using the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index (SDI).
• Longitudinal analysis was conducted globally and by each SDI domain on 1274 patients with recorded damage event dates.
• Follow-up data were available out to 10 years in 1113 patients and to 20 years in 601.

TAKEAWAY:

• New damage was recorded in 20% of the patients with SLE within the first year after diagnosis, with the annual percentage of patients with new damage decreasing to 5% after the first 5 years of follow-up.
• In the first year, musculoskeletal damage was reported by the highest proportion of patients (21%), followed by cardiovascular damage inclusive of cerebrovascular accidents and claudication for 6 months (19%).
• The cardiovascular system remained the second most affected system even during the later stages of the diseases at years 10 and 20 of follow-up (20%-25%).
• Apart from musculoskeletal and cardiovascular damage, patients with lupus also showed renal and ocular damage in the early and later stages of the disease, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study highlights the importance of cardiovascular damage and the need for its prevention during the earliest stages of the disease,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Irene Altabás-González, MD, PhD, Rheumatology Department, Vigo University Hospital Group, Vigo, Spain. It was published online in Lupus Science & Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective collection of data in the study may have led to missing items; for example, the dates of damage events for the whole cohort were not available. 

DISCLOSURES:

The registry was supported by the Spanish Society of Rheumatology. No specific funding was received for the study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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.

Not a morning person? For patients with fibromyalgia, the answer to that question could be a clue about their treatment response with a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), suggested a new cross-sectional study published in Rheumatology International.

Compared with patients who had 30% or more pain relief after 8 or more weeks on an SNRI (duloxetine, venlafaxine, or milnacipran), those with less pain relief reported rougher mornings and worse sleep overall. Morningness, morning affect, diurnal dysrhythmia, anytime wakeability, overall sleep quality, subjective sleep quality and disturbances, sleep medication use, and daytime dysfunction were all predictors of nonresponse to SNRI treatment.

“The observed chronobiological characteristics of patients resistant to SNRI treatment are important because they can be targeted with adjunctive circadian interventions, ie, morning light therapy, in order to normalize circadian rhythms and improve sleep, and in effect, overcome the resistance to treatment and alleviate [the] patient’s pain,” said study author Anna Julia Krupa, MD, a psychiatrist and research assistant in the Department of Affective Disorders at Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland.

Fibromyalgia symptoms like sleep disturbance, low mood, fatigue, stiffness, cognitive impairment, and anxiety are often interlinked in positive feedback loops, meaning that the presence of one symptom (ie, sleep problems or depression) exacerbates the other (ie, pain or anxiety), Dr. Krupa said. While SNRIs can reduce pain, anxiety, and depression, they don’t directly improve sleep. Sometimes, pain relief smooths out minor sleep problems, but not always.

“Therefore, if circadian rhythm disruptions and sleep problems are significant, they may constitute a factor which limits SNRI effects on pain in people with fibromyalgia,” Dr. Krupa said.

With 60 patients with fibromyalgia (30 responsive to treatment and 30 nonresponsive to treatment) and 30 healthy controls, this was a small study, noted Daniel G. Arkfeld, MD, DDS, a rheumatologist and associate professor of clinical medicine at Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. However, “sleep is probably one of the most difficult things in fibromyalgia, and it definitely needs to be targeted.”

Decades of research suggest that important neurochemicals, like growth hormone, are released in deep sleep. “We know that sleep disturbances and time frame and release of neurochemicals [are] all super important in fibromyalgia,” he said.

Side effects of medication could be another factor at play here. As with any drug, the side effects of SNRIs vary widely from person to person, but palpitations, tremulousness, and insomnia are common, said Daniel J. Clauw, MD, professor of anesthesiology, internal medicine/rheumatology, and psychiatry and director of the Chronic Pain & Fatigue Research Center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“SNRIs are often ‘activating’ because of the increase in norepinephrine,” Dr. Clauw said. “This is often helpful for symptoms such as fatigue and memory problems — but could worsen sleep.”

That’s why he always recommends that patients take an SNRI in the morning, not at night. Try that and the following tips to help patients with fibromyalgia sleep better and feel better, too.

Start with the basics. It’s worth reminding patients about the tried-and-true tips like going to bed and waking up at the same time every day and keeping your bedroom quiet and dark. “Patients should first try ‘sleep hygiene’ strategies,” said Dr. Clauw. “If that doesn’t help then cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for insomnia can be very helpful.”

A systematic review and meta-analysis showed that CBT for insomnia helped patients with fibromyalgia improve sleep quality, pain, anxiety, and depression compared with nonpharmacologic treatments. And if that doesn’t help? “If need be, they can try nonbenzodiazepine hypnotic drugs, eg, tricyclics or gabapentinoids taken at bedtime,” said Dr. Clauw.

Help them fall in love with exercise. A personalized approach to exercise can help patients with fibromyalgia feel better, suggested a study review in Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology. Exercise can also help reset the circadian clock. Morning activity helps night owls get on an earlier schedule, suggested a study review published in Physical Activity and Nutrition. 

Consider yoga, tai chi, or qigong. A study review published in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism suggested mind-body and combined exercises help improve sleep for people with fibromyalgia, while aerobic or strength training alone does not. One explanation is that mind-body exercises might do more than other types to tamp down sympathetic-excitatory overactivation in fibromyalgia, the researchers said. Use this handy guide from the European Pain Federation to help you start the exercise conversation.

Talk about sleep alongside other aspects of fibromyalgia. Psychoeducation for fibromyalgia often includes information about the distinction between acute and chronic pain, the nature of fibromyalgia syndrome, disease-contributing factors, safe and effective treatments, symptoms and characteristics, and coping strategies, according to a study review in the journal Behavioral Sciences. “As a psychiatrist and someone who often consults patients with fibromyalgia, I would also add the information about links between pain and mood, anxiety as well as sleep,” said Dr. Krupa.

Try morning light. Use light to shift circadian rhythms, suggested Dr. Krupa. People who struggle in the morning might benefit from 30-60 minutes of morning light therapy immediately after waking using a 10,000-lux light box or light glasses, as suggested by a study review from the University of Michigan.

Help them get off the night shift. “Fibromyalgia patients probably shouldn’t work the night shift and throw their circadian rhythm off,” said Dr. Arkfeld. Depending on a patient’s work and financial circumstances, a job change might not be possible, but consider writing a note to the patient’s employer asking them to switch the patient to the day shift. Dr. Arkfeld said this approach has worked for some of his patients.

Refer them for a sleep study. Many patients with fibromyalgia have obstructive sleep apnea or other sleep disorders that require additional intervention. “Sleep studies are important to kind of define the actual sleep problem that’s occurring as well, whether it’s the stage for interruption of sleep or sleep apnea or wakefulness,” said Dr. Arkfeld.

The study was funded by Jagiellonian University Medical College. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Not a morning person? For patients with fibromyalgia, the answer to that question could be a clue about their treatment response with a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), suggested a new cross-sectional study published in Rheumatology International.

Compared with patients who had 30% or more pain relief after 8 or more weeks on an SNRI (duloxetine, venlafaxine, or milnacipran), those with less pain relief reported rougher mornings and worse sleep overall. Morningness, morning affect, diurnal dysrhythmia, anytime wakeability, overall sleep quality, subjective sleep quality and disturbances, sleep medication use, and daytime dysfunction were all predictors of nonresponse to SNRI treatment.

“The observed chronobiological characteristics of patients resistant to SNRI treatment are important because they can be targeted with adjunctive circadian interventions, ie, morning light therapy, in order to normalize circadian rhythms and improve sleep, and in effect, overcome the resistance to treatment and alleviate [the] patient’s pain,” said study author Anna Julia Krupa, MD, a psychiatrist and research assistant in the Department of Affective Disorders at Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland.

Fibromyalgia symptoms like sleep disturbance, low mood, fatigue, stiffness, cognitive impairment, and anxiety are often interlinked in positive feedback loops, meaning that the presence of one symptom (ie, sleep problems or depression) exacerbates the other (ie, pain or anxiety), Dr. Krupa said. While SNRIs can reduce pain, anxiety, and depression, they don’t directly improve sleep. Sometimes, pain relief smooths out minor sleep problems, but not always.

“Therefore, if circadian rhythm disruptions and sleep problems are significant, they may constitute a factor which limits SNRI effects on pain in people with fibromyalgia,” Dr. Krupa said.

With 60 patients with fibromyalgia (30 responsive to treatment and 30 nonresponsive to treatment) and 30 healthy controls, this was a small study, noted Daniel G. Arkfeld, MD, DDS, a rheumatologist and associate professor of clinical medicine at Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. However, “sleep is probably one of the most difficult things in fibromyalgia, and it definitely needs to be targeted.”

Decades of research suggest that important neurochemicals, like growth hormone, are released in deep sleep. “We know that sleep disturbances and time frame and release of neurochemicals [are] all super important in fibromyalgia,” he said.

Side effects of medication could be another factor at play here. As with any drug, the side effects of SNRIs vary widely from person to person, but palpitations, tremulousness, and insomnia are common, said Daniel J. Clauw, MD, professor of anesthesiology, internal medicine/rheumatology, and psychiatry and director of the Chronic Pain & Fatigue Research Center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“SNRIs are often ‘activating’ because of the increase in norepinephrine,” Dr. Clauw said. “This is often helpful for symptoms such as fatigue and memory problems — but could worsen sleep.”

That’s why he always recommends that patients take an SNRI in the morning, not at night. Try that and the following tips to help patients with fibromyalgia sleep better and feel better, too.

Start with the basics. It’s worth reminding patients about the tried-and-true tips like going to bed and waking up at the same time every day and keeping your bedroom quiet and dark. “Patients should first try ‘sleep hygiene’ strategies,” said Dr. Clauw. “If that doesn’t help then cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for insomnia can be very helpful.”

A systematic review and meta-analysis showed that CBT for insomnia helped patients with fibromyalgia improve sleep quality, pain, anxiety, and depression compared with nonpharmacologic treatments. And if that doesn’t help? “If need be, they can try nonbenzodiazepine hypnotic drugs, eg, tricyclics or gabapentinoids taken at bedtime,” said Dr. Clauw.

Help them fall in love with exercise. A personalized approach to exercise can help patients with fibromyalgia feel better, suggested a study review in Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology. Exercise can also help reset the circadian clock. Morning activity helps night owls get on an earlier schedule, suggested a study review published in Physical Activity and Nutrition. 

Consider yoga, tai chi, or qigong. A study review published in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism suggested mind-body and combined exercises help improve sleep for people with fibromyalgia, while aerobic or strength training alone does not. One explanation is that mind-body exercises might do more than other types to tamp down sympathetic-excitatory overactivation in fibromyalgia, the researchers said. Use this handy guide from the European Pain Federation to help you start the exercise conversation.

Talk about sleep alongside other aspects of fibromyalgia. Psychoeducation for fibromyalgia often includes information about the distinction between acute and chronic pain, the nature of fibromyalgia syndrome, disease-contributing factors, safe and effective treatments, symptoms and characteristics, and coping strategies, according to a study review in the journal Behavioral Sciences. “As a psychiatrist and someone who often consults patients with fibromyalgia, I would also add the information about links between pain and mood, anxiety as well as sleep,” said Dr. Krupa.

Try morning light. Use light to shift circadian rhythms, suggested Dr. Krupa. People who struggle in the morning might benefit from 30-60 minutes of morning light therapy immediately after waking using a 10,000-lux light box or light glasses, as suggested by a study review from the University of Michigan.

Help them get off the night shift. “Fibromyalgia patients probably shouldn’t work the night shift and throw their circadian rhythm off,” said Dr. Arkfeld. Depending on a patient’s work and financial circumstances, a job change might not be possible, but consider writing a note to the patient’s employer asking them to switch the patient to the day shift. Dr. Arkfeld said this approach has worked for some of his patients.

Refer them for a sleep study. Many patients with fibromyalgia have obstructive sleep apnea or other sleep disorders that require additional intervention. “Sleep studies are important to kind of define the actual sleep problem that’s occurring as well, whether it’s the stage for interruption of sleep or sleep apnea or wakefulness,” said Dr. Arkfeld.

The study was funded by Jagiellonian University Medical College. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Not a morning person? For patients with fibromyalgia, the answer to that question could be a clue about their treatment response with a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), suggested a new cross-sectional study published in Rheumatology International.

Compared with patients who had 30% or more pain relief after 8 or more weeks on an SNRI (duloxetine, venlafaxine, or milnacipran), those with less pain relief reported rougher mornings and worse sleep overall. Morningness, morning affect, diurnal dysrhythmia, anytime wakeability, overall sleep quality, subjective sleep quality and disturbances, sleep medication use, and daytime dysfunction were all predictors of nonresponse to SNRI treatment.

“The observed chronobiological characteristics of patients resistant to SNRI treatment are important because they can be targeted with adjunctive circadian interventions, ie, morning light therapy, in order to normalize circadian rhythms and improve sleep, and in effect, overcome the resistance to treatment and alleviate [the] patient’s pain,” said study author Anna Julia Krupa, MD, a psychiatrist and research assistant in the Department of Affective Disorders at Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland.

Fibromyalgia symptoms like sleep disturbance, low mood, fatigue, stiffness, cognitive impairment, and anxiety are often interlinked in positive feedback loops, meaning that the presence of one symptom (ie, sleep problems or depression) exacerbates the other (ie, pain or anxiety), Dr. Krupa said. While SNRIs can reduce pain, anxiety, and depression, they don’t directly improve sleep. Sometimes, pain relief smooths out minor sleep problems, but not always.

“Therefore, if circadian rhythm disruptions and sleep problems are significant, they may constitute a factor which limits SNRI effects on pain in people with fibromyalgia,” Dr. Krupa said.

With 60 patients with fibromyalgia (30 responsive to treatment and 30 nonresponsive to treatment) and 30 healthy controls, this was a small study, noted Daniel G. Arkfeld, MD, DDS, a rheumatologist and associate professor of clinical medicine at Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. However, “sleep is probably one of the most difficult things in fibromyalgia, and it definitely needs to be targeted.”

Decades of research suggest that important neurochemicals, like growth hormone, are released in deep sleep. “We know that sleep disturbances and time frame and release of neurochemicals [are] all super important in fibromyalgia,” he said.

Side effects of medication could be another factor at play here. As with any drug, the side effects of SNRIs vary widely from person to person, but palpitations, tremulousness, and insomnia are common, said Daniel J. Clauw, MD, professor of anesthesiology, internal medicine/rheumatology, and psychiatry and director of the Chronic Pain & Fatigue Research Center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“SNRIs are often ‘activating’ because of the increase in norepinephrine,” Dr. Clauw said. “This is often helpful for symptoms such as fatigue and memory problems — but could worsen sleep.”

That’s why he always recommends that patients take an SNRI in the morning, not at night. Try that and the following tips to help patients with fibromyalgia sleep better and feel better, too.

Start with the basics. It’s worth reminding patients about the tried-and-true tips like going to bed and waking up at the same time every day and keeping your bedroom quiet and dark. “Patients should first try ‘sleep hygiene’ strategies,” said Dr. Clauw. “If that doesn’t help then cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for insomnia can be very helpful.”

A systematic review and meta-analysis showed that CBT for insomnia helped patients with fibromyalgia improve sleep quality, pain, anxiety, and depression compared with nonpharmacologic treatments. And if that doesn’t help? “If need be, they can try nonbenzodiazepine hypnotic drugs, eg, tricyclics or gabapentinoids taken at bedtime,” said Dr. Clauw.

Help them fall in love with exercise. A personalized approach to exercise can help patients with fibromyalgia feel better, suggested a study review in Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology. Exercise can also help reset the circadian clock. Morning activity helps night owls get on an earlier schedule, suggested a study review published in Physical Activity and Nutrition. 

Consider yoga, tai chi, or qigong. A study review published in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism suggested mind-body and combined exercises help improve sleep for people with fibromyalgia, while aerobic or strength training alone does not. One explanation is that mind-body exercises might do more than other types to tamp down sympathetic-excitatory overactivation in fibromyalgia, the researchers said. Use this handy guide from the European Pain Federation to help you start the exercise conversation.

Talk about sleep alongside other aspects of fibromyalgia. Psychoeducation for fibromyalgia often includes information about the distinction between acute and chronic pain, the nature of fibromyalgia syndrome, disease-contributing factors, safe and effective treatments, symptoms and characteristics, and coping strategies, according to a study review in the journal Behavioral Sciences. “As a psychiatrist and someone who often consults patients with fibromyalgia, I would also add the information about links between pain and mood, anxiety as well as sleep,” said Dr. Krupa.

Try morning light. Use light to shift circadian rhythms, suggested Dr. Krupa. People who struggle in the morning might benefit from 30-60 minutes of morning light therapy immediately after waking using a 10,000-lux light box or light glasses, as suggested by a study review from the University of Michigan.

Help them get off the night shift. “Fibromyalgia patients probably shouldn’t work the night shift and throw their circadian rhythm off,” said Dr. Arkfeld. Depending on a patient’s work and financial circumstances, a job change might not be possible, but consider writing a note to the patient’s employer asking them to switch the patient to the day shift. Dr. Arkfeld said this approach has worked for some of his patients.

Refer them for a sleep study. Many patients with fibromyalgia have obstructive sleep apnea or other sleep disorders that require additional intervention. “Sleep studies are important to kind of define the actual sleep problem that’s occurring as well, whether it’s the stage for interruption of sleep or sleep apnea or wakefulness,” said Dr. Arkfeld.

The study was funded by Jagiellonian University Medical College. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The antimetabolite and immunosuppressant methotrexate, taken orally and in addition to usual analgesia, alleviates pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators conducted a phase 3 randomized controlled trial among 155 patients in the United Kingdom with painful radiographic knee osteoarthritis and an inadequate response to their current medication (PROMOTE trial).
• Patients were assigned to oral methotrexate once weekly (6-week escalation from 10 to 25 mg) or placebo for 12 months, added to usual analgesia.
• The main outcome was average knee pain at 6 months on a numerical rating scale from 0 to 10.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 6 months, mean scores for knee pain had decreased by 1.3 points in the methotrexate group and 0.6 points in the placebo group (difference by intention to treat, 0.79 points; P = .030).
• The former also saw greater benefit in terms of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores for stiffness (difference, 0.60 points; P = .045) and physical function (difference, 5.01 points; P = .008).
• Differences between groups were no longer significant at 12 months.
• Benefit of methotrexate appeared to be dose related.
• The groups were similar with respect to nausea and diarrhea; four serious adverse events (two per group) were deemed unrelated to study treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“Further work is required to understand adequate methotrexate dosing, whether benefits are greater in those with elevated systemic inflammation levels, and to consider cost-effectiveness before introducing this therapy for a potentially large population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sarah R. Kingsbury, PhD, University of Leeds and National Institute for Health and Care Research Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds, England, and was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included a decrease in methotrexate dose between 6 and 12 months, nonallowance of switching to subcutaneous drug for intolerance, and a lack of assessment of the effectiveness of blinding.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Versus Arthritis, a charity that supports people with arthritis. Some authors reported affiliations with Versus Arthritis and/or companies that develop drugs for arthritis.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The antimetabolite and immunosuppressant methotrexate, taken orally and in addition to usual analgesia, alleviates pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators conducted a phase 3 randomized controlled trial among 155 patients in the United Kingdom with painful radiographic knee osteoarthritis and an inadequate response to their current medication (PROMOTE trial).
• Patients were assigned to oral methotrexate once weekly (6-week escalation from 10 to 25 mg) or placebo for 12 months, added to usual analgesia.
• The main outcome was average knee pain at 6 months on a numerical rating scale from 0 to 10.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 6 months, mean scores for knee pain had decreased by 1.3 points in the methotrexate group and 0.6 points in the placebo group (difference by intention to treat, 0.79 points; P = .030).
• The former also saw greater benefit in terms of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores for stiffness (difference, 0.60 points; P = .045) and physical function (difference, 5.01 points; P = .008).
• Differences between groups were no longer significant at 12 months.
• Benefit of methotrexate appeared to be dose related.
• The groups were similar with respect to nausea and diarrhea; four serious adverse events (two per group) were deemed unrelated to study treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“Further work is required to understand adequate methotrexate dosing, whether benefits are greater in those with elevated systemic inflammation levels, and to consider cost-effectiveness before introducing this therapy for a potentially large population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sarah R. Kingsbury, PhD, University of Leeds and National Institute for Health and Care Research Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds, England, and was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included a decrease in methotrexate dose between 6 and 12 months, nonallowance of switching to subcutaneous drug for intolerance, and a lack of assessment of the effectiveness of blinding.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Versus Arthritis, a charity that supports people with arthritis. Some authors reported affiliations with Versus Arthritis and/or companies that develop drugs for arthritis.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The antimetabolite and immunosuppressant methotrexate, taken orally and in addition to usual analgesia, alleviates pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators conducted a phase 3 randomized controlled trial among 155 patients in the United Kingdom with painful radiographic knee osteoarthritis and an inadequate response to their current medication (PROMOTE trial).
• Patients were assigned to oral methotrexate once weekly (6-week escalation from 10 to 25 mg) or placebo for 12 months, added to usual analgesia.
• The main outcome was average knee pain at 6 months on a numerical rating scale from 0 to 10.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 6 months, mean scores for knee pain had decreased by 1.3 points in the methotrexate group and 0.6 points in the placebo group (difference by intention to treat, 0.79 points; P = .030).
• The former also saw greater benefit in terms of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores for stiffness (difference, 0.60 points; P = .045) and physical function (difference, 5.01 points; P = .008).
• Differences between groups were no longer significant at 12 months.
• Benefit of methotrexate appeared to be dose related.
• The groups were similar with respect to nausea and diarrhea; four serious adverse events (two per group) were deemed unrelated to study treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“Further work is required to understand adequate methotrexate dosing, whether benefits are greater in those with elevated systemic inflammation levels, and to consider cost-effectiveness before introducing this therapy for a potentially large population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sarah R. Kingsbury, PhD, University of Leeds and National Institute for Health and Care Research Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds, England, and was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included a decrease in methotrexate dose between 6 and 12 months, nonallowance of switching to subcutaneous drug for intolerance, and a lack of assessment of the effectiveness of blinding.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Versus Arthritis, a charity that supports people with arthritis. Some authors reported affiliations with Versus Arthritis and/or companies that develop drugs for arthritis.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is linked with over a 50% increased risk for lung cancer, with those having RA-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) being particularly vulnerable, facing nearly a threefold higher risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective matched cohort study to evaluate the risk for lung cancer in participants with RA, including those with RA-ILD, within Veterans Affairs (VA) from 2000 to 2019.
• A total of 72,795 participants with RA were matched with 633,937 participants without RA on the basis of birth year, sex, and VA enrollment year.
• Among those with RA, 757 had prevalent RA-ILD and were matched with 5931 participants without RA-ILD.
• The primary outcome was incident lung cancer, assessed using the VA Oncology Raw Domain and the National Death Index.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a mean follow-up of 6.3 years, 2974 incidences of lung cancer were reported in patients with RA, and 34 were reported in those with RA-ILD.
• The risk for lung cancer was 58% higher in patients with RA than in those without RA (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.58; 95% CI, 1.52-1.64), with this association persisting even when only never-smokers were considered (aHR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.22-2.24).
• Participants with prevalent RA-ILD had 3.25-fold higher risk for lung cancer than those without RA (aHR, 3.25; 95% CI, 2.13-4.95).
• Both patients with prevalent and those with incident RA-ILD showed a similar increase in risk for lung cancer (aHR, 2.88; 95% CI, 2.45-3.40).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results highlight RA and RA-ILD as high-risk populations that may benefit from enhanced lung cancer screening,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Rebecca T. Brooks, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online on July 28, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS: 

The study included a predominantly male population, which may have affected the generalizability of the study. Although the study considered smoking status, data on the duration and intensity of smoking were not available. Restriction to never-smokers could not be completed for comparisons between patients with RA-ILD and those without RA because of insufficient sample sizes. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive funding from any source. Some authors reported receiving research funding or having ties with various pharmaceutical companies and other 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 first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is linked with over a 50% increased risk for lung cancer, with those having RA-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) being particularly vulnerable, facing nearly a threefold higher risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective matched cohort study to evaluate the risk for lung cancer in participants with RA, including those with RA-ILD, within Veterans Affairs (VA) from 2000 to 2019.
• A total of 72,795 participants with RA were matched with 633,937 participants without RA on the basis of birth year, sex, and VA enrollment year.
• Among those with RA, 757 had prevalent RA-ILD and were matched with 5931 participants without RA-ILD.
• The primary outcome was incident lung cancer, assessed using the VA Oncology Raw Domain and the National Death Index.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a mean follow-up of 6.3 years, 2974 incidences of lung cancer were reported in patients with RA, and 34 were reported in those with RA-ILD.
• The risk for lung cancer was 58% higher in patients with RA than in those without RA (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.58; 95% CI, 1.52-1.64), with this association persisting even when only never-smokers were considered (aHR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.22-2.24).
• Participants with prevalent RA-ILD had 3.25-fold higher risk for lung cancer than those without RA (aHR, 3.25; 95% CI, 2.13-4.95).
• Both patients with prevalent and those with incident RA-ILD showed a similar increase in risk for lung cancer (aHR, 2.88; 95% CI, 2.45-3.40).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results highlight RA and RA-ILD as high-risk populations that may benefit from enhanced lung cancer screening,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Rebecca T. Brooks, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online on July 28, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS: 

The study included a predominantly male population, which may have affected the generalizability of the study. Although the study considered smoking status, data on the duration and intensity of smoking were not available. Restriction to never-smokers could not be completed for comparisons between patients with RA-ILD and those without RA because of insufficient sample sizes. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive funding from any source. Some authors reported receiving research funding or having ties with various pharmaceutical companies and other 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 first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is linked with over a 50% increased risk for lung cancer, with those having RA-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) being particularly vulnerable, facing nearly a threefold higher risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective matched cohort study to evaluate the risk for lung cancer in participants with RA, including those with RA-ILD, within Veterans Affairs (VA) from 2000 to 2019.
• A total of 72,795 participants with RA were matched with 633,937 participants without RA on the basis of birth year, sex, and VA enrollment year.
• Among those with RA, 757 had prevalent RA-ILD and were matched with 5931 participants without RA-ILD.
• The primary outcome was incident lung cancer, assessed using the VA Oncology Raw Domain and the National Death Index.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a mean follow-up of 6.3 years, 2974 incidences of lung cancer were reported in patients with RA, and 34 were reported in those with RA-ILD.
• The risk for lung cancer was 58% higher in patients with RA than in those without RA (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.58; 95% CI, 1.52-1.64), with this association persisting even when only never-smokers were considered (aHR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.22-2.24).
• Participants with prevalent RA-ILD had 3.25-fold higher risk for lung cancer than those without RA (aHR, 3.25; 95% CI, 2.13-4.95).
• Both patients with prevalent and those with incident RA-ILD showed a similar increase in risk for lung cancer (aHR, 2.88; 95% CI, 2.45-3.40).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results highlight RA and RA-ILD as high-risk populations that may benefit from enhanced lung cancer screening,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Rebecca T. Brooks, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online on July 28, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS: 

The study included a predominantly male population, which may have affected the generalizability of the study. Although the study considered smoking status, data on the duration and intensity of smoking were not available. Restriction to never-smokers could not be completed for comparisons between patients with RA-ILD and those without RA because of insufficient sample sizes. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive funding from any source. Some authors reported receiving research funding or having ties with various pharmaceutical companies and other 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 first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Uptake of infliximab biosimilars rose slowly across private insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare when two were available in the United States during 2016-2020 but increased significantly through 2022 after the third biosimilar became available in July 2020. However, prescriptions in Medicare still lagged behind those in private insurance and Medicaid.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed electronic health records from over 1100 US rheumatologists who participated in a national registry, the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE), for all infliximab administrations (bio-originator or biosimilar) to patients older than 18 years from April 2016 to September 2022.
• They conducted an interrupted time series to account for autocorrelation and model the effect of each infliximab biosimilar release (infliximab-dyyb in November 2016, infliximab-abda in July 2017, and infliximab-axxq in July 2020) on uptake across Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers identified 659,988 infliximab administrations for 37,560 unique patients, with 52% on Medicare, 4.8% on Medicaid, and 43% on private insurance.
• Biosimilar uptake rose slowly with average annual increases < 5% from 2016 to June 2020 (Medicare, 3.2%; Medicaid, 5.2%; private insurance, 1.8%).
• After the third biosimilar release in July 2020, the average annual increase reached 13% for Medicaid and 16.4% for private insurance but remained low for Medicare (5.6%).
• By September 2022, biosimilar uptake was higher for Medicaid (43.8%) and private insurance (38.5%) than for Medicare (24%).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest policymakers may need to do more to allow biosimilars to get a foothold in the market by incentivizing the development and entry of multiple biosimilars, address anticompetitive pricing strategies, and may need to amend Medicare policy to [incentivize] uptake in order to ensure a competitive and sustainable biosimilar market that gradually reduces total drug expenditures and out-of-pocket costs over time,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Eric T. Roberts, PhD, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online on July 30, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

First, while the biosimilar introductions are likely catalysts for many changes in the market, some changes in slopes may also be attributable to the natural growth of the market over time. Second, this study may neither be generalizable to academic medical centers, which are underrepresented in RISE, nor be generalizable to infliximab prescriptions from other specialties. Third, uptake among privately insured patients changed shortly after November-December 2020, raising the possibility that the delay reflected negotiations between insurance companies and relevant entities regarding formulary coverage.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One author disclosed receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and grant funding from AstraZeneca, the Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, and Aurinia.

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:

Uptake of infliximab biosimilars rose slowly across private insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare when two were available in the United States during 2016-2020 but increased significantly through 2022 after the third biosimilar became available in July 2020. However, prescriptions in Medicare still lagged behind those in private insurance and Medicaid.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed electronic health records from over 1100 US rheumatologists who participated in a national registry, the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE), for all infliximab administrations (bio-originator or biosimilar) to patients older than 18 years from April 2016 to September 2022.
• They conducted an interrupted time series to account for autocorrelation and model the effect of each infliximab biosimilar release (infliximab-dyyb in November 2016, infliximab-abda in July 2017, and infliximab-axxq in July 2020) on uptake across Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers identified 659,988 infliximab administrations for 37,560 unique patients, with 52% on Medicare, 4.8% on Medicaid, and 43% on private insurance.
• Biosimilar uptake rose slowly with average annual increases < 5% from 2016 to June 2020 (Medicare, 3.2%; Medicaid, 5.2%; private insurance, 1.8%).
• After the third biosimilar release in July 2020, the average annual increase reached 13% for Medicaid and 16.4% for private insurance but remained low for Medicare (5.6%).
• By September 2022, biosimilar uptake was higher for Medicaid (43.8%) and private insurance (38.5%) than for Medicare (24%).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest policymakers may need to do more to allow biosimilars to get a foothold in the market by incentivizing the development and entry of multiple biosimilars, address anticompetitive pricing strategies, and may need to amend Medicare policy to [incentivize] uptake in order to ensure a competitive and sustainable biosimilar market that gradually reduces total drug expenditures and out-of-pocket costs over time,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Eric T. Roberts, PhD, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online on July 30, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

First, while the biosimilar introductions are likely catalysts for many changes in the market, some changes in slopes may also be attributable to the natural growth of the market over time. Second, this study may neither be generalizable to academic medical centers, which are underrepresented in RISE, nor be generalizable to infliximab prescriptions from other specialties. Third, uptake among privately insured patients changed shortly after November-December 2020, raising the possibility that the delay reflected negotiations between insurance companies and relevant entities regarding formulary coverage.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One author disclosed receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and grant funding from AstraZeneca, the Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, and Aurinia.

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:

Uptake of infliximab biosimilars rose slowly across private insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare when two were available in the United States during 2016-2020 but increased significantly through 2022 after the third biosimilar became available in July 2020. However, prescriptions in Medicare still lagged behind those in private insurance and Medicaid.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed electronic health records from over 1100 US rheumatologists who participated in a national registry, the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE), for all infliximab administrations (bio-originator or biosimilar) to patients older than 18 years from April 2016 to September 2022.
• They conducted an interrupted time series to account for autocorrelation and model the effect of each infliximab biosimilar release (infliximab-dyyb in November 2016, infliximab-abda in July 2017, and infliximab-axxq in July 2020) on uptake across Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers identified 659,988 infliximab administrations for 37,560 unique patients, with 52% on Medicare, 4.8% on Medicaid, and 43% on private insurance.
• Biosimilar uptake rose slowly with average annual increases < 5% from 2016 to June 2020 (Medicare, 3.2%; Medicaid, 5.2%; private insurance, 1.8%).
• After the third biosimilar release in July 2020, the average annual increase reached 13% for Medicaid and 16.4% for private insurance but remained low for Medicare (5.6%).
• By September 2022, biosimilar uptake was higher for Medicaid (43.8%) and private insurance (38.5%) than for Medicare (24%).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest policymakers may need to do more to allow biosimilars to get a foothold in the market by incentivizing the development and entry of multiple biosimilars, address anticompetitive pricing strategies, and may need to amend Medicare policy to [incentivize] uptake in order to ensure a competitive and sustainable biosimilar market that gradually reduces total drug expenditures and out-of-pocket costs over time,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Eric T. Roberts, PhD, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online on July 30, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

First, while the biosimilar introductions are likely catalysts for many changes in the market, some changes in slopes may also be attributable to the natural growth of the market over time. Second, this study may neither be generalizable to academic medical centers, which are underrepresented in RISE, nor be generalizable to infliximab prescriptions from other specialties. Third, uptake among privately insured patients changed shortly after November-December 2020, raising the possibility that the delay reflected negotiations between insurance companies and relevant entities regarding formulary coverage.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One author disclosed receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and grant funding from AstraZeneca, the Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, and Aurinia.

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.