Guidelines

A statement released by the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology advocates use of supervised exercise training in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), as well as coverage for these services by third-party payers.

The authors hope to boost the stature of supervised exercise training (SET) in HFpEF among practitioners and show Medicare and insurers that it deserves reimbursement. Currently, they noted, clinicians tend to recognize exercise as therapy more in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). And Medicare covers exercise training within broader cardiac rehabilitation programs for patients with HFrEF but not HFpEF.

Yet exercise has been broadly effective in HFpEF clinical trials, as outlined in the document. And there are good mechanistic reasons to believe that patients with the disorder can gain as much or more from SET than those with HFrEF.

“The signals for improvement from exercise training, in symptoms and objective measures of exercise capacity, are considerably larger for HFpEF than for HFrEF,” Dalane W. Kitzman, MD, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

So, it’s a bit of a paradox that clinicians don’t prescribe it as often in HFpEF, probably because of the lack of reimbursement but also from less “awareness” and understanding of the disease itself, he proposed.

Dr. Kitzman is senior author on the statement sponsored by the AHA and the ACC. It was published in the societies’ flagship journals Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. The statement was also endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America, the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, and the American Association of Heart Failure Nurses.
 

Carefully chosen words

The statement makes its case in HFpEF specifically for SET rather than cardiac rehabilitation, the latter typically a comprehensive program that goes beyond exercise, Dr. Kitzman noted. And SET is closer to the exercise interventions used in the supportive HFpEF trials.

“Also, Medicare in recent years has approved something called ‘supervised exercise training’ for other disorders, such as peripheral artery disease.” So, the document specifies SET “to be fully aligned with the evidence base,” he said, as well as “align it with a type of treatment that Medicare has a precedent for approving for other disorders.”
 

Data and physiologic basis

Core features of the AHA/ACC statement is its review of HFpEF exercise physiology, survey of randomized trials supporting SET in the disease, and characterization of exercise as an especially suitable pleiotropic therapy.

Increasingly, “HFpEF is now accepted as a systemic disorder that affects and impacts all organs,” Dr. Kitzman observed. “With a systemic multiorgan disorder, it would make sense that a broad treatment like exercise might be just the right thing. We think that’s the reason that its benefits are really quite large in magnitude.”

The document notes that exercise seems “potentially well suited for the treatment of both the cardiac and, in particular, the extracardiac abnormalities that contribute to exercise intolerance in HFpEF.”

Its effects in the disorder are “anti-inflammatory, rheological, lipid lowering, antihypertensive, positive inotropic, positive lusitropic, negative chronotropic, vasodilation, diuretic, weight-reducing, hypoglycemic, hypnotic, and antidepressive,” the statement notes. It achieves them via multiple pathways involving the heart, lungs, vasculature and, notably, the skeletal muscles.

“It’s been widely overlooked that at least 50% of low exercise capacity and symptoms in HFpEF are due to skeletal muscle dysfunction,” said Dr. Kitzman, an authority on exercise physiology in heart failure.

“But we’ve spent about 95% of our attention trying to modify and understand the cardiac component.” Skeletal muscles, he said, “are not an innocent bystander. They’re part of the problem. And that’s why we should really spend more time focusing on them.”

Dr. Kitzman disclosed receiving consulting fees from Bayer, Medtronic, Corvia Medical, Boehringer Ingelheim, Keyto, Rivus, NovoNordisk, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer; holding stock in Gilead; and receiving grants to his institution from Bayer, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Rivus, and Pfizer.

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

A statement released by the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology advocates use of supervised exercise training in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), as well as coverage for these services by third-party payers.

The authors hope to boost the stature of supervised exercise training (SET) in HFpEF among practitioners and show Medicare and insurers that it deserves reimbursement. Currently, they noted, clinicians tend to recognize exercise as therapy more in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). And Medicare covers exercise training within broader cardiac rehabilitation programs for patients with HFrEF but not HFpEF.

Yet exercise has been broadly effective in HFpEF clinical trials, as outlined in the document. And there are good mechanistic reasons to believe that patients with the disorder can gain as much or more from SET than those with HFrEF.

“The signals for improvement from exercise training, in symptoms and objective measures of exercise capacity, are considerably larger for HFpEF than for HFrEF,” Dalane W. Kitzman, MD, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

So, it’s a bit of a paradox that clinicians don’t prescribe it as often in HFpEF, probably because of the lack of reimbursement but also from less “awareness” and understanding of the disease itself, he proposed.

Dr. Kitzman is senior author on the statement sponsored by the AHA and the ACC. It was published in the societies’ flagship journals Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. The statement was also endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America, the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, and the American Association of Heart Failure Nurses.
 

Carefully chosen words

The statement makes its case in HFpEF specifically for SET rather than cardiac rehabilitation, the latter typically a comprehensive program that goes beyond exercise, Dr. Kitzman noted. And SET is closer to the exercise interventions used in the supportive HFpEF trials.

“Also, Medicare in recent years has approved something called ‘supervised exercise training’ for other disorders, such as peripheral artery disease.” So, the document specifies SET “to be fully aligned with the evidence base,” he said, as well as “align it with a type of treatment that Medicare has a precedent for approving for other disorders.”
 

Data and physiologic basis

Core features of the AHA/ACC statement is its review of HFpEF exercise physiology, survey of randomized trials supporting SET in the disease, and characterization of exercise as an especially suitable pleiotropic therapy.

Increasingly, “HFpEF is now accepted as a systemic disorder that affects and impacts all organs,” Dr. Kitzman observed. “With a systemic multiorgan disorder, it would make sense that a broad treatment like exercise might be just the right thing. We think that’s the reason that its benefits are really quite large in magnitude.”

The document notes that exercise seems “potentially well suited for the treatment of both the cardiac and, in particular, the extracardiac abnormalities that contribute to exercise intolerance in HFpEF.”

Its effects in the disorder are “anti-inflammatory, rheological, lipid lowering, antihypertensive, positive inotropic, positive lusitropic, negative chronotropic, vasodilation, diuretic, weight-reducing, hypoglycemic, hypnotic, and antidepressive,” the statement notes. It achieves them via multiple pathways involving the heart, lungs, vasculature and, notably, the skeletal muscles.

“It’s been widely overlooked that at least 50% of low exercise capacity and symptoms in HFpEF are due to skeletal muscle dysfunction,” said Dr. Kitzman, an authority on exercise physiology in heart failure.

“But we’ve spent about 95% of our attention trying to modify and understand the cardiac component.” Skeletal muscles, he said, “are not an innocent bystander. They’re part of the problem. And that’s why we should really spend more time focusing on them.”

Dr. Kitzman disclosed receiving consulting fees from Bayer, Medtronic, Corvia Medical, Boehringer Ingelheim, Keyto, Rivus, NovoNordisk, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer; holding stock in Gilead; and receiving grants to his institution from Bayer, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Rivus, and Pfizer.

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

A statement released by the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology advocates use of supervised exercise training in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), as well as coverage for these services by third-party payers.

The authors hope to boost the stature of supervised exercise training (SET) in HFpEF among practitioners and show Medicare and insurers that it deserves reimbursement. Currently, they noted, clinicians tend to recognize exercise as therapy more in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). And Medicare covers exercise training within broader cardiac rehabilitation programs for patients with HFrEF but not HFpEF.

Yet exercise has been broadly effective in HFpEF clinical trials, as outlined in the document. And there are good mechanistic reasons to believe that patients with the disorder can gain as much or more from SET than those with HFrEF.

“The signals for improvement from exercise training, in symptoms and objective measures of exercise capacity, are considerably larger for HFpEF than for HFrEF,” Dalane W. Kitzman, MD, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

So, it’s a bit of a paradox that clinicians don’t prescribe it as often in HFpEF, probably because of the lack of reimbursement but also from less “awareness” and understanding of the disease itself, he proposed.

Dr. Kitzman is senior author on the statement sponsored by the AHA and the ACC. It was published in the societies’ flagship journals Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. The statement was also endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America, the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, and the American Association of Heart Failure Nurses.
 

Carefully chosen words

The statement makes its case in HFpEF specifically for SET rather than cardiac rehabilitation, the latter typically a comprehensive program that goes beyond exercise, Dr. Kitzman noted. And SET is closer to the exercise interventions used in the supportive HFpEF trials.

“Also, Medicare in recent years has approved something called ‘supervised exercise training’ for other disorders, such as peripheral artery disease.” So, the document specifies SET “to be fully aligned with the evidence base,” he said, as well as “align it with a type of treatment that Medicare has a precedent for approving for other disorders.”
 

Data and physiologic basis

Core features of the AHA/ACC statement is its review of HFpEF exercise physiology, survey of randomized trials supporting SET in the disease, and characterization of exercise as an especially suitable pleiotropic therapy.

Increasingly, “HFpEF is now accepted as a systemic disorder that affects and impacts all organs,” Dr. Kitzman observed. “With a systemic multiorgan disorder, it would make sense that a broad treatment like exercise might be just the right thing. We think that’s the reason that its benefits are really quite large in magnitude.”

The document notes that exercise seems “potentially well suited for the treatment of both the cardiac and, in particular, the extracardiac abnormalities that contribute to exercise intolerance in HFpEF.”

Its effects in the disorder are “anti-inflammatory, rheological, lipid lowering, antihypertensive, positive inotropic, positive lusitropic, negative chronotropic, vasodilation, diuretic, weight-reducing, hypoglycemic, hypnotic, and antidepressive,” the statement notes. It achieves them via multiple pathways involving the heart, lungs, vasculature and, notably, the skeletal muscles.

“It’s been widely overlooked that at least 50% of low exercise capacity and symptoms in HFpEF are due to skeletal muscle dysfunction,” said Dr. Kitzman, an authority on exercise physiology in heart failure.

“But we’ve spent about 95% of our attention trying to modify and understand the cardiac component.” Skeletal muscles, he said, “are not an innocent bystander. They’re part of the problem. And that’s why we should really spend more time focusing on them.”

Dr. Kitzman disclosed receiving consulting fees from Bayer, Medtronic, Corvia Medical, Boehringer Ingelheim, Keyto, Rivus, NovoNordisk, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer; holding stock in Gilead; and receiving grants to his institution from Bayer, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Rivus, and Pfizer.

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

Patients with moderate to severe osteoarthritis (OA) or osteonecrosis (ON) eligible for total joint arthroplasty (TJA) who have failed one or more nonoperative therapies should proceed directly to surgery, according to new guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.

“One of the reasons for creating this guideline was that many patients have been subjected to delays for surgery after completing nonoperative therapy, despite persistent moderate to severe pain, loss of function, and moderate to severe radiographic OA or ON,” said coauthors Susan M. Goodman, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, and Charles Hannon, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Washington University in St. Louis, in an email interview with this news organization. “This guideline supports surgery being performed in an expeditious fashion after the decision has been made to proceed with surgery by both the physician and patient through a shared decision-making process,” they said.

The guidelines also state that obesity by itself should not be a reason to delay TJA. “We could not find a rationale for a strict cut off for weight/body mass index (BMI). Our literature review revealed that though many adverse events were, in fact, increased in patients with morbid obesity, there is also an increase in adverse events for those who had bariatric surgery prior to their arthroplasty,” they added, noting that patients need to be made aware of the increased risk for adverse events in patients with obesity. Though the guidelines do not pose any BMI cutoffs, they state that weight loss should be “strongly encouraged.” These new recommendations are conditional, and all had a “low” to “very low” certainty of evidence; however, there was high consensus on the recommendations from the expert panel.

The guidelines also recommended:

• Delaying TJA to achieve smoking and nicotine cessation or reduction.
• Delaying TJA to improve glycemic control in patients with diabetes, although the group did not recommend any specific measure or threshold.
• Not delaying TJA in patients with a severe deformity, bone loss, or a neuropathic joint.

The new guidelines formalize what many surgeons have already been doing for the past few years, said Arjun Saxena, MD, MBA, an orthopedic surgeon in Philadelphia who was not involved with the guidelines. “A lot of total joint programs have really focused on patient optimization, including smoking cessation, glycemic control, and weight loss prior to surgery,” he said.

Most importantly, the guidelines put an emphasis on how the decision to proceed with TJA should be a shared decision between a physician and patient, he added. Some insurance companies with prior authorization policies may require a patient to try additional nonoperative therapies before approving surgery, creating barriers to care, he said. “Hopefully [these new recommendations] will help third parties understand that joint replacement is a big decision – most doctors aren’t going to recommend that unless it’s necessary or something that is going to help patients,” he said. “I understand that there is a certain need for preauthorization, but just having strict guidelines isn’t appropriate. You really need to look at the whole picture,” he added.

The full manuscript has been submitted for review and is expected to be jointly published in American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons journals later this year.

Dr. Saxena consults for the orthopedic implant company Corin.

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

Patients with moderate to severe osteoarthritis (OA) or osteonecrosis (ON) eligible for total joint arthroplasty (TJA) who have failed one or more nonoperative therapies should proceed directly to surgery, according to new guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.

“One of the reasons for creating this guideline was that many patients have been subjected to delays for surgery after completing nonoperative therapy, despite persistent moderate to severe pain, loss of function, and moderate to severe radiographic OA or ON,” said coauthors Susan M. Goodman, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, and Charles Hannon, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Washington University in St. Louis, in an email interview with this news organization. “This guideline supports surgery being performed in an expeditious fashion after the decision has been made to proceed with surgery by both the physician and patient through a shared decision-making process,” they said.

The guidelines also state that obesity by itself should not be a reason to delay TJA. “We could not find a rationale for a strict cut off for weight/body mass index (BMI). Our literature review revealed that though many adverse events were, in fact, increased in patients with morbid obesity, there is also an increase in adverse events for those who had bariatric surgery prior to their arthroplasty,” they added, noting that patients need to be made aware of the increased risk for adverse events in patients with obesity. Though the guidelines do not pose any BMI cutoffs, they state that weight loss should be “strongly encouraged.” These new recommendations are conditional, and all had a “low” to “very low” certainty of evidence; however, there was high consensus on the recommendations from the expert panel.

The guidelines also recommended:

• Delaying TJA to achieve smoking and nicotine cessation or reduction.
• Delaying TJA to improve glycemic control in patients with diabetes, although the group did not recommend any specific measure or threshold.
• Not delaying TJA in patients with a severe deformity, bone loss, or a neuropathic joint.

The new guidelines formalize what many surgeons have already been doing for the past few years, said Arjun Saxena, MD, MBA, an orthopedic surgeon in Philadelphia who was not involved with the guidelines. “A lot of total joint programs have really focused on patient optimization, including smoking cessation, glycemic control, and weight loss prior to surgery,” he said.

Most importantly, the guidelines put an emphasis on how the decision to proceed with TJA should be a shared decision between a physician and patient, he added. Some insurance companies with prior authorization policies may require a patient to try additional nonoperative therapies before approving surgery, creating barriers to care, he said. “Hopefully [these new recommendations] will help third parties understand that joint replacement is a big decision – most doctors aren’t going to recommend that unless it’s necessary or something that is going to help patients,” he said. “I understand that there is a certain need for preauthorization, but just having strict guidelines isn’t appropriate. You really need to look at the whole picture,” he added.

The full manuscript has been submitted for review and is expected to be jointly published in American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons journals later this year.

Dr. Saxena consults for the orthopedic implant company Corin.

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

Patients with moderate to severe osteoarthritis (OA) or osteonecrosis (ON) eligible for total joint arthroplasty (TJA) who have failed one or more nonoperative therapies should proceed directly to surgery, according to new guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.

“One of the reasons for creating this guideline was that many patients have been subjected to delays for surgery after completing nonoperative therapy, despite persistent moderate to severe pain, loss of function, and moderate to severe radiographic OA or ON,” said coauthors Susan M. Goodman, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, and Charles Hannon, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Washington University in St. Louis, in an email interview with this news organization. “This guideline supports surgery being performed in an expeditious fashion after the decision has been made to proceed with surgery by both the physician and patient through a shared decision-making process,” they said.

The guidelines also state that obesity by itself should not be a reason to delay TJA. “We could not find a rationale for a strict cut off for weight/body mass index (BMI). Our literature review revealed that though many adverse events were, in fact, increased in patients with morbid obesity, there is also an increase in adverse events for those who had bariatric surgery prior to their arthroplasty,” they added, noting that patients need to be made aware of the increased risk for adverse events in patients with obesity. Though the guidelines do not pose any BMI cutoffs, they state that weight loss should be “strongly encouraged.” These new recommendations are conditional, and all had a “low” to “very low” certainty of evidence; however, there was high consensus on the recommendations from the expert panel.

The guidelines also recommended:

• Delaying TJA to achieve smoking and nicotine cessation or reduction.
• Delaying TJA to improve glycemic control in patients with diabetes, although the group did not recommend any specific measure or threshold.
• Not delaying TJA in patients with a severe deformity, bone loss, or a neuropathic joint.

The new guidelines formalize what many surgeons have already been doing for the past few years, said Arjun Saxena, MD, MBA, an orthopedic surgeon in Philadelphia who was not involved with the guidelines. “A lot of total joint programs have really focused on patient optimization, including smoking cessation, glycemic control, and weight loss prior to surgery,” he said.

Most importantly, the guidelines put an emphasis on how the decision to proceed with TJA should be a shared decision between a physician and patient, he added. Some insurance companies with prior authorization policies may require a patient to try additional nonoperative therapies before approving surgery, creating barriers to care, he said. “Hopefully [these new recommendations] will help third parties understand that joint replacement is a big decision – most doctors aren’t going to recommend that unless it’s necessary or something that is going to help patients,” he said. “I understand that there is a certain need for preauthorization, but just having strict guidelines isn’t appropriate. You really need to look at the whole picture,” he added.

The full manuscript has been submitted for review and is expected to be jointly published in American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons journals later this year.

Dr. Saxena consults for the orthopedic implant company Corin.

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

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has released a new clinical practice guideline defining the role of biomarkers in monitoring and managing ulcerative colitis (UC).

There is growing data on how to incorporate biomarkers in the care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, reported lead guideline panelist Siddharth Singh, MD, of University of California San Diego, La Jolla, Calif., and colleagues.

“[I]n routine clinical practice, repeated endoscopic assessment is invasive, expensive, and may be impractical,” the panelists wrote. Their report is in Gastroenterology. “There is an important need for understanding how noninvasive biomarkers may serve as accurate and reliable surrogates for endoscopic assessment of inflammation and whether they can be more readily implemented in a UC care pathway.”

After reviewing relevant randomized controlled trials and observational studies, Dr. Singh and colleagues issued seven conditional recommendations, three of which concern patients in symptomatic remission, and four of which apply to patients with symptomatically active UC.

“The key take-home message is that the routine measurement of noninvasive biomarkers in addition to assessment of patient reported symptoms is critical in evaluating the disease burden of UC,” said Jordan E. Axelrad, MD, MPH, director of clinical and translational research at NYU Langone Health’s Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, New York. “Many of these recommendations regarding the assessment of disease activity beyond symptoms alone are widely accepted, particularity at tertiary IBD centers; however, this guideline serves to formalize and structure the recommendations, with appropriate test cutoff values, in a simple UC care pathway.”
 

Recommendations for patients in symptomatic remission

For patients in remission, the guideline advises monitoring both symptoms and biomarkers, with biomarkers measured every 6-12 months.

Asymptomatic patients with normal biomarkers can skip routine endoscopy to evaluate disease activity, according to the guideline, but those with abnormal fecal calprotectin, fecal lactoferrin, or serum C-reactive protein (CRP) are candidates for endoscopic assessment instead of empiric treatment adjustment. Patients may still need periodic colonoscopy for dysplasia surveillance.

Recommendations for patients with symptomatically active disease

The recommendations for patients with symptomatically active UC follow a similar pathway. The guideline advises an evaluation strategy combining symptoms and biomarkers instead of symptoms alone.

For example, patients with moderate to severe symptoms suggestive of flare and elevated biomarkers are candidates for treatment adjustment without endoscopy.

Still, patient preferences should be considered, Dr. Singh and colleagues noted.

“Patients who place greater value in confirming inflammation, particularly when making significant treatment decisions (such as starting or switching immunosuppressive therapies), and lesser value on the inconvenience of endoscopy, may choose to pursue endoscopic evaluation before treatment adjustment,” they wrote.

For patients with mild symptoms, endoscopy is generally recommended, according to the guideline, unless the patient recently had moderate to severe symptoms and has improved after treatment adjustment; in that case, biomarkers can be used to fine-tune therapy without the need for endoscopy.

Again, providers should engage in shared-decision making, the guideline advises. Patients with mild symptoms but no biomarker results may reasonably elect to undergo endoscopy prior to testing biomarkers, while patients with mild symptoms and normal biomarkers may reasonably elect to retest biomarkers in 3-6 months.
 

Data remain insufficient to recommend biomarkers over endoscopy

Dr. Singh and colleagues concluded the guideline by highlighting an insufficient level of direct evidence necessary to recommend a biomarker-based treat-to-target strategy over endoscopy-based monitoring strategy, despite indirect evidence suggesting this may be the case.

“[T]here have not been any studies comparing a biomarker-based strategy with an endoscopy-based strategy for assessment and monitoring of endoscopic remission,” they wrote. “This was identified as a knowledge gap by the panel.”

The authors disclosed relationships with Pfizer, AbbVie, Lilly, and others. Dr. Axelrad disclosed relationships with Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, and others.

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has released a new clinical practice guideline defining the role of biomarkers in monitoring and managing ulcerative colitis (UC).

There is growing data on how to incorporate biomarkers in the care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, reported lead guideline panelist Siddharth Singh, MD, of University of California San Diego, La Jolla, Calif., and colleagues.

“[I]n routine clinical practice, repeated endoscopic assessment is invasive, expensive, and may be impractical,” the panelists wrote. Their report is in Gastroenterology. “There is an important need for understanding how noninvasive biomarkers may serve as accurate and reliable surrogates for endoscopic assessment of inflammation and whether they can be more readily implemented in a UC care pathway.”

After reviewing relevant randomized controlled trials and observational studies, Dr. Singh and colleagues issued seven conditional recommendations, three of which concern patients in symptomatic remission, and four of which apply to patients with symptomatically active UC.

“The key take-home message is that the routine measurement of noninvasive biomarkers in addition to assessment of patient reported symptoms is critical in evaluating the disease burden of UC,” said Jordan E. Axelrad, MD, MPH, director of clinical and translational research at NYU Langone Health’s Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, New York. “Many of these recommendations regarding the assessment of disease activity beyond symptoms alone are widely accepted, particularity at tertiary IBD centers; however, this guideline serves to formalize and structure the recommendations, with appropriate test cutoff values, in a simple UC care pathway.”
 

Recommendations for patients in symptomatic remission

For patients in remission, the guideline advises monitoring both symptoms and biomarkers, with biomarkers measured every 6-12 months.

Asymptomatic patients with normal biomarkers can skip routine endoscopy to evaluate disease activity, according to the guideline, but those with abnormal fecal calprotectin, fecal lactoferrin, or serum C-reactive protein (CRP) are candidates for endoscopic assessment instead of empiric treatment adjustment. Patients may still need periodic colonoscopy for dysplasia surveillance.

Recommendations for patients with symptomatically active disease

The recommendations for patients with symptomatically active UC follow a similar pathway. The guideline advises an evaluation strategy combining symptoms and biomarkers instead of symptoms alone.

For example, patients with moderate to severe symptoms suggestive of flare and elevated biomarkers are candidates for treatment adjustment without endoscopy.

Still, patient preferences should be considered, Dr. Singh and colleagues noted.

“Patients who place greater value in confirming inflammation, particularly when making significant treatment decisions (such as starting or switching immunosuppressive therapies), and lesser value on the inconvenience of endoscopy, may choose to pursue endoscopic evaluation before treatment adjustment,” they wrote.

For patients with mild symptoms, endoscopy is generally recommended, according to the guideline, unless the patient recently had moderate to severe symptoms and has improved after treatment adjustment; in that case, biomarkers can be used to fine-tune therapy without the need for endoscopy.

Again, providers should engage in shared-decision making, the guideline advises. Patients with mild symptoms but no biomarker results may reasonably elect to undergo endoscopy prior to testing biomarkers, while patients with mild symptoms and normal biomarkers may reasonably elect to retest biomarkers in 3-6 months.
 

Data remain insufficient to recommend biomarkers over endoscopy

Dr. Singh and colleagues concluded the guideline by highlighting an insufficient level of direct evidence necessary to recommend a biomarker-based treat-to-target strategy over endoscopy-based monitoring strategy, despite indirect evidence suggesting this may be the case.

“[T]here have not been any studies comparing a biomarker-based strategy with an endoscopy-based strategy for assessment and monitoring of endoscopic remission,” they wrote. “This was identified as a knowledge gap by the panel.”

The authors disclosed relationships with Pfizer, AbbVie, Lilly, and others. Dr. Axelrad disclosed relationships with Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, and others.

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has released a new clinical practice guideline defining the role of biomarkers in monitoring and managing ulcerative colitis (UC).

There is growing data on how to incorporate biomarkers in the care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, reported lead guideline panelist Siddharth Singh, MD, of University of California San Diego, La Jolla, Calif., and colleagues.

“[I]n routine clinical practice, repeated endoscopic assessment is invasive, expensive, and may be impractical,” the panelists wrote. Their report is in Gastroenterology. “There is an important need for understanding how noninvasive biomarkers may serve as accurate and reliable surrogates for endoscopic assessment of inflammation and whether they can be more readily implemented in a UC care pathway.”

After reviewing relevant randomized controlled trials and observational studies, Dr. Singh and colleagues issued seven conditional recommendations, three of which concern patients in symptomatic remission, and four of which apply to patients with symptomatically active UC.

“The key take-home message is that the routine measurement of noninvasive biomarkers in addition to assessment of patient reported symptoms is critical in evaluating the disease burden of UC,” said Jordan E. Axelrad, MD, MPH, director of clinical and translational research at NYU Langone Health’s Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, New York. “Many of these recommendations regarding the assessment of disease activity beyond symptoms alone are widely accepted, particularity at tertiary IBD centers; however, this guideline serves to formalize and structure the recommendations, with appropriate test cutoff values, in a simple UC care pathway.”
 

Recommendations for patients in symptomatic remission

For patients in remission, the guideline advises monitoring both symptoms and biomarkers, with biomarkers measured every 6-12 months.

Asymptomatic patients with normal biomarkers can skip routine endoscopy to evaluate disease activity, according to the guideline, but those with abnormal fecal calprotectin, fecal lactoferrin, or serum C-reactive protein (CRP) are candidates for endoscopic assessment instead of empiric treatment adjustment. Patients may still need periodic colonoscopy for dysplasia surveillance.

Recommendations for patients with symptomatically active disease

The recommendations for patients with symptomatically active UC follow a similar pathway. The guideline advises an evaluation strategy combining symptoms and biomarkers instead of symptoms alone.

For example, patients with moderate to severe symptoms suggestive of flare and elevated biomarkers are candidates for treatment adjustment without endoscopy.

Still, patient preferences should be considered, Dr. Singh and colleagues noted.

“Patients who place greater value in confirming inflammation, particularly when making significant treatment decisions (such as starting or switching immunosuppressive therapies), and lesser value on the inconvenience of endoscopy, may choose to pursue endoscopic evaluation before treatment adjustment,” they wrote.

For patients with mild symptoms, endoscopy is generally recommended, according to the guideline, unless the patient recently had moderate to severe symptoms and has improved after treatment adjustment; in that case, biomarkers can be used to fine-tune therapy without the need for endoscopy.

Again, providers should engage in shared-decision making, the guideline advises. Patients with mild symptoms but no biomarker results may reasonably elect to undergo endoscopy prior to testing biomarkers, while patients with mild symptoms and normal biomarkers may reasonably elect to retest biomarkers in 3-6 months.
 

Data remain insufficient to recommend biomarkers over endoscopy

Dr. Singh and colleagues concluded the guideline by highlighting an insufficient level of direct evidence necessary to recommend a biomarker-based treat-to-target strategy over endoscopy-based monitoring strategy, despite indirect evidence suggesting this may be the case.

“[T]here have not been any studies comparing a biomarker-based strategy with an endoscopy-based strategy for assessment and monitoring of endoscopic remission,” they wrote. “This was identified as a knowledge gap by the panel.”

The authors disclosed relationships with Pfizer, AbbVie, Lilly, and others. Dr. Axelrad disclosed relationships with Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, and others.

The latest guideline for perioperative management of antirheumatic medication in patients undergoing total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) offers recommendations based on the latest evidence, but many of those recommendations are based on a low level of evidence, according to a speaker at the 2023 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Martin Bergman, MD, clinical professor of medicine at Drexel University, Philadelphia, said the development of the American College of Rheumatology/American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons guideline was necessary because there was a lack of consensus on when to stop treatments prior to patients with rheumatologic disease undergoing THA and TKA, and when it was appropriate to restart those treatments.

“We all were having the same problem, and I think everybody recognized that just stopping medicines forever didn’t make sense, but maybe continuing medicines also didn’t make sense,” Dr. Bergman said.

While the 2017 ACR/AAHKS perioperative management guideline contained good recommendations, the “explosion” of new medications in rheumatology made it necessary to update the guideline with the latest data on new medications such as immunosuppressants.
 

2022 guideline recommendations

In the 2022 guideline, which covers disease-modifying treatments taken by patients with rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, and psoriatic arthritis, the authors reaffirmed their recommendations to continue methotrexate, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine, leflunomide, and apremilast through total joint arthroplasty.

Where the 2022 guideline differs from the 2017 guideline is in which biologics are covered and under what circumstances they should be withheld and restarted around surgery. The 2022 guideline includes recommendations for abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, guselkumab, infliximab, ixekizumab, rituximab, secukinumab, tocilizumab, and ustekinumab. Each biologic has its own recommended stop and restart times based around the dosing interval and respective method of administration. Dr. Bergman said a general rule with biologics under the new guideline is that the timing of surgery should occur approximately 1 week after the first missed dose of the medication. The only biologic that does not follow this pattern is rituximab, where surgery should be planned for 1 month after the last missed dose.

Dr. Bergman noted that how the guidelines handle interval dosing with infliximab may present a problem. The guideline provides recommendations for patients receiving infliximab every 4 weeks, every 6 weeks, and every 8 weeks. However, Dr. Bergman said this can create a scenario where a patient receiving infliximab at a dose of 3 mg/kg every 8 weeks has surgery at 9 weeks, a patient receiving 5 mg/kg every 6 weeks has surgery at 7 weeks, and a patient receiving 10 mg/kg every 4 weeks has surgery at 5 weeks. “There is some intellectual problem with it,” he said.

Another change from the 2017 guideline is how long to wait for surgery after stopping Janus kinase inhibitors. While the 2017 guideline recommended withholding JAK inhibitors 7 days before surgery, the 2022 guideline lowered that waiting period to 3 days, Dr. Bergman explained.

Concerning use of steroids around THA and TKA surgery, “the days of stress steroid dosing are done,” Dr. Bergman said. “You don’t have to stress dose them. You just follow them, and you keep them on their steroid dose.”

The new guideline recommends restarting therapy once the wound is healed and there is no physical evidence of infection at approximately 2 weeks. “There’s no data to support this,” he said, and his concern is that patients who have stopped a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor may flare if they don’t restart their medication.

While the guideline also covered recommendations for systemic lupus erythematosus, they are “very similar” to the recommendations for inflammatory arthritis, Dr. Bergman noted. “If you have somebody who is not very sick, you stop the medications,” he said, “but try to stop anything else about a week before the surgery. If they’re sick, you basically have to keep them on their medications.”
 

Caveats in guideline

The recommendations in the 2022 guideline come with a number of caveats, Dr. Bergman noted. For instance, the authors acknowledged limitations in the guideline regarding providing recommendations for only THA and TKA, the “paucity of evidence” around direct infection risk resulting from medications in the perioperative period for THA and TKA, the nonseparation of biologics when assessing infection risk, and the use of dosing interval as a metric for stopping the drug without considering the drug’s half-life.

A “crucial caveat,” Dr. Bergman said, was that the guideline focused on infection risk based on a statement from a panel of patients prior to the development of the 2017 guideline, which “stated very clearly any risk of infection, while rare, was more significant to them than the possibility of postoperative flares, despite flares being reported in over 60% of patients after surgery.

“For the patients, the paramount question was infection, infection, infection, infection. That’s all they cared about, and that is the basis behind a lot of the decision-making here,” Dr. Bergman said.

Another caveat came from a communication Dr. Bergman received from one of the panel members. The panel member noted there were no conclusions or recommendations provided in the guideline for how to manage perioperative flares, such as restarting a corticosteroid or biologic agent. “There was a lot of discussion about what to do with steroids if patients flare, or what to do with [other] medications if they flare, and they just couldn’t come to a consensus,” Dr. Bergman said. “It’s just not discussed.”

Dr. Bergman said he is “somewhat critical” of the ACR/AAHKS guideline, but noted it is an “ambitious project” given the lack of evidence for the recommendations. “The alternative was stop the medications forever and having people really flare, or at least try to get some semblance of rationality behind what we’re going to do,” he said.
 

Response from attendees

Jack Cush, MD, a rheumatologist based in Dallas and executive editor of RheumNow.com, took issue with the new recommendations surrounding stopping infliximab. When giving a patient infliximab every 8 weeks at 3 mg/kg, “you’re giving [it] at the nadir of the drug,” he said.

Rather than drug half-life, “it’s about inflammation,” he emphasized. “Inflammation is dominant in causing infection. It drives risk more than anything. The worst thing you can do is wash someone out.

“If you’re going beyond 8 weeks on infliximab, you’re getting closer to washing them out,” he pointed out. “I think it’s a really bad idea.”

Allan Gibofsky, MD, JD, professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine and codirector of the Clinic for Inflammatory Arthritis and Biologic Therapy at Hospital for Special Surgery, both in New York, explained that the guideline is not standard of care, which would be subject to malpractice if not implemented properly.

“When you have guidelines, you follow them unless there are clinical situations which would necessitate another approach to the patient,” he said. “Professional institutions and associations will never put forth rules, they will put forth guidelines so you have the opportunity to deviate from them when the appropriate clinical situation dictates.”

Dr. Bergman reported being a speaker and consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, and Regeneron; he holds stock in Johnson & Johnson and Merck.

The latest guideline for perioperative management of antirheumatic medication in patients undergoing total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) offers recommendations based on the latest evidence, but many of those recommendations are based on a low level of evidence, according to a speaker at the 2023 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Martin Bergman, MD, clinical professor of medicine at Drexel University, Philadelphia, said the development of the American College of Rheumatology/American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons guideline was necessary because there was a lack of consensus on when to stop treatments prior to patients with rheumatologic disease undergoing THA and TKA, and when it was appropriate to restart those treatments.

“We all were having the same problem, and I think everybody recognized that just stopping medicines forever didn’t make sense, but maybe continuing medicines also didn’t make sense,” Dr. Bergman said.

While the 2017 ACR/AAHKS perioperative management guideline contained good recommendations, the “explosion” of new medications in rheumatology made it necessary to update the guideline with the latest data on new medications such as immunosuppressants.
 

2022 guideline recommendations

In the 2022 guideline, which covers disease-modifying treatments taken by patients with rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, and psoriatic arthritis, the authors reaffirmed their recommendations to continue methotrexate, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine, leflunomide, and apremilast through total joint arthroplasty.

Where the 2022 guideline differs from the 2017 guideline is in which biologics are covered and under what circumstances they should be withheld and restarted around surgery. The 2022 guideline includes recommendations for abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, guselkumab, infliximab, ixekizumab, rituximab, secukinumab, tocilizumab, and ustekinumab. Each biologic has its own recommended stop and restart times based around the dosing interval and respective method of administration. Dr. Bergman said a general rule with biologics under the new guideline is that the timing of surgery should occur approximately 1 week after the first missed dose of the medication. The only biologic that does not follow this pattern is rituximab, where surgery should be planned for 1 month after the last missed dose.

Dr. Bergman noted that how the guidelines handle interval dosing with infliximab may present a problem. The guideline provides recommendations for patients receiving infliximab every 4 weeks, every 6 weeks, and every 8 weeks. However, Dr. Bergman said this can create a scenario where a patient receiving infliximab at a dose of 3 mg/kg every 8 weeks has surgery at 9 weeks, a patient receiving 5 mg/kg every 6 weeks has surgery at 7 weeks, and a patient receiving 10 mg/kg every 4 weeks has surgery at 5 weeks. “There is some intellectual problem with it,” he said.

Another change from the 2017 guideline is how long to wait for surgery after stopping Janus kinase inhibitors. While the 2017 guideline recommended withholding JAK inhibitors 7 days before surgery, the 2022 guideline lowered that waiting period to 3 days, Dr. Bergman explained.

Concerning use of steroids around THA and TKA surgery, “the days of stress steroid dosing are done,” Dr. Bergman said. “You don’t have to stress dose them. You just follow them, and you keep them on their steroid dose.”

The new guideline recommends restarting therapy once the wound is healed and there is no physical evidence of infection at approximately 2 weeks. “There’s no data to support this,” he said, and his concern is that patients who have stopped a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor may flare if they don’t restart their medication.

While the guideline also covered recommendations for systemic lupus erythematosus, they are “very similar” to the recommendations for inflammatory arthritis, Dr. Bergman noted. “If you have somebody who is not very sick, you stop the medications,” he said, “but try to stop anything else about a week before the surgery. If they’re sick, you basically have to keep them on their medications.”
 

Caveats in guideline

The recommendations in the 2022 guideline come with a number of caveats, Dr. Bergman noted. For instance, the authors acknowledged limitations in the guideline regarding providing recommendations for only THA and TKA, the “paucity of evidence” around direct infection risk resulting from medications in the perioperative period for THA and TKA, the nonseparation of biologics when assessing infection risk, and the use of dosing interval as a metric for stopping the drug without considering the drug’s half-life.

A “crucial caveat,” Dr. Bergman said, was that the guideline focused on infection risk based on a statement from a panel of patients prior to the development of the 2017 guideline, which “stated very clearly any risk of infection, while rare, was more significant to them than the possibility of postoperative flares, despite flares being reported in over 60% of patients after surgery.

“For the patients, the paramount question was infection, infection, infection, infection. That’s all they cared about, and that is the basis behind a lot of the decision-making here,” Dr. Bergman said.

Another caveat came from a communication Dr. Bergman received from one of the panel members. The panel member noted there were no conclusions or recommendations provided in the guideline for how to manage perioperative flares, such as restarting a corticosteroid or biologic agent. “There was a lot of discussion about what to do with steroids if patients flare, or what to do with [other] medications if they flare, and they just couldn’t come to a consensus,” Dr. Bergman said. “It’s just not discussed.”

Dr. Bergman said he is “somewhat critical” of the ACR/AAHKS guideline, but noted it is an “ambitious project” given the lack of evidence for the recommendations. “The alternative was stop the medications forever and having people really flare, or at least try to get some semblance of rationality behind what we’re going to do,” he said.
 

Response from attendees

Jack Cush, MD, a rheumatologist based in Dallas and executive editor of RheumNow.com, took issue with the new recommendations surrounding stopping infliximab. When giving a patient infliximab every 8 weeks at 3 mg/kg, “you’re giving [it] at the nadir of the drug,” he said.

Rather than drug half-life, “it’s about inflammation,” he emphasized. “Inflammation is dominant in causing infection. It drives risk more than anything. The worst thing you can do is wash someone out.

“If you’re going beyond 8 weeks on infliximab, you’re getting closer to washing them out,” he pointed out. “I think it’s a really bad idea.”

Allan Gibofsky, MD, JD, professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine and codirector of the Clinic for Inflammatory Arthritis and Biologic Therapy at Hospital for Special Surgery, both in New York, explained that the guideline is not standard of care, which would be subject to malpractice if not implemented properly.

“When you have guidelines, you follow them unless there are clinical situations which would necessitate another approach to the patient,” he said. “Professional institutions and associations will never put forth rules, they will put forth guidelines so you have the opportunity to deviate from them when the appropriate clinical situation dictates.”

Dr. Bergman reported being a speaker and consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, and Regeneron; he holds stock in Johnson & Johnson and Merck.

The latest guideline for perioperative management of antirheumatic medication in patients undergoing total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) offers recommendations based on the latest evidence, but many of those recommendations are based on a low level of evidence, according to a speaker at the 2023 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Martin Bergman, MD, clinical professor of medicine at Drexel University, Philadelphia, said the development of the American College of Rheumatology/American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons guideline was necessary because there was a lack of consensus on when to stop treatments prior to patients with rheumatologic disease undergoing THA and TKA, and when it was appropriate to restart those treatments.

“We all were having the same problem, and I think everybody recognized that just stopping medicines forever didn’t make sense, but maybe continuing medicines also didn’t make sense,” Dr. Bergman said.

While the 2017 ACR/AAHKS perioperative management guideline contained good recommendations, the “explosion” of new medications in rheumatology made it necessary to update the guideline with the latest data on new medications such as immunosuppressants.
 

2022 guideline recommendations

In the 2022 guideline, which covers disease-modifying treatments taken by patients with rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, and psoriatic arthritis, the authors reaffirmed their recommendations to continue methotrexate, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine, leflunomide, and apremilast through total joint arthroplasty.

Where the 2022 guideline differs from the 2017 guideline is in which biologics are covered and under what circumstances they should be withheld and restarted around surgery. The 2022 guideline includes recommendations for abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, guselkumab, infliximab, ixekizumab, rituximab, secukinumab, tocilizumab, and ustekinumab. Each biologic has its own recommended stop and restart times based around the dosing interval and respective method of administration. Dr. Bergman said a general rule with biologics under the new guideline is that the timing of surgery should occur approximately 1 week after the first missed dose of the medication. The only biologic that does not follow this pattern is rituximab, where surgery should be planned for 1 month after the last missed dose.

Dr. Bergman noted that how the guidelines handle interval dosing with infliximab may present a problem. The guideline provides recommendations for patients receiving infliximab every 4 weeks, every 6 weeks, and every 8 weeks. However, Dr. Bergman said this can create a scenario where a patient receiving infliximab at a dose of 3 mg/kg every 8 weeks has surgery at 9 weeks, a patient receiving 5 mg/kg every 6 weeks has surgery at 7 weeks, and a patient receiving 10 mg/kg every 4 weeks has surgery at 5 weeks. “There is some intellectual problem with it,” he said.

Another change from the 2017 guideline is how long to wait for surgery after stopping Janus kinase inhibitors. While the 2017 guideline recommended withholding JAK inhibitors 7 days before surgery, the 2022 guideline lowered that waiting period to 3 days, Dr. Bergman explained.

Concerning use of steroids around THA and TKA surgery, “the days of stress steroid dosing are done,” Dr. Bergman said. “You don’t have to stress dose them. You just follow them, and you keep them on their steroid dose.”

The new guideline recommends restarting therapy once the wound is healed and there is no physical evidence of infection at approximately 2 weeks. “There’s no data to support this,” he said, and his concern is that patients who have stopped a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor may flare if they don’t restart their medication.

While the guideline also covered recommendations for systemic lupus erythematosus, they are “very similar” to the recommendations for inflammatory arthritis, Dr. Bergman noted. “If you have somebody who is not very sick, you stop the medications,” he said, “but try to stop anything else about a week before the surgery. If they’re sick, you basically have to keep them on their medications.”
 

Caveats in guideline

The recommendations in the 2022 guideline come with a number of caveats, Dr. Bergman noted. For instance, the authors acknowledged limitations in the guideline regarding providing recommendations for only THA and TKA, the “paucity of evidence” around direct infection risk resulting from medications in the perioperative period for THA and TKA, the nonseparation of biologics when assessing infection risk, and the use of dosing interval as a metric for stopping the drug without considering the drug’s half-life.

A “crucial caveat,” Dr. Bergman said, was that the guideline focused on infection risk based on a statement from a panel of patients prior to the development of the 2017 guideline, which “stated very clearly any risk of infection, while rare, was more significant to them than the possibility of postoperative flares, despite flares being reported in over 60% of patients after surgery.

“For the patients, the paramount question was infection, infection, infection, infection. That’s all they cared about, and that is the basis behind a lot of the decision-making here,” Dr. Bergman said.

Another caveat came from a communication Dr. Bergman received from one of the panel members. The panel member noted there were no conclusions or recommendations provided in the guideline for how to manage perioperative flares, such as restarting a corticosteroid or biologic agent. “There was a lot of discussion about what to do with steroids if patients flare, or what to do with [other] medications if they flare, and they just couldn’t come to a consensus,” Dr. Bergman said. “It’s just not discussed.”

Dr. Bergman said he is “somewhat critical” of the ACR/AAHKS guideline, but noted it is an “ambitious project” given the lack of evidence for the recommendations. “The alternative was stop the medications forever and having people really flare, or at least try to get some semblance of rationality behind what we’re going to do,” he said.
 

Response from attendees

Jack Cush, MD, a rheumatologist based in Dallas and executive editor of RheumNow.com, took issue with the new recommendations surrounding stopping infliximab. When giving a patient infliximab every 8 weeks at 3 mg/kg, “you’re giving [it] at the nadir of the drug,” he said.

Rather than drug half-life, “it’s about inflammation,” he emphasized. “Inflammation is dominant in causing infection. It drives risk more than anything. The worst thing you can do is wash someone out.

“If you’re going beyond 8 weeks on infliximab, you’re getting closer to washing them out,” he pointed out. “I think it’s a really bad idea.”

Allan Gibofsky, MD, JD, professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine and codirector of the Clinic for Inflammatory Arthritis and Biologic Therapy at Hospital for Special Surgery, both in New York, explained that the guideline is not standard of care, which would be subject to malpractice if not implemented properly.

“When you have guidelines, you follow them unless there are clinical situations which would necessitate another approach to the patient,” he said. “Professional institutions and associations will never put forth rules, they will put forth guidelines so you have the opportunity to deviate from them when the appropriate clinical situation dictates.”

Dr. Bergman reported being a speaker and consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, and Regeneron; he holds stock in Johnson & Johnson and Merck.

The American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) have jointly issued new guidance outlining competency-based advanced training requirements for interventional cardiology trainees.

It’s the first document of its kind to define the training requirements for the full breadth of interventional cardiology for adults, including coronary interventions, peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs), and structural heart interventions (SHIs), the organizations say.

enot-poloskun/Getty Images

Minimum of 250 procedures

To gain the necessary experience in interventional cardiology, cardiovascular fellows are advised to complete the following:

• A 3-year general cardiovascular disease fellowship (successful completion consists of Level I competency in all aspects of cardiovascular medicine and Level II competency in diagnostic cardiac catheterization to pursue interventional cardiology training);
• A 1-year accredited interventional cardiology fellowship, the focus of which is coronary intervention with the opportunity to gain procedural experience in various aspects of PVI or SHI (Level III competency);
• An option for additional post-fellowship training based on the trainee’s career goals.

The goal of Level III training is to provide the interventional cardiology trainees with a “well-rounded, competency-based education,” including didactic instruction, clinical experience in the diagnosis and care of patients, and hands-on procedural experience, the writing group says.

Competency requirements are defined using the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education’s six “essential” competency domains: medical knowledge; patient care and procedural skills; practice-based learning and improvement; systems-based practice; interpersonal and communication skills; and professionalism.

To support attaining these competencies, the writing committee recommends a minimum of 250 interventional cardiology procedures. Of these, 200 should be coronary procedures, with the remaining 50 specialized in coronary, PVI, or SHI, which allows the fellows to customize training on the basis of their career goals.

Adjunctive procedures related to physiologic assessment and intracoronary imaging are also required (25 of each). “These minimum numbers are meant to provide trainees with exposure to a variety and spectrum of complexity of clinical case material and give supervising faculty sufficient opportunity to evaluate trainees’ competency,” the writing group says.

In addition to their procedural skills, evaluation of interventional cardiology trainee proficiency should include regular assessment of a trainee’s ability to clinically diagnose and manage patients across the broad spectrum of diseases.

Assessment of trainees should involve multiple components, including direct observation by instructors, case logs, chart reviews (including adherence to guideline recommendations, appropriate use criteria, and patient outcomes), simulation training, and assessment of leadership skills.

Trainees must also acquire experience working as part of a multidisciplinary team to provide a holistic approach to patient care. The document also highlights the importance of leadership skills, mentorship and lifelong learning beyond initial training.

The 2023 ACC/AHA/SCAI Advanced Training Statement on Interventional Cardiology (Coronary, Peripheral Vascular, and Structural Heart Interventions) was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The statement was developed in collaboration with and endorsed by the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the American Society of Echocardiography, the Heart Failure Society of America, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the Society for Vascular Medicine.

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

The American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) have jointly issued new guidance outlining competency-based advanced training requirements for interventional cardiology trainees.

It’s the first document of its kind to define the training requirements for the full breadth of interventional cardiology for adults, including coronary interventions, peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs), and structural heart interventions (SHIs), the organizations say.

enot-poloskun/Getty Images

Minimum of 250 procedures

To gain the necessary experience in interventional cardiology, cardiovascular fellows are advised to complete the following:

• A 3-year general cardiovascular disease fellowship (successful completion consists of Level I competency in all aspects of cardiovascular medicine and Level II competency in diagnostic cardiac catheterization to pursue interventional cardiology training);
• A 1-year accredited interventional cardiology fellowship, the focus of which is coronary intervention with the opportunity to gain procedural experience in various aspects of PVI or SHI (Level III competency);
• An option for additional post-fellowship training based on the trainee’s career goals.

The goal of Level III training is to provide the interventional cardiology trainees with a “well-rounded, competency-based education,” including didactic instruction, clinical experience in the diagnosis and care of patients, and hands-on procedural experience, the writing group says.

Competency requirements are defined using the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education’s six “essential” competency domains: medical knowledge; patient care and procedural skills; practice-based learning and improvement; systems-based practice; interpersonal and communication skills; and professionalism.

To support attaining these competencies, the writing committee recommends a minimum of 250 interventional cardiology procedures. Of these, 200 should be coronary procedures, with the remaining 50 specialized in coronary, PVI, or SHI, which allows the fellows to customize training on the basis of their career goals.

Adjunctive procedures related to physiologic assessment and intracoronary imaging are also required (25 of each). “These minimum numbers are meant to provide trainees with exposure to a variety and spectrum of complexity of clinical case material and give supervising faculty sufficient opportunity to evaluate trainees’ competency,” the writing group says.

In addition to their procedural skills, evaluation of interventional cardiology trainee proficiency should include regular assessment of a trainee’s ability to clinically diagnose and manage patients across the broad spectrum of diseases.

Assessment of trainees should involve multiple components, including direct observation by instructors, case logs, chart reviews (including adherence to guideline recommendations, appropriate use criteria, and patient outcomes), simulation training, and assessment of leadership skills.

Trainees must also acquire experience working as part of a multidisciplinary team to provide a holistic approach to patient care. The document also highlights the importance of leadership skills, mentorship and lifelong learning beyond initial training.

The 2023 ACC/AHA/SCAI Advanced Training Statement on Interventional Cardiology (Coronary, Peripheral Vascular, and Structural Heart Interventions) was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The statement was developed in collaboration with and endorsed by the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the American Society of Echocardiography, the Heart Failure Society of America, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the Society for Vascular Medicine.

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

The American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) have jointly issued new guidance outlining competency-based advanced training requirements for interventional cardiology trainees.

It’s the first document of its kind to define the training requirements for the full breadth of interventional cardiology for adults, including coronary interventions, peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs), and structural heart interventions (SHIs), the organizations say.

enot-poloskun/Getty Images

Minimum of 250 procedures

To gain the necessary experience in interventional cardiology, cardiovascular fellows are advised to complete the following:

• A 3-year general cardiovascular disease fellowship (successful completion consists of Level I competency in all aspects of cardiovascular medicine and Level II competency in diagnostic cardiac catheterization to pursue interventional cardiology training);
• A 1-year accredited interventional cardiology fellowship, the focus of which is coronary intervention with the opportunity to gain procedural experience in various aspects of PVI or SHI (Level III competency);
• An option for additional post-fellowship training based on the trainee’s career goals.

The goal of Level III training is to provide the interventional cardiology trainees with a “well-rounded, competency-based education,” including didactic instruction, clinical experience in the diagnosis and care of patients, and hands-on procedural experience, the writing group says.

Competency requirements are defined using the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education’s six “essential” competency domains: medical knowledge; patient care and procedural skills; practice-based learning and improvement; systems-based practice; interpersonal and communication skills; and professionalism.

To support attaining these competencies, the writing committee recommends a minimum of 250 interventional cardiology procedures. Of these, 200 should be coronary procedures, with the remaining 50 specialized in coronary, PVI, or SHI, which allows the fellows to customize training on the basis of their career goals.

Adjunctive procedures related to physiologic assessment and intracoronary imaging are also required (25 of each). “These minimum numbers are meant to provide trainees with exposure to a variety and spectrum of complexity of clinical case material and give supervising faculty sufficient opportunity to evaluate trainees’ competency,” the writing group says.

In addition to their procedural skills, evaluation of interventional cardiology trainee proficiency should include regular assessment of a trainee’s ability to clinically diagnose and manage patients across the broad spectrum of diseases.

Assessment of trainees should involve multiple components, including direct observation by instructors, case logs, chart reviews (including adherence to guideline recommendations, appropriate use criteria, and patient outcomes), simulation training, and assessment of leadership skills.

Trainees must also acquire experience working as part of a multidisciplinary team to provide a holistic approach to patient care. The document also highlights the importance of leadership skills, mentorship and lifelong learning beyond initial training.

The 2023 ACC/AHA/SCAI Advanced Training Statement on Interventional Cardiology (Coronary, Peripheral Vascular, and Structural Heart Interventions) was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The statement was developed in collaboration with and endorsed by the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the American Society of Echocardiography, the Heart Failure Society of America, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the Society for Vascular Medicine.

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

Asymptomatic adults, teens, and pregnant women with no known history or symptoms of herpes infection need not undergo routine screening, according to the latest recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

The 2023 recommendation reaffirms the conclusion from 2016, wrote Carol M. Mangione, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and members of the task force.

“Currently, routine serologic screening for genital herpes is limited by the low predictive value of the widely available serologic screening tests and the expected high rate of false-positive results likely to occur with routine screening of asymptomatic persons in the U.S.,” the authors said.

In the recommendation, published in JAMA, the authors affirmed with moderate certainty and a grade D recommendation that the risks of routine screening for herpes simplex virus (HSV) in asymptomatic individuals outweigh the benefits.

The task force found no new evidence on the accuracy of serologic screening tests, the benefits of early detection and treatment, or on the harms of screening and treatment since the 2016 review of 17 studies in 19 publications, with data from more than 9,000 individuals.

Studies of the accuracy of serologic screening for herpes simplex virus-2 in the 2016 report mainly reflect populations with higher HSV-2 prevalence and are of limited applicability to the U.S. primary care population, the authors wrote. Evidence from the 2016 review also showed limited and inconsistent support for the early identification and treatment of HSV-2 in asymptomatic individuals, including those who were pregnant.

No new evidence has emerged since 2016 regarding harms of screening or treating genital herpes in asymptomatic individuals, the authors noted. “Based on previous evidence, the USPSTF estimated that using the widely available serologic tests for HSV-2, nearly 1 of every 2 diagnoses in the general U.S. primary care population could be false,” they said. The task force also concluded that the low accuracy of the current tests could prompt unnecessary treatment for individuals with false-positive diagnoses, as well as social and emotional harm for these individuals.

During a period of public comment from Aug. 16, 2022, to Sept. 12, 2022, individuals expressed concerns that the recommendation against routine screening showed a disinclination to take herpes seriously, and concerns that asymptomatic individuals could transmit the infection to sexual partners, the authors said. However, the estimated seroprevalence of HSV-1 and HSV-2 has declined in recent decades, and other comments supported the USPSTF’s analysis of the evidence and noted their consistency with current clinical practice.

The task force noted that research gaps remain and recognized the need to improve screening and treatment of genital herpes to prevent symptomatic episodes and transmission. Specifically, the USPSTF recommendation calls for more research to assess the accuracy of screening tests, to enroll more study participants from populations disproportionately affected by HSV, to examine the effect of behavioral counseling, and to clarify associations between HSV and pregnancy outcomes. In addition, the task force called for research to create an effective vaccine to prevent genital HSV infection and to develop a cure.
 

Targeted screening makes sense for now

“Given the frequency and severity of the range of diseases seen with HSV and the large proportion of persons who are asymptomatic, identifying carriers through type-specific serologic screening has long been considered a plausible strategy,” Mark D. Pearlman, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

However, accuracy of the currently available serology screening tests is low, and the adverse social and psychological effects and the impact on relationships for many asymptomatic individuals who test positive and may be incorrectly identified as infected remains a concern, said Dr. Pearlman.

Although some may be disagree about the value of routine serotesting for HSV-2 in asymptomatic individuals, other strategies can reduce the spread of infection and help those infected, he said.

Many experts continue to recommend targeted serotesting to high-risk populations, such as pregnant women whose nonpregnant partner is known to have genital or oral herpes and whose own infection status or serostatus is uncertain, said Dr. Pearlman. Other targeted strategies include screening individuals with recurrent or atypical genital symptoms and negative polymerase chain reaction assay or culture results, a clinical herpes diagnosis without laboratory confirmation, or those at increased risk because of a high number of sexual partners or a history of HIV infection, he said.

“Of note, the current CDC STI guidelines and ACOG both concur with the USPSTF that routine screening in the general population or routine screening during pregnancy are not recommended,” Dr. Pearlman said. Meanwhile, research efforts continue to help reduce the impact of HSV disease and development of a more effective testing methodology “might tip the balance in favor of routine screening” in the future, he emphasized.

The recommendations were supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The members of the task force received reimbursement for travel and an honorarium but had no other relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pearlman had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Asymptomatic adults, teens, and pregnant women with no known history or symptoms of herpes infection need not undergo routine screening, according to the latest recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

The 2023 recommendation reaffirms the conclusion from 2016, wrote Carol M. Mangione, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and members of the task force.

“Currently, routine serologic screening for genital herpes is limited by the low predictive value of the widely available serologic screening tests and the expected high rate of false-positive results likely to occur with routine screening of asymptomatic persons in the U.S.,” the authors said.

In the recommendation, published in JAMA, the authors affirmed with moderate certainty and a grade D recommendation that the risks of routine screening for herpes simplex virus (HSV) in asymptomatic individuals outweigh the benefits.

The task force found no new evidence on the accuracy of serologic screening tests, the benefits of early detection and treatment, or on the harms of screening and treatment since the 2016 review of 17 studies in 19 publications, with data from more than 9,000 individuals.

Studies of the accuracy of serologic screening for herpes simplex virus-2 in the 2016 report mainly reflect populations with higher HSV-2 prevalence and are of limited applicability to the U.S. primary care population, the authors wrote. Evidence from the 2016 review also showed limited and inconsistent support for the early identification and treatment of HSV-2 in asymptomatic individuals, including those who were pregnant.

No new evidence has emerged since 2016 regarding harms of screening or treating genital herpes in asymptomatic individuals, the authors noted. “Based on previous evidence, the USPSTF estimated that using the widely available serologic tests for HSV-2, nearly 1 of every 2 diagnoses in the general U.S. primary care population could be false,” they said. The task force also concluded that the low accuracy of the current tests could prompt unnecessary treatment for individuals with false-positive diagnoses, as well as social and emotional harm for these individuals.

During a period of public comment from Aug. 16, 2022, to Sept. 12, 2022, individuals expressed concerns that the recommendation against routine screening showed a disinclination to take herpes seriously, and concerns that asymptomatic individuals could transmit the infection to sexual partners, the authors said. However, the estimated seroprevalence of HSV-1 and HSV-2 has declined in recent decades, and other comments supported the USPSTF’s analysis of the evidence and noted their consistency with current clinical practice.

The task force noted that research gaps remain and recognized the need to improve screening and treatment of genital herpes to prevent symptomatic episodes and transmission. Specifically, the USPSTF recommendation calls for more research to assess the accuracy of screening tests, to enroll more study participants from populations disproportionately affected by HSV, to examine the effect of behavioral counseling, and to clarify associations between HSV and pregnancy outcomes. In addition, the task force called for research to create an effective vaccine to prevent genital HSV infection and to develop a cure.
 

Targeted screening makes sense for now

“Given the frequency and severity of the range of diseases seen with HSV and the large proportion of persons who are asymptomatic, identifying carriers through type-specific serologic screening has long been considered a plausible strategy,” Mark D. Pearlman, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

However, accuracy of the currently available serology screening tests is low, and the adverse social and psychological effects and the impact on relationships for many asymptomatic individuals who test positive and may be incorrectly identified as infected remains a concern, said Dr. Pearlman.

Although some may be disagree about the value of routine serotesting for HSV-2 in asymptomatic individuals, other strategies can reduce the spread of infection and help those infected, he said.

Many experts continue to recommend targeted serotesting to high-risk populations, such as pregnant women whose nonpregnant partner is known to have genital or oral herpes and whose own infection status or serostatus is uncertain, said Dr. Pearlman. Other targeted strategies include screening individuals with recurrent or atypical genital symptoms and negative polymerase chain reaction assay or culture results, a clinical herpes diagnosis without laboratory confirmation, or those at increased risk because of a high number of sexual partners or a history of HIV infection, he said.

“Of note, the current CDC STI guidelines and ACOG both concur with the USPSTF that routine screening in the general population or routine screening during pregnancy are not recommended,” Dr. Pearlman said. Meanwhile, research efforts continue to help reduce the impact of HSV disease and development of a more effective testing methodology “might tip the balance in favor of routine screening” in the future, he emphasized.

The recommendations were supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The members of the task force received reimbursement for travel and an honorarium but had no other relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pearlman had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Asymptomatic adults, teens, and pregnant women with no known history or symptoms of herpes infection need not undergo routine screening, according to the latest recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

The 2023 recommendation reaffirms the conclusion from 2016, wrote Carol M. Mangione, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and members of the task force.

“Currently, routine serologic screening for genital herpes is limited by the low predictive value of the widely available serologic screening tests and the expected high rate of false-positive results likely to occur with routine screening of asymptomatic persons in the U.S.,” the authors said.

In the recommendation, published in JAMA, the authors affirmed with moderate certainty and a grade D recommendation that the risks of routine screening for herpes simplex virus (HSV) in asymptomatic individuals outweigh the benefits.

The task force found no new evidence on the accuracy of serologic screening tests, the benefits of early detection and treatment, or on the harms of screening and treatment since the 2016 review of 17 studies in 19 publications, with data from more than 9,000 individuals.

Studies of the accuracy of serologic screening for herpes simplex virus-2 in the 2016 report mainly reflect populations with higher HSV-2 prevalence and are of limited applicability to the U.S. primary care population, the authors wrote. Evidence from the 2016 review also showed limited and inconsistent support for the early identification and treatment of HSV-2 in asymptomatic individuals, including those who were pregnant.

No new evidence has emerged since 2016 regarding harms of screening or treating genital herpes in asymptomatic individuals, the authors noted. “Based on previous evidence, the USPSTF estimated that using the widely available serologic tests for HSV-2, nearly 1 of every 2 diagnoses in the general U.S. primary care population could be false,” they said. The task force also concluded that the low accuracy of the current tests could prompt unnecessary treatment for individuals with false-positive diagnoses, as well as social and emotional harm for these individuals.

During a period of public comment from Aug. 16, 2022, to Sept. 12, 2022, individuals expressed concerns that the recommendation against routine screening showed a disinclination to take herpes seriously, and concerns that asymptomatic individuals could transmit the infection to sexual partners, the authors said. However, the estimated seroprevalence of HSV-1 and HSV-2 has declined in recent decades, and other comments supported the USPSTF’s analysis of the evidence and noted their consistency with current clinical practice.

The task force noted that research gaps remain and recognized the need to improve screening and treatment of genital herpes to prevent symptomatic episodes and transmission. Specifically, the USPSTF recommendation calls for more research to assess the accuracy of screening tests, to enroll more study participants from populations disproportionately affected by HSV, to examine the effect of behavioral counseling, and to clarify associations between HSV and pregnancy outcomes. In addition, the task force called for research to create an effective vaccine to prevent genital HSV infection and to develop a cure.
 

Targeted screening makes sense for now

“Given the frequency and severity of the range of diseases seen with HSV and the large proportion of persons who are asymptomatic, identifying carriers through type-specific serologic screening has long been considered a plausible strategy,” Mark D. Pearlman, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

However, accuracy of the currently available serology screening tests is low, and the adverse social and psychological effects and the impact on relationships for many asymptomatic individuals who test positive and may be incorrectly identified as infected remains a concern, said Dr. Pearlman.

Although some may be disagree about the value of routine serotesting for HSV-2 in asymptomatic individuals, other strategies can reduce the spread of infection and help those infected, he said.

Many experts continue to recommend targeted serotesting to high-risk populations, such as pregnant women whose nonpregnant partner is known to have genital or oral herpes and whose own infection status or serostatus is uncertain, said Dr. Pearlman. Other targeted strategies include screening individuals with recurrent or atypical genital symptoms and negative polymerase chain reaction assay or culture results, a clinical herpes diagnosis without laboratory confirmation, or those at increased risk because of a high number of sexual partners or a history of HIV infection, he said.

“Of note, the current CDC STI guidelines and ACOG both concur with the USPSTF that routine screening in the general population or routine screening during pregnancy are not recommended,” Dr. Pearlman said. Meanwhile, research efforts continue to help reduce the impact of HSV disease and development of a more effective testing methodology “might tip the balance in favor of routine screening” in the future, he emphasized.

The recommendations were supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The members of the task force received reimbursement for travel and an honorarium but had no other relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pearlman had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Among pediatric patients with psoriasis who began treatment with ustekinumab, etanercept, or methotrexate, the rate of serious infections at 6 months was low, with an incidence ranging between 14.9 and 25.6 per 1,000 person-years.

Those are key findings from what is believed to be the largest cohort study of its kind to estimate the 6-month rate of infections among children with psoriasis who started treatment with ustekinumab, etanercept, or methotrexate.

“Clinical trials have demonstrated high efficacy of new immunomodulatory agents in treating children with psoriasis,” lead author Maria C. Schneeweiss, MD, of the division of pharmacoepidemiology in the departments of medicine and dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues wrote in the article, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology. “However, the risk of infections in clinical practice has not been fully characterized by comparing these medications against each other in pairwise comparisons.”

Drawing from two large U.S. insurance claims databases, the researchers identified 2,338 patients aged 17 years and younger who were receiving treatment with a topical medication for psoriasis and started new treatment with ustekinumab, etanercept, or methotrexate. They stratified their analysis by the time before pediatric labeling (2009-2015) and after pediatric approval (2016-2021), and their follow-up of patients started 1 day after initiating treatment and ended at 6 months.

Of the 2,338 patients, 1,368 (58%) were girls. From 2009 through 2021, 379 patients began treatment with ustekinumab, 779 patients began treatment with etanercept, and 1,180 patients began treatment with methotrexate. The propensity score–adjusted incidence rate of serious infection was 18.4 per 1,000 person-years (3 events) for those who used ustekinumab, 25.6 per 1,000 person-years (9 events) for those who used etanercept, and 14.9 per 1,000 person-years (8 events) for those who used methotrexate. The adjusted rate of outpatient infections was 254.9 per 1,000 person-years (39 events) for those who used ustekinumab, 435.7 per 1,000 person-years (139 events) for those who used etanercept, and 433.6 per 1,000 person-years (209 events) for those who used methotrexate. Meanwhile, the adjusted rate ratio of outpatient infections was 0.58 for ustekinumab vs. etanercept, 0.66 for ustekinumab vs. methotrexate, and 0.95 for etanercept vs. methotrexate. The researchers found that ratios were similar during the off-label use era and after pediatric labeling.

Anna L. Grossberg, MD, director of pediatric dermatology at the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center, Baltimore, who was asked to comment on the work, told this news organization that the data on outpatient infections in ustekinumab users “demonstrated that they may have a decreased risk of infection compared to pediatric psoriasis patients treated with methotrexate or the TNF-alpha inhibitor etanercept. This is previously unreported and reflects my personal experience with this medication in my own pediatric psoriasis patients.” She added the study’s overall findings lend further support to the safety of biologic medications and nonbiologic systemic immunomodulatory treatments for management of psoriasis. “This study will help guide pediatric dermatologists in counseling patients and their families about these risks [of infection], and in general providing reassurance that these risks appear to be quite low,” Dr. Grossberg said. “In particular, ustekinumab, a newer biologic medication that was recently FDA-approved for children 6 years and older for pediatric psoriasis, was not associated with higher infection rates than the other agents analyzed in this study, and in fact appears to carry a reduced risk compared to both etanercept and methotrexate.”

She noted certain limitations of the study, including its reliance on insurance claims data, “which can be limiting because information on possible confounding variables may not be known,” she said. “For example, the authors point out that environmental and behavioral risk factors for serious infection could not be evaluated or adjusted for, nor could the severity of the patients’ psoriasis. Additionally, this study only reported on outpatient infections that resulted in an antibiotic or other medications being prescribed and filled. It therefore may have missed children who presented with certain viral infections (examples could include the common cold and uncomplicated ear infections), which often will not require a prescription medication. Furthermore, it would fail to capture those who may have been seen for an infection but failed to fill the intended prescription.”

Dr. Schneeweiss reported receiving grants from AbbVie and UCB to Brigham and Women’s Hospital unrelated to the topic of this study and outside the submitted work. The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Grossberg reported having no financial disclosures.

Among pediatric patients with psoriasis who began treatment with ustekinumab, etanercept, or methotrexate, the rate of serious infections at 6 months was low, with an incidence ranging between 14.9 and 25.6 per 1,000 person-years.

Those are key findings from what is believed to be the largest cohort study of its kind to estimate the 6-month rate of infections among children with psoriasis who started treatment with ustekinumab, etanercept, or methotrexate.

“Clinical trials have demonstrated high efficacy of new immunomodulatory agents in treating children with psoriasis,” lead author Maria C. Schneeweiss, MD, of the division of pharmacoepidemiology in the departments of medicine and dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues wrote in the article, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology. “However, the risk of infections in clinical practice has not been fully characterized by comparing these medications against each other in pairwise comparisons.”

Drawing from two large U.S. insurance claims databases, the researchers identified 2,338 patients aged 17 years and younger who were receiving treatment with a topical medication for psoriasis and started new treatment with ustekinumab, etanercept, or methotrexate. They stratified their analysis by the time before pediatric labeling (2009-2015) and after pediatric approval (2016-2021), and their follow-up of patients started 1 day after initiating treatment and ended at 6 months.

Of the 2,338 patients, 1,368 (58%) were girls. From 2009 through 2021, 379 patients began treatment with ustekinumab, 779 patients began treatment with etanercept, and 1,180 patients began treatment with methotrexate. The propensity score–adjusted incidence rate of serious infection was 18.4 per 1,000 person-years (3 events) for those who used ustekinumab, 25.6 per 1,000 person-years (9 events) for those who used etanercept, and 14.9 per 1,000 person-years (8 events) for those who used methotrexate. The adjusted rate of outpatient infections was 254.9 per 1,000 person-years (39 events) for those who used ustekinumab, 435.7 per 1,000 person-years (139 events) for those who used etanercept, and 433.6 per 1,000 person-years (209 events) for those who used methotrexate. Meanwhile, the adjusted rate ratio of outpatient infections was 0.58 for ustekinumab vs. etanercept, 0.66 for ustekinumab vs. methotrexate, and 0.95 for etanercept vs. methotrexate. The researchers found that ratios were similar during the off-label use era and after pediatric labeling.

Anna L. Grossberg, MD, director of pediatric dermatology at the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center, Baltimore, who was asked to comment on the work, told this news organization that the data on outpatient infections in ustekinumab users “demonstrated that they may have a decreased risk of infection compared to pediatric psoriasis patients treated with methotrexate or the TNF-alpha inhibitor etanercept. This is previously unreported and reflects my personal experience with this medication in my own pediatric psoriasis patients.” She added the study’s overall findings lend further support to the safety of biologic medications and nonbiologic systemic immunomodulatory treatments for management of psoriasis. “This study will help guide pediatric dermatologists in counseling patients and their families about these risks [of infection], and in general providing reassurance that these risks appear to be quite low,” Dr. Grossberg said. “In particular, ustekinumab, a newer biologic medication that was recently FDA-approved for children 6 years and older for pediatric psoriasis, was not associated with higher infection rates than the other agents analyzed in this study, and in fact appears to carry a reduced risk compared to both etanercept and methotrexate.”

She noted certain limitations of the study, including its reliance on insurance claims data, “which can be limiting because information on possible confounding variables may not be known,” she said. “For example, the authors point out that environmental and behavioral risk factors for serious infection could not be evaluated or adjusted for, nor could the severity of the patients’ psoriasis. Additionally, this study only reported on outpatient infections that resulted in an antibiotic or other medications being prescribed and filled. It therefore may have missed children who presented with certain viral infections (examples could include the common cold and uncomplicated ear infections), which often will not require a prescription medication. Furthermore, it would fail to capture those who may have been seen for an infection but failed to fill the intended prescription.”

Dr. Schneeweiss reported receiving grants from AbbVie and UCB to Brigham and Women’s Hospital unrelated to the topic of this study and outside the submitted work. The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Grossberg reported having no financial disclosures.

Among pediatric patients with psoriasis who began treatment with ustekinumab, etanercept, or methotrexate, the rate of serious infections at 6 months was low, with an incidence ranging between 14.9 and 25.6 per 1,000 person-years.

Those are key findings from what is believed to be the largest cohort study of its kind to estimate the 6-month rate of infections among children with psoriasis who started treatment with ustekinumab, etanercept, or methotrexate.

“Clinical trials have demonstrated high efficacy of new immunomodulatory agents in treating children with psoriasis,” lead author Maria C. Schneeweiss, MD, of the division of pharmacoepidemiology in the departments of medicine and dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues wrote in the article, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology. “However, the risk of infections in clinical practice has not been fully characterized by comparing these medications against each other in pairwise comparisons.”

Drawing from two large U.S. insurance claims databases, the researchers identified 2,338 patients aged 17 years and younger who were receiving treatment with a topical medication for psoriasis and started new treatment with ustekinumab, etanercept, or methotrexate. They stratified their analysis by the time before pediatric labeling (2009-2015) and after pediatric approval (2016-2021), and their follow-up of patients started 1 day after initiating treatment and ended at 6 months.

Of the 2,338 patients, 1,368 (58%) were girls. From 2009 through 2021, 379 patients began treatment with ustekinumab, 779 patients began treatment with etanercept, and 1,180 patients began treatment with methotrexate. The propensity score–adjusted incidence rate of serious infection was 18.4 per 1,000 person-years (3 events) for those who used ustekinumab, 25.6 per 1,000 person-years (9 events) for those who used etanercept, and 14.9 per 1,000 person-years (8 events) for those who used methotrexate. The adjusted rate of outpatient infections was 254.9 per 1,000 person-years (39 events) for those who used ustekinumab, 435.7 per 1,000 person-years (139 events) for those who used etanercept, and 433.6 per 1,000 person-years (209 events) for those who used methotrexate. Meanwhile, the adjusted rate ratio of outpatient infections was 0.58 for ustekinumab vs. etanercept, 0.66 for ustekinumab vs. methotrexate, and 0.95 for etanercept vs. methotrexate. The researchers found that ratios were similar during the off-label use era and after pediatric labeling.

Anna L. Grossberg, MD, director of pediatric dermatology at the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center, Baltimore, who was asked to comment on the work, told this news organization that the data on outpatient infections in ustekinumab users “demonstrated that they may have a decreased risk of infection compared to pediatric psoriasis patients treated with methotrexate or the TNF-alpha inhibitor etanercept. This is previously unreported and reflects my personal experience with this medication in my own pediatric psoriasis patients.” She added the study’s overall findings lend further support to the safety of biologic medications and nonbiologic systemic immunomodulatory treatments for management of psoriasis. “This study will help guide pediatric dermatologists in counseling patients and their families about these risks [of infection], and in general providing reassurance that these risks appear to be quite low,” Dr. Grossberg said. “In particular, ustekinumab, a newer biologic medication that was recently FDA-approved for children 6 years and older for pediatric psoriasis, was not associated with higher infection rates than the other agents analyzed in this study, and in fact appears to carry a reduced risk compared to both etanercept and methotrexate.”

She noted certain limitations of the study, including its reliance on insurance claims data, “which can be limiting because information on possible confounding variables may not be known,” she said. “For example, the authors point out that environmental and behavioral risk factors for serious infection could not be evaluated or adjusted for, nor could the severity of the patients’ psoriasis. Additionally, this study only reported on outpatient infections that resulted in an antibiotic or other medications being prescribed and filled. It therefore may have missed children who presented with certain viral infections (examples could include the common cold and uncomplicated ear infections), which often will not require a prescription medication. Furthermore, it would fail to capture those who may have been seen for an infection but failed to fill the intended prescription.”

Dr. Schneeweiss reported receiving grants from AbbVie and UCB to Brigham and Women’s Hospital unrelated to the topic of this study and outside the submitted work. The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Grossberg reported having no financial disclosures.

The American Academy of Pediatrics said it supports the Recommended Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule: United States, 2023.

In a policy statement published online in the journal Pediatrics, the AAP said the updated recommendations do not include major changes from those released in 2022 by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In one small shift, COVID-19 is now addressed in the main text instead of being relegated to the notes section.

“And a new vaccine – Priorix [GlaxoSmithKline] – has been added for MMR [measles, mumps, rubella], so now there are two available,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, chair of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases, told this news organization. “There’s also a second pneumococcal conjugate vaccine listed, PCV15, and this and PCV13 can essentially be used interchangeably.”

Minor updates to the schedule, reflected on the cover page, relate to vaccines for COVID-19, dengue fever, and pneumococcal disease, added Dr. O’Leary, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

The committee also changed layouts to improve the usability of the schedule. Updated annually, the guidance provides a table on recommended pediatric immunizations from birth to age 18 years, and catch-up recommendations for children aged 4 months to 18 years who start their vaccinations late or are more than 1 month behind the recommended age for vaccine administration.

“We hope this annual update will encourage clinicians to make sure all their patients are up to date on their routine vaccinations,” Dr. O’Leary said. “It’s an opportunity to develop strategies to improve vaccination rates.”

The 2023 schedule follows news from the CDC that kindergarten vaccination rates declined during the 2021-2022 school year. Only 93% of kindergarteners obtained full vaccinations, representing a drop of 1 percentage point from the year before and 2 percentage points from the 2019-2020 school year.

The dip in coverage has been attributed to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. AAP advises health care professionals to urge families to make sure their child’s vaccines are current.

Among other additions:
 

In Table 1

• MMR: Second vaccine added (Priorix, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals)
• Pneumococcal disease: second conjugate vaccine, PCV15, added (Vaxneuvance, Merck Sharp & Dohme).
• COVID-19: New row added.
• Dengue: Text changed from “Seropositive in endemic areas only” to “Seropositive in endemic dengue areas.”
• Inactivated polio vaccine: “See Notes” added to the column for children aged 18 years.

In Table 2

• PCV: Dose 3 to dose 4 interval revised to align with ACIP’s recommendation for dose 4. This dose is necessary only for children ages 12-59 months regardless of risk, or age 60-71 months with any risk who received three doses before age 12 months.

A parent-friendly vaccine schedule for children and adolescents is available on the CDC’s website.

“Vaccines are essential for the health of our whole society, including children and adolescents,” Dr. O’Leary said in a press release from AAP. “These schedules provide a road map [that] parents and pediatricians can follow to help children get the vaccines they need so their immune systems will be ready to recognize and resist diseases.”

As previously, the 2023 schedule was adjusted to ensure consistency between the formats of the childhood/adolescent and adult immunization guidance. A meeting of stakeholder organizations in October 2022 harmonized the two formats.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics said it supports the Recommended Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule: United States, 2023.

In a policy statement published online in the journal Pediatrics, the AAP said the updated recommendations do not include major changes from those released in 2022 by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In one small shift, COVID-19 is now addressed in the main text instead of being relegated to the notes section.

“And a new vaccine – Priorix [GlaxoSmithKline] – has been added for MMR [measles, mumps, rubella], so now there are two available,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, chair of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases, told this news organization. “There’s also a second pneumococcal conjugate vaccine listed, PCV15, and this and PCV13 can essentially be used interchangeably.”

Minor updates to the schedule, reflected on the cover page, relate to vaccines for COVID-19, dengue fever, and pneumococcal disease, added Dr. O’Leary, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

The committee also changed layouts to improve the usability of the schedule. Updated annually, the guidance provides a table on recommended pediatric immunizations from birth to age 18 years, and catch-up recommendations for children aged 4 months to 18 years who start their vaccinations late or are more than 1 month behind the recommended age for vaccine administration.

“We hope this annual update will encourage clinicians to make sure all their patients are up to date on their routine vaccinations,” Dr. O’Leary said. “It’s an opportunity to develop strategies to improve vaccination rates.”

The 2023 schedule follows news from the CDC that kindergarten vaccination rates declined during the 2021-2022 school year. Only 93% of kindergarteners obtained full vaccinations, representing a drop of 1 percentage point from the year before and 2 percentage points from the 2019-2020 school year.

The dip in coverage has been attributed to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. AAP advises health care professionals to urge families to make sure their child’s vaccines are current.

Among other additions:
 

In Table 1

• MMR: Second vaccine added (Priorix, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals)
• Pneumococcal disease: second conjugate vaccine, PCV15, added (Vaxneuvance, Merck Sharp & Dohme).
• COVID-19: New row added.
• Dengue: Text changed from “Seropositive in endemic areas only” to “Seropositive in endemic dengue areas.”
• Inactivated polio vaccine: “See Notes” added to the column for children aged 18 years.

In Table 2

• PCV: Dose 3 to dose 4 interval revised to align with ACIP’s recommendation for dose 4. This dose is necessary only for children ages 12-59 months regardless of risk, or age 60-71 months with any risk who received three doses before age 12 months.

A parent-friendly vaccine schedule for children and adolescents is available on the CDC’s website.

“Vaccines are essential for the health of our whole society, including children and adolescents,” Dr. O’Leary said in a press release from AAP. “These schedules provide a road map [that] parents and pediatricians can follow to help children get the vaccines they need so their immune systems will be ready to recognize and resist diseases.”

As previously, the 2023 schedule was adjusted to ensure consistency between the formats of the childhood/adolescent and adult immunization guidance. A meeting of stakeholder organizations in October 2022 harmonized the two formats.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics said it supports the Recommended Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule: United States, 2023.

In a policy statement published online in the journal Pediatrics, the AAP said the updated recommendations do not include major changes from those released in 2022 by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In one small shift, COVID-19 is now addressed in the main text instead of being relegated to the notes section.

“And a new vaccine – Priorix [GlaxoSmithKline] – has been added for MMR [measles, mumps, rubella], so now there are two available,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, chair of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases, told this news organization. “There’s also a second pneumococcal conjugate vaccine listed, PCV15, and this and PCV13 can essentially be used interchangeably.”

Minor updates to the schedule, reflected on the cover page, relate to vaccines for COVID-19, dengue fever, and pneumococcal disease, added Dr. O’Leary, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

The committee also changed layouts to improve the usability of the schedule. Updated annually, the guidance provides a table on recommended pediatric immunizations from birth to age 18 years, and catch-up recommendations for children aged 4 months to 18 years who start their vaccinations late or are more than 1 month behind the recommended age for vaccine administration.

“We hope this annual update will encourage clinicians to make sure all their patients are up to date on their routine vaccinations,” Dr. O’Leary said. “It’s an opportunity to develop strategies to improve vaccination rates.”

The 2023 schedule follows news from the CDC that kindergarten vaccination rates declined during the 2021-2022 school year. Only 93% of kindergarteners obtained full vaccinations, representing a drop of 1 percentage point from the year before and 2 percentage points from the 2019-2020 school year.

The dip in coverage has been attributed to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. AAP advises health care professionals to urge families to make sure their child’s vaccines are current.

Among other additions:
 

In Table 1

• MMR: Second vaccine added (Priorix, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals)
• Pneumococcal disease: second conjugate vaccine, PCV15, added (Vaxneuvance, Merck Sharp & Dohme).
• COVID-19: New row added.
• Dengue: Text changed from “Seropositive in endemic areas only” to “Seropositive in endemic dengue areas.”
• Inactivated polio vaccine: “See Notes” added to the column for children aged 18 years.

In Table 2

• PCV: Dose 3 to dose 4 interval revised to align with ACIP’s recommendation for dose 4. This dose is necessary only for children ages 12-59 months regardless of risk, or age 60-71 months with any risk who received three doses before age 12 months.

A parent-friendly vaccine schedule for children and adolescents is available on the CDC’s website.

“Vaccines are essential for the health of our whole society, including children and adolescents,” Dr. O’Leary said in a press release from AAP. “These schedules provide a road map [that] parents and pediatricians can follow to help children get the vaccines they need so their immune systems will be ready to recognize and resist diseases.”

As previously, the 2023 schedule was adjusted to ensure consistency between the formats of the childhood/adolescent and adult immunization guidance. A meeting of stakeholder organizations in October 2022 harmonized the two formats.

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

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions has issued an updated expert consensus statement to provide clearer guidance on what percutaneous coronary angioplasty cases can be done in outpatient settings such as ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) and office-based laboratories and which are best left to more traditional settings, such as hospitals with full cardiac support.

PCI has evolved quickly since SCAI issued its last update almost 9 years ago. The updated statement, published online in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, notes that the proportion of same-day PCI discharges has increased from 4.5% in 2009 to 28.6% in 2017.

The statement also notes that the Medicare facility fee for outpatient PCI in an ASC is about 40% less than the hospital fee: $6,111 versus $10,258 for the facility fee for 2022. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in 2020 extended coverage for PCIs in ASCs.
 

Rationale for update

Writing group chair Cindy Grines, MD, explained the rationale for updating the statement now. “The 2014 SCAI statement was very conservative, recommending only the simplest of cases be done without surgical backup,” Dr. Grines, chief scientific officer at Northside Hospital Cardiovascular Institute in Atlanta, said in an interview.

The statement drew on 12 global studies from 2015 to 2022 that evaluated more than 8 million PCIs at facilities with and without surgery on site. Dr. Grines noted those studies reported complication rates as low as 0.1% in PCI procedures in centers without surgical backup.

She also noted that the writing committee also received input that “by restricting the use of certain devices such as atherectomy, some patients who needed it as a bailout could be harmed.”

Another factor in prompting the statement update, Dr. Grines said: “Many hospitals have consolidated into heath systems, and these systems consolidated bypass surgery into one center. Therefore, centers with high volume, experienced operators, and excellent outcomes were now left with no surgery on site. It didn’t make sense to withdraw complex PCI from these centers who haven’t sent a patient for emergency bypass in several years.”
 

Statement guidance

The centerpiece of the update is an algorithm that covers the range of settings for PCI, from having a surgeon on site to ACS or office-based lab.

For example, indications for on-site surgical capability are PCI of the last remaining patent vessel or retrograde approach to epicardial chronic total occlusion (CTO), and when the patient is a candidate for surgery.

Indications for PCI in a hospital without on-site surgery but with percutaneous ventricular assist device or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, calcium modification devices and high PCI volume are patients with decreased left ventricular ejection fraction, unprotected left main artery, CTO, or degenerated vein grafts.

For patients at high risk for transfusion, acute kidney injury or vascular complications, or who have high baseline respiratory risk, a hospital without on-site surgery but with respiratory care, blood bank, and vascular surgery services is indicated.

And for patients with none of the aforementioned characteristics or risks, ASC, office-based lab, or any hospital facility is acceptable.

The statement also provides guidance for operator experience. Those with less than 3 years’ experience, considered to have limited exposure to atherectomy devices and limited ST-segmented elevation MI (STEMI)/shock experience, should avoid doing PCIs in an ASC and performing atherectomy cases on their own, and have a colleague review case selection and assist in higher-risk cases. Experienced (3-10 years’ experience) and very experienced (more than 10 years’) should be able to perform in any setting and be competent with, if not highly experienced with, atherectomy and STEMI/shock.

Dr. Grines acknowledged the writing group didn’t want to set a specific operator volume requirement. “However, we recognize that lifetime operator experience is particularly important in more complex cases such as CTO, atherectomy, bifurcation stenoses, etc.,” she said. “In addition, performing these cases at a larger institution that has other operators that may assist in the event of a complication is very important. Specifically, we did not believe that recent fellow graduates with less than 3 years in practice or low-volume operators should attempt higher-risk cases in a no-SOS [surgeon-on-site] setting or perform cases in ASC or office-based labs where no colleagues are there to assist in case of a complication.”

In an interview, Gregory J. Dehmer, MD, professor of medicine at Virginia Tech University, Roanoke, reprised the theme of his accompanying editorial. “Things are evolving again, as Bob Dylan would say, ‘The Times They Are A-Changin’, so it’s very timely that the society in collaboration with other professional societies updated what are guidelines and rules of road if you’re going to do PCI in ASCs or office based laboratories,” said Dr. Dehmer, who chaired the writing committees of the 2007 and 2014 SCAI expert statements on PCI.

Having this statement is important for centers that don’t have on-site surgical backup, he said. “You couldn’t sustain a PCI operation at a rural hospital on just acute MIs alone. The key thing is that all of this built upon numerous studies both in the U.S. and abroad that showed the safety of doing elective cases – not only STEMIs, but elective PCI – at facilities without on-site surgery.”

CMS pushed the envelope when it decided to reimburse PCIs done in ASCs, Dr. Dehmer said. “That was not based on a lot of data. It was kind of a leap of faith. It’s logical that this should work, but in order for it to work and be safe for pats you have to follow the rules. That’s where SCAI stepped in at this point and said this is a whole new environment and we need to set some ground rules for physicians of who and who should not be having these procures in an office-based lab or an ambulatory surgery center.”

Dr. Grines and Dr. Dehmer have no relevant disclosures.
 

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions has issued an updated expert consensus statement to provide clearer guidance on what percutaneous coronary angioplasty cases can be done in outpatient settings such as ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) and office-based laboratories and which are best left to more traditional settings, such as hospitals with full cardiac support.

PCI has evolved quickly since SCAI issued its last update almost 9 years ago. The updated statement, published online in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, notes that the proportion of same-day PCI discharges has increased from 4.5% in 2009 to 28.6% in 2017.

The statement also notes that the Medicare facility fee for outpatient PCI in an ASC is about 40% less than the hospital fee: $6,111 versus $10,258 for the facility fee for 2022. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in 2020 extended coverage for PCIs in ASCs.
 

Rationale for update

Writing group chair Cindy Grines, MD, explained the rationale for updating the statement now. “The 2014 SCAI statement was very conservative, recommending only the simplest of cases be done without surgical backup,” Dr. Grines, chief scientific officer at Northside Hospital Cardiovascular Institute in Atlanta, said in an interview.

The statement drew on 12 global studies from 2015 to 2022 that evaluated more than 8 million PCIs at facilities with and without surgery on site. Dr. Grines noted those studies reported complication rates as low as 0.1% in PCI procedures in centers without surgical backup.

She also noted that the writing committee also received input that “by restricting the use of certain devices such as atherectomy, some patients who needed it as a bailout could be harmed.”

Another factor in prompting the statement update, Dr. Grines said: “Many hospitals have consolidated into heath systems, and these systems consolidated bypass surgery into one center. Therefore, centers with high volume, experienced operators, and excellent outcomes were now left with no surgery on site. It didn’t make sense to withdraw complex PCI from these centers who haven’t sent a patient for emergency bypass in several years.”
 

Statement guidance

The centerpiece of the update is an algorithm that covers the range of settings for PCI, from having a surgeon on site to ACS or office-based lab.

For example, indications for on-site surgical capability are PCI of the last remaining patent vessel or retrograde approach to epicardial chronic total occlusion (CTO), and when the patient is a candidate for surgery.

Indications for PCI in a hospital without on-site surgery but with percutaneous ventricular assist device or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, calcium modification devices and high PCI volume are patients with decreased left ventricular ejection fraction, unprotected left main artery, CTO, or degenerated vein grafts.

For patients at high risk for transfusion, acute kidney injury or vascular complications, or who have high baseline respiratory risk, a hospital without on-site surgery but with respiratory care, blood bank, and vascular surgery services is indicated.

And for patients with none of the aforementioned characteristics or risks, ASC, office-based lab, or any hospital facility is acceptable.

The statement also provides guidance for operator experience. Those with less than 3 years’ experience, considered to have limited exposure to atherectomy devices and limited ST-segmented elevation MI (STEMI)/shock experience, should avoid doing PCIs in an ASC and performing atherectomy cases on their own, and have a colleague review case selection and assist in higher-risk cases. Experienced (3-10 years’ experience) and very experienced (more than 10 years’) should be able to perform in any setting and be competent with, if not highly experienced with, atherectomy and STEMI/shock.

Dr. Grines acknowledged the writing group didn’t want to set a specific operator volume requirement. “However, we recognize that lifetime operator experience is particularly important in more complex cases such as CTO, atherectomy, bifurcation stenoses, etc.,” she said. “In addition, performing these cases at a larger institution that has other operators that may assist in the event of a complication is very important. Specifically, we did not believe that recent fellow graduates with less than 3 years in practice or low-volume operators should attempt higher-risk cases in a no-SOS [surgeon-on-site] setting or perform cases in ASC or office-based labs where no colleagues are there to assist in case of a complication.”

In an interview, Gregory J. Dehmer, MD, professor of medicine at Virginia Tech University, Roanoke, reprised the theme of his accompanying editorial. “Things are evolving again, as Bob Dylan would say, ‘The Times They Are A-Changin’, so it’s very timely that the society in collaboration with other professional societies updated what are guidelines and rules of road if you’re going to do PCI in ASCs or office based laboratories,” said Dr. Dehmer, who chaired the writing committees of the 2007 and 2014 SCAI expert statements on PCI.

Having this statement is important for centers that don’t have on-site surgical backup, he said. “You couldn’t sustain a PCI operation at a rural hospital on just acute MIs alone. The key thing is that all of this built upon numerous studies both in the U.S. and abroad that showed the safety of doing elective cases – not only STEMIs, but elective PCI – at facilities without on-site surgery.”

CMS pushed the envelope when it decided to reimburse PCIs done in ASCs, Dr. Dehmer said. “That was not based on a lot of data. It was kind of a leap of faith. It’s logical that this should work, but in order for it to work and be safe for pats you have to follow the rules. That’s where SCAI stepped in at this point and said this is a whole new environment and we need to set some ground rules for physicians of who and who should not be having these procures in an office-based lab or an ambulatory surgery center.”

Dr. Grines and Dr. Dehmer have no relevant disclosures.
 

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions has issued an updated expert consensus statement to provide clearer guidance on what percutaneous coronary angioplasty cases can be done in outpatient settings such as ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) and office-based laboratories and which are best left to more traditional settings, such as hospitals with full cardiac support.

PCI has evolved quickly since SCAI issued its last update almost 9 years ago. The updated statement, published online in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, notes that the proportion of same-day PCI discharges has increased from 4.5% in 2009 to 28.6% in 2017.

The statement also notes that the Medicare facility fee for outpatient PCI in an ASC is about 40% less than the hospital fee: $6,111 versus $10,258 for the facility fee for 2022. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in 2020 extended coverage for PCIs in ASCs.
 

Rationale for update

Writing group chair Cindy Grines, MD, explained the rationale for updating the statement now. “The 2014 SCAI statement was very conservative, recommending only the simplest of cases be done without surgical backup,” Dr. Grines, chief scientific officer at Northside Hospital Cardiovascular Institute in Atlanta, said in an interview.

The statement drew on 12 global studies from 2015 to 2022 that evaluated more than 8 million PCIs at facilities with and without surgery on site. Dr. Grines noted those studies reported complication rates as low as 0.1% in PCI procedures in centers without surgical backup.

She also noted that the writing committee also received input that “by restricting the use of certain devices such as atherectomy, some patients who needed it as a bailout could be harmed.”

Another factor in prompting the statement update, Dr. Grines said: “Many hospitals have consolidated into heath systems, and these systems consolidated bypass surgery into one center. Therefore, centers with high volume, experienced operators, and excellent outcomes were now left with no surgery on site. It didn’t make sense to withdraw complex PCI from these centers who haven’t sent a patient for emergency bypass in several years.”
 

Statement guidance

The centerpiece of the update is an algorithm that covers the range of settings for PCI, from having a surgeon on site to ACS or office-based lab.

For example, indications for on-site surgical capability are PCI of the last remaining patent vessel or retrograde approach to epicardial chronic total occlusion (CTO), and when the patient is a candidate for surgery.

Indications for PCI in a hospital without on-site surgery but with percutaneous ventricular assist device or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, calcium modification devices and high PCI volume are patients with decreased left ventricular ejection fraction, unprotected left main artery, CTO, or degenerated vein grafts.

For patients at high risk for transfusion, acute kidney injury or vascular complications, or who have high baseline respiratory risk, a hospital without on-site surgery but with respiratory care, blood bank, and vascular surgery services is indicated.

And for patients with none of the aforementioned characteristics or risks, ASC, office-based lab, or any hospital facility is acceptable.

The statement also provides guidance for operator experience. Those with less than 3 years’ experience, considered to have limited exposure to atherectomy devices and limited ST-segmented elevation MI (STEMI)/shock experience, should avoid doing PCIs in an ASC and performing atherectomy cases on their own, and have a colleague review case selection and assist in higher-risk cases. Experienced (3-10 years’ experience) and very experienced (more than 10 years’) should be able to perform in any setting and be competent with, if not highly experienced with, atherectomy and STEMI/shock.

Dr. Grines acknowledged the writing group didn’t want to set a specific operator volume requirement. “However, we recognize that lifetime operator experience is particularly important in more complex cases such as CTO, atherectomy, bifurcation stenoses, etc.,” she said. “In addition, performing these cases at a larger institution that has other operators that may assist in the event of a complication is very important. Specifically, we did not believe that recent fellow graduates with less than 3 years in practice or low-volume operators should attempt higher-risk cases in a no-SOS [surgeon-on-site] setting or perform cases in ASC or office-based labs where no colleagues are there to assist in case of a complication.”

In an interview, Gregory J. Dehmer, MD, professor of medicine at Virginia Tech University, Roanoke, reprised the theme of his accompanying editorial. “Things are evolving again, as Bob Dylan would say, ‘The Times They Are A-Changin’, so it’s very timely that the society in collaboration with other professional societies updated what are guidelines and rules of road if you’re going to do PCI in ASCs or office based laboratories,” said Dr. Dehmer, who chaired the writing committees of the 2007 and 2014 SCAI expert statements on PCI.

Having this statement is important for centers that don’t have on-site surgical backup, he said. “You couldn’t sustain a PCI operation at a rural hospital on just acute MIs alone. The key thing is that all of this built upon numerous studies both in the U.S. and abroad that showed the safety of doing elective cases – not only STEMIs, but elective PCI – at facilities without on-site surgery.”

CMS pushed the envelope when it decided to reimburse PCIs done in ASCs, Dr. Dehmer said. “That was not based on a lot of data. It was kind of a leap of faith. It’s logical that this should work, but in order for it to work and be safe for pats you have to follow the rules. That’s where SCAI stepped in at this point and said this is a whole new environment and we need to set some ground rules for physicians of who and who should not be having these procures in an office-based lab or an ambulatory surgery center.”

Dr. Grines and Dr. Dehmer have no relevant disclosures.
 

When it comes to treating atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults with topical therapies, new guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology rate the existing evidence as “strong” for prescription moisturizers, topical calcineurin inhibitors, topical corticosteroids, and topical phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. The guidelines also conditionally recommend the use of bathing and wet wrap therapy but recommend against the use of topical antimicrobials, antiseptics, and antihistamines.

The development updates the AAD’s 2014 recommendations for managing AD with topical therapies, published almost 9 years ago. “At that time, the only U.S. FDA–approved systemic medication for atopic dermatitis was prednisone – universally felt amongst dermatologists to be the least appropriate systemic medication for this condition, at least chronically,” Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, who cochaired a 14-member multidisciplinary work group that assembled the updated guidelines, told this news organization in an interview.

“Since 2017, there have been two different biologic medications approved for moderate to severe AD (dupilumab and tralokinumab) with certainly a third or more right around the corner. There have been two new oral agents approved for moderate to severe AD – upadacitinib and abrocitinib – with others on the way,” he noted. While these are not topical therapies, the purview of the newly released guidelines, he said, “there have also been new topical medications approved since that time (crisaborole and ruxolitinib). It was high time for an update.”

For the new guidelines, which were published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Sidbury, chief of the division of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, guidelines cochair Dawn M. R. Davis, MD, a dermatologist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues conducted a systematic review of evidence regarding the use of nonprescription topical agents such as moisturizers, bathing practices, and wet wraps, as well as topical pharmacologic modalities such as corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, PDE-4 inhibitors, antimicrobials, and antihistamines.

Next, the work group applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence and formulating and grading clinical recommendations based on relevant randomized trials in the medical literature.
 

12 recommendations

Of the 12 recommendations made for adults with AD, the work group ranked 7 as “strong” based on the evidence reviewed, and the rest as “conditional.” The “strong” recommendations include the use of moisturizers; the use of tacrolimus 0.03% or 0.1%; the use of pimecrolimus 1% cream for mild to moderate AD; use of topical steroids; intermittent use of medium-potency topical corticosteroids as maintenance therapy to reduce flares and relapse; the use of the topical PDE-4 inhibitor crisaborole, and the use of the topical JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib.

Regarding ruxolitinib cream 1.5%, the work group advised that the treatment area “should not exceed 20% body surface area, and a maximum of 60 grams should be applied per week; these stipulations are aimed at reducing systemic absorption, as black box warnings include serious infections, mortality, malignancies (for example, lymphoma), major adverse cardiovascular events, and thrombosis.”

Conditional recommendations in the guidelines include those for bathing for treatment and maintenance and the use of wet dressings, and those against the use of topical antimicrobials, topical antihistamines, and topical antiseptics.

According to Dr. Sidbury, the topic of bathing generated robust discussion among the work group members. “Though [each group member] has strong opinions and individual practice styles, they were also able to recognize that the evidence is all that matters in a project like this, which led to a ‘conditional’ recommendation regarding bathing frequency backed by ‘low’ evidence,” he said. “While this may seem like ‘guidance’ that doesn’t ‘guide,’ I would argue it informs the guideline consumer exactly where we are in terms of this question and allows them to use their best judgment and experience as their true north here.”

In the realm of topical steroids, Dr. Sidbury said that topical steroid addiction (TSA) and topical steroid withdrawal (TSW) have been a “controversial but persistent concern” from some patients and providers. “Two systematic reviews of this topic were mentioned, and it was made clear that the evidence base [for the concepts] is weak,” he said. “With that important caveat ,the guideline committee delineated both a definition of TSW/TSA and potential risk factors.”

Dr. Sidbury marveled at the potential impact of newer medicines such as crisaborole and ruxolitinib on younger AD patients as well. Crisaborole is now Food and Drug Administration approved down to 3 months of age for mild to moderate AD. “This is extraordinary and expands treatment options for all providers at an age when parents and providers are most conservative in their practice,” he said. “Ruxolitinib, also nonsteroidal, is FDA approved for mild to moderate AD down to 12 years of age. Having spent a good percentage of my practice years either being able to offer only topical steroids, or later topical steroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors like tacrolimus or pimecrolimus, having additional options is wonderful.”

In the guidelines, the work group noted that “significant gaps remain” in current understanding of various topical AD therapies. “Studies are needed which examine quality of life and other patient-important outcomes, changes to the cutaneous microbiome, as well as long term follow-up, and use in special and diverse populations (e.g., pregnancy, lactation, immunosuppression, multiple comorbidities, skin of color, pediatric),” they wrote. “Furthermore, increased use of new systemic AD treatment options (dupilumab, tralokinumab, abrocitinib, upadacitinib) in patients with moderate to severe disease may result in a selection bias toward milder disease in current and future AD topical therapy studies.”

Use of topical therapies to manage AD in pediatric patients will be covered in a forthcoming AAD guideline. The first updated AD guideline, on comorbidities associated with AD in adults, was released in January 2022.

Dr. Sidbury reported that he serves as an advisory board member for Pfizer, a principal investigator for Regeneron, an investigator for Brickell Biotech and Galderma USA, and a consultant for Galderma Global and Microes. Other work group members reported having financial disclosures with many pharmaceutical companies.

When it comes to treating atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults with topical therapies, new guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology rate the existing evidence as “strong” for prescription moisturizers, topical calcineurin inhibitors, topical corticosteroids, and topical phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. The guidelines also conditionally recommend the use of bathing and wet wrap therapy but recommend against the use of topical antimicrobials, antiseptics, and antihistamines.

The development updates the AAD’s 2014 recommendations for managing AD with topical therapies, published almost 9 years ago. “At that time, the only U.S. FDA–approved systemic medication for atopic dermatitis was prednisone – universally felt amongst dermatologists to be the least appropriate systemic medication for this condition, at least chronically,” Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, who cochaired a 14-member multidisciplinary work group that assembled the updated guidelines, told this news organization in an interview.

“Since 2017, there have been two different biologic medications approved for moderate to severe AD (dupilumab and tralokinumab) with certainly a third or more right around the corner. There have been two new oral agents approved for moderate to severe AD – upadacitinib and abrocitinib – with others on the way,” he noted. While these are not topical therapies, the purview of the newly released guidelines, he said, “there have also been new topical medications approved since that time (crisaborole and ruxolitinib). It was high time for an update.”

For the new guidelines, which were published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Sidbury, chief of the division of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, guidelines cochair Dawn M. R. Davis, MD, a dermatologist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues conducted a systematic review of evidence regarding the use of nonprescription topical agents such as moisturizers, bathing practices, and wet wraps, as well as topical pharmacologic modalities such as corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, PDE-4 inhibitors, antimicrobials, and antihistamines.

Next, the work group applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence and formulating and grading clinical recommendations based on relevant randomized trials in the medical literature.
 

12 recommendations

Of the 12 recommendations made for adults with AD, the work group ranked 7 as “strong” based on the evidence reviewed, and the rest as “conditional.” The “strong” recommendations include the use of moisturizers; the use of tacrolimus 0.03% or 0.1%; the use of pimecrolimus 1% cream for mild to moderate AD; use of topical steroids; intermittent use of medium-potency topical corticosteroids as maintenance therapy to reduce flares and relapse; the use of the topical PDE-4 inhibitor crisaborole, and the use of the topical JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib.

Regarding ruxolitinib cream 1.5%, the work group advised that the treatment area “should not exceed 20% body surface area, and a maximum of 60 grams should be applied per week; these stipulations are aimed at reducing systemic absorption, as black box warnings include serious infections, mortality, malignancies (for example, lymphoma), major adverse cardiovascular events, and thrombosis.”

Conditional recommendations in the guidelines include those for bathing for treatment and maintenance and the use of wet dressings, and those against the use of topical antimicrobials, topical antihistamines, and topical antiseptics.

According to Dr. Sidbury, the topic of bathing generated robust discussion among the work group members. “Though [each group member] has strong opinions and individual practice styles, they were also able to recognize that the evidence is all that matters in a project like this, which led to a ‘conditional’ recommendation regarding bathing frequency backed by ‘low’ evidence,” he said. “While this may seem like ‘guidance’ that doesn’t ‘guide,’ I would argue it informs the guideline consumer exactly where we are in terms of this question and allows them to use their best judgment and experience as their true north here.”

In the realm of topical steroids, Dr. Sidbury said that topical steroid addiction (TSA) and topical steroid withdrawal (TSW) have been a “controversial but persistent concern” from some patients and providers. “Two systematic reviews of this topic were mentioned, and it was made clear that the evidence base [for the concepts] is weak,” he said. “With that important caveat ,the guideline committee delineated both a definition of TSW/TSA and potential risk factors.”

Dr. Sidbury marveled at the potential impact of newer medicines such as crisaborole and ruxolitinib on younger AD patients as well. Crisaborole is now Food and Drug Administration approved down to 3 months of age for mild to moderate AD. “This is extraordinary and expands treatment options for all providers at an age when parents and providers are most conservative in their practice,” he said. “Ruxolitinib, also nonsteroidal, is FDA approved for mild to moderate AD down to 12 years of age. Having spent a good percentage of my practice years either being able to offer only topical steroids, or later topical steroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors like tacrolimus or pimecrolimus, having additional options is wonderful.”

In the guidelines, the work group noted that “significant gaps remain” in current understanding of various topical AD therapies. “Studies are needed which examine quality of life and other patient-important outcomes, changes to the cutaneous microbiome, as well as long term follow-up, and use in special and diverse populations (e.g., pregnancy, lactation, immunosuppression, multiple comorbidities, skin of color, pediatric),” they wrote. “Furthermore, increased use of new systemic AD treatment options (dupilumab, tralokinumab, abrocitinib, upadacitinib) in patients with moderate to severe disease may result in a selection bias toward milder disease in current and future AD topical therapy studies.”

Use of topical therapies to manage AD in pediatric patients will be covered in a forthcoming AAD guideline. The first updated AD guideline, on comorbidities associated with AD in adults, was released in January 2022.

Dr. Sidbury reported that he serves as an advisory board member for Pfizer, a principal investigator for Regeneron, an investigator for Brickell Biotech and Galderma USA, and a consultant for Galderma Global and Microes. Other work group members reported having financial disclosures with many pharmaceutical companies.

When it comes to treating atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults with topical therapies, new guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology rate the existing evidence as “strong” for prescription moisturizers, topical calcineurin inhibitors, topical corticosteroids, and topical phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. The guidelines also conditionally recommend the use of bathing and wet wrap therapy but recommend against the use of topical antimicrobials, antiseptics, and antihistamines.

The development updates the AAD’s 2014 recommendations for managing AD with topical therapies, published almost 9 years ago. “At that time, the only U.S. FDA–approved systemic medication for atopic dermatitis was prednisone – universally felt amongst dermatologists to be the least appropriate systemic medication for this condition, at least chronically,” Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, who cochaired a 14-member multidisciplinary work group that assembled the updated guidelines, told this news organization in an interview.

“Since 2017, there have been two different biologic medications approved for moderate to severe AD (dupilumab and tralokinumab) with certainly a third or more right around the corner. There have been two new oral agents approved for moderate to severe AD – upadacitinib and abrocitinib – with others on the way,” he noted. While these are not topical therapies, the purview of the newly released guidelines, he said, “there have also been new topical medications approved since that time (crisaborole and ruxolitinib). It was high time for an update.”

For the new guidelines, which were published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Sidbury, chief of the division of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, guidelines cochair Dawn M. R. Davis, MD, a dermatologist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues conducted a systematic review of evidence regarding the use of nonprescription topical agents such as moisturizers, bathing practices, and wet wraps, as well as topical pharmacologic modalities such as corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, PDE-4 inhibitors, antimicrobials, and antihistamines.

Next, the work group applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence and formulating and grading clinical recommendations based on relevant randomized trials in the medical literature.
 

12 recommendations

Of the 12 recommendations made for adults with AD, the work group ranked 7 as “strong” based on the evidence reviewed, and the rest as “conditional.” The “strong” recommendations include the use of moisturizers; the use of tacrolimus 0.03% or 0.1%; the use of pimecrolimus 1% cream for mild to moderate AD; use of topical steroids; intermittent use of medium-potency topical corticosteroids as maintenance therapy to reduce flares and relapse; the use of the topical PDE-4 inhibitor crisaborole, and the use of the topical JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib.

Regarding ruxolitinib cream 1.5%, the work group advised that the treatment area “should not exceed 20% body surface area, and a maximum of 60 grams should be applied per week; these stipulations are aimed at reducing systemic absorption, as black box warnings include serious infections, mortality, malignancies (for example, lymphoma), major adverse cardiovascular events, and thrombosis.”

Conditional recommendations in the guidelines include those for bathing for treatment and maintenance and the use of wet dressings, and those against the use of topical antimicrobials, topical antihistamines, and topical antiseptics.

According to Dr. Sidbury, the topic of bathing generated robust discussion among the work group members. “Though [each group member] has strong opinions and individual practice styles, they were also able to recognize that the evidence is all that matters in a project like this, which led to a ‘conditional’ recommendation regarding bathing frequency backed by ‘low’ evidence,” he said. “While this may seem like ‘guidance’ that doesn’t ‘guide,’ I would argue it informs the guideline consumer exactly where we are in terms of this question and allows them to use their best judgment and experience as their true north here.”

In the realm of topical steroids, Dr. Sidbury said that topical steroid addiction (TSA) and topical steroid withdrawal (TSW) have been a “controversial but persistent concern” from some patients and providers. “Two systematic reviews of this topic were mentioned, and it was made clear that the evidence base [for the concepts] is weak,” he said. “With that important caveat ,the guideline committee delineated both a definition of TSW/TSA and potential risk factors.”

Dr. Sidbury marveled at the potential impact of newer medicines such as crisaborole and ruxolitinib on younger AD patients as well. Crisaborole is now Food and Drug Administration approved down to 3 months of age for mild to moderate AD. “This is extraordinary and expands treatment options for all providers at an age when parents and providers are most conservative in their practice,” he said. “Ruxolitinib, also nonsteroidal, is FDA approved for mild to moderate AD down to 12 years of age. Having spent a good percentage of my practice years either being able to offer only topical steroids, or later topical steroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors like tacrolimus or pimecrolimus, having additional options is wonderful.”

In the guidelines, the work group noted that “significant gaps remain” in current understanding of various topical AD therapies. “Studies are needed which examine quality of life and other patient-important outcomes, changes to the cutaneous microbiome, as well as long term follow-up, and use in special and diverse populations (e.g., pregnancy, lactation, immunosuppression, multiple comorbidities, skin of color, pediatric),” they wrote. “Furthermore, increased use of new systemic AD treatment options (dupilumab, tralokinumab, abrocitinib, upadacitinib) in patients with moderate to severe disease may result in a selection bias toward milder disease in current and future AD topical therapy studies.”

Use of topical therapies to manage AD in pediatric patients will be covered in a forthcoming AAD guideline. The first updated AD guideline, on comorbidities associated with AD in adults, was released in January 2022.

Dr. Sidbury reported that he serves as an advisory board member for Pfizer, a principal investigator for Regeneron, an investigator for Brickell Biotech and Galderma USA, and a consultant for Galderma Global and Microes. Other work group members reported having financial disclosures with many pharmaceutical companies.