MDedge Rheumatology

Patients on antithrombotics after an acute MI will face a greater risk for bleeding and secondary cardiovascular (CV) events if they start taking any nonaspirin NSAID, confirms a large observational study.

Like other research before it, the new study suggests those risks will be much lower for some nonaspirin NSAIDs than others. But it may also challenge at least some conventional thinking about the safety of these drugs, and is based solely on a large cohort in South Korea, a group for which such NSAID data has been in short supply.

“It was intriguing that our study presented better safety profiles with celecoxib and meloxicam versus other subtypes of NSAIDs,” noted the report, published online July 27 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Most of the NSAIDs included in the analysis, “including naproxen, conferred a significantly higher risk for cardiovascular and bleeding events, compared with celecoxib and meloxicam,” wrote the authors, led by Dong Oh Kang, MD, Korea University Guro Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.

A main contribution of the study “is the thorough and comprehensive evaluation of the Korean population by use of the nationwide prescription claims database that reflects real-world clinical practice,” senior author Cheol Ung Choi, MD, PhD, of the same institution, said in an interview.

“Because we included the largest number of patients of any comparable clinical studies on NSAID treatment after MI thus far, our study may allow the generalizability of the adverse events of NSAIDs to all patients by constituting global evidence encompassing different population groups,” Dr. Choi said.

The analysis has limitations along with its strengths, the authors acknowledged, including its observational design and potential for confounding not addressed in statistical adjustments.

Observers of the study concurred, but some cited evidence pointing to such confounding that is serious enough to question the entire study’s validity.

Among the cohort of more than 100,000 patients followed for an average of about 2.3 years after their MI, the adjusted risk of thromboembolic CV events went up almost 7 times for those who took any NSAID for at least 4 consecutive weeks, compared with those who didn’t take NSAIDs, based on prescription records.

Their adjusted risk of bleeding events – which included gastrointestinal, intracranial, respiratory, or urinary tract bleeding or posthemorrhagic anemia, the group writes – was increased 300%.

There was wide variance in the adjusted hazard ratios for outcomes by type of NSAID. The risk of CV events climbed from a low of about 3 with meloxicam and almost 5 for celecoxib to more than 10 and 12 for naproxen and dexibuprofen, respectively.

The hazard ratios for bleeding ranged from about 3 for both meloxicam and celecoxib to more than 6 for naproxen.

Of note, celecoxib and meloxicam both preferentially target the cyclooxygenase type 2 (COX-2) pathway, and naproxen among NSAIDs once had a reputation for relative cardiac safety, although subsequent studies have challenged that notion.

“On the basis of the contemporary guidelines, NSAID treatment should be limited as much as possible after MI; however, our data suggest that celecoxib and meloxicam could be considered possible alternative choices in patients with MI when NSAID prescription is unavoidable,” the group wrote.

They acknowledged some limitations of the analysis, including an observational design and the possibility of unidentified confounders; that mortality outcomes were not available from the National Health Insurance Service database used in the study; and that the 2009-2013 span for the data didn’t allow consideration of more contemporary antiplatelet agents and direct oral anticoagulants.

Also, NSAID use was based on prescriptions without regard to over-the-counter usage. Although use of over-the-counter NSAIDs is common in Korea, “most MI patients in Korea are prescribed most medications, including NSAIDs, in the hospital. So I think that usage of over-the-counter NSAIDs did not change the results,” Dr. Choi said.

“This study breaks new ground by demonstrating cardiovascular safety of meloxicam (and not only of celecoxib), probably because of its higher COX-2 selectivity,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial, Juan J. Badimon, PhD, and Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, both of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Notably, “this paper rejects the cardiovascular safety of naproxen, which had been suggested classically and in the previous Danish data, but that was not evident in this study.” The finding is consistent with the PRECISION trial, in which both bleeding and CV risk were increased with naproxen versus other NSAIDs, observed Dr. Badimon and Dr. Santos-Gallego.

They agreed with the authors in recommending that, “although NSAID treatment should be avoided in patients with MI, if the use of NSAIDs is inevitable due to comorbidities, the prescription of celecoxib and meloxicam could be considered as alternative options.”

But, “as no study is perfect, this article also presents some limitations,” the editorial agreed, citing some of the same issues noted by Dr. Kang and associates, along with potential confounding by indication and the lack of “clinical information to adjust (e.g., angiographic features, left ventricular function).”

“There’s undoubtedly residual confounding,” James M. Brophy, MD, PhD, a pharmacoepidemiologist at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview.

The 400%-900% relative risks for CV events “are just too far in left field, compared to everything else we know,” he said. “There has never been a class of drugs that have shown this sort of magnitude of effect for adverse events.”

Even in PRECISION with its more than 24,000 high-coronary-risk patients randomized and followed for 5 years, Dr. Brophy observed, relative risks for the different NSAIDs varied by an order of magnitude of only 1-2.

“You should be interpreting things in the context of what is already known,” Dr. Brophy said. “The only conclusion I would draw is the paper is fatally flawed.”

The registry included 108,232 primarily male patients followed from their first diagnosed MI for CV and bleeding events. About 1.9% were prescribed at least one NSAID for 4 or more consecutive weeks during the follow-up period averaging 2.3 years, the group reported.

The most frequently prescribed NSAID was diclofenac, at about 72% of prescribed NSAIDs in the analysis for CV events and about 69% in the bleeding-event analysis.

Adding any NSAID to post-MI antithrombotic therapy led to an adjusted HR of 6.96 (P < .001) for CV events and 4.08 (P < .001) for bleeding events, compared with no NSAID treatment.

The 88% of the cohort who were on dual-antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel showed very nearly the same risk increases for both endpoints.

Further studies are needed to confirm the results “and ensure their generalizability to other populations,” Dr. Choi said. They should be validated especially using the claims data bases of countries near Korea, “such as Japan and Taiwan, to examine the reproducibility of the results in similar ethnic populations.”

That the study focused on a cohort in Korea is a strength, contended the authors as well as Dr. Badimon and Dr. Santos-Gallego, given “that most data about NSAIDs were extracted from Western populations, but the risk of thrombosis/bleeding post-MI varies according to ethnicity,” according to the editorial

Dr. Brophy agreed, but doubted that ethnic differences are responsible for variation in relative risks between the current results and other studies. “There are pharmacogenomic differences between different ethnicities as to how they activate these drugs. But I suspect that sort of difference is really minor. Maybe it leads to a 2% or a 5% difference in risks.”

Dr. Kang and associates, Dr. Badimon, Dr. Santos-Gallego, and Dr. Brophy disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients on antithrombotics after an acute MI will face a greater risk for bleeding and secondary cardiovascular (CV) events if they start taking any nonaspirin NSAID, confirms a large observational study.

Like other research before it, the new study suggests those risks will be much lower for some nonaspirin NSAIDs than others. But it may also challenge at least some conventional thinking about the safety of these drugs, and is based solely on a large cohort in South Korea, a group for which such NSAID data has been in short supply.

“It was intriguing that our study presented better safety profiles with celecoxib and meloxicam versus other subtypes of NSAIDs,” noted the report, published online July 27 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Most of the NSAIDs included in the analysis, “including naproxen, conferred a significantly higher risk for cardiovascular and bleeding events, compared with celecoxib and meloxicam,” wrote the authors, led by Dong Oh Kang, MD, Korea University Guro Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.

A main contribution of the study “is the thorough and comprehensive evaluation of the Korean population by use of the nationwide prescription claims database that reflects real-world clinical practice,” senior author Cheol Ung Choi, MD, PhD, of the same institution, said in an interview.

“Because we included the largest number of patients of any comparable clinical studies on NSAID treatment after MI thus far, our study may allow the generalizability of the adverse events of NSAIDs to all patients by constituting global evidence encompassing different population groups,” Dr. Choi said.

The analysis has limitations along with its strengths, the authors acknowledged, including its observational design and potential for confounding not addressed in statistical adjustments.

Observers of the study concurred, but some cited evidence pointing to such confounding that is serious enough to question the entire study’s validity.

Among the cohort of more than 100,000 patients followed for an average of about 2.3 years after their MI, the adjusted risk of thromboembolic CV events went up almost 7 times for those who took any NSAID for at least 4 consecutive weeks, compared with those who didn’t take NSAIDs, based on prescription records.

Their adjusted risk of bleeding events – which included gastrointestinal, intracranial, respiratory, or urinary tract bleeding or posthemorrhagic anemia, the group writes – was increased 300%.

There was wide variance in the adjusted hazard ratios for outcomes by type of NSAID. The risk of CV events climbed from a low of about 3 with meloxicam and almost 5 for celecoxib to more than 10 and 12 for naproxen and dexibuprofen, respectively.

The hazard ratios for bleeding ranged from about 3 for both meloxicam and celecoxib to more than 6 for naproxen.

Of note, celecoxib and meloxicam both preferentially target the cyclooxygenase type 2 (COX-2) pathway, and naproxen among NSAIDs once had a reputation for relative cardiac safety, although subsequent studies have challenged that notion.

“On the basis of the contemporary guidelines, NSAID treatment should be limited as much as possible after MI; however, our data suggest that celecoxib and meloxicam could be considered possible alternative choices in patients with MI when NSAID prescription is unavoidable,” the group wrote.

They acknowledged some limitations of the analysis, including an observational design and the possibility of unidentified confounders; that mortality outcomes were not available from the National Health Insurance Service database used in the study; and that the 2009-2013 span for the data didn’t allow consideration of more contemporary antiplatelet agents and direct oral anticoagulants.

Also, NSAID use was based on prescriptions without regard to over-the-counter usage. Although use of over-the-counter NSAIDs is common in Korea, “most MI patients in Korea are prescribed most medications, including NSAIDs, in the hospital. So I think that usage of over-the-counter NSAIDs did not change the results,” Dr. Choi said.

“This study breaks new ground by demonstrating cardiovascular safety of meloxicam (and not only of celecoxib), probably because of its higher COX-2 selectivity,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial, Juan J. Badimon, PhD, and Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, both of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Notably, “this paper rejects the cardiovascular safety of naproxen, which had been suggested classically and in the previous Danish data, but that was not evident in this study.” The finding is consistent with the PRECISION trial, in which both bleeding and CV risk were increased with naproxen versus other NSAIDs, observed Dr. Badimon and Dr. Santos-Gallego.

They agreed with the authors in recommending that, “although NSAID treatment should be avoided in patients with MI, if the use of NSAIDs is inevitable due to comorbidities, the prescription of celecoxib and meloxicam could be considered as alternative options.”

But, “as no study is perfect, this article also presents some limitations,” the editorial agreed, citing some of the same issues noted by Dr. Kang and associates, along with potential confounding by indication and the lack of “clinical information to adjust (e.g., angiographic features, left ventricular function).”

“There’s undoubtedly residual confounding,” James M. Brophy, MD, PhD, a pharmacoepidemiologist at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview.

The 400%-900% relative risks for CV events “are just too far in left field, compared to everything else we know,” he said. “There has never been a class of drugs that have shown this sort of magnitude of effect for adverse events.”

Even in PRECISION with its more than 24,000 high-coronary-risk patients randomized and followed for 5 years, Dr. Brophy observed, relative risks for the different NSAIDs varied by an order of magnitude of only 1-2.

“You should be interpreting things in the context of what is already known,” Dr. Brophy said. “The only conclusion I would draw is the paper is fatally flawed.”

The registry included 108,232 primarily male patients followed from their first diagnosed MI for CV and bleeding events. About 1.9% were prescribed at least one NSAID for 4 or more consecutive weeks during the follow-up period averaging 2.3 years, the group reported.

The most frequently prescribed NSAID was diclofenac, at about 72% of prescribed NSAIDs in the analysis for CV events and about 69% in the bleeding-event analysis.

Adding any NSAID to post-MI antithrombotic therapy led to an adjusted HR of 6.96 (P < .001) for CV events and 4.08 (P < .001) for bleeding events, compared with no NSAID treatment.

The 88% of the cohort who were on dual-antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel showed very nearly the same risk increases for both endpoints.

Further studies are needed to confirm the results “and ensure their generalizability to other populations,” Dr. Choi said. They should be validated especially using the claims data bases of countries near Korea, “such as Japan and Taiwan, to examine the reproducibility of the results in similar ethnic populations.”

That the study focused on a cohort in Korea is a strength, contended the authors as well as Dr. Badimon and Dr. Santos-Gallego, given “that most data about NSAIDs were extracted from Western populations, but the risk of thrombosis/bleeding post-MI varies according to ethnicity,” according to the editorial

Dr. Brophy agreed, but doubted that ethnic differences are responsible for variation in relative risks between the current results and other studies. “There are pharmacogenomic differences between different ethnicities as to how they activate these drugs. But I suspect that sort of difference is really minor. Maybe it leads to a 2% or a 5% difference in risks.”

Dr. Kang and associates, Dr. Badimon, Dr. Santos-Gallego, and Dr. Brophy disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients on antithrombotics after an acute MI will face a greater risk for bleeding and secondary cardiovascular (CV) events if they start taking any nonaspirin NSAID, confirms a large observational study.

Like other research before it, the new study suggests those risks will be much lower for some nonaspirin NSAIDs than others. But it may also challenge at least some conventional thinking about the safety of these drugs, and is based solely on a large cohort in South Korea, a group for which such NSAID data has been in short supply.

“It was intriguing that our study presented better safety profiles with celecoxib and meloxicam versus other subtypes of NSAIDs,” noted the report, published online July 27 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Most of the NSAIDs included in the analysis, “including naproxen, conferred a significantly higher risk for cardiovascular and bleeding events, compared with celecoxib and meloxicam,” wrote the authors, led by Dong Oh Kang, MD, Korea University Guro Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.

A main contribution of the study “is the thorough and comprehensive evaluation of the Korean population by use of the nationwide prescription claims database that reflects real-world clinical practice,” senior author Cheol Ung Choi, MD, PhD, of the same institution, said in an interview.

“Because we included the largest number of patients of any comparable clinical studies on NSAID treatment after MI thus far, our study may allow the generalizability of the adverse events of NSAIDs to all patients by constituting global evidence encompassing different population groups,” Dr. Choi said.

The analysis has limitations along with its strengths, the authors acknowledged, including its observational design and potential for confounding not addressed in statistical adjustments.

Observers of the study concurred, but some cited evidence pointing to such confounding that is serious enough to question the entire study’s validity.

Among the cohort of more than 100,000 patients followed for an average of about 2.3 years after their MI, the adjusted risk of thromboembolic CV events went up almost 7 times for those who took any NSAID for at least 4 consecutive weeks, compared with those who didn’t take NSAIDs, based on prescription records.

Their adjusted risk of bleeding events – which included gastrointestinal, intracranial, respiratory, or urinary tract bleeding or posthemorrhagic anemia, the group writes – was increased 300%.

There was wide variance in the adjusted hazard ratios for outcomes by type of NSAID. The risk of CV events climbed from a low of about 3 with meloxicam and almost 5 for celecoxib to more than 10 and 12 for naproxen and dexibuprofen, respectively.

The hazard ratios for bleeding ranged from about 3 for both meloxicam and celecoxib to more than 6 for naproxen.

Of note, celecoxib and meloxicam both preferentially target the cyclooxygenase type 2 (COX-2) pathway, and naproxen among NSAIDs once had a reputation for relative cardiac safety, although subsequent studies have challenged that notion.

“On the basis of the contemporary guidelines, NSAID treatment should be limited as much as possible after MI; however, our data suggest that celecoxib and meloxicam could be considered possible alternative choices in patients with MI when NSAID prescription is unavoidable,” the group wrote.

They acknowledged some limitations of the analysis, including an observational design and the possibility of unidentified confounders; that mortality outcomes were not available from the National Health Insurance Service database used in the study; and that the 2009-2013 span for the data didn’t allow consideration of more contemporary antiplatelet agents and direct oral anticoagulants.

Also, NSAID use was based on prescriptions without regard to over-the-counter usage. Although use of over-the-counter NSAIDs is common in Korea, “most MI patients in Korea are prescribed most medications, including NSAIDs, in the hospital. So I think that usage of over-the-counter NSAIDs did not change the results,” Dr. Choi said.

“This study breaks new ground by demonstrating cardiovascular safety of meloxicam (and not only of celecoxib), probably because of its higher COX-2 selectivity,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial, Juan J. Badimon, PhD, and Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, both of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Notably, “this paper rejects the cardiovascular safety of naproxen, which had been suggested classically and in the previous Danish data, but that was not evident in this study.” The finding is consistent with the PRECISION trial, in which both bleeding and CV risk were increased with naproxen versus other NSAIDs, observed Dr. Badimon and Dr. Santos-Gallego.

They agreed with the authors in recommending that, “although NSAID treatment should be avoided in patients with MI, if the use of NSAIDs is inevitable due to comorbidities, the prescription of celecoxib and meloxicam could be considered as alternative options.”

But, “as no study is perfect, this article also presents some limitations,” the editorial agreed, citing some of the same issues noted by Dr. Kang and associates, along with potential confounding by indication and the lack of “clinical information to adjust (e.g., angiographic features, left ventricular function).”

“There’s undoubtedly residual confounding,” James M. Brophy, MD, PhD, a pharmacoepidemiologist at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview.

The 400%-900% relative risks for CV events “are just too far in left field, compared to everything else we know,” he said. “There has never been a class of drugs that have shown this sort of magnitude of effect for adverse events.”

Even in PRECISION with its more than 24,000 high-coronary-risk patients randomized and followed for 5 years, Dr. Brophy observed, relative risks for the different NSAIDs varied by an order of magnitude of only 1-2.

“You should be interpreting things in the context of what is already known,” Dr. Brophy said. “The only conclusion I would draw is the paper is fatally flawed.”

The registry included 108,232 primarily male patients followed from their first diagnosed MI for CV and bleeding events. About 1.9% were prescribed at least one NSAID for 4 or more consecutive weeks during the follow-up period averaging 2.3 years, the group reported.

The most frequently prescribed NSAID was diclofenac, at about 72% of prescribed NSAIDs in the analysis for CV events and about 69% in the bleeding-event analysis.

Adding any NSAID to post-MI antithrombotic therapy led to an adjusted HR of 6.96 (P < .001) for CV events and 4.08 (P < .001) for bleeding events, compared with no NSAID treatment.

The 88% of the cohort who were on dual-antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel showed very nearly the same risk increases for both endpoints.

Further studies are needed to confirm the results “and ensure their generalizability to other populations,” Dr. Choi said. They should be validated especially using the claims data bases of countries near Korea, “such as Japan and Taiwan, to examine the reproducibility of the results in similar ethnic populations.”

That the study focused on a cohort in Korea is a strength, contended the authors as well as Dr. Badimon and Dr. Santos-Gallego, given “that most data about NSAIDs were extracted from Western populations, but the risk of thrombosis/bleeding post-MI varies according to ethnicity,” according to the editorial

Dr. Brophy agreed, but doubted that ethnic differences are responsible for variation in relative risks between the current results and other studies. “There are pharmacogenomic differences between different ethnicities as to how they activate these drugs. But I suspect that sort of difference is really minor. Maybe it leads to a 2% or a 5% difference in risks.”

Dr. Kang and associates, Dr. Badimon, Dr. Santos-Gallego, and Dr. Brophy disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For some palliative care professionals, the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in viral hot spots like New York City, represents a “moment” that could lead to greater awareness of what this service offers to seriously ill patients in a crisis.

They say it has provided an opportunity to show what palliative care teams can contribute to the difficult circumstances of patients with severe symptoms, isolated and alone in quarantined hospitals, with poor survival rates, perhaps sedated for extended stays on scarce ventilators – and for their family members, who are able to visit them only virtually via telephone or tablet.

But it has also highlighted gaps – including insufficient staffing for some palliative care teams. Hospitalists and other clinicians in the hospital need to learn the basics of primary palliative care, such as how to communicate bad news, initiate goals of care conversations, and address common symptoms of serious illness, such as pain. That way, they could shoulder more of the demand for this kind of care when palliative care specialists are in short supply.

Hospitalists, some of whom also have pursued a specialization in palliative care, have played key roles in clarifying and redefining the new role for palliative care, whom it is meant for, and who should provide it. Central to this new role is the greater use of telemedicine – for talking to hospitalized patients without increasing viral exposure, for linking up with family members who can’t visit their loved ones in the hospital, and for helping frontline hospital staff who need a palliative care consultation – or just a chance to debrief on what they are seeing.

A pandemic wake-up call

Elizabeth Gundersen, MD, FHM, FAAHPM, director of the hospice and palliative medicine fellowship program at the Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) in Boca Raton, practiced hospital medicine for 10 years before pursuing a fellowship in hospice and palliative medicine and working as an academic palliative medicine physician. She calls the pandemic a wake-up call for gaps in care and all the things that weren’t working well in the health care system.

“Now we are seeing more clearly what’s lacking – or broken – and what we will carry forward from this experience into the post-COVID world,” she said. Some hospitalists do palliative care very well, and others don’t feel as comfortable in having these difficult conversations with patients. But in the uncertain course of the virus they get thrust into it.

Although FAU’s associated hospitals were not as inundated with COVID-19 patients in the early weeks of the pandemic as were other regions, the volume of other patients plummeted, Dr. Gundersen said, adding that “there’s still been incredible intensity and worry about the virus. For me, the basic role of palliative care hasn’t changed, and the phrase I have always used when introducing myself – ‘we’re an extra layer of support for the patient and family’ – still holds true,” she said.

“I try to make it clear to people that palliative care is not synonymous with end-of-life care. We don’t want people to think that a palliative care referral implies imminent death. The goal is not to get more people to have a do not attempt resuscitation (DNAR) order, but to determine the patient and family’s treatment goals and whether a DNAR order fits those goals.”

The tough conversations

Dr. Gundersen is cochair of SHM’s Palliative Care Special Interest Group, along with Rab Razzak, MD, clinical director of palliative medicine at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, one of the hospitals affiliated with Case Western University in Cleveland. (Connect with them on Twitter: @Top_Gundersen and @rabrazzak.)

Kim Fatica, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center

Dr. Razzak also transitioned from hospital medicine to palliative medicine 10 years ago. “As a hospitalist, I enjoyed the tough conversations and bringing the human element into my health care interactions,” he explained. “To me, palliative care is a philosophy of care that puts the person we call the patient at the center of the interaction, while we try to figure out how to best care for them as a person.”

When the pandemic hit, University Hospitals made 20 ICU beds available for COVID-19 patients, Dr. Razzak said. This unit has since been full but not overflowing, while overall hospital census went down. The palliative care team at the hospital includes four inpatient doctors, nurse practitioners, and a chaplain, as well as an outpatient team primarily focused on oncology.

“In some settings, palliative care has been at the forefront of difficult conversations, when things aren’t going well for the patient and there’s much uncertainty,” Dr. Razzak said. The interface between hospital medicine and palliative care can be complementary, he added. “We talk about primary palliative care, which we want every discipline to be able to do – lead meaningful conversations, help manage symptoms.”

The take-home message for hospitalists, he said, is to get training in how to have these discussions, using such resources as VitalTalk (https://www.vitaltalk.org/), a nonprofit organization that disseminates education in communication skills for difficult conversations, and the Center to Advance Palliative Care (www.capc.org) at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. “Once you’ve mastered the conversation, it will get easier. But ask for help when you need it, and learn how to know when you need it.”

Dr. Gundersen added that hospital medicine groups and palliative care teams could reach out to each other and talk about what they did in the crisis and how they can work together in the future. She recommends frequent ongoing support and collaboration that could range from formal conferences or training sessions to informal team interactions, perhaps with sandwiches in the doctor’s lounge – provided that there’s room for social distancing. She has recently started giving talks in the community and grand rounds presentations in hospitals about palliative care.
 

Other approaches and applications

In New York City, the initial epicenter for the pandemic in the United States, the adult palliative care service of Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) experienced a sevenfold increase in consultation requests at the apex of the crisis, said its director, Craig Blinderman, MD. That demand was impossible to meet with existing staff. So Dr. Blinderman and colleagues established a virtual consultation model, recruiting and deploying volunteer out-of-state palliative care specialists to staff it.

An eight-bed palliative care unit was opened at CUMC for COVID-19 patients whose surrogates had opted not to initiate or continue intubation or life-sustaining treatments. This helped to relieve some of the pressures on the ICUs while making it possible for in-person visits to the hospice unit by families – in full PPE. Palliative care staff were embedded in various units in the hospital.

A palliative care response team composed of a hospice and palliative medicine fellow and four psychiatry residents or fellows, based in the emergency department and with supervision from the palliative care team, provided time-critical goals of care conversations with families using telemedicine – and a forum for listening to their suffering. Dr. Blinderman and colleagues also have found time to write up their experience for medical journals.^1,2

There’s no reason to think that hospitalists, with a little basic training, couldn’t be having these same goals of care conversations, Dr. Blinderman said. “But the fact that hospitalists, at the pandemic’s peak, along with ICU doctors, were seeing an unprecedented magnitude of dying on a daily basis generated a lot of moral distress for them.”

Palliative care professionals, because they engage with these issues in a different way, may be somewhat better equipped to deal with the sheer emotional demands when so many are dying, as at the peak of the surge in New York. “We don’t see dying as a failure on our part but an opportunity to relieve suffering,” Dr. Blinderman said. And the palliative care field also emphasizes the importance of self-care for its practitioners.

“How do we meet the incredible palliative care needs in the epicenter of a pandemic? That question also applies to other kinds of crises we could imagine, for example, climate-related disasters,” Dr. Blinderman said. “What lessons have we learned about the value of palliative care and how to start incorporating it more integrally into the delivery of hospital care? Here we showed that we could work collaboratively with our colleagues at other major medical centers, bringing together their expertise to help us when we didn’t have the bandwidth to meet the demand,” he said.
 

Scripts can help

“Also, it won’t make sense to just go back to normal (after the crisis fades),” Dr. Blinderman said. “We need to take a close look at how our society is functioning in the wake of the pandemic and the ways the health care system has failed us. We have learned that we’re all interconnected and we need to work together to serve our communities – locally and nationally – applying basic distributive justice.”

Could there be, for example, a national infrastructure for mobilizing and deploying palliative care resources to areas of greatest need, similar to what was done in New York?

At Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, a number of palliative care clinicians at the system’s hospitals worked together to develop scripts designed to help other clinicians start goals of care conversations with patients and families, for use in the hospital as well as in outpatient primary care and other settings, with results integrated into the system’s electronic health record.

Front-line clinicians may not have the time to ask for formal consults from palliative care because of high volume and rapidly changing patient status, explained Eytan Szmuilowicz, MD, director of the section of palliative medicine at Northwestern Memorial Hospital. Or they may not have access to specialty-level palliative care in their settings.

The scripts are aimed at primary care, emergency physicians, and hospitalists needing to consider critical care placement or attempted resuscitation and to ICU clinicians helping families make decisions about life-sustaining treatments. They also can help facilitate advance care planning discussions. An example is “CALMER,” a six-step mnemonic guide to promote goals of care discussions with hospitalized patients. For more information on these scripts, contact Dr. Szmuilowicz: Eytan.Szmuilowicz@nm.org.

Eerily quiet

The COVID-19 crisis has been quite a whirlwind for hospital medicine, said Jeanie Youngwerth, MD, a hospitalist and program director of the palliative care service at the University of Colorado in Denver, which was a significant viral hotspot early on.

“When it first started, things seemed to change almost overnight – starting on Friday, March 13. People had to take action right away to develop work flows and the technology to allow us to see as many patients as possible,” she said. By the time Monday came, it was a whole new ballgame.

Dr. Youngwerth and two colleagues worked quickly to develop inpatient telemedicine capacity where none existed. “We knew we would not be going into patients’ rooms, but most of our team showed up in the hospital to work with the primary care teams. Our job was to see what we could do that actually made a difference,” she said.

“The hospital became a very strange place. You’d walk down the hallway and it was eerily quiet. Everybody you came across was being so nice to each other.” Televisits became a powerful way to bring the human connection back to medical care.

“What we learned from families was that they were thirsting to have some kind of connection with their loved one, and to be able to talk about their loved one and who they were as a person,” she said. “We’d contact the family through video visits and then, when the family meeting ended, the nurse would bring an iPad into the patient’s room so the family could see their loved one on a ventilator. They would immediately start communicating with their loved one, praying aloud, singing, playing music. It would make a huge difference for the family – and for the staff.”
 

References

1. Nakagawa S et al. Pandemic palliative care consultations spanning state and institutional borders. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020 May 22. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16643.

2. Lee J Abrukin L, Flores S. Early intervention of palliative care in the emergency department during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2713.

For some palliative care professionals, the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in viral hot spots like New York City, represents a “moment” that could lead to greater awareness of what this service offers to seriously ill patients in a crisis.

They say it has provided an opportunity to show what palliative care teams can contribute to the difficult circumstances of patients with severe symptoms, isolated and alone in quarantined hospitals, with poor survival rates, perhaps sedated for extended stays on scarce ventilators – and for their family members, who are able to visit them only virtually via telephone or tablet.

But it has also highlighted gaps – including insufficient staffing for some palliative care teams. Hospitalists and other clinicians in the hospital need to learn the basics of primary palliative care, such as how to communicate bad news, initiate goals of care conversations, and address common symptoms of serious illness, such as pain. That way, they could shoulder more of the demand for this kind of care when palliative care specialists are in short supply.

Hospitalists, some of whom also have pursued a specialization in palliative care, have played key roles in clarifying and redefining the new role for palliative care, whom it is meant for, and who should provide it. Central to this new role is the greater use of telemedicine – for talking to hospitalized patients without increasing viral exposure, for linking up with family members who can’t visit their loved ones in the hospital, and for helping frontline hospital staff who need a palliative care consultation – or just a chance to debrief on what they are seeing.

A pandemic wake-up call

Elizabeth Gundersen, MD, FHM, FAAHPM, director of the hospice and palliative medicine fellowship program at the Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) in Boca Raton, practiced hospital medicine for 10 years before pursuing a fellowship in hospice and palliative medicine and working as an academic palliative medicine physician. She calls the pandemic a wake-up call for gaps in care and all the things that weren’t working well in the health care system.

“Now we are seeing more clearly what’s lacking – or broken – and what we will carry forward from this experience into the post-COVID world,” she said. Some hospitalists do palliative care very well, and others don’t feel as comfortable in having these difficult conversations with patients. But in the uncertain course of the virus they get thrust into it.

Although FAU’s associated hospitals were not as inundated with COVID-19 patients in the early weeks of the pandemic as were other regions, the volume of other patients plummeted, Dr. Gundersen said, adding that “there’s still been incredible intensity and worry about the virus. For me, the basic role of palliative care hasn’t changed, and the phrase I have always used when introducing myself – ‘we’re an extra layer of support for the patient and family’ – still holds true,” she said.

“I try to make it clear to people that palliative care is not synonymous with end-of-life care. We don’t want people to think that a palliative care referral implies imminent death. The goal is not to get more people to have a do not attempt resuscitation (DNAR) order, but to determine the patient and family’s treatment goals and whether a DNAR order fits those goals.”

The tough conversations

Dr. Gundersen is cochair of SHM’s Palliative Care Special Interest Group, along with Rab Razzak, MD, clinical director of palliative medicine at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, one of the hospitals affiliated with Case Western University in Cleveland. (Connect with them on Twitter: @Top_Gundersen and @rabrazzak.)

Kim Fatica, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center

Dr. Razzak also transitioned from hospital medicine to palliative medicine 10 years ago. “As a hospitalist, I enjoyed the tough conversations and bringing the human element into my health care interactions,” he explained. “To me, palliative care is a philosophy of care that puts the person we call the patient at the center of the interaction, while we try to figure out how to best care for them as a person.”

When the pandemic hit, University Hospitals made 20 ICU beds available for COVID-19 patients, Dr. Razzak said. This unit has since been full but not overflowing, while overall hospital census went down. The palliative care team at the hospital includes four inpatient doctors, nurse practitioners, and a chaplain, as well as an outpatient team primarily focused on oncology.

“In some settings, palliative care has been at the forefront of difficult conversations, when things aren’t going well for the patient and there’s much uncertainty,” Dr. Razzak said. The interface between hospital medicine and palliative care can be complementary, he added. “We talk about primary palliative care, which we want every discipline to be able to do – lead meaningful conversations, help manage symptoms.”

The take-home message for hospitalists, he said, is to get training in how to have these discussions, using such resources as VitalTalk (https://www.vitaltalk.org/), a nonprofit organization that disseminates education in communication skills for difficult conversations, and the Center to Advance Palliative Care (www.capc.org) at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. “Once you’ve mastered the conversation, it will get easier. But ask for help when you need it, and learn how to know when you need it.”

Dr. Gundersen added that hospital medicine groups and palliative care teams could reach out to each other and talk about what they did in the crisis and how they can work together in the future. She recommends frequent ongoing support and collaboration that could range from formal conferences or training sessions to informal team interactions, perhaps with sandwiches in the doctor’s lounge – provided that there’s room for social distancing. She has recently started giving talks in the community and grand rounds presentations in hospitals about palliative care.
 

Other approaches and applications

In New York City, the initial epicenter for the pandemic in the United States, the adult palliative care service of Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) experienced a sevenfold increase in consultation requests at the apex of the crisis, said its director, Craig Blinderman, MD. That demand was impossible to meet with existing staff. So Dr. Blinderman and colleagues established a virtual consultation model, recruiting and deploying volunteer out-of-state palliative care specialists to staff it.

An eight-bed palliative care unit was opened at CUMC for COVID-19 patients whose surrogates had opted not to initiate or continue intubation or life-sustaining treatments. This helped to relieve some of the pressures on the ICUs while making it possible for in-person visits to the hospice unit by families – in full PPE. Palliative care staff were embedded in various units in the hospital.

A palliative care response team composed of a hospice and palliative medicine fellow and four psychiatry residents or fellows, based in the emergency department and with supervision from the palliative care team, provided time-critical goals of care conversations with families using telemedicine – and a forum for listening to their suffering. Dr. Blinderman and colleagues also have found time to write up their experience for medical journals.^1,2

There’s no reason to think that hospitalists, with a little basic training, couldn’t be having these same goals of care conversations, Dr. Blinderman said. “But the fact that hospitalists, at the pandemic’s peak, along with ICU doctors, were seeing an unprecedented magnitude of dying on a daily basis generated a lot of moral distress for them.”

Palliative care professionals, because they engage with these issues in a different way, may be somewhat better equipped to deal with the sheer emotional demands when so many are dying, as at the peak of the surge in New York. “We don’t see dying as a failure on our part but an opportunity to relieve suffering,” Dr. Blinderman said. And the palliative care field also emphasizes the importance of self-care for its practitioners.

“How do we meet the incredible palliative care needs in the epicenter of a pandemic? That question also applies to other kinds of crises we could imagine, for example, climate-related disasters,” Dr. Blinderman said. “What lessons have we learned about the value of palliative care and how to start incorporating it more integrally into the delivery of hospital care? Here we showed that we could work collaboratively with our colleagues at other major medical centers, bringing together their expertise to help us when we didn’t have the bandwidth to meet the demand,” he said.
 

Scripts can help

“Also, it won’t make sense to just go back to normal (after the crisis fades),” Dr. Blinderman said. “We need to take a close look at how our society is functioning in the wake of the pandemic and the ways the health care system has failed us. We have learned that we’re all interconnected and we need to work together to serve our communities – locally and nationally – applying basic distributive justice.”

Could there be, for example, a national infrastructure for mobilizing and deploying palliative care resources to areas of greatest need, similar to what was done in New York?

At Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, a number of palliative care clinicians at the system’s hospitals worked together to develop scripts designed to help other clinicians start goals of care conversations with patients and families, for use in the hospital as well as in outpatient primary care and other settings, with results integrated into the system’s electronic health record.

Front-line clinicians may not have the time to ask for formal consults from palliative care because of high volume and rapidly changing patient status, explained Eytan Szmuilowicz, MD, director of the section of palliative medicine at Northwestern Memorial Hospital. Or they may not have access to specialty-level palliative care in their settings.

The scripts are aimed at primary care, emergency physicians, and hospitalists needing to consider critical care placement or attempted resuscitation and to ICU clinicians helping families make decisions about life-sustaining treatments. They also can help facilitate advance care planning discussions. An example is “CALMER,” a six-step mnemonic guide to promote goals of care discussions with hospitalized patients. For more information on these scripts, contact Dr. Szmuilowicz: Eytan.Szmuilowicz@nm.org.

Eerily quiet

The COVID-19 crisis has been quite a whirlwind for hospital medicine, said Jeanie Youngwerth, MD, a hospitalist and program director of the palliative care service at the University of Colorado in Denver, which was a significant viral hotspot early on.

“When it first started, things seemed to change almost overnight – starting on Friday, March 13. People had to take action right away to develop work flows and the technology to allow us to see as many patients as possible,” she said. By the time Monday came, it was a whole new ballgame.

Dr. Youngwerth and two colleagues worked quickly to develop inpatient telemedicine capacity where none existed. “We knew we would not be going into patients’ rooms, but most of our team showed up in the hospital to work with the primary care teams. Our job was to see what we could do that actually made a difference,” she said.

“The hospital became a very strange place. You’d walk down the hallway and it was eerily quiet. Everybody you came across was being so nice to each other.” Televisits became a powerful way to bring the human connection back to medical care.

“What we learned from families was that they were thirsting to have some kind of connection with their loved one, and to be able to talk about their loved one and who they were as a person,” she said. “We’d contact the family through video visits and then, when the family meeting ended, the nurse would bring an iPad into the patient’s room so the family could see their loved one on a ventilator. They would immediately start communicating with their loved one, praying aloud, singing, playing music. It would make a huge difference for the family – and for the staff.”
 

References

1. Nakagawa S et al. Pandemic palliative care consultations spanning state and institutional borders. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020 May 22. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16643.

2. Lee J Abrukin L, Flores S. Early intervention of palliative care in the emergency department during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2713.

For some palliative care professionals, the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in viral hot spots like New York City, represents a “moment” that could lead to greater awareness of what this service offers to seriously ill patients in a crisis.

They say it has provided an opportunity to show what palliative care teams can contribute to the difficult circumstances of patients with severe symptoms, isolated and alone in quarantined hospitals, with poor survival rates, perhaps sedated for extended stays on scarce ventilators – and for their family members, who are able to visit them only virtually via telephone or tablet.

But it has also highlighted gaps – including insufficient staffing for some palliative care teams. Hospitalists and other clinicians in the hospital need to learn the basics of primary palliative care, such as how to communicate bad news, initiate goals of care conversations, and address common symptoms of serious illness, such as pain. That way, they could shoulder more of the demand for this kind of care when palliative care specialists are in short supply.

Hospitalists, some of whom also have pursued a specialization in palliative care, have played key roles in clarifying and redefining the new role for palliative care, whom it is meant for, and who should provide it. Central to this new role is the greater use of telemedicine – for talking to hospitalized patients without increasing viral exposure, for linking up with family members who can’t visit their loved ones in the hospital, and for helping frontline hospital staff who need a palliative care consultation – or just a chance to debrief on what they are seeing.

A pandemic wake-up call

Elizabeth Gundersen, MD, FHM, FAAHPM, director of the hospice and palliative medicine fellowship program at the Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) in Boca Raton, practiced hospital medicine for 10 years before pursuing a fellowship in hospice and palliative medicine and working as an academic palliative medicine physician. She calls the pandemic a wake-up call for gaps in care and all the things that weren’t working well in the health care system.

“Now we are seeing more clearly what’s lacking – or broken – and what we will carry forward from this experience into the post-COVID world,” she said. Some hospitalists do palliative care very well, and others don’t feel as comfortable in having these difficult conversations with patients. But in the uncertain course of the virus they get thrust into it.

Although FAU’s associated hospitals were not as inundated with COVID-19 patients in the early weeks of the pandemic as were other regions, the volume of other patients plummeted, Dr. Gundersen said, adding that “there’s still been incredible intensity and worry about the virus. For me, the basic role of palliative care hasn’t changed, and the phrase I have always used when introducing myself – ‘we’re an extra layer of support for the patient and family’ – still holds true,” she said.

“I try to make it clear to people that palliative care is not synonymous with end-of-life care. We don’t want people to think that a palliative care referral implies imminent death. The goal is not to get more people to have a do not attempt resuscitation (DNAR) order, but to determine the patient and family’s treatment goals and whether a DNAR order fits those goals.”

The tough conversations

Dr. Gundersen is cochair of SHM’s Palliative Care Special Interest Group, along with Rab Razzak, MD, clinical director of palliative medicine at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, one of the hospitals affiliated with Case Western University in Cleveland. (Connect with them on Twitter: @Top_Gundersen and @rabrazzak.)

Kim Fatica, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center

Dr. Razzak also transitioned from hospital medicine to palliative medicine 10 years ago. “As a hospitalist, I enjoyed the tough conversations and bringing the human element into my health care interactions,” he explained. “To me, palliative care is a philosophy of care that puts the person we call the patient at the center of the interaction, while we try to figure out how to best care for them as a person.”

When the pandemic hit, University Hospitals made 20 ICU beds available for COVID-19 patients, Dr. Razzak said. This unit has since been full but not overflowing, while overall hospital census went down. The palliative care team at the hospital includes four inpatient doctors, nurse practitioners, and a chaplain, as well as an outpatient team primarily focused on oncology.

“In some settings, palliative care has been at the forefront of difficult conversations, when things aren’t going well for the patient and there’s much uncertainty,” Dr. Razzak said. The interface between hospital medicine and palliative care can be complementary, he added. “We talk about primary palliative care, which we want every discipline to be able to do – lead meaningful conversations, help manage symptoms.”

The take-home message for hospitalists, he said, is to get training in how to have these discussions, using such resources as VitalTalk (https://www.vitaltalk.org/), a nonprofit organization that disseminates education in communication skills for difficult conversations, and the Center to Advance Palliative Care (www.capc.org) at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. “Once you’ve mastered the conversation, it will get easier. But ask for help when you need it, and learn how to know when you need it.”

Dr. Gundersen added that hospital medicine groups and palliative care teams could reach out to each other and talk about what they did in the crisis and how they can work together in the future. She recommends frequent ongoing support and collaboration that could range from formal conferences or training sessions to informal team interactions, perhaps with sandwiches in the doctor’s lounge – provided that there’s room for social distancing. She has recently started giving talks in the community and grand rounds presentations in hospitals about palliative care.
 

Other approaches and applications

In New York City, the initial epicenter for the pandemic in the United States, the adult palliative care service of Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) experienced a sevenfold increase in consultation requests at the apex of the crisis, said its director, Craig Blinderman, MD. That demand was impossible to meet with existing staff. So Dr. Blinderman and colleagues established a virtual consultation model, recruiting and deploying volunteer out-of-state palliative care specialists to staff it.

An eight-bed palliative care unit was opened at CUMC for COVID-19 patients whose surrogates had opted not to initiate or continue intubation or life-sustaining treatments. This helped to relieve some of the pressures on the ICUs while making it possible for in-person visits to the hospice unit by families – in full PPE. Palliative care staff were embedded in various units in the hospital.

A palliative care response team composed of a hospice and palliative medicine fellow and four psychiatry residents or fellows, based in the emergency department and with supervision from the palliative care team, provided time-critical goals of care conversations with families using telemedicine – and a forum for listening to their suffering. Dr. Blinderman and colleagues also have found time to write up their experience for medical journals.^1,2

There’s no reason to think that hospitalists, with a little basic training, couldn’t be having these same goals of care conversations, Dr. Blinderman said. “But the fact that hospitalists, at the pandemic’s peak, along with ICU doctors, were seeing an unprecedented magnitude of dying on a daily basis generated a lot of moral distress for them.”

Palliative care professionals, because they engage with these issues in a different way, may be somewhat better equipped to deal with the sheer emotional demands when so many are dying, as at the peak of the surge in New York. “We don’t see dying as a failure on our part but an opportunity to relieve suffering,” Dr. Blinderman said. And the palliative care field also emphasizes the importance of self-care for its practitioners.

“How do we meet the incredible palliative care needs in the epicenter of a pandemic? That question also applies to other kinds of crises we could imagine, for example, climate-related disasters,” Dr. Blinderman said. “What lessons have we learned about the value of palliative care and how to start incorporating it more integrally into the delivery of hospital care? Here we showed that we could work collaboratively with our colleagues at other major medical centers, bringing together their expertise to help us when we didn’t have the bandwidth to meet the demand,” he said.
 

Scripts can help

“Also, it won’t make sense to just go back to normal (after the crisis fades),” Dr. Blinderman said. “We need to take a close look at how our society is functioning in the wake of the pandemic and the ways the health care system has failed us. We have learned that we’re all interconnected and we need to work together to serve our communities – locally and nationally – applying basic distributive justice.”

Could there be, for example, a national infrastructure for mobilizing and deploying palliative care resources to areas of greatest need, similar to what was done in New York?

At Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, a number of palliative care clinicians at the system’s hospitals worked together to develop scripts designed to help other clinicians start goals of care conversations with patients and families, for use in the hospital as well as in outpatient primary care and other settings, with results integrated into the system’s electronic health record.

Front-line clinicians may not have the time to ask for formal consults from palliative care because of high volume and rapidly changing patient status, explained Eytan Szmuilowicz, MD, director of the section of palliative medicine at Northwestern Memorial Hospital. Or they may not have access to specialty-level palliative care in their settings.

The scripts are aimed at primary care, emergency physicians, and hospitalists needing to consider critical care placement or attempted resuscitation and to ICU clinicians helping families make decisions about life-sustaining treatments. They also can help facilitate advance care planning discussions. An example is “CALMER,” a six-step mnemonic guide to promote goals of care discussions with hospitalized patients. For more information on these scripts, contact Dr. Szmuilowicz: Eytan.Szmuilowicz@nm.org.

Eerily quiet

The COVID-19 crisis has been quite a whirlwind for hospital medicine, said Jeanie Youngwerth, MD, a hospitalist and program director of the palliative care service at the University of Colorado in Denver, which was a significant viral hotspot early on.

“When it first started, things seemed to change almost overnight – starting on Friday, March 13. People had to take action right away to develop work flows and the technology to allow us to see as many patients as possible,” she said. By the time Monday came, it was a whole new ballgame.

Dr. Youngwerth and two colleagues worked quickly to develop inpatient telemedicine capacity where none existed. “We knew we would not be going into patients’ rooms, but most of our team showed up in the hospital to work with the primary care teams. Our job was to see what we could do that actually made a difference,” she said.

“The hospital became a very strange place. You’d walk down the hallway and it was eerily quiet. Everybody you came across was being so nice to each other.” Televisits became a powerful way to bring the human connection back to medical care.

“What we learned from families was that they were thirsting to have some kind of connection with their loved one, and to be able to talk about their loved one and who they were as a person,” she said. “We’d contact the family through video visits and then, when the family meeting ended, the nurse would bring an iPad into the patient’s room so the family could see their loved one on a ventilator. They would immediately start communicating with their loved one, praying aloud, singing, playing music. It would make a huge difference for the family – and for the staff.”
 

References

1. Nakagawa S et al. Pandemic palliative care consultations spanning state and institutional borders. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020 May 22. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16643.

2. Lee J Abrukin L, Flores S. Early intervention of palliative care in the emergency department during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2713.

Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) was associated with a nearly doubled risk of developing psoriasis in a propensity score–matched analysis conducted in Taiwan.

PCOS is characterized by androgen elevation that can lead to insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome, which have also been associated with an increased risk of psoriasis. Previous retrospective analyses have suggested an increased risk of psoriasis associated with PCOS, and psoriasis patients with PCOS have been reported to have more severe skin lesions, compared with those who do not have PCOS.

“The incidence of psoriasis is indeed higher in the PCOS group than in the control group, and the comorbidities related to metabolic syndrome did not modify the adjusted hazard ratio,” said Ming-Li Chen, during her presentation of the study results at the virtual annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. Dr. Chen is at Chung Shan Medical University in Taiwan.

The researchers analyzed 1 million randomly selected records from Taiwan’s Longitudinal Health Insurance database, a subset of the country’s National Health Insurance Program. Between 2000 and 2012, they identified a case group with at least three outpatient diagnoses or one inpatient diagnosis of PCOS; they then compared each with four patients who did not have PCOS who were matched by age and index year. The mean age in both groups was about 27 years.

The mean follow-up times were 6.99 years for 4,707 cases and 6.94 years for 18,828 controls. Comorbidities were slightly higher in the PCOS group, including asthma (6.7% vs. 4.9%; P less than .001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (14% vs. 11%; P less than .001), chronic liver disease (8.0% vs. 5.0%; P less than .001), diabetes mellitus (3.0% vs. 1.4%; P less than .001), hypertension (2.4% vs. 1.5%; P less than .001), hyperlipidemia (5.4% vs. 2.5%; P less than .001), depression (5.4% vs. 3.9%; P less than .001), and sleep apnea (0.23% vs. 0.10%; P = .040).

There was a higher cumulative incidence of psoriasis in the PCOS group (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-3.44). Other factors associated with increased risk of psoriasis were advanced age (greater than 50 years old; aHR, 14.13; 95% CI, 1.8-110.7) and having a cancer diagnosis (aHR, 11.72; 95% CI, 2.87-47.9).

When PCOS patients were stratified by age, the researchers noted a higher risk of psoriasis among those 20 years or younger (aHR, 4.02; 95% CI, 1.16-13.9) than among those aged 20-50 years (aHR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.07-3.29). Among those older than 50 years, there was no significantly increased risk, although the number of psoriasis diagnoses and population sizes were small in the latter category. Among patients with PCOS, a cancer diagnosis was not associated with a statistically significant increased risk of psoriasis.

The mechanisms underlying the association between PCOS and psoriasis should be studied further, she noted.

Following Dr. Chen’s prerecorded presentation, there was a live discussion session led by Alice Gottlieb, MD, PhD, medical director of Mount Sinai Beth Israel Dermatology, New York, and Ennio Lubrano, MD, associate professor of rheumatology at the University of Molise (Italy). Dr. Gottlieb noted that the study did not appear to account for weight in the association between PCOS and psoriasis, since heavier people are known to be at greater risk of developing psoriasis. Dr. Chen acknowledged that the study had no records of BMI or weight.

Dr. Gottlieb also wondered if treatment of PCOS led to any improvements in psoriasis in patients with the two diagnoses. “If we treat PCOS, does the psoriasis get better?” Again, the study did not address the question. “We didn’t follow up on therapies,” Dr. Chen said.

Dr. Chen reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Gottlieb is a consultant, advisory board member and/or speaker for AbbVie, Allergan, Avotres Therapeutics, Beiersdorf, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, Leo, Novartis, Reddy Labs, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, UCB Pharma and Xbiotech. She has received research or educational grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Janssen, Novartis and Xbiotech.

Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) was associated with a nearly doubled risk of developing psoriasis in a propensity score–matched analysis conducted in Taiwan.

PCOS is characterized by androgen elevation that can lead to insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome, which have also been associated with an increased risk of psoriasis. Previous retrospective analyses have suggested an increased risk of psoriasis associated with PCOS, and psoriasis patients with PCOS have been reported to have more severe skin lesions, compared with those who do not have PCOS.

“The incidence of psoriasis is indeed higher in the PCOS group than in the control group, and the comorbidities related to metabolic syndrome did not modify the adjusted hazard ratio,” said Ming-Li Chen, during her presentation of the study results at the virtual annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. Dr. Chen is at Chung Shan Medical University in Taiwan.

The researchers analyzed 1 million randomly selected records from Taiwan’s Longitudinal Health Insurance database, a subset of the country’s National Health Insurance Program. Between 2000 and 2012, they identified a case group with at least three outpatient diagnoses or one inpatient diagnosis of PCOS; they then compared each with four patients who did not have PCOS who were matched by age and index year. The mean age in both groups was about 27 years.

The mean follow-up times were 6.99 years for 4,707 cases and 6.94 years for 18,828 controls. Comorbidities were slightly higher in the PCOS group, including asthma (6.7% vs. 4.9%; P less than .001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (14% vs. 11%; P less than .001), chronic liver disease (8.0% vs. 5.0%; P less than .001), diabetes mellitus (3.0% vs. 1.4%; P less than .001), hypertension (2.4% vs. 1.5%; P less than .001), hyperlipidemia (5.4% vs. 2.5%; P less than .001), depression (5.4% vs. 3.9%; P less than .001), and sleep apnea (0.23% vs. 0.10%; P = .040).

There was a higher cumulative incidence of psoriasis in the PCOS group (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-3.44). Other factors associated with increased risk of psoriasis were advanced age (greater than 50 years old; aHR, 14.13; 95% CI, 1.8-110.7) and having a cancer diagnosis (aHR, 11.72; 95% CI, 2.87-47.9).

When PCOS patients were stratified by age, the researchers noted a higher risk of psoriasis among those 20 years or younger (aHR, 4.02; 95% CI, 1.16-13.9) than among those aged 20-50 years (aHR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.07-3.29). Among those older than 50 years, there was no significantly increased risk, although the number of psoriasis diagnoses and population sizes were small in the latter category. Among patients with PCOS, a cancer diagnosis was not associated with a statistically significant increased risk of psoriasis.

The mechanisms underlying the association between PCOS and psoriasis should be studied further, she noted.

Following Dr. Chen’s prerecorded presentation, there was a live discussion session led by Alice Gottlieb, MD, PhD, medical director of Mount Sinai Beth Israel Dermatology, New York, and Ennio Lubrano, MD, associate professor of rheumatology at the University of Molise (Italy). Dr. Gottlieb noted that the study did not appear to account for weight in the association between PCOS and psoriasis, since heavier people are known to be at greater risk of developing psoriasis. Dr. Chen acknowledged that the study had no records of BMI or weight.

Dr. Gottlieb also wondered if treatment of PCOS led to any improvements in psoriasis in patients with the two diagnoses. “If we treat PCOS, does the psoriasis get better?” Again, the study did not address the question. “We didn’t follow up on therapies,” Dr. Chen said.

Dr. Chen reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Gottlieb is a consultant, advisory board member and/or speaker for AbbVie, Allergan, Avotres Therapeutics, Beiersdorf, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, Leo, Novartis, Reddy Labs, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, UCB Pharma and Xbiotech. She has received research or educational grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Janssen, Novartis and Xbiotech.

Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) was associated with a nearly doubled risk of developing psoriasis in a propensity score–matched analysis conducted in Taiwan.

PCOS is characterized by androgen elevation that can lead to insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome, which have also been associated with an increased risk of psoriasis. Previous retrospective analyses have suggested an increased risk of psoriasis associated with PCOS, and psoriasis patients with PCOS have been reported to have more severe skin lesions, compared with those who do not have PCOS.

“The incidence of psoriasis is indeed higher in the PCOS group than in the control group, and the comorbidities related to metabolic syndrome did not modify the adjusted hazard ratio,” said Ming-Li Chen, during her presentation of the study results at the virtual annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. Dr. Chen is at Chung Shan Medical University in Taiwan.

The researchers analyzed 1 million randomly selected records from Taiwan’s Longitudinal Health Insurance database, a subset of the country’s National Health Insurance Program. Between 2000 and 2012, they identified a case group with at least three outpatient diagnoses or one inpatient diagnosis of PCOS; they then compared each with four patients who did not have PCOS who were matched by age and index year. The mean age in both groups was about 27 years.

The mean follow-up times were 6.99 years for 4,707 cases and 6.94 years for 18,828 controls. Comorbidities were slightly higher in the PCOS group, including asthma (6.7% vs. 4.9%; P less than .001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (14% vs. 11%; P less than .001), chronic liver disease (8.0% vs. 5.0%; P less than .001), diabetes mellitus (3.0% vs. 1.4%; P less than .001), hypertension (2.4% vs. 1.5%; P less than .001), hyperlipidemia (5.4% vs. 2.5%; P less than .001), depression (5.4% vs. 3.9%; P less than .001), and sleep apnea (0.23% vs. 0.10%; P = .040).

There was a higher cumulative incidence of psoriasis in the PCOS group (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-3.44). Other factors associated with increased risk of psoriasis were advanced age (greater than 50 years old; aHR, 14.13; 95% CI, 1.8-110.7) and having a cancer diagnosis (aHR, 11.72; 95% CI, 2.87-47.9).

When PCOS patients were stratified by age, the researchers noted a higher risk of psoriasis among those 20 years or younger (aHR, 4.02; 95% CI, 1.16-13.9) than among those aged 20-50 years (aHR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.07-3.29). Among those older than 50 years, there was no significantly increased risk, although the number of psoriasis diagnoses and population sizes were small in the latter category. Among patients with PCOS, a cancer diagnosis was not associated with a statistically significant increased risk of psoriasis.

The mechanisms underlying the association between PCOS and psoriasis should be studied further, she noted.

Following Dr. Chen’s prerecorded presentation, there was a live discussion session led by Alice Gottlieb, MD, PhD, medical director of Mount Sinai Beth Israel Dermatology, New York, and Ennio Lubrano, MD, associate professor of rheumatology at the University of Molise (Italy). Dr. Gottlieb noted that the study did not appear to account for weight in the association between PCOS and psoriasis, since heavier people are known to be at greater risk of developing psoriasis. Dr. Chen acknowledged that the study had no records of BMI or weight.

Dr. Gottlieb also wondered if treatment of PCOS led to any improvements in psoriasis in patients with the two diagnoses. “If we treat PCOS, does the psoriasis get better?” Again, the study did not address the question. “We didn’t follow up on therapies,” Dr. Chen said.

Dr. Chen reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Gottlieb is a consultant, advisory board member and/or speaker for AbbVie, Allergan, Avotres Therapeutics, Beiersdorf, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, Leo, Novartis, Reddy Labs, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, UCB Pharma and Xbiotech. She has received research or educational grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Janssen, Novartis and Xbiotech.

Repeat bone mineral density testing did not improve fracture-risk prediction in a large prospective cohort of postmenopausal women beyond baseline BMD measurement alone, according to new 12-year follow-up data.

Thinkstock

On the basis of the findings, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine, the authors recommend against routine repeat testing in postmenopausal women. Other experts, however, caution that the results may not be so broadly generalizable.

For the investigation, Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues analyzed data from 7,419 women enrolled in the prospective Women’s Health Initiative study and who underwent baseline and repeat dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) between 1993 and 2010. The researchers excluded patients who reported using bisphosphonates, calcitonin, or selective estrogen-receptor modulators, those with a history of major osteoporotic fracture, or those who lacked follow-up visits. The mean body mass index (BMI) of the study population was 28.7 kg/m², and the mean age was 66.1 years.

The mean follow-up after the repeat BMD test was 9.0 years, during which period 732 (9.9%) of the women experienced a major osteoporotic fracture, and 139 (1.9%) experienced hip fractures.

To determine whether repeat testing improved fracture risk discrimination, the researchers calculated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for baseline BMD, absolute change in BMD, and the combination of baseline BMD and change in BMD.

With respect to any major osteoporotic fracture risk, the AUROC values for total hip BMD at baseline, change in total hip BMD at 3 years, and the combination of the two, respectively, were 0.61 (95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.63), 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.55), and 0.61 (95% CI, 0.59-0.63). For hip fracture risk, the respective AUROC values were 0.71 (95% CI, 0.67-0.75), 0.61 (95% CI, 0.56-0.65), and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.69-0.77), the authors reported.

Similar results were observed for femoral neck and lumbar spine BMD measurements. The associations between BMD changes and fracture risk were consistent across age, race, ethnicity, BMI, and baseline BMD T-score subgroups.

Although baseline BMD and change in BMD were independently associated with incident fracture, the association was stronger for lower baseline BMD than the 3-year absolute change in BMD, the authors stated.

The findings, which are consistent with those of previous investigations that involved older adults, are notable because of the age range of the population, according to the authors. “To our knowledge, this is the first prospective study that addressed this issue in a study cohort that included younger postmenopausal U.S. women,” they wrote. “Forty-four percent of our study population was younger than 65 years.”

The authors wrote that, given the lack of benefit associated with repeat BMD testing, such tests should no longer be routinely performed. “Our findings further suggest that resources should be devoted to increasing the underuse of baseline BMD testing among women aged [between] 65 and 85 years, one-quarter of whom do not receive an initial BMD test.”

Loyola University

However, some experts are not comfortable with the broad recommendation to skip repeat testing in the general population. “This is a great study, and it gives important information. However, we know, even in the real world, that patients can lose BMD in this time frame and not really fracture. This does not mean that they will not fracture further down the road,” said Pauline Camacho, MD, director of Loyola University Medical Center’s Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease Center in Chicago,. “The value of doing BMD goes beyond predicting fracture risk. It also helps assess patient compliance and detect the presence of uncorrected secondary causes of osteoporosis that are limiting the response to therapy, including failure to absorb oral bisphosphonates, vitamin D deficiency, or hyperparathyroidism.”

In addition, patients for whom treatment is initiated would want to know whether it’s working. “Seeing the BMD response to therapy is helpful to both clinicians and patients,” Dr. Camacho said in an interview.

Another concern is the study population. “The study was designed to assess the clinical utility of repeating a screening BMD test in a population of low-risk women -- older postmenopausal women with remarkably good BMD on initial testing,” according to E. Michael Lewiecki, MD, vice president of the National Osteoporosis Foundation and director of the New Mexico Clinical Research and Osteoporosis Center in Albuquerque. “Not surprisingly, with what we know about the expected age-related rate of bone loss, there was only a modest decrease in BMD and little clinical utility in repeating DXA in 3 years. However, repeat testing is an important component in the care of many patients seen in clinical practice.”

UNM Health Sciences Center

There are numerous situations in clinical practice in which repeat BMD testing can enhance patient care and potentially improve outcomes, Dr. Lewiecki said in an interview. “Repeating BMD 1-2 years after starting osteoporosis therapy is a useful way to assess response and determine whether the patient is on a pathway to achieving an acceptable level of fracture risk with a strategy called treat to target.”

Additionally, patients starting high-dose glucocorticoids who are at high risk for rapid bone loss may benefit from undergoing baseline BMD testing and having a follow-up test 1 year later or even sooner, he said. Further, for early postmenopausal women, the rate of bone loss may be accelerated and may be faster than age-related bone loss later in life. For this reason, “close monitoring of BMD may be used to determine when a treatment threshold has been crossed and pharmacological therapy is indicated.”

The most important message from this study for clinicians and healthcare policymakers is not the relative value of the repeat BMD testing, Dr. Lewiecki stated. Rather, it is the call to action regarding the underuse of BMD testing. “There is a global crisis in the care of osteoporosis that is characterized by underdiagnosis and undertreatment of patients at risk for fracture. Many patients who could benefit from treatment to reduce fracture risk are not receiving it, resulting in disability and deaths from fractures that might have been prevented. We need more bone density testing in appropriately selected patients to identify high-risk patients and intervene to reduce fracture risk,” he said. “DXA is an inexpensive and highly versatile clinical tool with many applications in clinical practice. When used wisely, it can be extraordinarily useful to identify and monitor high-risk patients, with the goal of reducing the burden of osteoporotic fractures.”

The barriers to performing baseline BMD measurement in this population are poorly understood and not well researched, Dr. Crandall said in an interview. “I expect that they relate to the multiple competing demands on primary care physicians, who are, for example, trying to juggle hypertension, a sprained ankle, diabetes, and complex social situations simultaneously with identifying appropriate candidates for osteoporosis screening and considering numerous other screening guidelines.”

The Women’s Health Initiative is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and the Department of Health & Human Services. The study authors reported relationships with multiple companies, including Amgen, Pfizer, Bayer, Mithra, Norton Rose Fulbright, TherapeuticsMD, AbbVie, Radius, and Allergan. Dr. Camacho reported relationships with Amgen and Shire. Dr. Lewiecki reported relationships with Amgen, Radius Health, Alexion, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, Mereo, and Bindex.

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

Repeat bone mineral density testing did not improve fracture-risk prediction in a large prospective cohort of postmenopausal women beyond baseline BMD measurement alone, according to new 12-year follow-up data.

Thinkstock

On the basis of the findings, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine, the authors recommend against routine repeat testing in postmenopausal women. Other experts, however, caution that the results may not be so broadly generalizable.

For the investigation, Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues analyzed data from 7,419 women enrolled in the prospective Women’s Health Initiative study and who underwent baseline and repeat dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) between 1993 and 2010. The researchers excluded patients who reported using bisphosphonates, calcitonin, or selective estrogen-receptor modulators, those with a history of major osteoporotic fracture, or those who lacked follow-up visits. The mean body mass index (BMI) of the study population was 28.7 kg/m², and the mean age was 66.1 years.

The mean follow-up after the repeat BMD test was 9.0 years, during which period 732 (9.9%) of the women experienced a major osteoporotic fracture, and 139 (1.9%) experienced hip fractures.

To determine whether repeat testing improved fracture risk discrimination, the researchers calculated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for baseline BMD, absolute change in BMD, and the combination of baseline BMD and change in BMD.

With respect to any major osteoporotic fracture risk, the AUROC values for total hip BMD at baseline, change in total hip BMD at 3 years, and the combination of the two, respectively, were 0.61 (95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.63), 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.55), and 0.61 (95% CI, 0.59-0.63). For hip fracture risk, the respective AUROC values were 0.71 (95% CI, 0.67-0.75), 0.61 (95% CI, 0.56-0.65), and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.69-0.77), the authors reported.

Similar results were observed for femoral neck and lumbar spine BMD measurements. The associations between BMD changes and fracture risk were consistent across age, race, ethnicity, BMI, and baseline BMD T-score subgroups.

Although baseline BMD and change in BMD were independently associated with incident fracture, the association was stronger for lower baseline BMD than the 3-year absolute change in BMD, the authors stated.

The findings, which are consistent with those of previous investigations that involved older adults, are notable because of the age range of the population, according to the authors. “To our knowledge, this is the first prospective study that addressed this issue in a study cohort that included younger postmenopausal U.S. women,” they wrote. “Forty-four percent of our study population was younger than 65 years.”

The authors wrote that, given the lack of benefit associated with repeat BMD testing, such tests should no longer be routinely performed. “Our findings further suggest that resources should be devoted to increasing the underuse of baseline BMD testing among women aged [between] 65 and 85 years, one-quarter of whom do not receive an initial BMD test.”

Loyola University

However, some experts are not comfortable with the broad recommendation to skip repeat testing in the general population. “This is a great study, and it gives important information. However, we know, even in the real world, that patients can lose BMD in this time frame and not really fracture. This does not mean that they will not fracture further down the road,” said Pauline Camacho, MD, director of Loyola University Medical Center’s Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease Center in Chicago,. “The value of doing BMD goes beyond predicting fracture risk. It also helps assess patient compliance and detect the presence of uncorrected secondary causes of osteoporosis that are limiting the response to therapy, including failure to absorb oral bisphosphonates, vitamin D deficiency, or hyperparathyroidism.”

In addition, patients for whom treatment is initiated would want to know whether it’s working. “Seeing the BMD response to therapy is helpful to both clinicians and patients,” Dr. Camacho said in an interview.

Another concern is the study population. “The study was designed to assess the clinical utility of repeating a screening BMD test in a population of low-risk women -- older postmenopausal women with remarkably good BMD on initial testing,” according to E. Michael Lewiecki, MD, vice president of the National Osteoporosis Foundation and director of the New Mexico Clinical Research and Osteoporosis Center in Albuquerque. “Not surprisingly, with what we know about the expected age-related rate of bone loss, there was only a modest decrease in BMD and little clinical utility in repeating DXA in 3 years. However, repeat testing is an important component in the care of many patients seen in clinical practice.”

UNM Health Sciences Center

There are numerous situations in clinical practice in which repeat BMD testing can enhance patient care and potentially improve outcomes, Dr. Lewiecki said in an interview. “Repeating BMD 1-2 years after starting osteoporosis therapy is a useful way to assess response and determine whether the patient is on a pathway to achieving an acceptable level of fracture risk with a strategy called treat to target.”

Additionally, patients starting high-dose glucocorticoids who are at high risk for rapid bone loss may benefit from undergoing baseline BMD testing and having a follow-up test 1 year later or even sooner, he said. Further, for early postmenopausal women, the rate of bone loss may be accelerated and may be faster than age-related bone loss later in life. For this reason, “close monitoring of BMD may be used to determine when a treatment threshold has been crossed and pharmacological therapy is indicated.”

The most important message from this study for clinicians and healthcare policymakers is not the relative value of the repeat BMD testing, Dr. Lewiecki stated. Rather, it is the call to action regarding the underuse of BMD testing. “There is a global crisis in the care of osteoporosis that is characterized by underdiagnosis and undertreatment of patients at risk for fracture. Many patients who could benefit from treatment to reduce fracture risk are not receiving it, resulting in disability and deaths from fractures that might have been prevented. We need more bone density testing in appropriately selected patients to identify high-risk patients and intervene to reduce fracture risk,” he said. “DXA is an inexpensive and highly versatile clinical tool with many applications in clinical practice. When used wisely, it can be extraordinarily useful to identify and monitor high-risk patients, with the goal of reducing the burden of osteoporotic fractures.”

The barriers to performing baseline BMD measurement in this population are poorly understood and not well researched, Dr. Crandall said in an interview. “I expect that they relate to the multiple competing demands on primary care physicians, who are, for example, trying to juggle hypertension, a sprained ankle, diabetes, and complex social situations simultaneously with identifying appropriate candidates for osteoporosis screening and considering numerous other screening guidelines.”

The Women’s Health Initiative is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and the Department of Health & Human Services. The study authors reported relationships with multiple companies, including Amgen, Pfizer, Bayer, Mithra, Norton Rose Fulbright, TherapeuticsMD, AbbVie, Radius, and Allergan. Dr. Camacho reported relationships with Amgen and Shire. Dr. Lewiecki reported relationships with Amgen, Radius Health, Alexion, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, Mereo, and Bindex.

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

Repeat bone mineral density testing did not improve fracture-risk prediction in a large prospective cohort of postmenopausal women beyond baseline BMD measurement alone, according to new 12-year follow-up data.

Thinkstock

On the basis of the findings, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine, the authors recommend against routine repeat testing in postmenopausal women. Other experts, however, caution that the results may not be so broadly generalizable.

For the investigation, Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues analyzed data from 7,419 women enrolled in the prospective Women’s Health Initiative study and who underwent baseline and repeat dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) between 1993 and 2010. The researchers excluded patients who reported using bisphosphonates, calcitonin, or selective estrogen-receptor modulators, those with a history of major osteoporotic fracture, or those who lacked follow-up visits. The mean body mass index (BMI) of the study population was 28.7 kg/m², and the mean age was 66.1 years.

The mean follow-up after the repeat BMD test was 9.0 years, during which period 732 (9.9%) of the women experienced a major osteoporotic fracture, and 139 (1.9%) experienced hip fractures.

To determine whether repeat testing improved fracture risk discrimination, the researchers calculated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for baseline BMD, absolute change in BMD, and the combination of baseline BMD and change in BMD.

With respect to any major osteoporotic fracture risk, the AUROC values for total hip BMD at baseline, change in total hip BMD at 3 years, and the combination of the two, respectively, were 0.61 (95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.63), 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.55), and 0.61 (95% CI, 0.59-0.63). For hip fracture risk, the respective AUROC values were 0.71 (95% CI, 0.67-0.75), 0.61 (95% CI, 0.56-0.65), and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.69-0.77), the authors reported.

Similar results were observed for femoral neck and lumbar spine BMD measurements. The associations between BMD changes and fracture risk were consistent across age, race, ethnicity, BMI, and baseline BMD T-score subgroups.

Although baseline BMD and change in BMD were independently associated with incident fracture, the association was stronger for lower baseline BMD than the 3-year absolute change in BMD, the authors stated.

The findings, which are consistent with those of previous investigations that involved older adults, are notable because of the age range of the population, according to the authors. “To our knowledge, this is the first prospective study that addressed this issue in a study cohort that included younger postmenopausal U.S. women,” they wrote. “Forty-four percent of our study population was younger than 65 years.”

The authors wrote that, given the lack of benefit associated with repeat BMD testing, such tests should no longer be routinely performed. “Our findings further suggest that resources should be devoted to increasing the underuse of baseline BMD testing among women aged [between] 65 and 85 years, one-quarter of whom do not receive an initial BMD test.”

Loyola University

However, some experts are not comfortable with the broad recommendation to skip repeat testing in the general population. “This is a great study, and it gives important information. However, we know, even in the real world, that patients can lose BMD in this time frame and not really fracture. This does not mean that they will not fracture further down the road,” said Pauline Camacho, MD, director of Loyola University Medical Center’s Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease Center in Chicago,. “The value of doing BMD goes beyond predicting fracture risk. It also helps assess patient compliance and detect the presence of uncorrected secondary causes of osteoporosis that are limiting the response to therapy, including failure to absorb oral bisphosphonates, vitamin D deficiency, or hyperparathyroidism.”

In addition, patients for whom treatment is initiated would want to know whether it’s working. “Seeing the BMD response to therapy is helpful to both clinicians and patients,” Dr. Camacho said in an interview.

Another concern is the study population. “The study was designed to assess the clinical utility of repeating a screening BMD test in a population of low-risk women -- older postmenopausal women with remarkably good BMD on initial testing,” according to E. Michael Lewiecki, MD, vice president of the National Osteoporosis Foundation and director of the New Mexico Clinical Research and Osteoporosis Center in Albuquerque. “Not surprisingly, with what we know about the expected age-related rate of bone loss, there was only a modest decrease in BMD and little clinical utility in repeating DXA in 3 years. However, repeat testing is an important component in the care of many patients seen in clinical practice.”

UNM Health Sciences Center

There are numerous situations in clinical practice in which repeat BMD testing can enhance patient care and potentially improve outcomes, Dr. Lewiecki said in an interview. “Repeating BMD 1-2 years after starting osteoporosis therapy is a useful way to assess response and determine whether the patient is on a pathway to achieving an acceptable level of fracture risk with a strategy called treat to target.”

Additionally, patients starting high-dose glucocorticoids who are at high risk for rapid bone loss may benefit from undergoing baseline BMD testing and having a follow-up test 1 year later or even sooner, he said. Further, for early postmenopausal women, the rate of bone loss may be accelerated and may be faster than age-related bone loss later in life. For this reason, “close monitoring of BMD may be used to determine when a treatment threshold has been crossed and pharmacological therapy is indicated.”

The most important message from this study for clinicians and healthcare policymakers is not the relative value of the repeat BMD testing, Dr. Lewiecki stated. Rather, it is the call to action regarding the underuse of BMD testing. “There is a global crisis in the care of osteoporosis that is characterized by underdiagnosis and undertreatment of patients at risk for fracture. Many patients who could benefit from treatment to reduce fracture risk are not receiving it, resulting in disability and deaths from fractures that might have been prevented. We need more bone density testing in appropriately selected patients to identify high-risk patients and intervene to reduce fracture risk,” he said. “DXA is an inexpensive and highly versatile clinical tool with many applications in clinical practice. When used wisely, it can be extraordinarily useful to identify and monitor high-risk patients, with the goal of reducing the burden of osteoporotic fractures.”

The barriers to performing baseline BMD measurement in this population are poorly understood and not well researched, Dr. Crandall said in an interview. “I expect that they relate to the multiple competing demands on primary care physicians, who are, for example, trying to juggle hypertension, a sprained ankle, diabetes, and complex social situations simultaneously with identifying appropriate candidates for osteoporosis screening and considering numerous other screening guidelines.”

The Women’s Health Initiative is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and the Department of Health & Human Services. The study authors reported relationships with multiple companies, including Amgen, Pfizer, Bayer, Mithra, Norton Rose Fulbright, TherapeuticsMD, AbbVie, Radius, and Allergan. Dr. Camacho reported relationships with Amgen and Shire. Dr. Lewiecki reported relationships with Amgen, Radius Health, Alexion, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, Mereo, and Bindex.

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

Topical agents, alternative medicine, and disease severity assessment are the subjects of the latest updated set of guidelines for the management and treatment of psoriasis issued jointly by the American Academy of Dermatology and the National Psoriasis Foundation.

©Rodd100/thinkstockphotos.com

The guidelines, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, focus on treatment for adults, and follow the release of other AAD-NPF guidelines on biologics for psoriasis, psoriasis-related comorbidities, pediatric psoriasis, and phototherapy in 2019, and earlier this year, guidelines for systemic nonbiologic treatments. The latest guidelines’ section on topical treatment outlines evidence for the efficacy, effectiveness, and adverse events related to topical steroids, topical tacrolimus and pimecrolimus, vitamin D analogues, tazarotene, moisturizers, salicylic acid, anthralin, coal tar, combinations with biologic agents, and combinations with nonbiologic treatments (methotrexate, cyclosporine, acitretin, and apremilast).

The guidelines noted the “key role” of topical corticosteroids in treating psoriasis “especially for localized disease,” and include a review of the data on low-, moderate-, high-, and ultrahigh-potency topical steroids for psoriasis.

In general, all topical steroids can be used in combination with biologics, according to the guidelines, but the strongest recommendations based on the latest evidence include the addition of an ultra-high potency topical corticosteroid to standard dose etanercept for 12 weeks. Currently, 11 biologics are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of psoriasis.

In addition, “while not FDA approved for psoriasis, the topical calcineurin inhibitors tacrolimus and pimecrolimus are often employed in the treatment of psoriasis,” can be helpful for “thinner skin such as facial and intertriginous areas,” and can be steroid sparing when used for more than 4 weeks, according to the guidelines.

Don’t discount the role of patient preferences when choosing topical treatments, the authors noted. “The optimal vehicle choice is the one the patient is mostly likely to use.”

The guidelines also address the evidence for effectiveness, and adverse events in the use of several alternative medicines for psoriasis including traditional Chinese medicine, and the herbal therapies aloe vera and St. John’s wort, as well as the potential role of dietary supplements including fish oil, vitamin D, turmeric, and zinc in managing psoriasis, and the potential role of a gluten-free diet.

In general, research on the efficacy, effectiveness, and potential adverse effects of these strategies are limited, according to the guidelines, although many patients express interest in supplements and herbal products. For example, “Many patients ask about the overall role of vitamin D in skin health. Rather than adding oral vitamin D supplementation, topical therapy with vitamin D agents is effective for the treatment of psoriasis,” the authors noted.

In addition, they noted that mind/body strategies, namely hypnosis and stress reduction or meditation techniques, have been shown to improve symptoms and can be helpful for some patients, but clinical evidence is limited.

The guidelines also addressed methods for assessing disease severity in psoriasis. They recommended using body surface area (BSA) to assess psoriasis severity and patient response to treatment in the clinical setting. However, BSA is a provider assessment tool that “does not take into account location on the body, clinical characteristics of the plaques, symptoms, or quality of life issues,” the authors noted. The Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) measures erythema, induration, and scaling and is more suited to assessing psoriasis severity and response to treatment in clinical trials rather than in practice, they said.

Prior AAD guidelines on psoriasis were published more than 10 years ago, and major developments including the availability of new biologic drugs and new data on comorbidities have been recognized in the past decade, working group cochair and author of the guidelines Alan Menter, MD, said in an interview.

The key game-changers from previous guidelines include the full section published on comorbidities plus the development of two new important cytokine classes: three IL-17 drugs and three new IL-23 drugs now available for moderate to severe psoriasis, said Dr. Menter, chairman of the division of dermatology at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas.

Barriers to implementing the guidelines in practice may occur when “third party payers make the decision on which of the 11 biologic drugs now approved for moderate to severe psoriasis should be used,” he noted.

As for next steps in psoriasis studies, “new biomarker research is currently underway,” Dr. Menter said. With 11 biologic agents new formally approved by the FDA for moderate to severe psoriasis, the next steps are to determine which drug is likely to be the most appropriate for each individual patient.

Dr. Menter disclosed relationships with multiple companies that develop and manufacture psoriasis therapies, including Abbott Labs, AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly and Company, Galderma USA, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, LEO Pharma US, Menlo Therapeutics, and Novartis. The updated guidelines were designed by a multidisciplinary work group of psoriasis experts including dermatologists, a rheumatologist, a cardiologist, and representatives from a patient advocacy organization.
 

SOURCE: Elmets CA et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jul 29. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.07.087.

Topical agents, alternative medicine, and disease severity assessment are the subjects of the latest updated set of guidelines for the management and treatment of psoriasis issued jointly by the American Academy of Dermatology and the National Psoriasis Foundation.

©Rodd100/thinkstockphotos.com

The guidelines, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, focus on treatment for adults, and follow the release of other AAD-NPF guidelines on biologics for psoriasis, psoriasis-related comorbidities, pediatric psoriasis, and phototherapy in 2019, and earlier this year, guidelines for systemic nonbiologic treatments. The latest guidelines’ section on topical treatment outlines evidence for the efficacy, effectiveness, and adverse events related to topical steroids, topical tacrolimus and pimecrolimus, vitamin D analogues, tazarotene, moisturizers, salicylic acid, anthralin, coal tar, combinations with biologic agents, and combinations with nonbiologic treatments (methotrexate, cyclosporine, acitretin, and apremilast).

The guidelines noted the “key role” of topical corticosteroids in treating psoriasis “especially for localized disease,” and include a review of the data on low-, moderate-, high-, and ultrahigh-potency topical steroids for psoriasis.

In general, all topical steroids can be used in combination with biologics, according to the guidelines, but the strongest recommendations based on the latest evidence include the addition of an ultra-high potency topical corticosteroid to standard dose etanercept for 12 weeks. Currently, 11 biologics are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of psoriasis.

In addition, “while not FDA approved for psoriasis, the topical calcineurin inhibitors tacrolimus and pimecrolimus are often employed in the treatment of psoriasis,” can be helpful for “thinner skin such as facial and intertriginous areas,” and can be steroid sparing when used for more than 4 weeks, according to the guidelines.

Don’t discount the role of patient preferences when choosing topical treatments, the authors noted. “The optimal vehicle choice is the one the patient is mostly likely to use.”

The guidelines also address the evidence for effectiveness, and adverse events in the use of several alternative medicines for psoriasis including traditional Chinese medicine, and the herbal therapies aloe vera and St. John’s wort, as well as the potential role of dietary supplements including fish oil, vitamin D, turmeric, and zinc in managing psoriasis, and the potential role of a gluten-free diet.

In general, research on the efficacy, effectiveness, and potential adverse effects of these strategies are limited, according to the guidelines, although many patients express interest in supplements and herbal products. For example, “Many patients ask about the overall role of vitamin D in skin health. Rather than adding oral vitamin D supplementation, topical therapy with vitamin D agents is effective for the treatment of psoriasis,” the authors noted.

In addition, they noted that mind/body strategies, namely hypnosis and stress reduction or meditation techniques, have been shown to improve symptoms and can be helpful for some patients, but clinical evidence is limited.

The guidelines also addressed methods for assessing disease severity in psoriasis. They recommended using body surface area (BSA) to assess psoriasis severity and patient response to treatment in the clinical setting. However, BSA is a provider assessment tool that “does not take into account location on the body, clinical characteristics of the plaques, symptoms, or quality of life issues,” the authors noted. The Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) measures erythema, induration, and scaling and is more suited to assessing psoriasis severity and response to treatment in clinical trials rather than in practice, they said.

Prior AAD guidelines on psoriasis were published more than 10 years ago, and major developments including the availability of new biologic drugs and new data on comorbidities have been recognized in the past decade, working group cochair and author of the guidelines Alan Menter, MD, said in an interview.

The key game-changers from previous guidelines include the full section published on comorbidities plus the development of two new important cytokine classes: three IL-17 drugs and three new IL-23 drugs now available for moderate to severe psoriasis, said Dr. Menter, chairman of the division of dermatology at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas.

Barriers to implementing the guidelines in practice may occur when “third party payers make the decision on which of the 11 biologic drugs now approved for moderate to severe psoriasis should be used,” he noted.

As for next steps in psoriasis studies, “new biomarker research is currently underway,” Dr. Menter said. With 11 biologic agents new formally approved by the FDA for moderate to severe psoriasis, the next steps are to determine which drug is likely to be the most appropriate for each individual patient.

Dr. Menter disclosed relationships with multiple companies that develop and manufacture psoriasis therapies, including Abbott Labs, AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly and Company, Galderma USA, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, LEO Pharma US, Menlo Therapeutics, and Novartis. The updated guidelines were designed by a multidisciplinary work group of psoriasis experts including dermatologists, a rheumatologist, a cardiologist, and representatives from a patient advocacy organization.
 

SOURCE: Elmets CA et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jul 29. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.07.087.

Topical agents, alternative medicine, and disease severity assessment are the subjects of the latest updated set of guidelines for the management and treatment of psoriasis issued jointly by the American Academy of Dermatology and the National Psoriasis Foundation.

©Rodd100/thinkstockphotos.com

The guidelines, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, focus on treatment for adults, and follow the release of other AAD-NPF guidelines on biologics for psoriasis, psoriasis-related comorbidities, pediatric psoriasis, and phototherapy in 2019, and earlier this year, guidelines for systemic nonbiologic treatments. The latest guidelines’ section on topical treatment outlines evidence for the efficacy, effectiveness, and adverse events related to topical steroids, topical tacrolimus and pimecrolimus, vitamin D analogues, tazarotene, moisturizers, salicylic acid, anthralin, coal tar, combinations with biologic agents, and combinations with nonbiologic treatments (methotrexate, cyclosporine, acitretin, and apremilast).

The guidelines noted the “key role” of topical corticosteroids in treating psoriasis “especially for localized disease,” and include a review of the data on low-, moderate-, high-, and ultrahigh-potency topical steroids for psoriasis.

In general, all topical steroids can be used in combination with biologics, according to the guidelines, but the strongest recommendations based on the latest evidence include the addition of an ultra-high potency topical corticosteroid to standard dose etanercept for 12 weeks. Currently, 11 biologics are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of psoriasis.

In addition, “while not FDA approved for psoriasis, the topical calcineurin inhibitors tacrolimus and pimecrolimus are often employed in the treatment of psoriasis,” can be helpful for “thinner skin such as facial and intertriginous areas,” and can be steroid sparing when used for more than 4 weeks, according to the guidelines.

Don’t discount the role of patient preferences when choosing topical treatments, the authors noted. “The optimal vehicle choice is the one the patient is mostly likely to use.”

The guidelines also address the evidence for effectiveness, and adverse events in the use of several alternative medicines for psoriasis including traditional Chinese medicine, and the herbal therapies aloe vera and St. John’s wort, as well as the potential role of dietary supplements including fish oil, vitamin D, turmeric, and zinc in managing psoriasis, and the potential role of a gluten-free diet.

In general, research on the efficacy, effectiveness, and potential adverse effects of these strategies are limited, according to the guidelines, although many patients express interest in supplements and herbal products. For example, “Many patients ask about the overall role of vitamin D in skin health. Rather than adding oral vitamin D supplementation, topical therapy with vitamin D agents is effective for the treatment of psoriasis,” the authors noted.

In addition, they noted that mind/body strategies, namely hypnosis and stress reduction or meditation techniques, have been shown to improve symptoms and can be helpful for some patients, but clinical evidence is limited.

The guidelines also addressed methods for assessing disease severity in psoriasis. They recommended using body surface area (BSA) to assess psoriasis severity and patient response to treatment in the clinical setting. However, BSA is a provider assessment tool that “does not take into account location on the body, clinical characteristics of the plaques, symptoms, or quality of life issues,” the authors noted. The Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) measures erythema, induration, and scaling and is more suited to assessing psoriasis severity and response to treatment in clinical trials rather than in practice, they said.

Prior AAD guidelines on psoriasis were published more than 10 years ago, and major developments including the availability of new biologic drugs and new data on comorbidities have been recognized in the past decade, working group cochair and author of the guidelines Alan Menter, MD, said in an interview.

The key game-changers from previous guidelines include the full section published on comorbidities plus the development of two new important cytokine classes: three IL-17 drugs and three new IL-23 drugs now available for moderate to severe psoriasis, said Dr. Menter, chairman of the division of dermatology at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas.

Barriers to implementing the guidelines in practice may occur when “third party payers make the decision on which of the 11 biologic drugs now approved for moderate to severe psoriasis should be used,” he noted.

As for next steps in psoriasis studies, “new biomarker research is currently underway,” Dr. Menter said. With 11 biologic agents new formally approved by the FDA for moderate to severe psoriasis, the next steps are to determine which drug is likely to be the most appropriate for each individual patient.

Dr. Menter disclosed relationships with multiple companies that develop and manufacture psoriasis therapies, including Abbott Labs, AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly and Company, Galderma USA, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, LEO Pharma US, Menlo Therapeutics, and Novartis. The updated guidelines were designed by a multidisciplinary work group of psoriasis experts including dermatologists, a rheumatologist, a cardiologist, and representatives from a patient advocacy organization.
 

SOURCE: Elmets CA et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jul 29. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.07.087.

Treatment of psoriasis with biologics was associated with a reduced risk of developing psoriatic arthritis compared with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), in a single center retrospective analysis in Argentina that followed patients for almost 2 decades.

About 30%-40% of patients with psoriasis go on to develop psoriatic arthritis (PsA), usually on average about 10 years after the onset of psoriasis. One potential mechanism of PsA onset is through enthesitis, which has been described at subclinical levels in psoriasis.

“It could be speculated that treatment with biologics in patients with psoriasis could prevent the development of psoriatic arthritis, perhaps by inhibiting the subclinical development of enthesitis,” Luciano Lo Giudice, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, said during his presentation at the virtual annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

Although these results do not prove that treatment of the underlying disease delays progression to PsA, it is suggestive, and highlights an emerging field of research, according to Diamant Thaçi, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, who led a live discussion following a prerecorded presentation of the results. “We’re going in this direction – how can we prevent psoriatic arthritis, how can we delay it. We are just starting to think about this,” Dr. Thaçi said in an interview.

The researchers examined medical records of 1,626 patients with psoriasis treated at their center between 2000 and 2019, with a total of 15,152 years of follow-up. Of these patients, 1,293 were treated with topical medication, 229 with conventional DMARDs (methotrexate in 77%, cyclosporine in 13%, and both in 10%), and 104 with biologics, including etanercept (34%), secukinumab (20%), adalimumab (20%), ustekinumab (12%), ixekizumab (9%), and infliximab (5%).

They found that 11% in the topical treatment group developed PsA, as did 3.5% in the conventional DMARD group, 1.9% in the biologics group, and 9.1% overall. Treatment with biologics was associated with a significantly lower odds of developing PsA compared with treatment with conventional DMARDs (3 versus 17.2 per 1,000 patient-years; incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.17; P = .0177). There was a trend toward reduced odds of developing PsA among those on biologic therapy compared with those on topicals (3 versus 9.8 per 1,000 patient-years; IRR, 0.3; P = .0588).

The researchers confirmed all medical encounters using electronic medical records and the study had a long follow-up time, but was limited by the single center and its retrospective nature. It also could not associate reduced risk with specific biologics.

The findings probably reflect the presence of subclinical PsA that many clinicians don’t see, according to Dr. Thaçi. While a dermatology practice might find PsA in 2% or 3%, or at most, 10% of patients with psoriasis, “in our department it’s about 50 to 60 percent of patients who have psoriatic arthritis, because we diagnose it early,” he said.

He found the results of the study encouraging. “It looks like some of the biologics, for example IL [interleukin]-17 or even IL-23 [blockers] may have an influence on occurrence or delay the occurrence of psoriatic arthritis.”

Dr. Thaçi noted that early treatment of skin lesions can increase the probability of longer remissions, especially with IL-23 blockers. Still, that’s no guarantee the same would hold true for PsA risk. “Skin is skin and joints are joints,” Dr. Thaçi said.

Dr. Thaçi and Dr. Lo Giudice had no relevant financial disclosures.

Treatment of psoriasis with biologics was associated with a reduced risk of developing psoriatic arthritis compared with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), in a single center retrospective analysis in Argentina that followed patients for almost 2 decades.

About 30%-40% of patients with psoriasis go on to develop psoriatic arthritis (PsA), usually on average about 10 years after the onset of psoriasis. One potential mechanism of PsA onset is through enthesitis, which has been described at subclinical levels in psoriasis.

“It could be speculated that treatment with biologics in patients with psoriasis could prevent the development of psoriatic arthritis, perhaps by inhibiting the subclinical development of enthesitis,” Luciano Lo Giudice, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, said during his presentation at the virtual annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

Although these results do not prove that treatment of the underlying disease delays progression to PsA, it is suggestive, and highlights an emerging field of research, according to Diamant Thaçi, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, who led a live discussion following a prerecorded presentation of the results. “We’re going in this direction – how can we prevent psoriatic arthritis, how can we delay it. We are just starting to think about this,” Dr. Thaçi said in an interview.

The researchers examined medical records of 1,626 patients with psoriasis treated at their center between 2000 and 2019, with a total of 15,152 years of follow-up. Of these patients, 1,293 were treated with topical medication, 229 with conventional DMARDs (methotrexate in 77%, cyclosporine in 13%, and both in 10%), and 104 with biologics, including etanercept (34%), secukinumab (20%), adalimumab (20%), ustekinumab (12%), ixekizumab (9%), and infliximab (5%).

They found that 11% in the topical treatment group developed PsA, as did 3.5% in the conventional DMARD group, 1.9% in the biologics group, and 9.1% overall. Treatment with biologics was associated with a significantly lower odds of developing PsA compared with treatment with conventional DMARDs (3 versus 17.2 per 1,000 patient-years; incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.17; P = .0177). There was a trend toward reduced odds of developing PsA among those on biologic therapy compared with those on topicals (3 versus 9.8 per 1,000 patient-years; IRR, 0.3; P = .0588).

The researchers confirmed all medical encounters using electronic medical records and the study had a long follow-up time, but was limited by the single center and its retrospective nature. It also could not associate reduced risk with specific biologics.

The findings probably reflect the presence of subclinical PsA that many clinicians don’t see, according to Dr. Thaçi. While a dermatology practice might find PsA in 2% or 3%, or at most, 10% of patients with psoriasis, “in our department it’s about 50 to 60 percent of patients who have psoriatic arthritis, because we diagnose it early,” he said.

He found the results of the study encouraging. “It looks like some of the biologics, for example IL [interleukin]-17 or even IL-23 [blockers] may have an influence on occurrence or delay the occurrence of psoriatic arthritis.”

Dr. Thaçi noted that early treatment of skin lesions can increase the probability of longer remissions, especially with IL-23 blockers. Still, that’s no guarantee the same would hold true for PsA risk. “Skin is skin and joints are joints,” Dr. Thaçi said.

Dr. Thaçi and Dr. Lo Giudice had no relevant financial disclosures.

Treatment of psoriasis with biologics was associated with a reduced risk of developing psoriatic arthritis compared with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), in a single center retrospective analysis in Argentina that followed patients for almost 2 decades.

About 30%-40% of patients with psoriasis go on to develop psoriatic arthritis (PsA), usually on average about 10 years after the onset of psoriasis. One potential mechanism of PsA onset is through enthesitis, which has been described at subclinical levels in psoriasis.

“It could be speculated that treatment with biologics in patients with psoriasis could prevent the development of psoriatic arthritis, perhaps by inhibiting the subclinical development of enthesitis,” Luciano Lo Giudice, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, said during his presentation at the virtual annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

Although these results do not prove that treatment of the underlying disease delays progression to PsA, it is suggestive, and highlights an emerging field of research, according to Diamant Thaçi, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, who led a live discussion following a prerecorded presentation of the results. “We’re going in this direction – how can we prevent psoriatic arthritis, how can we delay it. We are just starting to think about this,” Dr. Thaçi said in an interview.

The researchers examined medical records of 1,626 patients with psoriasis treated at their center between 2000 and 2019, with a total of 15,152 years of follow-up. Of these patients, 1,293 were treated with topical medication, 229 with conventional DMARDs (methotrexate in 77%, cyclosporine in 13%, and both in 10%), and 104 with biologics, including etanercept (34%), secukinumab (20%), adalimumab (20%), ustekinumab (12%), ixekizumab (9%), and infliximab (5%).

They found that 11% in the topical treatment group developed PsA, as did 3.5% in the conventional DMARD group, 1.9% in the biologics group, and 9.1% overall. Treatment with biologics was associated with a significantly lower odds of developing PsA compared with treatment with conventional DMARDs (3 versus 17.2 per 1,000 patient-years; incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.17; P = .0177). There was a trend toward reduced odds of developing PsA among those on biologic therapy compared with those on topicals (3 versus 9.8 per 1,000 patient-years; IRR, 0.3; P = .0588).

The researchers confirmed all medical encounters using electronic medical records and the study had a long follow-up time, but was limited by the single center and its retrospective nature. It also could not associate reduced risk with specific biologics.

The findings probably reflect the presence of subclinical PsA that many clinicians don’t see, according to Dr. Thaçi. While a dermatology practice might find PsA in 2% or 3%, or at most, 10% of patients with psoriasis, “in our department it’s about 50 to 60 percent of patients who have psoriatic arthritis, because we diagnose it early,” he said.

He found the results of the study encouraging. “It looks like some of the biologics, for example IL [interleukin]-17 or even IL-23 [blockers] may have an influence on occurrence or delay the occurrence of psoriatic arthritis.”

Dr. Thaçi noted that early treatment of skin lesions can increase the probability of longer remissions, especially with IL-23 blockers. Still, that’s no guarantee the same would hold true for PsA risk. “Skin is skin and joints are joints,” Dr. Thaçi said.

Dr. Thaçi and Dr. Lo Giudice had no relevant financial disclosures.

The state of health care in Massachusetts makes it the state for health care in 2020, according to the personal finance website WalletHub.

The Bay State finds itself at the top of the company’s annual ranking of state health care systems this year after finishing second in 2019 to Minnesota, which is now ranked second. Rhode Island is third this year, followed by Washington, D.C., and North Dakota, WalletHub reported Aug. 3.

The inclusion of Washington, D.C., allowed Georgia to finish 51st out of 50 states, just below the quartet of Louisiana (50th), Alabama (49th), North Carolina (48th), and Mississippi (47th). Alaska, which occupied the bottom spot in 2019, moved up to 42nd this year, the analysis showed.

The rankings are based on 44 (up from 43 last year) metrics that are grouped into three broad categories: cost (6 metrics), access (24 metrics), and outcomes (14 metrics). The one new measure added for 2020? That would be health infrastructure for coronavirus, which is itself based on a different WalletHub ranking.

Massachusetts’ top finish this year was driven by strong showings in such metrics as average monthly insurance premium (first), physicians per capita (second), insured children (first) and adults (first), and infant mortality rate (fourth). The state was 1st overall in outcomes and 4th in access but only 20th in cost, the company said.

Positive signs among the lowest-ranked states include Louisiana’s 18th-place finish in access, ahead of such top 10 states as Iowa and Hawaii, and Mississippi’s 17th in cost, which is higher than four of the states in the top 10, including Massachusetts, WalletHub said in the report.

Data for the analysis came from 22 different sources, including the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Telemedicine Association.

rfranki@mdedge.com

The state of health care in Massachusetts makes it the state for health care in 2020, according to the personal finance website WalletHub.

The Bay State finds itself at the top of the company’s annual ranking of state health care systems this year after finishing second in 2019 to Minnesota, which is now ranked second. Rhode Island is third this year, followed by Washington, D.C., and North Dakota, WalletHub reported Aug. 3.

The inclusion of Washington, D.C., allowed Georgia to finish 51st out of 50 states, just below the quartet of Louisiana (50th), Alabama (49th), North Carolina (48th), and Mississippi (47th). Alaska, which occupied the bottom spot in 2019, moved up to 42nd this year, the analysis showed.

The rankings are based on 44 (up from 43 last year) metrics that are grouped into three broad categories: cost (6 metrics), access (24 metrics), and outcomes (14 metrics). The one new measure added for 2020? That would be health infrastructure for coronavirus, which is itself based on a different WalletHub ranking.

Massachusetts’ top finish this year was driven by strong showings in such metrics as average monthly insurance premium (first), physicians per capita (second), insured children (first) and adults (first), and infant mortality rate (fourth). The state was 1st overall in outcomes and 4th in access but only 20th in cost, the company said.

Positive signs among the lowest-ranked states include Louisiana’s 18th-place finish in access, ahead of such top 10 states as Iowa and Hawaii, and Mississippi’s 17th in cost, which is higher than four of the states in the top 10, including Massachusetts, WalletHub said in the report.

Data for the analysis came from 22 different sources, including the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Telemedicine Association.

rfranki@mdedge.com

The state of health care in Massachusetts makes it the state for health care in 2020, according to the personal finance website WalletHub.

The Bay State finds itself at the top of the company’s annual ranking of state health care systems this year after finishing second in 2019 to Minnesota, which is now ranked second. Rhode Island is third this year, followed by Washington, D.C., and North Dakota, WalletHub reported Aug. 3.

The inclusion of Washington, D.C., allowed Georgia to finish 51st out of 50 states, just below the quartet of Louisiana (50th), Alabama (49th), North Carolina (48th), and Mississippi (47th). Alaska, which occupied the bottom spot in 2019, moved up to 42nd this year, the analysis showed.

The rankings are based on 44 (up from 43 last year) metrics that are grouped into three broad categories: cost (6 metrics), access (24 metrics), and outcomes (14 metrics). The one new measure added for 2020? That would be health infrastructure for coronavirus, which is itself based on a different WalletHub ranking.

Massachusetts’ top finish this year was driven by strong showings in such metrics as average monthly insurance premium (first), physicians per capita (second), insured children (first) and adults (first), and infant mortality rate (fourth). The state was 1st overall in outcomes and 4th in access but only 20th in cost, the company said.

Positive signs among the lowest-ranked states include Louisiana’s 18th-place finish in access, ahead of such top 10 states as Iowa and Hawaii, and Mississippi’s 17th in cost, which is higher than four of the states in the top 10, including Massachusetts, WalletHub said in the report.

Data for the analysis came from 22 different sources, including the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Telemedicine Association.

rfranki@mdedge.com

At its annual meeting, the Alzheimer’s Association announced the launch of a global study to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the brain, as well as policy recommendations to better address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term care facilities. The study will be led by researchers at the Alzheimer’s Association and the University of Texas Health, San Antonio, with participation from more than 30 countries and technical guidance from the World Health Organization.

The research will track and evaluate the short- and long-term impact of the novel coronavirus on the brain, including cognition, behavior, and function. The target sample size is 20,000-40,000 total participants.

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, announced the study’s launch during a COVID-19–focused panel discussion at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2020.

“To build a strong foundation for this research, we will align with existing studies, such as the Framingham Heart Study, and clinicians from around the world on how the data are going to be collected, obtained, and shared. We are going to have cross-study collaborations to understand the impact of the virus on the brain directly,” said Dr. Carrillo. “We will have some very good data to present next year at AAIC.”
 

‘Frightening’ headlines

As previously reported, mounting evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 invades the central nervous system, causing a wide range of neurologic and neuropsychiatric complications, including stroke, psychosis, altered mental state, and dementia-like syndrome. It’s likely that “dementia does not increase the risk for COVID-19, just like dementia does not increase risk for the flu. But increased age, being in a long-term care setting, and common health conditions that often accompany dementia may increase the risk,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Panel member Beth Kallmyer, MSW, vice president of care and support at the Alzheimer’s Association, spoke about the ongoing challenges long-term care facilities are facing during the pandemic. “You’ve all seen the headlines, and they’re frightening, frankly,” she said. An estimated 59,000 residents and employees of long-term care have died as a result of COVID-19, which is 42% of all U.S. deaths.

The long-term care community is being impacted at “significantly greater rates than the rest of society and yet we don’t have things in place to protect them. We also know that individuals living with dementia make up a large percentage of those that are living in long-term care,” Ms. Kallmyer said.

She noted that infection control is always a challenge in long-term care settings, but infection control during a pandemic “takes it to a whole other level.” Quarantining is hard for anyone, “but when you layer dementia on top of that we have a real challenge.” One long-term care provider told Ms. Kallmyer that “we might be saving them from COVID, but we’re losing them to social isolation and cognitive decline.”
 

New recommendations

Ms. Kallmyer outlined new policy recommendations from the Alzheimer’s Association to address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term and community-based care settings. They include:

• Testing every resident, employee, and visitor each time they leave and come back, so residents would not need to be confined to their own rooms
• Having a single portal that is easy and efficient for reporting cases
• Developing “surge activation” protocols to respond to hot spots, including the possibility of “strike teams” that go in and help during an outbreak
• Making sure all long-term care providers have full access to all needed personal protective equipment (PPE)

“Five months in and long-term care providers still don’t have adequate PPE. This is unacceptable,” said Ms. Kallmyer. “We have to be able to provide them with PPE.”

Panel member Gregory A. Jicha, MD, PhD, Sanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky, Lexington, spoke about the critical need to continue Alzheimer’s disease research during the pandemic, noting that the number of promising targets for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias has “never been higher or more comprehensive.”

Measures to ensure safety of researchers and participants include screening for symptoms (50% effective), social distancing (93% effective), minimizing exposure time (50% effective), limiting staff to 50% (50% effective), cloth/paper masks (80% effective), and testing (99.25% effective), Dr. Jicha noted.

With no safety measures in place, the risk of getting COVID-19 from a research visit is 1 in 20; when all these safety measures are combined, the risk is 1 in over 1.5 million, so “we can essentially eradicate or minimize the risks for COVID to less that of a lightning strike,” he said.

Dr. Carrillo, Ms. Kallmyer, and Dr. Jicha disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

At its annual meeting, the Alzheimer’s Association announced the launch of a global study to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the brain, as well as policy recommendations to better address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term care facilities. The study will be led by researchers at the Alzheimer’s Association and the University of Texas Health, San Antonio, with participation from more than 30 countries and technical guidance from the World Health Organization.

The research will track and evaluate the short- and long-term impact of the novel coronavirus on the brain, including cognition, behavior, and function. The target sample size is 20,000-40,000 total participants.

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, announced the study’s launch during a COVID-19–focused panel discussion at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2020.

“To build a strong foundation for this research, we will align with existing studies, such as the Framingham Heart Study, and clinicians from around the world on how the data are going to be collected, obtained, and shared. We are going to have cross-study collaborations to understand the impact of the virus on the brain directly,” said Dr. Carrillo. “We will have some very good data to present next year at AAIC.”
 

‘Frightening’ headlines

As previously reported, mounting evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 invades the central nervous system, causing a wide range of neurologic and neuropsychiatric complications, including stroke, psychosis, altered mental state, and dementia-like syndrome. It’s likely that “dementia does not increase the risk for COVID-19, just like dementia does not increase risk for the flu. But increased age, being in a long-term care setting, and common health conditions that often accompany dementia may increase the risk,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Panel member Beth Kallmyer, MSW, vice president of care and support at the Alzheimer’s Association, spoke about the ongoing challenges long-term care facilities are facing during the pandemic. “You’ve all seen the headlines, and they’re frightening, frankly,” she said. An estimated 59,000 residents and employees of long-term care have died as a result of COVID-19, which is 42% of all U.S. deaths.

The long-term care community is being impacted at “significantly greater rates than the rest of society and yet we don’t have things in place to protect them. We also know that individuals living with dementia make up a large percentage of those that are living in long-term care,” Ms. Kallmyer said.

She noted that infection control is always a challenge in long-term care settings, but infection control during a pandemic “takes it to a whole other level.” Quarantining is hard for anyone, “but when you layer dementia on top of that we have a real challenge.” One long-term care provider told Ms. Kallmyer that “we might be saving them from COVID, but we’re losing them to social isolation and cognitive decline.”
 

New recommendations

Ms. Kallmyer outlined new policy recommendations from the Alzheimer’s Association to address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term and community-based care settings. They include:

• Testing every resident, employee, and visitor each time they leave and come back, so residents would not need to be confined to their own rooms
• Having a single portal that is easy and efficient for reporting cases
• Developing “surge activation” protocols to respond to hot spots, including the possibility of “strike teams” that go in and help during an outbreak
• Making sure all long-term care providers have full access to all needed personal protective equipment (PPE)

“Five months in and long-term care providers still don’t have adequate PPE. This is unacceptable,” said Ms. Kallmyer. “We have to be able to provide them with PPE.”

Panel member Gregory A. Jicha, MD, PhD, Sanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky, Lexington, spoke about the critical need to continue Alzheimer’s disease research during the pandemic, noting that the number of promising targets for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias has “never been higher or more comprehensive.”

Measures to ensure safety of researchers and participants include screening for symptoms (50% effective), social distancing (93% effective), minimizing exposure time (50% effective), limiting staff to 50% (50% effective), cloth/paper masks (80% effective), and testing (99.25% effective), Dr. Jicha noted.

With no safety measures in place, the risk of getting COVID-19 from a research visit is 1 in 20; when all these safety measures are combined, the risk is 1 in over 1.5 million, so “we can essentially eradicate or minimize the risks for COVID to less that of a lightning strike,” he said.

Dr. Carrillo, Ms. Kallmyer, and Dr. Jicha disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

At its annual meeting, the Alzheimer’s Association announced the launch of a global study to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the brain, as well as policy recommendations to better address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term care facilities. The study will be led by researchers at the Alzheimer’s Association and the University of Texas Health, San Antonio, with participation from more than 30 countries and technical guidance from the World Health Organization.

The research will track and evaluate the short- and long-term impact of the novel coronavirus on the brain, including cognition, behavior, and function. The target sample size is 20,000-40,000 total participants.

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, announced the study’s launch during a COVID-19–focused panel discussion at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2020.

“To build a strong foundation for this research, we will align with existing studies, such as the Framingham Heart Study, and clinicians from around the world on how the data are going to be collected, obtained, and shared. We are going to have cross-study collaborations to understand the impact of the virus on the brain directly,” said Dr. Carrillo. “We will have some very good data to present next year at AAIC.”
 

‘Frightening’ headlines

As previously reported, mounting evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 invades the central nervous system, causing a wide range of neurologic and neuropsychiatric complications, including stroke, psychosis, altered mental state, and dementia-like syndrome. It’s likely that “dementia does not increase the risk for COVID-19, just like dementia does not increase risk for the flu. But increased age, being in a long-term care setting, and common health conditions that often accompany dementia may increase the risk,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Panel member Beth Kallmyer, MSW, vice president of care and support at the Alzheimer’s Association, spoke about the ongoing challenges long-term care facilities are facing during the pandemic. “You’ve all seen the headlines, and they’re frightening, frankly,” she said. An estimated 59,000 residents and employees of long-term care have died as a result of COVID-19, which is 42% of all U.S. deaths.

The long-term care community is being impacted at “significantly greater rates than the rest of society and yet we don’t have things in place to protect them. We also know that individuals living with dementia make up a large percentage of those that are living in long-term care,” Ms. Kallmyer said.

She noted that infection control is always a challenge in long-term care settings, but infection control during a pandemic “takes it to a whole other level.” Quarantining is hard for anyone, “but when you layer dementia on top of that we have a real challenge.” One long-term care provider told Ms. Kallmyer that “we might be saving them from COVID, but we’re losing them to social isolation and cognitive decline.”
 

New recommendations

Ms. Kallmyer outlined new policy recommendations from the Alzheimer’s Association to address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term and community-based care settings. They include:

• Testing every resident, employee, and visitor each time they leave and come back, so residents would not need to be confined to their own rooms
• Having a single portal that is easy and efficient for reporting cases
• Developing “surge activation” protocols to respond to hot spots, including the possibility of “strike teams” that go in and help during an outbreak
• Making sure all long-term care providers have full access to all needed personal protective equipment (PPE)

“Five months in and long-term care providers still don’t have adequate PPE. This is unacceptable,” said Ms. Kallmyer. “We have to be able to provide them with PPE.”

Panel member Gregory A. Jicha, MD, PhD, Sanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky, Lexington, spoke about the critical need to continue Alzheimer’s disease research during the pandemic, noting that the number of promising targets for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias has “never been higher or more comprehensive.”

Measures to ensure safety of researchers and participants include screening for symptoms (50% effective), social distancing (93% effective), minimizing exposure time (50% effective), limiting staff to 50% (50% effective), cloth/paper masks (80% effective), and testing (99.25% effective), Dr. Jicha noted.

With no safety measures in place, the risk of getting COVID-19 from a research visit is 1 in 20; when all these safety measures are combined, the risk is 1 in over 1.5 million, so “we can essentially eradicate or minimize the risks for COVID to less that of a lightning strike,” he said.

Dr. Carrillo, Ms. Kallmyer, and Dr. Jicha disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic is taking a particularly severe financial toll on people with diabetes, new research from the United States suggests.

Results from a national online survey of 5,000 people with diabetes conducted between June 26 and July 1, 2020, were posted July 29 on the American Diabetes Association website.

The survey, conducted by the diabetes research company dQ&A in association with the ADA, revealed that Americans with diabetes are experiencing extreme financial pressures, leading to medication and supply rationing.

A high proportion of respondents had either lost income or are working in jobs that place them at risk for catching the novel coronavirus.

“These new numbers show the urgency needed to adopt measures to protect and assist the millions of people with diabetes who are suffering through this pandemic,” Tracey D. Brown, CEO of the ADA, said in a statement.

She called for states to extend health care coverage to people who have lost their jobs, for the eradication of insulin copays during the pandemic, and for increased COVID-19 testing capacity in high-risk communities.

“If these actions aren’t taken immediately, we will continue to see devastating impacts and outcomes for millions of vulnerable Americans,” Ms. Brown stressed.
 

COVID-19 has worsened financial pressures for people with diabetes

In the survey, 24% of respondents reported having used savings, loans, or stimulus check money to pay for diabetes care in the past 3 months. Among those who have lost income, half are using savings or stimulus money.

A quarter of respondents said they have been self-rationing supplies to cut costs.

Extrapolating to the entire U.S. population with diabetes, dQ&A estimated that roughly 650,000 are skipping insulin doses or taking less than prescribed, and 3 million are skipping blood glucose tests.

In June, the unemployment rate for people with diabetes was 18%, higher than the national rate of 12%.

Also higher is the proportion of those working prior to the pandemic who have since lost income: 33%, compared with 29% for the general population.

Among those who are self-employed, 7 in 10 of those with diabetes have lost some or all of their income.
 

Many with diabetes who are employed are vulnerable to exposure

Of those who remain employed, half said they can’t work from home.

Of those, 60% work in essential industries, with 22% in health care. A large majority, 90%, reported lack of social distancing at work and nearly a third work in places that don’t require masks.

“People with diabetes are helping to provide the services we all depend on during this pandemic, even as it puts their own well-being at risk,” the report said.

It concluded that “these numbers represent a conservative estimate of the pandemic’s impact. They are generated from an ongoing online study of the diabetes population amongst people who have opted in to participate.”

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

The COVID-19 pandemic is taking a particularly severe financial toll on people with diabetes, new research from the United States suggests.

Results from a national online survey of 5,000 people with diabetes conducted between June 26 and July 1, 2020, were posted July 29 on the American Diabetes Association website.

The survey, conducted by the diabetes research company dQ&A in association with the ADA, revealed that Americans with diabetes are experiencing extreme financial pressures, leading to medication and supply rationing.

A high proportion of respondents had either lost income or are working in jobs that place them at risk for catching the novel coronavirus.

“These new numbers show the urgency needed to adopt measures to protect and assist the millions of people with diabetes who are suffering through this pandemic,” Tracey D. Brown, CEO of the ADA, said in a statement.

She called for states to extend health care coverage to people who have lost their jobs, for the eradication of insulin copays during the pandemic, and for increased COVID-19 testing capacity in high-risk communities.

“If these actions aren’t taken immediately, we will continue to see devastating impacts and outcomes for millions of vulnerable Americans,” Ms. Brown stressed.
 

COVID-19 has worsened financial pressures for people with diabetes

In the survey, 24% of respondents reported having used savings, loans, or stimulus check money to pay for diabetes care in the past 3 months. Among those who have lost income, half are using savings or stimulus money.

A quarter of respondents said they have been self-rationing supplies to cut costs.

Extrapolating to the entire U.S. population with diabetes, dQ&A estimated that roughly 650,000 are skipping insulin doses or taking less than prescribed, and 3 million are skipping blood glucose tests.

In June, the unemployment rate for people with diabetes was 18%, higher than the national rate of 12%.

Also higher is the proportion of those working prior to the pandemic who have since lost income: 33%, compared with 29% for the general population.

Among those who are self-employed, 7 in 10 of those with diabetes have lost some or all of their income.
 

Many with diabetes who are employed are vulnerable to exposure

Of those who remain employed, half said they can’t work from home.

Of those, 60% work in essential industries, with 22% in health care. A large majority, 90%, reported lack of social distancing at work and nearly a third work in places that don’t require masks.

“People with diabetes are helping to provide the services we all depend on during this pandemic, even as it puts their own well-being at risk,” the report said.

It concluded that “these numbers represent a conservative estimate of the pandemic’s impact. They are generated from an ongoing online study of the diabetes population amongst people who have opted in to participate.”

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

The COVID-19 pandemic is taking a particularly severe financial toll on people with diabetes, new research from the United States suggests.

Results from a national online survey of 5,000 people with diabetes conducted between June 26 and July 1, 2020, were posted July 29 on the American Diabetes Association website.

The survey, conducted by the diabetes research company dQ&A in association with the ADA, revealed that Americans with diabetes are experiencing extreme financial pressures, leading to medication and supply rationing.

A high proportion of respondents had either lost income or are working in jobs that place them at risk for catching the novel coronavirus.

“These new numbers show the urgency needed to adopt measures to protect and assist the millions of people with diabetes who are suffering through this pandemic,” Tracey D. Brown, CEO of the ADA, said in a statement.

She called for states to extend health care coverage to people who have lost their jobs, for the eradication of insulin copays during the pandemic, and for increased COVID-19 testing capacity in high-risk communities.

“If these actions aren’t taken immediately, we will continue to see devastating impacts and outcomes for millions of vulnerable Americans,” Ms. Brown stressed.
 

COVID-19 has worsened financial pressures for people with diabetes

In the survey, 24% of respondents reported having used savings, loans, or stimulus check money to pay for diabetes care in the past 3 months. Among those who have lost income, half are using savings or stimulus money.

A quarter of respondents said they have been self-rationing supplies to cut costs.

Extrapolating to the entire U.S. population with diabetes, dQ&A estimated that roughly 650,000 are skipping insulin doses or taking less than prescribed, and 3 million are skipping blood glucose tests.

In June, the unemployment rate for people with diabetes was 18%, higher than the national rate of 12%.

Also higher is the proportion of those working prior to the pandemic who have since lost income: 33%, compared with 29% for the general population.

Among those who are self-employed, 7 in 10 of those with diabetes have lost some or all of their income.
 

Many with diabetes who are employed are vulnerable to exposure

Of those who remain employed, half said they can’t work from home.

Of those, 60% work in essential industries, with 22% in health care. A large majority, 90%, reported lack of social distancing at work and nearly a third work in places that don’t require masks.

“People with diabetes are helping to provide the services we all depend on during this pandemic, even as it puts their own well-being at risk,” the report said.

It concluded that “these numbers represent a conservative estimate of the pandemic’s impact. They are generated from an ongoing online study of the diabetes population amongst people who have opted in to participate.”

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