Rheumatology News

Apremilast (Otezla) monotherapy may be an effective option in oligoarticular psoriatic arthritis, Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, reported at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Her analysis of apremilast data from the CORRONA Registry was among several recent highlights in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) cited by speakers at the meeting. Other significant developments included a large pan-Scandinavian study that reassuringly found no increased risk of solid cancers in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor–treated patients with PsA, and evidence to suggest a sex difference in the efficacy of both secukinumab (Cosentyx) and adalimumab (Humira), with men responding better than women to two biologics with differing mechanisms of action.
 

A role for apremilast in oligoarticular disease?

Dr. Ogdie presented an analysis of 150 patients in the U.S. observational CORRONA Registry who initiated monotherapy for oligoarticular PsA and were followed for 6 months. Thirty-four started on apremilast, 15 on methotrexate, and 101 on a biologic. Even though the apremilast group had higher baseline disease activity than did those who started on methotrexate, at 6 months a swollen joint count of 1 or 0 was present in 41% of the apremilast-treated patients, compared with none on methotrexate and 15% on a biologic agent.

A tender joint count of 0-1 was documented at 6 months in 24% of patients on apremilast, 13% with methotrexate, and 21% on a biologic agent. Apremilast’s numeric superiority in outcomes compared to methotrexate in this exploratory study wasn’t subjected to statistical analysis because of the small sample size. However, the ongoing phase 4, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter FOREMOST trial in 330 patients with early oligoarticular PsA should provide more definitive efficacy data, noted Dr. Ogdie, a rheumatologist and epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

RWCS program director Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, said, “The most recent EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology] PsA guidelines totally discount apremilast, and I think mostly on the basis of cost, but then they also say that in groups of people it’s not as effective as methotrexate.”

“This study shows to me that, even though it’s a registry, with all the caveats about getting data from registries, apremilast certainly can be an effective drug,” said Dr. Kavanaugh, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego.

Another valuable piece of information from the CORRONA analysis is that it zeros in on patients with oligoarticular PsA.

“Almost all of our PsA studies are focused on people with polyarticular disease. What about those who have lesser involvement? That, of course, is important in the clinic,” he noted.

Dr. Ogdie concurred.

“If we study only polyarticular disease and we make all of our assumptions based on polyarticular disease, we might be leaving out at least half of the patients with PsA. And those patients may not need a bigger gun. Apremilast and methotrexate are kind of in the same group for that mild oligoarticular disease, and they probably work just fine,” she said.

A final point: “We really don’t have good outcome measures to study oligoarticular disease well. The ACR20 is not good because a 20% improvement in three joints is not readily measurable. That’s why trialists enroll patients with high joint count numbers,” according to the rheumatologist.

No increased risk of solid cancers in PsA patients treated with TNF inhibitors

A new analysis of clinical rheumatology registries in five Nordic countries finally puts to rest any concerns that treatment of PsA with TNF inhibitors is associated with increased risk of solid cancers. The same group previously reported no link between TNF inhibitors and lymphoma in PsA.

The solid cancers study included 9,655 PsA patients who started a first TNF inhibitor during 2001-2017, 14,809 others not treated with biologics, and 31,350 matched general population controls. Linkage to Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Icelandic, and Finnish national cancer registries showed that the adjusted risk for solid cancer in TNF inhibitor–treated, compared with biologic-naive PsA patients, was 1.0. Similarly, the pooled standardized incidence ratio of solid cancer in TNF inhibitor–treated PsA patients compared to the general population was 1.0. There was no signal of a differential risk for incident cancer for any of the eight malignancies studied: lung, colorectal, breast, prostate, uterine, brain, liver, and pancreatic cancer.

“I like this study a lot because it’s specific to PsA rather than extrapolating from rheumatoid arthritis data, where we have a bunch more information for a much longer period of time, but it’s a different population,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.

Dr. Ogdie said, “I talk to my patients about this particular study or the same group’s earlier lymphoma study all the time.”

“I have to say, these are important data for the dermatology world because there are dermatologists who are still not convinced that TNF inhibitors don’t have an increased risk of malignancy. This kind of information is going to be helpful,” observed Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University, Chicago.
 

Greater efficacy for biologics in males than females with PsA?

A secondary analysis of the phase 3b EXCEED trial raised the intriguing possibility that both secukinumab, an interleukin-17A inhibitor, and adalimumab, a TNF inhibitor, have greater efficacy in men than in women with PsA. In this randomized trial of 853 biologic-naive patients with PsA, the ACR20 response rate to secukinumab at week 52 was 61% in females versus 74% in males, with ACR50 rates of 43% in females and 55.3% in males. The ACR20 rate with adalimumab was 51.5% in females and 70.2% in males. Similarly, the corresponding ACR50s were 32.6% and 55.3%, respectively. Minimal disease activity was achieved in 36.2% of women and 51% of men on secukinumab, and in 24.2% of women and 49.8% of men on adalimumab.

“These are randomized patients, so you really shouldn’t see these big differences in minimal disease activity,” Dr. Ogdie noted. “The question is why do men seem to respond better to therapy than women? I don’t think it’s the fibromyalgia-ness. There’s probably some biologic rationale for this that we just don’t understand yet. Maybe hormonal interactions.”

This gender difference in response is an important issue because it can potentially distort outcomes in head-to-head drug trials, Dr. Ruderman added.

“That gender difference is not likely to be huge if you’re looking at a placebo-controlled trial because the difference between the active drug and placebo is going to outweigh it. But when you have two active drugs, if there’s an imbalance in terms of how many men or women there are on each of the two drugs, you may end up with an efficacy difference that’s not real but is based on gender and not response to the drug,” he explained.

Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, a rheumatologist and clinical trialist at the University of Texas, Dallas, rose from the audience to pronounce the EXCEED male-versus-female analysis “very interesting.”

“We should go back and look at other trials and see if that occurred, and if it did, then we have to think about that going forward,” he proposed.

Dr. Ogdie, Dr. Kavanaugh, and Dr. Ruderman reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Apremilast (Otezla) monotherapy may be an effective option in oligoarticular psoriatic arthritis, Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, reported at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Her analysis of apremilast data from the CORRONA Registry was among several recent highlights in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) cited by speakers at the meeting. Other significant developments included a large pan-Scandinavian study that reassuringly found no increased risk of solid cancers in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor–treated patients with PsA, and evidence to suggest a sex difference in the efficacy of both secukinumab (Cosentyx) and adalimumab (Humira), with men responding better than women to two biologics with differing mechanisms of action.
 

A role for apremilast in oligoarticular disease?

Dr. Ogdie presented an analysis of 150 patients in the U.S. observational CORRONA Registry who initiated monotherapy for oligoarticular PsA and were followed for 6 months. Thirty-four started on apremilast, 15 on methotrexate, and 101 on a biologic. Even though the apremilast group had higher baseline disease activity than did those who started on methotrexate, at 6 months a swollen joint count of 1 or 0 was present in 41% of the apremilast-treated patients, compared with none on methotrexate and 15% on a biologic agent.

A tender joint count of 0-1 was documented at 6 months in 24% of patients on apremilast, 13% with methotrexate, and 21% on a biologic agent. Apremilast’s numeric superiority in outcomes compared to methotrexate in this exploratory study wasn’t subjected to statistical analysis because of the small sample size. However, the ongoing phase 4, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter FOREMOST trial in 330 patients with early oligoarticular PsA should provide more definitive efficacy data, noted Dr. Ogdie, a rheumatologist and epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

RWCS program director Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, said, “The most recent EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology] PsA guidelines totally discount apremilast, and I think mostly on the basis of cost, but then they also say that in groups of people it’s not as effective as methotrexate.”

“This study shows to me that, even though it’s a registry, with all the caveats about getting data from registries, apremilast certainly can be an effective drug,” said Dr. Kavanaugh, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego.

Another valuable piece of information from the CORRONA analysis is that it zeros in on patients with oligoarticular PsA.

“Almost all of our PsA studies are focused on people with polyarticular disease. What about those who have lesser involvement? That, of course, is important in the clinic,” he noted.

Dr. Ogdie concurred.

“If we study only polyarticular disease and we make all of our assumptions based on polyarticular disease, we might be leaving out at least half of the patients with PsA. And those patients may not need a bigger gun. Apremilast and methotrexate are kind of in the same group for that mild oligoarticular disease, and they probably work just fine,” she said.

A final point: “We really don’t have good outcome measures to study oligoarticular disease well. The ACR20 is not good because a 20% improvement in three joints is not readily measurable. That’s why trialists enroll patients with high joint count numbers,” according to the rheumatologist.

No increased risk of solid cancers in PsA patients treated with TNF inhibitors

A new analysis of clinical rheumatology registries in five Nordic countries finally puts to rest any concerns that treatment of PsA with TNF inhibitors is associated with increased risk of solid cancers. The same group previously reported no link between TNF inhibitors and lymphoma in PsA.

The solid cancers study included 9,655 PsA patients who started a first TNF inhibitor during 2001-2017, 14,809 others not treated with biologics, and 31,350 matched general population controls. Linkage to Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Icelandic, and Finnish national cancer registries showed that the adjusted risk for solid cancer in TNF inhibitor–treated, compared with biologic-naive PsA patients, was 1.0. Similarly, the pooled standardized incidence ratio of solid cancer in TNF inhibitor–treated PsA patients compared to the general population was 1.0. There was no signal of a differential risk for incident cancer for any of the eight malignancies studied: lung, colorectal, breast, prostate, uterine, brain, liver, and pancreatic cancer.

“I like this study a lot because it’s specific to PsA rather than extrapolating from rheumatoid arthritis data, where we have a bunch more information for a much longer period of time, but it’s a different population,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.

Dr. Ogdie said, “I talk to my patients about this particular study or the same group’s earlier lymphoma study all the time.”

“I have to say, these are important data for the dermatology world because there are dermatologists who are still not convinced that TNF inhibitors don’t have an increased risk of malignancy. This kind of information is going to be helpful,” observed Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University, Chicago.
 

Greater efficacy for biologics in males than females with PsA?

A secondary analysis of the phase 3b EXCEED trial raised the intriguing possibility that both secukinumab, an interleukin-17A inhibitor, and adalimumab, a TNF inhibitor, have greater efficacy in men than in women with PsA. In this randomized trial of 853 biologic-naive patients with PsA, the ACR20 response rate to secukinumab at week 52 was 61% in females versus 74% in males, with ACR50 rates of 43% in females and 55.3% in males. The ACR20 rate with adalimumab was 51.5% in females and 70.2% in males. Similarly, the corresponding ACR50s were 32.6% and 55.3%, respectively. Minimal disease activity was achieved in 36.2% of women and 51% of men on secukinumab, and in 24.2% of women and 49.8% of men on adalimumab.

“These are randomized patients, so you really shouldn’t see these big differences in minimal disease activity,” Dr. Ogdie noted. “The question is why do men seem to respond better to therapy than women? I don’t think it’s the fibromyalgia-ness. There’s probably some biologic rationale for this that we just don’t understand yet. Maybe hormonal interactions.”

This gender difference in response is an important issue because it can potentially distort outcomes in head-to-head drug trials, Dr. Ruderman added.

“That gender difference is not likely to be huge if you’re looking at a placebo-controlled trial because the difference between the active drug and placebo is going to outweigh it. But when you have two active drugs, if there’s an imbalance in terms of how many men or women there are on each of the two drugs, you may end up with an efficacy difference that’s not real but is based on gender and not response to the drug,” he explained.

Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, a rheumatologist and clinical trialist at the University of Texas, Dallas, rose from the audience to pronounce the EXCEED male-versus-female analysis “very interesting.”

“We should go back and look at other trials and see if that occurred, and if it did, then we have to think about that going forward,” he proposed.

Dr. Ogdie, Dr. Kavanaugh, and Dr. Ruderman reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Apremilast (Otezla) monotherapy may be an effective option in oligoarticular psoriatic arthritis, Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, reported at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Her analysis of apremilast data from the CORRONA Registry was among several recent highlights in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) cited by speakers at the meeting. Other significant developments included a large pan-Scandinavian study that reassuringly found no increased risk of solid cancers in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor–treated patients with PsA, and evidence to suggest a sex difference in the efficacy of both secukinumab (Cosentyx) and adalimumab (Humira), with men responding better than women to two biologics with differing mechanisms of action.
 

A role for apremilast in oligoarticular disease?

Dr. Ogdie presented an analysis of 150 patients in the U.S. observational CORRONA Registry who initiated monotherapy for oligoarticular PsA and were followed for 6 months. Thirty-four started on apremilast, 15 on methotrexate, and 101 on a biologic. Even though the apremilast group had higher baseline disease activity than did those who started on methotrexate, at 6 months a swollen joint count of 1 or 0 was present in 41% of the apremilast-treated patients, compared with none on methotrexate and 15% on a biologic agent.

A tender joint count of 0-1 was documented at 6 months in 24% of patients on apremilast, 13% with methotrexate, and 21% on a biologic agent. Apremilast’s numeric superiority in outcomes compared to methotrexate in this exploratory study wasn’t subjected to statistical analysis because of the small sample size. However, the ongoing phase 4, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter FOREMOST trial in 330 patients with early oligoarticular PsA should provide more definitive efficacy data, noted Dr. Ogdie, a rheumatologist and epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

RWCS program director Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, said, “The most recent EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology] PsA guidelines totally discount apremilast, and I think mostly on the basis of cost, but then they also say that in groups of people it’s not as effective as methotrexate.”

“This study shows to me that, even though it’s a registry, with all the caveats about getting data from registries, apremilast certainly can be an effective drug,” said Dr. Kavanaugh, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego.

Another valuable piece of information from the CORRONA analysis is that it zeros in on patients with oligoarticular PsA.

“Almost all of our PsA studies are focused on people with polyarticular disease. What about those who have lesser involvement? That, of course, is important in the clinic,” he noted.

Dr. Ogdie concurred.

“If we study only polyarticular disease and we make all of our assumptions based on polyarticular disease, we might be leaving out at least half of the patients with PsA. And those patients may not need a bigger gun. Apremilast and methotrexate are kind of in the same group for that mild oligoarticular disease, and they probably work just fine,” she said.

A final point: “We really don’t have good outcome measures to study oligoarticular disease well. The ACR20 is not good because a 20% improvement in three joints is not readily measurable. That’s why trialists enroll patients with high joint count numbers,” according to the rheumatologist.

No increased risk of solid cancers in PsA patients treated with TNF inhibitors

A new analysis of clinical rheumatology registries in five Nordic countries finally puts to rest any concerns that treatment of PsA with TNF inhibitors is associated with increased risk of solid cancers. The same group previously reported no link between TNF inhibitors and lymphoma in PsA.

The solid cancers study included 9,655 PsA patients who started a first TNF inhibitor during 2001-2017, 14,809 others not treated with biologics, and 31,350 matched general population controls. Linkage to Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Icelandic, and Finnish national cancer registries showed that the adjusted risk for solid cancer in TNF inhibitor–treated, compared with biologic-naive PsA patients, was 1.0. Similarly, the pooled standardized incidence ratio of solid cancer in TNF inhibitor–treated PsA patients compared to the general population was 1.0. There was no signal of a differential risk for incident cancer for any of the eight malignancies studied: lung, colorectal, breast, prostate, uterine, brain, liver, and pancreatic cancer.

“I like this study a lot because it’s specific to PsA rather than extrapolating from rheumatoid arthritis data, where we have a bunch more information for a much longer period of time, but it’s a different population,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.

Dr. Ogdie said, “I talk to my patients about this particular study or the same group’s earlier lymphoma study all the time.”

“I have to say, these are important data for the dermatology world because there are dermatologists who are still not convinced that TNF inhibitors don’t have an increased risk of malignancy. This kind of information is going to be helpful,” observed Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University, Chicago.
 

Greater efficacy for biologics in males than females with PsA?

A secondary analysis of the phase 3b EXCEED trial raised the intriguing possibility that both secukinumab, an interleukin-17A inhibitor, and adalimumab, a TNF inhibitor, have greater efficacy in men than in women with PsA. In this randomized trial of 853 biologic-naive patients with PsA, the ACR20 response rate to secukinumab at week 52 was 61% in females versus 74% in males, with ACR50 rates of 43% in females and 55.3% in males. The ACR20 rate with adalimumab was 51.5% in females and 70.2% in males. Similarly, the corresponding ACR50s were 32.6% and 55.3%, respectively. Minimal disease activity was achieved in 36.2% of women and 51% of men on secukinumab, and in 24.2% of women and 49.8% of men on adalimumab.

“These are randomized patients, so you really shouldn’t see these big differences in minimal disease activity,” Dr. Ogdie noted. “The question is why do men seem to respond better to therapy than women? I don’t think it’s the fibromyalgia-ness. There’s probably some biologic rationale for this that we just don’t understand yet. Maybe hormonal interactions.”

This gender difference in response is an important issue because it can potentially distort outcomes in head-to-head drug trials, Dr. Ruderman added.

“That gender difference is not likely to be huge if you’re looking at a placebo-controlled trial because the difference between the active drug and placebo is going to outweigh it. But when you have two active drugs, if there’s an imbalance in terms of how many men or women there are on each of the two drugs, you may end up with an efficacy difference that’s not real but is based on gender and not response to the drug,” he explained.

Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, a rheumatologist and clinical trialist at the University of Texas, Dallas, rose from the audience to pronounce the EXCEED male-versus-female analysis “very interesting.”

“We should go back and look at other trials and see if that occurred, and if it did, then we have to think about that going forward,” he proposed.

Dr. Ogdie, Dr. Kavanaugh, and Dr. Ruderman reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Two reports support the safety and immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and represent the first available data on such patients.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

In an observational cohort study published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Caoilfhionn M. Connolly, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues reviewed data from 325 adults with RMDs who received the first dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine during the period of Dec. 17, 2020, to Feb. 11, 2021. Of these, 51% received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and 49% received the Moderna vaccine.

The patients, who were invited to participate on social media, were aged 34-54 years, 96% were women, and 89% were White. Inflammatory arthritis was the most common RMD condition (38%), followed by systemic lupus erythematosus (28%) and overlap connective tissue disease (19%). The patients were using a range of immunomodulatory treatment regimens, including nonbiologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in 44%, biologics in 19%, and combination therapy in 37%.

Overall, 89% of patients reported localized symptoms of pain, swelling, and erythema, and 69% reported systemic symptoms. Fatigue was the most common systemic symptom, and 7.4% reported severe fatigue.

None of the patients experienced allergic reactions requiring epinephrine, and 3% reported new infections that required treatment.

“These early, reassuring results may ameliorate concern among patients and provide guidance for rheumatology providers in critical discussions regarding vaccine hesitancy or refusal,” they concluded.

Antibody responses

In another study published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases by the same group of researchers, antibody responses against the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein were seen in 74% of 123 adults with an RMD at 18-26 days after receiving a first dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine (52% Pfizer vaccine and 48% Moderna) between Jan. 8, 2021, and Feb. 12, 2021.

The most common diagnoses in these patients were inflammatory arthritis (28%), systemic lupus erythematosus (20%), and Sjögren’s syndrome (13%). A total of 28% of participants reported taking no immunomodulatory agents, 19% reported nonbiologic DMARDs, 14% reported biologic DMARDs, and 19% reported combination therapy.

Although no differences appeared based on disease groups or overall categories of immunomodulatory therapies, patients whose treatment included mycophenolate or rituximab were significantly less likely to develop antibody responses than were patients not taking these medications (P = .001 and P = .04, respectively). Although rituximab and methotrexate have been associated with reduced responses to vaccines such as the flu vaccine, methotrexate was not associated with reduced vaccine response in this study. A total of 94% of patients taking a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor had detectable antibodies.

The studies’ findings were limited by several factors including a lack of longer-term safety data; the small, nonrandomized sample of mainly white women; limited information on immunomodulatory drug dosage and timing; lack of serial antibody measurements; use of an enzyme immunoassay designed to detect antibody response after natural infection; and the inclusion of data only on the first dose of a two-dose vaccine series, the researchers noted. However, the data should provide additional reassurance to RMD patients and their health care teams about vaccination against COVID-19, they said.

Both studies were supported by the Ben-Dov family. In addition, the studies were supported by grants to various study authors from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, and the Transplantation and Immunology Research Network of the American Society of Transplantation. One author disclosed financial relationships with Sanofi, Novartis, CSL Behring, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Veloxis, Mallinckrodt, and Thermo Fisher Scientific. The other researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Two reports support the safety and immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and represent the first available data on such patients.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

In an observational cohort study published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Caoilfhionn M. Connolly, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues reviewed data from 325 adults with RMDs who received the first dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine during the period of Dec. 17, 2020, to Feb. 11, 2021. Of these, 51% received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and 49% received the Moderna vaccine.

The patients, who were invited to participate on social media, were aged 34-54 years, 96% were women, and 89% were White. Inflammatory arthritis was the most common RMD condition (38%), followed by systemic lupus erythematosus (28%) and overlap connective tissue disease (19%). The patients were using a range of immunomodulatory treatment regimens, including nonbiologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in 44%, biologics in 19%, and combination therapy in 37%.

Overall, 89% of patients reported localized symptoms of pain, swelling, and erythema, and 69% reported systemic symptoms. Fatigue was the most common systemic symptom, and 7.4% reported severe fatigue.

None of the patients experienced allergic reactions requiring epinephrine, and 3% reported new infections that required treatment.

“These early, reassuring results may ameliorate concern among patients and provide guidance for rheumatology providers in critical discussions regarding vaccine hesitancy or refusal,” they concluded.

Antibody responses

In another study published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases by the same group of researchers, antibody responses against the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein were seen in 74% of 123 adults with an RMD at 18-26 days after receiving a first dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine (52% Pfizer vaccine and 48% Moderna) between Jan. 8, 2021, and Feb. 12, 2021.

The most common diagnoses in these patients were inflammatory arthritis (28%), systemic lupus erythematosus (20%), and Sjögren’s syndrome (13%). A total of 28% of participants reported taking no immunomodulatory agents, 19% reported nonbiologic DMARDs, 14% reported biologic DMARDs, and 19% reported combination therapy.

Although no differences appeared based on disease groups or overall categories of immunomodulatory therapies, patients whose treatment included mycophenolate or rituximab were significantly less likely to develop antibody responses than were patients not taking these medications (P = .001 and P = .04, respectively). Although rituximab and methotrexate have been associated with reduced responses to vaccines such as the flu vaccine, methotrexate was not associated with reduced vaccine response in this study. A total of 94% of patients taking a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor had detectable antibodies.

The studies’ findings were limited by several factors including a lack of longer-term safety data; the small, nonrandomized sample of mainly white women; limited information on immunomodulatory drug dosage and timing; lack of serial antibody measurements; use of an enzyme immunoassay designed to detect antibody response after natural infection; and the inclusion of data only on the first dose of a two-dose vaccine series, the researchers noted. However, the data should provide additional reassurance to RMD patients and their health care teams about vaccination against COVID-19, they said.

Both studies were supported by the Ben-Dov family. In addition, the studies were supported by grants to various study authors from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, and the Transplantation and Immunology Research Network of the American Society of Transplantation. One author disclosed financial relationships with Sanofi, Novartis, CSL Behring, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Veloxis, Mallinckrodt, and Thermo Fisher Scientific. The other researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Two reports support the safety and immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and represent the first available data on such patients.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

In an observational cohort study published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Caoilfhionn M. Connolly, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues reviewed data from 325 adults with RMDs who received the first dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine during the period of Dec. 17, 2020, to Feb. 11, 2021. Of these, 51% received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and 49% received the Moderna vaccine.

The patients, who were invited to participate on social media, were aged 34-54 years, 96% were women, and 89% were White. Inflammatory arthritis was the most common RMD condition (38%), followed by systemic lupus erythematosus (28%) and overlap connective tissue disease (19%). The patients were using a range of immunomodulatory treatment regimens, including nonbiologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in 44%, biologics in 19%, and combination therapy in 37%.

Overall, 89% of patients reported localized symptoms of pain, swelling, and erythema, and 69% reported systemic symptoms. Fatigue was the most common systemic symptom, and 7.4% reported severe fatigue.

None of the patients experienced allergic reactions requiring epinephrine, and 3% reported new infections that required treatment.

“These early, reassuring results may ameliorate concern among patients and provide guidance for rheumatology providers in critical discussions regarding vaccine hesitancy or refusal,” they concluded.

Antibody responses

In another study published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases by the same group of researchers, antibody responses against the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein were seen in 74% of 123 adults with an RMD at 18-26 days after receiving a first dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine (52% Pfizer vaccine and 48% Moderna) between Jan. 8, 2021, and Feb. 12, 2021.

The most common diagnoses in these patients were inflammatory arthritis (28%), systemic lupus erythematosus (20%), and Sjögren’s syndrome (13%). A total of 28% of participants reported taking no immunomodulatory agents, 19% reported nonbiologic DMARDs, 14% reported biologic DMARDs, and 19% reported combination therapy.

Although no differences appeared based on disease groups or overall categories of immunomodulatory therapies, patients whose treatment included mycophenolate or rituximab were significantly less likely to develop antibody responses than were patients not taking these medications (P = .001 and P = .04, respectively). Although rituximab and methotrexate have been associated with reduced responses to vaccines such as the flu vaccine, methotrexate was not associated with reduced vaccine response in this study. A total of 94% of patients taking a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor had detectable antibodies.

The studies’ findings were limited by several factors including a lack of longer-term safety data; the small, nonrandomized sample of mainly white women; limited information on immunomodulatory drug dosage and timing; lack of serial antibody measurements; use of an enzyme immunoassay designed to detect antibody response after natural infection; and the inclusion of data only on the first dose of a two-dose vaccine series, the researchers noted. However, the data should provide additional reassurance to RMD patients and their health care teams about vaccination against COVID-19, they said.

Both studies were supported by the Ben-Dov family. In addition, the studies were supported by grants to various study authors from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, and the Transplantation and Immunology Research Network of the American Society of Transplantation. One author disclosed financial relationships with Sanofi, Novartis, CSL Behring, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Veloxis, Mallinckrodt, and Thermo Fisher Scientific. The other researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Weekly injections with the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide helped people maintain, and even increase, their initial weight loss on the agent when they continued treatment beyond 20 weeks in results from an international, multicenter trial with 803 randomized subjects.

The study “reflects what we always see in practice, that when people lose weight their body then fights to regain it. The results underscore this” by showing what happens when people stop the drug, Domenica M. Rubino, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The STEP 4 study began with 902 obese or higher-risk people with an average body mass index of about 38 kg/m² who underwent a 20-week, open-label, run-in phase of weekly subcutaneous injections of semaglutide (Ozempic), during which all subjects gradually up-titrated to the study’s maintenance dosage of 2.4 mg/week and allowing investigators to weed out intolerant, noncompliant, or nonresponsive people. After this phase excluded 99 subjects from continuing, and documented that the remaining 803 patients had already lost an average of 11% of their starting weight, the core of the study kicked in by randomizing them 2:1 to either maintain their weekly semaglutide injections for another 48 weeks or change to placebo injections.

After 48 more weeks, the 535 people who continued active semaglutide treatment lost on average an additional 8% of their weight. Meanwhile, the 268 who switched to placebo gained 7% of the weight they had reached at the 20-week point, for a significant between-group weight-loss difference of about 15% for the study’s primary endpoint. Those maintained on semaglutide for the full 68 weeks had a cumulative average weight loss of about 17%, compared with when they first began treatment, Dr. Rubino said. Concurrently with her report, the results also appeared in an article published online in JAMA.

“It’s reassuring that people who remain on this treatment can sustain weight losses of 15%, and in some cases 20% or more. That’s huge,” Dr. Rubino said in an interview. . After 68 weeks, 40% of the people who maintained their semaglutide treatment had lost at least 20% of their weight, compared with when they first started treatment.

“Preventing weight regain following initial weight loss is a well-known major challenge for people who lose weight,” commented John Clark III, MD, PhD, a weight management specialist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas who was not involved with the study. The findings from STEP 4 will be “helpful to have a discussion [with weight-loss patients] about the risks and benefits of continuing to take this medication longer than just a few months and if they want to continue taking the medication after they reach their goal weight,” Dr. Clark noted in an interview. “This new information reinforces that treatment continues to be effective after the short term.”

“This is obesity 101. If a treatment is provided that targets mechanisms of obesity, and then the treatment stops, we should not be surprised that weight regain occurs,” commented Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, codirector of the Yale Center for Weight Management in New Haven, Conn. “It’s tragic to see patients who, after successful weight loss, suffer regain because the treatment by which they lost weight stopped,” she said in an interview.

The STEP 4 study ran at 73 centers in 10 countries during 2018-2020. It enrolled adults without diabetes and with a BMI of at least 30, or at least 27 if they also had at least one weight-related comorbidity such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, or obstructive sleep apnea. Participants averaged about 47 years of age, almost 80% were women, and about 84% were White, including 8% of Hispanic or Latinx ethnicity.

The adverse-event profile was consistent with findings from trials where semaglutide treated hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (semaglutide at a maximum once-weekly dosage of 1 mg has Food and Drug Administration approval for controlling hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes), as well results from other semaglutide studies and from studies of other agents in the GLP-1 receptor agonist class.

In STEP 4 9% of patients who received semaglutide during the randomized phase and 7% of those randomized to placebo had a serious adverse reaction, and about 2% of those in both treatment arms stopped treatment because of an adverse event. The most common adverse events on semaglutide were gastrointestinal, with diarrhea in 14%, nausea in 14%, constipation in 12%, and vomiting in 10%.

These GI effects are often mitigated by slower dose escalation, eating smaller amounts of food at a time, and not eating beyond the point of feeling full, noted Dr. Jastreboff.

The STEP 4 results follow prior reports from three other large trials – STEP 1, STEP 2, and STEP 3 – that studied the weight-loss effects of weekly semaglutide treatment in adults using varying enrollment criteria and treatment designs. “We’ve seen very consistent results [across all four studies] for efficacy and safety,” said Dr. Rubino, who owns and directs the Washington Center for Weight Management & Research in Arlington, Va.

NovoNordisk, the company that markets semaglutide, submitted data from all four studies to the FDA late last year in an application for a new label for a weight loss indication at the 2.4-mg/week dosage. The company has said it expects an agency decision by June 2021.

Dr. Rubino has been an adviser and consultant to and a speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk, and she has also been an investigator for studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Clark had no disclosures. Dr. Jastreboff is consultant for and has received research funding from NovoNordisk, and she has also been a consultant to and/or received research from Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Weekly injections with the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide helped people maintain, and even increase, their initial weight loss on the agent when they continued treatment beyond 20 weeks in results from an international, multicenter trial with 803 randomized subjects.

The study “reflects what we always see in practice, that when people lose weight their body then fights to regain it. The results underscore this” by showing what happens when people stop the drug, Domenica M. Rubino, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The STEP 4 study began with 902 obese or higher-risk people with an average body mass index of about 38 kg/m² who underwent a 20-week, open-label, run-in phase of weekly subcutaneous injections of semaglutide (Ozempic), during which all subjects gradually up-titrated to the study’s maintenance dosage of 2.4 mg/week and allowing investigators to weed out intolerant, noncompliant, or nonresponsive people. After this phase excluded 99 subjects from continuing, and documented that the remaining 803 patients had already lost an average of 11% of their starting weight, the core of the study kicked in by randomizing them 2:1 to either maintain their weekly semaglutide injections for another 48 weeks or change to placebo injections.

After 48 more weeks, the 535 people who continued active semaglutide treatment lost on average an additional 8% of their weight. Meanwhile, the 268 who switched to placebo gained 7% of the weight they had reached at the 20-week point, for a significant between-group weight-loss difference of about 15% for the study’s primary endpoint. Those maintained on semaglutide for the full 68 weeks had a cumulative average weight loss of about 17%, compared with when they first began treatment, Dr. Rubino said. Concurrently with her report, the results also appeared in an article published online in JAMA.

“It’s reassuring that people who remain on this treatment can sustain weight losses of 15%, and in some cases 20% or more. That’s huge,” Dr. Rubino said in an interview. . After 68 weeks, 40% of the people who maintained their semaglutide treatment had lost at least 20% of their weight, compared with when they first started treatment.

“Preventing weight regain following initial weight loss is a well-known major challenge for people who lose weight,” commented John Clark III, MD, PhD, a weight management specialist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas who was not involved with the study. The findings from STEP 4 will be “helpful to have a discussion [with weight-loss patients] about the risks and benefits of continuing to take this medication longer than just a few months and if they want to continue taking the medication after they reach their goal weight,” Dr. Clark noted in an interview. “This new information reinforces that treatment continues to be effective after the short term.”

“This is obesity 101. If a treatment is provided that targets mechanisms of obesity, and then the treatment stops, we should not be surprised that weight regain occurs,” commented Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, codirector of the Yale Center for Weight Management in New Haven, Conn. “It’s tragic to see patients who, after successful weight loss, suffer regain because the treatment by which they lost weight stopped,” she said in an interview.

The STEP 4 study ran at 73 centers in 10 countries during 2018-2020. It enrolled adults without diabetes and with a BMI of at least 30, or at least 27 if they also had at least one weight-related comorbidity such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, or obstructive sleep apnea. Participants averaged about 47 years of age, almost 80% were women, and about 84% were White, including 8% of Hispanic or Latinx ethnicity.

The adverse-event profile was consistent with findings from trials where semaglutide treated hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (semaglutide at a maximum once-weekly dosage of 1 mg has Food and Drug Administration approval for controlling hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes), as well results from other semaglutide studies and from studies of other agents in the GLP-1 receptor agonist class.

In STEP 4 9% of patients who received semaglutide during the randomized phase and 7% of those randomized to placebo had a serious adverse reaction, and about 2% of those in both treatment arms stopped treatment because of an adverse event. The most common adverse events on semaglutide were gastrointestinal, with diarrhea in 14%, nausea in 14%, constipation in 12%, and vomiting in 10%.

These GI effects are often mitigated by slower dose escalation, eating smaller amounts of food at a time, and not eating beyond the point of feeling full, noted Dr. Jastreboff.

The STEP 4 results follow prior reports from three other large trials – STEP 1, STEP 2, and STEP 3 – that studied the weight-loss effects of weekly semaglutide treatment in adults using varying enrollment criteria and treatment designs. “We’ve seen very consistent results [across all four studies] for efficacy and safety,” said Dr. Rubino, who owns and directs the Washington Center for Weight Management & Research in Arlington, Va.

NovoNordisk, the company that markets semaglutide, submitted data from all four studies to the FDA late last year in an application for a new label for a weight loss indication at the 2.4-mg/week dosage. The company has said it expects an agency decision by June 2021.

Dr. Rubino has been an adviser and consultant to and a speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk, and she has also been an investigator for studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Clark had no disclosures. Dr. Jastreboff is consultant for and has received research funding from NovoNordisk, and she has also been a consultant to and/or received research from Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Weekly injections with the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide helped people maintain, and even increase, their initial weight loss on the agent when they continued treatment beyond 20 weeks in results from an international, multicenter trial with 803 randomized subjects.

The study “reflects what we always see in practice, that when people lose weight their body then fights to regain it. The results underscore this” by showing what happens when people stop the drug, Domenica M. Rubino, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The STEP 4 study began with 902 obese or higher-risk people with an average body mass index of about 38 kg/m² who underwent a 20-week, open-label, run-in phase of weekly subcutaneous injections of semaglutide (Ozempic), during which all subjects gradually up-titrated to the study’s maintenance dosage of 2.4 mg/week and allowing investigators to weed out intolerant, noncompliant, or nonresponsive people. After this phase excluded 99 subjects from continuing, and documented that the remaining 803 patients had already lost an average of 11% of their starting weight, the core of the study kicked in by randomizing them 2:1 to either maintain their weekly semaglutide injections for another 48 weeks or change to placebo injections.

After 48 more weeks, the 535 people who continued active semaglutide treatment lost on average an additional 8% of their weight. Meanwhile, the 268 who switched to placebo gained 7% of the weight they had reached at the 20-week point, for a significant between-group weight-loss difference of about 15% for the study’s primary endpoint. Those maintained on semaglutide for the full 68 weeks had a cumulative average weight loss of about 17%, compared with when they first began treatment, Dr. Rubino said. Concurrently with her report, the results also appeared in an article published online in JAMA.

“It’s reassuring that people who remain on this treatment can sustain weight losses of 15%, and in some cases 20% or more. That’s huge,” Dr. Rubino said in an interview. . After 68 weeks, 40% of the people who maintained their semaglutide treatment had lost at least 20% of their weight, compared with when they first started treatment.

“Preventing weight regain following initial weight loss is a well-known major challenge for people who lose weight,” commented John Clark III, MD, PhD, a weight management specialist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas who was not involved with the study. The findings from STEP 4 will be “helpful to have a discussion [with weight-loss patients] about the risks and benefits of continuing to take this medication longer than just a few months and if they want to continue taking the medication after they reach their goal weight,” Dr. Clark noted in an interview. “This new information reinforces that treatment continues to be effective after the short term.”

“This is obesity 101. If a treatment is provided that targets mechanisms of obesity, and then the treatment stops, we should not be surprised that weight regain occurs,” commented Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, codirector of the Yale Center for Weight Management in New Haven, Conn. “It’s tragic to see patients who, after successful weight loss, suffer regain because the treatment by which they lost weight stopped,” she said in an interview.

The STEP 4 study ran at 73 centers in 10 countries during 2018-2020. It enrolled adults without diabetes and with a BMI of at least 30, or at least 27 if they also had at least one weight-related comorbidity such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, or obstructive sleep apnea. Participants averaged about 47 years of age, almost 80% were women, and about 84% were White, including 8% of Hispanic or Latinx ethnicity.

The adverse-event profile was consistent with findings from trials where semaglutide treated hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (semaglutide at a maximum once-weekly dosage of 1 mg has Food and Drug Administration approval for controlling hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes), as well results from other semaglutide studies and from studies of other agents in the GLP-1 receptor agonist class.

In STEP 4 9% of patients who received semaglutide during the randomized phase and 7% of those randomized to placebo had a serious adverse reaction, and about 2% of those in both treatment arms stopped treatment because of an adverse event. The most common adverse events on semaglutide were gastrointestinal, with diarrhea in 14%, nausea in 14%, constipation in 12%, and vomiting in 10%.

These GI effects are often mitigated by slower dose escalation, eating smaller amounts of food at a time, and not eating beyond the point of feeling full, noted Dr. Jastreboff.

The STEP 4 results follow prior reports from three other large trials – STEP 1, STEP 2, and STEP 3 – that studied the weight-loss effects of weekly semaglutide treatment in adults using varying enrollment criteria and treatment designs. “We’ve seen very consistent results [across all four studies] for efficacy and safety,” said Dr. Rubino, who owns and directs the Washington Center for Weight Management & Research in Arlington, Va.

NovoNordisk, the company that markets semaglutide, submitted data from all four studies to the FDA late last year in an application for a new label for a weight loss indication at the 2.4-mg/week dosage. The company has said it expects an agency decision by June 2021.

Dr. Rubino has been an adviser and consultant to and a speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk, and she has also been an investigator for studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Clark had no disclosures. Dr. Jastreboff is consultant for and has received research funding from NovoNordisk, and she has also been a consultant to and/or received research from Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved rilonacept (Arcalyst) to treat recurrent pericarditis and reduce the risk for recurrence in adults and children 12 years and older.

Approval of the weekly subcutaneous injection offers patients the first and only FDA-approved therapy for recurrent pericarditis, the agency said in a release.

Recurrent pericarditis is characterized by a remitting relapsing inflammation of the pericardium, and therapeutic options have been limited to NSAIDs, colchicine, and corticosteroids.

Rilonacept is a recombinant fusion protein that blocks interleukin-1 alpha and interleukin-1 beta signaling. It is already approved by the FDA to treat a group of rare inherited inflammatory diseases called cryopyrin-associated periodic syndromes.

The new indication is based on the pivotal phase 3 RHAPSODY trial in 86 patients with acute symptoms of recurrent pericarditis and systemic inflammation. After randomization, pericarditis recurred in 2 of 30 patients (7%) treated with rilonacept and in 23 of 31 patients (74%) treated with placebo, representing a 96% reduction in the relative risk for recurrence with rilonacept.

Patients who received rilonacept were also pain free or had minimal pain on 98% of trial days, whereas those who received placebo had minimal or no pain on 46% of trial days.

The most common adverse effects of rilonacept are injection-site reactions and upper-respiratory tract infections.

Serious, life-threatening infections have been reported in patients taking rilonacept, according to the FDA. Patients with active or chronic infections should not take the drug.

The FDA label also advises that patients should avoid live vaccines while taking rilonacept and that it should be discontinued if a hypersensitivity reaction occurs.

The commercial launch is expected in April, according to the company.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved rilonacept (Arcalyst) to treat recurrent pericarditis and reduce the risk for recurrence in adults and children 12 years and older.

Approval of the weekly subcutaneous injection offers patients the first and only FDA-approved therapy for recurrent pericarditis, the agency said in a release.

Recurrent pericarditis is characterized by a remitting relapsing inflammation of the pericardium, and therapeutic options have been limited to NSAIDs, colchicine, and corticosteroids.

Rilonacept is a recombinant fusion protein that blocks interleukin-1 alpha and interleukin-1 beta signaling. It is already approved by the FDA to treat a group of rare inherited inflammatory diseases called cryopyrin-associated periodic syndromes.

The new indication is based on the pivotal phase 3 RHAPSODY trial in 86 patients with acute symptoms of recurrent pericarditis and systemic inflammation. After randomization, pericarditis recurred in 2 of 30 patients (7%) treated with rilonacept and in 23 of 31 patients (74%) treated with placebo, representing a 96% reduction in the relative risk for recurrence with rilonacept.

Patients who received rilonacept were also pain free or had minimal pain on 98% of trial days, whereas those who received placebo had minimal or no pain on 46% of trial days.

The most common adverse effects of rilonacept are injection-site reactions and upper-respiratory tract infections.

Serious, life-threatening infections have been reported in patients taking rilonacept, according to the FDA. Patients with active or chronic infections should not take the drug.

The FDA label also advises that patients should avoid live vaccines while taking rilonacept and that it should be discontinued if a hypersensitivity reaction occurs.

The commercial launch is expected in April, according to the company.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved rilonacept (Arcalyst) to treat recurrent pericarditis and reduce the risk for recurrence in adults and children 12 years and older.

Approval of the weekly subcutaneous injection offers patients the first and only FDA-approved therapy for recurrent pericarditis, the agency said in a release.

Recurrent pericarditis is characterized by a remitting relapsing inflammation of the pericardium, and therapeutic options have been limited to NSAIDs, colchicine, and corticosteroids.

Rilonacept is a recombinant fusion protein that blocks interleukin-1 alpha and interleukin-1 beta signaling. It is already approved by the FDA to treat a group of rare inherited inflammatory diseases called cryopyrin-associated periodic syndromes.

The new indication is based on the pivotal phase 3 RHAPSODY trial in 86 patients with acute symptoms of recurrent pericarditis and systemic inflammation. After randomization, pericarditis recurred in 2 of 30 patients (7%) treated with rilonacept and in 23 of 31 patients (74%) treated with placebo, representing a 96% reduction in the relative risk for recurrence with rilonacept.

Patients who received rilonacept were also pain free or had minimal pain on 98% of trial days, whereas those who received placebo had minimal or no pain on 46% of trial days.

The most common adverse effects of rilonacept are injection-site reactions and upper-respiratory tract infections.

Serious, life-threatening infections have been reported in patients taking rilonacept, according to the FDA. Patients with active or chronic infections should not take the drug.

The FDA label also advises that patients should avoid live vaccines while taking rilonacept and that it should be discontinued if a hypersensitivity reaction occurs.

The commercial launch is expected in April, according to the company.

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

Americans gained nearly 2 pounds per month under COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders in 2020, according to a new study published March 22, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

Those who kept the same lockdown habits could have gained 20 pounds during the past year, the study authors said.

“We know that weight gain is a public health problem in the U.S. already, so anything making it worse is definitely concerning, and shelter-in-place orders are so ubiquitous that the sheer number of people affected by this makes it extremely relevant,” Gregory Marcus, MD, the senior author and a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, told the New York Times.

Dr. Marcus and colleagues analyzed more than 7,000 weight measurements from 269 people in 37 states who used Bluetooth-connected scales from Feb. 1 to June 1, 2020. Among the participants, about 52% were women, 77% were White, and they had an average age of 52 years.

The research team found that participants had a steady weight gain of more than half a pound every 10 days. That equals about 1.5-2 pounds per month.

Many of the participants were losing weight before the shelter-in-place orders went into effect, Dr. Marcus said. The lockdown effects could be even greater for those who weren’t losing weight before.

“It’s reasonable to assume these individuals are more engaged with their health in general, and more disciplined and on top of things,” he said. “That suggests we could be underestimating – that this is the tip of the iceberg.”

The small study doesn’t represent all of the nation and can’t be generalized to the U.S. population, the study authors noted, but it’s an indicator of what happened during the pandemic. The participants’ weight increased regardless of their location and chronic medical conditions.

Overall, people don’t move around as much during lockdowns, the UCSF researchers reported in another study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020. According to smartphone data, daily step counts decreased by 27% in March 2020. The step counts increased again throughout the summer but still remained lower than before the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The detrimental health outcomes suggested by these data demonstrate a need to identify concurrent strategies to mitigate weight gain,” the authors wrote in the JAMA Network Open study, “such as encouraging healthy diets and exploring ways to enhance physical activity, as local governments consider new constraints in response to SARS-CoV-2 and potential future pandemics.”

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

Americans gained nearly 2 pounds per month under COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders in 2020, according to a new study published March 22, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

Those who kept the same lockdown habits could have gained 20 pounds during the past year, the study authors said.

“We know that weight gain is a public health problem in the U.S. already, so anything making it worse is definitely concerning, and shelter-in-place orders are so ubiquitous that the sheer number of people affected by this makes it extremely relevant,” Gregory Marcus, MD, the senior author and a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, told the New York Times.

Dr. Marcus and colleagues analyzed more than 7,000 weight measurements from 269 people in 37 states who used Bluetooth-connected scales from Feb. 1 to June 1, 2020. Among the participants, about 52% were women, 77% were White, and they had an average age of 52 years.

The research team found that participants had a steady weight gain of more than half a pound every 10 days. That equals about 1.5-2 pounds per month.

Many of the participants were losing weight before the shelter-in-place orders went into effect, Dr. Marcus said. The lockdown effects could be even greater for those who weren’t losing weight before.

“It’s reasonable to assume these individuals are more engaged with their health in general, and more disciplined and on top of things,” he said. “That suggests we could be underestimating – that this is the tip of the iceberg.”

The small study doesn’t represent all of the nation and can’t be generalized to the U.S. population, the study authors noted, but it’s an indicator of what happened during the pandemic. The participants’ weight increased regardless of their location and chronic medical conditions.

Overall, people don’t move around as much during lockdowns, the UCSF researchers reported in another study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020. According to smartphone data, daily step counts decreased by 27% in March 2020. The step counts increased again throughout the summer but still remained lower than before the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The detrimental health outcomes suggested by these data demonstrate a need to identify concurrent strategies to mitigate weight gain,” the authors wrote in the JAMA Network Open study, “such as encouraging healthy diets and exploring ways to enhance physical activity, as local governments consider new constraints in response to SARS-CoV-2 and potential future pandemics.”

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

Americans gained nearly 2 pounds per month under COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders in 2020, according to a new study published March 22, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

Those who kept the same lockdown habits could have gained 20 pounds during the past year, the study authors said.

“We know that weight gain is a public health problem in the U.S. already, so anything making it worse is definitely concerning, and shelter-in-place orders are so ubiquitous that the sheer number of people affected by this makes it extremely relevant,” Gregory Marcus, MD, the senior author and a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, told the New York Times.

Dr. Marcus and colleagues analyzed more than 7,000 weight measurements from 269 people in 37 states who used Bluetooth-connected scales from Feb. 1 to June 1, 2020. Among the participants, about 52% were women, 77% were White, and they had an average age of 52 years.

The research team found that participants had a steady weight gain of more than half a pound every 10 days. That equals about 1.5-2 pounds per month.

Many of the participants were losing weight before the shelter-in-place orders went into effect, Dr. Marcus said. The lockdown effects could be even greater for those who weren’t losing weight before.

“It’s reasonable to assume these individuals are more engaged with their health in general, and more disciplined and on top of things,” he said. “That suggests we could be underestimating – that this is the tip of the iceberg.”

The small study doesn’t represent all of the nation and can’t be generalized to the U.S. population, the study authors noted, but it’s an indicator of what happened during the pandemic. The participants’ weight increased regardless of their location and chronic medical conditions.

Overall, people don’t move around as much during lockdowns, the UCSF researchers reported in another study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020. According to smartphone data, daily step counts decreased by 27% in March 2020. The step counts increased again throughout the summer but still remained lower than before the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The detrimental health outcomes suggested by these data demonstrate a need to identify concurrent strategies to mitigate weight gain,” the authors wrote in the JAMA Network Open study, “such as encouraging healthy diets and exploring ways to enhance physical activity, as local governments consider new constraints in response to SARS-CoV-2 and potential future pandemics.”

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

Higher levels of vitamin D than traditionally considered sufficient may help prevent COVID-19 infection – particularly in Black patients, shows a new single-center, retrospective study looking at the role of vitamin D in prevention of infection.

The study, published recently in JAMA Network Open, noted that expert opinion varies as to what “sufficient” levels of vitamin D are, some define this as 30 ng/mL, while others cite 40 ng/mL or greater.

In their discussion, the authors also noted that their results showed the “risk of positive COVID-19 test results decreased significantly with increased vitamin D level of 30 ng/mL or greater when measured as a continuous variable.”

“These new results tell us that having vitamin D levels above those normally considered sufficient is associated with decreased risk of testing positive for COVID-19, at least in Black individuals,” lead author, David Meltzer, MD, chief of hospital medicine at the University of Chicago, said in a press release from his institution.

“These findings suggest that randomized clinical trials to determine whether increasing vitamin D levels to greater than 30-40 ng/mL affect COVID-19 risk are warranted, especially in Black individuals,” he and his coauthors said.
 

Vitamin D at time of testing most strongly associated with COVID risk

An earlier study by the same researchers found that vitamin D deficiency (less than 20 ng/mL) may raise the risk of testing positive for COVID-19 in people from various ethnicities, as reported by this news organization.

Data for this latest study were drawn from electronic health records for 4,638 individuals at the University of Chicago Medicine and were used to examine whether the likelihood of a positive COVID-19 test was associated with a person’s most recent vitamin D level (within the previous year), and whether there was any effect of ethnicity on this outcome.

Mean age was 52.8 years, 69% were women, 49% were Black, 43% White, and 8% were another race/ethnicity. A total of 27% of the individuals were deficient in vitamin D (less than 20 ng/mL), 27% had insufficient levels (20-30 ng/mL), 22% had sufficient levels (30-40 ng/mL), and the remaining 24% had levels of 40 ng/mL or greater.

In total, 333 (7%) of people tested positive for COVID-19, including 102 (5%) Whites and 211 (9%) Blacks. And 36% of Black individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 were classified as vitamin D deficient, compared with 16% of Whites.

A positive test result for COVID-19 was not significantly associated with vitamin D levels in white individuals but was in Black individuals.

In Black people, compared with levels of at least 40 ng/mL, vitamin D levels of 30-40 ng/mL were associated with an incidence rate ratio of 2.64 for COVID-19 positivity (P = .01). For levels of 20-30 ng/mL, the IRR was 1.69 (P = 0.21); and for less than 20 ng/mL the IRR was 2.55 (P = .009).

The researchers also found that the risk of positive test results with lower vitamin D levels increased when those levels were lower just prior to the positive COVID-19 test, lending “support [to] the idea that vitamin D level at the time of testing is most strongly associated with COVID-19 risk,” they wrote.
 

Try upping vitamin D levels to 40 ng/mL or greater to prevent COVID?

In their discussion, the authors noted that significant association of vitamin D levels with COVID-19 risk in Blacks but not in Whites, “could reflect their higher COVID-19 risk, to which socioeconomic factors and structural inequities clearly contribute.

“Biological susceptibility to vitamin D deficiency may also be less frequent in White than Black individuals, since lighter skin increases vitamin D production in response to sunlight, and vitamin D binding proteins may vary by race and affect vitamin D bioavailability.”

Given less than 10% of U.S. adults have a vitamin D level greater than 40 ng/mL, the study findings increase the urgency to consider whether increased sun exposure or supplementation could reduce COVID-19 risk, according to the authors.

“When increased sun exposure is impractical, achieving vitamin D levels of 40 ng/mL or greater typically requires greater supplementation than currently recommended for most individuals of 600-800 IU/d vitamin D3,” they added.

However, Dr. Meltzer also acknowledged that “this is an observational study. We can see that there’s an association between vitamin D levels and likelihood of a COVID-19 diagnosis, but we don’t know exactly why that is, or whether these results are due to the vitamin D directly or other related biological factors.”

All in all, the authors suggested that randomized clinical trials are needed to understand if vitamin D can reduce COVID-19 risk, and as such they should include doses of supplements likely to increase vitamin D to at least 40 ng/mL, and perhaps even higher, although they pointed out that the latter must be achieved safely.

“Studies should also consider the role of vitamin D testing, loading doses, dose adjustments for individuals who are obese or overweight, risks for hypercalcemia, and strategies to monitor for and mitigate hypercalcemia, and that non-White populations, such as Black individuals, may have greater needs for supplementation,” they outlined.

They are now recruiting participants for two separate clinical trials testing the efficacy of vitamin D supplements for preventing COVID-19.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Higher levels of vitamin D than traditionally considered sufficient may help prevent COVID-19 infection – particularly in Black patients, shows a new single-center, retrospective study looking at the role of vitamin D in prevention of infection.

The study, published recently in JAMA Network Open, noted that expert opinion varies as to what “sufficient” levels of vitamin D are, some define this as 30 ng/mL, while others cite 40 ng/mL or greater.

In their discussion, the authors also noted that their results showed the “risk of positive COVID-19 test results decreased significantly with increased vitamin D level of 30 ng/mL or greater when measured as a continuous variable.”

“These new results tell us that having vitamin D levels above those normally considered sufficient is associated with decreased risk of testing positive for COVID-19, at least in Black individuals,” lead author, David Meltzer, MD, chief of hospital medicine at the University of Chicago, said in a press release from his institution.

“These findings suggest that randomized clinical trials to determine whether increasing vitamin D levels to greater than 30-40 ng/mL affect COVID-19 risk are warranted, especially in Black individuals,” he and his coauthors said.
 

Vitamin D at time of testing most strongly associated with COVID risk

An earlier study by the same researchers found that vitamin D deficiency (less than 20 ng/mL) may raise the risk of testing positive for COVID-19 in people from various ethnicities, as reported by this news organization.

Data for this latest study were drawn from electronic health records for 4,638 individuals at the University of Chicago Medicine and were used to examine whether the likelihood of a positive COVID-19 test was associated with a person’s most recent vitamin D level (within the previous year), and whether there was any effect of ethnicity on this outcome.

Mean age was 52.8 years, 69% were women, 49% were Black, 43% White, and 8% were another race/ethnicity. A total of 27% of the individuals were deficient in vitamin D (less than 20 ng/mL), 27% had insufficient levels (20-30 ng/mL), 22% had sufficient levels (30-40 ng/mL), and the remaining 24% had levels of 40 ng/mL or greater.

In total, 333 (7%) of people tested positive for COVID-19, including 102 (5%) Whites and 211 (9%) Blacks. And 36% of Black individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 were classified as vitamin D deficient, compared with 16% of Whites.

A positive test result for COVID-19 was not significantly associated with vitamin D levels in white individuals but was in Black individuals.

In Black people, compared with levels of at least 40 ng/mL, vitamin D levels of 30-40 ng/mL were associated with an incidence rate ratio of 2.64 for COVID-19 positivity (P = .01). For levels of 20-30 ng/mL, the IRR was 1.69 (P = 0.21); and for less than 20 ng/mL the IRR was 2.55 (P = .009).

The researchers also found that the risk of positive test results with lower vitamin D levels increased when those levels were lower just prior to the positive COVID-19 test, lending “support [to] the idea that vitamin D level at the time of testing is most strongly associated with COVID-19 risk,” they wrote.
 

Try upping vitamin D levels to 40 ng/mL or greater to prevent COVID?

In their discussion, the authors noted that significant association of vitamin D levels with COVID-19 risk in Blacks but not in Whites, “could reflect their higher COVID-19 risk, to which socioeconomic factors and structural inequities clearly contribute.

“Biological susceptibility to vitamin D deficiency may also be less frequent in White than Black individuals, since lighter skin increases vitamin D production in response to sunlight, and vitamin D binding proteins may vary by race and affect vitamin D bioavailability.”

Given less than 10% of U.S. adults have a vitamin D level greater than 40 ng/mL, the study findings increase the urgency to consider whether increased sun exposure or supplementation could reduce COVID-19 risk, according to the authors.

“When increased sun exposure is impractical, achieving vitamin D levels of 40 ng/mL or greater typically requires greater supplementation than currently recommended for most individuals of 600-800 IU/d vitamin D3,” they added.

However, Dr. Meltzer also acknowledged that “this is an observational study. We can see that there’s an association between vitamin D levels and likelihood of a COVID-19 diagnosis, but we don’t know exactly why that is, or whether these results are due to the vitamin D directly or other related biological factors.”

All in all, the authors suggested that randomized clinical trials are needed to understand if vitamin D can reduce COVID-19 risk, and as such they should include doses of supplements likely to increase vitamin D to at least 40 ng/mL, and perhaps even higher, although they pointed out that the latter must be achieved safely.

“Studies should also consider the role of vitamin D testing, loading doses, dose adjustments for individuals who are obese or overweight, risks for hypercalcemia, and strategies to monitor for and mitigate hypercalcemia, and that non-White populations, such as Black individuals, may have greater needs for supplementation,” they outlined.

They are now recruiting participants for two separate clinical trials testing the efficacy of vitamin D supplements for preventing COVID-19.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Higher levels of vitamin D than traditionally considered sufficient may help prevent COVID-19 infection – particularly in Black patients, shows a new single-center, retrospective study looking at the role of vitamin D in prevention of infection.

The study, published recently in JAMA Network Open, noted that expert opinion varies as to what “sufficient” levels of vitamin D are, some define this as 30 ng/mL, while others cite 40 ng/mL or greater.

In their discussion, the authors also noted that their results showed the “risk of positive COVID-19 test results decreased significantly with increased vitamin D level of 30 ng/mL or greater when measured as a continuous variable.”

“These new results tell us that having vitamin D levels above those normally considered sufficient is associated with decreased risk of testing positive for COVID-19, at least in Black individuals,” lead author, David Meltzer, MD, chief of hospital medicine at the University of Chicago, said in a press release from his institution.

“These findings suggest that randomized clinical trials to determine whether increasing vitamin D levels to greater than 30-40 ng/mL affect COVID-19 risk are warranted, especially in Black individuals,” he and his coauthors said.
 

Vitamin D at time of testing most strongly associated with COVID risk

An earlier study by the same researchers found that vitamin D deficiency (less than 20 ng/mL) may raise the risk of testing positive for COVID-19 in people from various ethnicities, as reported by this news organization.

Data for this latest study were drawn from electronic health records for 4,638 individuals at the University of Chicago Medicine and were used to examine whether the likelihood of a positive COVID-19 test was associated with a person’s most recent vitamin D level (within the previous year), and whether there was any effect of ethnicity on this outcome.

Mean age was 52.8 years, 69% were women, 49% were Black, 43% White, and 8% were another race/ethnicity. A total of 27% of the individuals were deficient in vitamin D (less than 20 ng/mL), 27% had insufficient levels (20-30 ng/mL), 22% had sufficient levels (30-40 ng/mL), and the remaining 24% had levels of 40 ng/mL or greater.

In total, 333 (7%) of people tested positive for COVID-19, including 102 (5%) Whites and 211 (9%) Blacks. And 36% of Black individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 were classified as vitamin D deficient, compared with 16% of Whites.

A positive test result for COVID-19 was not significantly associated with vitamin D levels in white individuals but was in Black individuals.

In Black people, compared with levels of at least 40 ng/mL, vitamin D levels of 30-40 ng/mL were associated with an incidence rate ratio of 2.64 for COVID-19 positivity (P = .01). For levels of 20-30 ng/mL, the IRR was 1.69 (P = 0.21); and for less than 20 ng/mL the IRR was 2.55 (P = .009).

The researchers also found that the risk of positive test results with lower vitamin D levels increased when those levels were lower just prior to the positive COVID-19 test, lending “support [to] the idea that vitamin D level at the time of testing is most strongly associated with COVID-19 risk,” they wrote.
 

Try upping vitamin D levels to 40 ng/mL or greater to prevent COVID?

In their discussion, the authors noted that significant association of vitamin D levels with COVID-19 risk in Blacks but not in Whites, “could reflect their higher COVID-19 risk, to which socioeconomic factors and structural inequities clearly contribute.

“Biological susceptibility to vitamin D deficiency may also be less frequent in White than Black individuals, since lighter skin increases vitamin D production in response to sunlight, and vitamin D binding proteins may vary by race and affect vitamin D bioavailability.”

Given less than 10% of U.S. adults have a vitamin D level greater than 40 ng/mL, the study findings increase the urgency to consider whether increased sun exposure or supplementation could reduce COVID-19 risk, according to the authors.

“When increased sun exposure is impractical, achieving vitamin D levels of 40 ng/mL or greater typically requires greater supplementation than currently recommended for most individuals of 600-800 IU/d vitamin D3,” they added.

However, Dr. Meltzer also acknowledged that “this is an observational study. We can see that there’s an association between vitamin D levels and likelihood of a COVID-19 diagnosis, but we don’t know exactly why that is, or whether these results are due to the vitamin D directly or other related biological factors.”

All in all, the authors suggested that randomized clinical trials are needed to understand if vitamin D can reduce COVID-19 risk, and as such they should include doses of supplements likely to increase vitamin D to at least 40 ng/mL, and perhaps even higher, although they pointed out that the latter must be achieved safely.

“Studies should also consider the role of vitamin D testing, loading doses, dose adjustments for individuals who are obese or overweight, risks for hypercalcemia, and strategies to monitor for and mitigate hypercalcemia, and that non-White populations, such as Black individuals, may have greater needs for supplementation,” they outlined.

They are now recruiting participants for two separate clinical trials testing the efficacy of vitamin D supplements for preventing COVID-19.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Senate voted mostly along party lines Wednesday to confirm Vice Adm. Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, to serve as the 21st Surgeon General of the United States.

Seven Republicans – Bill Cassidy (La.), Susan Collins (Maine), Roger Marshall (Kan.), Susan Murkowski (Alaska), Rob Portman (Ohio), Mitt Romney (Utah), and Dan Sullivan (Alaska) – joined all the Democrats and independents in the 57-43 vote approving Dr. Murthy’s nomination.

Dr. Murthy, 43, previously served as the 19th Surgeon General, from December 2014 to April 2017, when he was asked to step down by President Donald J. Trump.

Surgeons General serve 4-year terms.

During his first tenure, Dr. Murthy issued the first-ever Surgeon General’s report on the crisis of addiction and issued a call to action to doctors to help battle the opioid crisis.

When Dr. Murthy was nominated by President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. in December, he was acting as cochair of the incoming administration’s COVID-19 transition advisory board.

Early in 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Dr. Murthy published a timely book: “Together: The Healing Power of Human Connection in a Sometimes Lonely World”.

He earned his bachelor’s degree from Harvard and his MD and MBA degrees from Yale. He completed his internal medicine residency at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, where he also served as a hospitalist, and later joined Harvard Medical School as a faculty member in internal medicine.

He is married to Alice Chen, MD. The couple have two children.
 

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

The U.S. Senate voted mostly along party lines Wednesday to confirm Vice Adm. Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, to serve as the 21st Surgeon General of the United States.

Seven Republicans – Bill Cassidy (La.), Susan Collins (Maine), Roger Marshall (Kan.), Susan Murkowski (Alaska), Rob Portman (Ohio), Mitt Romney (Utah), and Dan Sullivan (Alaska) – joined all the Democrats and independents in the 57-43 vote approving Dr. Murthy’s nomination.

Dr. Murthy, 43, previously served as the 19th Surgeon General, from December 2014 to April 2017, when he was asked to step down by President Donald J. Trump.

Surgeons General serve 4-year terms.

During his first tenure, Dr. Murthy issued the first-ever Surgeon General’s report on the crisis of addiction and issued a call to action to doctors to help battle the opioid crisis.

When Dr. Murthy was nominated by President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. in December, he was acting as cochair of the incoming administration’s COVID-19 transition advisory board.

Early in 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Dr. Murthy published a timely book: “Together: The Healing Power of Human Connection in a Sometimes Lonely World”.

He earned his bachelor’s degree from Harvard and his MD and MBA degrees from Yale. He completed his internal medicine residency at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, where he also served as a hospitalist, and later joined Harvard Medical School as a faculty member in internal medicine.

He is married to Alice Chen, MD. The couple have two children.
 

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

The U.S. Senate voted mostly along party lines Wednesday to confirm Vice Adm. Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, to serve as the 21st Surgeon General of the United States.

Seven Republicans – Bill Cassidy (La.), Susan Collins (Maine), Roger Marshall (Kan.), Susan Murkowski (Alaska), Rob Portman (Ohio), Mitt Romney (Utah), and Dan Sullivan (Alaska) – joined all the Democrats and independents in the 57-43 vote approving Dr. Murthy’s nomination.

Dr. Murthy, 43, previously served as the 19th Surgeon General, from December 2014 to April 2017, when he was asked to step down by President Donald J. Trump.

Surgeons General serve 4-year terms.

During his first tenure, Dr. Murthy issued the first-ever Surgeon General’s report on the crisis of addiction and issued a call to action to doctors to help battle the opioid crisis.

When Dr. Murthy was nominated by President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. in December, he was acting as cochair of the incoming administration’s COVID-19 transition advisory board.

Early in 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Dr. Murthy published a timely book: “Together: The Healing Power of Human Connection in a Sometimes Lonely World”.

He earned his bachelor’s degree from Harvard and his MD and MBA degrees from Yale. He completed his internal medicine residency at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, where he also served as a hospitalist, and later joined Harvard Medical School as a faculty member in internal medicine.

He is married to Alice Chen, MD. The couple have two children.
 

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

Amid a substantial expansion of therapies in several drug classes for the treatment of osteoporosis, there has been a notable increase in the prescription of denosumab for patients with a cancer-related indication.

ogichobanov/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In an analysis of claims data from January 2009 to March 2020, the bisphosphonate alendronate represented more than 50% of all prescriptions for bone-directed therapies, but growth in the use of the monoclonal antibody denosumab overall and in cancer-related indications particularly was steady throughout the study period.

“In the malignancy cohort, alendronate and zoledronic acid were each used in approximately 30% of individuals at the onset of the study, but use of both then declined,” Sara Cromer, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

For malignancy-based prescriptions, denosumab surpassed either bisphosphonate by 2013 and then continued to rise.

Denosumab use “reached approximately 50% of all bone-directed medication use in the malignancy cohort” by the end of the study period, said Dr. Cromer, a clinical research fellow in endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The claims data for this analysis was drawn from the Clinformatics Data Mart. The analysis was restricted to individuals aged older than 50 years who received a prescription for a bone-directed therapy. The 15.48 million prescriptions evaluated were drawn from 1.46 million unique individuals. The mean age was 69 years, and 89% of those prescribed a drug were women.
 

Oncologic indications one of two tracked cohorts

In the context of a large expansion of treatment options in several drug classes for osteoporosis, the objective of this claims analysis was to document trends in treatment choice, according to Dr. Cromer. She and her coinvestigators looked at prescriptions overall as well as in two cohorts defined by ICD codes. One included patients prescribed a prescription by an oncologist. The other included everyone else.

When all prescriptions for bone-directed therapy were evaluated over the study period, alendronate was the most commonly prescribed therapy, and its use increased over time. Prescriptions of zoledronic acid also rose, doubling over the study period, but use was very low in the beginning and it never climbed above 5%.

The proportion of prescriptions written for bisphosphonates other than alendronate and zoledronic acid “declined steadily” over the study period, Dr. Cromer reported.

Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets a step in the process important to maturation of osteoclasts, was approved in 2010. It accounted for 10% of all prescriptions for osteoporosis by 2015 and 15% by 2018. It was still rising through the end of the study period.

In contrast, prescriptions of raloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, began to decline after 2013. In general, the rates of prescriptions for other agents, including some of the more recently approved drugs, such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab, changed very little over the study period. None of these therapies ever represented more than 2% of prescriptions.

When looking at the cohort of patients who received a bone-directed reason for a noncancer indication, the trends “paralleled those in the all-user analysis,” Dr. Cromer reported.
 

Denosumab use greater in privately insured

In the malignancy cohort, the decline in the use of bisphosphonates and the rise in the use of denosumab were most pronounced in patients who were privately insured. The increased use of denosumab over the study period “outpaced gains in use of other agents despite guidelines,” said Dr. Cromer, referring to the those issued by the Endocrine Society in 2019 .

In those guidelines, written for management of postmenopausal women at high risk of fractures, bisphosphonates are recommended for initial treatment while denosumab is recommended as an alternative. However, those guidelines do not provide specific recommendations for therapies directed at osteoporosis associated with cancer.

Guidelines for this population exist, including one published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2019.

In the ASCO guidelines, oral bisphosphonates, intravenous bisphosphonates, and subcutaneous denosumab were all identified as “efficacious options,” according to Charles L. Shapiro, MD, director of breast cancer translational research, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Specifically, “all three of them work to reduce fractures and improve bone density in women with breast cancer in whom you are trying to prevent or treat osteoporosis,” Dr. Shapiro said in an interview.

There might be relative advantages for one therapy over another in specific subgroups defined by type of cancer or stage of cancer, but trials are not definitive for such outcomes as overall survival. Citing one comparative study associating denosumab with an 18% delay to first skeletal event in women with metastatic breast cancer, Dr. Shapiro observed, “I personally don’t consider an 18% delay [for this outcome] to be that clinically meaningful.”

Although major guidelines from ASCO have not so far favored denosumab over any bisphosphonate in routine care, Dr. Shapiro did not rule out the possibility that future studies will show differences.

Dr. Comer and Dr. Shapiro reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Amid a substantial expansion of therapies in several drug classes for the treatment of osteoporosis, there has been a notable increase in the prescription of denosumab for patients with a cancer-related indication.

ogichobanov/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In an analysis of claims data from January 2009 to March 2020, the bisphosphonate alendronate represented more than 50% of all prescriptions for bone-directed therapies, but growth in the use of the monoclonal antibody denosumab overall and in cancer-related indications particularly was steady throughout the study period.

“In the malignancy cohort, alendronate and zoledronic acid were each used in approximately 30% of individuals at the onset of the study, but use of both then declined,” Sara Cromer, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

For malignancy-based prescriptions, denosumab surpassed either bisphosphonate by 2013 and then continued to rise.

Denosumab use “reached approximately 50% of all bone-directed medication use in the malignancy cohort” by the end of the study period, said Dr. Cromer, a clinical research fellow in endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The claims data for this analysis was drawn from the Clinformatics Data Mart. The analysis was restricted to individuals aged older than 50 years who received a prescription for a bone-directed therapy. The 15.48 million prescriptions evaluated were drawn from 1.46 million unique individuals. The mean age was 69 years, and 89% of those prescribed a drug were women.
 

Oncologic indications one of two tracked cohorts

In the context of a large expansion of treatment options in several drug classes for osteoporosis, the objective of this claims analysis was to document trends in treatment choice, according to Dr. Cromer. She and her coinvestigators looked at prescriptions overall as well as in two cohorts defined by ICD codes. One included patients prescribed a prescription by an oncologist. The other included everyone else.

When all prescriptions for bone-directed therapy were evaluated over the study period, alendronate was the most commonly prescribed therapy, and its use increased over time. Prescriptions of zoledronic acid also rose, doubling over the study period, but use was very low in the beginning and it never climbed above 5%.

The proportion of prescriptions written for bisphosphonates other than alendronate and zoledronic acid “declined steadily” over the study period, Dr. Cromer reported.

Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets a step in the process important to maturation of osteoclasts, was approved in 2010. It accounted for 10% of all prescriptions for osteoporosis by 2015 and 15% by 2018. It was still rising through the end of the study period.

In contrast, prescriptions of raloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, began to decline after 2013. In general, the rates of prescriptions for other agents, including some of the more recently approved drugs, such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab, changed very little over the study period. None of these therapies ever represented more than 2% of prescriptions.

When looking at the cohort of patients who received a bone-directed reason for a noncancer indication, the trends “paralleled those in the all-user analysis,” Dr. Cromer reported.
 

Denosumab use greater in privately insured

In the malignancy cohort, the decline in the use of bisphosphonates and the rise in the use of denosumab were most pronounced in patients who were privately insured. The increased use of denosumab over the study period “outpaced gains in use of other agents despite guidelines,” said Dr. Cromer, referring to the those issued by the Endocrine Society in 2019 .

In those guidelines, written for management of postmenopausal women at high risk of fractures, bisphosphonates are recommended for initial treatment while denosumab is recommended as an alternative. However, those guidelines do not provide specific recommendations for therapies directed at osteoporosis associated with cancer.

Guidelines for this population exist, including one published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2019.

In the ASCO guidelines, oral bisphosphonates, intravenous bisphosphonates, and subcutaneous denosumab were all identified as “efficacious options,” according to Charles L. Shapiro, MD, director of breast cancer translational research, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Specifically, “all three of them work to reduce fractures and improve bone density in women with breast cancer in whom you are trying to prevent or treat osteoporosis,” Dr. Shapiro said in an interview.

There might be relative advantages for one therapy over another in specific subgroups defined by type of cancer or stage of cancer, but trials are not definitive for such outcomes as overall survival. Citing one comparative study associating denosumab with an 18% delay to first skeletal event in women with metastatic breast cancer, Dr. Shapiro observed, “I personally don’t consider an 18% delay [for this outcome] to be that clinically meaningful.”

Although major guidelines from ASCO have not so far favored denosumab over any bisphosphonate in routine care, Dr. Shapiro did not rule out the possibility that future studies will show differences.

Dr. Comer and Dr. Shapiro reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Amid a substantial expansion of therapies in several drug classes for the treatment of osteoporosis, there has been a notable increase in the prescription of denosumab for patients with a cancer-related indication.

ogichobanov/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In an analysis of claims data from January 2009 to March 2020, the bisphosphonate alendronate represented more than 50% of all prescriptions for bone-directed therapies, but growth in the use of the monoclonal antibody denosumab overall and in cancer-related indications particularly was steady throughout the study period.

“In the malignancy cohort, alendronate and zoledronic acid were each used in approximately 30% of individuals at the onset of the study, but use of both then declined,” Sara Cromer, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

For malignancy-based prescriptions, denosumab surpassed either bisphosphonate by 2013 and then continued to rise.

Denosumab use “reached approximately 50% of all bone-directed medication use in the malignancy cohort” by the end of the study period, said Dr. Cromer, a clinical research fellow in endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The claims data for this analysis was drawn from the Clinformatics Data Mart. The analysis was restricted to individuals aged older than 50 years who received a prescription for a bone-directed therapy. The 15.48 million prescriptions evaluated were drawn from 1.46 million unique individuals. The mean age was 69 years, and 89% of those prescribed a drug were women.
 

Oncologic indications one of two tracked cohorts

In the context of a large expansion of treatment options in several drug classes for osteoporosis, the objective of this claims analysis was to document trends in treatment choice, according to Dr. Cromer. She and her coinvestigators looked at prescriptions overall as well as in two cohorts defined by ICD codes. One included patients prescribed a prescription by an oncologist. The other included everyone else.

When all prescriptions for bone-directed therapy were evaluated over the study period, alendronate was the most commonly prescribed therapy, and its use increased over time. Prescriptions of zoledronic acid also rose, doubling over the study period, but use was very low in the beginning and it never climbed above 5%.

The proportion of prescriptions written for bisphosphonates other than alendronate and zoledronic acid “declined steadily” over the study period, Dr. Cromer reported.

Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets a step in the process important to maturation of osteoclasts, was approved in 2010. It accounted for 10% of all prescriptions for osteoporosis by 2015 and 15% by 2018. It was still rising through the end of the study period.

In contrast, prescriptions of raloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, began to decline after 2013. In general, the rates of prescriptions for other agents, including some of the more recently approved drugs, such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab, changed very little over the study period. None of these therapies ever represented more than 2% of prescriptions.

When looking at the cohort of patients who received a bone-directed reason for a noncancer indication, the trends “paralleled those in the all-user analysis,” Dr. Cromer reported.
 

Denosumab use greater in privately insured

In the malignancy cohort, the decline in the use of bisphosphonates and the rise in the use of denosumab were most pronounced in patients who were privately insured. The increased use of denosumab over the study period “outpaced gains in use of other agents despite guidelines,” said Dr. Cromer, referring to the those issued by the Endocrine Society in 2019 .

In those guidelines, written for management of postmenopausal women at high risk of fractures, bisphosphonates are recommended for initial treatment while denosumab is recommended as an alternative. However, those guidelines do not provide specific recommendations for therapies directed at osteoporosis associated with cancer.

Guidelines for this population exist, including one published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2019.

In the ASCO guidelines, oral bisphosphonates, intravenous bisphosphonates, and subcutaneous denosumab were all identified as “efficacious options,” according to Charles L. Shapiro, MD, director of breast cancer translational research, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Specifically, “all three of them work to reduce fractures and improve bone density in women with breast cancer in whom you are trying to prevent or treat osteoporosis,” Dr. Shapiro said in an interview.

There might be relative advantages for one therapy over another in specific subgroups defined by type of cancer or stage of cancer, but trials are not definitive for such outcomes as overall survival. Citing one comparative study associating denosumab with an 18% delay to first skeletal event in women with metastatic breast cancer, Dr. Shapiro observed, “I personally don’t consider an 18% delay [for this outcome] to be that clinically meaningful.”

Although major guidelines from ASCO have not so far favored denosumab over any bisphosphonate in routine care, Dr. Shapiro did not rule out the possibility that future studies will show differences.

Dr. Comer and Dr. Shapiro reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Recently, we had the opportunity to take part in a major EHR conversion project. During this “go-live,” 5 hospitals and approximately 300 ambulatory service and physician practice locations made the transition, consolidating over 100 disparate electronic systems and dozens of interfaces into one world-class medical record.

If you’ve ever been part of such an event, you know it is anything but simple. On the contrary, it requires an enormous financial investment along with years of planning, hours of meetings, and months of training. No matter how much preparation goes into it, there are sure to be bumps along the way. It is a traumatic and stressful time for all involved, but the end result is well worth the effort. Still, there are lessons to be learned and wisdom to be gleaned, and this month we’d like to share a few that we found most important. We believe that many of these are useful lessons even to those who will never live through a go-live.
 

Safety always comes first

Patient safety is a term so often used that it has a tendency to be taken for granted. Health systems build processes and procedures to ensure safety – some even win awards and recognition for their efforts. But the best (and safest) health care institutions build patient safety into their cultures. More than just being taught to use checklists or buzzwords, the staff at these institutions are encouraged to put the welfare of patients first, making all other activities secondary to this pursuit. We had the opportunity to witness the benefits of such a culture during this go-live and were incredibly impressed with the results.

To be successful in an EHR transition of any magnitude, an organization needs to hold patient safety as a core value and provide its employees with the tools to execute on that value. This enables staff to prepare adequately and to identify risks and opportunities before the conversion takes place. Once go-live occurs, staff also must feel empowered to speak up when they identify problem areas that might jeopardize patients’ care. They also must be given a clear escalation path to ensure their voices can be heard. Most importantly, everyone must understand that the electronic health record itself is just one piece of a major operational change.

As workflows are modified to adapt to the new technology, unsafe processes should be called out and fixed quickly. While the EHR may offer the latest in decision support and system integration, no advancement in technology can make up for bad outcomes, nor justify processes that lead to patient harm.
 

Training is no substitute for good support

It takes a long time to train thousands of employees, especially when that training must occur during the era of social distancing in the midst of a pandemic. Still, even in the best of times, education should be married to hands-on experience in order to have a real impact. Unfortunately, this is extremely challenging.

Trainees forget much of what they’ve learned in the weeks or months between education and go-live, so they must be given immediately accessible support to bridge the gap. This is known as “at-the-elbow” (ATE) support, and as the name implies, it consists of individuals who are familiar with the new system and are always available to end users, answering their questions and helping them navigate. Since health care never sleeps, this support needs to be offered 24/7, and it should also be flexible and plentiful.

There are many areas that will require more support than anticipated to accommodate the number of clinical and other staff who will use the system, so support staff must be nimble and available for redeployment. In addition, ensuring high-quality support is essential. As many ATE experts are hired contractors, their knowledge base and communications skills can vary widely. Accountability is key, and end users should feel empowered to identify gaps in coverage and deficits in knowledge base in the ATE.

As employees become more familiar with the new system, the need for ATE will wane, but there will still be questions that arise for many weeks to months, and new EHR users will also be added all the time. A good after–go-live support system should remain available so clinical and clerical employees can get just-in-time assistance whenever they need it.
 

Users should be given clear expectations

Clinicians going through an EHR conversion may be frustrated to discover that the data transferred from their old system into the new one is not quite what they expected. While structured elements such as allergies and immunizations may transfer, unstructured patient histories may not come over at all.

There may be gaps in data, or the opposite may even be true: an overabundance of useless information may transfer over, leaving doctors with dozens of meaningless data points to sift through and eliminate to clean up the chart. This can be extremely time-consuming and discouraging and may jeopardize the success of the go-live.

Providers deserve clear expectations prior to conversion. They should be told what will and will not transfer and be informed that there will be extra work required for documentation at the outset. They may also want the option to preemptively reduce patient volumes to accommodate the additional effort involved in preparing charts. No matter what, this will be a heavy lift, and physicians should understand the implications long before go-live to prepare accordingly.
 

Old habits die hard

One of the most common complaints we’ve heard following EHR conversions is that “things just worked better in the old system.” We always respond with a question: “Were things better, or just different?” The truth may lie somewhere in the middle, but there is no question that muscle memory develops over many years, and change is difficult no matter how much better the new system is. Still, appropriate expectations, access to just-in-time support, and a continual focus on safety will ensure that the long-term benefits of a patient-centered and integrated electronic record will far outweigh the initial challenges of go-live.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

Recently, we had the opportunity to take part in a major EHR conversion project. During this “go-live,” 5 hospitals and approximately 300 ambulatory service and physician practice locations made the transition, consolidating over 100 disparate electronic systems and dozens of interfaces into one world-class medical record.

If you’ve ever been part of such an event, you know it is anything but simple. On the contrary, it requires an enormous financial investment along with years of planning, hours of meetings, and months of training. No matter how much preparation goes into it, there are sure to be bumps along the way. It is a traumatic and stressful time for all involved, but the end result is well worth the effort. Still, there are lessons to be learned and wisdom to be gleaned, and this month we’d like to share a few that we found most important. We believe that many of these are useful lessons even to those who will never live through a go-live.
 

Safety always comes first

Patient safety is a term so often used that it has a tendency to be taken for granted. Health systems build processes and procedures to ensure safety – some even win awards and recognition for their efforts. But the best (and safest) health care institutions build patient safety into their cultures. More than just being taught to use checklists or buzzwords, the staff at these institutions are encouraged to put the welfare of patients first, making all other activities secondary to this pursuit. We had the opportunity to witness the benefits of such a culture during this go-live and were incredibly impressed with the results.

To be successful in an EHR transition of any magnitude, an organization needs to hold patient safety as a core value and provide its employees with the tools to execute on that value. This enables staff to prepare adequately and to identify risks and opportunities before the conversion takes place. Once go-live occurs, staff also must feel empowered to speak up when they identify problem areas that might jeopardize patients’ care. They also must be given a clear escalation path to ensure their voices can be heard. Most importantly, everyone must understand that the electronic health record itself is just one piece of a major operational change.

As workflows are modified to adapt to the new technology, unsafe processes should be called out and fixed quickly. While the EHR may offer the latest in decision support and system integration, no advancement in technology can make up for bad outcomes, nor justify processes that lead to patient harm.
 

Training is no substitute for good support

It takes a long time to train thousands of employees, especially when that training must occur during the era of social distancing in the midst of a pandemic. Still, even in the best of times, education should be married to hands-on experience in order to have a real impact. Unfortunately, this is extremely challenging.

Trainees forget much of what they’ve learned in the weeks or months between education and go-live, so they must be given immediately accessible support to bridge the gap. This is known as “at-the-elbow” (ATE) support, and as the name implies, it consists of individuals who are familiar with the new system and are always available to end users, answering their questions and helping them navigate. Since health care never sleeps, this support needs to be offered 24/7, and it should also be flexible and plentiful.

There are many areas that will require more support than anticipated to accommodate the number of clinical and other staff who will use the system, so support staff must be nimble and available for redeployment. In addition, ensuring high-quality support is essential. As many ATE experts are hired contractors, their knowledge base and communications skills can vary widely. Accountability is key, and end users should feel empowered to identify gaps in coverage and deficits in knowledge base in the ATE.

As employees become more familiar with the new system, the need for ATE will wane, but there will still be questions that arise for many weeks to months, and new EHR users will also be added all the time. A good after–go-live support system should remain available so clinical and clerical employees can get just-in-time assistance whenever they need it.
 

Users should be given clear expectations

Clinicians going through an EHR conversion may be frustrated to discover that the data transferred from their old system into the new one is not quite what they expected. While structured elements such as allergies and immunizations may transfer, unstructured patient histories may not come over at all.

There may be gaps in data, or the opposite may even be true: an overabundance of useless information may transfer over, leaving doctors with dozens of meaningless data points to sift through and eliminate to clean up the chart. This can be extremely time-consuming and discouraging and may jeopardize the success of the go-live.

Providers deserve clear expectations prior to conversion. They should be told what will and will not transfer and be informed that there will be extra work required for documentation at the outset. They may also want the option to preemptively reduce patient volumes to accommodate the additional effort involved in preparing charts. No matter what, this will be a heavy lift, and physicians should understand the implications long before go-live to prepare accordingly.
 

Old habits die hard

One of the most common complaints we’ve heard following EHR conversions is that “things just worked better in the old system.” We always respond with a question: “Were things better, or just different?” The truth may lie somewhere in the middle, but there is no question that muscle memory develops over many years, and change is difficult no matter how much better the new system is. Still, appropriate expectations, access to just-in-time support, and a continual focus on safety will ensure that the long-term benefits of a patient-centered and integrated electronic record will far outweigh the initial challenges of go-live.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

Recently, we had the opportunity to take part in a major EHR conversion project. During this “go-live,” 5 hospitals and approximately 300 ambulatory service and physician practice locations made the transition, consolidating over 100 disparate electronic systems and dozens of interfaces into one world-class medical record.

If you’ve ever been part of such an event, you know it is anything but simple. On the contrary, it requires an enormous financial investment along with years of planning, hours of meetings, and months of training. No matter how much preparation goes into it, there are sure to be bumps along the way. It is a traumatic and stressful time for all involved, but the end result is well worth the effort. Still, there are lessons to be learned and wisdom to be gleaned, and this month we’d like to share a few that we found most important. We believe that many of these are useful lessons even to those who will never live through a go-live.
 

Safety always comes first

Patient safety is a term so often used that it has a tendency to be taken for granted. Health systems build processes and procedures to ensure safety – some even win awards and recognition for their efforts. But the best (and safest) health care institutions build patient safety into their cultures. More than just being taught to use checklists or buzzwords, the staff at these institutions are encouraged to put the welfare of patients first, making all other activities secondary to this pursuit. We had the opportunity to witness the benefits of such a culture during this go-live and were incredibly impressed with the results.

To be successful in an EHR transition of any magnitude, an organization needs to hold patient safety as a core value and provide its employees with the tools to execute on that value. This enables staff to prepare adequately and to identify risks and opportunities before the conversion takes place. Once go-live occurs, staff also must feel empowered to speak up when they identify problem areas that might jeopardize patients’ care. They also must be given a clear escalation path to ensure their voices can be heard. Most importantly, everyone must understand that the electronic health record itself is just one piece of a major operational change.

As workflows are modified to adapt to the new technology, unsafe processes should be called out and fixed quickly. While the EHR may offer the latest in decision support and system integration, no advancement in technology can make up for bad outcomes, nor justify processes that lead to patient harm.
 

Training is no substitute for good support

It takes a long time to train thousands of employees, especially when that training must occur during the era of social distancing in the midst of a pandemic. Still, even in the best of times, education should be married to hands-on experience in order to have a real impact. Unfortunately, this is extremely challenging.

Trainees forget much of what they’ve learned in the weeks or months between education and go-live, so they must be given immediately accessible support to bridge the gap. This is known as “at-the-elbow” (ATE) support, and as the name implies, it consists of individuals who are familiar with the new system and are always available to end users, answering their questions and helping them navigate. Since health care never sleeps, this support needs to be offered 24/7, and it should also be flexible and plentiful.

There are many areas that will require more support than anticipated to accommodate the number of clinical and other staff who will use the system, so support staff must be nimble and available for redeployment. In addition, ensuring high-quality support is essential. As many ATE experts are hired contractors, their knowledge base and communications skills can vary widely. Accountability is key, and end users should feel empowered to identify gaps in coverage and deficits in knowledge base in the ATE.

As employees become more familiar with the new system, the need for ATE will wane, but there will still be questions that arise for many weeks to months, and new EHR users will also be added all the time. A good after–go-live support system should remain available so clinical and clerical employees can get just-in-time assistance whenever they need it.
 

Users should be given clear expectations

Clinicians going through an EHR conversion may be frustrated to discover that the data transferred from their old system into the new one is not quite what they expected. While structured elements such as allergies and immunizations may transfer, unstructured patient histories may not come over at all.

There may be gaps in data, or the opposite may even be true: an overabundance of useless information may transfer over, leaving doctors with dozens of meaningless data points to sift through and eliminate to clean up the chart. This can be extremely time-consuming and discouraging and may jeopardize the success of the go-live.

Providers deserve clear expectations prior to conversion. They should be told what will and will not transfer and be informed that there will be extra work required for documentation at the outset. They may also want the option to preemptively reduce patient volumes to accommodate the additional effort involved in preparing charts. No matter what, this will be a heavy lift, and physicians should understand the implications long before go-live to prepare accordingly.