Rheumatology News

A post hoc analysis of pregnancies among women participating in clinical trials of tildrakizumab showed no new safety signals and no reports of birth defects.

“Although contraception in female patients of childbearing age was mandatory before initiation of and during tildrakizumab therapy, some pregnancies occurred during the tildrakizumab clinical development program as protocol violations,” wrote Kathleen Haycraft, MD, of Riverside Dermatology & Spa, Hannibal, Mo., and colleagues.

Tildrakizumab (Ilumya), an interleukin-23 antagonist, was approved in 2018 by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy. Effects on birth outcomes or on neonates exposed during pregnancy have not been studied, the researchers said.

“Tildrakizumab plasma half-life after subcutaneous administration is approximately 25 days; therefore, tildrakizumab administered even in the first trimester may cross the placental barrier,” they noted.

In a research letter published in the British Journal of Dermatology, the investigators reviewed data from nine phase 1, 2, and 3 clinical trials and identified 528 women of childbearing age who received tildrakizumab. Fourteen pregnancies were reported among these women: six from a contraceptive failure, and eight for lack of contraception use. (One of the phase 1 trials was in patients with Crohn’s disease, which included one of the pregnancies; the rest were in patients with psoriasis.)

The 14 pregnancy outcomes included 2 spontaneous abortions (14.3%), 4 elective abortions (28.6%), and 8 live births (57.1%), which included 1 premature birth, with “no identifiable congenital anomalies,” the authors wrote. The longest duration of exposure to tildrakizumab in a pregnant woman was 1,196 days; this pregnancy resulted in a premature live birth at 36 weeks with no anomalies. The spontaneous abortion rate was similar to the rate in the general population, which is 12%-15%, the authors noted.

While the study “adds to the existing evidence on the outcomes of biologic treatment of psoriasis,” the findings were limited by several factors including the small number of pregnancies, short duration of exposure to tildrakizumab, variations in dosing, and lack of controls, the researchers noted. “Additional data from a larger population following tildrakizumab exposure are required to fully evaluate the safety and tolerability of tildrakizumab treatment during pregnancy,” they said. In the meantime, they advised women of childbearing age with psoriasis to continue to avoid pregnancy and follow practice guidelines for contraceptive use while taking the biologic therapy.

The studies were supported by Merck Sharp & Dohme, a Merck & Co. subsidiary; analyses were supported by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries. Lead author Dr. Haycraft disclosed relationships with companies including Sun, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Ortho-Derm, and Pfizer. Other authors disclosed relationships with Novartis, Celgene, Ortho Dermatologics, Janssen, and Merck; two authors are Sun employees.

dermnews@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Haycraft K et al. Br J Dermatol. 2020 Jan 29. doi: 10.1111/bjd.18897.

A post hoc analysis of pregnancies among women participating in clinical trials of tildrakizumab showed no new safety signals and no reports of birth defects.

“Although contraception in female patients of childbearing age was mandatory before initiation of and during tildrakizumab therapy, some pregnancies occurred during the tildrakizumab clinical development program as protocol violations,” wrote Kathleen Haycraft, MD, of Riverside Dermatology & Spa, Hannibal, Mo., and colleagues.

Tildrakizumab (Ilumya), an interleukin-23 antagonist, was approved in 2018 by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy. Effects on birth outcomes or on neonates exposed during pregnancy have not been studied, the researchers said.

“Tildrakizumab plasma half-life after subcutaneous administration is approximately 25 days; therefore, tildrakizumab administered even in the first trimester may cross the placental barrier,” they noted.

In a research letter published in the British Journal of Dermatology, the investigators reviewed data from nine phase 1, 2, and 3 clinical trials and identified 528 women of childbearing age who received tildrakizumab. Fourteen pregnancies were reported among these women: six from a contraceptive failure, and eight for lack of contraception use. (One of the phase 1 trials was in patients with Crohn’s disease, which included one of the pregnancies; the rest were in patients with psoriasis.)

The 14 pregnancy outcomes included 2 spontaneous abortions (14.3%), 4 elective abortions (28.6%), and 8 live births (57.1%), which included 1 premature birth, with “no identifiable congenital anomalies,” the authors wrote. The longest duration of exposure to tildrakizumab in a pregnant woman was 1,196 days; this pregnancy resulted in a premature live birth at 36 weeks with no anomalies. The spontaneous abortion rate was similar to the rate in the general population, which is 12%-15%, the authors noted.

While the study “adds to the existing evidence on the outcomes of biologic treatment of psoriasis,” the findings were limited by several factors including the small number of pregnancies, short duration of exposure to tildrakizumab, variations in dosing, and lack of controls, the researchers noted. “Additional data from a larger population following tildrakizumab exposure are required to fully evaluate the safety and tolerability of tildrakizumab treatment during pregnancy,” they said. In the meantime, they advised women of childbearing age with psoriasis to continue to avoid pregnancy and follow practice guidelines for contraceptive use while taking the biologic therapy.

The studies were supported by Merck Sharp & Dohme, a Merck & Co. subsidiary; analyses were supported by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries. Lead author Dr. Haycraft disclosed relationships with companies including Sun, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Ortho-Derm, and Pfizer. Other authors disclosed relationships with Novartis, Celgene, Ortho Dermatologics, Janssen, and Merck; two authors are Sun employees.

dermnews@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Haycraft K et al. Br J Dermatol. 2020 Jan 29. doi: 10.1111/bjd.18897.

A post hoc analysis of pregnancies among women participating in clinical trials of tildrakizumab showed no new safety signals and no reports of birth defects.

“Although contraception in female patients of childbearing age was mandatory before initiation of and during tildrakizumab therapy, some pregnancies occurred during the tildrakizumab clinical development program as protocol violations,” wrote Kathleen Haycraft, MD, of Riverside Dermatology & Spa, Hannibal, Mo., and colleagues.

Tildrakizumab (Ilumya), an interleukin-23 antagonist, was approved in 2018 by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy. Effects on birth outcomes or on neonates exposed during pregnancy have not been studied, the researchers said.

“Tildrakizumab plasma half-life after subcutaneous administration is approximately 25 days; therefore, tildrakizumab administered even in the first trimester may cross the placental barrier,” they noted.

In a research letter published in the British Journal of Dermatology, the investigators reviewed data from nine phase 1, 2, and 3 clinical trials and identified 528 women of childbearing age who received tildrakizumab. Fourteen pregnancies were reported among these women: six from a contraceptive failure, and eight for lack of contraception use. (One of the phase 1 trials was in patients with Crohn’s disease, which included one of the pregnancies; the rest were in patients with psoriasis.)

The 14 pregnancy outcomes included 2 spontaneous abortions (14.3%), 4 elective abortions (28.6%), and 8 live births (57.1%), which included 1 premature birth, with “no identifiable congenital anomalies,” the authors wrote. The longest duration of exposure to tildrakizumab in a pregnant woman was 1,196 days; this pregnancy resulted in a premature live birth at 36 weeks with no anomalies. The spontaneous abortion rate was similar to the rate in the general population, which is 12%-15%, the authors noted.

While the study “adds to the existing evidence on the outcomes of biologic treatment of psoriasis,” the findings were limited by several factors including the small number of pregnancies, short duration of exposure to tildrakizumab, variations in dosing, and lack of controls, the researchers noted. “Additional data from a larger population following tildrakizumab exposure are required to fully evaluate the safety and tolerability of tildrakizumab treatment during pregnancy,” they said. In the meantime, they advised women of childbearing age with psoriasis to continue to avoid pregnancy and follow practice guidelines for contraceptive use while taking the biologic therapy.

The studies were supported by Merck Sharp & Dohme, a Merck & Co. subsidiary; analyses were supported by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries. Lead author Dr. Haycraft disclosed relationships with companies including Sun, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Ortho-Derm, and Pfizer. Other authors disclosed relationships with Novartis, Celgene, Ortho Dermatologics, Janssen, and Merck; two authors are Sun employees.

dermnews@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Haycraft K et al. Br J Dermatol. 2020 Jan 29. doi: 10.1111/bjd.18897.

The time has come for good men and women to unite and rise up against a common foe. For too long nurses and doctors have labored under the tyranny of a dictator who claimed to help them provide high-quality care for their patients while at the same time cutting their paperwork to nil. But like most autocrats he failed to engage his subjects in a meaningful dialogue as each new version of his promised improvements rolled off the drawing board. When the caregivers were slow to adopt these new nonsystems he offered them financial incentives and issued threats to their survival. Although they were warned that there might be uncomfortable adjustment periods, the caregivers were promised that the steep learning curves would level out and their professional lives would again be valued and productive.

Of course, the dictator is not a single person but a motley and disorganized conglomerate of user- and patient-unfriendly electronic health record nonsystems. Ask almost any nurse or physician for her feelings about computer-based medical record systems, and you will hear tales of long hours, disengagement, and frustration. Caregivers are unhappy at all levels, and patients have grown tired of their nurses and physicians spending most of their time looking at computer screens.

You certainly have heard this all before. But you are hearing it in hospital hallways and grocery store checkout lines as a low rumble of discontent emerging from separate individuals, not as a well-articulated and widely distributed voice of physicians as a group. To some extent this relative silence is because there is no such group, at least not in same mold as a labor union. The term “labor union” may make you uncomfortable. But given the current climate in medicine, unionizing may be the best and only way to effect change.

But organizing to effect change in the workplace isn’t part of the physician genome. In the 1960s, a group of house officers in Boston engaged in a heal-in to successfully improve their salaries and working conditions. But over the ensuing half century physicians have remained tragically silent in the face of a changing workplace landscape in which they have gone from being independent owner operators in control of their destinies to becoming employees feeling powerless to improve their working conditions. This perceived impotence has escalated in the face of the challenge posed by the introduction of dysfunctional EHRs.

Ironically, a solution is at almost every physician’s elbow. In a recent New York Times opinion piece Theresa Brown and Stephen Bergman acknowledge that physicians don’t seem prepared to mount a meaningful response to the challenge to the failed promise of EHRs (“Doctors, Nurses and the Paperwork Crisis That Could Unite Them,” Dec. 31, 2019). They point out that, over the last half century, physicians have remained isolated on the sidelines, finding just enough voice to grumble. Nurses have in a variety of situations organized to effect change in their working conditions – in some cases by forming labor unions.

The authors of this op-ed piece, a physician and a nurse, make a strong argument that the time has come for nurses and doctors shake off the shackles of their stereotypic roles and join in creating a loud, forceful, and effective voice to demand a working environment in which the computer functions as an asset and no longer as the terrible burden it has become. Neither group has the power to do it alone, but together they may be able to turn the tide. For physicians it will probably mean venturing several steps outside of their comfort zone. But working shoulder to shoulder with nurses may provide the courage to speak out.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

The time has come for good men and women to unite and rise up against a common foe. For too long nurses and doctors have labored under the tyranny of a dictator who claimed to help them provide high-quality care for their patients while at the same time cutting their paperwork to nil. But like most autocrats he failed to engage his subjects in a meaningful dialogue as each new version of his promised improvements rolled off the drawing board. When the caregivers were slow to adopt these new nonsystems he offered them financial incentives and issued threats to their survival. Although they were warned that there might be uncomfortable adjustment periods, the caregivers were promised that the steep learning curves would level out and their professional lives would again be valued and productive.

Of course, the dictator is not a single person but a motley and disorganized conglomerate of user- and patient-unfriendly electronic health record nonsystems. Ask almost any nurse or physician for her feelings about computer-based medical record systems, and you will hear tales of long hours, disengagement, and frustration. Caregivers are unhappy at all levels, and patients have grown tired of their nurses and physicians spending most of their time looking at computer screens.

You certainly have heard this all before. But you are hearing it in hospital hallways and grocery store checkout lines as a low rumble of discontent emerging from separate individuals, not as a well-articulated and widely distributed voice of physicians as a group. To some extent this relative silence is because there is no such group, at least not in same mold as a labor union. The term “labor union” may make you uncomfortable. But given the current climate in medicine, unionizing may be the best and only way to effect change.

But organizing to effect change in the workplace isn’t part of the physician genome. In the 1960s, a group of house officers in Boston engaged in a heal-in to successfully improve their salaries and working conditions. But over the ensuing half century physicians have remained tragically silent in the face of a changing workplace landscape in which they have gone from being independent owner operators in control of their destinies to becoming employees feeling powerless to improve their working conditions. This perceived impotence has escalated in the face of the challenge posed by the introduction of dysfunctional EHRs.

Ironically, a solution is at almost every physician’s elbow. In a recent New York Times opinion piece Theresa Brown and Stephen Bergman acknowledge that physicians don’t seem prepared to mount a meaningful response to the challenge to the failed promise of EHRs (“Doctors, Nurses and the Paperwork Crisis That Could Unite Them,” Dec. 31, 2019). They point out that, over the last half century, physicians have remained isolated on the sidelines, finding just enough voice to grumble. Nurses have in a variety of situations organized to effect change in their working conditions – in some cases by forming labor unions.

The authors of this op-ed piece, a physician and a nurse, make a strong argument that the time has come for nurses and doctors shake off the shackles of their stereotypic roles and join in creating a loud, forceful, and effective voice to demand a working environment in which the computer functions as an asset and no longer as the terrible burden it has become. Neither group has the power to do it alone, but together they may be able to turn the tide. For physicians it will probably mean venturing several steps outside of their comfort zone. But working shoulder to shoulder with nurses may provide the courage to speak out.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

The time has come for good men and women to unite and rise up against a common foe. For too long nurses and doctors have labored under the tyranny of a dictator who claimed to help them provide high-quality care for their patients while at the same time cutting their paperwork to nil. But like most autocrats he failed to engage his subjects in a meaningful dialogue as each new version of his promised improvements rolled off the drawing board. When the caregivers were slow to adopt these new nonsystems he offered them financial incentives and issued threats to their survival. Although they were warned that there might be uncomfortable adjustment periods, the caregivers were promised that the steep learning curves would level out and their professional lives would again be valued and productive.

Of course, the dictator is not a single person but a motley and disorganized conglomerate of user- and patient-unfriendly electronic health record nonsystems. Ask almost any nurse or physician for her feelings about computer-based medical record systems, and you will hear tales of long hours, disengagement, and frustration. Caregivers are unhappy at all levels, and patients have grown tired of their nurses and physicians spending most of their time looking at computer screens.

You certainly have heard this all before. But you are hearing it in hospital hallways and grocery store checkout lines as a low rumble of discontent emerging from separate individuals, not as a well-articulated and widely distributed voice of physicians as a group. To some extent this relative silence is because there is no such group, at least not in same mold as a labor union. The term “labor union” may make you uncomfortable. But given the current climate in medicine, unionizing may be the best and only way to effect change.

But organizing to effect change in the workplace isn’t part of the physician genome. In the 1960s, a group of house officers in Boston engaged in a heal-in to successfully improve their salaries and working conditions. But over the ensuing half century physicians have remained tragically silent in the face of a changing workplace landscape in which they have gone from being independent owner operators in control of their destinies to becoming employees feeling powerless to improve their working conditions. This perceived impotence has escalated in the face of the challenge posed by the introduction of dysfunctional EHRs.

Ironically, a solution is at almost every physician’s elbow. In a recent New York Times opinion piece Theresa Brown and Stephen Bergman acknowledge that physicians don’t seem prepared to mount a meaningful response to the challenge to the failed promise of EHRs (“Doctors, Nurses and the Paperwork Crisis That Could Unite Them,” Dec. 31, 2019). They point out that, over the last half century, physicians have remained isolated on the sidelines, finding just enough voice to grumble. Nurses have in a variety of situations organized to effect change in their working conditions – in some cases by forming labor unions.

The authors of this op-ed piece, a physician and a nurse, make a strong argument that the time has come for nurses and doctors shake off the shackles of their stereotypic roles and join in creating a loud, forceful, and effective voice to demand a working environment in which the computer functions as an asset and no longer as the terrible burden it has become. Neither group has the power to do it alone, but together they may be able to turn the tide. For physicians it will probably mean venturing several steps outside of their comfort zone. But working shoulder to shoulder with nurses may provide the courage to speak out.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

SNOWMASS, COLO. – Physical activity is potent medicine, and it doesn’t take all that much of it to derive the maximum cardiovascular benefit: namely, the equivalent of a brisk hour-long walk 5 days/week or jogging at a 10-minute-per-mile pace for half an hour twice weekly, Robert A. Vogel, MD, asserted at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I’m not telling you to run marathons. A message for your patients is, ‘You don’t have to do a lot, but you have to do something,’ ” said Dr. Vogel, a cardiologist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, with a longstanding interest in preventive cardiology.

He presented selected highlights from the massive evidence base underlying the recommendations put forth in the current comprehensive U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans.

One particularly compelling chunk of evidence comes from a Taiwanese government–funded prospective cohort study of more than 416,000 individuals followed for an average of 8 years. A key finding: 15 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity daily was associated with a 14% reduction in the relative risk of all-cause mortality and a 19% reduction in death caused by cardiovascular disease, compared with that of inactive individuals. Moreover, each additional 15 minutes of daily moderate exercise further reduced mortality by 4%. These benefits extended across the full age spectrum of both sexes and applied to patients with cardiovascular disease (Lancet. 2011 Oct 1;378[9798]:1244-53).

“That’s a very impressive result for modest physical activity,” the cardiologist commented.

Data on more than 50,000 adult participants in the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study based at the Cooper Clinic in Dallas show that vigorous exercise in the form of running at 6 mph for half an hour twice weekly, or a total of 10 metabolic equivalent of task hours (MET-HR) per week, was associated with a roughly 40% reduction in cardiovascular disease mortality. Importantly, 20, 40, or 50 MET-HR/week of vigorous exercise conferred no further survival benefit (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Aug 5;64[5]:472-81). The same group showed that the sweet spot for moderate physical activity in terms of reduced cardiovascular mortality was brisk walking for an hour daily 5 days/week, for a total of 20 MET-HR, which was also associated with roughly a 40% risk reduction compared to inactivity. At that point the benefit plateaued, with no further mortality reduction noted with additional MET-HR of moderate exercise.

“For more than that, we have no evidence of additional cardiovascular benefit. It’s not going to get you to the Tokyo Olympics, but that’s what we need to be doing,” Dr. Vogel observed.

In another report from the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study, investigators found that moderate-level cardiorespiratory fitness as defined by METs was associated with a 44% reduction in the risk of sudden cardiac death in men and women after adjustment for potential confounders, while high-level cardiorespiratory fitness was associated with a closely similar 48% reduction in risk. This applied to individuals who were hypertensive, overweight, and/or had poor health status, as well as to others (Mayo Clin Proc. 2016 Jul;91[7]:849-57).


 

All activity counts

Exercise physiologists speak of NEPA – nonexercise physical activity – such as taking out the garbage. Swedish investigators followed more than 4,200 individuals for an average of 12.5 years and found that high NEPA activity was independently associated with a 30% reduction in all-cause mortality and a 27% lower risk of a first cardiovascular disease event, compared with low NEPA. High NEPA in regular exercisers was associated with a lower rate of metabolic syndrome than in low-NEPA regular exercisers (Br J Sports Med. 2014 Feb;48[3]:233-8).

Don’t just sit there – stand!

The current federal physical activity guidelines place a new emphasis on the detrimental effects of sitting. A report on more than 221,000 participants in the Australian 45 and Up Study, with close to 1 million person-years of follow-up, demonstrated a linear inverse relationship between standing time per day and all-cause mortality. In a multivariate analysis adjusted for potential confounders, individuals who stood for 2-5 hours per day had a 10% lower risk of all-cause mortality than did those who stood for less than 2 hours. Standing for 5-8 hours was associated with a 15% relative risk reduction. And standing for more than 8 hours daily was linked to a 24% reduction in risk (Prev Med. 2014 Dec;69:187-91).

And it’s not just total daily sitting time that’s a risk factor. Prolonged, uninterrupted sedentary time was also associated with a dose-dependent increase in all-cause mortality in a prospective cohort study of nearly 8,000 U.S. adults (Ann Intern Med. 2017 Oct 3;167[7]:465-75).

“If you can’t walk around, talk to your patients standing up. That activity of getting out of your chair is lifesaving,” the cardiologist advised.
 

Get strong

Muscle-strengthening activity on at least 2 days/week is recommended in the federal guidelines because it’s independently associated with decreased all-cause mortality, even in individuals getting sufficient aerobic exercise, as shown in a large national study with 15-years’ follow-up (Prev Med. 2016 Jun;87:121-127).

“As we get older, we tend to forget about muscle. I work with the National Football League. These folks are pretty strong, but we never see diabetes in these very big players, who are often well over 300 lb. They’ve got a lot of muscle. If you want to prevent diabetes, be strong. It’s a very important factor,” Dr. Vogel said.
 

For the time constrained

Jogging is more time-efficient than brisk walking as a way to attain the maximum cardiovascular benefit of exercise. And the so-called “Weekend Warrior” study of nearly 64,000 U.K. adults showed that it’s okay to cram the full week’s worth of exercise into one or two sessions and be done with it. Compared with the inactive study participants, the weekend warriors had a 40% reduction in cardiovascular disease mortality, while individuals who split their physical activity up into three or more sessions per week had a nearly identical 41% relative risk reduction (JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Mar 1;177[3]:335-42).

Interval training is a standard way for athletes in training to improve their endurance by alternating short, intense exercise with brief recovery periods. It’s also a time saver: In one classic bicycling study, physically active men were randomized to standardized 2-week programs of sprint interval training or high-volume endurance training on the bike. The training time required to pass a rigorous cycling time trial test was 90% lower in the interval training group (J Physiol. 2006 Sep 15;575(Pt 3):901-11).

The same principle is applicable to the nonathlete interested in physical activity for heart health.

“When I run a couple of miles, I walk for 5 minutes, then maybe run for three-quarters of a mile, then walk again, then run. In interval training you get your heart rate up, and you drop it down. It’s a very good form of exercise. As a vascular biologist I know that if you put endothelial cells in a Petri dish and spin them real fast continuously, you will not get as good an improvement in endothelial function as if you spin the dish, stop it, spin it, stop it,” Dr. Vogel said.
 

High-volume exercise is safe, even with high coronary calcium

A clinically significant coronary artery calcification score of 100 Agatston units or more is no reason not to exercise. A Cooper Clinic report on nearly 22,000 middle-aged men without baseline cardiovascular disease who were followed for a mean of 10.4 years concluded that those in the highest-volume exercise group, many of whom were marathon runners and engaged in the equivalent of running for at least 5-6 hours/week at a pace of 10 minutes per mile, were 11% more likely to have an elevated baseline coronary artery calcification score than those who exercised less. But these highest-volume exercisers with elevated coronary calcium – their mean level was 807 Agatston units – had risks of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality that weren’t significantly different from those of men with elevated coronary calcium who exercised more moderately (JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Feb 1;4[2]:174-81).

Cardiac rehab

Dr. Vogel had harsh words for his physician colleagues with respect to the widespread underprescribing of cardiac rehabilitation programs.

“You guys are doing a crappy job with exercise in our most vulnerable patients: those who’ve had cardiovascular events,” he charged. “Cardiac rehabilitation is a Class I recommendation in our guidelines. And yet utilization in the United States is just 10%-20%. No other Class I recommendation is in that ballpark.”

A meta-analysis of 34 randomized trials totaling more than 6,000 post-MI patients concluded that those randomized to exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation had a 47% reduction in the risk of reinfarction, 36% lower cardiac mortality, and a 26% reduction in all-cause mortality (Am Heart J. 2011 Oct;162[4]:571-584.e2).

“The data show that cardiac rehabilitation is as effective as anything else we do in cardiovascular medicine. I understand that patients live far away, they don’t like to exercise – I’ve heard every excuse. But I am charging you with the responsibility of meeting a Class I recommendation that gets patients to live longer,” he declared.

Medicare now covers an enhanced, 72-session program called Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation that teaches comprehensive lifestyle change and provides reasonable reimbursement. “It’s a good thing for our patients,” Dr. Vogel commented.
 

Yoga

For patients who are reluctant to pound the pavement, yoga may provide an alternative form of physical activity with tangible cardiovascular benefits. Dr. Vogel pointed to the Yoga-CaRe trial presented at the 2018 scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. Yoga-CaRe randomized 3,959 post-MI patients at 29 centers in India to a program of 13 supervised in-hospital yoga classes followed by yoga at home, or to a control group with three educational sessions. The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events over 42 months of follow-up was cut in half, compared with controls, in the 27% of participants who attended at least 10 of the 13 yoga classes. Their quality of life scores were higher, too.

Dr. Vogel reported serving as a paid consultant to the National Football League and the Pritikin Longevity Center. He is on the speaker’s bureau for Sanofi and Regeneron.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SNOWMASS, COLO. – Physical activity is potent medicine, and it doesn’t take all that much of it to derive the maximum cardiovascular benefit: namely, the equivalent of a brisk hour-long walk 5 days/week or jogging at a 10-minute-per-mile pace for half an hour twice weekly, Robert A. Vogel, MD, asserted at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I’m not telling you to run marathons. A message for your patients is, ‘You don’t have to do a lot, but you have to do something,’ ” said Dr. Vogel, a cardiologist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, with a longstanding interest in preventive cardiology.

He presented selected highlights from the massive evidence base underlying the recommendations put forth in the current comprehensive U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans.

One particularly compelling chunk of evidence comes from a Taiwanese government–funded prospective cohort study of more than 416,000 individuals followed for an average of 8 years. A key finding: 15 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity daily was associated with a 14% reduction in the relative risk of all-cause mortality and a 19% reduction in death caused by cardiovascular disease, compared with that of inactive individuals. Moreover, each additional 15 minutes of daily moderate exercise further reduced mortality by 4%. These benefits extended across the full age spectrum of both sexes and applied to patients with cardiovascular disease (Lancet. 2011 Oct 1;378[9798]:1244-53).

“That’s a very impressive result for modest physical activity,” the cardiologist commented.

Data on more than 50,000 adult participants in the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study based at the Cooper Clinic in Dallas show that vigorous exercise in the form of running at 6 mph for half an hour twice weekly, or a total of 10 metabolic equivalent of task hours (MET-HR) per week, was associated with a roughly 40% reduction in cardiovascular disease mortality. Importantly, 20, 40, or 50 MET-HR/week of vigorous exercise conferred no further survival benefit (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Aug 5;64[5]:472-81). The same group showed that the sweet spot for moderate physical activity in terms of reduced cardiovascular mortality was brisk walking for an hour daily 5 days/week, for a total of 20 MET-HR, which was also associated with roughly a 40% risk reduction compared to inactivity. At that point the benefit plateaued, with no further mortality reduction noted with additional MET-HR of moderate exercise.

“For more than that, we have no evidence of additional cardiovascular benefit. It’s not going to get you to the Tokyo Olympics, but that’s what we need to be doing,” Dr. Vogel observed.

In another report from the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study, investigators found that moderate-level cardiorespiratory fitness as defined by METs was associated with a 44% reduction in the risk of sudden cardiac death in men and women after adjustment for potential confounders, while high-level cardiorespiratory fitness was associated with a closely similar 48% reduction in risk. This applied to individuals who were hypertensive, overweight, and/or had poor health status, as well as to others (Mayo Clin Proc. 2016 Jul;91[7]:849-57).


 

All activity counts

Exercise physiologists speak of NEPA – nonexercise physical activity – such as taking out the garbage. Swedish investigators followed more than 4,200 individuals for an average of 12.5 years and found that high NEPA activity was independently associated with a 30% reduction in all-cause mortality and a 27% lower risk of a first cardiovascular disease event, compared with low NEPA. High NEPA in regular exercisers was associated with a lower rate of metabolic syndrome than in low-NEPA regular exercisers (Br J Sports Med. 2014 Feb;48[3]:233-8).

Don’t just sit there – stand!

The current federal physical activity guidelines place a new emphasis on the detrimental effects of sitting. A report on more than 221,000 participants in the Australian 45 and Up Study, with close to 1 million person-years of follow-up, demonstrated a linear inverse relationship between standing time per day and all-cause mortality. In a multivariate analysis adjusted for potential confounders, individuals who stood for 2-5 hours per day had a 10% lower risk of all-cause mortality than did those who stood for less than 2 hours. Standing for 5-8 hours was associated with a 15% relative risk reduction. And standing for more than 8 hours daily was linked to a 24% reduction in risk (Prev Med. 2014 Dec;69:187-91).

And it’s not just total daily sitting time that’s a risk factor. Prolonged, uninterrupted sedentary time was also associated with a dose-dependent increase in all-cause mortality in a prospective cohort study of nearly 8,000 U.S. adults (Ann Intern Med. 2017 Oct 3;167[7]:465-75).

“If you can’t walk around, talk to your patients standing up. That activity of getting out of your chair is lifesaving,” the cardiologist advised.
 

Get strong

Muscle-strengthening activity on at least 2 days/week is recommended in the federal guidelines because it’s independently associated with decreased all-cause mortality, even in individuals getting sufficient aerobic exercise, as shown in a large national study with 15-years’ follow-up (Prev Med. 2016 Jun;87:121-127).

“As we get older, we tend to forget about muscle. I work with the National Football League. These folks are pretty strong, but we never see diabetes in these very big players, who are often well over 300 lb. They’ve got a lot of muscle. If you want to prevent diabetes, be strong. It’s a very important factor,” Dr. Vogel said.
 

For the time constrained

Jogging is more time-efficient than brisk walking as a way to attain the maximum cardiovascular benefit of exercise. And the so-called “Weekend Warrior” study of nearly 64,000 U.K. adults showed that it’s okay to cram the full week’s worth of exercise into one or two sessions and be done with it. Compared with the inactive study participants, the weekend warriors had a 40% reduction in cardiovascular disease mortality, while individuals who split their physical activity up into three or more sessions per week had a nearly identical 41% relative risk reduction (JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Mar 1;177[3]:335-42).

Interval training is a standard way for athletes in training to improve their endurance by alternating short, intense exercise with brief recovery periods. It’s also a time saver: In one classic bicycling study, physically active men were randomized to standardized 2-week programs of sprint interval training or high-volume endurance training on the bike. The training time required to pass a rigorous cycling time trial test was 90% lower in the interval training group (J Physiol. 2006 Sep 15;575(Pt 3):901-11).

The same principle is applicable to the nonathlete interested in physical activity for heart health.

“When I run a couple of miles, I walk for 5 minutes, then maybe run for three-quarters of a mile, then walk again, then run. In interval training you get your heart rate up, and you drop it down. It’s a very good form of exercise. As a vascular biologist I know that if you put endothelial cells in a Petri dish and spin them real fast continuously, you will not get as good an improvement in endothelial function as if you spin the dish, stop it, spin it, stop it,” Dr. Vogel said.
 

High-volume exercise is safe, even with high coronary calcium

A clinically significant coronary artery calcification score of 100 Agatston units or more is no reason not to exercise. A Cooper Clinic report on nearly 22,000 middle-aged men without baseline cardiovascular disease who were followed for a mean of 10.4 years concluded that those in the highest-volume exercise group, many of whom were marathon runners and engaged in the equivalent of running for at least 5-6 hours/week at a pace of 10 minutes per mile, were 11% more likely to have an elevated baseline coronary artery calcification score than those who exercised less. But these highest-volume exercisers with elevated coronary calcium – their mean level was 807 Agatston units – had risks of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality that weren’t significantly different from those of men with elevated coronary calcium who exercised more moderately (JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Feb 1;4[2]:174-81).

Cardiac rehab

Dr. Vogel had harsh words for his physician colleagues with respect to the widespread underprescribing of cardiac rehabilitation programs.

“You guys are doing a crappy job with exercise in our most vulnerable patients: those who’ve had cardiovascular events,” he charged. “Cardiac rehabilitation is a Class I recommendation in our guidelines. And yet utilization in the United States is just 10%-20%. No other Class I recommendation is in that ballpark.”

A meta-analysis of 34 randomized trials totaling more than 6,000 post-MI patients concluded that those randomized to exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation had a 47% reduction in the risk of reinfarction, 36% lower cardiac mortality, and a 26% reduction in all-cause mortality (Am Heart J. 2011 Oct;162[4]:571-584.e2).

“The data show that cardiac rehabilitation is as effective as anything else we do in cardiovascular medicine. I understand that patients live far away, they don’t like to exercise – I’ve heard every excuse. But I am charging you with the responsibility of meeting a Class I recommendation that gets patients to live longer,” he declared.

Medicare now covers an enhanced, 72-session program called Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation that teaches comprehensive lifestyle change and provides reasonable reimbursement. “It’s a good thing for our patients,” Dr. Vogel commented.
 

Yoga

For patients who are reluctant to pound the pavement, yoga may provide an alternative form of physical activity with tangible cardiovascular benefits. Dr. Vogel pointed to the Yoga-CaRe trial presented at the 2018 scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. Yoga-CaRe randomized 3,959 post-MI patients at 29 centers in India to a program of 13 supervised in-hospital yoga classes followed by yoga at home, or to a control group with three educational sessions. The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events over 42 months of follow-up was cut in half, compared with controls, in the 27% of participants who attended at least 10 of the 13 yoga classes. Their quality of life scores were higher, too.

Dr. Vogel reported serving as a paid consultant to the National Football League and the Pritikin Longevity Center. He is on the speaker’s bureau for Sanofi and Regeneron.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SNOWMASS, COLO. – Physical activity is potent medicine, and it doesn’t take all that much of it to derive the maximum cardiovascular benefit: namely, the equivalent of a brisk hour-long walk 5 days/week or jogging at a 10-minute-per-mile pace for half an hour twice weekly, Robert A. Vogel, MD, asserted at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I’m not telling you to run marathons. A message for your patients is, ‘You don’t have to do a lot, but you have to do something,’ ” said Dr. Vogel, a cardiologist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, with a longstanding interest in preventive cardiology.

He presented selected highlights from the massive evidence base underlying the recommendations put forth in the current comprehensive U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans.

One particularly compelling chunk of evidence comes from a Taiwanese government–funded prospective cohort study of more than 416,000 individuals followed for an average of 8 years. A key finding: 15 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity daily was associated with a 14% reduction in the relative risk of all-cause mortality and a 19% reduction in death caused by cardiovascular disease, compared with that of inactive individuals. Moreover, each additional 15 minutes of daily moderate exercise further reduced mortality by 4%. These benefits extended across the full age spectrum of both sexes and applied to patients with cardiovascular disease (Lancet. 2011 Oct 1;378[9798]:1244-53).

“That’s a very impressive result for modest physical activity,” the cardiologist commented.

Data on more than 50,000 adult participants in the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study based at the Cooper Clinic in Dallas show that vigorous exercise in the form of running at 6 mph for half an hour twice weekly, or a total of 10 metabolic equivalent of task hours (MET-HR) per week, was associated with a roughly 40% reduction in cardiovascular disease mortality. Importantly, 20, 40, or 50 MET-HR/week of vigorous exercise conferred no further survival benefit (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Aug 5;64[5]:472-81). The same group showed that the sweet spot for moderate physical activity in terms of reduced cardiovascular mortality was brisk walking for an hour daily 5 days/week, for a total of 20 MET-HR, which was also associated with roughly a 40% risk reduction compared to inactivity. At that point the benefit plateaued, with no further mortality reduction noted with additional MET-HR of moderate exercise.

“For more than that, we have no evidence of additional cardiovascular benefit. It’s not going to get you to the Tokyo Olympics, but that’s what we need to be doing,” Dr. Vogel observed.

In another report from the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study, investigators found that moderate-level cardiorespiratory fitness as defined by METs was associated with a 44% reduction in the risk of sudden cardiac death in men and women after adjustment for potential confounders, while high-level cardiorespiratory fitness was associated with a closely similar 48% reduction in risk. This applied to individuals who were hypertensive, overweight, and/or had poor health status, as well as to others (Mayo Clin Proc. 2016 Jul;91[7]:849-57).


 

All activity counts

Exercise physiologists speak of NEPA – nonexercise physical activity – such as taking out the garbage. Swedish investigators followed more than 4,200 individuals for an average of 12.5 years and found that high NEPA activity was independently associated with a 30% reduction in all-cause mortality and a 27% lower risk of a first cardiovascular disease event, compared with low NEPA. High NEPA in regular exercisers was associated with a lower rate of metabolic syndrome than in low-NEPA regular exercisers (Br J Sports Med. 2014 Feb;48[3]:233-8).

Don’t just sit there – stand!

The current federal physical activity guidelines place a new emphasis on the detrimental effects of sitting. A report on more than 221,000 participants in the Australian 45 and Up Study, with close to 1 million person-years of follow-up, demonstrated a linear inverse relationship between standing time per day and all-cause mortality. In a multivariate analysis adjusted for potential confounders, individuals who stood for 2-5 hours per day had a 10% lower risk of all-cause mortality than did those who stood for less than 2 hours. Standing for 5-8 hours was associated with a 15% relative risk reduction. And standing for more than 8 hours daily was linked to a 24% reduction in risk (Prev Med. 2014 Dec;69:187-91).

And it’s not just total daily sitting time that’s a risk factor. Prolonged, uninterrupted sedentary time was also associated with a dose-dependent increase in all-cause mortality in a prospective cohort study of nearly 8,000 U.S. adults (Ann Intern Med. 2017 Oct 3;167[7]:465-75).

“If you can’t walk around, talk to your patients standing up. That activity of getting out of your chair is lifesaving,” the cardiologist advised.
 

Get strong

Muscle-strengthening activity on at least 2 days/week is recommended in the federal guidelines because it’s independently associated with decreased all-cause mortality, even in individuals getting sufficient aerobic exercise, as shown in a large national study with 15-years’ follow-up (Prev Med. 2016 Jun;87:121-127).

“As we get older, we tend to forget about muscle. I work with the National Football League. These folks are pretty strong, but we never see diabetes in these very big players, who are often well over 300 lb. They’ve got a lot of muscle. If you want to prevent diabetes, be strong. It’s a very important factor,” Dr. Vogel said.
 

For the time constrained

Jogging is more time-efficient than brisk walking as a way to attain the maximum cardiovascular benefit of exercise. And the so-called “Weekend Warrior” study of nearly 64,000 U.K. adults showed that it’s okay to cram the full week’s worth of exercise into one or two sessions and be done with it. Compared with the inactive study participants, the weekend warriors had a 40% reduction in cardiovascular disease mortality, while individuals who split their physical activity up into three or more sessions per week had a nearly identical 41% relative risk reduction (JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Mar 1;177[3]:335-42).

Interval training is a standard way for athletes in training to improve their endurance by alternating short, intense exercise with brief recovery periods. It’s also a time saver: In one classic bicycling study, physically active men were randomized to standardized 2-week programs of sprint interval training or high-volume endurance training on the bike. The training time required to pass a rigorous cycling time trial test was 90% lower in the interval training group (J Physiol. 2006 Sep 15;575(Pt 3):901-11).

The same principle is applicable to the nonathlete interested in physical activity for heart health.

“When I run a couple of miles, I walk for 5 minutes, then maybe run for three-quarters of a mile, then walk again, then run. In interval training you get your heart rate up, and you drop it down. It’s a very good form of exercise. As a vascular biologist I know that if you put endothelial cells in a Petri dish and spin them real fast continuously, you will not get as good an improvement in endothelial function as if you spin the dish, stop it, spin it, stop it,” Dr. Vogel said.
 

High-volume exercise is safe, even with high coronary calcium

A clinically significant coronary artery calcification score of 100 Agatston units or more is no reason not to exercise. A Cooper Clinic report on nearly 22,000 middle-aged men without baseline cardiovascular disease who were followed for a mean of 10.4 years concluded that those in the highest-volume exercise group, many of whom were marathon runners and engaged in the equivalent of running for at least 5-6 hours/week at a pace of 10 minutes per mile, were 11% more likely to have an elevated baseline coronary artery calcification score than those who exercised less. But these highest-volume exercisers with elevated coronary calcium – their mean level was 807 Agatston units – had risks of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality that weren’t significantly different from those of men with elevated coronary calcium who exercised more moderately (JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Feb 1;4[2]:174-81).

Cardiac rehab

Dr. Vogel had harsh words for his physician colleagues with respect to the widespread underprescribing of cardiac rehabilitation programs.

“You guys are doing a crappy job with exercise in our most vulnerable patients: those who’ve had cardiovascular events,” he charged. “Cardiac rehabilitation is a Class I recommendation in our guidelines. And yet utilization in the United States is just 10%-20%. No other Class I recommendation is in that ballpark.”

A meta-analysis of 34 randomized trials totaling more than 6,000 post-MI patients concluded that those randomized to exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation had a 47% reduction in the risk of reinfarction, 36% lower cardiac mortality, and a 26% reduction in all-cause mortality (Am Heart J. 2011 Oct;162[4]:571-584.e2).

“The data show that cardiac rehabilitation is as effective as anything else we do in cardiovascular medicine. I understand that patients live far away, they don’t like to exercise – I’ve heard every excuse. But I am charging you with the responsibility of meeting a Class I recommendation that gets patients to live longer,” he declared.

Medicare now covers an enhanced, 72-session program called Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation that teaches comprehensive lifestyle change and provides reasonable reimbursement. “It’s a good thing for our patients,” Dr. Vogel commented.
 

Yoga

For patients who are reluctant to pound the pavement, yoga may provide an alternative form of physical activity with tangible cardiovascular benefits. Dr. Vogel pointed to the Yoga-CaRe trial presented at the 2018 scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. Yoga-CaRe randomized 3,959 post-MI patients at 29 centers in India to a program of 13 supervised in-hospital yoga classes followed by yoga at home, or to a control group with three educational sessions. The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events over 42 months of follow-up was cut in half, compared with controls, in the 27% of participants who attended at least 10 of the 13 yoga classes. Their quality of life scores were higher, too.

Dr. Vogel reported serving as a paid consultant to the National Football League and the Pritikin Longevity Center. He is on the speaker’s bureau for Sanofi and Regeneron.

bjancin@mdedge.com

President Donald J. Trump took on multiple health care issues in his State of the Union address, imploring Congress to avoid the “socialism” of Medicare-for-all, to pass legislation banning late-term abortions, and to protect insurance coverage for preexisting conditions while joining together to reduce rising drug prices.

Mr. Trump said his administration has already been “taking on the big pharmaceutical companies,” claiming that, in 2019, “for the first time in 51 years, the cost of prescription drugs actually went down.”

That statement was called “misleading” by the New York Times because such efforts have excluded some high-cost drugs, and prices had risen by the end of the year, the publication noted in a fact-check of the president’s speech.

A survey issued in December 2019 found that the United States pays the highest prices in the world for pharmaceuticals, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

But the president did throw down a gauntlet for Congress. “Working together, the Congress can reduce drug prices substantially from current levels,” he said, stating that he had been “speaking to Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and others in the Congress in order to get something on drug pricing done, and done properly.

“Get a bill to my desk, and I will sign it into law without delay,” Mr. Trump said.

A group of House Democrats then stood up in the chamber and loudly chanted, “HR3, HR3,” referring to the Lower Drug Costs Now Act, which the House passed in December 2019.

The bill would give the Department of Health & Human Services the power to negotiate directly with drug companies on up to 250 drugs per year, in particular, the highest-costing and most-utilized drugs.

The Senate has not taken up the legislation, but Sen. Grassley (R) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced a similar bill, the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. It has been approved by the Senate Finance Committee but has not been moved to the Senate floor.

“I appreciate President Trump recognizing the work we’re doing to lower prescription drug prices,” Sen. Grassley said in a statement after the State of the Union. “Iowans and Americans across the country are demanding reforms that lower sky-high drug costs. A recent poll showed 70% of Americans want Congress to make lowering drug prices its top priority.”

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he believed Trump was committed to lowering drug costs. “I’ve never seen a president lean in further than President Donald Trump on lowering health care costs,” said Rep. Walden in a statement after the speech.

Trump touted his price transparency rule, which he said would go into effect next January, as a key way to cut health care costs.

Preexisting conditions

The president said that since he’d taken office, insurance had become more affordable and that the quality of health care had improved. He also said that he was making what he called an “iron-clad pledge” to American families.

“We will always protect patients with preexisting conditions – that is a guarantee,” Mr. Trump said.

In a press conference before the speech, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) took issue with that pledge. “The president swears that he supports protections for people with preexisting conditions, but right now, he is fighting in federal court to eliminate these lifesaving protections and every last protection and benefit of the Affordable Care Act,” she said.

During the speech, Rep. G. K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) tweeted “#FactCheck: Claiming to protect Americans with preexisting conditions, Trump and his administration have repeatedly sought to undermine protections offered by the ACA through executive orders and the courts. He is seeking to strike down the law and its protections entirely.”

Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, pointed out in a tweet that insurance plans that Trump touted as “affordable alternatives” are in fact missing those protections.

“Ironically, the cheaper health insurance plans that President Trump has expanded are short-term plans that don’t cover preexisting conditions,” Mr. Levitt said.

Socialist takeover

Mr. Trump condemned the Medicare-for-all proposals that have been introduced in Congress and that are being backed in whole or in part by all of the Democratic candidates for president.

“As we work to improve Americans’ health care, there are those who want to take away your health care, take away your doctor, and abolish private insurance entirely,” said Mr. Trump.

He said that 132 members of Congress “have endorsed legislation to impose a socialist takeover of our health care system, wiping out the private health insurance plans of 180 million Americans.”

Added Mr. Trump: “We will never let socialism destroy American health care!”

Medicare-for-all has waxed and waned in popularity among voters, with generally more Democrats than Republicans favoring a single-payer system, with or without a public option.

Preliminary exit polls in Iowa that were conducted during Monday’s caucus found that 57% of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers supported a single-payer plan; 38% opposed such a plan, according to the Washington Post.
 

Opioids, the coronavirus, and abortion

In some of his final remarks on health care, Mr. Trump cited progress in the opioid crisis, noting that, in 2019, drug overdose deaths declined for the first time in 30 years.

He said that his administration was coordinating with the Chinese government regarding the coronavirus outbreak and noted the launch of initiatives to improve care for people with kidney disease, Alzheimer’s, and mental health problems.

Mr. Trump repeated his 2019 State of the Union claim that the government would help end AIDS in America by the end of the decade.

The president also announced that he was asking Congress for “an additional $50 million” to fund neonatal research. He followed that up with a plea about abortion.

“I am calling upon the members of Congress here tonight to pass legislation finally banning the late-term abortion of babies,” he said.

Insulin costs?

In the days before the speech, some news outlets had reported that Mr. Trump and the HHS were working on a plan to lower insulin prices for Medicare beneficiaries, and there were suggestions it would come up in the speech.

At least 13 members of Congress invited people advocating for lower insulin costs as their guests for the State of the Union, Stat reported. Rep. Pelosi invited twins from San Francisco with type 1 diabetes as her guests.

But Mr. Trump never mentioned insulin in his speech.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

President Donald J. Trump took on multiple health care issues in his State of the Union address, imploring Congress to avoid the “socialism” of Medicare-for-all, to pass legislation banning late-term abortions, and to protect insurance coverage for preexisting conditions while joining together to reduce rising drug prices.

Mr. Trump said his administration has already been “taking on the big pharmaceutical companies,” claiming that, in 2019, “for the first time in 51 years, the cost of prescription drugs actually went down.”

That statement was called “misleading” by the New York Times because such efforts have excluded some high-cost drugs, and prices had risen by the end of the year, the publication noted in a fact-check of the president’s speech.

A survey issued in December 2019 found that the United States pays the highest prices in the world for pharmaceuticals, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

But the president did throw down a gauntlet for Congress. “Working together, the Congress can reduce drug prices substantially from current levels,” he said, stating that he had been “speaking to Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and others in the Congress in order to get something on drug pricing done, and done properly.

“Get a bill to my desk, and I will sign it into law without delay,” Mr. Trump said.

A group of House Democrats then stood up in the chamber and loudly chanted, “HR3, HR3,” referring to the Lower Drug Costs Now Act, which the House passed in December 2019.

The bill would give the Department of Health & Human Services the power to negotiate directly with drug companies on up to 250 drugs per year, in particular, the highest-costing and most-utilized drugs.

The Senate has not taken up the legislation, but Sen. Grassley (R) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced a similar bill, the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. It has been approved by the Senate Finance Committee but has not been moved to the Senate floor.

“I appreciate President Trump recognizing the work we’re doing to lower prescription drug prices,” Sen. Grassley said in a statement after the State of the Union. “Iowans and Americans across the country are demanding reforms that lower sky-high drug costs. A recent poll showed 70% of Americans want Congress to make lowering drug prices its top priority.”

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he believed Trump was committed to lowering drug costs. “I’ve never seen a president lean in further than President Donald Trump on lowering health care costs,” said Rep. Walden in a statement after the speech.

Trump touted his price transparency rule, which he said would go into effect next January, as a key way to cut health care costs.

Preexisting conditions

The president said that since he’d taken office, insurance had become more affordable and that the quality of health care had improved. He also said that he was making what he called an “iron-clad pledge” to American families.

“We will always protect patients with preexisting conditions – that is a guarantee,” Mr. Trump said.

In a press conference before the speech, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) took issue with that pledge. “The president swears that he supports protections for people with preexisting conditions, but right now, he is fighting in federal court to eliminate these lifesaving protections and every last protection and benefit of the Affordable Care Act,” she said.

During the speech, Rep. G. K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) tweeted “#FactCheck: Claiming to protect Americans with preexisting conditions, Trump and his administration have repeatedly sought to undermine protections offered by the ACA through executive orders and the courts. He is seeking to strike down the law and its protections entirely.”

Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, pointed out in a tweet that insurance plans that Trump touted as “affordable alternatives” are in fact missing those protections.

“Ironically, the cheaper health insurance plans that President Trump has expanded are short-term plans that don’t cover preexisting conditions,” Mr. Levitt said.

Socialist takeover

Mr. Trump condemned the Medicare-for-all proposals that have been introduced in Congress and that are being backed in whole or in part by all of the Democratic candidates for president.

“As we work to improve Americans’ health care, there are those who want to take away your health care, take away your doctor, and abolish private insurance entirely,” said Mr. Trump.

He said that 132 members of Congress “have endorsed legislation to impose a socialist takeover of our health care system, wiping out the private health insurance plans of 180 million Americans.”

Added Mr. Trump: “We will never let socialism destroy American health care!”

Medicare-for-all has waxed and waned in popularity among voters, with generally more Democrats than Republicans favoring a single-payer system, with or without a public option.

Preliminary exit polls in Iowa that were conducted during Monday’s caucus found that 57% of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers supported a single-payer plan; 38% opposed such a plan, according to the Washington Post.
 

Opioids, the coronavirus, and abortion

In some of his final remarks on health care, Mr. Trump cited progress in the opioid crisis, noting that, in 2019, drug overdose deaths declined for the first time in 30 years.

He said that his administration was coordinating with the Chinese government regarding the coronavirus outbreak and noted the launch of initiatives to improve care for people with kidney disease, Alzheimer’s, and mental health problems.

Mr. Trump repeated his 2019 State of the Union claim that the government would help end AIDS in America by the end of the decade.

The president also announced that he was asking Congress for “an additional $50 million” to fund neonatal research. He followed that up with a plea about abortion.

“I am calling upon the members of Congress here tonight to pass legislation finally banning the late-term abortion of babies,” he said.

Insulin costs?

In the days before the speech, some news outlets had reported that Mr. Trump and the HHS were working on a plan to lower insulin prices for Medicare beneficiaries, and there were suggestions it would come up in the speech.

At least 13 members of Congress invited people advocating for lower insulin costs as their guests for the State of the Union, Stat reported. Rep. Pelosi invited twins from San Francisco with type 1 diabetes as her guests.

But Mr. Trump never mentioned insulin in his speech.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

President Donald J. Trump took on multiple health care issues in his State of the Union address, imploring Congress to avoid the “socialism” of Medicare-for-all, to pass legislation banning late-term abortions, and to protect insurance coverage for preexisting conditions while joining together to reduce rising drug prices.

Mr. Trump said his administration has already been “taking on the big pharmaceutical companies,” claiming that, in 2019, “for the first time in 51 years, the cost of prescription drugs actually went down.”

That statement was called “misleading” by the New York Times because such efforts have excluded some high-cost drugs, and prices had risen by the end of the year, the publication noted in a fact-check of the president’s speech.

A survey issued in December 2019 found that the United States pays the highest prices in the world for pharmaceuticals, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

But the president did throw down a gauntlet for Congress. “Working together, the Congress can reduce drug prices substantially from current levels,” he said, stating that he had been “speaking to Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and others in the Congress in order to get something on drug pricing done, and done properly.

“Get a bill to my desk, and I will sign it into law without delay,” Mr. Trump said.

A group of House Democrats then stood up in the chamber and loudly chanted, “HR3, HR3,” referring to the Lower Drug Costs Now Act, which the House passed in December 2019.

The bill would give the Department of Health & Human Services the power to negotiate directly with drug companies on up to 250 drugs per year, in particular, the highest-costing and most-utilized drugs.

The Senate has not taken up the legislation, but Sen. Grassley (R) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced a similar bill, the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. It has been approved by the Senate Finance Committee but has not been moved to the Senate floor.

“I appreciate President Trump recognizing the work we’re doing to lower prescription drug prices,” Sen. Grassley said in a statement after the State of the Union. “Iowans and Americans across the country are demanding reforms that lower sky-high drug costs. A recent poll showed 70% of Americans want Congress to make lowering drug prices its top priority.”

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he believed Trump was committed to lowering drug costs. “I’ve never seen a president lean in further than President Donald Trump on lowering health care costs,” said Rep. Walden in a statement after the speech.

Trump touted his price transparency rule, which he said would go into effect next January, as a key way to cut health care costs.

Preexisting conditions

The president said that since he’d taken office, insurance had become more affordable and that the quality of health care had improved. He also said that he was making what he called an “iron-clad pledge” to American families.

“We will always protect patients with preexisting conditions – that is a guarantee,” Mr. Trump said.

In a press conference before the speech, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) took issue with that pledge. “The president swears that he supports protections for people with preexisting conditions, but right now, he is fighting in federal court to eliminate these lifesaving protections and every last protection and benefit of the Affordable Care Act,” she said.

During the speech, Rep. G. K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) tweeted “#FactCheck: Claiming to protect Americans with preexisting conditions, Trump and his administration have repeatedly sought to undermine protections offered by the ACA through executive orders and the courts. He is seeking to strike down the law and its protections entirely.”

Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, pointed out in a tweet that insurance plans that Trump touted as “affordable alternatives” are in fact missing those protections.

“Ironically, the cheaper health insurance plans that President Trump has expanded are short-term plans that don’t cover preexisting conditions,” Mr. Levitt said.

Socialist takeover

Mr. Trump condemned the Medicare-for-all proposals that have been introduced in Congress and that are being backed in whole or in part by all of the Democratic candidates for president.

“As we work to improve Americans’ health care, there are those who want to take away your health care, take away your doctor, and abolish private insurance entirely,” said Mr. Trump.

He said that 132 members of Congress “have endorsed legislation to impose a socialist takeover of our health care system, wiping out the private health insurance plans of 180 million Americans.”

Added Mr. Trump: “We will never let socialism destroy American health care!”

Medicare-for-all has waxed and waned in popularity among voters, with generally more Democrats than Republicans favoring a single-payer system, with or without a public option.

Preliminary exit polls in Iowa that were conducted during Monday’s caucus found that 57% of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers supported a single-payer plan; 38% opposed such a plan, according to the Washington Post.
 

Opioids, the coronavirus, and abortion

In some of his final remarks on health care, Mr. Trump cited progress in the opioid crisis, noting that, in 2019, drug overdose deaths declined for the first time in 30 years.

He said that his administration was coordinating with the Chinese government regarding the coronavirus outbreak and noted the launch of initiatives to improve care for people with kidney disease, Alzheimer’s, and mental health problems.

Mr. Trump repeated his 2019 State of the Union claim that the government would help end AIDS in America by the end of the decade.

The president also announced that he was asking Congress for “an additional $50 million” to fund neonatal research. He followed that up with a plea about abortion.

“I am calling upon the members of Congress here tonight to pass legislation finally banning the late-term abortion of babies,” he said.

Insulin costs?

In the days before the speech, some news outlets had reported that Mr. Trump and the HHS were working on a plan to lower insulin prices for Medicare beneficiaries, and there were suggestions it would come up in the speech.

At least 13 members of Congress invited people advocating for lower insulin costs as their guests for the State of the Union, Stat reported. Rep. Pelosi invited twins from San Francisco with type 1 diabetes as her guests.

But Mr. Trump never mentioned insulin in his speech.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When people learn they have enough cardiovascular disease risk to start treatment with a statin or antihypertensive drug, the impact on their healthy-lifestyle choices seems to often be a wash, based on findings from more than 40,000 Finland residents followed for at least 4 years after starting their primary-prevention regimen.

American Heart Association

“Patients’ awareness of their risk factors alone seems not to be effective in improving health behaviors,” wrote Maarit J. Korhonen, PhD, and associates in a report published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

“Initiation of antihypertensive or statin therapy appears to be associated with lifestyle changes, some positive and others negative,” wrote Dr. Korhonen, a pharmacoepidemiologist at the University of Turku (Finland), and associates. This was the first reported study to assess a large-scale and prospectively followed cohort to look for associations between the use of medicines that prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD) and lifestyle changes. Most previous studies of these associations “have been cross sectional and provide no information on potential lifestyle changes during the time window around the initiation of medication use,” they added.

The new study specifically found that, on average, people who began treatment with at least one CVD-prevention medication for the first time were more likely to gain weight and more likely to become less active during the years following their treatment onset. But at the same time, these patients were also more likely to either quit or cut down on their smoking and alcohol consumption, the researchers found.

Their analysis used data from 41,225 people enrolled in the Finnish Public Sector Study, which prospectively began collecting data on a large number of Finland residents in the 1990s. They specifically focused on 81,772 completed questionnaires – collected at 4-year intervals – from people who completed at least two consecutive rounds of the survey during 2000-2013, and who were also at least 40 years old and free of prevalent CVD at the time of their first survey. The participants averaged nearly 53 years of age at their first survey, and 84% were women.

The researchers subdivided the survey responses into 8,837 (11%) people who began a statin, antihypertensive drug, or both during their participation; 26,914 (33%) already on a statin or antihypertensive drug when they completed their first questionnaire; and 46,021 response sets (56%) from people who never began treatment with either drug class. People who initiated a relevant drug began a median of 1.7 years following completion of their first survey, and a median of 2.4 years before their next survey. During follow-up, about 2% of all participants became newly diagnosed with some form of CVD.

The results showed that, after full adjustment for possible confounders, the mean increase in body mass index was larger among those who initiated a CVD-prevention drug, compared with those who did not. Among participants who were obese at entry, those who started a CVD drug had a statistically significant 37% increased rate of remaining obese, compared with those not starting these drugs. Among those who were not obese at baseline, those who began a CVD prevention drug had a statistically significant 82%% higher rate of becoming obese, compared with those not on a CVD-prevention drug. In addition, average daily energy expenditure, a measure of physical activity, showed a statistically significant decline among those who started a CVD drug, compared with those who did not. In contrast, CVD drug initiators had an average 1.85 gram/week decline in alcohol intake, compared with noninitiators, and those who were current smokers at the first survey and then started a CVD drug had a 26% relative drop in their smoking prevalence, compared with those who did not start a CVD drug, both statistically significant differences.

The findings suggest that “patients’ awareness of their risk factors alone seems not to be effective in improving health behaviors,” the authors concluded. “This means that expansion of pharmacologic interventions toward populations at low CVD risk may not necessarily lead to expected benefits at the population level.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Korhonen had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Korhonen MJ et al. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Feb 5. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.014.168.

When people learn they have enough cardiovascular disease risk to start treatment with a statin or antihypertensive drug, the impact on their healthy-lifestyle choices seems to often be a wash, based on findings from more than 40,000 Finland residents followed for at least 4 years after starting their primary-prevention regimen.

American Heart Association

“Patients’ awareness of their risk factors alone seems not to be effective in improving health behaviors,” wrote Maarit J. Korhonen, PhD, and associates in a report published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

“Initiation of antihypertensive or statin therapy appears to be associated with lifestyle changes, some positive and others negative,” wrote Dr. Korhonen, a pharmacoepidemiologist at the University of Turku (Finland), and associates. This was the first reported study to assess a large-scale and prospectively followed cohort to look for associations between the use of medicines that prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD) and lifestyle changes. Most previous studies of these associations “have been cross sectional and provide no information on potential lifestyle changes during the time window around the initiation of medication use,” they added.

The new study specifically found that, on average, people who began treatment with at least one CVD-prevention medication for the first time were more likely to gain weight and more likely to become less active during the years following their treatment onset. But at the same time, these patients were also more likely to either quit or cut down on their smoking and alcohol consumption, the researchers found.

Their analysis used data from 41,225 people enrolled in the Finnish Public Sector Study, which prospectively began collecting data on a large number of Finland residents in the 1990s. They specifically focused on 81,772 completed questionnaires – collected at 4-year intervals – from people who completed at least two consecutive rounds of the survey during 2000-2013, and who were also at least 40 years old and free of prevalent CVD at the time of their first survey. The participants averaged nearly 53 years of age at their first survey, and 84% were women.

The researchers subdivided the survey responses into 8,837 (11%) people who began a statin, antihypertensive drug, or both during their participation; 26,914 (33%) already on a statin or antihypertensive drug when they completed their first questionnaire; and 46,021 response sets (56%) from people who never began treatment with either drug class. People who initiated a relevant drug began a median of 1.7 years following completion of their first survey, and a median of 2.4 years before their next survey. During follow-up, about 2% of all participants became newly diagnosed with some form of CVD.

The results showed that, after full adjustment for possible confounders, the mean increase in body mass index was larger among those who initiated a CVD-prevention drug, compared with those who did not. Among participants who were obese at entry, those who started a CVD drug had a statistically significant 37% increased rate of remaining obese, compared with those not starting these drugs. Among those who were not obese at baseline, those who began a CVD prevention drug had a statistically significant 82%% higher rate of becoming obese, compared with those not on a CVD-prevention drug. In addition, average daily energy expenditure, a measure of physical activity, showed a statistically significant decline among those who started a CVD drug, compared with those who did not. In contrast, CVD drug initiators had an average 1.85 gram/week decline in alcohol intake, compared with noninitiators, and those who were current smokers at the first survey and then started a CVD drug had a 26% relative drop in their smoking prevalence, compared with those who did not start a CVD drug, both statistically significant differences.

The findings suggest that “patients’ awareness of their risk factors alone seems not to be effective in improving health behaviors,” the authors concluded. “This means that expansion of pharmacologic interventions toward populations at low CVD risk may not necessarily lead to expected benefits at the population level.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Korhonen had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Korhonen MJ et al. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Feb 5. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.014.168.

When people learn they have enough cardiovascular disease risk to start treatment with a statin or antihypertensive drug, the impact on their healthy-lifestyle choices seems to often be a wash, based on findings from more than 40,000 Finland residents followed for at least 4 years after starting their primary-prevention regimen.

American Heart Association

“Patients’ awareness of their risk factors alone seems not to be effective in improving health behaviors,” wrote Maarit J. Korhonen, PhD, and associates in a report published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

“Initiation of antihypertensive or statin therapy appears to be associated with lifestyle changes, some positive and others negative,” wrote Dr. Korhonen, a pharmacoepidemiologist at the University of Turku (Finland), and associates. This was the first reported study to assess a large-scale and prospectively followed cohort to look for associations between the use of medicines that prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD) and lifestyle changes. Most previous studies of these associations “have been cross sectional and provide no information on potential lifestyle changes during the time window around the initiation of medication use,” they added.

The new study specifically found that, on average, people who began treatment with at least one CVD-prevention medication for the first time were more likely to gain weight and more likely to become less active during the years following their treatment onset. But at the same time, these patients were also more likely to either quit or cut down on their smoking and alcohol consumption, the researchers found.

Their analysis used data from 41,225 people enrolled in the Finnish Public Sector Study, which prospectively began collecting data on a large number of Finland residents in the 1990s. They specifically focused on 81,772 completed questionnaires – collected at 4-year intervals – from people who completed at least two consecutive rounds of the survey during 2000-2013, and who were also at least 40 years old and free of prevalent CVD at the time of their first survey. The participants averaged nearly 53 years of age at their first survey, and 84% were women.

The researchers subdivided the survey responses into 8,837 (11%) people who began a statin, antihypertensive drug, or both during their participation; 26,914 (33%) already on a statin or antihypertensive drug when they completed their first questionnaire; and 46,021 response sets (56%) from people who never began treatment with either drug class. People who initiated a relevant drug began a median of 1.7 years following completion of their first survey, and a median of 2.4 years before their next survey. During follow-up, about 2% of all participants became newly diagnosed with some form of CVD.

The results showed that, after full adjustment for possible confounders, the mean increase in body mass index was larger among those who initiated a CVD-prevention drug, compared with those who did not. Among participants who were obese at entry, those who started a CVD drug had a statistically significant 37% increased rate of remaining obese, compared with those not starting these drugs. Among those who were not obese at baseline, those who began a CVD prevention drug had a statistically significant 82%% higher rate of becoming obese, compared with those not on a CVD-prevention drug. In addition, average daily energy expenditure, a measure of physical activity, showed a statistically significant decline among those who started a CVD drug, compared with those who did not. In contrast, CVD drug initiators had an average 1.85 gram/week decline in alcohol intake, compared with noninitiators, and those who were current smokers at the first survey and then started a CVD drug had a 26% relative drop in their smoking prevalence, compared with those who did not start a CVD drug, both statistically significant differences.

The findings suggest that “patients’ awareness of their risk factors alone seems not to be effective in improving health behaviors,” the authors concluded. “This means that expansion of pharmacologic interventions toward populations at low CVD risk may not necessarily lead to expected benefits at the population level.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Korhonen had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Korhonen MJ et al. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Feb 5. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.014.168.

An open-label, randomized study did not confirm that patients with very early rheumatoid arthritis obtain an outsized benefit from first-line combination treatment with etanercept (Enbrel) plus methotrexate, investigators say.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

A remission rate of 52% was seen with first-line etanercept plus methotrexate, compared with 38% for a strategy of methotrexate escalated to add etanercept in patients not in remission at 24 weeks in the study, known as VEDERA (Very Early Versus Delayed Etanercept in Patients With RA).

Investigators said a difference of 14 percentage points between remission rates was comparable to what was seen among patients with early RA in an earlier randomized trial of etanercept plus methotrexate versus methotrexate monotherapy.

However, the difference was not on par with the “larger than standard” effect of about 30% seen in an exploratory analysis of the very early RA subset in that previous study, according to VEDERA study authors, led by Paul Emery, MD, of the University of Leeds (England).

Taken together, the results highlight a “ceiling effect” in achieving remission in this real-life, treatment-naive cohort, Dr. Emery and coauthors noted in their report, which appears in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The study population aligned with real-world clinical practice, according to the investigators, who noted that half the cohort had at least one comorbidity.

“This may have partly driven the generally poorer than expected performance, the exact mechanisms for which are unclear,” they wrote in their discussion of results.

Delaying etanercept until failure of methotrexate, instead of giving both drugs up front, was linked to poorer etanercept response in an exploratory analysis of VEDERA. However, Dr. Emery and coinvestigators noted that this finding “requires validation and further investigation.”

While first-line etanercept plus methotrexate is a “clinically appropriate approach” in early RA, results of the VEDERA study don’t help to inform clinicians as to when it would be prudent to select that therapeutic approach, said Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“Whether you’re treating with methotrexate or methotrexate plus etanercept, they do pretty well,” Dr. Furst said in an interview. “What that says to me is when you have patients with very early RA and the disease is moderately active, you should really try methotrexate before you add expensive other drugs.”

The phase 4, open-label, randomized VEDERA trial included 120 adult patients with new-onset early RA with symptom duration of less than 12 months. All patients in VEDERA had a 28-joint disease activity score based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) of 3.2 or greater and clinical evidence of synovitis. They were all positive for anti-citrullinated peptide antibody or rheumatoid factor, or had evidence of disease activity in at least one joint by power Doppler ultrasonography.

The patients were randomized to 48 weeks of treatment with either first-line etanercept plus methotrexate, or with methotrexate in a treat-to-target strategy that called for the addition of etanercept if the DAS28-ESR was still 2.6 or greater at 24 weeks.

Based on results of the earlier trial, known as COMET, a confirmatory remission rate in the etanercept plus methotrexate arm was anticipated to be 70%, versus 40% for the methotrexate treat-to-target arm, investigators said in a discussion of their statistical methods.

Study results did not confirm a large effect size, according to the investigators. By week 48, DAS28-ESR remission was achieved in 52% of patients in the first-line etanercept plus methotrexate arm, versus 38% in the methotrexate treat-to-target arm, for an absolute difference of 14 percentage points (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-3.70; P = .160).

In early, new-onset RA, remission is the goal, Dr. Emery and coauthors said. The proportions of patients in remission in both arms are “suboptimal rates for the contemporary era,” they wrote.

The escalation to etanercept at week 24 did not improve remission rates appreciably, with about 60% still failing to achieve that endpoint. However, an exploratory analysis suggested the subsequent 24 weeks of etanercept exposure in those escalated patients was associated with a lower rate of remission, compared with 24 weeks of etanercept in the front-line approach, investigators said.

In that analysis, the adjusted odds ratio of achieving DAS28-ESR remission was 2.84 (95% CI, 0.84-9.60) in favor of the first-line etanercept approach.

Dr. Furst said in the interview that the VEDERA results are subject to the inherent biases of an open-label study. He also suggested that further investigations could compare the two first-line treatment approaches specifically in very early RA patients with markers of more severe disease.

“That’s the only way I would think we might gain a little bit more, but so far, these data don’t support getting terribly aggressive,” he said.

The study was funded through an investigator-sponsored research grant provided by Pfizer. Three authors disclosed financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for RA, including Pfizer.

SOURCE: Emery P et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jan 29. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216539.

An open-label, randomized study did not confirm that patients with very early rheumatoid arthritis obtain an outsized benefit from first-line combination treatment with etanercept (Enbrel) plus methotrexate, investigators say.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

A remission rate of 52% was seen with first-line etanercept plus methotrexate, compared with 38% for a strategy of methotrexate escalated to add etanercept in patients not in remission at 24 weeks in the study, known as VEDERA (Very Early Versus Delayed Etanercept in Patients With RA).

Investigators said a difference of 14 percentage points between remission rates was comparable to what was seen among patients with early RA in an earlier randomized trial of etanercept plus methotrexate versus methotrexate monotherapy.

However, the difference was not on par with the “larger than standard” effect of about 30% seen in an exploratory analysis of the very early RA subset in that previous study, according to VEDERA study authors, led by Paul Emery, MD, of the University of Leeds (England).

Taken together, the results highlight a “ceiling effect” in achieving remission in this real-life, treatment-naive cohort, Dr. Emery and coauthors noted in their report, which appears in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The study population aligned with real-world clinical practice, according to the investigators, who noted that half the cohort had at least one comorbidity.

“This may have partly driven the generally poorer than expected performance, the exact mechanisms for which are unclear,” they wrote in their discussion of results.

Delaying etanercept until failure of methotrexate, instead of giving both drugs up front, was linked to poorer etanercept response in an exploratory analysis of VEDERA. However, Dr. Emery and coinvestigators noted that this finding “requires validation and further investigation.”

While first-line etanercept plus methotrexate is a “clinically appropriate approach” in early RA, results of the VEDERA study don’t help to inform clinicians as to when it would be prudent to select that therapeutic approach, said Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“Whether you’re treating with methotrexate or methotrexate plus etanercept, they do pretty well,” Dr. Furst said in an interview. “What that says to me is when you have patients with very early RA and the disease is moderately active, you should really try methotrexate before you add expensive other drugs.”

The phase 4, open-label, randomized VEDERA trial included 120 adult patients with new-onset early RA with symptom duration of less than 12 months. All patients in VEDERA had a 28-joint disease activity score based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) of 3.2 or greater and clinical evidence of synovitis. They were all positive for anti-citrullinated peptide antibody or rheumatoid factor, or had evidence of disease activity in at least one joint by power Doppler ultrasonography.

The patients were randomized to 48 weeks of treatment with either first-line etanercept plus methotrexate, or with methotrexate in a treat-to-target strategy that called for the addition of etanercept if the DAS28-ESR was still 2.6 or greater at 24 weeks.

Based on results of the earlier trial, known as COMET, a confirmatory remission rate in the etanercept plus methotrexate arm was anticipated to be 70%, versus 40% for the methotrexate treat-to-target arm, investigators said in a discussion of their statistical methods.

Study results did not confirm a large effect size, according to the investigators. By week 48, DAS28-ESR remission was achieved in 52% of patients in the first-line etanercept plus methotrexate arm, versus 38% in the methotrexate treat-to-target arm, for an absolute difference of 14 percentage points (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-3.70; P = .160).

In early, new-onset RA, remission is the goal, Dr. Emery and coauthors said. The proportions of patients in remission in both arms are “suboptimal rates for the contemporary era,” they wrote.

The escalation to etanercept at week 24 did not improve remission rates appreciably, with about 60% still failing to achieve that endpoint. However, an exploratory analysis suggested the subsequent 24 weeks of etanercept exposure in those escalated patients was associated with a lower rate of remission, compared with 24 weeks of etanercept in the front-line approach, investigators said.

In that analysis, the adjusted odds ratio of achieving DAS28-ESR remission was 2.84 (95% CI, 0.84-9.60) in favor of the first-line etanercept approach.

Dr. Furst said in the interview that the VEDERA results are subject to the inherent biases of an open-label study. He also suggested that further investigations could compare the two first-line treatment approaches specifically in very early RA patients with markers of more severe disease.

“That’s the only way I would think we might gain a little bit more, but so far, these data don’t support getting terribly aggressive,” he said.

The study was funded through an investigator-sponsored research grant provided by Pfizer. Three authors disclosed financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for RA, including Pfizer.

SOURCE: Emery P et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jan 29. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216539.

An open-label, randomized study did not confirm that patients with very early rheumatoid arthritis obtain an outsized benefit from first-line combination treatment with etanercept (Enbrel) plus methotrexate, investigators say.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

A remission rate of 52% was seen with first-line etanercept plus methotrexate, compared with 38% for a strategy of methotrexate escalated to add etanercept in patients not in remission at 24 weeks in the study, known as VEDERA (Very Early Versus Delayed Etanercept in Patients With RA).

Investigators said a difference of 14 percentage points between remission rates was comparable to what was seen among patients with early RA in an earlier randomized trial of etanercept plus methotrexate versus methotrexate monotherapy.

However, the difference was not on par with the “larger than standard” effect of about 30% seen in an exploratory analysis of the very early RA subset in that previous study, according to VEDERA study authors, led by Paul Emery, MD, of the University of Leeds (England).

Taken together, the results highlight a “ceiling effect” in achieving remission in this real-life, treatment-naive cohort, Dr. Emery and coauthors noted in their report, which appears in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The study population aligned with real-world clinical practice, according to the investigators, who noted that half the cohort had at least one comorbidity.

“This may have partly driven the generally poorer than expected performance, the exact mechanisms for which are unclear,” they wrote in their discussion of results.

Delaying etanercept until failure of methotrexate, instead of giving both drugs up front, was linked to poorer etanercept response in an exploratory analysis of VEDERA. However, Dr. Emery and coinvestigators noted that this finding “requires validation and further investigation.”

While first-line etanercept plus methotrexate is a “clinically appropriate approach” in early RA, results of the VEDERA study don’t help to inform clinicians as to when it would be prudent to select that therapeutic approach, said Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“Whether you’re treating with methotrexate or methotrexate plus etanercept, they do pretty well,” Dr. Furst said in an interview. “What that says to me is when you have patients with very early RA and the disease is moderately active, you should really try methotrexate before you add expensive other drugs.”

The phase 4, open-label, randomized VEDERA trial included 120 adult patients with new-onset early RA with symptom duration of less than 12 months. All patients in VEDERA had a 28-joint disease activity score based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) of 3.2 or greater and clinical evidence of synovitis. They were all positive for anti-citrullinated peptide antibody or rheumatoid factor, or had evidence of disease activity in at least one joint by power Doppler ultrasonography.

The patients were randomized to 48 weeks of treatment with either first-line etanercept plus methotrexate, or with methotrexate in a treat-to-target strategy that called for the addition of etanercept if the DAS28-ESR was still 2.6 or greater at 24 weeks.

Based on results of the earlier trial, known as COMET, a confirmatory remission rate in the etanercept plus methotrexate arm was anticipated to be 70%, versus 40% for the methotrexate treat-to-target arm, investigators said in a discussion of their statistical methods.

Study results did not confirm a large effect size, according to the investigators. By week 48, DAS28-ESR remission was achieved in 52% of patients in the first-line etanercept plus methotrexate arm, versus 38% in the methotrexate treat-to-target arm, for an absolute difference of 14 percentage points (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-3.70; P = .160).

In early, new-onset RA, remission is the goal, Dr. Emery and coauthors said. The proportions of patients in remission in both arms are “suboptimal rates for the contemporary era,” they wrote.

The escalation to etanercept at week 24 did not improve remission rates appreciably, with about 60% still failing to achieve that endpoint. However, an exploratory analysis suggested the subsequent 24 weeks of etanercept exposure in those escalated patients was associated with a lower rate of remission, compared with 24 weeks of etanercept in the front-line approach, investigators said.

In that analysis, the adjusted odds ratio of achieving DAS28-ESR remission was 2.84 (95% CI, 0.84-9.60) in favor of the first-line etanercept approach.

Dr. Furst said in the interview that the VEDERA results are subject to the inherent biases of an open-label study. He also suggested that further investigations could compare the two first-line treatment approaches specifically in very early RA patients with markers of more severe disease.

“That’s the only way I would think we might gain a little bit more, but so far, these data don’t support getting terribly aggressive,” he said.

The study was funded through an investigator-sponsored research grant provided by Pfizer. Three authors disclosed financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for RA, including Pfizer.

SOURCE: Emery P et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jan 29. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216539.

Women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who experience hypertensive disorders of pregnancy may have a higher rate of cardiovascular outcomes after pregnancy, as well as a higher rate of hypertension later in life, than do those without maternal hypertension, according to findings from a Swedish population-based, longitudinal cohort study.

“Premature CVD [cardiovascular disease] is a well-documented complication in women with SLE, which is likely, at least in part, due to renal disease, prothrombotic [antiphospholipid antibodies], and systemic inflammation. Our data confirm that women who experience a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy [HDP] are at greater risk of developing hypertension after pregnancy, and that this association is also evident for women with SLE. Women with SLE and HDP were also at increased risk of CVD, particularly stroke, at young ages and should be monitored closely and consider treatment to attenuate risk,” wrote first author Julia F. Simard, ScD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues in Arthritis Care & Research.

To reach those conclusions, the researchers identified 3,340 women in the Swedish Medical Birth Register with their first singleton delivery during 1987-2012. They matched each of the 450 women with prevalent SLE from the Medical Birth Register to 5 women without SLE in the National Patient Register based on sex, birth year, calendar time, and county of residence.

During a median follow-up period of nearly 11 years, women with SLE had an unadjusted incidence rate of incident cardiovascular outcomes of 50 cases per 10,000 person-years versus 7.2 for women without SLE. Cardiovascular outcomes included fatal and nonfatal acute MI, fatal and nonfatal stroke, transient ischemic attacks, unstable angina, and heart failure. A history of HDP in women with SLE, including preeclampsia, was linked with about a twofold higher rate of cardiovascular outcomes regardless of multiple sensitivity analyses, both before and after adjusting for maternal age at delivery, county of birth, education, body mass index, and first-trimester smoking.

The researchers found that the hazard ratio for cardiovascular outcomes in women with SLE and HDP was about eight times higher than the hazard ratio for women without SLE but with HDP, but the relative rarity of cardiovascular events seen during the follow-up period, particularly among women without SLE, made it so that they “could not confirm established associations between HDP and CVD, possibly due to the relatively short follow-up time given that premenopausal CVD is rare among women free of SLE.”

HDP was associated with a threefold higher risk for incident hypertension later in life regardless of SLE status, even though the unadjusted incidence rate was 524 cases per 10,000 person-years among women with both SLE and HDP, compared with 177 per 10,000 person-years among women with HDP in the general population, which sensitivity analyses suggested “was not due to misclassification of antihypertensive use for renal disease in women with SLE nor antihypertensive use for possible HDP in subsequent pregnancies,” the researchers wrote.

Several authors reported research grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Karolinska Institute, the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, Stockholm County Council, the King Gustaf V 80th Birthday Fund, the Swedish Rheumatism Association, and Ingegerd Johansson’s Foundation that helped to fund the study. All authors reported having no competing interests.

jevans@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Simard JF et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.1002/acr.24160.

Women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who experience hypertensive disorders of pregnancy may have a higher rate of cardiovascular outcomes after pregnancy, as well as a higher rate of hypertension later in life, than do those without maternal hypertension, according to findings from a Swedish population-based, longitudinal cohort study.

“Premature CVD [cardiovascular disease] is a well-documented complication in women with SLE, which is likely, at least in part, due to renal disease, prothrombotic [antiphospholipid antibodies], and systemic inflammation. Our data confirm that women who experience a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy [HDP] are at greater risk of developing hypertension after pregnancy, and that this association is also evident for women with SLE. Women with SLE and HDP were also at increased risk of CVD, particularly stroke, at young ages and should be monitored closely and consider treatment to attenuate risk,” wrote first author Julia F. Simard, ScD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues in Arthritis Care & Research.

To reach those conclusions, the researchers identified 3,340 women in the Swedish Medical Birth Register with their first singleton delivery during 1987-2012. They matched each of the 450 women with prevalent SLE from the Medical Birth Register to 5 women without SLE in the National Patient Register based on sex, birth year, calendar time, and county of residence.

During a median follow-up period of nearly 11 years, women with SLE had an unadjusted incidence rate of incident cardiovascular outcomes of 50 cases per 10,000 person-years versus 7.2 for women without SLE. Cardiovascular outcomes included fatal and nonfatal acute MI, fatal and nonfatal stroke, transient ischemic attacks, unstable angina, and heart failure. A history of HDP in women with SLE, including preeclampsia, was linked with about a twofold higher rate of cardiovascular outcomes regardless of multiple sensitivity analyses, both before and after adjusting for maternal age at delivery, county of birth, education, body mass index, and first-trimester smoking.

The researchers found that the hazard ratio for cardiovascular outcomes in women with SLE and HDP was about eight times higher than the hazard ratio for women without SLE but with HDP, but the relative rarity of cardiovascular events seen during the follow-up period, particularly among women without SLE, made it so that they “could not confirm established associations between HDP and CVD, possibly due to the relatively short follow-up time given that premenopausal CVD is rare among women free of SLE.”

HDP was associated with a threefold higher risk for incident hypertension later in life regardless of SLE status, even though the unadjusted incidence rate was 524 cases per 10,000 person-years among women with both SLE and HDP, compared with 177 per 10,000 person-years among women with HDP in the general population, which sensitivity analyses suggested “was not due to misclassification of antihypertensive use for renal disease in women with SLE nor antihypertensive use for possible HDP in subsequent pregnancies,” the researchers wrote.

Several authors reported research grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Karolinska Institute, the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, Stockholm County Council, the King Gustaf V 80th Birthday Fund, the Swedish Rheumatism Association, and Ingegerd Johansson’s Foundation that helped to fund the study. All authors reported having no competing interests.

jevans@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Simard JF et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.1002/acr.24160.

Women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who experience hypertensive disorders of pregnancy may have a higher rate of cardiovascular outcomes after pregnancy, as well as a higher rate of hypertension later in life, than do those without maternal hypertension, according to findings from a Swedish population-based, longitudinal cohort study.

“Premature CVD [cardiovascular disease] is a well-documented complication in women with SLE, which is likely, at least in part, due to renal disease, prothrombotic [antiphospholipid antibodies], and systemic inflammation. Our data confirm that women who experience a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy [HDP] are at greater risk of developing hypertension after pregnancy, and that this association is also evident for women with SLE. Women with SLE and HDP were also at increased risk of CVD, particularly stroke, at young ages and should be monitored closely and consider treatment to attenuate risk,” wrote first author Julia F. Simard, ScD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues in Arthritis Care & Research.

To reach those conclusions, the researchers identified 3,340 women in the Swedish Medical Birth Register with their first singleton delivery during 1987-2012. They matched each of the 450 women with prevalent SLE from the Medical Birth Register to 5 women without SLE in the National Patient Register based on sex, birth year, calendar time, and county of residence.

During a median follow-up period of nearly 11 years, women with SLE had an unadjusted incidence rate of incident cardiovascular outcomes of 50 cases per 10,000 person-years versus 7.2 for women without SLE. Cardiovascular outcomes included fatal and nonfatal acute MI, fatal and nonfatal stroke, transient ischemic attacks, unstable angina, and heart failure. A history of HDP in women with SLE, including preeclampsia, was linked with about a twofold higher rate of cardiovascular outcomes regardless of multiple sensitivity analyses, both before and after adjusting for maternal age at delivery, county of birth, education, body mass index, and first-trimester smoking.

The researchers found that the hazard ratio for cardiovascular outcomes in women with SLE and HDP was about eight times higher than the hazard ratio for women without SLE but with HDP, but the relative rarity of cardiovascular events seen during the follow-up period, particularly among women without SLE, made it so that they “could not confirm established associations between HDP and CVD, possibly due to the relatively short follow-up time given that premenopausal CVD is rare among women free of SLE.”

HDP was associated with a threefold higher risk for incident hypertension later in life regardless of SLE status, even though the unadjusted incidence rate was 524 cases per 10,000 person-years among women with both SLE and HDP, compared with 177 per 10,000 person-years among women with HDP in the general population, which sensitivity analyses suggested “was not due to misclassification of antihypertensive use for renal disease in women with SLE nor antihypertensive use for possible HDP in subsequent pregnancies,” the researchers wrote.

Several authors reported research grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Karolinska Institute, the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, Stockholm County Council, the King Gustaf V 80th Birthday Fund, the Swedish Rheumatism Association, and Ingegerd Johansson’s Foundation that helped to fund the study. All authors reported having no competing interests.

jevans@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Simard JF et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.1002/acr.24160.

Combining the measures of the Clinical Disease Activity Index and the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints provides an opportunity adjust treatment for patients with RA, based on data from a cross-sectional study of 1,585 adults.

Suze777/Thinkstock

Although the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) is considered more stringent, comparisons with the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) outside of clinical trials are limited, wrote Satoshi Takanashi, MD, of Keio University School of Medicine in Tokyo, and colleagues.

In a study published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the researchers reviewed data from 1,585 consecutive RA patients seen at Keio University Hospital in Tokyo. The average age of the patients was 64 years, 84% were women, and the average duration of disease was 12 years.

Overall, more patients met the CDAI remission criteria but not the DAS28-ESR criteria, with the exception of patients treated with an interleukin-6 inhibitor.

Of the patients in remission based on CDAI, the proportion who were not in DAS28-ESR remission was 19.4% for those treated with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), 18.2% for tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, 4.2% for IL-6 inhibitors, 27.6% for CTLA4-Ig fusion protein, and 33.3% for Janus kinase inhibitors.

Of the patients in DAS28-ESR remission, those not also in CDAI remission totaled 11.7% with csDMARDs, 15.4% with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, 29.5% with IL-6 inhibitors, 16.0% with CTLA4-Ig, and 14.3% with Janus kinase inhibitors.

“The fact that many patients fulfilled the CDAI but not DAS28-ESR remission could be explained by several reasons including residual synovitis in joints that are not included in the main 28 joints, which could lead to an increase in acute phase reactants and elevate only DAS28-ESR, extra-articular involvement or other comorbidities that could elevate the C-reactive protein irrelevant to arthritis,” the researchers noted. The prevalence of complications was higher in patients in CDAI remission and DAS28-ESR nonremission independent of rheumatoid or nonrheumatoid comorbid conditions, they added.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the cross-sectional study design that did not evaluate longitudinal radiological and functional progression, the researchers wrote.

“However, patients in both CDAI and DAS28-ESR remission were apparently in better condition than those who met either criteria; therefore, in the management of rheumatoid arthritis, assessing patients with two composite measures can yield important opportunities to consider what causes the discrepancy between the measures and adjust treatment appropriately,” they concluded.

The authors did not report having a specific grant for this research. Two of the paper’s three authors disclosed relationships with multiple companies that market drugs for RA.

SOURCE: Takanashi S et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jan 29. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216607.

Combining the measures of the Clinical Disease Activity Index and the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints provides an opportunity adjust treatment for patients with RA, based on data from a cross-sectional study of 1,585 adults.

Suze777/Thinkstock

Although the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) is considered more stringent, comparisons with the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) outside of clinical trials are limited, wrote Satoshi Takanashi, MD, of Keio University School of Medicine in Tokyo, and colleagues.

In a study published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the researchers reviewed data from 1,585 consecutive RA patients seen at Keio University Hospital in Tokyo. The average age of the patients was 64 years, 84% were women, and the average duration of disease was 12 years.

Overall, more patients met the CDAI remission criteria but not the DAS28-ESR criteria, with the exception of patients treated with an interleukin-6 inhibitor.

Of the patients in remission based on CDAI, the proportion who were not in DAS28-ESR remission was 19.4% for those treated with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), 18.2% for tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, 4.2% for IL-6 inhibitors, 27.6% for CTLA4-Ig fusion protein, and 33.3% for Janus kinase inhibitors.

Of the patients in DAS28-ESR remission, those not also in CDAI remission totaled 11.7% with csDMARDs, 15.4% with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, 29.5% with IL-6 inhibitors, 16.0% with CTLA4-Ig, and 14.3% with Janus kinase inhibitors.

“The fact that many patients fulfilled the CDAI but not DAS28-ESR remission could be explained by several reasons including residual synovitis in joints that are not included in the main 28 joints, which could lead to an increase in acute phase reactants and elevate only DAS28-ESR, extra-articular involvement or other comorbidities that could elevate the C-reactive protein irrelevant to arthritis,” the researchers noted. The prevalence of complications was higher in patients in CDAI remission and DAS28-ESR nonremission independent of rheumatoid or nonrheumatoid comorbid conditions, they added.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the cross-sectional study design that did not evaluate longitudinal radiological and functional progression, the researchers wrote.

“However, patients in both CDAI and DAS28-ESR remission were apparently in better condition than those who met either criteria; therefore, in the management of rheumatoid arthritis, assessing patients with two composite measures can yield important opportunities to consider what causes the discrepancy between the measures and adjust treatment appropriately,” they concluded.

The authors did not report having a specific grant for this research. Two of the paper’s three authors disclosed relationships with multiple companies that market drugs for RA.

SOURCE: Takanashi S et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jan 29. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216607.

Combining the measures of the Clinical Disease Activity Index and the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints provides an opportunity adjust treatment for patients with RA, based on data from a cross-sectional study of 1,585 adults.

Suze777/Thinkstock

Although the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) is considered more stringent, comparisons with the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) outside of clinical trials are limited, wrote Satoshi Takanashi, MD, of Keio University School of Medicine in Tokyo, and colleagues.

In a study published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the researchers reviewed data from 1,585 consecutive RA patients seen at Keio University Hospital in Tokyo. The average age of the patients was 64 years, 84% were women, and the average duration of disease was 12 years.

Overall, more patients met the CDAI remission criteria but not the DAS28-ESR criteria, with the exception of patients treated with an interleukin-6 inhibitor.

Of the patients in remission based on CDAI, the proportion who were not in DAS28-ESR remission was 19.4% for those treated with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), 18.2% for tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, 4.2% for IL-6 inhibitors, 27.6% for CTLA4-Ig fusion protein, and 33.3% for Janus kinase inhibitors.

Of the patients in DAS28-ESR remission, those not also in CDAI remission totaled 11.7% with csDMARDs, 15.4% with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, 29.5% with IL-6 inhibitors, 16.0% with CTLA4-Ig, and 14.3% with Janus kinase inhibitors.

“The fact that many patients fulfilled the CDAI but not DAS28-ESR remission could be explained by several reasons including residual synovitis in joints that are not included in the main 28 joints, which could lead to an increase in acute phase reactants and elevate only DAS28-ESR, extra-articular involvement or other comorbidities that could elevate the C-reactive protein irrelevant to arthritis,” the researchers noted. The prevalence of complications was higher in patients in CDAI remission and DAS28-ESR nonremission independent of rheumatoid or nonrheumatoid comorbid conditions, they added.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the cross-sectional study design that did not evaluate longitudinal radiological and functional progression, the researchers wrote.

“However, patients in both CDAI and DAS28-ESR remission were apparently in better condition than those who met either criteria; therefore, in the management of rheumatoid arthritis, assessing patients with two composite measures can yield important opportunities to consider what causes the discrepancy between the measures and adjust treatment appropriately,” they concluded.

The authors did not report having a specific grant for this research. Two of the paper’s three authors disclosed relationships with multiple companies that market drugs for RA.

SOURCE: Takanashi S et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jan 29. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216607.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released an updated schedule for adult vaccines. The update includes changes regarding the administration of several vaccines, including those for influenza, human papillomavirus (HPV), hepatitis A and B, and meningitis B, as well as the pneumococcal 13-valent conjugate (PCV13) vaccine.

The schedule, revised annually by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the CDC, was simultaneously published online February 3, 2020, in the Annals of Internal Medicine and on the CDC website.

Perhaps the change most likely to raise questions is that concerning the PCV13 vaccine. “Owing to a decline in prevalence of the types covered by the PCV13 vaccine, this is no longer routinely recommended for all persons age 65 and older,” senior author Mark Freedman, DVM, MPH, of the immunization services division at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease, said in an interview.

For purposes of shared clinical decision, however, it should be discussed with previously unvaccinated seniors who do not have risk factors, such as an immunocompromising condition, a cerebrospinal fluid leak, or a cochlear implant.

“But the circumstances for use of the vaccine are not always clear even based on the detailed list of considerations provided, because it’s impossible to think of every conceivable combination of risk factors,” Mr. Freedman added.

Possible beneficiaries of this vaccine are vulnerable elderly people living in nursing homes and long-term care facilities and those living in or traveling to settings in which the rate of pediatric PCV13 uptake is low or zero.

All adults in this age group should continue to receive a single dose of the pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine.*

HPV

The advisory committee now recommends catch-up immunization for women and men through age 26 years (the previous cutoff for men was 21). And in another new recommendation, the ACIP advises considering vaccination for some patients aged 27-45 years who have not been adequately vaccinated.

“Most people ages 27-45 do not need vaccination, but some may benefit,” Mr. Freedman said. “For example, somebody who’s been in a prior long-term monogamous relationship and suddenly finds himself with a new sexual partner.”

“That makes very good sense for older people who haven’t been vaccinated and might continue to be exposed to HPV,” Daniel M. Musher, MD, a professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and an infectious diseases physician at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in Houston, said in an interview.

Here again, the ACIP advises taking a shared decision-making approach, with clinicians discussing the merits of vaccination in this and other scenarios with patients according to the talking points outlined in the HPV section.

Influenza, hepatitis A and B

For the 2019-2020 influenza season, routine influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 6 months or older who have no contraindications. Where more than one appropriate option is available, the ACIP does not recommend any product over another.

Routine hepatitis A vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 1 year or older who have HIV infection regardless of their level of immune suppression.

For hepatitis B, a new addition to the list of vulnerable patients who may possibly benefit from vaccination is pregnant women at risk for infection or an adverse infection-related pregnancy outcome. Whereas older formulations are safe, the ACIP does not recommend the HepB-CpG (Heplisav-B) vaccine during pregnancy, owing to the fact that safety data are lacking.

Meningitis B

Individuals aged 10 years or older who have complement deficiency, who use a complement inhibitor, who have asplenia, or who are microbiologists should receive a meningitis B booster dose 1 year following completion of a primary series. After that, they should receive booster doses every 2-3 years for as long they are at elevated risk.

Vaccination should be discussed with individuals aged 16-23 years even if they are not at increased risk for meningococcal disease. Persons aged 10 years or older whom public health authorities deem to be at increased risk during an outbreak should have a one-time booster dose if at least 1 year has elapsed since completion of a meningitis B primary series.

Td/Tdap, varicella

The ACIP now recommends that either the Td or Tdap vaccine be given in cases in which currently just the Td vaccine is recommended; that is, for the 10-year booster shot as well as for tetanus prophylaxis in wound management and the catch-up immunization schedule, including that for pregnant women.

Vaccination against varicella should be considered for HIV-infected individuals who are without evidence of varicella immunity and whose CD4 counts are at least 200 cells/mL.

Dr. Musher, who was not involved in drafting the recommendations, takes issue generally with the addition of shared clinical decision making on vaccination. “Shared decision making is a problem for anyone practicing medicine. It places a terrible burden [on] the doctors to discuss these options with patients at great length. Most patients want the doctor to make the decision.”

In his view, this approach makes little sense in the case of the PCV13 vaccine because the strains it covers have disappeared from the population through the widespread vaccination of children. “But discussions are important for some vaccines, such as the herpes zoster vaccine, since patients can have a terrible reaction to the first dose and refuse to have the second,” he said.

Some of these new recommendations were released in 2019 after ACIP members met to vote on them in February, June, and October.

As in previous years, the schedule has been streamlined for easier reference. Physicians are reminded to closely read the details in the vaccine notes, as these specify who needs what vaccine, when, and at what dose.

The ACIP develops its recommendations after reviewing vaccine-related data, including the data regarding the epidemiology and burden of the vaccine-preventable disease, vaccine effectiveness and safety, the quality of evidence, implementability, and the economics of immunization policy.

The authors have received grants and expense payments from public and not-for-profit institutions. One coauthor has received fees from ACI Clinical for data and safety monitoring in an immunization trial. Dr. Musher has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Correction, 3/31/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the recommendation for administration of the pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine. All adults in this age group should continue to receive a single dose of this vaccine. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released an updated schedule for adult vaccines. The update includes changes regarding the administration of several vaccines, including those for influenza, human papillomavirus (HPV), hepatitis A and B, and meningitis B, as well as the pneumococcal 13-valent conjugate (PCV13) vaccine.

The schedule, revised annually by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the CDC, was simultaneously published online February 3, 2020, in the Annals of Internal Medicine and on the CDC website.

Perhaps the change most likely to raise questions is that concerning the PCV13 vaccine. “Owing to a decline in prevalence of the types covered by the PCV13 vaccine, this is no longer routinely recommended for all persons age 65 and older,” senior author Mark Freedman, DVM, MPH, of the immunization services division at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease, said in an interview.

For purposes of shared clinical decision, however, it should be discussed with previously unvaccinated seniors who do not have risk factors, such as an immunocompromising condition, a cerebrospinal fluid leak, or a cochlear implant.

“But the circumstances for use of the vaccine are not always clear even based on the detailed list of considerations provided, because it’s impossible to think of every conceivable combination of risk factors,” Mr. Freedman added.

Possible beneficiaries of this vaccine are vulnerable elderly people living in nursing homes and long-term care facilities and those living in or traveling to settings in which the rate of pediatric PCV13 uptake is low or zero.

All adults in this age group should continue to receive a single dose of the pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine.*

HPV

The advisory committee now recommends catch-up immunization for women and men through age 26 years (the previous cutoff for men was 21). And in another new recommendation, the ACIP advises considering vaccination for some patients aged 27-45 years who have not been adequately vaccinated.

“Most people ages 27-45 do not need vaccination, but some may benefit,” Mr. Freedman said. “For example, somebody who’s been in a prior long-term monogamous relationship and suddenly finds himself with a new sexual partner.”

“That makes very good sense for older people who haven’t been vaccinated and might continue to be exposed to HPV,” Daniel M. Musher, MD, a professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and an infectious diseases physician at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in Houston, said in an interview.

Here again, the ACIP advises taking a shared decision-making approach, with clinicians discussing the merits of vaccination in this and other scenarios with patients according to the talking points outlined in the HPV section.

Influenza, hepatitis A and B

For the 2019-2020 influenza season, routine influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 6 months or older who have no contraindications. Where more than one appropriate option is available, the ACIP does not recommend any product over another.

Routine hepatitis A vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 1 year or older who have HIV infection regardless of their level of immune suppression.

For hepatitis B, a new addition to the list of vulnerable patients who may possibly benefit from vaccination is pregnant women at risk for infection or an adverse infection-related pregnancy outcome. Whereas older formulations are safe, the ACIP does not recommend the HepB-CpG (Heplisav-B) vaccine during pregnancy, owing to the fact that safety data are lacking.

Meningitis B

Individuals aged 10 years or older who have complement deficiency, who use a complement inhibitor, who have asplenia, or who are microbiologists should receive a meningitis B booster dose 1 year following completion of a primary series. After that, they should receive booster doses every 2-3 years for as long they are at elevated risk.

Vaccination should be discussed with individuals aged 16-23 years even if they are not at increased risk for meningococcal disease. Persons aged 10 years or older whom public health authorities deem to be at increased risk during an outbreak should have a one-time booster dose if at least 1 year has elapsed since completion of a meningitis B primary series.

Td/Tdap, varicella

The ACIP now recommends that either the Td or Tdap vaccine be given in cases in which currently just the Td vaccine is recommended; that is, for the 10-year booster shot as well as for tetanus prophylaxis in wound management and the catch-up immunization schedule, including that for pregnant women.

Vaccination against varicella should be considered for HIV-infected individuals who are without evidence of varicella immunity and whose CD4 counts are at least 200 cells/mL.

Dr. Musher, who was not involved in drafting the recommendations, takes issue generally with the addition of shared clinical decision making on vaccination. “Shared decision making is a problem for anyone practicing medicine. It places a terrible burden [on] the doctors to discuss these options with patients at great length. Most patients want the doctor to make the decision.”

In his view, this approach makes little sense in the case of the PCV13 vaccine because the strains it covers have disappeared from the population through the widespread vaccination of children. “But discussions are important for some vaccines, such as the herpes zoster vaccine, since patients can have a terrible reaction to the first dose and refuse to have the second,” he said.

Some of these new recommendations were released in 2019 after ACIP members met to vote on them in February, June, and October.

As in previous years, the schedule has been streamlined for easier reference. Physicians are reminded to closely read the details in the vaccine notes, as these specify who needs what vaccine, when, and at what dose.

The ACIP develops its recommendations after reviewing vaccine-related data, including the data regarding the epidemiology and burden of the vaccine-preventable disease, vaccine effectiveness and safety, the quality of evidence, implementability, and the economics of immunization policy.

The authors have received grants and expense payments from public and not-for-profit institutions. One coauthor has received fees from ACI Clinical for data and safety monitoring in an immunization trial. Dr. Musher has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Correction, 3/31/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the recommendation for administration of the pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine. All adults in this age group should continue to receive a single dose of this vaccine. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released an updated schedule for adult vaccines. The update includes changes regarding the administration of several vaccines, including those for influenza, human papillomavirus (HPV), hepatitis A and B, and meningitis B, as well as the pneumococcal 13-valent conjugate (PCV13) vaccine.

The schedule, revised annually by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the CDC, was simultaneously published online February 3, 2020, in the Annals of Internal Medicine and on the CDC website.

Perhaps the change most likely to raise questions is that concerning the PCV13 vaccine. “Owing to a decline in prevalence of the types covered by the PCV13 vaccine, this is no longer routinely recommended for all persons age 65 and older,” senior author Mark Freedman, DVM, MPH, of the immunization services division at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease, said in an interview.

For purposes of shared clinical decision, however, it should be discussed with previously unvaccinated seniors who do not have risk factors, such as an immunocompromising condition, a cerebrospinal fluid leak, or a cochlear implant.

“But the circumstances for use of the vaccine are not always clear even based on the detailed list of considerations provided, because it’s impossible to think of every conceivable combination of risk factors,” Mr. Freedman added.

Possible beneficiaries of this vaccine are vulnerable elderly people living in nursing homes and long-term care facilities and those living in or traveling to settings in which the rate of pediatric PCV13 uptake is low or zero.

All adults in this age group should continue to receive a single dose of the pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine.*

HPV

The advisory committee now recommends catch-up immunization for women and men through age 26 years (the previous cutoff for men was 21). And in another new recommendation, the ACIP advises considering vaccination for some patients aged 27-45 years who have not been adequately vaccinated.

“Most people ages 27-45 do not need vaccination, but some may benefit,” Mr. Freedman said. “For example, somebody who’s been in a prior long-term monogamous relationship and suddenly finds himself with a new sexual partner.”

“That makes very good sense for older people who haven’t been vaccinated and might continue to be exposed to HPV,” Daniel M. Musher, MD, a professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and an infectious diseases physician at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in Houston, said in an interview.

Here again, the ACIP advises taking a shared decision-making approach, with clinicians discussing the merits of vaccination in this and other scenarios with patients according to the talking points outlined in the HPV section.

Influenza, hepatitis A and B

For the 2019-2020 influenza season, routine influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 6 months or older who have no contraindications. Where more than one appropriate option is available, the ACIP does not recommend any product over another.

Routine hepatitis A vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 1 year or older who have HIV infection regardless of their level of immune suppression.

For hepatitis B, a new addition to the list of vulnerable patients who may possibly benefit from vaccination is pregnant women at risk for infection or an adverse infection-related pregnancy outcome. Whereas older formulations are safe, the ACIP does not recommend the HepB-CpG (Heplisav-B) vaccine during pregnancy, owing to the fact that safety data are lacking.

Meningitis B

Individuals aged 10 years or older who have complement deficiency, who use a complement inhibitor, who have asplenia, or who are microbiologists should receive a meningitis B booster dose 1 year following completion of a primary series. After that, they should receive booster doses every 2-3 years for as long they are at elevated risk.

Vaccination should be discussed with individuals aged 16-23 years even if they are not at increased risk for meningococcal disease. Persons aged 10 years or older whom public health authorities deem to be at increased risk during an outbreak should have a one-time booster dose if at least 1 year has elapsed since completion of a meningitis B primary series.

Td/Tdap, varicella

The ACIP now recommends that either the Td or Tdap vaccine be given in cases in which currently just the Td vaccine is recommended; that is, for the 10-year booster shot as well as for tetanus prophylaxis in wound management and the catch-up immunization schedule, including that for pregnant women.

Vaccination against varicella should be considered for HIV-infected individuals who are without evidence of varicella immunity and whose CD4 counts are at least 200 cells/mL.

Dr. Musher, who was not involved in drafting the recommendations, takes issue generally with the addition of shared clinical decision making on vaccination. “Shared decision making is a problem for anyone practicing medicine. It places a terrible burden [on] the doctors to discuss these options with patients at great length. Most patients want the doctor to make the decision.”

In his view, this approach makes little sense in the case of the PCV13 vaccine because the strains it covers have disappeared from the population through the widespread vaccination of children. “But discussions are important for some vaccines, such as the herpes zoster vaccine, since patients can have a terrible reaction to the first dose and refuse to have the second,” he said.

Some of these new recommendations were released in 2019 after ACIP members met to vote on them in February, June, and October.

As in previous years, the schedule has been streamlined for easier reference. Physicians are reminded to closely read the details in the vaccine notes, as these specify who needs what vaccine, when, and at what dose.

The ACIP develops its recommendations after reviewing vaccine-related data, including the data regarding the epidemiology and burden of the vaccine-preventable disease, vaccine effectiveness and safety, the quality of evidence, implementability, and the economics of immunization policy.

The authors have received grants and expense payments from public and not-for-profit institutions. One coauthor has received fees from ACI Clinical for data and safety monitoring in an immunization trial. Dr. Musher has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Correction, 3/31/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the recommendation for administration of the pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine. All adults in this age group should continue to receive a single dose of this vaccine. 

It took less than a day for physician groups to start pushing back at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services over its new Medicaid block grant plan, which was introduced on Jan. 30.

Dubbed “Healthy Adult Opportunity,” the agency is offering all states the chance to participate in a block grant program through the 1115 waiver process.

According to a fact sheet issued by the agency, the program will focus on “adults under age 65 who are not eligible for Medicaid on the basis of disability or their need for long term care services and supports, and who are not eligible under a state plan. Other very low-income parents, children, pregnant women, elderly adults, and people eligible on the basis of a disability will not be directly affected – except from the improvement that results from states reinvesting savings into strengthening their overall programs.”

States will be operating within a defined budget when participating in the program and expenditures exceeding that defined budget will not be eligible for additional federal funding. Budgets will be based on a state’s historic costs, as well as national and regional trends, and will be tied to inflation with the potential to have adjustments made for extraordinary events. States can set their baseline using the prior year’s total spending or a per-enrollee spending model.

A Jan. 30 letter to state Medicaid directors notes that states participating in the program “will be granted extensive flexibility to test alternative approaches to implementing their Medicaid programs, including the ability to make many ongoing program adjustments without the need for demonstration or state plan amendments that require prior approval.”

Among the activities states can engage in under this plan are adjusting cost-sharing requirements, adopting a closed formulary, and applying additional conditions of eligibility. Requests, if approved, will be approved for a 5-year initial period, with a renewal option of up to 10 years.

But physician groups are not seeing a benefit with this new block grant program.

“Moving to a block grant system will likely limit the ability of Medicaid patients to receive preventive and needed medical care from their family physicians, and it will only increase the health disparities that exist in these communities, worsen overall health outcomes, and ultimately increase costs,” Gary LeRoy, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in a statement.

The American Medical Association concurred.

“The AMA opposes caps on federal Medicaid funding, such as block grants, because they would increase the number of uninsured and undermine Medicaid’s role as an indispensable safety net,” Patrice Harris, MD, the AMA’s president, said in a statement. “The AMA supports flexibility in Medicaid and encourages CMS to work with states to develop and test new Medicaid models that best meet the needs and priorities of low-income patients. While encouraging flexibility, the AMA is mindful that expanding Medicaid has been a literal lifesaver for low-income patients. We need to find ways to build on this success. We look forward to reviewing the proposal in detail.”

Officials at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said the changes have the potential to harm women and children’s health, as well as negatively impact physician reimbursement and ultimately access to care.

“Limits on the federal contribution to the Medicaid program would negatively impact patients by forcing states to reduce the number of people who are eligible for Medicaid coverage, eliminate covered services, and increase beneficiary cost-sharing,” ACOG President Ted Anderson, MD, said in a statement. “ACOG is also concerned that this block grant opportunity could lower physician reimbursement for certain services, forcing providers out of the program and jeopardizing patients’ ability to access health care services. Given our nation’s stark rates of maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity, we are alarmed by the Administration’s willingness to weaken physician payment in Medicaid.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com