Rheumatology News

For gout, xanthine oxidase (XO) inhibitors are the choice for first-line urate-lowering therapy (ULT) according to the 2020 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Management of Gout, which endorsed allopurinol, but should that be the approach for all patients, or should first-line therapy be tailored to the mechanism of each patient’s hyperuricemia? Two gout experts, Lisa Stamp, MBChB, PhD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of Otago in Christchurch, New Zealand, and Fernando Pérez-Ruiz, MD, PhD, consultant in the Rheumatology Division of Cruces University Hospital, Barakaldo, head of the Investigation Group for Arthritis at Biocruces Health Research Institute, Barakaldo, and associate professor in the Department of Medicine at the Faculty of Medicine and Nursing at the University of the Basque Country in Leioa, Spain, debated this question recently at the annual research symposium of the Gout, Hyperuricemia and Crystal-Associated Disease Network.

Before the debate began, audience members voted on the question and 56% favored using XO inhibitors as a first-line therapy for all rather than tailoring first-line therapy to disease mechanism.

Up first, Stamp argued that XO inhibitors should be first-line therapy for all patients with gout. She said that XO inhibitors have been demonstrated to work regardless of the cause of hyperuricemia and degree of kidney function, and they are cheap, readily available, and easy to administer. She showed results from a study published by her debate opponent, Pérez-Ruiz, which demonstrated efficacy of XO inhibitors in both under-excreters and over-excreters of uric acid. That study compared the efficacy of the XO inhibitor allopurinol to the uricosuric agent benzbromarone and found the latter to be more effective, but Stamp argued that the allopurinol dose used in the study — 300 mg/d — “may not be enough for many patients who have gout. Dose-restricting allopurinol is one way to demonstrate that an alternative agent is superior,” she said.

A more recent study showed low-dose benzbromarone was better than low-dose febuxostat, another XO inhibitor. “I think we do need to have clinical trials that reflect real-world practice. I accept that this may have reflected [accepted practice where the studies] were undertaken, but these [XO inhibitor] doses don’t represent what many of us would do in other parts of the world,” Stamp said.

One concern is the utility of a ULT in patients with impaired renal function. Stamp cited her own post hoc analysis of a randomized, controlled trial showing that allopurinol is effective irrespective of renal function, as long as the dose is escalated to achieve target urate level, and a meta-analysis of observational studies suggesting that febuxostat is effective irrespective of renal function.

On the other hand, she showed data from a 1994 study of benzbromarone in renal transplant recipients, which showed that the drug’s effect on decreasing plasma uric acid dropped off significantly with lower creatinine clearance. “It does work, but the efficacy really drops off as renal function decreases. Benzbromarone is probably the most effective uricosuric in patients with renal impairment, but this agent is not readily available,” Stamp said.

The uricosuric agent probenecid, which is generally available across the world, led to only about 30% success in achieving target levels of uric acid among patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate < 50 mL/min/1.73 m². “I think we can all agree that getting 30% of our patients to target uric acid is not an acceptable outcome,” she said.

Stamp emphasized the importance of drug availability and noted that allopurinol is also the only medication for gout that is on the World Health Organization list of essential medications. “I think we should be recommending medications that are readily available, irrespective of where you live,” she said, noting that this is true of allopurinol, febuxostat, and probenecid.

Stamp also addressed the mechanism of action of ULTs. “Does the cause of hyperuricemia affect treatment response? I don’t think it does. Most people respond to allopurinol whether they’re a normal excreter or an under-excreter. Everyone who is lacking uricase will respond to allopurinol. Not everyone will respond to a uricosuric [agent], particularly in the setting of comorbidities such as renal impairment, which many of our patients with gout have,” she said.

 

Counterargument: Combine Therapies With Different Mechanisms of Action

In his counterargument, Pérez-Ruiz contended that gout is not in fact a metabolic disease and suggested that combining therapies with different mechanisms of action could be the best approach for difficult-to-treat gout. “The problem we face in clinical practice is how to treat difficult-to-treat patients,” he said. He referenced his own PhD thesis, which showed both high urinary uric acid output and underexcretion among patients with gout.

Pérez-Ruiz agreed that XO inhibitors should be used as first-line therapy but noted that the effect of allopurinol tapers off at higher doses. “If you use very high doses of allopurinol, you cannot expect to get much more effect,” he said. This is also true of febuxostat, he said.

He showed another study that illustrated difficulties in achieving target serum urate level with intensive therapy. “Even using a high dose of allopurinol, if you would like to get lower than 3 mg/dL for intensive therapy, close to 50% of patients will fail,” he said.

Pérez-Ruiz described a strategy of combining XO inhibitors with a uricosuric therapy, creating what he called a “uricase-like effect” on serum uric acid levels. Ruiz-Perez uses high-dose febuxostat in patients with chronic kidney disease who cannot be given uricosuric agents. “You can go to very low [serum urate levels] by raising up the doses,” he said.

He does not believe that allopurinol is the best agent for combination therapy in the treatment of tophaceous deposits. Instead, he favors combinations with febuxostat. He presented his own experience with 12 patients with very severe tophaceous gout who he treated with a combination of febuxostat and benzbromarone, which reduced serum urate to just over 2 mg/dL. “So this is a pegloticase-like effect [that is] very useful for tophaceous gout,” he said.

In her response, Stamp noted that most of the studies presented by Pérez-Ruiz showed XO inhibitors as first-line therapies, with other medications added on. “I think I heard Fernando agree with me. In just about all of those slides, he showed that a xanthine oxidase inhibitor was the first-line therapy, and subsequently a uricosuric was added,” she said.

Still, Stamp took issue with the idea that serum urate needs to get as low as Pérez-Ruiz advocated for. “What’s the risk associated with getting a serum urate to that level? I’m not sure that a sustained serum urate of around 1 [mg/dL] is necessarily good in the long term,” she said.

Stamp also pointed out the potential risks of polypharmacy, along with adherence issues. “If we can give our patients one therapy, one drug that’s going to get them to a target that we know is going to have beneficial long-term effects, that’s going to help improve our adherence. Maybe we are coming to a new era of [treatment, with] remission induction driving the serum urate very low, and then a maintenance therapy where we can back off. But irrespective, if you use that strategy, Fernando nicely showed that every time you’re going to start with a xanthine oxidase inhibitor,” she said.

After the debate, audience members voted again, and this time the result was 66% in favor of XO inhibitors as a first-line treatment.

Pérez-Ruiz is an adviser for Arthrosi, LG, Novartis, Protalix, and SOBI. He is a speaker for Menarini Central America and the Spanish Foundation for Rheumatology and has received funding from Cruces Rheumatology Association. Stamp did not disclose any financial relationships.

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

For gout, xanthine oxidase (XO) inhibitors are the choice for first-line urate-lowering therapy (ULT) according to the 2020 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Management of Gout, which endorsed allopurinol, but should that be the approach for all patients, or should first-line therapy be tailored to the mechanism of each patient’s hyperuricemia? Two gout experts, Lisa Stamp, MBChB, PhD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of Otago in Christchurch, New Zealand, and Fernando Pérez-Ruiz, MD, PhD, consultant in the Rheumatology Division of Cruces University Hospital, Barakaldo, head of the Investigation Group for Arthritis at Biocruces Health Research Institute, Barakaldo, and associate professor in the Department of Medicine at the Faculty of Medicine and Nursing at the University of the Basque Country in Leioa, Spain, debated this question recently at the annual research symposium of the Gout, Hyperuricemia and Crystal-Associated Disease Network.

Before the debate began, audience members voted on the question and 56% favored using XO inhibitors as a first-line therapy for all rather than tailoring first-line therapy to disease mechanism.

Up first, Stamp argued that XO inhibitors should be first-line therapy for all patients with gout. She said that XO inhibitors have been demonstrated to work regardless of the cause of hyperuricemia and degree of kidney function, and they are cheap, readily available, and easy to administer. She showed results from a study published by her debate opponent, Pérez-Ruiz, which demonstrated efficacy of XO inhibitors in both under-excreters and over-excreters of uric acid. That study compared the efficacy of the XO inhibitor allopurinol to the uricosuric agent benzbromarone and found the latter to be more effective, but Stamp argued that the allopurinol dose used in the study — 300 mg/d — “may not be enough for many patients who have gout. Dose-restricting allopurinol is one way to demonstrate that an alternative agent is superior,” she said.

A more recent study showed low-dose benzbromarone was better than low-dose febuxostat, another XO inhibitor. “I think we do need to have clinical trials that reflect real-world practice. I accept that this may have reflected [accepted practice where the studies] were undertaken, but these [XO inhibitor] doses don’t represent what many of us would do in other parts of the world,” Stamp said.

One concern is the utility of a ULT in patients with impaired renal function. Stamp cited her own post hoc analysis of a randomized, controlled trial showing that allopurinol is effective irrespective of renal function, as long as the dose is escalated to achieve target urate level, and a meta-analysis of observational studies suggesting that febuxostat is effective irrespective of renal function.

On the other hand, she showed data from a 1994 study of benzbromarone in renal transplant recipients, which showed that the drug’s effect on decreasing plasma uric acid dropped off significantly with lower creatinine clearance. “It does work, but the efficacy really drops off as renal function decreases. Benzbromarone is probably the most effective uricosuric in patients with renal impairment, but this agent is not readily available,” Stamp said.

The uricosuric agent probenecid, which is generally available across the world, led to only about 30% success in achieving target levels of uric acid among patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate < 50 mL/min/1.73 m². “I think we can all agree that getting 30% of our patients to target uric acid is not an acceptable outcome,” she said.

Stamp emphasized the importance of drug availability and noted that allopurinol is also the only medication for gout that is on the World Health Organization list of essential medications. “I think we should be recommending medications that are readily available, irrespective of where you live,” she said, noting that this is true of allopurinol, febuxostat, and probenecid.

Stamp also addressed the mechanism of action of ULTs. “Does the cause of hyperuricemia affect treatment response? I don’t think it does. Most people respond to allopurinol whether they’re a normal excreter or an under-excreter. Everyone who is lacking uricase will respond to allopurinol. Not everyone will respond to a uricosuric [agent], particularly in the setting of comorbidities such as renal impairment, which many of our patients with gout have,” she said.

 

Counterargument: Combine Therapies With Different Mechanisms of Action

In his counterargument, Pérez-Ruiz contended that gout is not in fact a metabolic disease and suggested that combining therapies with different mechanisms of action could be the best approach for difficult-to-treat gout. “The problem we face in clinical practice is how to treat difficult-to-treat patients,” he said. He referenced his own PhD thesis, which showed both high urinary uric acid output and underexcretion among patients with gout.

Pérez-Ruiz agreed that XO inhibitors should be used as first-line therapy but noted that the effect of allopurinol tapers off at higher doses. “If you use very high doses of allopurinol, you cannot expect to get much more effect,” he said. This is also true of febuxostat, he said.

He showed another study that illustrated difficulties in achieving target serum urate level with intensive therapy. “Even using a high dose of allopurinol, if you would like to get lower than 3 mg/dL for intensive therapy, close to 50% of patients will fail,” he said.

Pérez-Ruiz described a strategy of combining XO inhibitors with a uricosuric therapy, creating what he called a “uricase-like effect” on serum uric acid levels. Ruiz-Perez uses high-dose febuxostat in patients with chronic kidney disease who cannot be given uricosuric agents. “You can go to very low [serum urate levels] by raising up the doses,” he said.

He does not believe that allopurinol is the best agent for combination therapy in the treatment of tophaceous deposits. Instead, he favors combinations with febuxostat. He presented his own experience with 12 patients with very severe tophaceous gout who he treated with a combination of febuxostat and benzbromarone, which reduced serum urate to just over 2 mg/dL. “So this is a pegloticase-like effect [that is] very useful for tophaceous gout,” he said.

In her response, Stamp noted that most of the studies presented by Pérez-Ruiz showed XO inhibitors as first-line therapies, with other medications added on. “I think I heard Fernando agree with me. In just about all of those slides, he showed that a xanthine oxidase inhibitor was the first-line therapy, and subsequently a uricosuric was added,” she said.

Still, Stamp took issue with the idea that serum urate needs to get as low as Pérez-Ruiz advocated for. “What’s the risk associated with getting a serum urate to that level? I’m not sure that a sustained serum urate of around 1 [mg/dL] is necessarily good in the long term,” she said.

Stamp also pointed out the potential risks of polypharmacy, along with adherence issues. “If we can give our patients one therapy, one drug that’s going to get them to a target that we know is going to have beneficial long-term effects, that’s going to help improve our adherence. Maybe we are coming to a new era of [treatment, with] remission induction driving the serum urate very low, and then a maintenance therapy where we can back off. But irrespective, if you use that strategy, Fernando nicely showed that every time you’re going to start with a xanthine oxidase inhibitor,” she said.

After the debate, audience members voted again, and this time the result was 66% in favor of XO inhibitors as a first-line treatment.

Pérez-Ruiz is an adviser for Arthrosi, LG, Novartis, Protalix, and SOBI. He is a speaker for Menarini Central America and the Spanish Foundation for Rheumatology and has received funding from Cruces Rheumatology Association. Stamp did not disclose any financial relationships.

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

For gout, xanthine oxidase (XO) inhibitors are the choice for first-line urate-lowering therapy (ULT) according to the 2020 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Management of Gout, which endorsed allopurinol, but should that be the approach for all patients, or should first-line therapy be tailored to the mechanism of each patient’s hyperuricemia? Two gout experts, Lisa Stamp, MBChB, PhD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of Otago in Christchurch, New Zealand, and Fernando Pérez-Ruiz, MD, PhD, consultant in the Rheumatology Division of Cruces University Hospital, Barakaldo, head of the Investigation Group for Arthritis at Biocruces Health Research Institute, Barakaldo, and associate professor in the Department of Medicine at the Faculty of Medicine and Nursing at the University of the Basque Country in Leioa, Spain, debated this question recently at the annual research symposium of the Gout, Hyperuricemia and Crystal-Associated Disease Network.

Before the debate began, audience members voted on the question and 56% favored using XO inhibitors as a first-line therapy for all rather than tailoring first-line therapy to disease mechanism.

Up first, Stamp argued that XO inhibitors should be first-line therapy for all patients with gout. She said that XO inhibitors have been demonstrated to work regardless of the cause of hyperuricemia and degree of kidney function, and they are cheap, readily available, and easy to administer. She showed results from a study published by her debate opponent, Pérez-Ruiz, which demonstrated efficacy of XO inhibitors in both under-excreters and over-excreters of uric acid. That study compared the efficacy of the XO inhibitor allopurinol to the uricosuric agent benzbromarone and found the latter to be more effective, but Stamp argued that the allopurinol dose used in the study — 300 mg/d — “may not be enough for many patients who have gout. Dose-restricting allopurinol is one way to demonstrate that an alternative agent is superior,” she said.

A more recent study showed low-dose benzbromarone was better than low-dose febuxostat, another XO inhibitor. “I think we do need to have clinical trials that reflect real-world practice. I accept that this may have reflected [accepted practice where the studies] were undertaken, but these [XO inhibitor] doses don’t represent what many of us would do in other parts of the world,” Stamp said.

One concern is the utility of a ULT in patients with impaired renal function. Stamp cited her own post hoc analysis of a randomized, controlled trial showing that allopurinol is effective irrespective of renal function, as long as the dose is escalated to achieve target urate level, and a meta-analysis of observational studies suggesting that febuxostat is effective irrespective of renal function.

On the other hand, she showed data from a 1994 study of benzbromarone in renal transplant recipients, which showed that the drug’s effect on decreasing plasma uric acid dropped off significantly with lower creatinine clearance. “It does work, but the efficacy really drops off as renal function decreases. Benzbromarone is probably the most effective uricosuric in patients with renal impairment, but this agent is not readily available,” Stamp said.

The uricosuric agent probenecid, which is generally available across the world, led to only about 30% success in achieving target levels of uric acid among patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate < 50 mL/min/1.73 m². “I think we can all agree that getting 30% of our patients to target uric acid is not an acceptable outcome,” she said.

Stamp emphasized the importance of drug availability and noted that allopurinol is also the only medication for gout that is on the World Health Organization list of essential medications. “I think we should be recommending medications that are readily available, irrespective of where you live,” she said, noting that this is true of allopurinol, febuxostat, and probenecid.

Stamp also addressed the mechanism of action of ULTs. “Does the cause of hyperuricemia affect treatment response? I don’t think it does. Most people respond to allopurinol whether they’re a normal excreter or an under-excreter. Everyone who is lacking uricase will respond to allopurinol. Not everyone will respond to a uricosuric [agent], particularly in the setting of comorbidities such as renal impairment, which many of our patients with gout have,” she said.

 

Counterargument: Combine Therapies With Different Mechanisms of Action

In his counterargument, Pérez-Ruiz contended that gout is not in fact a metabolic disease and suggested that combining therapies with different mechanisms of action could be the best approach for difficult-to-treat gout. “The problem we face in clinical practice is how to treat difficult-to-treat patients,” he said. He referenced his own PhD thesis, which showed both high urinary uric acid output and underexcretion among patients with gout.

Pérez-Ruiz agreed that XO inhibitors should be used as first-line therapy but noted that the effect of allopurinol tapers off at higher doses. “If you use very high doses of allopurinol, you cannot expect to get much more effect,” he said. This is also true of febuxostat, he said.

He showed another study that illustrated difficulties in achieving target serum urate level with intensive therapy. “Even using a high dose of allopurinol, if you would like to get lower than 3 mg/dL for intensive therapy, close to 50% of patients will fail,” he said.

Pérez-Ruiz described a strategy of combining XO inhibitors with a uricosuric therapy, creating what he called a “uricase-like effect” on serum uric acid levels. Ruiz-Perez uses high-dose febuxostat in patients with chronic kidney disease who cannot be given uricosuric agents. “You can go to very low [serum urate levels] by raising up the doses,” he said.

He does not believe that allopurinol is the best agent for combination therapy in the treatment of tophaceous deposits. Instead, he favors combinations with febuxostat. He presented his own experience with 12 patients with very severe tophaceous gout who he treated with a combination of febuxostat and benzbromarone, which reduced serum urate to just over 2 mg/dL. “So this is a pegloticase-like effect [that is] very useful for tophaceous gout,” he said.

In her response, Stamp noted that most of the studies presented by Pérez-Ruiz showed XO inhibitors as first-line therapies, with other medications added on. “I think I heard Fernando agree with me. In just about all of those slides, he showed that a xanthine oxidase inhibitor was the first-line therapy, and subsequently a uricosuric was added,” she said.

Still, Stamp took issue with the idea that serum urate needs to get as low as Pérez-Ruiz advocated for. “What’s the risk associated with getting a serum urate to that level? I’m not sure that a sustained serum urate of around 1 [mg/dL] is necessarily good in the long term,” she said.

Stamp also pointed out the potential risks of polypharmacy, along with adherence issues. “If we can give our patients one therapy, one drug that’s going to get them to a target that we know is going to have beneficial long-term effects, that’s going to help improve our adherence. Maybe we are coming to a new era of [treatment, with] remission induction driving the serum urate very low, and then a maintenance therapy where we can back off. But irrespective, if you use that strategy, Fernando nicely showed that every time you’re going to start with a xanthine oxidase inhibitor,” she said.

After the debate, audience members voted again, and this time the result was 66% in favor of XO inhibitors as a first-line treatment.

Pérez-Ruiz is an adviser for Arthrosi, LG, Novartis, Protalix, and SOBI. He is a speaker for Menarini Central America and the Spanish Foundation for Rheumatology and has received funding from Cruces Rheumatology Association. Stamp did not disclose any financial relationships.

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

Instead of sitting behind a laptop during patient visits, the pediatrician directly faces the patient and parent, relying on an ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribe to capture the conversation for the electronic health record (EHR). A geriatrician doing rounds at the senior living facility plugs each patient’s medications into an AI tool, checking for drug interactions. And a busy hospital radiology department runs all its emergency head CTs through an AI algorithm, triaging potential stroke patients to ensure they receive the highest priority. None of these physicians have been sued for malpractice for AI usage, but they wonder if they’re at risk.

In a recent Medscape report, AI Adoption in Healthcare, 224 physicians responded to the statement: “I want to do more with AI but I worry about malpractice risk if I move too fast.” Seventeen percent said that they strongly agreed while 23% said they agreed — a full 40% were concerned about using the technology for legal reasons.  

Malpractice and AI are on many minds in healthcare, especially in large health systems, Deepika Srivastava, chief operating officer at The Doctors Company, told this news organization. “AI is at the forefront of the conversation, and they’re [large health systems] raising questions. Larger systems want to protect themselves.” 

The good news is there’s currently no sign of legal action over the clinical use of AI. “We’re not seeing even a few AI-related suits just yet,” but the risk is growing, Srivastava said, “and that’s why we’re talking about it. The legal system will need to adapt to address the role of AI in healthcare.”

 

How Doctors Are Using AI

Healthcare is incorporating AI in multiple ways based on the type of tool and function needed. Narrow AI is popular in fields like radiology, comparing two large data sets to find differences between them. Narrow AI can help differentiate between normal and abnormal tissue, such as breast or lung tumors. Almost 900 AI health tools have Food and Drug Administration approval as of July 2024, discerning abnormalities and recognizing patterns better than many humans, said Robert Pearl, MD, author of ChatGPT, MD: How AI-Empowered Patients & Doctors Can Take Back Control of American Medicine and former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.

Narrow AI can improve diagnostic speed and accuracy for other specialties, too, including dermatology and ophthalmology, Pearl said. “It’s less clear to me if it will be very beneficial in primary care, neurology, and psychiatry, areas of medicine that involve a lot of words.” In those specialties, some may use generative AI as a repository of resources. In clinical practice, ambient AI is also used to create health records based on patient/clinician conversations.

In clinical administration, AI is used for scheduling, billing, and submitting insurance claims. On the insurer side, denying claims based on AI algorithms has been at the heart of legal actions, making recent headlines. 

 

Malpractice Risks When Using AI

Accuracy and privacy should be at the top of the list for malpractice concerns with AI. With accuracy, liability could partially be determined by use type. If a diagnostic application makes the wrong diagnosis, “the company has legal accountability because it created and had to test it specific to the application that it’s being recommended for,” Pearl said. 

However, keeping a human in the loop is a smart move when using AI diagnostic tools. The physician should still choose the AI-suggested diagnosis or a different one. If it’s the wrong diagnosis, “it’s really hard to currently say where is the source of the error? Was it the physician? Was it the tool?” Srivastava added.

With an incorrect diagnosis by generative AI, liability is more apparent. “You’re taking that accountability,” Pearl said. Generative AI operates in a black box, predicting the correct answer based on information stored in a database. “Generative AI tries to draw a correlation between what it has seen and predicting the next output,” said Alex Shahrestani, managing partner of Promise Legal PLLC, a law firm in Austin, Texas. He serves on the State Bar of Texas’s Taskforce on AI and the Law and has participated in advisory groups related to AI policies with the National Institute of Standards and Technology. “A doctor should know to validate information given back to them by AI,” applying their own medical training and judgment.

Generative AI can provide ideas. Pearl shared a story about a surgeon who was unable to remove a breathing tube that was stuck in a patients’ throat at the end of a procedure. The surgeon checked ChatGPT in the operating room, finding a similar case. Adrenaline in the anesthetic restricted the blood vessels, causing the vocal cords to stick together. Following the AI information, the surgeon allowed more time for the anesthesia to diffuse. As it wore off, the vocal cords separated, easing the removal of the breathing tube. “That is the kind of expertise it can provide,” Pearl said.

Privacy is a common AI concern, but it may be more problematic than it should be. “Many think if you talk to an AI system, you’re surrendering personal information the model can learn from,” said Shahrestani. Platforms offer opt-outs. Even without opting out, the model won’t automatically ingest your interactions. That’s not a privacy feature, but a concern by the developer that the information may not help the model. 

“If you do use these opt-out mechanisms, and you have the requisite amount of confidentiality, you can use ChatGPT without too much concern about the patient information being released into the wild,” Shahrestani said. Or use systems with stricter requirements that keep all data on site.

 

Malpractice Insurance Policies and AI

Currently, malpractice policies do not specify AI coverage. “We don’t ask right now to list all the technology you’re using,” said Srivastava. Many EHR systems already incorporate AI. If a human provider is in the loop, already vetted and insured, “we should be okay when it comes to the risk of malpractice when doctors are using AI because it’s still the risk that we’re ensuring.”

Insurers are paying attention, though. “Traditional medical malpractice law does require re-evaluation because the rapid pace of AI development has outpaced the efforts to integrate it into the legal system,” Srivastava said.

Some, including Pearl, believe AI will actually lower the malpractice risk. Having more data points to consider can make doctors’ jobs faster, easier, and more accurate. “I believe the technology will decrease lawsuits, not increase them,” said Pearl.

 

Meanwhile, How Can Doctors Protect Themselves From an AI Malpractice Suit?

Know your tool: Providers should understand the tool they’re deploying, what it provides, how it was built and trained (including potential biases), how it was tested, and the guidelines for how to use it or not use it, said Srivastava. Evaluate each tool, use case, and risk separately. “Don’t just say it’s all AI.” 

With generative AI, users will have better success requesting information that has been available longer and is more widely accessed. “It’s more likely to come back correctly,” said Shahrestani. If the information sought is fairly new or not widespread, the tool may try to draw problematic conclusions. 

Document: “Document, document, document. Just making sure you have good documentation can really help you if litigation comes up and it’s related to the AI tools,” Srivastava said.

Try it out: “I recommend you use [generative AI] a lot so you understand its strengths and shortcomings,” said Shahrestani. “If you wait until things settle, you’ll be further behind.” 

Pretend you’re the patient and give the tool the information you’d give a doctor and see the results, said Pearl. It will provide you with an idea of what it can do. “No one would sue you because you went to the library to look up information in the textbooks,” he said — using generative AI is similar. Try the free versions first; if you begin relying on it more, the paid versions have better features and are inexpensive. 

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

Instead of sitting behind a laptop during patient visits, the pediatrician directly faces the patient and parent, relying on an ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribe to capture the conversation for the electronic health record (EHR). A geriatrician doing rounds at the senior living facility plugs each patient’s medications into an AI tool, checking for drug interactions. And a busy hospital radiology department runs all its emergency head CTs through an AI algorithm, triaging potential stroke patients to ensure they receive the highest priority. None of these physicians have been sued for malpractice for AI usage, but they wonder if they’re at risk.

In a recent Medscape report, AI Adoption in Healthcare, 224 physicians responded to the statement: “I want to do more with AI but I worry about malpractice risk if I move too fast.” Seventeen percent said that they strongly agreed while 23% said they agreed — a full 40% were concerned about using the technology for legal reasons.  

Malpractice and AI are on many minds in healthcare, especially in large health systems, Deepika Srivastava, chief operating officer at The Doctors Company, told this news organization. “AI is at the forefront of the conversation, and they’re [large health systems] raising questions. Larger systems want to protect themselves.” 

The good news is there’s currently no sign of legal action over the clinical use of AI. “We’re not seeing even a few AI-related suits just yet,” but the risk is growing, Srivastava said, “and that’s why we’re talking about it. The legal system will need to adapt to address the role of AI in healthcare.”

 

How Doctors Are Using AI

Healthcare is incorporating AI in multiple ways based on the type of tool and function needed. Narrow AI is popular in fields like radiology, comparing two large data sets to find differences between them. Narrow AI can help differentiate between normal and abnormal tissue, such as breast or lung tumors. Almost 900 AI health tools have Food and Drug Administration approval as of July 2024, discerning abnormalities and recognizing patterns better than many humans, said Robert Pearl, MD, author of ChatGPT, MD: How AI-Empowered Patients & Doctors Can Take Back Control of American Medicine and former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.

Narrow AI can improve diagnostic speed and accuracy for other specialties, too, including dermatology and ophthalmology, Pearl said. “It’s less clear to me if it will be very beneficial in primary care, neurology, and psychiatry, areas of medicine that involve a lot of words.” In those specialties, some may use generative AI as a repository of resources. In clinical practice, ambient AI is also used to create health records based on patient/clinician conversations.

In clinical administration, AI is used for scheduling, billing, and submitting insurance claims. On the insurer side, denying claims based on AI algorithms has been at the heart of legal actions, making recent headlines. 

 

Malpractice Risks When Using AI

Accuracy and privacy should be at the top of the list for malpractice concerns with AI. With accuracy, liability could partially be determined by use type. If a diagnostic application makes the wrong diagnosis, “the company has legal accountability because it created and had to test it specific to the application that it’s being recommended for,” Pearl said. 

However, keeping a human in the loop is a smart move when using AI diagnostic tools. The physician should still choose the AI-suggested diagnosis or a different one. If it’s the wrong diagnosis, “it’s really hard to currently say where is the source of the error? Was it the physician? Was it the tool?” Srivastava added.

With an incorrect diagnosis by generative AI, liability is more apparent. “You’re taking that accountability,” Pearl said. Generative AI operates in a black box, predicting the correct answer based on information stored in a database. “Generative AI tries to draw a correlation between what it has seen and predicting the next output,” said Alex Shahrestani, managing partner of Promise Legal PLLC, a law firm in Austin, Texas. He serves on the State Bar of Texas’s Taskforce on AI and the Law and has participated in advisory groups related to AI policies with the National Institute of Standards and Technology. “A doctor should know to validate information given back to them by AI,” applying their own medical training and judgment.

Generative AI can provide ideas. Pearl shared a story about a surgeon who was unable to remove a breathing tube that was stuck in a patients’ throat at the end of a procedure. The surgeon checked ChatGPT in the operating room, finding a similar case. Adrenaline in the anesthetic restricted the blood vessels, causing the vocal cords to stick together. Following the AI information, the surgeon allowed more time for the anesthesia to diffuse. As it wore off, the vocal cords separated, easing the removal of the breathing tube. “That is the kind of expertise it can provide,” Pearl said.

Privacy is a common AI concern, but it may be more problematic than it should be. “Many think if you talk to an AI system, you’re surrendering personal information the model can learn from,” said Shahrestani. Platforms offer opt-outs. Even without opting out, the model won’t automatically ingest your interactions. That’s not a privacy feature, but a concern by the developer that the information may not help the model. 

“If you do use these opt-out mechanisms, and you have the requisite amount of confidentiality, you can use ChatGPT without too much concern about the patient information being released into the wild,” Shahrestani said. Or use systems with stricter requirements that keep all data on site.

 

Malpractice Insurance Policies and AI

Currently, malpractice policies do not specify AI coverage. “We don’t ask right now to list all the technology you’re using,” said Srivastava. Many EHR systems already incorporate AI. If a human provider is in the loop, already vetted and insured, “we should be okay when it comes to the risk of malpractice when doctors are using AI because it’s still the risk that we’re ensuring.”

Insurers are paying attention, though. “Traditional medical malpractice law does require re-evaluation because the rapid pace of AI development has outpaced the efforts to integrate it into the legal system,” Srivastava said.

Some, including Pearl, believe AI will actually lower the malpractice risk. Having more data points to consider can make doctors’ jobs faster, easier, and more accurate. “I believe the technology will decrease lawsuits, not increase them,” said Pearl.

 

Meanwhile, How Can Doctors Protect Themselves From an AI Malpractice Suit?

Know your tool: Providers should understand the tool they’re deploying, what it provides, how it was built and trained (including potential biases), how it was tested, and the guidelines for how to use it or not use it, said Srivastava. Evaluate each tool, use case, and risk separately. “Don’t just say it’s all AI.” 

With generative AI, users will have better success requesting information that has been available longer and is more widely accessed. “It’s more likely to come back correctly,” said Shahrestani. If the information sought is fairly new or not widespread, the tool may try to draw problematic conclusions. 

Document: “Document, document, document. Just making sure you have good documentation can really help you if litigation comes up and it’s related to the AI tools,” Srivastava said.

Try it out: “I recommend you use [generative AI] a lot so you understand its strengths and shortcomings,” said Shahrestani. “If you wait until things settle, you’ll be further behind.” 

Pretend you’re the patient and give the tool the information you’d give a doctor and see the results, said Pearl. It will provide you with an idea of what it can do. “No one would sue you because you went to the library to look up information in the textbooks,” he said — using generative AI is similar. Try the free versions first; if you begin relying on it more, the paid versions have better features and are inexpensive. 

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

Instead of sitting behind a laptop during patient visits, the pediatrician directly faces the patient and parent, relying on an ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribe to capture the conversation for the electronic health record (EHR). A geriatrician doing rounds at the senior living facility plugs each patient’s medications into an AI tool, checking for drug interactions. And a busy hospital radiology department runs all its emergency head CTs through an AI algorithm, triaging potential stroke patients to ensure they receive the highest priority. None of these physicians have been sued for malpractice for AI usage, but they wonder if they’re at risk.

In a recent Medscape report, AI Adoption in Healthcare, 224 physicians responded to the statement: “I want to do more with AI but I worry about malpractice risk if I move too fast.” Seventeen percent said that they strongly agreed while 23% said they agreed — a full 40% were concerned about using the technology for legal reasons.  

Malpractice and AI are on many minds in healthcare, especially in large health systems, Deepika Srivastava, chief operating officer at The Doctors Company, told this news organization. “AI is at the forefront of the conversation, and they’re [large health systems] raising questions. Larger systems want to protect themselves.” 

The good news is there’s currently no sign of legal action over the clinical use of AI. “We’re not seeing even a few AI-related suits just yet,” but the risk is growing, Srivastava said, “and that’s why we’re talking about it. The legal system will need to adapt to address the role of AI in healthcare.”

 

How Doctors Are Using AI

Healthcare is incorporating AI in multiple ways based on the type of tool and function needed. Narrow AI is popular in fields like radiology, comparing two large data sets to find differences between them. Narrow AI can help differentiate between normal and abnormal tissue, such as breast or lung tumors. Almost 900 AI health tools have Food and Drug Administration approval as of July 2024, discerning abnormalities and recognizing patterns better than many humans, said Robert Pearl, MD, author of ChatGPT, MD: How AI-Empowered Patients & Doctors Can Take Back Control of American Medicine and former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.

Narrow AI can improve diagnostic speed and accuracy for other specialties, too, including dermatology and ophthalmology, Pearl said. “It’s less clear to me if it will be very beneficial in primary care, neurology, and psychiatry, areas of medicine that involve a lot of words.” In those specialties, some may use generative AI as a repository of resources. In clinical practice, ambient AI is also used to create health records based on patient/clinician conversations.

In clinical administration, AI is used for scheduling, billing, and submitting insurance claims. On the insurer side, denying claims based on AI algorithms has been at the heart of legal actions, making recent headlines. 

 

Malpractice Risks When Using AI

Accuracy and privacy should be at the top of the list for malpractice concerns with AI. With accuracy, liability could partially be determined by use type. If a diagnostic application makes the wrong diagnosis, “the company has legal accountability because it created and had to test it specific to the application that it’s being recommended for,” Pearl said. 

However, keeping a human in the loop is a smart move when using AI diagnostic tools. The physician should still choose the AI-suggested diagnosis or a different one. If it’s the wrong diagnosis, “it’s really hard to currently say where is the source of the error? Was it the physician? Was it the tool?” Srivastava added.

With an incorrect diagnosis by generative AI, liability is more apparent. “You’re taking that accountability,” Pearl said. Generative AI operates in a black box, predicting the correct answer based on information stored in a database. “Generative AI tries to draw a correlation between what it has seen and predicting the next output,” said Alex Shahrestani, managing partner of Promise Legal PLLC, a law firm in Austin, Texas. He serves on the State Bar of Texas’s Taskforce on AI and the Law and has participated in advisory groups related to AI policies with the National Institute of Standards and Technology. “A doctor should know to validate information given back to them by AI,” applying their own medical training and judgment.

Generative AI can provide ideas. Pearl shared a story about a surgeon who was unable to remove a breathing tube that was stuck in a patients’ throat at the end of a procedure. The surgeon checked ChatGPT in the operating room, finding a similar case. Adrenaline in the anesthetic restricted the blood vessels, causing the vocal cords to stick together. Following the AI information, the surgeon allowed more time for the anesthesia to diffuse. As it wore off, the vocal cords separated, easing the removal of the breathing tube. “That is the kind of expertise it can provide,” Pearl said.

Privacy is a common AI concern, but it may be more problematic than it should be. “Many think if you talk to an AI system, you’re surrendering personal information the model can learn from,” said Shahrestani. Platforms offer opt-outs. Even without opting out, the model won’t automatically ingest your interactions. That’s not a privacy feature, but a concern by the developer that the information may not help the model. 

“If you do use these opt-out mechanisms, and you have the requisite amount of confidentiality, you can use ChatGPT without too much concern about the patient information being released into the wild,” Shahrestani said. Or use systems with stricter requirements that keep all data on site.

 

Malpractice Insurance Policies and AI

Currently, malpractice policies do not specify AI coverage. “We don’t ask right now to list all the technology you’re using,” said Srivastava. Many EHR systems already incorporate AI. If a human provider is in the loop, already vetted and insured, “we should be okay when it comes to the risk of malpractice when doctors are using AI because it’s still the risk that we’re ensuring.”

Insurers are paying attention, though. “Traditional medical malpractice law does require re-evaluation because the rapid pace of AI development has outpaced the efforts to integrate it into the legal system,” Srivastava said.

Some, including Pearl, believe AI will actually lower the malpractice risk. Having more data points to consider can make doctors’ jobs faster, easier, and more accurate. “I believe the technology will decrease lawsuits, not increase them,” said Pearl.

 

Meanwhile, How Can Doctors Protect Themselves From an AI Malpractice Suit?

Know your tool: Providers should understand the tool they’re deploying, what it provides, how it was built and trained (including potential biases), how it was tested, and the guidelines for how to use it or not use it, said Srivastava. Evaluate each tool, use case, and risk separately. “Don’t just say it’s all AI.” 

With generative AI, users will have better success requesting information that has been available longer and is more widely accessed. “It’s more likely to come back correctly,” said Shahrestani. If the information sought is fairly new or not widespread, the tool may try to draw problematic conclusions. 

Document: “Document, document, document. Just making sure you have good documentation can really help you if litigation comes up and it’s related to the AI tools,” Srivastava said.

Try it out: “I recommend you use [generative AI] a lot so you understand its strengths and shortcomings,” said Shahrestani. “If you wait until things settle, you’ll be further behind.” 

Pretend you’re the patient and give the tool the information you’d give a doctor and see the results, said Pearl. It will provide you with an idea of what it can do. “No one would sue you because you went to the library to look up information in the textbooks,” he said — using generative AI is similar. Try the free versions first; if you begin relying on it more, the paid versions have better features and are inexpensive. 

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

Working as an emergency physician can be demanding. It’s also dangerous. In a 2022 study, two thirds of emergency physicians were assaulted in the past 12 months, and one third of those assaults resulted in an injury.

The attacks included verbal assaults with threats of violence (64%), hits/slaps (40%), being spit on (31%), kicked (26%), and punched (25%). Nearly one in four physicians said they were assaulted multiple times. 

The same survey found that 85% of emergency physicians believe that violence in the emergency department (ED) has increased over the past 5 years; nearly half (45%) say it has greatly increased.

To offset this disturbing trend, healthcare systems are trying new measures to reduce or prevent violence in the ED and protect staff and patients. EDs have security cameras, metal detectors, panic alarms, and security guards. And now more security guards are using body-worn cameras (bodycams) like police wear, to protect ED doctors and staff.

 

Bodycams in the ED

Scott Hill, EdD, CPP, CHPA, a board member of the International Association for Healthcare Security and Safety Foundation, recently published a study on the impact of hospital security officers using bodycams. The study surveyed more than 100 hospitals. Fifty-three had security guards wearing bodycams; 57 had security guards without them.

The study supported the benefits of implementing body-worn cameras in a healthcare environment, said Hill, the former director of safety and security for King’s Daughters Health System in Ashland, Kentucky. “We were a little surprised by the data, but basically there was a positive impact…on the safety of hospital staff. There was higher officer confidence, better record-keeping, improved customer service, better training ... and better protection from false allegations.”

Hill told Medscape Medical News that bodycams can make for a safer ED. “The body-worn camera group believed that the cameras would have a positive impact that would make patients and staff feel safer,” said Hill. The idea is that security guards will use force more appropriately because the bodycam provides protection from false accusations.

Appropriate, timely intervention with disruptive or violent patients (or their family members) creates a safer environment for doctors, nurses, and other staff. (While the study found that hospital personnel felt safer with security guards wearing bodycams, physicians and healthcare staff were not surveyed in the study.)

 

Should Doctors Wear Bodycams?

While the idea of ED physicians or nurses wearing bodycams has been suggested, it’s a novel one to Jeffrey Goodloe, MD, an emergency physician in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and member of the American College of Emergency Physicians’ board of directors. “Even with a very vast network of colleagues, both professional and personal friends…I am personally not aware of an ER physician who wears a bodycam,” said Goodloe.

However, there’s no consensus on whether they should, he added. “If you ask 10 emergency room physicians [about wearing bodycams], some will say, ‘That would help’; some would say, ‘from an academic perspective, we don’t have the data,’ some would say, ‘what about privacy concerns?’ You’ll get all those responses,” said Goodloe.

“If a doctor is wearing a bodycam, one of the risks is that patients may not want to be upfront because they see a camera and they see it’s being recorded,” said Edward Wright, MD, a board-certified emergency medicine physician who owns freestanding emergency rooms (ERs) in San Antonio. “It could cause a lot of damage to the relationship between the patient and the physician.”

 

Other Potential Drawbacks of Bodycams

When it comes to patient care, “the presence of a body camera [on a security guard] in and of itself is not intrusive or detrimental to the professional actions of an emergency physician,” said Goodloe, who often sees police officers and security guards with bodycams in the ED. “However, when we are in the process of treating patients, there is a certain amount of privacy that patients and their families and loved ones have a reasonable right to expect in an ED.”

Wright has seen police officers wearing body cameras as well as patients using their phones to record in the ED. “That happens a lot…in Texas, anyone in a public place can record audio and video,” said Wright. “I would say the concern with anyone recording things is patient’s privacy and HIPPA concerns.” While some areas, like the waiting room and hallways, are considered public, the patient care areas are typically private — and a bodycam could violate that privacy.

“The biggest concern we have with bodycams is the unintended violation of someone else’s privacy,” said Goodloe. In an ER setting, he explains that it’s difficult for someone wearing a bodycam to prevent unintentionally recording multiple other patients in the footage. “How do we provide care and protect patient privacy?”

And while a camera makes a record, it may not always be an accurate reflection of what happened. “You might have a video record of what I said and what the patient said, but the camera doesn’t tell the whole story,” said Wright. “There are nuances, and there may be family members who are not on camera…you have to consider that something may be missing.”

Most EDs have wall-mounted security cameras; a 2023 study found that 94.7% had security cameras in key locations. Signage alerting patients of cameras is also common; more than half of EDs have signage warning patients and visitors that they are being recorded, so there may be little expectation of privacy in public areas. But unfortunately, sometimes, patients must be triaged, and treated, in the hallways of busy EDs, where they are subject to being recorded either on stationary or body-worn cameras.

 

Keeping the ED Safe

Putting aside privacy concerns, security measures meant to protect staff and patients can only do so much. “Some security measures are more of a feel-good measure,” said Wright. “We have automatic door locks for our doors, but the whole side of the building is glass…my personal feeling is that cameras can be a deterrent, but if someone has an intention to hurt someone else or is psychotic, you aren’t going to be able to stop them from what they’re going to do.”

Regardless, we’re likely to see more security measures like body-worn cameras in the ED. “Workplace safety is very much on the minds of ER physicians and ER nurses,” said Goodloe. “EDs have become sites of workplace violence with unacceptable increasing frequency…how do we solve this, [while] simultaneously not discouraging or preventing access to emergency care when and where people need it most?”

“We truly care about patient safety and our colleagues’ safety, and we want to be able to come in and make a positive difference,” said Goodloe. But ultimately, doctors want to go home safely to their families, and they want their patients to be able to do that, too.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Working as an emergency physician can be demanding. It’s also dangerous. In a 2022 study, two thirds of emergency physicians were assaulted in the past 12 months, and one third of those assaults resulted in an injury.

The attacks included verbal assaults with threats of violence (64%), hits/slaps (40%), being spit on (31%), kicked (26%), and punched (25%). Nearly one in four physicians said they were assaulted multiple times. 

The same survey found that 85% of emergency physicians believe that violence in the emergency department (ED) has increased over the past 5 years; nearly half (45%) say it has greatly increased.

To offset this disturbing trend, healthcare systems are trying new measures to reduce or prevent violence in the ED and protect staff and patients. EDs have security cameras, metal detectors, panic alarms, and security guards. And now more security guards are using body-worn cameras (bodycams) like police wear, to protect ED doctors and staff.

 

Bodycams in the ED

Scott Hill, EdD, CPP, CHPA, a board member of the International Association for Healthcare Security and Safety Foundation, recently published a study on the impact of hospital security officers using bodycams. The study surveyed more than 100 hospitals. Fifty-three had security guards wearing bodycams; 57 had security guards without them.

The study supported the benefits of implementing body-worn cameras in a healthcare environment, said Hill, the former director of safety and security for King’s Daughters Health System in Ashland, Kentucky. “We were a little surprised by the data, but basically there was a positive impact…on the safety of hospital staff. There was higher officer confidence, better record-keeping, improved customer service, better training ... and better protection from false allegations.”

Hill told Medscape Medical News that bodycams can make for a safer ED. “The body-worn camera group believed that the cameras would have a positive impact that would make patients and staff feel safer,” said Hill. The idea is that security guards will use force more appropriately because the bodycam provides protection from false accusations.

Appropriate, timely intervention with disruptive or violent patients (or their family members) creates a safer environment for doctors, nurses, and other staff. (While the study found that hospital personnel felt safer with security guards wearing bodycams, physicians and healthcare staff were not surveyed in the study.)

 

Should Doctors Wear Bodycams?

While the idea of ED physicians or nurses wearing bodycams has been suggested, it’s a novel one to Jeffrey Goodloe, MD, an emergency physician in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and member of the American College of Emergency Physicians’ board of directors. “Even with a very vast network of colleagues, both professional and personal friends…I am personally not aware of an ER physician who wears a bodycam,” said Goodloe.

However, there’s no consensus on whether they should, he added. “If you ask 10 emergency room physicians [about wearing bodycams], some will say, ‘That would help’; some would say, ‘from an academic perspective, we don’t have the data,’ some would say, ‘what about privacy concerns?’ You’ll get all those responses,” said Goodloe.

“If a doctor is wearing a bodycam, one of the risks is that patients may not want to be upfront because they see a camera and they see it’s being recorded,” said Edward Wright, MD, a board-certified emergency medicine physician who owns freestanding emergency rooms (ERs) in San Antonio. “It could cause a lot of damage to the relationship between the patient and the physician.”

 

Other Potential Drawbacks of Bodycams

When it comes to patient care, “the presence of a body camera [on a security guard] in and of itself is not intrusive or detrimental to the professional actions of an emergency physician,” said Goodloe, who often sees police officers and security guards with bodycams in the ED. “However, when we are in the process of treating patients, there is a certain amount of privacy that patients and their families and loved ones have a reasonable right to expect in an ED.”

Wright has seen police officers wearing body cameras as well as patients using their phones to record in the ED. “That happens a lot…in Texas, anyone in a public place can record audio and video,” said Wright. “I would say the concern with anyone recording things is patient’s privacy and HIPPA concerns.” While some areas, like the waiting room and hallways, are considered public, the patient care areas are typically private — and a bodycam could violate that privacy.

“The biggest concern we have with bodycams is the unintended violation of someone else’s privacy,” said Goodloe. In an ER setting, he explains that it’s difficult for someone wearing a bodycam to prevent unintentionally recording multiple other patients in the footage. “How do we provide care and protect patient privacy?”

And while a camera makes a record, it may not always be an accurate reflection of what happened. “You might have a video record of what I said and what the patient said, but the camera doesn’t tell the whole story,” said Wright. “There are nuances, and there may be family members who are not on camera…you have to consider that something may be missing.”

Most EDs have wall-mounted security cameras; a 2023 study found that 94.7% had security cameras in key locations. Signage alerting patients of cameras is also common; more than half of EDs have signage warning patients and visitors that they are being recorded, so there may be little expectation of privacy in public areas. But unfortunately, sometimes, patients must be triaged, and treated, in the hallways of busy EDs, where they are subject to being recorded either on stationary or body-worn cameras.

 

Keeping the ED Safe

Putting aside privacy concerns, security measures meant to protect staff and patients can only do so much. “Some security measures are more of a feel-good measure,” said Wright. “We have automatic door locks for our doors, but the whole side of the building is glass…my personal feeling is that cameras can be a deterrent, but if someone has an intention to hurt someone else or is psychotic, you aren’t going to be able to stop them from what they’re going to do.”

Regardless, we’re likely to see more security measures like body-worn cameras in the ED. “Workplace safety is very much on the minds of ER physicians and ER nurses,” said Goodloe. “EDs have become sites of workplace violence with unacceptable increasing frequency…how do we solve this, [while] simultaneously not discouraging or preventing access to emergency care when and where people need it most?”

“We truly care about patient safety and our colleagues’ safety, and we want to be able to come in and make a positive difference,” said Goodloe. But ultimately, doctors want to go home safely to their families, and they want their patients to be able to do that, too.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Working as an emergency physician can be demanding. It’s also dangerous. In a 2022 study, two thirds of emergency physicians were assaulted in the past 12 months, and one third of those assaults resulted in an injury.

The attacks included verbal assaults with threats of violence (64%), hits/slaps (40%), being spit on (31%), kicked (26%), and punched (25%). Nearly one in four physicians said they were assaulted multiple times. 

The same survey found that 85% of emergency physicians believe that violence in the emergency department (ED) has increased over the past 5 years; nearly half (45%) say it has greatly increased.

To offset this disturbing trend, healthcare systems are trying new measures to reduce or prevent violence in the ED and protect staff and patients. EDs have security cameras, metal detectors, panic alarms, and security guards. And now more security guards are using body-worn cameras (bodycams) like police wear, to protect ED doctors and staff.

 

Bodycams in the ED

Scott Hill, EdD, CPP, CHPA, a board member of the International Association for Healthcare Security and Safety Foundation, recently published a study on the impact of hospital security officers using bodycams. The study surveyed more than 100 hospitals. Fifty-three had security guards wearing bodycams; 57 had security guards without them.

The study supported the benefits of implementing body-worn cameras in a healthcare environment, said Hill, the former director of safety and security for King’s Daughters Health System in Ashland, Kentucky. “We were a little surprised by the data, but basically there was a positive impact…on the safety of hospital staff. There was higher officer confidence, better record-keeping, improved customer service, better training ... and better protection from false allegations.”

Hill told Medscape Medical News that bodycams can make for a safer ED. “The body-worn camera group believed that the cameras would have a positive impact that would make patients and staff feel safer,” said Hill. The idea is that security guards will use force more appropriately because the bodycam provides protection from false accusations.

Appropriate, timely intervention with disruptive or violent patients (or their family members) creates a safer environment for doctors, nurses, and other staff. (While the study found that hospital personnel felt safer with security guards wearing bodycams, physicians and healthcare staff were not surveyed in the study.)

 

Should Doctors Wear Bodycams?

While the idea of ED physicians or nurses wearing bodycams has been suggested, it’s a novel one to Jeffrey Goodloe, MD, an emergency physician in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and member of the American College of Emergency Physicians’ board of directors. “Even with a very vast network of colleagues, both professional and personal friends…I am personally not aware of an ER physician who wears a bodycam,” said Goodloe.

However, there’s no consensus on whether they should, he added. “If you ask 10 emergency room physicians [about wearing bodycams], some will say, ‘That would help’; some would say, ‘from an academic perspective, we don’t have the data,’ some would say, ‘what about privacy concerns?’ You’ll get all those responses,” said Goodloe.

“If a doctor is wearing a bodycam, one of the risks is that patients may not want to be upfront because they see a camera and they see it’s being recorded,” said Edward Wright, MD, a board-certified emergency medicine physician who owns freestanding emergency rooms (ERs) in San Antonio. “It could cause a lot of damage to the relationship between the patient and the physician.”

 

Other Potential Drawbacks of Bodycams

When it comes to patient care, “the presence of a body camera [on a security guard] in and of itself is not intrusive or detrimental to the professional actions of an emergency physician,” said Goodloe, who often sees police officers and security guards with bodycams in the ED. “However, when we are in the process of treating patients, there is a certain amount of privacy that patients and their families and loved ones have a reasonable right to expect in an ED.”

Wright has seen police officers wearing body cameras as well as patients using their phones to record in the ED. “That happens a lot…in Texas, anyone in a public place can record audio and video,” said Wright. “I would say the concern with anyone recording things is patient’s privacy and HIPPA concerns.” While some areas, like the waiting room and hallways, are considered public, the patient care areas are typically private — and a bodycam could violate that privacy.

“The biggest concern we have with bodycams is the unintended violation of someone else’s privacy,” said Goodloe. In an ER setting, he explains that it’s difficult for someone wearing a bodycam to prevent unintentionally recording multiple other patients in the footage. “How do we provide care and protect patient privacy?”

And while a camera makes a record, it may not always be an accurate reflection of what happened. “You might have a video record of what I said and what the patient said, but the camera doesn’t tell the whole story,” said Wright. “There are nuances, and there may be family members who are not on camera…you have to consider that something may be missing.”

Most EDs have wall-mounted security cameras; a 2023 study found that 94.7% had security cameras in key locations. Signage alerting patients of cameras is also common; more than half of EDs have signage warning patients and visitors that they are being recorded, so there may be little expectation of privacy in public areas. But unfortunately, sometimes, patients must be triaged, and treated, in the hallways of busy EDs, where they are subject to being recorded either on stationary or body-worn cameras.

 

Keeping the ED Safe

Putting aside privacy concerns, security measures meant to protect staff and patients can only do so much. “Some security measures are more of a feel-good measure,” said Wright. “We have automatic door locks for our doors, but the whole side of the building is glass…my personal feeling is that cameras can be a deterrent, but if someone has an intention to hurt someone else or is psychotic, you aren’t going to be able to stop them from what they’re going to do.”

Regardless, we’re likely to see more security measures like body-worn cameras in the ED. “Workplace safety is very much on the minds of ER physicians and ER nurses,” said Goodloe. “EDs have become sites of workplace violence with unacceptable increasing frequency…how do we solve this, [while] simultaneously not discouraging or preventing access to emergency care when and where people need it most?”

“We truly care about patient safety and our colleagues’ safety, and we want to be able to come in and make a positive difference,” said Goodloe. But ultimately, doctors want to go home safely to their families, and they want their patients to be able to do that, too.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — When the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) released its updated guideline for management of lupus nephritis (LN) at its 2024 Annual Meeting, they included recommendations for managing pediatric LN for the first time. 

The pediatric recommendations use the same classification criteria, outcome measures, and treatments as in adults — including the first-line triple therapy recommendation — but there remain important differences between pediatric and adult LN, Mary Beth Son, MD, clinical chief of immunology and section chief of rheumatology at Boston Children’s Hospital in Massachusetts, and an associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, told attendees. 

“In general, kids and adolescents with lupus are sicker,” Son said. They are more likely to have renal manifestations and neuropsychiatric lupus at diagnosis, compared with adults. Further, “although the disease is the same, it’s happening to kids and adolescents who are undergoing critical periods of growth and development.” 

Medication risk profiles also shift for younger patients, Son noted. 

“Importantly, they’re at risk for higher cumulative dosing of both glucocorticoids and cyclophosphamide,” Son said. “When we give an adolescent a course of cyclophosphamide, we have to be aware that this might be the first of a few courses over the course of the lifetime disease, and with increasing numbers of cyclophosphamide courses, you have increased risk for infertility and malignancy.” 

Son also acknowledged challenges of pediatric literature, including differences in definitions of pediatric lupus, very few randomized controlled trials, and fewer pediatric studies in general, with fewer participants. Given these research gaps, the guideline panels included pediatric rheumatologists and nephrologists, and the patient panel included several patients with childhood-onset disease.

Son also addressed differences in pediatric drug development. Dosing studies also do not always directly translate from adults to children because children have larger drug volume distribution and differences in drug clearance, and they may need different formulations, she said. Children tend to tolerate medications better than adults because they usually have fewer comorbidities, but the assessment of a drug’s safety must take its impact on growth and development into consideration.

During a press conference after the session where the guideline was presented, Linda Hiraki, MD, ScD, a clinician-scientist in rheumatology at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said the panel took into consideration that pediatric patients receive their diagnosis during a critical time of development, so considerations of medication risks include the fact that children “have much more life to live.”

 

Triple Therapy Recommended

As with adults, the pediatric LN guideline recommends a triple therapy approach: glucocorticoids plus mycophenolate mofetil and belimumab, in addition to the usual renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and hydroxychloroquine. But Son acknowledged limitations of applying the new guideline to children. For one, voclosporin has not been studied in or approved for pediatric patients, although there exists modest evidence for other calcineurin inhibitors, mainly tacrolimus, in children.

“The other important consideration is that the lower dose of prednisone that’s being offered by the guidelines of 40 mg per day as a starting dose has not been studied in pediatric lupus nephritis patients,” Son said. “However, I would offer that, given that we know that kids get higher doses and longer courses, it’s even more important to consider a lower dose to begin with in the setting of other immunosuppressants.”

 

Good Practice Statements for Pediatric LN

Son also reviewed three good practice statements for pediatric LN. First, “glucocorticoid regimens should use pediatric-appropriate doses for children, as reduction of human glucocorticoid dosing is critically important given the early age of pediatric lupus onset and attendant comorbidities,” she said.

That statement is based on both common sense and some literature, including awareness that children are more likely to receive higher doses of steroids and that children’s higher damage scores are driven in part by steroid-related toxicity, such as avascular necrosis and cataracts. In addition, glucocorticoids can have profound effects on body mass index, mood, and height attainment.

“This is during a period of emerging self-identity and struggles with appearance; steroids exacerbate that” as well as mood issues already associated with puberty, Son said.

The second good practice statement recommends that clinicians monitor patients “for delayed pubertal onset and decreased growth velocity that can result from disease activity and glucocorticoid treatment and consider referral to pediatric endocrinology if indicated.” The third states that “a structured, intentional transition from pediatric to adult rheumatology care is indicated to avoid poor outcomes during this vulnerable period.” 

During the press conference, Hiraki said that pediatric rheumatologists already recognize the need for discussions about transfer to adult care to begin very early, even years before patients are ready to transfer.

“The transition from being a pediatric patient to being an adult patient is very challenging for a number of reasons,” starting with loss of insurance coverage, added Bonnie Bermas, MD, a professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas. When adult rheumatologists take on these patients, they may not have had care for 2 or 3 years, she said. 

Rebecca Sadun, MD, PhD, an associate professor of pediatrics in rheumatology at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, and vice-chair of the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Committee for the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, was not involved in the guideline development process but reviewed the new guideline. 

“We appreciate that the ACR took care to involve pediatric rheumatologists, pediatric nephrologists, and patients with childhood-onset lupus in the development of the newest lupus nephritis treatment guidelines,” she said in an interview. She also noted, however, that “the dearth of pediatric-specific clinical trial data means that we continue to wonder when it is appropriate to extrapolate from adult data regarding the efficacy, safety, and dosing of certain medications, including steroids and voclosporin.” She also noted that voclosporin use can increase pill burden and therefore be difficult to use in pediatrics.

“Children, adolescents, and young adults are a unique population with unique challenges, including significant struggles with adherence to complex medication regimens,” she said. Sadun drew attention to two themes from the guideline that she found particularly applicable to management of pediatric LN.

“First, we must remain wary of the serious consequences of long-term, high-dose glucocorticoids, and we should continue to look towards steroid-sparing strategies that will reduce reliance on glucocorticoids,” Sadun said. “Second, we are likely to see better outcomes, including better renal response, when we take advantage of combination immunosuppression earlier in the disease course.”

Son, Bermas, and Sadun had no disclosures. Hiraki has consulted for Janssen. The guideline development did not involve outside funding.

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

WASHINGTON — When the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) released its updated guideline for management of lupus nephritis (LN) at its 2024 Annual Meeting, they included recommendations for managing pediatric LN for the first time. 

The pediatric recommendations use the same classification criteria, outcome measures, and treatments as in adults — including the first-line triple therapy recommendation — but there remain important differences between pediatric and adult LN, Mary Beth Son, MD, clinical chief of immunology and section chief of rheumatology at Boston Children’s Hospital in Massachusetts, and an associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, told attendees. 

“In general, kids and adolescents with lupus are sicker,” Son said. They are more likely to have renal manifestations and neuropsychiatric lupus at diagnosis, compared with adults. Further, “although the disease is the same, it’s happening to kids and adolescents who are undergoing critical periods of growth and development.” 

Medication risk profiles also shift for younger patients, Son noted. 

“Importantly, they’re at risk for higher cumulative dosing of both glucocorticoids and cyclophosphamide,” Son said. “When we give an adolescent a course of cyclophosphamide, we have to be aware that this might be the first of a few courses over the course of the lifetime disease, and with increasing numbers of cyclophosphamide courses, you have increased risk for infertility and malignancy.” 

Son also acknowledged challenges of pediatric literature, including differences in definitions of pediatric lupus, very few randomized controlled trials, and fewer pediatric studies in general, with fewer participants. Given these research gaps, the guideline panels included pediatric rheumatologists and nephrologists, and the patient panel included several patients with childhood-onset disease.

Son also addressed differences in pediatric drug development. Dosing studies also do not always directly translate from adults to children because children have larger drug volume distribution and differences in drug clearance, and they may need different formulations, she said. Children tend to tolerate medications better than adults because they usually have fewer comorbidities, but the assessment of a drug’s safety must take its impact on growth and development into consideration.

During a press conference after the session where the guideline was presented, Linda Hiraki, MD, ScD, a clinician-scientist in rheumatology at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said the panel took into consideration that pediatric patients receive their diagnosis during a critical time of development, so considerations of medication risks include the fact that children “have much more life to live.”

 

Triple Therapy Recommended

As with adults, the pediatric LN guideline recommends a triple therapy approach: glucocorticoids plus mycophenolate mofetil and belimumab, in addition to the usual renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and hydroxychloroquine. But Son acknowledged limitations of applying the new guideline to children. For one, voclosporin has not been studied in or approved for pediatric patients, although there exists modest evidence for other calcineurin inhibitors, mainly tacrolimus, in children.

“The other important consideration is that the lower dose of prednisone that’s being offered by the guidelines of 40 mg per day as a starting dose has not been studied in pediatric lupus nephritis patients,” Son said. “However, I would offer that, given that we know that kids get higher doses and longer courses, it’s even more important to consider a lower dose to begin with in the setting of other immunosuppressants.”

 

Good Practice Statements for Pediatric LN

Son also reviewed three good practice statements for pediatric LN. First, “glucocorticoid regimens should use pediatric-appropriate doses for children, as reduction of human glucocorticoid dosing is critically important given the early age of pediatric lupus onset and attendant comorbidities,” she said.

That statement is based on both common sense and some literature, including awareness that children are more likely to receive higher doses of steroids and that children’s higher damage scores are driven in part by steroid-related toxicity, such as avascular necrosis and cataracts. In addition, glucocorticoids can have profound effects on body mass index, mood, and height attainment.

“This is during a period of emerging self-identity and struggles with appearance; steroids exacerbate that” as well as mood issues already associated with puberty, Son said.

The second good practice statement recommends that clinicians monitor patients “for delayed pubertal onset and decreased growth velocity that can result from disease activity and glucocorticoid treatment and consider referral to pediatric endocrinology if indicated.” The third states that “a structured, intentional transition from pediatric to adult rheumatology care is indicated to avoid poor outcomes during this vulnerable period.” 

During the press conference, Hiraki said that pediatric rheumatologists already recognize the need for discussions about transfer to adult care to begin very early, even years before patients are ready to transfer.

“The transition from being a pediatric patient to being an adult patient is very challenging for a number of reasons,” starting with loss of insurance coverage, added Bonnie Bermas, MD, a professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas. When adult rheumatologists take on these patients, they may not have had care for 2 or 3 years, she said. 

Rebecca Sadun, MD, PhD, an associate professor of pediatrics in rheumatology at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, and vice-chair of the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Committee for the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, was not involved in the guideline development process but reviewed the new guideline. 

“We appreciate that the ACR took care to involve pediatric rheumatologists, pediatric nephrologists, and patients with childhood-onset lupus in the development of the newest lupus nephritis treatment guidelines,” she said in an interview. She also noted, however, that “the dearth of pediatric-specific clinical trial data means that we continue to wonder when it is appropriate to extrapolate from adult data regarding the efficacy, safety, and dosing of certain medications, including steroids and voclosporin.” She also noted that voclosporin use can increase pill burden and therefore be difficult to use in pediatrics.

“Children, adolescents, and young adults are a unique population with unique challenges, including significant struggles with adherence to complex medication regimens,” she said. Sadun drew attention to two themes from the guideline that she found particularly applicable to management of pediatric LN.

“First, we must remain wary of the serious consequences of long-term, high-dose glucocorticoids, and we should continue to look towards steroid-sparing strategies that will reduce reliance on glucocorticoids,” Sadun said. “Second, we are likely to see better outcomes, including better renal response, when we take advantage of combination immunosuppression earlier in the disease course.”

Son, Bermas, and Sadun had no disclosures. Hiraki has consulted for Janssen. The guideline development did not involve outside funding.

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

WASHINGTON — When the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) released its updated guideline for management of lupus nephritis (LN) at its 2024 Annual Meeting, they included recommendations for managing pediatric LN for the first time. 

The pediatric recommendations use the same classification criteria, outcome measures, and treatments as in adults — including the first-line triple therapy recommendation — but there remain important differences between pediatric and adult LN, Mary Beth Son, MD, clinical chief of immunology and section chief of rheumatology at Boston Children’s Hospital in Massachusetts, and an associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, told attendees. 

“In general, kids and adolescents with lupus are sicker,” Son said. They are more likely to have renal manifestations and neuropsychiatric lupus at diagnosis, compared with adults. Further, “although the disease is the same, it’s happening to kids and adolescents who are undergoing critical periods of growth and development.” 

Medication risk profiles also shift for younger patients, Son noted. 

“Importantly, they’re at risk for higher cumulative dosing of both glucocorticoids and cyclophosphamide,” Son said. “When we give an adolescent a course of cyclophosphamide, we have to be aware that this might be the first of a few courses over the course of the lifetime disease, and with increasing numbers of cyclophosphamide courses, you have increased risk for infertility and malignancy.” 

Son also acknowledged challenges of pediatric literature, including differences in definitions of pediatric lupus, very few randomized controlled trials, and fewer pediatric studies in general, with fewer participants. Given these research gaps, the guideline panels included pediatric rheumatologists and nephrologists, and the patient panel included several patients with childhood-onset disease.

Son also addressed differences in pediatric drug development. Dosing studies also do not always directly translate from adults to children because children have larger drug volume distribution and differences in drug clearance, and they may need different formulations, she said. Children tend to tolerate medications better than adults because they usually have fewer comorbidities, but the assessment of a drug’s safety must take its impact on growth and development into consideration.

During a press conference after the session where the guideline was presented, Linda Hiraki, MD, ScD, a clinician-scientist in rheumatology at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said the panel took into consideration that pediatric patients receive their diagnosis during a critical time of development, so considerations of medication risks include the fact that children “have much more life to live.”

 

Triple Therapy Recommended

As with adults, the pediatric LN guideline recommends a triple therapy approach: glucocorticoids plus mycophenolate mofetil and belimumab, in addition to the usual renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and hydroxychloroquine. But Son acknowledged limitations of applying the new guideline to children. For one, voclosporin has not been studied in or approved for pediatric patients, although there exists modest evidence for other calcineurin inhibitors, mainly tacrolimus, in children.

“The other important consideration is that the lower dose of prednisone that’s being offered by the guidelines of 40 mg per day as a starting dose has not been studied in pediatric lupus nephritis patients,” Son said. “However, I would offer that, given that we know that kids get higher doses and longer courses, it’s even more important to consider a lower dose to begin with in the setting of other immunosuppressants.”

 

Good Practice Statements for Pediatric LN

Son also reviewed three good practice statements for pediatric LN. First, “glucocorticoid regimens should use pediatric-appropriate doses for children, as reduction of human glucocorticoid dosing is critically important given the early age of pediatric lupus onset and attendant comorbidities,” she said.

That statement is based on both common sense and some literature, including awareness that children are more likely to receive higher doses of steroids and that children’s higher damage scores are driven in part by steroid-related toxicity, such as avascular necrosis and cataracts. In addition, glucocorticoids can have profound effects on body mass index, mood, and height attainment.

“This is during a period of emerging self-identity and struggles with appearance; steroids exacerbate that” as well as mood issues already associated with puberty, Son said.

The second good practice statement recommends that clinicians monitor patients “for delayed pubertal onset and decreased growth velocity that can result from disease activity and glucocorticoid treatment and consider referral to pediatric endocrinology if indicated.” The third states that “a structured, intentional transition from pediatric to adult rheumatology care is indicated to avoid poor outcomes during this vulnerable period.” 

During the press conference, Hiraki said that pediatric rheumatologists already recognize the need for discussions about transfer to adult care to begin very early, even years before patients are ready to transfer.

“The transition from being a pediatric patient to being an adult patient is very challenging for a number of reasons,” starting with loss of insurance coverage, added Bonnie Bermas, MD, a professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas. When adult rheumatologists take on these patients, they may not have had care for 2 or 3 years, she said. 

Rebecca Sadun, MD, PhD, an associate professor of pediatrics in rheumatology at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, and vice-chair of the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Committee for the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, was not involved in the guideline development process but reviewed the new guideline. 

“We appreciate that the ACR took care to involve pediatric rheumatologists, pediatric nephrologists, and patients with childhood-onset lupus in the development of the newest lupus nephritis treatment guidelines,” she said in an interview. She also noted, however, that “the dearth of pediatric-specific clinical trial data means that we continue to wonder when it is appropriate to extrapolate from adult data regarding the efficacy, safety, and dosing of certain medications, including steroids and voclosporin.” She also noted that voclosporin use can increase pill burden and therefore be difficult to use in pediatrics.

“Children, adolescents, and young adults are a unique population with unique challenges, including significant struggles with adherence to complex medication regimens,” she said. Sadun drew attention to two themes from the guideline that she found particularly applicable to management of pediatric LN.

“First, we must remain wary of the serious consequences of long-term, high-dose glucocorticoids, and we should continue to look towards steroid-sparing strategies that will reduce reliance on glucocorticoids,” Sadun said. “Second, we are likely to see better outcomes, including better renal response, when we take advantage of combination immunosuppression earlier in the disease course.”

Son, Bermas, and Sadun had no disclosures. Hiraki has consulted for Janssen. The guideline development did not involve outside funding.

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

TOPLINE:

The association persists even after accounting for adverse pregnancy outcomes. Women who have experienced infertility without fertility treatment show a 25% higher risk for systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease (SARD) up to 9 years after delivery, compared with those without infertility.

METHODOLOGY:

• Population-based cohort study analyzed 568,053 singleton births among 465,078 women aged 18-50 years without pre-existing SARD in Ontario, Canada, from 2012 to 2021.
• Participants were categorized into four groups: No infertility with unassisted conception (88.0%), infertility without fertility treatment (9.2%), infertility with noninvasive fertility treatment (1.4%), and infertility with invasive fertility treatment (1.4%).
• Researchers used marginal structural Cox proportional hazards models to generate hazard ratios and 95% CIs, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, smoking, and adverse pregnancy outcomes.
• Analysis included a median follow-up duration of 6.5 years (interquartile range: 4-9 years) from delivery date until SARD diagnosis, death, loss of health insurance, or study end.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence rate of SARD was 12.5 per 10,000 person-years in women with untreated infertility, compared with 9.3 per 10,000 person-years in women without infertility.
• Women with untreated infertility showed an elevated risk for SARD (controlled direct effect hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.12-1.40) even after accounting for adverse pregnancy outcomes.
• Neither noninvasive fertility treatment (total effect HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.79-1.42) nor invasive fertility treatment (total effect HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.69-1.36) were associated with increased SARD risk.
• The association between untreated infertility and SARD persisted in analyses restricted to women aged < 38 years and in those without endometriosis or other autoimmune diseases.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future research efforts should seek to corroborate this association by infertility cause, with a focus on possible mechanisms related to ovulatory, ovarian, and sexual dysfunction. Greater health provider awareness of SARD symptoms and related gynecological issues that may present in women with infertility could facilitate earlier detection and treatment of SARD during the reproductive years,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Natalie V. Scime of the Department of Health and Society, University of Toronto Scarborough in Ontario, Canada. It was published online in Human Reproduction.

LIMITATIONS:

Exposure and outcome misclassification was possible due to the use of published algorithms in health administrative data with unknown or imperfect sensitivity and specificity. The researchers noted that individual-level social and lifestyle factors and underlying causes of infertility were not available, and thus, were not included in the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

This research received funding through a Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship to Scime and Canada Research Chair to Hilary K. Brown (2019-00158), with support from ICES, funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. One coauthor disclosed consulting for Celltrion, Werfen, Organon, MitogenDx, AstraZeneca, Mallinckrodt Canada, and GlaxoSmithKline. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

The association persists even after accounting for adverse pregnancy outcomes. Women who have experienced infertility without fertility treatment show a 25% higher risk for systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease (SARD) up to 9 years after delivery, compared with those without infertility.

METHODOLOGY:

• Population-based cohort study analyzed 568,053 singleton births among 465,078 women aged 18-50 years without pre-existing SARD in Ontario, Canada, from 2012 to 2021.
• Participants were categorized into four groups: No infertility with unassisted conception (88.0%), infertility without fertility treatment (9.2%), infertility with noninvasive fertility treatment (1.4%), and infertility with invasive fertility treatment (1.4%).
• Researchers used marginal structural Cox proportional hazards models to generate hazard ratios and 95% CIs, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, smoking, and adverse pregnancy outcomes.
• Analysis included a median follow-up duration of 6.5 years (interquartile range: 4-9 years) from delivery date until SARD diagnosis, death, loss of health insurance, or study end.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence rate of SARD was 12.5 per 10,000 person-years in women with untreated infertility, compared with 9.3 per 10,000 person-years in women without infertility.
• Women with untreated infertility showed an elevated risk for SARD (controlled direct effect hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.12-1.40) even after accounting for adverse pregnancy outcomes.
• Neither noninvasive fertility treatment (total effect HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.79-1.42) nor invasive fertility treatment (total effect HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.69-1.36) were associated with increased SARD risk.
• The association between untreated infertility and SARD persisted in analyses restricted to women aged < 38 years and in those without endometriosis or other autoimmune diseases.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future research efforts should seek to corroborate this association by infertility cause, with a focus on possible mechanisms related to ovulatory, ovarian, and sexual dysfunction. Greater health provider awareness of SARD symptoms and related gynecological issues that may present in women with infertility could facilitate earlier detection and treatment of SARD during the reproductive years,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Natalie V. Scime of the Department of Health and Society, University of Toronto Scarborough in Ontario, Canada. It was published online in Human Reproduction.

LIMITATIONS:

Exposure and outcome misclassification was possible due to the use of published algorithms in health administrative data with unknown or imperfect sensitivity and specificity. The researchers noted that individual-level social and lifestyle factors and underlying causes of infertility were not available, and thus, were not included in the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

This research received funding through a Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship to Scime and Canada Research Chair to Hilary K. Brown (2019-00158), with support from ICES, funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. One coauthor disclosed consulting for Celltrion, Werfen, Organon, MitogenDx, AstraZeneca, Mallinckrodt Canada, and GlaxoSmithKline. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

The association persists even after accounting for adverse pregnancy outcomes. Women who have experienced infertility without fertility treatment show a 25% higher risk for systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease (SARD) up to 9 years after delivery, compared with those without infertility.

METHODOLOGY:

• Population-based cohort study analyzed 568,053 singleton births among 465,078 women aged 18-50 years without pre-existing SARD in Ontario, Canada, from 2012 to 2021.
• Participants were categorized into four groups: No infertility with unassisted conception (88.0%), infertility without fertility treatment (9.2%), infertility with noninvasive fertility treatment (1.4%), and infertility with invasive fertility treatment (1.4%).
• Researchers used marginal structural Cox proportional hazards models to generate hazard ratios and 95% CIs, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, smoking, and adverse pregnancy outcomes.
• Analysis included a median follow-up duration of 6.5 years (interquartile range: 4-9 years) from delivery date until SARD diagnosis, death, loss of health insurance, or study end.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence rate of SARD was 12.5 per 10,000 person-years in women with untreated infertility, compared with 9.3 per 10,000 person-years in women without infertility.
• Women with untreated infertility showed an elevated risk for SARD (controlled direct effect hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.12-1.40) even after accounting for adverse pregnancy outcomes.
• Neither noninvasive fertility treatment (total effect HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.79-1.42) nor invasive fertility treatment (total effect HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.69-1.36) were associated with increased SARD risk.
• The association between untreated infertility and SARD persisted in analyses restricted to women aged < 38 years and in those without endometriosis or other autoimmune diseases.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future research efforts should seek to corroborate this association by infertility cause, with a focus on possible mechanisms related to ovulatory, ovarian, and sexual dysfunction. Greater health provider awareness of SARD symptoms and related gynecological issues that may present in women with infertility could facilitate earlier detection and treatment of SARD during the reproductive years,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Natalie V. Scime of the Department of Health and Society, University of Toronto Scarborough in Ontario, Canada. It was published online in Human Reproduction.

LIMITATIONS:

Exposure and outcome misclassification was possible due to the use of published algorithms in health administrative data with unknown or imperfect sensitivity and specificity. The researchers noted that individual-level social and lifestyle factors and underlying causes of infertility were not available, and thus, were not included in the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

This research received funding through a Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship to Scime and Canada Research Chair to Hilary K. Brown (2019-00158), with support from ICES, funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. One coauthor disclosed consulting for Celltrion, Werfen, Organon, MitogenDx, AstraZeneca, Mallinckrodt Canada, and GlaxoSmithKline. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk is higher with cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) or systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) than with psoriasis.

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective matched longitudinal study compared the incidence and prevalence of ASCVD of 8138 individuals with CLE; 24,675 with SLE; 192,577 with psoriasis; and 81,380 control individuals.
• The disease-free control population was matched in a 10:1 ratio to the CLE population on the basis of age, sex, insurance type, and enrollment duration.
• Prevalent ASCVD was defined as coronary artery disease, prior myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular accident, with ASCVD incidence assessed by number of hospitalizations over 3 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Persons with CLE had higher ASCVD risk than control individuals (odds ratio [OR], 1.72; P < .001), similar to those with SLE (OR, 2.41; P < .001) but unlike those with psoriasis (OR, 1.03; P = .48).
• ASCVD incidence at 3 years was 24.8 per 1000 person-years for SLE, 15.2 per 1000 person-years for CLE, 14.0 per 1000 person-years for psoriasis, and 10.3 per 1000 person-years for controls.
• Multivariable Cox proportional regression modeling showed ASCVD risk was highest in those with SLE (hazard ratio [HR], 2.23; P < .001) vs CLE (HR, 1.32; P < .001) and psoriasis (HR, 1.06; P = .09).
• ASCVD prevalence was higher in individuals with CLE receiving systemic therapy (2.7%) than in those receiving no therapy (1.6%), suggesting a potential link between disease severity and CVD risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“Persons with CLE are at higher risk for ASCVD, and guidelines for the evaluation and management of ASCVD may improve their quality of care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Henry W. Chen, MD, Department of Dermatology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. It was published online on December 4, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study was limited by its relatively young population (median age, 49 years) and the exclusion of adults aged > 65 years on Medicare insurance plans. The database lacked race and ethnicity data, and the analysis was restricted to a shorter 3-year period. The study could not fully evaluate detailed risk factors such as blood pressure levels, cholesterol measurements, or glycemic control, nor could it accurately assess smoking status.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the Department of Dermatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies. One author reported being a deputy editor for diversity, equity, and inclusion at JAMA Cardiology. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk is higher with cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) or systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) than with psoriasis.

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective matched longitudinal study compared the incidence and prevalence of ASCVD of 8138 individuals with CLE; 24,675 with SLE; 192,577 with psoriasis; and 81,380 control individuals.
• The disease-free control population was matched in a 10:1 ratio to the CLE population on the basis of age, sex, insurance type, and enrollment duration.
• Prevalent ASCVD was defined as coronary artery disease, prior myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular accident, with ASCVD incidence assessed by number of hospitalizations over 3 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Persons with CLE had higher ASCVD risk than control individuals (odds ratio [OR], 1.72; P < .001), similar to those with SLE (OR, 2.41; P < .001) but unlike those with psoriasis (OR, 1.03; P = .48).
• ASCVD incidence at 3 years was 24.8 per 1000 person-years for SLE, 15.2 per 1000 person-years for CLE, 14.0 per 1000 person-years for psoriasis, and 10.3 per 1000 person-years for controls.
• Multivariable Cox proportional regression modeling showed ASCVD risk was highest in those with SLE (hazard ratio [HR], 2.23; P < .001) vs CLE (HR, 1.32; P < .001) and psoriasis (HR, 1.06; P = .09).
• ASCVD prevalence was higher in individuals with CLE receiving systemic therapy (2.7%) than in those receiving no therapy (1.6%), suggesting a potential link between disease severity and CVD risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“Persons with CLE are at higher risk for ASCVD, and guidelines for the evaluation and management of ASCVD may improve their quality of care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Henry W. Chen, MD, Department of Dermatology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. It was published online on December 4, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study was limited by its relatively young population (median age, 49 years) and the exclusion of adults aged > 65 years on Medicare insurance plans. The database lacked race and ethnicity data, and the analysis was restricted to a shorter 3-year period. The study could not fully evaluate detailed risk factors such as blood pressure levels, cholesterol measurements, or glycemic control, nor could it accurately assess smoking status.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the Department of Dermatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies. One author reported being a deputy editor for diversity, equity, and inclusion at JAMA Cardiology. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk is higher with cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) or systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) than with psoriasis.

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective matched longitudinal study compared the incidence and prevalence of ASCVD of 8138 individuals with CLE; 24,675 with SLE; 192,577 with psoriasis; and 81,380 control individuals.
• The disease-free control population was matched in a 10:1 ratio to the CLE population on the basis of age, sex, insurance type, and enrollment duration.
• Prevalent ASCVD was defined as coronary artery disease, prior myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular accident, with ASCVD incidence assessed by number of hospitalizations over 3 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Persons with CLE had higher ASCVD risk than control individuals (odds ratio [OR], 1.72; P < .001), similar to those with SLE (OR, 2.41; P < .001) but unlike those with psoriasis (OR, 1.03; P = .48).
• ASCVD incidence at 3 years was 24.8 per 1000 person-years for SLE, 15.2 per 1000 person-years for CLE, 14.0 per 1000 person-years for psoriasis, and 10.3 per 1000 person-years for controls.
• Multivariable Cox proportional regression modeling showed ASCVD risk was highest in those with SLE (hazard ratio [HR], 2.23; P < .001) vs CLE (HR, 1.32; P < .001) and psoriasis (HR, 1.06; P = .09).
• ASCVD prevalence was higher in individuals with CLE receiving systemic therapy (2.7%) than in those receiving no therapy (1.6%), suggesting a potential link between disease severity and CVD risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“Persons with CLE are at higher risk for ASCVD, and guidelines for the evaluation and management of ASCVD may improve their quality of care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Henry W. Chen, MD, Department of Dermatology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. It was published online on December 4, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study was limited by its relatively young population (median age, 49 years) and the exclusion of adults aged > 65 years on Medicare insurance plans. The database lacked race and ethnicity data, and the analysis was restricted to a shorter 3-year period. The study could not fully evaluate detailed risk factors such as blood pressure levels, cholesterol measurements, or glycemic control, nor could it accurately assess smoking status.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the Department of Dermatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies. One author reported being a deputy editor for diversity, equity, and inclusion at JAMA Cardiology. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On December 4, UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was assassinated in New York City outside of a hotel. As of the time of this writing, the shooter is still at large.

I suppose I could write about how this shows that Americans are fed up with the way modern commercial healthcare companies operate. Who gets care and who doesn’t.

I could write about how industry trends of “Delay, Deny, Defend” lead to the suffering of millions of people who need healthcare that they thought they were paying for.

 

I could write about the callousness of the way people online are celebrating the cold-blooded murder of a married man with two children.

I might write about how insurance companies intentionally, and routinely, drag out (or deny) reimbursements for physicians (including small solo practice ones, like myself) who are legitimately caring for their patients.

I suppose I could write something about how gun violence is so pervasive in our society that it scarcely merits a second glance at the news story. If the headline just said, “Unknown Assailant Kills Man Outside Hotel,” would you have even read beyond that?

I could write about how the lack of regulations, and accelerating attempts to scrap them, can lead to insider trading.

I could write about how having insurance companies and medical facilities more beholden to shareholders than to patients is a serious conflict of interest.

I could try to make points about how the widespread availability of firearms (in this case one with a built-in silencer) in America means that anyone with a vendetta, or serious mental illness, or just a short temper, can get one — and use it.

I could talk about how “greed is good” in healthcare settings rewards a few and hurts many — no matter how much the PR spinners try to make it sound like it’s a great win-win situation all-around.

I could argue that the jubilant “good riddance” and “eat the rich” responses of many — both medical and nonmedical people — to the killing shows that, as a society, we’re losing the qualities that make us human.

I could also argue that putting financial gain for executive bonuses and stockholder dividends ahead of the health and well-being of others shows that, as a society, we’re losing the qualities that make us human.

I could make a point that violence is never the answer, yet an increasing number of people in our country seem to think it is, provided the target is someone they have a difference of opinion with. Which is, honestly, pretty damn scary.

I could talk about how policies of arbitrarily changing the rules about anesthesia coverage, or letting a computer decide how long a hospital stay should be, or to deny rehabilitation care, are unethical, unjust, and just plain wrong.

I could write about a lot of things based on what happened outside that New York Hilton Midtown in early December.

But as I stare at my screen, I’m well aware that no matter what I write it won’t change any opinions, solve anything, or even lead to people trying to find a solution.

Because that’s just the world we live in.

Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona. 

On December 4, UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was assassinated in New York City outside of a hotel. As of the time of this writing, the shooter is still at large.

I suppose I could write about how this shows that Americans are fed up with the way modern commercial healthcare companies operate. Who gets care and who doesn’t.

I could write about how industry trends of “Delay, Deny, Defend” lead to the suffering of millions of people who need healthcare that they thought they were paying for.

 

I could write about the callousness of the way people online are celebrating the cold-blooded murder of a married man with two children.

I might write about how insurance companies intentionally, and routinely, drag out (or deny) reimbursements for physicians (including small solo practice ones, like myself) who are legitimately caring for their patients.

I suppose I could write something about how gun violence is so pervasive in our society that it scarcely merits a second glance at the news story. If the headline just said, “Unknown Assailant Kills Man Outside Hotel,” would you have even read beyond that?

I could write about how the lack of regulations, and accelerating attempts to scrap them, can lead to insider trading.

I could write about how having insurance companies and medical facilities more beholden to shareholders than to patients is a serious conflict of interest.

I could try to make points about how the widespread availability of firearms (in this case one with a built-in silencer) in America means that anyone with a vendetta, or serious mental illness, or just a short temper, can get one — and use it.

I could talk about how “greed is good” in healthcare settings rewards a few and hurts many — no matter how much the PR spinners try to make it sound like it’s a great win-win situation all-around.

I could argue that the jubilant “good riddance” and “eat the rich” responses of many — both medical and nonmedical people — to the killing shows that, as a society, we’re losing the qualities that make us human.

I could also argue that putting financial gain for executive bonuses and stockholder dividends ahead of the health and well-being of others shows that, as a society, we’re losing the qualities that make us human.

I could make a point that violence is never the answer, yet an increasing number of people in our country seem to think it is, provided the target is someone they have a difference of opinion with. Which is, honestly, pretty damn scary.

I could talk about how policies of arbitrarily changing the rules about anesthesia coverage, or letting a computer decide how long a hospital stay should be, or to deny rehabilitation care, are unethical, unjust, and just plain wrong.

I could write about a lot of things based on what happened outside that New York Hilton Midtown in early December.

But as I stare at my screen, I’m well aware that no matter what I write it won’t change any opinions, solve anything, or even lead to people trying to find a solution.

Because that’s just the world we live in.

Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona. 

On December 4, UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was assassinated in New York City outside of a hotel. As of the time of this writing, the shooter is still at large.

I suppose I could write about how this shows that Americans are fed up with the way modern commercial healthcare companies operate. Who gets care and who doesn’t.

I could write about how industry trends of “Delay, Deny, Defend” lead to the suffering of millions of people who need healthcare that they thought they were paying for.

 

I could write about the callousness of the way people online are celebrating the cold-blooded murder of a married man with two children.

I might write about how insurance companies intentionally, and routinely, drag out (or deny) reimbursements for physicians (including small solo practice ones, like myself) who are legitimately caring for their patients.

I suppose I could write something about how gun violence is so pervasive in our society that it scarcely merits a second glance at the news story. If the headline just said, “Unknown Assailant Kills Man Outside Hotel,” would you have even read beyond that?

I could write about how the lack of regulations, and accelerating attempts to scrap them, can lead to insider trading.

I could write about how having insurance companies and medical facilities more beholden to shareholders than to patients is a serious conflict of interest.

I could try to make points about how the widespread availability of firearms (in this case one with a built-in silencer) in America means that anyone with a vendetta, or serious mental illness, or just a short temper, can get one — and use it.

I could talk about how “greed is good” in healthcare settings rewards a few and hurts many — no matter how much the PR spinners try to make it sound like it’s a great win-win situation all-around.

I could argue that the jubilant “good riddance” and “eat the rich” responses of many — both medical and nonmedical people — to the killing shows that, as a society, we’re losing the qualities that make us human.

I could also argue that putting financial gain for executive bonuses and stockholder dividends ahead of the health and well-being of others shows that, as a society, we’re losing the qualities that make us human.

I could make a point that violence is never the answer, yet an increasing number of people in our country seem to think it is, provided the target is someone they have a difference of opinion with. Which is, honestly, pretty damn scary.

I could talk about how policies of arbitrarily changing the rules about anesthesia coverage, or letting a computer decide how long a hospital stay should be, or to deny rehabilitation care, are unethical, unjust, and just plain wrong.

I could write about a lot of things based on what happened outside that New York Hilton Midtown in early December.

But as I stare at my screen, I’m well aware that no matter what I write it won’t change any opinions, solve anything, or even lead to people trying to find a solution.

Because that’s just the world we live in.

Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona. 

Over half of pediatric rheumatology fellowship positions went unfilled in 2024, according to the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). Comparatively, nearly all adult rheumatology positions were filled.

Across all 39 subspecialties in internal medicine and pediatrics, there was an 86% fill rate. In pediatric subspecialties, the fill rate was 78%. There were more than 10,200 applicants in this year’s medicine and pediatric specialties match — a 9% increase from 2023 — and 81% matched to a position. 

The NRMP reported that adult rheumatology filled 129 (97.7%) of 132 programs, with 284 (99%) out of 287 positions filled. In 2024, there were five new programs and 11 more fellowship positions available compared with the previous year. 

In pediatric rheumatology, 16 (44%) of 36 programs were filled, with 27 (49%) of 55 positions filled. This is a notable decrease from 2023, where pediatric rheumatology filled 21 of 38 programs (55%) and 32 (62%) of 52 positions.

This year, 27 of 30 applicants preferring pediatric rheumatology matched to a program, while in 2023 all 32 applicants that preferred pediatric rheumatology matched.

“It’s a little disappointing that our overall number of applicants have not gone up,” Jay Mehta, MD, the program director of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s pediatric rheumatology fellowship said in an interview with Medscape Medical News. “It’s an especially exciting time in pediatric rheumatology, with really fantastic breakthroughs in terms of treatments and diagnostics. Unfortunately, that excitement hasn’t necessarily translated into more interest in our field.”

Mehta noted that the number of applicants to pediatric rheumatology fellowships have remained relatively consistent. Since 2019, the number of applicants has ranged from 28 to 33. 

“Given the low number of overall positions/programs it is hard to read too much into year-to-year differences,” added Kristen Hayward, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Seattle Children’s in Washington. “While this total number of applicants per year is steady, this number is insufficient to build an adequate workforce for our current needs, much less for the future.” 

This year, matched applicants to pediatric rheumatology included 13 MD graduates, eight DO graduates, five foreign applicants, and one US citizen international medical graduate. 

In adult rheumatology, matched applicants included 108 MD graduates, 97 foreign applicants, 41 DO graduates, and 38 US citizen international medical graduates. A total of 365 applicants preferred the specialty, and 76% matched to rheumatology. Seven applicants matched to another specialty, and the remaining 79 did not match to any program.

Rheumatology was one of several specialties offering at least 150 positions with a fill rate of over 98%. The other specialties included allergy and immunology, cardiovascular disease, clinical cardiac electrophysiology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, and hematology and oncology. 

While some pediatric subspecialties like critical care medicine and cardiology had fill rates over 90%, many “cognitive subspecialties” beyond pediatric rheumatology also struggled to fill spots, Hayward noted. Only 37% of pediatric nephrology positions and 48% of pediatric infectious disease positions were filled this year, in addition to a decline in filled pediatric-residency positions overall, she added.

Mehta had no relevant disclosures. Hayward previously owned stock/stock options for AbbVie/Abbott, Cigna/Express Scripts, Merck, and Teva and has received an educational grant from Pfizer.

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

Over half of pediatric rheumatology fellowship positions went unfilled in 2024, according to the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). Comparatively, nearly all adult rheumatology positions were filled.

Across all 39 subspecialties in internal medicine and pediatrics, there was an 86% fill rate. In pediatric subspecialties, the fill rate was 78%. There were more than 10,200 applicants in this year’s medicine and pediatric specialties match — a 9% increase from 2023 — and 81% matched to a position. 

The NRMP reported that adult rheumatology filled 129 (97.7%) of 132 programs, with 284 (99%) out of 287 positions filled. In 2024, there were five new programs and 11 more fellowship positions available compared with the previous year. 

In pediatric rheumatology, 16 (44%) of 36 programs were filled, with 27 (49%) of 55 positions filled. This is a notable decrease from 2023, where pediatric rheumatology filled 21 of 38 programs (55%) and 32 (62%) of 52 positions.

This year, 27 of 30 applicants preferring pediatric rheumatology matched to a program, while in 2023 all 32 applicants that preferred pediatric rheumatology matched.

“It’s a little disappointing that our overall number of applicants have not gone up,” Jay Mehta, MD, the program director of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s pediatric rheumatology fellowship said in an interview with Medscape Medical News. “It’s an especially exciting time in pediatric rheumatology, with really fantastic breakthroughs in terms of treatments and diagnostics. Unfortunately, that excitement hasn’t necessarily translated into more interest in our field.”

Mehta noted that the number of applicants to pediatric rheumatology fellowships have remained relatively consistent. Since 2019, the number of applicants has ranged from 28 to 33. 

“Given the low number of overall positions/programs it is hard to read too much into year-to-year differences,” added Kristen Hayward, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Seattle Children’s in Washington. “While this total number of applicants per year is steady, this number is insufficient to build an adequate workforce for our current needs, much less for the future.” 

This year, matched applicants to pediatric rheumatology included 13 MD graduates, eight DO graduates, five foreign applicants, and one US citizen international medical graduate. 

In adult rheumatology, matched applicants included 108 MD graduates, 97 foreign applicants, 41 DO graduates, and 38 US citizen international medical graduates. A total of 365 applicants preferred the specialty, and 76% matched to rheumatology. Seven applicants matched to another specialty, and the remaining 79 did not match to any program.

Rheumatology was one of several specialties offering at least 150 positions with a fill rate of over 98%. The other specialties included allergy and immunology, cardiovascular disease, clinical cardiac electrophysiology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, and hematology and oncology. 

While some pediatric subspecialties like critical care medicine and cardiology had fill rates over 90%, many “cognitive subspecialties” beyond pediatric rheumatology also struggled to fill spots, Hayward noted. Only 37% of pediatric nephrology positions and 48% of pediatric infectious disease positions were filled this year, in addition to a decline in filled pediatric-residency positions overall, she added.

Mehta had no relevant disclosures. Hayward previously owned stock/stock options for AbbVie/Abbott, Cigna/Express Scripts, Merck, and Teva and has received an educational grant from Pfizer.

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

Over half of pediatric rheumatology fellowship positions went unfilled in 2024, according to the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). Comparatively, nearly all adult rheumatology positions were filled.

Across all 39 subspecialties in internal medicine and pediatrics, there was an 86% fill rate. In pediatric subspecialties, the fill rate was 78%. There were more than 10,200 applicants in this year’s medicine and pediatric specialties match — a 9% increase from 2023 — and 81% matched to a position. 

The NRMP reported that adult rheumatology filled 129 (97.7%) of 132 programs, with 284 (99%) out of 287 positions filled. In 2024, there were five new programs and 11 more fellowship positions available compared with the previous year. 

In pediatric rheumatology, 16 (44%) of 36 programs were filled, with 27 (49%) of 55 positions filled. This is a notable decrease from 2023, where pediatric rheumatology filled 21 of 38 programs (55%) and 32 (62%) of 52 positions.

This year, 27 of 30 applicants preferring pediatric rheumatology matched to a program, while in 2023 all 32 applicants that preferred pediatric rheumatology matched.

“It’s a little disappointing that our overall number of applicants have not gone up,” Jay Mehta, MD, the program director of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s pediatric rheumatology fellowship said in an interview with Medscape Medical News. “It’s an especially exciting time in pediatric rheumatology, with really fantastic breakthroughs in terms of treatments and diagnostics. Unfortunately, that excitement hasn’t necessarily translated into more interest in our field.”

Mehta noted that the number of applicants to pediatric rheumatology fellowships have remained relatively consistent. Since 2019, the number of applicants has ranged from 28 to 33. 

“Given the low number of overall positions/programs it is hard to read too much into year-to-year differences,” added Kristen Hayward, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Seattle Children’s in Washington. “While this total number of applicants per year is steady, this number is insufficient to build an adequate workforce for our current needs, much less for the future.” 

This year, matched applicants to pediatric rheumatology included 13 MD graduates, eight DO graduates, five foreign applicants, and one US citizen international medical graduate. 

In adult rheumatology, matched applicants included 108 MD graduates, 97 foreign applicants, 41 DO graduates, and 38 US citizen international medical graduates. A total of 365 applicants preferred the specialty, and 76% matched to rheumatology. Seven applicants matched to another specialty, and the remaining 79 did not match to any program.

Rheumatology was one of several specialties offering at least 150 positions with a fill rate of over 98%. The other specialties included allergy and immunology, cardiovascular disease, clinical cardiac electrophysiology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, and hematology and oncology. 

While some pediatric subspecialties like critical care medicine and cardiology had fill rates over 90%, many “cognitive subspecialties” beyond pediatric rheumatology also struggled to fill spots, Hayward noted. Only 37% of pediatric nephrology positions and 48% of pediatric infectious disease positions were filled this year, in addition to a decline in filled pediatric-residency positions overall, she added.

Mehta had no relevant disclosures. Hayward previously owned stock/stock options for AbbVie/Abbott, Cigna/Express Scripts, Merck, and Teva and has received an educational grant from Pfizer.

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

WASHINGTON — A quality improvement project aimed at reducing racial disparities in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) led to a modest reduction in the overall clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (cJADAS) and a 17% reduction in the disparity gap between Black and White patients, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Our work has led to initial progress in all groups, but we did not fully close the gap in outcomes,” Dori Abel, MD, MSHP, an attending rheumatologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, told attendees. But the project still revealed that it’s feasible to improve outcomes and reduce disparities with a “multipronged, equity-driven approach,” she said. “Stratifying data by demographic variables can reveal important differences in health care delivery and outcomes, catalyzing improvement efforts.”

Giya Harry, MD, MPH, MSc, an associate professor of pediatric rheumatology at Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, was not involved in the study but praised both the effort and the progress made.

“The results are promising and suggest that with additional interventions targeting other key drivers, the team may be successful in completely eliminating the disparity in outcomes,” Harry said in an interview. “I applaud the hard work of Dr Abel and the other members of the team for doing the important work of characterizing the very complex issue of disparities in JIA outcomes across different race groups.” 

It will now be important to build upon what the physicians learned during this process, said Harry, also the chair of the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility committee of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

“Patience is needed as they cycle through interventions with an emphasis on other key drivers” of disparities, Harry said.

 

Targeting Factors That Clinicians Can Potentially Influence

In her presentation, Abel discussed the various barriers that interfere with patients’ ability to move up the “JIA escalator” of getting referred and diagnosed, starting treatment and getting control of the disease, and monitoring and managing the disease and flares. These barriers include difficulties with access, trust, finances, insurance, caregivers’ missed work, medication burden, side effects, system barriers, and exhaustion and depression among caregivers and patients.

These barriers then contribute to disparities in JIA outcomes. In the STOP-JIA study, for example, Black children had greater polyarthritis disease activity in the first year and greater odds of radiographic damage, Abel noted. At her own institution, despite a mean cJADAS of 2.9 for the whole population of patients with JIA, the average was 5.0 for non-Hispanic Black patients, compared with 2.6 for non-Hispanic White patients.

The team therefore developed and implemented a quality improvement initiative aimed at improving the overall mean cJADAS and narrowing the gap between Black and White patients. The goal was to reduce the mean cJADAS to 2.7 by July 2024 and simultaneously reduce the cJADAS in Black patients by 1.2 units, or 50% of the baseline disparity gap, without increasing the existing gap.

The team first explored the many overlapping and interacting drivers of disparities within the realms of community characteristics, JIA treatment course, patient/family characteristics, organizational infrastructure, divisional infrastructure, and provider characteristics. While many of the individual factors driving disparities are outside clinicians’ control, “there are some domains clinicians may be able to directly influence, such as provider characteristics, JIA treatment course, and possibly divisional infrastructure,” Harry noted, and the team appeared to choose goals that fell under domains within clinicians’ potential influence.

The research team focused their efforts on four areas: Consistent outcome documentation, application of JIA best practices, providing access to at-risk patients, and team awareness and agency.

As part of improving consistent outcome documentation, they integrated outcome metrics into data visualization tools so that gaps were more evident. Applying JIA best practices included standardizing their approach to assessing medication adherence and barriers, with changes to the JIA note templates in the electronic health record and updates to medication adherence handouts.

Providing access to at-risk patients included several components:

• Creating a population management team
• Defining a target population to engage with for earlier follow-up
• Using a monthly batch outreach to defined patients
• Having a coordinator or social worker reach out to those who don’t make appointments
• Using a new JIA/high disease activity video follow-up program.

Finally, team awareness and agency involved giving physicians monthly access to mean cJADAS values for their own patients and at the division level. They also held quarterly disparity mitigation workshops.

Although the institution’s JIA population grew 13%, from 776 to 878 patients, over the course of the study, from January 2023 to May 2024, there was minimal change in the characteristics of the patient population. By May 2024, two thirds of patients (68%) were women, and 23% had public insurance. The population included 67% non-Hispanic White, 9% Hispanic/Latino, 7% non-Hispanic Black, and 4% Asian patients.

One third of the patients (32%) had the oligoarticular subtype, and other subtypes included enthesitis-related at 16%, polyarticular rheumatoid factor (RF)–negative at 15%, systemic at 7%, psoriatic at 6%, undifferentiated at 5%, and polyarticular RF-positive at 4%; data on subtype were unavailable for 14%. Most of their patients (71%) were in a high or very high quintile of the Childhood Opportunity Index, and 12% were in a low or very low quintile.

 

Results of the Quality Improvement Project

As of May 2024, the team had reached most of the goals they had set in terms of individual metrics. They met their goal of having a complete cJADAS calculated in more than 80% of JIA visits each month. With a goal of having over 90% of JIA monthly visits include disease activity target attestations, they reached 95% by May.

They aimed to have over half of JIA monthly visits include documentation of medication adherence/barrier assessment, and 75% of monthly visits had one. For their monthly outreach goal for overdue visits, they aimed to contact more than 75% of patients within 30 days if they were newly overdue for a follow-up visit but had only reached 47% by May 2024. The team had also completed 154 Maintenance of Certification assessments by May.

From initiation of project planning in January 2023 through May 2024, the overall JIA patient population experienced an improvement in cJADAS from 2.9 to 2.54. In individual cJADAS components, the mean patient global score improved from 1.71 to 1.47, the physician global score improved from 0.81 to 0.75, and the joint count score improved from 0.71 to 0.68.

In the non-Hispanic Black population, the mean cJADAS improved from 5.06 in January 2023 to 4.31 in May 2024. Mean cJADAS in the non-Hispanic White population fell from 2.63 to 2.29. With a difference of 0.4 points fewer between the Black and White populations, the disparity gap closed by 17%.

One of the team’s next steps will be to focus on the Hispanic population in 2024-2025 by optimizing language services, working toward greater family involvement to better understand barriers to care, and ongoing population management.

Abel and Harry had no disclosures. No external funding was noted.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — A quality improvement project aimed at reducing racial disparities in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) led to a modest reduction in the overall clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (cJADAS) and a 17% reduction in the disparity gap between Black and White patients, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Our work has led to initial progress in all groups, but we did not fully close the gap in outcomes,” Dori Abel, MD, MSHP, an attending rheumatologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, told attendees. But the project still revealed that it’s feasible to improve outcomes and reduce disparities with a “multipronged, equity-driven approach,” she said. “Stratifying data by demographic variables can reveal important differences in health care delivery and outcomes, catalyzing improvement efforts.”

Giya Harry, MD, MPH, MSc, an associate professor of pediatric rheumatology at Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, was not involved in the study but praised both the effort and the progress made.

“The results are promising and suggest that with additional interventions targeting other key drivers, the team may be successful in completely eliminating the disparity in outcomes,” Harry said in an interview. “I applaud the hard work of Dr Abel and the other members of the team for doing the important work of characterizing the very complex issue of disparities in JIA outcomes across different race groups.” 

It will now be important to build upon what the physicians learned during this process, said Harry, also the chair of the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility committee of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

“Patience is needed as they cycle through interventions with an emphasis on other key drivers” of disparities, Harry said.

 

Targeting Factors That Clinicians Can Potentially Influence

In her presentation, Abel discussed the various barriers that interfere with patients’ ability to move up the “JIA escalator” of getting referred and diagnosed, starting treatment and getting control of the disease, and monitoring and managing the disease and flares. These barriers include difficulties with access, trust, finances, insurance, caregivers’ missed work, medication burden, side effects, system barriers, and exhaustion and depression among caregivers and patients.

These barriers then contribute to disparities in JIA outcomes. In the STOP-JIA study, for example, Black children had greater polyarthritis disease activity in the first year and greater odds of radiographic damage, Abel noted. At her own institution, despite a mean cJADAS of 2.9 for the whole population of patients with JIA, the average was 5.0 for non-Hispanic Black patients, compared with 2.6 for non-Hispanic White patients.

The team therefore developed and implemented a quality improvement initiative aimed at improving the overall mean cJADAS and narrowing the gap between Black and White patients. The goal was to reduce the mean cJADAS to 2.7 by July 2024 and simultaneously reduce the cJADAS in Black patients by 1.2 units, or 50% of the baseline disparity gap, without increasing the existing gap.

The team first explored the many overlapping and interacting drivers of disparities within the realms of community characteristics, JIA treatment course, patient/family characteristics, organizational infrastructure, divisional infrastructure, and provider characteristics. While many of the individual factors driving disparities are outside clinicians’ control, “there are some domains clinicians may be able to directly influence, such as provider characteristics, JIA treatment course, and possibly divisional infrastructure,” Harry noted, and the team appeared to choose goals that fell under domains within clinicians’ potential influence.

The research team focused their efforts on four areas: Consistent outcome documentation, application of JIA best practices, providing access to at-risk patients, and team awareness and agency.

As part of improving consistent outcome documentation, they integrated outcome metrics into data visualization tools so that gaps were more evident. Applying JIA best practices included standardizing their approach to assessing medication adherence and barriers, with changes to the JIA note templates in the electronic health record and updates to medication adherence handouts.

Providing access to at-risk patients included several components:

• Creating a population management team
• Defining a target population to engage with for earlier follow-up
• Using a monthly batch outreach to defined patients
• Having a coordinator or social worker reach out to those who don’t make appointments
• Using a new JIA/high disease activity video follow-up program.

Finally, team awareness and agency involved giving physicians monthly access to mean cJADAS values for their own patients and at the division level. They also held quarterly disparity mitigation workshops.

Although the institution’s JIA population grew 13%, from 776 to 878 patients, over the course of the study, from January 2023 to May 2024, there was minimal change in the characteristics of the patient population. By May 2024, two thirds of patients (68%) were women, and 23% had public insurance. The population included 67% non-Hispanic White, 9% Hispanic/Latino, 7% non-Hispanic Black, and 4% Asian patients.

One third of the patients (32%) had the oligoarticular subtype, and other subtypes included enthesitis-related at 16%, polyarticular rheumatoid factor (RF)–negative at 15%, systemic at 7%, psoriatic at 6%, undifferentiated at 5%, and polyarticular RF-positive at 4%; data on subtype were unavailable for 14%. Most of their patients (71%) were in a high or very high quintile of the Childhood Opportunity Index, and 12% were in a low or very low quintile.

 

Results of the Quality Improvement Project

As of May 2024, the team had reached most of the goals they had set in terms of individual metrics. They met their goal of having a complete cJADAS calculated in more than 80% of JIA visits each month. With a goal of having over 90% of JIA monthly visits include disease activity target attestations, they reached 95% by May.

They aimed to have over half of JIA monthly visits include documentation of medication adherence/barrier assessment, and 75% of monthly visits had one. For their monthly outreach goal for overdue visits, they aimed to contact more than 75% of patients within 30 days if they were newly overdue for a follow-up visit but had only reached 47% by May 2024. The team had also completed 154 Maintenance of Certification assessments by May.

From initiation of project planning in January 2023 through May 2024, the overall JIA patient population experienced an improvement in cJADAS from 2.9 to 2.54. In individual cJADAS components, the mean patient global score improved from 1.71 to 1.47, the physician global score improved from 0.81 to 0.75, and the joint count score improved from 0.71 to 0.68.

In the non-Hispanic Black population, the mean cJADAS improved from 5.06 in January 2023 to 4.31 in May 2024. Mean cJADAS in the non-Hispanic White population fell from 2.63 to 2.29. With a difference of 0.4 points fewer between the Black and White populations, the disparity gap closed by 17%.

One of the team’s next steps will be to focus on the Hispanic population in 2024-2025 by optimizing language services, working toward greater family involvement to better understand barriers to care, and ongoing population management.

Abel and Harry had no disclosures. No external funding was noted.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — A quality improvement project aimed at reducing racial disparities in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) led to a modest reduction in the overall clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (cJADAS) and a 17% reduction in the disparity gap between Black and White patients, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Our work has led to initial progress in all groups, but we did not fully close the gap in outcomes,” Dori Abel, MD, MSHP, an attending rheumatologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, told attendees. But the project still revealed that it’s feasible to improve outcomes and reduce disparities with a “multipronged, equity-driven approach,” she said. “Stratifying data by demographic variables can reveal important differences in health care delivery and outcomes, catalyzing improvement efforts.”

Giya Harry, MD, MPH, MSc, an associate professor of pediatric rheumatology at Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, was not involved in the study but praised both the effort and the progress made.

“The results are promising and suggest that with additional interventions targeting other key drivers, the team may be successful in completely eliminating the disparity in outcomes,” Harry said in an interview. “I applaud the hard work of Dr Abel and the other members of the team for doing the important work of characterizing the very complex issue of disparities in JIA outcomes across different race groups.” 

It will now be important to build upon what the physicians learned during this process, said Harry, also the chair of the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility committee of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

“Patience is needed as they cycle through interventions with an emphasis on other key drivers” of disparities, Harry said.

 

Targeting Factors That Clinicians Can Potentially Influence

In her presentation, Abel discussed the various barriers that interfere with patients’ ability to move up the “JIA escalator” of getting referred and diagnosed, starting treatment and getting control of the disease, and monitoring and managing the disease and flares. These barriers include difficulties with access, trust, finances, insurance, caregivers’ missed work, medication burden, side effects, system barriers, and exhaustion and depression among caregivers and patients.

These barriers then contribute to disparities in JIA outcomes. In the STOP-JIA study, for example, Black children had greater polyarthritis disease activity in the first year and greater odds of radiographic damage, Abel noted. At her own institution, despite a mean cJADAS of 2.9 for the whole population of patients with JIA, the average was 5.0 for non-Hispanic Black patients, compared with 2.6 for non-Hispanic White patients.

The team therefore developed and implemented a quality improvement initiative aimed at improving the overall mean cJADAS and narrowing the gap between Black and White patients. The goal was to reduce the mean cJADAS to 2.7 by July 2024 and simultaneously reduce the cJADAS in Black patients by 1.2 units, or 50% of the baseline disparity gap, without increasing the existing gap.

The team first explored the many overlapping and interacting drivers of disparities within the realms of community characteristics, JIA treatment course, patient/family characteristics, organizational infrastructure, divisional infrastructure, and provider characteristics. While many of the individual factors driving disparities are outside clinicians’ control, “there are some domains clinicians may be able to directly influence, such as provider characteristics, JIA treatment course, and possibly divisional infrastructure,” Harry noted, and the team appeared to choose goals that fell under domains within clinicians’ potential influence.

The research team focused their efforts on four areas: Consistent outcome documentation, application of JIA best practices, providing access to at-risk patients, and team awareness and agency.

As part of improving consistent outcome documentation, they integrated outcome metrics into data visualization tools so that gaps were more evident. Applying JIA best practices included standardizing their approach to assessing medication adherence and barriers, with changes to the JIA note templates in the electronic health record and updates to medication adherence handouts.

Providing access to at-risk patients included several components:

• Creating a population management team
• Defining a target population to engage with for earlier follow-up
• Using a monthly batch outreach to defined patients
• Having a coordinator or social worker reach out to those who don’t make appointments
• Using a new JIA/high disease activity video follow-up program.

Finally, team awareness and agency involved giving physicians monthly access to mean cJADAS values for their own patients and at the division level. They also held quarterly disparity mitigation workshops.

Although the institution’s JIA population grew 13%, from 776 to 878 patients, over the course of the study, from January 2023 to May 2024, there was minimal change in the characteristics of the patient population. By May 2024, two thirds of patients (68%) were women, and 23% had public insurance. The population included 67% non-Hispanic White, 9% Hispanic/Latino, 7% non-Hispanic Black, and 4% Asian patients.

One third of the patients (32%) had the oligoarticular subtype, and other subtypes included enthesitis-related at 16%, polyarticular rheumatoid factor (RF)–negative at 15%, systemic at 7%, psoriatic at 6%, undifferentiated at 5%, and polyarticular RF-positive at 4%; data on subtype were unavailable for 14%. Most of their patients (71%) were in a high or very high quintile of the Childhood Opportunity Index, and 12% were in a low or very low quintile.

 

Results of the Quality Improvement Project

As of May 2024, the team had reached most of the goals they had set in terms of individual metrics. They met their goal of having a complete cJADAS calculated in more than 80% of JIA visits each month. With a goal of having over 90% of JIA monthly visits include disease activity target attestations, they reached 95% by May.

They aimed to have over half of JIA monthly visits include documentation of medication adherence/barrier assessment, and 75% of monthly visits had one. For their monthly outreach goal for overdue visits, they aimed to contact more than 75% of patients within 30 days if they were newly overdue for a follow-up visit but had only reached 47% by May 2024. The team had also completed 154 Maintenance of Certification assessments by May.

From initiation of project planning in January 2023 through May 2024, the overall JIA patient population experienced an improvement in cJADAS from 2.9 to 2.54. In individual cJADAS components, the mean patient global score improved from 1.71 to 1.47, the physician global score improved from 0.81 to 0.75, and the joint count score improved from 0.71 to 0.68.

In the non-Hispanic Black population, the mean cJADAS improved from 5.06 in January 2023 to 4.31 in May 2024. Mean cJADAS in the non-Hispanic White population fell from 2.63 to 2.29. With a difference of 0.4 points fewer between the Black and White populations, the disparity gap closed by 17%.

One of the team’s next steps will be to focus on the Hispanic population in 2024-2025 by optimizing language services, working toward greater family involvement to better understand barriers to care, and ongoing population management.

Abel and Harry had no disclosures. No external funding was noted.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Children who have systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis with lung disease (sJIA-LD) have distinct biomarker profiles that may hold potential in eventually detecting LD earlier and identifying personalized treatment, according to research presented at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Established risk factors for LD, which affects up to 1 in every 20 patients with sJIA, include being of a younger age, having more macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) episodes, and having more adverse reactions to biologics, Esraa Eloseily, MD, MS, an assistant professor of pediatrics at UT Southwestern Children’s Medical Center, Dallas, told attendees.

“The pathophysiology remains unclear and debate centers around elevated IL-18 [interleukin 18] and T-cell activation in association with HLA-DRB1*15/DRESS [drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms] reactions to biologics, and thus, we have urgent unmet needs to understand the prevalence, the pathogenesis, disease biomarkers, and influence of biologics,” Eloseily said.

Their study confirmed that patients with LD tended to be younger and have more MAS. The researchers also found lower hemoglobin and higher white blood cell counts and platelets in patients with sJIA-LD, as well as a higher medication burden, particularly with steroids, biologics, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors.

Randy Cron, MD, PhD, director of the Division of Pediatric Rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, attended the presentation and noted that every additional piece of information is helpful in filling out the picture of what we know and can predict about sJIA-LD development.

“We’re all learning as we go, so the more people that study this, the better,” Cron told Medscape Medical News. “Even if it’s just seeing things that other groups have seen or really solidifying the risk factors for the development of lung disease, I think, at this point, that’s one of the most clinically relevant things: Do we screen? Who do we screen? Certainly, kids who have very young age of onset, children who develop macrophage activation syndrome, children who have high IL-18 levels.”

 

Study Results

The study compared 37 patients with sJIA-LD from 16 Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Registry sites with 141 patients with sJIA but without LD who had similar follow-up durations in the CARRA Registry.

Disease duration for patients with sJIA-LD was defined as the time from their initial sJIA diagnosis to their baseline sJIA-LD cohort visit, which was considered their index visit. In patients without LD, duration was from their enrollment in the CARRA Registry to their last CARRA Registry visit, which was considered their index visit.

The patients with sJIA-LD were significantly younger — a median age of 1 year — at onset of sJIA than those without LD, who had a median age of 5 years (P < .0019). The patients with sJIA-LD were also younger (median age, 7 years) at their index visit than those without LD (median age, 10 years) (P < .0001).

There were also significant differences in medication usage between those with and without LD. While 40.5% of patients with sJIA-LD were using steroids at their index visit, only 11.4% of those without LD were using steroids (P < .0001). Yet the mean dose of steroids was significantly lower in those with LD (5.45 mg/d) than in those without (20.7 mg/d). In addition, nearly half the patients with sJIA-LD had ever used cyclosporin A (45.7%) compared with 2.8% of those without LD (P < .0001), and 17.1% of patients with sJIA-LD had used mycophenolate mofetil compared with 0.7% of those without LD (P = .0002).

Similar disparities were seen for usage of biologics and JAK inhibitors: Anakinra (82.9% vs 56.7%; P = .0036), abatacept (8.6% vs 1.4%; P = .053), tofacitinib (57.1% vs 5.7%; P < .0001), ruxolitinib (25.7% vs 0%; P < .0001), baricitinib (8.6% vs 0%; P = .007), and emapalumab (23% vs 0.7%; P < .0001). Further, 5.7% of those with sJIA-LD had taken etoposide and 22.9% had received intravenous immunoglobulin compared with 0% and 4.3%, respectively, in those without LD (P = .04 and P = .001).

Laboratory parameters of patients with sJIA-LD were also significantly different from those of patients without LD, including a higher white blood cell count (8.8 × 109/L vs 8.1 × 109/L; P = .01), higher platelets (316.5 × 109/L vs 311.2 × 109/L; P = .03), and lower hemoglobin (11.5 g/dL vs 12.6 g/dL; P = .007). Ferritin levels trended nonsignificantly higher in patients with sJIA-LD (506 ng/mL vs 173.2 ng/mL; P = .09), and aspartate aminotransferase levels were significantly higher (37 U/L vs 28.72 U/L; P < .0001).

Patients’ overall well-being was “unexpectedly” higher in patients with sJIA-LD (P = .007), Eloseily noted, including the parent/patient rating (P = .027). However, more of the patients without LD had an excellent (61%) or very good (20.4%) health-related quality of life compared with those with LD (13% and 39%), and nearly one third of patients with sJIA-LD (30.4%) had only fair health-related quality of life compared with 5.5% without LD (P = .0002).

In line with known risk factors, most of the patients with sJIA-LD had a prior MAS episode (67.6%) compared with 10.6% of those without LD (P < .0001). Mortality was also higher in those with LD, two of whom died, whereas none without LD died (P = .04).

While existing biomarkers have been reported, they lack independent validation, Eloseily told attendees. Among the known key biomarkers are IL-18/interferon (IFN)-gamma axis, which are known to drive MAS and pulmonary inflammation, especially in those with MAS and LD; ICAM-5 and MMP-7, which is linked to fibrosis and tissue remodeling; and CCL11, CCL17, and GDF-15, which is linked to fibrosis and inflammation.

Because the CARRA Registry has limited availability of biosamples for most patients, the researchers used plasma samples from the FROST study for 27 patients with sJIA-LD and 46 patients without LD. When they compared 23 biomarkers between the groups, most of the known key biomarkers, as well as several other biomarkers, were significantly elevated in those with LD compared with in those without:

• MMP-7 (P = .001)
• IFN gamma (P = .008)
• CCL11 (P < .0001)
• CCL17 (P = .002)
• CCL15 (P < .0001)
• MCP-1 (P = .0003)
• MCP-3 (P = .02)
• CCL25 (P < .0001)
• CD25 (P < .0001)
• GDF-15 (P < .0001)
• TRAIL (P < .0001)
• IL-23 (P = .002)

They found that IL-18 only trended higher (P = .07), and there were not adequate data for ICAM-5.

The study was limited by the differences in disease duration between the compared groups and the limited availability of biosamples, which they only had from patients enrolled in the FROST study.

The research was funded by CARRA and the Arthritis Foundation. Eloseily reported no disclosures. Cron reported serving as an adviser for AbbVie/Abbott and Sobi, receiving grant funding and speaking and consulting fees from Pfizer, and receiving royalties from Springer.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Children who have systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis with lung disease (sJIA-LD) have distinct biomarker profiles that may hold potential in eventually detecting LD earlier and identifying personalized treatment, according to research presented at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Established risk factors for LD, which affects up to 1 in every 20 patients with sJIA, include being of a younger age, having more macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) episodes, and having more adverse reactions to biologics, Esraa Eloseily, MD, MS, an assistant professor of pediatrics at UT Southwestern Children’s Medical Center, Dallas, told attendees.

“The pathophysiology remains unclear and debate centers around elevated IL-18 [interleukin 18] and T-cell activation in association with HLA-DRB1*15/DRESS [drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms] reactions to biologics, and thus, we have urgent unmet needs to understand the prevalence, the pathogenesis, disease biomarkers, and influence of biologics,” Eloseily said.

Their study confirmed that patients with LD tended to be younger and have more MAS. The researchers also found lower hemoglobin and higher white blood cell counts and platelets in patients with sJIA-LD, as well as a higher medication burden, particularly with steroids, biologics, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors.

Randy Cron, MD, PhD, director of the Division of Pediatric Rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, attended the presentation and noted that every additional piece of information is helpful in filling out the picture of what we know and can predict about sJIA-LD development.

“We’re all learning as we go, so the more people that study this, the better,” Cron told Medscape Medical News. “Even if it’s just seeing things that other groups have seen or really solidifying the risk factors for the development of lung disease, I think, at this point, that’s one of the most clinically relevant things: Do we screen? Who do we screen? Certainly, kids who have very young age of onset, children who develop macrophage activation syndrome, children who have high IL-18 levels.”

 

Study Results

The study compared 37 patients with sJIA-LD from 16 Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Registry sites with 141 patients with sJIA but without LD who had similar follow-up durations in the CARRA Registry.

Disease duration for patients with sJIA-LD was defined as the time from their initial sJIA diagnosis to their baseline sJIA-LD cohort visit, which was considered their index visit. In patients without LD, duration was from their enrollment in the CARRA Registry to their last CARRA Registry visit, which was considered their index visit.

The patients with sJIA-LD were significantly younger — a median age of 1 year — at onset of sJIA than those without LD, who had a median age of 5 years (P < .0019). The patients with sJIA-LD were also younger (median age, 7 years) at their index visit than those without LD (median age, 10 years) (P < .0001).

There were also significant differences in medication usage between those with and without LD. While 40.5% of patients with sJIA-LD were using steroids at their index visit, only 11.4% of those without LD were using steroids (P < .0001). Yet the mean dose of steroids was significantly lower in those with LD (5.45 mg/d) than in those without (20.7 mg/d). In addition, nearly half the patients with sJIA-LD had ever used cyclosporin A (45.7%) compared with 2.8% of those without LD (P < .0001), and 17.1% of patients with sJIA-LD had used mycophenolate mofetil compared with 0.7% of those without LD (P = .0002).

Similar disparities were seen for usage of biologics and JAK inhibitors: Anakinra (82.9% vs 56.7%; P = .0036), abatacept (8.6% vs 1.4%; P = .053), tofacitinib (57.1% vs 5.7%; P < .0001), ruxolitinib (25.7% vs 0%; P < .0001), baricitinib (8.6% vs 0%; P = .007), and emapalumab (23% vs 0.7%; P < .0001). Further, 5.7% of those with sJIA-LD had taken etoposide and 22.9% had received intravenous immunoglobulin compared with 0% and 4.3%, respectively, in those without LD (P = .04 and P = .001).

Laboratory parameters of patients with sJIA-LD were also significantly different from those of patients without LD, including a higher white blood cell count (8.8 × 109/L vs 8.1 × 109/L; P = .01), higher platelets (316.5 × 109/L vs 311.2 × 109/L; P = .03), and lower hemoglobin (11.5 g/dL vs 12.6 g/dL; P = .007). Ferritin levels trended nonsignificantly higher in patients with sJIA-LD (506 ng/mL vs 173.2 ng/mL; P = .09), and aspartate aminotransferase levels were significantly higher (37 U/L vs 28.72 U/L; P < .0001).

Patients’ overall well-being was “unexpectedly” higher in patients with sJIA-LD (P = .007), Eloseily noted, including the parent/patient rating (P = .027). However, more of the patients without LD had an excellent (61%) or very good (20.4%) health-related quality of life compared with those with LD (13% and 39%), and nearly one third of patients with sJIA-LD (30.4%) had only fair health-related quality of life compared with 5.5% without LD (P = .0002).

In line with known risk factors, most of the patients with sJIA-LD had a prior MAS episode (67.6%) compared with 10.6% of those without LD (P < .0001). Mortality was also higher in those with LD, two of whom died, whereas none without LD died (P = .04).

While existing biomarkers have been reported, they lack independent validation, Eloseily told attendees. Among the known key biomarkers are IL-18/interferon (IFN)-gamma axis, which are known to drive MAS and pulmonary inflammation, especially in those with MAS and LD; ICAM-5 and MMP-7, which is linked to fibrosis and tissue remodeling; and CCL11, CCL17, and GDF-15, which is linked to fibrosis and inflammation.

Because the CARRA Registry has limited availability of biosamples for most patients, the researchers used plasma samples from the FROST study for 27 patients with sJIA-LD and 46 patients without LD. When they compared 23 biomarkers between the groups, most of the known key biomarkers, as well as several other biomarkers, were significantly elevated in those with LD compared with in those without:

• MMP-7 (P = .001)
• IFN gamma (P = .008)
• CCL11 (P < .0001)
• CCL17 (P = .002)
• CCL15 (P < .0001)
• MCP-1 (P = .0003)
• MCP-3 (P = .02)
• CCL25 (P < .0001)
• CD25 (P < .0001)
• GDF-15 (P < .0001)
• TRAIL (P < .0001)
• IL-23 (P = .002)