News

Image

Disable zoom

Off

DENVER — A medical education initiative for internal medicine residents and medical students that offers instruction on assessing common neurologic conditions boosted trainees’ confidence in caring for neurology patients and could help address the US neurologist shortage, a new report suggested.

Bedside Rounding Alliance for Internal Medicine and Neurology Residents (BRAINs) moves training from the lecture hall to the bedside, offering instruction on obtaining a focused neurologic history and performing a focused neurologic physical exam for common neurologic symptoms.

Almost 100% of trainees surveyed gave the program a favorable rating, citing patient exposure and bedside training from neurology educators as keys to its success.

As internal medicine providers are often “the first to lay eyes” on patients with a neurology complaint, it’s important they “have a basic level of comfort” in addressing patients’ common questions and concerns, study author Prashanth Rajarajan, MD, PhD, a resident in the Department of Neurology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Addressing ‘Neurophobia’

Neurology is often viewed by medical trainees as the most difficult subspecialty, Dr. Rajarajan said. Many have what he calls “neurophobia,” which he defines as “a discomfort with assessing and treating neurologic complaints.”

A survey at his institution showed 62% of internal medicine residents lacked the confidence to diagnose and treat neurologic diseases, he reported.

BRAINs is a structured neurology trainee-led, inpatient bedside teaching session for internal medicine residents, medical students, and others that aims to increase trainees’ confidence in assessing patients with common neurologic symptoms.

The program includes a biweekly 45-minute session. Most of the session is spent at the bedside and involves demonstrations and practice of a focused neurologic history and physical exam.

Participants receive feedback from educators, typically neurology residents or fellows in epilepsy, stroke, or some other neurology subspecialty. It also includes a short discussion on pertinent diagnostics, management, and other topics.

Surveys evaluating the program and teaching skill development were completed by 59 residents and 15 neurology educators who participated in BRAINs between 2022 and 2024.

Over 90% of trainees (54) agreed BRAINs sessions met the program’s objective (5 were neutral); 49 agreed it increased confidence in taking a neuro history (9 were neutral and 1 disagreed); 56 felt it boosted their confidence in doing a neuro exam (3 were neutral); and 56 said BRAINs is more effective than traditional lecture-based didactics (3 were neutral).

All the residents rated the material covered as appropriate for their level of training; 88% considered the 45-minute session length appropriate; and 98% had a favorable impression of the program as a whole.

When asked to identify the most helpful aspect of the program, 82% cited more patient exposure and 81% more bedside teaching.

All educators reported that the sessions were an effective way to practice near-peer teaching skills. Most (87%) felt the experience was more effective at accomplishing learning objectives than preparing and giving traditional didactic lectures, and 80% agreed it also gave them an opportunity to get to know their medical colleagues.
 

Use It or Lose It

Dr. Rajarajan noted that the program doesn’t require significant planning or extra staff, is not resource-intensive, and can be adapted to different services such as emergency departments and other learner populations.

But time will tell if the newfound confidence of those taking the program actually lasts.

“You have to keep using it,” he said. “You use it or lose it when comes to these skills.”

Commenting on the initiative, Denney Zimmerman, DO, Neurocritical Care Faculty, Blount Memorial Hospital, Maryville, Tennessee, and cochair of the AAN session featuring the study, called the program a good example of one way to counteract “neurophobia” and address the widespread neurologist shortage in the United States.

A 2019 AAN report showed that by 2025, almost every state in the United States will have a mismatch between the number of practicing neurologists and the demand from patients with neurologic conditions. The report offered several ways to address the shortage, including more neurology-focused training for internal medicine doctors during their residency.

“They’re usually on the front line, both in the hospital and in the clinics, and can help expedite patients who need to be seen by neurology sooner rather than later,” Dr. Zimmerman said.

Dr. Zimmerman noted that the study assessed how well participants perceived the program but not whether it improved their skills.

He pointed out that different groups may assess different diseases during their training session. “I think it’s important to ensure you’re hitting all the major topics.”

The study received funding from MGB Centers of Expertise Education Grant. Drs. Rajarajan and Zimmerman reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Image

Disable zoom

Off

DENVER — A medical education initiative for internal medicine residents and medical students that offers instruction on assessing common neurologic conditions boosted trainees’ confidence in caring for neurology patients and could help address the US neurologist shortage, a new report suggested.

Bedside Rounding Alliance for Internal Medicine and Neurology Residents (BRAINs) moves training from the lecture hall to the bedside, offering instruction on obtaining a focused neurologic history and performing a focused neurologic physical exam for common neurologic symptoms.

Almost 100% of trainees surveyed gave the program a favorable rating, citing patient exposure and bedside training from neurology educators as keys to its success.

As internal medicine providers are often “the first to lay eyes” on patients with a neurology complaint, it’s important they “have a basic level of comfort” in addressing patients’ common questions and concerns, study author Prashanth Rajarajan, MD, PhD, a resident in the Department of Neurology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Addressing ‘Neurophobia’

Neurology is often viewed by medical trainees as the most difficult subspecialty, Dr. Rajarajan said. Many have what he calls “neurophobia,” which he defines as “a discomfort with assessing and treating neurologic complaints.”

A survey at his institution showed 62% of internal medicine residents lacked the confidence to diagnose and treat neurologic diseases, he reported.

BRAINs is a structured neurology trainee-led, inpatient bedside teaching session for internal medicine residents, medical students, and others that aims to increase trainees’ confidence in assessing patients with common neurologic symptoms.

The program includes a biweekly 45-minute session. Most of the session is spent at the bedside and involves demonstrations and practice of a focused neurologic history and physical exam.

Participants receive feedback from educators, typically neurology residents or fellows in epilepsy, stroke, or some other neurology subspecialty. It also includes a short discussion on pertinent diagnostics, management, and other topics.

Surveys evaluating the program and teaching skill development were completed by 59 residents and 15 neurology educators who participated in BRAINs between 2022 and 2024.

Over 90% of trainees (54) agreed BRAINs sessions met the program’s objective (5 were neutral); 49 agreed it increased confidence in taking a neuro history (9 were neutral and 1 disagreed); 56 felt it boosted their confidence in doing a neuro exam (3 were neutral); and 56 said BRAINs is more effective than traditional lecture-based didactics (3 were neutral).

All the residents rated the material covered as appropriate for their level of training; 88% considered the 45-minute session length appropriate; and 98% had a favorable impression of the program as a whole.

When asked to identify the most helpful aspect of the program, 82% cited more patient exposure and 81% more bedside teaching.

All educators reported that the sessions were an effective way to practice near-peer teaching skills. Most (87%) felt the experience was more effective at accomplishing learning objectives than preparing and giving traditional didactic lectures, and 80% agreed it also gave them an opportunity to get to know their medical colleagues.
 

Use It or Lose It

Dr. Rajarajan noted that the program doesn’t require significant planning or extra staff, is not resource-intensive, and can be adapted to different services such as emergency departments and other learner populations.

But time will tell if the newfound confidence of those taking the program actually lasts.

“You have to keep using it,” he said. “You use it or lose it when comes to these skills.”

Commenting on the initiative, Denney Zimmerman, DO, Neurocritical Care Faculty, Blount Memorial Hospital, Maryville, Tennessee, and cochair of the AAN session featuring the study, called the program a good example of one way to counteract “neurophobia” and address the widespread neurologist shortage in the United States.

A 2019 AAN report showed that by 2025, almost every state in the United States will have a mismatch between the number of practicing neurologists and the demand from patients with neurologic conditions. The report offered several ways to address the shortage, including more neurology-focused training for internal medicine doctors during their residency.

“They’re usually on the front line, both in the hospital and in the clinics, and can help expedite patients who need to be seen by neurology sooner rather than later,” Dr. Zimmerman said.

Dr. Zimmerman noted that the study assessed how well participants perceived the program but not whether it improved their skills.

He pointed out that different groups may assess different diseases during their training session. “I think it’s important to ensure you’re hitting all the major topics.”

The study received funding from MGB Centers of Expertise Education Grant. Drs. Rajarajan and Zimmerman reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Image

Disable zoom

Off

DENVER — A medical education initiative for internal medicine residents and medical students that offers instruction on assessing common neurologic conditions boosted trainees’ confidence in caring for neurology patients and could help address the US neurologist shortage, a new report suggested.

Bedside Rounding Alliance for Internal Medicine and Neurology Residents (BRAINs) moves training from the lecture hall to the bedside, offering instruction on obtaining a focused neurologic history and performing a focused neurologic physical exam for common neurologic symptoms.

Almost 100% of trainees surveyed gave the program a favorable rating, citing patient exposure and bedside training from neurology educators as keys to its success.

As internal medicine providers are often “the first to lay eyes” on patients with a neurology complaint, it’s important they “have a basic level of comfort” in addressing patients’ common questions and concerns, study author Prashanth Rajarajan, MD, PhD, a resident in the Department of Neurology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Addressing ‘Neurophobia’

Neurology is often viewed by medical trainees as the most difficult subspecialty, Dr. Rajarajan said. Many have what he calls “neurophobia,” which he defines as “a discomfort with assessing and treating neurologic complaints.”

A survey at his institution showed 62% of internal medicine residents lacked the confidence to diagnose and treat neurologic diseases, he reported.

BRAINs is a structured neurology trainee-led, inpatient bedside teaching session for internal medicine residents, medical students, and others that aims to increase trainees’ confidence in assessing patients with common neurologic symptoms.

The program includes a biweekly 45-minute session. Most of the session is spent at the bedside and involves demonstrations and practice of a focused neurologic history and physical exam.

Participants receive feedback from educators, typically neurology residents or fellows in epilepsy, stroke, or some other neurology subspecialty. It also includes a short discussion on pertinent diagnostics, management, and other topics.

Surveys evaluating the program and teaching skill development were completed by 59 residents and 15 neurology educators who participated in BRAINs between 2022 and 2024.

Over 90% of trainees (54) agreed BRAINs sessions met the program’s objective (5 were neutral); 49 agreed it increased confidence in taking a neuro history (9 were neutral and 1 disagreed); 56 felt it boosted their confidence in doing a neuro exam (3 were neutral); and 56 said BRAINs is more effective than traditional lecture-based didactics (3 were neutral).

All the residents rated the material covered as appropriate for their level of training; 88% considered the 45-minute session length appropriate; and 98% had a favorable impression of the program as a whole.

When asked to identify the most helpful aspect of the program, 82% cited more patient exposure and 81% more bedside teaching.

All educators reported that the sessions were an effective way to practice near-peer teaching skills. Most (87%) felt the experience was more effective at accomplishing learning objectives than preparing and giving traditional didactic lectures, and 80% agreed it also gave them an opportunity to get to know their medical colleagues.
 

Use It or Lose It

Dr. Rajarajan noted that the program doesn’t require significant planning or extra staff, is not resource-intensive, and can be adapted to different services such as emergency departments and other learner populations.

But time will tell if the newfound confidence of those taking the program actually lasts.

“You have to keep using it,” he said. “You use it or lose it when comes to these skills.”

Commenting on the initiative, Denney Zimmerman, DO, Neurocritical Care Faculty, Blount Memorial Hospital, Maryville, Tennessee, and cochair of the AAN session featuring the study, called the program a good example of one way to counteract “neurophobia” and address the widespread neurologist shortage in the United States.

A 2019 AAN report showed that by 2025, almost every state in the United States will have a mismatch between the number of practicing neurologists and the demand from patients with neurologic conditions. The report offered several ways to address the shortage, including more neurology-focused training for internal medicine doctors during their residency.

“They’re usually on the front line, both in the hospital and in the clinics, and can help expedite patients who need to be seen by neurology sooner rather than later,” Dr. Zimmerman said.

Dr. Zimmerman noted that the study assessed how well participants perceived the program but not whether it improved their skills.

He pointed out that different groups may assess different diseases during their training session. “I think it’s important to ensure you’re hitting all the major topics.”

The study received funding from MGB Centers of Expertise Education Grant. Drs. Rajarajan and Zimmerman reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey-based study found that only 4% of cancer survivors reported adhering to all four American Cancer Society (ACS) nutrition and physical activity guidelines, which include maintaining a healthy weight and diet, avoiding alcohol, and exercising regularly.

METHODOLOGY:

• The ACS has published nutrition and exercise guidelines for cancer survivors, which include recommendations to maintain a healthy weight and diet, cut out alcohol, and participate in regular physical activities. Engaging in these behaviors is associated with longer survival among cancer survivors, but whether survivors follow these nutrition and activity recommendations has not been systematically tracked.
• Researchers evaluated data on 10,020 individuals (mean age, 64.2 years) who had completed cancer treatment. Data came from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System telephone-based survey administered in 2017, 2019, and 2021, which represents 2.7 million cancer survivors.
• The researchers estimated survivors’ adherence to guidelines across four domains: Weight, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, and alcohol intake. Factors associated with adherence were also evaluated.
• Overall, 9,121 survivors (91%) completed questionnaires for all four domains.

TAKEAWAY:

Only 4% of patients (365 of 9121) followed ACS guidelines in all four categories.

When assessing adherence to each category, the researchers found that 72% of cancer survivors reported engaging in recommended levels of physical activity, 68% maintained a nonobese weight, 50% said they did not consume alcohol, and 12% said they consumed recommended quantities of fruits and vegetables.

Compared with people in the general population, cancer survivors generally engaged in fewer healthy behaviors than those who had never been diagnosed with cancer.

The authors identified certain factors associated with greater guideline adherence, including female sex, older age, Black (vs White) race, and higher education level (college graduate).

IN PRACTICE:

This study highlights a potential “gap between published guidelines regarding behavioral modifications for cancer survivors and uptake of these behaviors,” the authors wrote, adding that “it is essential for oncologists and general internists to improve widespread and systematic counseling on these guidelines to improve uptake of healthy behaviors in this vulnerable patient population.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Carter Baughman, MD, from the Division of Internal Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported several study limitations, most notably that self-reported data may introduce biases.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not reported. One author received grants from the US Highbush Blueberry Council outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey-based study found that only 4% of cancer survivors reported adhering to all four American Cancer Society (ACS) nutrition and physical activity guidelines, which include maintaining a healthy weight and diet, avoiding alcohol, and exercising regularly.

METHODOLOGY:

• The ACS has published nutrition and exercise guidelines for cancer survivors, which include recommendations to maintain a healthy weight and diet, cut out alcohol, and participate in regular physical activities. Engaging in these behaviors is associated with longer survival among cancer survivors, but whether survivors follow these nutrition and activity recommendations has not been systematically tracked.
• Researchers evaluated data on 10,020 individuals (mean age, 64.2 years) who had completed cancer treatment. Data came from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System telephone-based survey administered in 2017, 2019, and 2021, which represents 2.7 million cancer survivors.
• The researchers estimated survivors’ adherence to guidelines across four domains: Weight, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, and alcohol intake. Factors associated with adherence were also evaluated.
• Overall, 9,121 survivors (91%) completed questionnaires for all four domains.

TAKEAWAY:

Only 4% of patients (365 of 9121) followed ACS guidelines in all four categories.

When assessing adherence to each category, the researchers found that 72% of cancer survivors reported engaging in recommended levels of physical activity, 68% maintained a nonobese weight, 50% said they did not consume alcohol, and 12% said they consumed recommended quantities of fruits and vegetables.

Compared with people in the general population, cancer survivors generally engaged in fewer healthy behaviors than those who had never been diagnosed with cancer.

The authors identified certain factors associated with greater guideline adherence, including female sex, older age, Black (vs White) race, and higher education level (college graduate).

IN PRACTICE:

This study highlights a potential “gap between published guidelines regarding behavioral modifications for cancer survivors and uptake of these behaviors,” the authors wrote, adding that “it is essential for oncologists and general internists to improve widespread and systematic counseling on these guidelines to improve uptake of healthy behaviors in this vulnerable patient population.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Carter Baughman, MD, from the Division of Internal Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported several study limitations, most notably that self-reported data may introduce biases.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not reported. One author received grants from the US Highbush Blueberry Council outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey-based study found that only 4% of cancer survivors reported adhering to all four American Cancer Society (ACS) nutrition and physical activity guidelines, which include maintaining a healthy weight and diet, avoiding alcohol, and exercising regularly.

METHODOLOGY:

• The ACS has published nutrition and exercise guidelines for cancer survivors, which include recommendations to maintain a healthy weight and diet, cut out alcohol, and participate in regular physical activities. Engaging in these behaviors is associated with longer survival among cancer survivors, but whether survivors follow these nutrition and activity recommendations has not been systematically tracked.
• Researchers evaluated data on 10,020 individuals (mean age, 64.2 years) who had completed cancer treatment. Data came from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System telephone-based survey administered in 2017, 2019, and 2021, which represents 2.7 million cancer survivors.
• The researchers estimated survivors’ adherence to guidelines across four domains: Weight, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, and alcohol intake. Factors associated with adherence were also evaluated.
• Overall, 9,121 survivors (91%) completed questionnaires for all four domains.

TAKEAWAY:

Only 4% of patients (365 of 9121) followed ACS guidelines in all four categories.

When assessing adherence to each category, the researchers found that 72% of cancer survivors reported engaging in recommended levels of physical activity, 68% maintained a nonobese weight, 50% said they did not consume alcohol, and 12% said they consumed recommended quantities of fruits and vegetables.

Compared with people in the general population, cancer survivors generally engaged in fewer healthy behaviors than those who had never been diagnosed with cancer.

The authors identified certain factors associated with greater guideline adherence, including female sex, older age, Black (vs White) race, and higher education level (college graduate).

IN PRACTICE:

This study highlights a potential “gap between published guidelines regarding behavioral modifications for cancer survivors and uptake of these behaviors,” the authors wrote, adding that “it is essential for oncologists and general internists to improve widespread and systematic counseling on these guidelines to improve uptake of healthy behaviors in this vulnerable patient population.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Carter Baughman, MD, from the Division of Internal Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported several study limitations, most notably that self-reported data may introduce biases.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not reported. One author received grants from the US Highbush Blueberry Council outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — The British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) and the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) have joined forces for the first time to develop the first British guidelines for the management of people living with Behçet’s disease.

The guidelines will also be the first “living guidelines” produced by either society, which means they will be regularly revised and updated when new evidence emerges that warrants inclusion.

With more than 90 recommendations being made, the new guidelines promise to be the most comprehensive and most up-to-date yet for what is regarded as a rare disease. Robert Moots, MBBS, PhD, provided a “sneak peek” of the guidelines at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Dr. Moots, professor of rheumatology at the University of Liverpool and a consultant rheumatologist for Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in England, noted that while the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology has produced a guideline for Behçet’s disease, this was last updated in 2018 and is not specific for the population for patients that is seen in the United Kingdom.

The British recommendations will cover all possible manifestations of Behçet’s disease and give practical advice on how to manage everything from the most common presentations such as skin lesions, mouth ulcers, and genital ulcers, as well as the potentially more serious eye, neurological, and vascular involvement.

167862_Moots_Robert_web.jpg

Importance of Raising Awareness

“Joint and musculoskeletal problems are actually one of the least complained of symptoms in people with Behçet’s, and they often can’t understand why a rheumatologist is seeing them,” Dr. Moot said. “But of course, people do get joint problems, they can get enthesitis and arthralgia.”

Dr. Moots has been leading one of the three National Health Service (NHS) Centres of Excellence for Behçet’s Syndrome in England for more than a decade and told this news organization that diagnosing patients could be challenging. It can take up to 10 years from the first symptoms appearing to getting a diagnosis, so part of the job of the NHS Centres of Excellence is to raise awareness among both the healthcare profession and the general public.

“It’s a condition that people learn about at medical school. Most doctors will have come across it, but because it was thought to be really rare in the UK, nobody perhaps really expects to see it,” Dr. Moot said.

“But we all have these patients,” he added. “In Liverpool, we’re commissioned to be looking after an anticipated 150 people with Behçet’s — we’ve got 700. With more awareness, there’s more diagnoses being made, and people are being looked after better.”
 

Patient Perspective

Tony Thornburn, OBE, chair of the patient advocacy group Behçet’s UK, agreed in a separate interview that raising awareness of the syndrome was key to improving its management.

“Patients have said that it is a bit like having arthritis, lupus, MS [multiple sclerosis], and Crohn’s [disease] all at once,” Mr. Thorburn said. “So what we need is a guideline to ensure that people know what they’re looking at.”

Mr. Thorburn added, “Guidelines are important for raising awareness but also providing the detailed information that clinicians and GPs [general practitioners] need to have to treat a patient when they come in with this multifaceted condition.”
 

Multifaceted Means Multidisciplinary Management

Because there can be so many different aspects to managing someone with Behçet’s disease, a multispecialty team that was convened to develop the guidelines agreed that multidisciplinary management should be an overarching theme.

“The guideline development group consisted of all the specialties that you would need for a complex multisystem disease like Behçet’s,” Dr. Moot said. He highlighted that working alongside the consultants in adult and pediatric rheumatology were specialists in dermatology, gastroenterology, neurology, ophthalmology, obstetrics and gynecology, and psychology.

“We’re actually looking at psychological interactions and their impact for the first time,” Dr. Moot said, noting that clinicians needed to “take it seriously, and ask about it.”
 

Management of Manifestations

One of the general principles of the guidelines is to assess the involvement of each organ system and target treatment accordingly.

“One of the problems is that the evidence base to tell us what to do is pretty low,” Dr. Moots acknowledged. There have been few good quality randomized trials, so “treatment tends to be eminence-based rather than evidence-based.”

The recommendation wording bears this in mind, stating whether a treatment should or should not be offered, or just considered if there is no strong evidence to back up its use.

With regard to musculoskeletal manifestations, the recommendations say that colchicine should be offered, perhaps as a first-line option, or an intraarticular steroid injection in the case of monoarthritis. An intramuscular depot steroid may also be appropriate to offer, and there was good evidence to offer azathioprine or, as an alternative in refractory cases, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, methotrexate, apremilast, secukinumab, and referral to a physiotherapist could only be considered, however, based on weaker levels of evidence for their use.

To treat mucocutaneous disease, the guidelines advise offering topical steroids in the form of ointment for genital ulcers or mouthwash or ointment for oral ulcers. For skin lesions, it is recommended to offer colchicine, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, or TNF inhibitor and to consider the use of apremilast, secukinumab, or dapsone.
 

Future Work and Revision

“One of the key things we would like to see developing is a national registry,” Dr. Moots said. This would include biobanking samples for future research and possible genomic and phenotyping studies.

More work needs to be done in conducting clinical trials in children and young people with Behçet’s disease, studies to find prognostic factors for neurological disease, and clinical trials of potential new drug approaches such as Janus kinase inhibitors. Importantly, an auditing process needs to be set up to see what effect, if any, the guidelines will actually have onpatient management.

“It’s taken 5 years to today” to develop the guidelines, Dr. Moot said. What form the process of updating them will take still has to be decided, he said in the interview. It is likely that the necessary literature searches will be performed every 6 months or so, but it will be a compromise between the ideal situation and having the staffing time to do it.

“It’s a big ask,” Dr. Moot acknowledged, adding that even if updates were only once a year, it would still be much faster than the 5- or 6-year cycle that it traditionally takes for most guidelines to be updated.

The BSR and BAD’s processes for developing guidelines are accredited by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England. Dr. Moots is the chief investigator for the Secukinumab in Behçet’s trial, which is sponsored by the Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust via grant funding from Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — The British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) and the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) have joined forces for the first time to develop the first British guidelines for the management of people living with Behçet’s disease.

The guidelines will also be the first “living guidelines” produced by either society, which means they will be regularly revised and updated when new evidence emerges that warrants inclusion.

With more than 90 recommendations being made, the new guidelines promise to be the most comprehensive and most up-to-date yet for what is regarded as a rare disease. Robert Moots, MBBS, PhD, provided a “sneak peek” of the guidelines at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Dr. Moots, professor of rheumatology at the University of Liverpool and a consultant rheumatologist for Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in England, noted that while the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology has produced a guideline for Behçet’s disease, this was last updated in 2018 and is not specific for the population for patients that is seen in the United Kingdom.

The British recommendations will cover all possible manifestations of Behçet’s disease and give practical advice on how to manage everything from the most common presentations such as skin lesions, mouth ulcers, and genital ulcers, as well as the potentially more serious eye, neurological, and vascular involvement.

167862_Moots_Robert_web.jpg

Importance of Raising Awareness

“Joint and musculoskeletal problems are actually one of the least complained of symptoms in people with Behçet’s, and they often can’t understand why a rheumatologist is seeing them,” Dr. Moot said. “But of course, people do get joint problems, they can get enthesitis and arthralgia.”

Dr. Moots has been leading one of the three National Health Service (NHS) Centres of Excellence for Behçet’s Syndrome in England for more than a decade and told this news organization that diagnosing patients could be challenging. It can take up to 10 years from the first symptoms appearing to getting a diagnosis, so part of the job of the NHS Centres of Excellence is to raise awareness among both the healthcare profession and the general public.

“It’s a condition that people learn about at medical school. Most doctors will have come across it, but because it was thought to be really rare in the UK, nobody perhaps really expects to see it,” Dr. Moot said.

“But we all have these patients,” he added. “In Liverpool, we’re commissioned to be looking after an anticipated 150 people with Behçet’s — we’ve got 700. With more awareness, there’s more diagnoses being made, and people are being looked after better.”
 

Patient Perspective

Tony Thornburn, OBE, chair of the patient advocacy group Behçet’s UK, agreed in a separate interview that raising awareness of the syndrome was key to improving its management.

“Patients have said that it is a bit like having arthritis, lupus, MS [multiple sclerosis], and Crohn’s [disease] all at once,” Mr. Thorburn said. “So what we need is a guideline to ensure that people know what they’re looking at.”

Mr. Thorburn added, “Guidelines are important for raising awareness but also providing the detailed information that clinicians and GPs [general practitioners] need to have to treat a patient when they come in with this multifaceted condition.”
 

Multifaceted Means Multidisciplinary Management

Because there can be so many different aspects to managing someone with Behçet’s disease, a multispecialty team that was convened to develop the guidelines agreed that multidisciplinary management should be an overarching theme.

“The guideline development group consisted of all the specialties that you would need for a complex multisystem disease like Behçet’s,” Dr. Moot said. He highlighted that working alongside the consultants in adult and pediatric rheumatology were specialists in dermatology, gastroenterology, neurology, ophthalmology, obstetrics and gynecology, and psychology.

“We’re actually looking at psychological interactions and their impact for the first time,” Dr. Moot said, noting that clinicians needed to “take it seriously, and ask about it.”
 

Management of Manifestations

One of the general principles of the guidelines is to assess the involvement of each organ system and target treatment accordingly.

“One of the problems is that the evidence base to tell us what to do is pretty low,” Dr. Moots acknowledged. There have been few good quality randomized trials, so “treatment tends to be eminence-based rather than evidence-based.”

The recommendation wording bears this in mind, stating whether a treatment should or should not be offered, or just considered if there is no strong evidence to back up its use.

With regard to musculoskeletal manifestations, the recommendations say that colchicine should be offered, perhaps as a first-line option, or an intraarticular steroid injection in the case of monoarthritis. An intramuscular depot steroid may also be appropriate to offer, and there was good evidence to offer azathioprine or, as an alternative in refractory cases, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, methotrexate, apremilast, secukinumab, and referral to a physiotherapist could only be considered, however, based on weaker levels of evidence for their use.

To treat mucocutaneous disease, the guidelines advise offering topical steroids in the form of ointment for genital ulcers or mouthwash or ointment for oral ulcers. For skin lesions, it is recommended to offer colchicine, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, or TNF inhibitor and to consider the use of apremilast, secukinumab, or dapsone.
 

Future Work and Revision

“One of the key things we would like to see developing is a national registry,” Dr. Moots said. This would include biobanking samples for future research and possible genomic and phenotyping studies.

More work needs to be done in conducting clinical trials in children and young people with Behçet’s disease, studies to find prognostic factors for neurological disease, and clinical trials of potential new drug approaches such as Janus kinase inhibitors. Importantly, an auditing process needs to be set up to see what effect, if any, the guidelines will actually have onpatient management.

“It’s taken 5 years to today” to develop the guidelines, Dr. Moot said. What form the process of updating them will take still has to be decided, he said in the interview. It is likely that the necessary literature searches will be performed every 6 months or so, but it will be a compromise between the ideal situation and having the staffing time to do it.

“It’s a big ask,” Dr. Moot acknowledged, adding that even if updates were only once a year, it would still be much faster than the 5- or 6-year cycle that it traditionally takes for most guidelines to be updated.

The BSR and BAD’s processes for developing guidelines are accredited by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England. Dr. Moots is the chief investigator for the Secukinumab in Behçet’s trial, which is sponsored by the Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust via grant funding from Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — The British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) and the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) have joined forces for the first time to develop the first British guidelines for the management of people living with Behçet’s disease.

The guidelines will also be the first “living guidelines” produced by either society, which means they will be regularly revised and updated when new evidence emerges that warrants inclusion.

With more than 90 recommendations being made, the new guidelines promise to be the most comprehensive and most up-to-date yet for what is regarded as a rare disease. Robert Moots, MBBS, PhD, provided a “sneak peek” of the guidelines at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Dr. Moots, professor of rheumatology at the University of Liverpool and a consultant rheumatologist for Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in England, noted that while the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology has produced a guideline for Behçet’s disease, this was last updated in 2018 and is not specific for the population for patients that is seen in the United Kingdom.

The British recommendations will cover all possible manifestations of Behçet’s disease and give practical advice on how to manage everything from the most common presentations such as skin lesions, mouth ulcers, and genital ulcers, as well as the potentially more serious eye, neurological, and vascular involvement.

167862_Moots_Robert_web.jpg

Importance of Raising Awareness

“Joint and musculoskeletal problems are actually one of the least complained of symptoms in people with Behçet’s, and they often can’t understand why a rheumatologist is seeing them,” Dr. Moot said. “But of course, people do get joint problems, they can get enthesitis and arthralgia.”

Dr. Moots has been leading one of the three National Health Service (NHS) Centres of Excellence for Behçet’s Syndrome in England for more than a decade and told this news organization that diagnosing patients could be challenging. It can take up to 10 years from the first symptoms appearing to getting a diagnosis, so part of the job of the NHS Centres of Excellence is to raise awareness among both the healthcare profession and the general public.

“It’s a condition that people learn about at medical school. Most doctors will have come across it, but because it was thought to be really rare in the UK, nobody perhaps really expects to see it,” Dr. Moot said.

“But we all have these patients,” he added. “In Liverpool, we’re commissioned to be looking after an anticipated 150 people with Behçet’s — we’ve got 700. With more awareness, there’s more diagnoses being made, and people are being looked after better.”
 

Patient Perspective

Tony Thornburn, OBE, chair of the patient advocacy group Behçet’s UK, agreed in a separate interview that raising awareness of the syndrome was key to improving its management.

“Patients have said that it is a bit like having arthritis, lupus, MS [multiple sclerosis], and Crohn’s [disease] all at once,” Mr. Thorburn said. “So what we need is a guideline to ensure that people know what they’re looking at.”

Mr. Thorburn added, “Guidelines are important for raising awareness but also providing the detailed information that clinicians and GPs [general practitioners] need to have to treat a patient when they come in with this multifaceted condition.”
 

Multifaceted Means Multidisciplinary Management

Because there can be so many different aspects to managing someone with Behçet’s disease, a multispecialty team that was convened to develop the guidelines agreed that multidisciplinary management should be an overarching theme.

“The guideline development group consisted of all the specialties that you would need for a complex multisystem disease like Behçet’s,” Dr. Moot said. He highlighted that working alongside the consultants in adult and pediatric rheumatology were specialists in dermatology, gastroenterology, neurology, ophthalmology, obstetrics and gynecology, and psychology.

“We’re actually looking at psychological interactions and their impact for the first time,” Dr. Moot said, noting that clinicians needed to “take it seriously, and ask about it.”
 

Management of Manifestations

One of the general principles of the guidelines is to assess the involvement of each organ system and target treatment accordingly.

“One of the problems is that the evidence base to tell us what to do is pretty low,” Dr. Moots acknowledged. There have been few good quality randomized trials, so “treatment tends to be eminence-based rather than evidence-based.”

The recommendation wording bears this in mind, stating whether a treatment should or should not be offered, or just considered if there is no strong evidence to back up its use.

With regard to musculoskeletal manifestations, the recommendations say that colchicine should be offered, perhaps as a first-line option, or an intraarticular steroid injection in the case of monoarthritis. An intramuscular depot steroid may also be appropriate to offer, and there was good evidence to offer azathioprine or, as an alternative in refractory cases, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, methotrexate, apremilast, secukinumab, and referral to a physiotherapist could only be considered, however, based on weaker levels of evidence for their use.

To treat mucocutaneous disease, the guidelines advise offering topical steroids in the form of ointment for genital ulcers or mouthwash or ointment for oral ulcers. For skin lesions, it is recommended to offer colchicine, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, or TNF inhibitor and to consider the use of apremilast, secukinumab, or dapsone.
 

Future Work and Revision

“One of the key things we would like to see developing is a national registry,” Dr. Moots said. This would include biobanking samples for future research and possible genomic and phenotyping studies.

More work needs to be done in conducting clinical trials in children and young people with Behçet’s disease, studies to find prognostic factors for neurological disease, and clinical trials of potential new drug approaches such as Janus kinase inhibitors. Importantly, an auditing process needs to be set up to see what effect, if any, the guidelines will actually have onpatient management.

“It’s taken 5 years to today” to develop the guidelines, Dr. Moot said. What form the process of updating them will take still has to be decided, he said in the interview. It is likely that the necessary literature searches will be performed every 6 months or so, but it will be a compromise between the ideal situation and having the staffing time to do it.

“It’s a big ask,” Dr. Moot acknowledged, adding that even if updates were only once a year, it would still be much faster than the 5- or 6-year cycle that it traditionally takes for most guidelines to be updated.

The BSR and BAD’s processes for developing guidelines are accredited by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England. Dr. Moots is the chief investigator for the Secukinumab in Behçet’s trial, which is sponsored by the Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust via grant funding from Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the gene therapy fidanacogene elaparvovec (Beqvez) for adults with hemophilia B, a rare bleeding disorder that affects almost 4 in 100,000 US men.

Patients are eligible for a one-time infusion of Pfizer’s gene therapy if they are currently using clotting factor IX prophylaxis therapy; have current or historical life-threatening hemorrhages; or have repeated, serious spontaneous bleeding episodes. 

Beqvez is the second gene therapy the agency has approved for hemophilia B, a deficiency in clotting factor IX because of a faulty gene that occurs mostly in males. The FDA approved the first gene therapy, etranacogene dezaparvovec (Hemgenix), in November 2022. 

Both therapies deliver a functional copy of the factor IX gene to liver cells via a viral vector. 

Pfizer said the list price of Beqvez will be $3.5 million — the same price as Hemgenix. The argument for this hefty price tag is that these gene therapies offer the possibility of a cure whereas ongoing factor IX infusions can cost more than $20 million over a patient’s lifetime. Uptake of Hemgenix, however, has been slow, given the cost and concerns about the therapy’s durability and safety.

Beqvez was approved on the basis of the phase 3 BENEGENE-2 trial in 45 men with moderate to severe hemophilia B. These men had been on factor IX prophylaxis for at least 6 months and had tested negative for antibodies against the viral delivery vector. 

The annualized bleeding rate fell from a mean of 4.5 events during the pretreatment period of at least 6 months to a mean of 2.5 events between week 12 and data cutoff (median, 1.8 years of follow-up), according to Pfizer’s press release. Overall, bleeding events were eliminated in 60% of patients who received the one-time infusion vs 29% of patients on factor IX prophylaxis therapy.

Overall, Pfizer reported that the gene therapy was “generally well-tolerated,” with an increase in transaminases reported as the most common adverse event. No deaths, serious infusion reactions, thrombotic events, or development of factor IX antibodies occurred. 

Pfizer has said it will continue to monitor patients to assess the therapy’s long-term durability and safety over a 15-year period.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the gene therapy fidanacogene elaparvovec (Beqvez) for adults with hemophilia B, a rare bleeding disorder that affects almost 4 in 100,000 US men.

Patients are eligible for a one-time infusion of Pfizer’s gene therapy if they are currently using clotting factor IX prophylaxis therapy; have current or historical life-threatening hemorrhages; or have repeated, serious spontaneous bleeding episodes. 

Beqvez is the second gene therapy the agency has approved for hemophilia B, a deficiency in clotting factor IX because of a faulty gene that occurs mostly in males. The FDA approved the first gene therapy, etranacogene dezaparvovec (Hemgenix), in November 2022. 

Both therapies deliver a functional copy of the factor IX gene to liver cells via a viral vector. 

Pfizer said the list price of Beqvez will be $3.5 million — the same price as Hemgenix. The argument for this hefty price tag is that these gene therapies offer the possibility of a cure whereas ongoing factor IX infusions can cost more than $20 million over a patient’s lifetime. Uptake of Hemgenix, however, has been slow, given the cost and concerns about the therapy’s durability and safety.

Beqvez was approved on the basis of the phase 3 BENEGENE-2 trial in 45 men with moderate to severe hemophilia B. These men had been on factor IX prophylaxis for at least 6 months and had tested negative for antibodies against the viral delivery vector. 

The annualized bleeding rate fell from a mean of 4.5 events during the pretreatment period of at least 6 months to a mean of 2.5 events between week 12 and data cutoff (median, 1.8 years of follow-up), according to Pfizer’s press release. Overall, bleeding events were eliminated in 60% of patients who received the one-time infusion vs 29% of patients on factor IX prophylaxis therapy.

Overall, Pfizer reported that the gene therapy was “generally well-tolerated,” with an increase in transaminases reported as the most common adverse event. No deaths, serious infusion reactions, thrombotic events, or development of factor IX antibodies occurred. 

Pfizer has said it will continue to monitor patients to assess the therapy’s long-term durability and safety over a 15-year period.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the gene therapy fidanacogene elaparvovec (Beqvez) for adults with hemophilia B, a rare bleeding disorder that affects almost 4 in 100,000 US men.

Patients are eligible for a one-time infusion of Pfizer’s gene therapy if they are currently using clotting factor IX prophylaxis therapy; have current or historical life-threatening hemorrhages; or have repeated, serious spontaneous bleeding episodes. 

Beqvez is the second gene therapy the agency has approved for hemophilia B, a deficiency in clotting factor IX because of a faulty gene that occurs mostly in males. The FDA approved the first gene therapy, etranacogene dezaparvovec (Hemgenix), in November 2022. 

Both therapies deliver a functional copy of the factor IX gene to liver cells via a viral vector. 

Pfizer said the list price of Beqvez will be $3.5 million — the same price as Hemgenix. The argument for this hefty price tag is that these gene therapies offer the possibility of a cure whereas ongoing factor IX infusions can cost more than $20 million over a patient’s lifetime. Uptake of Hemgenix, however, has been slow, given the cost and concerns about the therapy’s durability and safety.

Beqvez was approved on the basis of the phase 3 BENEGENE-2 trial in 45 men with moderate to severe hemophilia B. These men had been on factor IX prophylaxis for at least 6 months and had tested negative for antibodies against the viral delivery vector. 

The annualized bleeding rate fell from a mean of 4.5 events during the pretreatment period of at least 6 months to a mean of 2.5 events between week 12 and data cutoff (median, 1.8 years of follow-up), according to Pfizer’s press release. Overall, bleeding events were eliminated in 60% of patients who received the one-time infusion vs 29% of patients on factor IX prophylaxis therapy.

Overall, Pfizer reported that the gene therapy was “generally well-tolerated,” with an increase in transaminases reported as the most common adverse event. No deaths, serious infusion reactions, thrombotic events, or development of factor IX antibodies occurred. 

Pfizer has said it will continue to monitor patients to assess the therapy’s long-term durability and safety over a 15-year period.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Inflammatory arthritis codes increased 30-fold in the transition from the ninth to the 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9 and -10), yet few were used in clinical practice, according to new research.

Most of the new codes for inflammatory arthritis in ICD-10 were rarely used, if at all, from 2015 to 2021.

“About 10-20 codes were comprising the majority of usage for inflammatory arthritis patients in ICD-10,” first author Justin Zhu, a researcher and medical student at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, told this news organization. “The other 380 or 400 codes just weren’t seeing a lot of use.”

Zhu_Justin_CT_web.jpg

The findings show the difficulties of transitioning to a new system, he added, and emphasize the need for additional training to improve adoption of ICD-11. The new coding system launched globally in January 2022, but it is not clear when it will be implemented in the United States.

ICD-10 was launched in the United States in 2015, with the goal of enabling greater specificity in identifying health conditions. For example, the new coding system allowed users to include information on laterality and anatomic location for the first time. The total number of codes increased from 14,500 with ICD-9 to 70,000 with ICD-10, with the number of inflammatory arthritis diagnosis codes growing from 14 to 425.

To see how these ICD-10 codes were utilized compared with ICD-9, Zhu and colleagues used national multi-insurance administrative claims data to find inflammatory arthritis diagnostic codes for over 5.1 million patients. About half were coded in ICD-9, while the remaining half were coded in ICD-10. Mr. Zhu and colleagues defined “higher-usage codes” as those that were used more than 1% of the time.

The findings were published in a research letter in JAMA Network Open on April 18.

For ICD-9, four of the available 14 codes (28.6%) were higher-usage codes. In contrast, only nine of the 425 ICD-10 codes (2.1%) were frequently used. Though ICD-10 allowed for increased granularity in diagnosis, data showed that nonspecific codes were most popular. Of the 20 most used ICD-10 arthritis codes, 65% contained “unspecified or other specified” in its wording.

The researchers also found that there was no significant change in these higher-usage codes throughout the study period from 2015 to 2021, suggesting there was not a detectable learning curve in ICD-10 usage among physicians and coders. They also found that clinician specialty did not change code usage patterns.

“The percentage of codes used was not better for rheumatologists (who might be expected to be more refined users of such codes) than primary care clinicians,” Mr. Zhu and colleagues wrote.
 

Moving to ICD-11 Brings Challenges as Well as Opportunities

Mr. Zhu noted that the study highlights the challenges of adopting new technological systems into daily practice, which can inform the eventual transition to ICD-11.

“There is this need to emphasize training as well as just invest more in improving adoption of ICD-11,” he said.

Michael Pine, MD, MBA, of MJP Healthcare Innovations, LLC in Evanston, Illinois, added that ICD-11 needs to be more user-friendly to be useful in practice. While ICD-10 allowed for greater granularity in coding, it did not result in “usable granularity, in terms of the things doctors really want to communicate,” he told this news organization.

And the transition to ICD-11 could pose greater challenges; rather than ICD-10’s taxonomy system, ICD-11 is formatted as an ontology.

Pine_Michael_IL_web.jpg

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Inflammatory arthritis codes increased 30-fold in the transition from the ninth to the 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9 and -10), yet few were used in clinical practice, according to new research.

Most of the new codes for inflammatory arthritis in ICD-10 were rarely used, if at all, from 2015 to 2021.

“About 10-20 codes were comprising the majority of usage for inflammatory arthritis patients in ICD-10,” first author Justin Zhu, a researcher and medical student at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, told this news organization. “The other 380 or 400 codes just weren’t seeing a lot of use.”

Zhu_Justin_CT_web.jpg

The findings show the difficulties of transitioning to a new system, he added, and emphasize the need for additional training to improve adoption of ICD-11. The new coding system launched globally in January 2022, but it is not clear when it will be implemented in the United States.

ICD-10 was launched in the United States in 2015, with the goal of enabling greater specificity in identifying health conditions. For example, the new coding system allowed users to include information on laterality and anatomic location for the first time. The total number of codes increased from 14,500 with ICD-9 to 70,000 with ICD-10, with the number of inflammatory arthritis diagnosis codes growing from 14 to 425.

To see how these ICD-10 codes were utilized compared with ICD-9, Zhu and colleagues used national multi-insurance administrative claims data to find inflammatory arthritis diagnostic codes for over 5.1 million patients. About half were coded in ICD-9, while the remaining half were coded in ICD-10. Mr. Zhu and colleagues defined “higher-usage codes” as those that were used more than 1% of the time.

The findings were published in a research letter in JAMA Network Open on April 18.

For ICD-9, four of the available 14 codes (28.6%) were higher-usage codes. In contrast, only nine of the 425 ICD-10 codes (2.1%) were frequently used. Though ICD-10 allowed for increased granularity in diagnosis, data showed that nonspecific codes were most popular. Of the 20 most used ICD-10 arthritis codes, 65% contained “unspecified or other specified” in its wording.

The researchers also found that there was no significant change in these higher-usage codes throughout the study period from 2015 to 2021, suggesting there was not a detectable learning curve in ICD-10 usage among physicians and coders. They also found that clinician specialty did not change code usage patterns.

“The percentage of codes used was not better for rheumatologists (who might be expected to be more refined users of such codes) than primary care clinicians,” Mr. Zhu and colleagues wrote.
 

Moving to ICD-11 Brings Challenges as Well as Opportunities

Mr. Zhu noted that the study highlights the challenges of adopting new technological systems into daily practice, which can inform the eventual transition to ICD-11.

“There is this need to emphasize training as well as just invest more in improving adoption of ICD-11,” he said.

Michael Pine, MD, MBA, of MJP Healthcare Innovations, LLC in Evanston, Illinois, added that ICD-11 needs to be more user-friendly to be useful in practice. While ICD-10 allowed for greater granularity in coding, it did not result in “usable granularity, in terms of the things doctors really want to communicate,” he told this news organization.

And the transition to ICD-11 could pose greater challenges; rather than ICD-10’s taxonomy system, ICD-11 is formatted as an ontology.

Pine_Michael_IL_web.jpg

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Inflammatory arthritis codes increased 30-fold in the transition from the ninth to the 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9 and -10), yet few were used in clinical practice, according to new research.

Most of the new codes for inflammatory arthritis in ICD-10 were rarely used, if at all, from 2015 to 2021.

“About 10-20 codes were comprising the majority of usage for inflammatory arthritis patients in ICD-10,” first author Justin Zhu, a researcher and medical student at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, told this news organization. “The other 380 or 400 codes just weren’t seeing a lot of use.”

Zhu_Justin_CT_web.jpg

The findings show the difficulties of transitioning to a new system, he added, and emphasize the need for additional training to improve adoption of ICD-11. The new coding system launched globally in January 2022, but it is not clear when it will be implemented in the United States.

ICD-10 was launched in the United States in 2015, with the goal of enabling greater specificity in identifying health conditions. For example, the new coding system allowed users to include information on laterality and anatomic location for the first time. The total number of codes increased from 14,500 with ICD-9 to 70,000 with ICD-10, with the number of inflammatory arthritis diagnosis codes growing from 14 to 425.

To see how these ICD-10 codes were utilized compared with ICD-9, Zhu and colleagues used national multi-insurance administrative claims data to find inflammatory arthritis diagnostic codes for over 5.1 million patients. About half were coded in ICD-9, while the remaining half were coded in ICD-10. Mr. Zhu and colleagues defined “higher-usage codes” as those that were used more than 1% of the time.

The findings were published in a research letter in JAMA Network Open on April 18.

For ICD-9, four of the available 14 codes (28.6%) were higher-usage codes. In contrast, only nine of the 425 ICD-10 codes (2.1%) were frequently used. Though ICD-10 allowed for increased granularity in diagnosis, data showed that nonspecific codes were most popular. Of the 20 most used ICD-10 arthritis codes, 65% contained “unspecified or other specified” in its wording.

The researchers also found that there was no significant change in these higher-usage codes throughout the study period from 2015 to 2021, suggesting there was not a detectable learning curve in ICD-10 usage among physicians and coders. They also found that clinician specialty did not change code usage patterns.

“The percentage of codes used was not better for rheumatologists (who might be expected to be more refined users of such codes) than primary care clinicians,” Mr. Zhu and colleagues wrote.
 

Moving to ICD-11 Brings Challenges as Well as Opportunities

Mr. Zhu noted that the study highlights the challenges of adopting new technological systems into daily practice, which can inform the eventual transition to ICD-11.

“There is this need to emphasize training as well as just invest more in improving adoption of ICD-11,” he said.

Michael Pine, MD, MBA, of MJP Healthcare Innovations, LLC in Evanston, Illinois, added that ICD-11 needs to be more user-friendly to be useful in practice. While ICD-10 allowed for greater granularity in coding, it did not result in “usable granularity, in terms of the things doctors really want to communicate,” he told this news organization.

And the transition to ICD-11 could pose greater challenges; rather than ICD-10’s taxonomy system, ICD-11 is formatted as an ontology.

Pine_Michael_IL_web.jpg

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

On April 4, Oregon’s Governor Tina Kotek signed a bill into law that officially changed the title of “physician assistants” to “physician associates” in the state. The switch is the first of its kind in the United States and comes on the heels of a decision from 2021 by the American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA) to change the meaning of “PA” to “physician associate” from “physician assistant.”

In the Medscape Physician Assistant Career Satisfaction Report 2023, a diverse range of opinions on the title switch was reflected. Only 40% of PAs favored the name change at the time, 45% neither opposed nor favored it, and 15% opposed the name change, reflecting the complexity of the issue.

According to the AAPA, the change came about to better reflect the work PAs do in not just “assisting” physicians but in working independently with patients. Some also felt that the word “assistant” implies dependence. However, despite associate’s more accurate reflection of the job, PAs mostly remain split on whether they want the new moniker.

Many say that the name change will be confusing for the public and their patients, while others say that physician assistant was already not well understood, as patients often thought of the profession as a doctor’s helper or an assistant, like a medical assistant.

Yet many long-time PAs say that they prefer the title they’ve always had and that explaining to patients the new associate title will be equally confusing. Some mentioned patients may think they’re a business associate of the physician.

Oregon PAs won’t immediately switch to the new name. The new law takes effect on June 6, 2024. The Oregon Medical Board will establish regulations and guidance before PAs adopt the new name in their practices.

The law only changes the name of PAs in Oregon, not in other states. In fact, prematurely using the title of physician associate could subject a PA to regulatory challenges or disciplinary actions.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

On April 4, Oregon’s Governor Tina Kotek signed a bill into law that officially changed the title of “physician assistants” to “physician associates” in the state. The switch is the first of its kind in the United States and comes on the heels of a decision from 2021 by the American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA) to change the meaning of “PA” to “physician associate” from “physician assistant.”

In the Medscape Physician Assistant Career Satisfaction Report 2023, a diverse range of opinions on the title switch was reflected. Only 40% of PAs favored the name change at the time, 45% neither opposed nor favored it, and 15% opposed the name change, reflecting the complexity of the issue.

According to the AAPA, the change came about to better reflect the work PAs do in not just “assisting” physicians but in working independently with patients. Some also felt that the word “assistant” implies dependence. However, despite associate’s more accurate reflection of the job, PAs mostly remain split on whether they want the new moniker.

Many say that the name change will be confusing for the public and their patients, while others say that physician assistant was already not well understood, as patients often thought of the profession as a doctor’s helper or an assistant, like a medical assistant.

Yet many long-time PAs say that they prefer the title they’ve always had and that explaining to patients the new associate title will be equally confusing. Some mentioned patients may think they’re a business associate of the physician.

Oregon PAs won’t immediately switch to the new name. The new law takes effect on June 6, 2024. The Oregon Medical Board will establish regulations and guidance before PAs adopt the new name in their practices.

The law only changes the name of PAs in Oregon, not in other states. In fact, prematurely using the title of physician associate could subject a PA to regulatory challenges or disciplinary actions.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

On April 4, Oregon’s Governor Tina Kotek signed a bill into law that officially changed the title of “physician assistants” to “physician associates” in the state. The switch is the first of its kind in the United States and comes on the heels of a decision from 2021 by the American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA) to change the meaning of “PA” to “physician associate” from “physician assistant.”

In the Medscape Physician Assistant Career Satisfaction Report 2023, a diverse range of opinions on the title switch was reflected. Only 40% of PAs favored the name change at the time, 45% neither opposed nor favored it, and 15% opposed the name change, reflecting the complexity of the issue.

According to the AAPA, the change came about to better reflect the work PAs do in not just “assisting” physicians but in working independently with patients. Some also felt that the word “assistant” implies dependence. However, despite associate’s more accurate reflection of the job, PAs mostly remain split on whether they want the new moniker.

Many say that the name change will be confusing for the public and their patients, while others say that physician assistant was already not well understood, as patients often thought of the profession as a doctor’s helper or an assistant, like a medical assistant.

Yet many long-time PAs say that they prefer the title they’ve always had and that explaining to patients the new associate title will be equally confusing. Some mentioned patients may think they’re a business associate of the physician.

Oregon PAs won’t immediately switch to the new name. The new law takes effect on June 6, 2024. The Oregon Medical Board will establish regulations and guidance before PAs adopt the new name in their practices.

The law only changes the name of PAs in Oregon, not in other states. In fact, prematurely using the title of physician associate could subject a PA to regulatory challenges or disciplinary actions.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As the pendulum has swung against recommending aspirin for the primary prevention of heart attacks and strokes, clinicians should focus on other ways to help patients avoid cardiovascular events.

A landmark study published in 1988 in The New England Journal of Medicine reported an astonishing 44% drop in the number of heart attacks among US male physicians aged 40-84 years who took aspirin.

Aspirin subsequently became a daily habit for millions of Americans. In 2017, nearly a quarter of Americans over age 40 who did not have cardiovascular disease (CVD) took the drug, and over 20% of those were doing so without a physician’s recommendation.

But in 2018, three studies (ASCEND, ARRIVE, and ASPREE) showed a stunning reversal in the purported benefit, according to John Wong, MD, vice-chair of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

The calculus for taking aspirin appeared to have changed dramatically: The drug decreased the risk for myocardial infarction by only 11% among study subjects, while its potential harms were much more pronounced.

According to Dr. Wong, who is also a professor of medicine and a primary care physician at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, patients taking low-dose aspirin had a 58% increase in their risk for gastrointestinal bleeding compared with those not on aspirin, as well as a 31% increased risk for intracranial bleeding.

Did aspirin suddenly lose its magic powers in preventing heart attacks? Dr. Wong attributed the decline in effectiveness of aspirin in preventing heart attacks to other “primary care interventions that help reduce the cardiovascular disease risk in patients who haven’t had a heart attack or stroke.”

Fewer Americans smoke cigarettes, more realize the benefits of a healthy diet and physical activity, and the medical community better recognizes and treats hypertension. New classes of medications such as statins for high cholesterol are also moving the needle.

But a newer class of drugs may provide a safer replacement for aspirin, according to Muhammad Maqsood, MD, a cardiology fellow at DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center at Methodist Hospital in Houston, Texas. P2Y purinoceptor 12 (P2Y12) inhibitors are effective in lowering the risk for heart attack and stroke in patients with acute coronary syndrome or those undergoing elective percutaneous coronary interventions.

“They have shown a better bleeding profile, especially clopidogrel compared to aspirin,” Dr. Maqsood said.

However, the findings come from trials of patients who already had CVD, so results cannot yet be extrapolated to primary prevention. Dr. Maqsood said the gap highlights the need for clinical trials that evaluate P2Y12 inhibitors for primary prevention, but no such study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov.
 

Benefits Persist for Some Patients

The new evidence led the USPSTF to publish new guidelines in 2022, downgrading the recommendation for low-dose aspirin use for primary prevention. Previously, the organization stated that clinicians “should” initiate daily low-dose aspirin in adults aged 50-59 years and “consider” its use in adults aged 60-69 years whose 10-year risk for CVD was higher than 10%.

The updated guidelines stated that the decision to initiate low-dose aspirin in adults aged 40-59 years with a greater than 10% risk for CVD “should be an individual one,” based on professional judgment and individual patient preferences. The USPSTF also recommended against the use of aspirin in anyone over the age of 60.

Meanwhile, the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association also dialed down previously strong recommendations on low-dose aspirin to a more nuanced recommendation stating, “low-dose aspirin might be considered for primary prevention of ASCVD among select adults 40-70 years of age.”

With a varying age limit for recommending aspirin, clinicians may take into consideration several variables.

“Is there a magic age? I don’t think there is,” said Douglas Lloyd-Jones, the former president of the American Heart Association and current chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine and a practicing cardiologist at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois.

For a patient over age 60 who is at a high risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes, is unable to quit smoking, and is not likely to experience problematic bleeding, a clinician might recommend aspirin, Dr. Lloyd-Jones said. He said he sometimes also assesses coronary artery calcium to guide his clinical decisions: If elevated (an Agatston score above 100), he might recommend low-dose aspirin.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones also reiterated that patients should continue taking low-dose aspirin if they have already experienced a heart attack, stroke, episode of atrial fibrillation, or required a vascular stent.

Unless a patient with established CVD has intractable bleeding, “the aspirin is really for life,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said. Patients who have a stent or who are at high risk for recurrence of stroke are more likely to experience thrombosis, and aspirin can decrease the risk.

“In our cardiology community, we don’t just strictly use the age of 70; the decision is always individualized,” Dr. Maqsood said.

Dr. Wong said primary care providers should focus on the USPSTF’s other recommendations that address CVD (Table), such as smoking cessation and screening for hypertension.

“I think our challenge is that we have so many of those A and B recommendations,” Dr. Wong said. “And I think part of the challenge for us is working with the patient to find out what’s most important to them.”

Discussing heart attacks and strokes often will strike a chord with patients because someone they know has been affected.

Dr. Maqsood emphasized the importance of behavioral interventions, such as helping patients decrease their body mass index and control their hyperlipidemia.

“The behavioral interventions are those which are the most cost-effective without any side effects,” he said.

His other piece of advice is to inquire with younger patients about a family history of heart attacks. Familial hypercholesteremia is unlikely to be controlled by diet and exercise and will need medical therapy.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones described the discussions he has with patients about preventing heart attacks as “the most important conversations we can have: Remember that cardiovascular disease is still the leading cause of death and disability in the world and in the United States.”

Dr. Wong, Dr. Lloyd-Jones, and Dr. Maqsood reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As the pendulum has swung against recommending aspirin for the primary prevention of heart attacks and strokes, clinicians should focus on other ways to help patients avoid cardiovascular events.

A landmark study published in 1988 in The New England Journal of Medicine reported an astonishing 44% drop in the number of heart attacks among US male physicians aged 40-84 years who took aspirin.

Aspirin subsequently became a daily habit for millions of Americans. In 2017, nearly a quarter of Americans over age 40 who did not have cardiovascular disease (CVD) took the drug, and over 20% of those were doing so without a physician’s recommendation.

But in 2018, three studies (ASCEND, ARRIVE, and ASPREE) showed a stunning reversal in the purported benefit, according to John Wong, MD, vice-chair of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

The calculus for taking aspirin appeared to have changed dramatically: The drug decreased the risk for myocardial infarction by only 11% among study subjects, while its potential harms were much more pronounced.

According to Dr. Wong, who is also a professor of medicine and a primary care physician at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, patients taking low-dose aspirin had a 58% increase in their risk for gastrointestinal bleeding compared with those not on aspirin, as well as a 31% increased risk for intracranial bleeding.

Did aspirin suddenly lose its magic powers in preventing heart attacks? Dr. Wong attributed the decline in effectiveness of aspirin in preventing heart attacks to other “primary care interventions that help reduce the cardiovascular disease risk in patients who haven’t had a heart attack or stroke.”

Fewer Americans smoke cigarettes, more realize the benefits of a healthy diet and physical activity, and the medical community better recognizes and treats hypertension. New classes of medications such as statins for high cholesterol are also moving the needle.

But a newer class of drugs may provide a safer replacement for aspirin, according to Muhammad Maqsood, MD, a cardiology fellow at DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center at Methodist Hospital in Houston, Texas. P2Y purinoceptor 12 (P2Y12) inhibitors are effective in lowering the risk for heart attack and stroke in patients with acute coronary syndrome or those undergoing elective percutaneous coronary interventions.

“They have shown a better bleeding profile, especially clopidogrel compared to aspirin,” Dr. Maqsood said.

However, the findings come from trials of patients who already had CVD, so results cannot yet be extrapolated to primary prevention. Dr. Maqsood said the gap highlights the need for clinical trials that evaluate P2Y12 inhibitors for primary prevention, but no such study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov.
 

Benefits Persist for Some Patients

The new evidence led the USPSTF to publish new guidelines in 2022, downgrading the recommendation for low-dose aspirin use for primary prevention. Previously, the organization stated that clinicians “should” initiate daily low-dose aspirin in adults aged 50-59 years and “consider” its use in adults aged 60-69 years whose 10-year risk for CVD was higher than 10%.

The updated guidelines stated that the decision to initiate low-dose aspirin in adults aged 40-59 years with a greater than 10% risk for CVD “should be an individual one,” based on professional judgment and individual patient preferences. The USPSTF also recommended against the use of aspirin in anyone over the age of 60.

Meanwhile, the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association also dialed down previously strong recommendations on low-dose aspirin to a more nuanced recommendation stating, “low-dose aspirin might be considered for primary prevention of ASCVD among select adults 40-70 years of age.”

With a varying age limit for recommending aspirin, clinicians may take into consideration several variables.

“Is there a magic age? I don’t think there is,” said Douglas Lloyd-Jones, the former president of the American Heart Association and current chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine and a practicing cardiologist at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois.

For a patient over age 60 who is at a high risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes, is unable to quit smoking, and is not likely to experience problematic bleeding, a clinician might recommend aspirin, Dr. Lloyd-Jones said. He said he sometimes also assesses coronary artery calcium to guide his clinical decisions: If elevated (an Agatston score above 100), he might recommend low-dose aspirin.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones also reiterated that patients should continue taking low-dose aspirin if they have already experienced a heart attack, stroke, episode of atrial fibrillation, or required a vascular stent.

Unless a patient with established CVD has intractable bleeding, “the aspirin is really for life,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said. Patients who have a stent or who are at high risk for recurrence of stroke are more likely to experience thrombosis, and aspirin can decrease the risk.

“In our cardiology community, we don’t just strictly use the age of 70; the decision is always individualized,” Dr. Maqsood said.

Dr. Wong said primary care providers should focus on the USPSTF’s other recommendations that address CVD (Table), such as smoking cessation and screening for hypertension.

“I think our challenge is that we have so many of those A and B recommendations,” Dr. Wong said. “And I think part of the challenge for us is working with the patient to find out what’s most important to them.”

Discussing heart attacks and strokes often will strike a chord with patients because someone they know has been affected.

Dr. Maqsood emphasized the importance of behavioral interventions, such as helping patients decrease their body mass index and control their hyperlipidemia.

“The behavioral interventions are those which are the most cost-effective without any side effects,” he said.

His other piece of advice is to inquire with younger patients about a family history of heart attacks. Familial hypercholesteremia is unlikely to be controlled by diet and exercise and will need medical therapy.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones described the discussions he has with patients about preventing heart attacks as “the most important conversations we can have: Remember that cardiovascular disease is still the leading cause of death and disability in the world and in the United States.”

Dr. Wong, Dr. Lloyd-Jones, and Dr. Maqsood reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As the pendulum has swung against recommending aspirin for the primary prevention of heart attacks and strokes, clinicians should focus on other ways to help patients avoid cardiovascular events.

A landmark study published in 1988 in The New England Journal of Medicine reported an astonishing 44% drop in the number of heart attacks among US male physicians aged 40-84 years who took aspirin.

Aspirin subsequently became a daily habit for millions of Americans. In 2017, nearly a quarter of Americans over age 40 who did not have cardiovascular disease (CVD) took the drug, and over 20% of those were doing so without a physician’s recommendation.

But in 2018, three studies (ASCEND, ARRIVE, and ASPREE) showed a stunning reversal in the purported benefit, according to John Wong, MD, vice-chair of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

The calculus for taking aspirin appeared to have changed dramatically: The drug decreased the risk for myocardial infarction by only 11% among study subjects, while its potential harms were much more pronounced.

According to Dr. Wong, who is also a professor of medicine and a primary care physician at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, patients taking low-dose aspirin had a 58% increase in their risk for gastrointestinal bleeding compared with those not on aspirin, as well as a 31% increased risk for intracranial bleeding.

Did aspirin suddenly lose its magic powers in preventing heart attacks? Dr. Wong attributed the decline in effectiveness of aspirin in preventing heart attacks to other “primary care interventions that help reduce the cardiovascular disease risk in patients who haven’t had a heart attack or stroke.”

Fewer Americans smoke cigarettes, more realize the benefits of a healthy diet and physical activity, and the medical community better recognizes and treats hypertension. New classes of medications such as statins for high cholesterol are also moving the needle.

But a newer class of drugs may provide a safer replacement for aspirin, according to Muhammad Maqsood, MD, a cardiology fellow at DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center at Methodist Hospital in Houston, Texas. P2Y purinoceptor 12 (P2Y12) inhibitors are effective in lowering the risk for heart attack and stroke in patients with acute coronary syndrome or those undergoing elective percutaneous coronary interventions.

“They have shown a better bleeding profile, especially clopidogrel compared to aspirin,” Dr. Maqsood said.

However, the findings come from trials of patients who already had CVD, so results cannot yet be extrapolated to primary prevention. Dr. Maqsood said the gap highlights the need for clinical trials that evaluate P2Y12 inhibitors for primary prevention, but no such study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov.
 

Benefits Persist for Some Patients

The new evidence led the USPSTF to publish new guidelines in 2022, downgrading the recommendation for low-dose aspirin use for primary prevention. Previously, the organization stated that clinicians “should” initiate daily low-dose aspirin in adults aged 50-59 years and “consider” its use in adults aged 60-69 years whose 10-year risk for CVD was higher than 10%.

The updated guidelines stated that the decision to initiate low-dose aspirin in adults aged 40-59 years with a greater than 10% risk for CVD “should be an individual one,” based on professional judgment and individual patient preferences. The USPSTF also recommended against the use of aspirin in anyone over the age of 60.

Meanwhile, the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association also dialed down previously strong recommendations on low-dose aspirin to a more nuanced recommendation stating, “low-dose aspirin might be considered for primary prevention of ASCVD among select adults 40-70 years of age.”

With a varying age limit for recommending aspirin, clinicians may take into consideration several variables.

“Is there a magic age? I don’t think there is,” said Douglas Lloyd-Jones, the former president of the American Heart Association and current chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine and a practicing cardiologist at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois.

For a patient over age 60 who is at a high risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes, is unable to quit smoking, and is not likely to experience problematic bleeding, a clinician might recommend aspirin, Dr. Lloyd-Jones said. He said he sometimes also assesses coronary artery calcium to guide his clinical decisions: If elevated (an Agatston score above 100), he might recommend low-dose aspirin.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones also reiterated that patients should continue taking low-dose aspirin if they have already experienced a heart attack, stroke, episode of atrial fibrillation, or required a vascular stent.

Unless a patient with established CVD has intractable bleeding, “the aspirin is really for life,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said. Patients who have a stent or who are at high risk for recurrence of stroke are more likely to experience thrombosis, and aspirin can decrease the risk.

“In our cardiology community, we don’t just strictly use the age of 70; the decision is always individualized,” Dr. Maqsood said.

Dr. Wong said primary care providers should focus on the USPSTF’s other recommendations that address CVD (Table), such as smoking cessation and screening for hypertension.

“I think our challenge is that we have so many of those A and B recommendations,” Dr. Wong said. “And I think part of the challenge for us is working with the patient to find out what’s most important to them.”

Discussing heart attacks and strokes often will strike a chord with patients because someone they know has been affected.

Dr. Maqsood emphasized the importance of behavioral interventions, such as helping patients decrease their body mass index and control their hyperlipidemia.

“The behavioral interventions are those which are the most cost-effective without any side effects,” he said.

His other piece of advice is to inquire with younger patients about a family history of heart attacks. Familial hypercholesteremia is unlikely to be controlled by diet and exercise and will need medical therapy.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones described the discussions he has with patients about preventing heart attacks as “the most important conversations we can have: Remember that cardiovascular disease is still the leading cause of death and disability in the world and in the United States.”

Dr. Wong, Dr. Lloyd-Jones, and Dr. Maqsood reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Immunization with inactivated vaccines while receiving the natalizumab for highly active multiple sclerosis (MS) is safe and immunogenic, with no increased risk for disease progression, new research shows. 

The study, the first to examine vaccine safety and immunogenicity in highly active MS, revealed high seroprotection rates following receipt of vaccines for COVID-19 and hepatitis A and B, regardless of the duration of treatment with natalizumab.

On the basis of these findings, investigators created an algorithm that clinicians can use to map an immunization schedule in patients who might otherwise delay initiation of disease-modifying therapy until they are fully vaccinated.

“We observed seroprotection rates exceeding 90% for hepatitis A and B, and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, and all vaccines demonstrated a favorable safety profile, with no exacerbation of disease activity detected,” said lead author René Carvajal, MD, of the Department of Neurology-Neuroimmunology, Multiple Sclerosis Centre of Catalonia (Cemcat), Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. “This points to potential benefits for patients with highly active MS who require both immunization and high-efficacy therapies that may impact vaccine responses.” 

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

A Controversial Issue

Today’s high-efficacy therapies for MS may increase the risk of acquiring new infections, reactivate latent pathogens, or worsen ongoing infectious conditions, and immunogenicity of vaccination can be compromised by immunosuppressive agents, particularly CD20 therapies, researchers noted.

As a result, many clinicians opt to delay initiation of such therapies until vaccination schedules are complete to avoid exposure to vaccine-preventable infections. But delaying treatment can potentially affect disease progression. 

Reports of disease worsening following vaccination “have raised controversy around vaccine safety,” the authors wrote. The issue is especially relevant to those with highly active MS due to the scarcity of available data in this population.

The motivation for the study “stemmed from the complex balance clinicians face between initiating highly effective therapies promptly in patients with highly active MS and ensuring adequate protection against preventable infections through vaccination,” Dr. Carvajal said.
 

High Seroprotection Rate

Researchers analyzed data on 60 patients (mean age, 43 years; 44 female; mean disease duration, 17 years) participating in one of two prospectively followed cohorts: The Barcelona Clinically Isolated Syndromes Inception Cohort and the Barcelona Treatment Cohort. Data included demographic, clinical, radiologic, and biological data as well as regular clinical assessments, evaluations of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), and MRI scans.

Patients enrolled in the current study had received at least one of these vaccines between September 2016 and February 2022: hepatitis A virus (HAV), hepatitis B virus (HBV; enhanced immunity high load or adjuvanted), or COVID-19 (BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech], mRAN-1273 [Moderna], or ChAdOx1-S [recombinant; AstraZeneca]).

The researchers conducted a retrospective, self-controlled analysis to compare the annualized relapse rate, EDSS score, and new T2 lesions counts during the 12 months before and after vaccination in patients with short- and long-term treatment duration.

They also compared John Cunningham virus serostatus between the two periods, as well as immunoglobulin G titers for each vaccine.

The global seroprotection rate was 93% (95% CI, 86%-98%). Individual vaccine rates were 92% for HAV, 93% for HBV, and 100% for COVID-19.

There was a significant reduction between the pre- and postvaccination periods in mean relapse rates (P = .004) and median number of new T2 lesions (P  = .01).

There were no changes in EDSS scores before and after vaccinations and duration of natalizumab treatment had no impact on safety and immunogenicity.
 

‘Viable Option’

The researchers used their findings to create a proposed algorithm to inform immunization decisions in patients with highly active MS who require prompt initiation of high-efficacy disease-modifying therapy.

The algorithm is “integrated into a risk-minimization strategy tailored for patients with highly active MS, emphasizing in this case the pivotal role of natalizumab in averting treatment delays and providing adequate protection against potentially severe infections,” Dr. Carvajal said.

Participants who initiated or continued treatment with natalizumab completed their vaccination regimen without any incidents of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) or disease activity rebound following natalizumab discontinuation.

This suggests that using natalizumab for a brief duration might be a “viable option to contemplate,” the authors noted.

Commenting on the findings, Grace Gombolay, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics in the Division of Pediatric Neurology and director of the Pediatric Neuroimmunology and Multiple Sclerosis Clinic, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, said the study “demonstrates that vaccines are safe and do not trigger attacks in patients with MS on natalizumab, and that immunity — as measured by antibodies — is preserved in MS patients who receive natalizumab.”

This “contrasts with other treatments, as decreased antibody responses in COVID-19 are noted in certain treatments,” said Dr. Gombolay, who was not part of the study. “If both disease control and immunity against infection are the goals for the patient, then natalizumab is a reasonable option.” 

“However, this must be balanced with other considerations,” she added, including the risk for PML and pregnancy. 

This study was supported by grants from the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, and the European Union. Dr. Carvajal reported receiving grants from Vall d’Hebron Institut de Recerca and the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and honoraria from Roche, Novartis, BIIB-Colombia, Merck, and Sanofi outside the submitted work. Dr. Gombolay serves as media editor for Pediatric Neurology and as associate editor of the Annals of the Child Neurology Society. She is also a part-time CDC consultant for acute flaccid myelitis and received an honorarium as a speaker at the Georgia Neurological Society meeting, sponsored by Academic CME and TG Therapeutics.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Immunization with inactivated vaccines while receiving the natalizumab for highly active multiple sclerosis (MS) is safe and immunogenic, with no increased risk for disease progression, new research shows. 

The study, the first to examine vaccine safety and immunogenicity in highly active MS, revealed high seroprotection rates following receipt of vaccines for COVID-19 and hepatitis A and B, regardless of the duration of treatment with natalizumab.

On the basis of these findings, investigators created an algorithm that clinicians can use to map an immunization schedule in patients who might otherwise delay initiation of disease-modifying therapy until they are fully vaccinated.

“We observed seroprotection rates exceeding 90% for hepatitis A and B, and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, and all vaccines demonstrated a favorable safety profile, with no exacerbation of disease activity detected,” said lead author René Carvajal, MD, of the Department of Neurology-Neuroimmunology, Multiple Sclerosis Centre of Catalonia (Cemcat), Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. “This points to potential benefits for patients with highly active MS who require both immunization and high-efficacy therapies that may impact vaccine responses.” 

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

A Controversial Issue

Today’s high-efficacy therapies for MS may increase the risk of acquiring new infections, reactivate latent pathogens, or worsen ongoing infectious conditions, and immunogenicity of vaccination can be compromised by immunosuppressive agents, particularly CD20 therapies, researchers noted.

As a result, many clinicians opt to delay initiation of such therapies until vaccination schedules are complete to avoid exposure to vaccine-preventable infections. But delaying treatment can potentially affect disease progression. 

Reports of disease worsening following vaccination “have raised controversy around vaccine safety,” the authors wrote. The issue is especially relevant to those with highly active MS due to the scarcity of available data in this population.

The motivation for the study “stemmed from the complex balance clinicians face between initiating highly effective therapies promptly in patients with highly active MS and ensuring adequate protection against preventable infections through vaccination,” Dr. Carvajal said.
 

High Seroprotection Rate

Researchers analyzed data on 60 patients (mean age, 43 years; 44 female; mean disease duration, 17 years) participating in one of two prospectively followed cohorts: The Barcelona Clinically Isolated Syndromes Inception Cohort and the Barcelona Treatment Cohort. Data included demographic, clinical, radiologic, and biological data as well as regular clinical assessments, evaluations of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), and MRI scans.

Patients enrolled in the current study had received at least one of these vaccines between September 2016 and February 2022: hepatitis A virus (HAV), hepatitis B virus (HBV; enhanced immunity high load or adjuvanted), or COVID-19 (BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech], mRAN-1273 [Moderna], or ChAdOx1-S [recombinant; AstraZeneca]).

The researchers conducted a retrospective, self-controlled analysis to compare the annualized relapse rate, EDSS score, and new T2 lesions counts during the 12 months before and after vaccination in patients with short- and long-term treatment duration.

They also compared John Cunningham virus serostatus between the two periods, as well as immunoglobulin G titers for each vaccine.

The global seroprotection rate was 93% (95% CI, 86%-98%). Individual vaccine rates were 92% for HAV, 93% for HBV, and 100% for COVID-19.

There was a significant reduction between the pre- and postvaccination periods in mean relapse rates (P = .004) and median number of new T2 lesions (P  = .01).

There were no changes in EDSS scores before and after vaccinations and duration of natalizumab treatment had no impact on safety and immunogenicity.
 

‘Viable Option’

The researchers used their findings to create a proposed algorithm to inform immunization decisions in patients with highly active MS who require prompt initiation of high-efficacy disease-modifying therapy.

The algorithm is “integrated into a risk-minimization strategy tailored for patients with highly active MS, emphasizing in this case the pivotal role of natalizumab in averting treatment delays and providing adequate protection against potentially severe infections,” Dr. Carvajal said.

Participants who initiated or continued treatment with natalizumab completed their vaccination regimen without any incidents of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) or disease activity rebound following natalizumab discontinuation.

This suggests that using natalizumab for a brief duration might be a “viable option to contemplate,” the authors noted.

Commenting on the findings, Grace Gombolay, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics in the Division of Pediatric Neurology and director of the Pediatric Neuroimmunology and Multiple Sclerosis Clinic, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, said the study “demonstrates that vaccines are safe and do not trigger attacks in patients with MS on natalizumab, and that immunity — as measured by antibodies — is preserved in MS patients who receive natalizumab.”

This “contrasts with other treatments, as decreased antibody responses in COVID-19 are noted in certain treatments,” said Dr. Gombolay, who was not part of the study. “If both disease control and immunity against infection are the goals for the patient, then natalizumab is a reasonable option.” 

“However, this must be balanced with other considerations,” she added, including the risk for PML and pregnancy. 

This study was supported by grants from the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, and the European Union. Dr. Carvajal reported receiving grants from Vall d’Hebron Institut de Recerca and the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and honoraria from Roche, Novartis, BIIB-Colombia, Merck, and Sanofi outside the submitted work. Dr. Gombolay serves as media editor for Pediatric Neurology and as associate editor of the Annals of the Child Neurology Society. She is also a part-time CDC consultant for acute flaccid myelitis and received an honorarium as a speaker at the Georgia Neurological Society meeting, sponsored by Academic CME and TG Therapeutics.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Immunization with inactivated vaccines while receiving the natalizumab for highly active multiple sclerosis (MS) is safe and immunogenic, with no increased risk for disease progression, new research shows. 

The study, the first to examine vaccine safety and immunogenicity in highly active MS, revealed high seroprotection rates following receipt of vaccines for COVID-19 and hepatitis A and B, regardless of the duration of treatment with natalizumab.

On the basis of these findings, investigators created an algorithm that clinicians can use to map an immunization schedule in patients who might otherwise delay initiation of disease-modifying therapy until they are fully vaccinated.

“We observed seroprotection rates exceeding 90% for hepatitis A and B, and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, and all vaccines demonstrated a favorable safety profile, with no exacerbation of disease activity detected,” said lead author René Carvajal, MD, of the Department of Neurology-Neuroimmunology, Multiple Sclerosis Centre of Catalonia (Cemcat), Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. “This points to potential benefits for patients with highly active MS who require both immunization and high-efficacy therapies that may impact vaccine responses.” 

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

A Controversial Issue

Today’s high-efficacy therapies for MS may increase the risk of acquiring new infections, reactivate latent pathogens, or worsen ongoing infectious conditions, and immunogenicity of vaccination can be compromised by immunosuppressive agents, particularly CD20 therapies, researchers noted.

As a result, many clinicians opt to delay initiation of such therapies until vaccination schedules are complete to avoid exposure to vaccine-preventable infections. But delaying treatment can potentially affect disease progression. 

Reports of disease worsening following vaccination “have raised controversy around vaccine safety,” the authors wrote. The issue is especially relevant to those with highly active MS due to the scarcity of available data in this population.

The motivation for the study “stemmed from the complex balance clinicians face between initiating highly effective therapies promptly in patients with highly active MS and ensuring adequate protection against preventable infections through vaccination,” Dr. Carvajal said.
 

High Seroprotection Rate

Researchers analyzed data on 60 patients (mean age, 43 years; 44 female; mean disease duration, 17 years) participating in one of two prospectively followed cohorts: The Barcelona Clinically Isolated Syndromes Inception Cohort and the Barcelona Treatment Cohort. Data included demographic, clinical, radiologic, and biological data as well as regular clinical assessments, evaluations of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), and MRI scans.

Patients enrolled in the current study had received at least one of these vaccines between September 2016 and February 2022: hepatitis A virus (HAV), hepatitis B virus (HBV; enhanced immunity high load or adjuvanted), or COVID-19 (BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech], mRAN-1273 [Moderna], or ChAdOx1-S [recombinant; AstraZeneca]).

The researchers conducted a retrospective, self-controlled analysis to compare the annualized relapse rate, EDSS score, and new T2 lesions counts during the 12 months before and after vaccination in patients with short- and long-term treatment duration.

They also compared John Cunningham virus serostatus between the two periods, as well as immunoglobulin G titers for each vaccine.

The global seroprotection rate was 93% (95% CI, 86%-98%). Individual vaccine rates were 92% for HAV, 93% for HBV, and 100% for COVID-19.

There was a significant reduction between the pre- and postvaccination periods in mean relapse rates (P = .004) and median number of new T2 lesions (P  = .01).

There were no changes in EDSS scores before and after vaccinations and duration of natalizumab treatment had no impact on safety and immunogenicity.
 

‘Viable Option’

The researchers used their findings to create a proposed algorithm to inform immunization decisions in patients with highly active MS who require prompt initiation of high-efficacy disease-modifying therapy.

The algorithm is “integrated into a risk-minimization strategy tailored for patients with highly active MS, emphasizing in this case the pivotal role of natalizumab in averting treatment delays and providing adequate protection against potentially severe infections,” Dr. Carvajal said.

Participants who initiated or continued treatment with natalizumab completed their vaccination regimen without any incidents of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) or disease activity rebound following natalizumab discontinuation.

This suggests that using natalizumab for a brief duration might be a “viable option to contemplate,” the authors noted.

Commenting on the findings, Grace Gombolay, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics in the Division of Pediatric Neurology and director of the Pediatric Neuroimmunology and Multiple Sclerosis Clinic, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, said the study “demonstrates that vaccines are safe and do not trigger attacks in patients with MS on natalizumab, and that immunity — as measured by antibodies — is preserved in MS patients who receive natalizumab.”

This “contrasts with other treatments, as decreased antibody responses in COVID-19 are noted in certain treatments,” said Dr. Gombolay, who was not part of the study. “If both disease control and immunity against infection are the goals for the patient, then natalizumab is a reasonable option.” 

“However, this must be balanced with other considerations,” she added, including the risk for PML and pregnancy. 

This study was supported by grants from the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, and the European Union. Dr. Carvajal reported receiving grants from Vall d’Hebron Institut de Recerca and the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and honoraria from Roche, Novartis, BIIB-Colombia, Merck, and Sanofi outside the submitted work. Dr. Gombolay serves as media editor for Pediatric Neurology and as associate editor of the Annals of the Child Neurology Society. She is also a part-time CDC consultant for acute flaccid myelitis and received an honorarium as a speaker at the Georgia Neurological Society meeting, sponsored by Academic CME and TG Therapeutics.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.