New Blood Test Could Save Arthritis Patients Time, Money and Pain

By Arthur Allen, KFF Health News

Erinn Maury knew Remicade wasn’t the right drug for Patti Schulte, a rheumatoid arthritis patient the physician saw at her Millersville, Maryland, practice. Schulte’s swollen, painful joints hadn’t responded to Enbrel or Humira, two drugs in the same class.

But the insurer insisted, so Schulte went on Remicade. It didn’t work either.

What’s more, Schulte suffered a severe allergic reaction to the infusion therapy, requiring a heavy dose of prednisone, a steroid with grave side effects if used at high doses for too long.

After 18 months, her insurer finally approved Maury’s drug of choice, Orencia. By then, Schulte’s vertebrae, weakened by prednisone, had started cracking. She was only 60.

Schulte’s story of pain, drug-hopping, and insurance meddling is all too common among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, who often cycle agonizingly through half a dozen drugs in search of one that provides a measure of relief. It’s also a story of how doctors are steered by pharmacy benefit managers — the middlemen of the drug market — as well as by insurers.

Once people with inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis reach a certain stage, the first prescription offered is typically Humira, the best-selling drug in history, and part of a class known as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, or TNFis, which fail to significantly help about half of the patients who take it.

“We practice rheumatology without any help,” said Vibeke Strand, a rheumatologist and adjunct clinical professor at Stanford. She bemoaned the lack of tools available to choose the right drug while bristling at corporate intervention in the decision. “We are told by the insurer what to prescribe to the patient. After they fail methotrexate, it’s a TNF inhibitor, almost always Humira. And that’s not OK.”

If there’s a shred of hope in this story, it’s that a blood test, PrismRA, may herald an era of improved care for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune conditions. But first, it must be embraced by insurers.

PrismRA employs a predictive model that combines clinical factors, blood tests, and 19 gene patterns to identify the roughly 60% of patients who are very unlikely to respond to a TNFi drug.

Over the past 25 years, drug companies have introduced five new classes of autoimmune drugs. TNFis were the first to market, starting in the late 1990s.

Some 1.3 million Americans have rheumatoid arthritis, a disease in which a person’s immune system attacks their joints, causing crippling pain and, if improperly treated, disfigurement. The newer drugs, mostly so-called biologics, are also used by some of the 25 million or more Americans with other autoimmune diseases, such as lupus, Crohn’s disease, and psoriasis. Typically costing tens of thousands of dollars annually, the drugs are prescribed after a patient fails to respond to older, cheaper drugs like methotrexate.

Insurers Often Determine Treatment

Until recently, rheumatologists have had few ways to predict which of the new drugs would work best on which patients. Often, “it’s a coin flip whether I prescribe drug A or B,” said Jeffrey Curtis, a rheumatology professor at the University of Alabama-Birmingham.

Yet about 90% of the patients who are given one of these advanced drugs start on a TNFi, although there’s often no reason to think a TNFi will work better than another type.

Under these puzzling circumstances, it’s often the insurer rather than the doctor who chooses the patient’s drug. Insurers lean toward TNFis such as adalimumab, commonly sold as brand-name Humira, in part because they get large rebates from manufacturers for using them. Although the size of such payments is a trade secret, AbbVie is said to be offering rebates to insurers of up to 60% of Humira’s price. That has enabled it to control 98.5% of the U.S. adalimumab market, even though it has eight biosimilar competitors.

PrismRA’s developer, Scipher Medicine, has provided more than 26,000 test results, rarely covered by insurance. But on Oct. 15, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid began reimbursing for the test, and its use is expected to rise. At least two other companies are developing drug-matching tests for rheumatoid arthritis patients.

Although critics say PrismRA is not always useful, it is likely to be the first in a series of diagnostics anticipated over the next decade that could reduce the time that autoimmune disease patients suffer on the wrong drug.

Academics, small biotechs, and large pharmaceutical companies are investing in methods to distinguish the biological pathways involved in these diseases, and the best way to treat each one. This approach, called precision medicine, has existed for years in cancer medicine, in which it’s routine to test the genetics of patients’ tumors to determine the appropriate drug treatment.

“You wouldn’t give Herceptin to a breast cancer patient without knowing whether her tumor was HER2-positive,” said Costantino Pitzalis, a rheumatology professor at the William Harvey Research Institute in London. He was speaking before a well-attended session at an American College of Rheumatology conference in San Diego in November. “Why do we not use biopsies or seek molecular markers in rheumatoid arthritis?”

It’s not only patients and doctors who have a stake in which drugs work best for a given person.

When Remicade failed and Schulte waited for the insurer to approve Orencia, she insisted on keeping her job as an accountant. But as her prednisone-related spinal problems worsened, Schulte was forced to retire, go on Medicaid, and seek disability, something she had always sworn to avoid.

Now taxpayers, rather than the insurer, are covering Schulte’s medical bills, Maury noted.

Precision medicine hasn’t seemed like a priority for large makers of autoimmune drugs, which presumably have some knowledge of which patients are most likely to benefit from their drugs, since they have tested and sold millions of doses over the years. By offering rebate incentives to insurers, companies like AbbVie, which makes Humira, can guarantee theirs are the drugs of choice with insurers.

“If you were AbbVie,” Curtis said, “why would you ever want to publish data showing who’s not going to do well on your drug, if, in the absence of the test, everyone will start with your drug first?”

What Testing Could Do

Medicare and commercial insurers haven’t yet set a price for PrismRA, but it could save insurers thousands of dollars a year for each patient it helps, according to Krishna Patel, Scipher’s associate director of medical affairs.

“If the test cost $750, I still only need it once, and it costs less than a month of whatever drug is not going to work very well for you,” said Curtis, a co-author of some studies of the test. “The economics of a biomarker that’s anything but worthless is pretty favorable because our biologics and targeted drugs are so expensive.”

Patients are enthusiastic about the test because so many have had to take TNFis that didn’t work. Many insurers require patients to try a second TNFi, and sometimes a third.

Jen Weaver, a patient advocate and mother of three, got little benefit from hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, and Orencia, a non-TNFi biologic therapy, before finding some relief in another, Actemra. But she was taken off that drug when her white blood cells plunged, and the next three drugs she tried — all TNFis — caused allergic reactions, culminating with an outbreak of pus-filled sores. Another drug, Otezla, eventually seemed to help heal the sores, and she’s been stable on it since in combination with methotrexate, Weaver said.

“What is needed is to substantially shorten this trial-and-error period for patients,” said Shilpa Venkatachalam, herself a patient and the director of research operations at the Global Healthy Living Foundation. “There’s a lot of anxiety and frustration, weeks in pain wondering whether a drug is going to work for you and what to do if it doesn’t.” A survey by her group found that 91% of patients worried their medications would stop working. And there is evidence that the longer it takes to resolve arthritis symptoms, the less chance they will ever stop.

How insurers will respond to the availability of tests isn’t clear, partly because the arrival of new biosimilar drugs — essentially generic versions — are making TNFis cheaper for insurance plans. While Humira still dominates, AbbVie has increased rebates to insurers, in effect lowering its cost. Lower prices make the PrismRA test less appealing to insurers, since widespread use of the test could cut TNFi prescriptions by up to a third.

However, rheumatologist John Boone in Louisville, Kentucky, found to his surprise that insurers mostly accepted alternative prescriptions for 41 patients whom the test showed unlikely to respond to TNFis as part of a clinical trial. Boone receives consulting fees from Scipher.

Although the test didn’t guarantee good outcomes, he said, the few patients given TNFis despite the test results almost all did poorly on that regimen.

Scientists from AbbVie, which makes several rheumatology drugs in addition to Humira, presented a study at the San Diego conference examining biomarkers that might show which patients would respond to Rinvoq, a new immune-suppressing drug in a class known as the JAK inhibitors. When asked about its use of precision medicine, AbbVie declined to comment.

Over two decades, Humira has been a blockbuster drug for AbbVie. The company sold more than $3.5 billion worth of Humira in the third quarter of 2023, 36% less than a year ago. Sales of Rinvoq, which AbbVie is marketing as a treatment for patients failed by Humira and its class, jumped 60% to $1.1 billion.

Shannan O’Hara-Levi, a 38-year-old in Monroe, New York, has been on scores of drugs and supplements since being diagnosed with juvenile arthritis at age 3. She’s been nauseated, fatigued, and short of breath and has suffered allergic reactions, but she says the worst part of it was finding a drug that worked and then losing access because of insurance. This happened shortly after she gave birth to a daughter in 2022, and then endured intense joint pain.

“If I could take a blood test that tells me not to waste months or years of my life — absolutely,” she said. “If I could have started my current drug last fall and saved many months of not being able to engage with my baby on the floor — absolutely.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues.

CBD Ineffective for Osteoarthritis Knee Pain

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Cannabidiol (CBD) is often touted as an effective pain reliever for arthritis. Studies on animals and anecdotal reports from humans suggest that CBD – the non-psychoactive compound in cannabis -- has anti-inflammatory and pain-relieving effects on joint pain.

But in one of the first randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of CBD, researchers at Medical University of Vienna found that CBD is not an effective pain medication for knee osteoarthritis, even at high doses.

The study included 86 men and women who suffered from severe pain due to knee osteoarthritis,  a progressive condition caused by the breakdown of joint cartilage.in the knee. About 10 percent of people over age 60 have knee osteoarthritis (OA).

Half the participants received daily doses of CBD in capsules for eight weeks, titrating up to 600mg per day, which is considered a high dose. The other participants were given placebo capsules with no active ingredient. Neither group knew what they were taking.

The study findings, published in The Lancet Regional Health -- Europe, show that CBD did not have a stronger analgesic effect than the placebo. Adverse events were more common in the CBD group, with over half the participants (56%) reporting diarrhea, abdominal pain, fatigue and other mild side effects.

“Our results do not support the yet clinically unproven hopes for CBD as potential supplement or even replacement of potent analgesics, including opioids,” wrote lead author Sibylle Pramhas, MD, Department of Special Anesthesia and Pain Medicine at MedUni Vienna.

"Our study is the first to provide solid information on the lack of analgesic potential of CBD in a common chronic pain condition, due to the comparatively high oral dosage and the long observation period.”

This isn’t the first time CBD came up short in a clinical study. In 2017, Zynebra Pharmaceuticals tested a CBD gel for knee OA with mixed results. The Phase 2 study did not meet its primary goal of reducing the average pain score, although there were some indications the gel improved function and reduced pain severity. The company has since abandoned plans to use the gel for arthritis pain.

A more recent study of a CBD patch for knee osteoarthritis was withdrawn due to “inadequate funding.” Several other clinical studies of CBD for OA pain are underway or recruiting participants, but no results have been posted.

Currently, osteoarthritis knee pain is treated with analgesics such as acetaminophen (paracetamol), diclofenac, ibuprofen or tramadol. For the time being, they may be the best alternatives for pain relief.   

"CBD is not an alternative for pain therapy for osteoarthritis of the knee, so the search for more effective options must continue," says Pramhas.

Arthritis Pain Varies Widely Across States

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

People living in West Virginia are three times more likely to have moderate or severe joint pain from arthritis than those in Minnesota, according to a comprehensive new study that highlights how disparities in education and access to social services contribute to chronic pain.

“Very little research has examined the geography of chronic pain, and virtually none has examined the role of state-level policies in shaping pain prevalence,” says co-author Hanna Grol-Prokopczyk, PhD, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Buffalo. “We were excited to identify state characteristics that reduce residents’ risk of pain.”

Grol-Prokopczyk and her colleagues looked at data for over 400,000 adults who participated in the 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, along with data from all 50 states on social assistance and anti-poverty programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), more commonly known as food stamps.

Their findings, published in the journal PAIN,  show the risk of joint pain was significantly higher in states in Appalachia, the Mississippi Valley and the South, compared to states in the Upper Midwest and West.

Nearly one in four adults in West Virginia (23.1%), Alabama (21.6%) and Arkansas (21.4%) had moderate to severe joint pain. States with the lowest risk of joint pain are Minnesota (6.9%), Hawaii (7.5%) and Utah (7.7%).

SOURCE: PAIN

Digging deeper into the data, researchers found that educational disparities are also associated with pain frequency. People who did not complete high school in West Virginia (31.1%), Arkansas (29.7%) and Alabama (28.3%) were far more likely to have joint pain compared to those with bachelor degrees in California (8.8%), Nevada (9.8%) and Utah (10.1%).

People with less education are more likely to have blue-collar jobs requiring manual labor that may contribute to joint pain. They also have lower incomes and less access to healthcare.

“Education can function as a ‘personal firewall’ that protects more highly educated people from undesirable state-level contexts, while increasing the vulnerability of less educated individuals,” said first author Rui Huang, a sociology PhD student in the UB College of Arts and Sciences.

Researchers also found that states with higher levels of SNAP benefits, social support and community health services had lower levels of pain frequency.

“The increase in the generosity of SNAP benefits could potentially alleviate pain by promoting healthier eating habits and alleviating the life stress associated with food insecurity,” says Huang. “Social factors such as conflict, isolation and devaluation are also among the ‘social threats’ that can lead to physical reactions such as inflammation and immune system changes.”

Previous studies at the University of Buffalo have found that gender, poverty and education play a role in pain frequency and that the overall prevalence of pain is increasing in the United States, affecting virtually every age group, sex, ethnicity and demographic.

Hydrogel Shows Promise as Treatment for Arthritic Joints

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

An experimental hydrogel that helps regenerate bone and cartilage tissue is showing promise as a treatment for arthritic joints, according to new research by Chinese and Canadian scientists. The gel is biodegradable and mimics the articular cartilage found in knee and hip joints.

In tests on laboratory animals, researchers say the gel showed signs of repairing articular cartilage 12 weeks after being implanted in rabbits, with no gel remaining and no rejection by the animals’ immune systems, according to findings published in the journal Nature.

Further animal testing is needed, but if the hydrogel proves useful in human trials, it could be used someday as an alternative to knee and hip replacement surgery. About one in four adults in the United States have some form of arthritis, which causes thinning of cartilage and progressive joint damage. Many resort to risky joint repair and replacement procedures.

“Cartilage is tricky,” says senior author Dr. Hongbin Li, a professor in the University of British Columbia’s department of chemistry. “Articular cartilage repair represents an important medical challenge because naturally speaking, it doesn’t repair itself.”

A delicate balance is needed to make biodegradable cartilage implants tough and stiff enough to support muscle-bearing tissues. They can’t be too stiff, or they’ll break when bent too far. Conversely, if they are too soft, they may not be useful in a joint.

In animal studies, researchers say a stiffer version of the gel had better results than a softer version, because it formed a scaffold that was more compatible with bone and cartilage tissue. That provided a physical cue to the body for tissue regeneration.

Dr. Linglan Fu holding the hydrogel

“This just shows how complex this area of research is, and the need to take into account the many different physical and biochemical cues and factors when designing these scaffolds,” says co-author Dr. Qing Jiang, a professor and surgeon at Nanjing University.

The research team used a new approach to stiffen biomaterials in the gel without sacrificing toughness, by physically entangling the chains of a protein.

“These entangled chains can move, which allows energy, for instance, the impact from jumping, to be dissipated, just like shock absorbers in bikes. In addition, we combined this with an existing method of folding and unfolding proteins, which also allows for energy dissipation,” says first author Dr. Linglan Fu, who conducted the research as a doctoral student at UBC’s department of chemistry.

The resulting gel is tough, able to resist slicing with a scalpel, and is more stiff than other protein-based hydrogels. Its ability to resist compression was among the highest achieved by any such gel, according to researchers, who say it compared favorably with actual articular cartilage. The gel was also able to rapidly recover its original shape after compression, as real cartilage does.

Researchers at Duke University are also working on an experimental hydrogel to replace damaged knee cartilage. The gel is made with thin sheets of cellulose fibers infused with a water absorbing polymer, creating a Jello-like material that is surprisingly strong. The cellulose fibers act like the collagen in natural cartilage, giving the gel strength when pulled or stretched.  

Painfully Stepping Over the Line

By Cynthia Toussaint, PNN Columnist

For decades, people have described me as indefatigable, super-human strong and the ultimate survivor. Or the one filled with surprises and miracles. Well-intended compliments that have moved me and, during dark times, spurred me on. But now these tributes vex me because I don’t know if I can live up to them.

Maybe I’m just tired of fighting the impossible.

My latest cascade of battles began in 2019, after getting a breast cancer diagnosis and not knowing whether I’d choose treatment due to Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS). While pushing back on my oncologist’s recommendations, she pulled out all stops in an effort to convince me to fight for my life. She asked, “Can you imagine yourself not doing treatment and regretting it?”

I furrowed my brow and replied, “I’m more concerned that I’ll do treatment and regret living with the damage afterward.”

I was terrified that cancer care, in all its cutting, burning and poisoning glory, would ignite a red-hot mess of CRPS, sending me back to my bedridden days and zeroing out any quality of life I’d clawed back over the decades.

I drew the line. To move forward with treatment, I had to have a life worth living at the other end.

I chose to only do chemo and miraculously lucked out, cancer and pain-wise. When my cancer returned a year and a half later, it appeared I’d skated by again, until I didn’t. While the immunotherapy knocked the tumor out in short order, little did I know that with each infusion my immune system was amping up to push me over the line, but in a way far worse than I could have imagined.

By mid-March, my lap swimming, my go-to for health and freedom, became a painful hell. I couldn’t push off during flip-turns, one leg barely kicked and my neck screamed in agony each time I turned for a breath. I had no choice but to quit.

Soon walking was near impossible: slow, labored and almost shuffling. My knees swelled to the point they wouldn’t allow me to get up from a chair or couch. Frantically, my partner, John, got a raised seat so I could use the toilet. I started losing weight because the pain in my jaw made eating torturous.

Screaming often through the days and nights, I felt hatchets and icepicks throughout my body, grinding glass replaced my joints. When I could sleep, I woke often with fever and chills.                   

After scads of labs, internet research and clinical assessments, I’ve learned that I’m the proud owner of a brand, spankin’ new disease: Reactive Inflammatory Arthritis. I’m now living the experience I feared most, the place where I told myself I couldn’t, wouldn’t go. I’ve stepped over the line, terrified it’s a one way ticket.      

To dampen the inflammation and stabbing pain, hell, just to get me moving, my doctors put me on low-dose naltrexone and prednisone (the latter I swore up and down I’d never revisit.) For that blessed comfort, the cost is mighty. I’m zonked out and joyless while insomnia, constant dizziness and the constipation-diarrhea seesaw zap my quality of life.

With the drug relief, I’m mercifully dipping into a warm therapy pool where I can move, walk and swim some, offering vague hope of recovery. But I see the troubled look in the eyes of my Y friends, the wish that their feisty, frothy friend would reemerge. I can’t help but wonder if they’re playing witness to my slow down and out.         

In my darkest hours, when the arthritic pain makes me question whether I can survive another five minutes, I rock with anger that my tumor’s gone. That was my ticket out. The jokes on me as I live the cancer-free dream. Cue the laugh track. I’m not living and free is nowhere to be found.

When my better angels reappear, I remember why I fought twice, tooth and nail, to see another day. I want to live, to love, and to see the beauty all around me. I want to continue to be a force for good.

Ahh, but that pesky line. I’ve got to get back over it. Or do I? When I got sick 40 years ago, I swore I wouldn’t live on if I couldn’t continue my showbiz career. I was utterly convinced life wouldn’t be worth a damn without it. Yet, here I am, staring down that line again. Maybe, MAYBE there’s some wiggle room one more time.     

I imagine all of us who’ve lived with high-impact pain over the long haul have drawn that line. Then later, took out an eraser and drew it again, renegotiating the terms. At another time, when we drop below, we grasp and beg as we slowly, savagely eek back over. Or not. It’s ever changing, tied to the whims of fate and will.

Maybe the line just gives us an illusion of control. Maybe it’s a frenemy, something that keeps us company whether we’re above or below.

This I know. I’m scared and tired while I stare down my new mountain. I’ve lost cherished independence, that may or may not return, requiring John to be on call at all times. We’re two generations removed since the last time I had to fudge the line, and what if my cancer returns? How many more comebacks can I stage?

Last night, I spewed anger with a close girlfriend, bristling that my impossibles never quell, despite being a good person. At that moment, something awoke in me. I was surprised to feel that old spark in my belly – which has me thinking that anger is serving me well right now.

It was so powerful when Heather commented, “I wouldn’t bet against you.”

I’ve learned that the best way to predict the future is by looking at the past. By that yardstick, I’ve always toed the line, come hell or high water. But like every other climb, I’ll decide what’s good enough, in my time, in my space.

Maybe I can live with that. 

Cynthia Toussaint is the founder and spokesperson at For Grace, a non-profit dedicated to bettering the lives of women in pain. She has lived with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and 19 comorbidities for four decades, and has been battling cancer since 2020. Cynthia is the author of “Battle for Grace: A Memoir of Pain, Redemption and Impossible Love.”

Women, Children and Some Ethnic Groups at More Risk from NSAID

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Health experts have known for over a decade that diclofenac, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), raises the risk of heart failure, stroke and other cardiovascular problems. Because of that, oral formulations of diclofenac are only available by prescription in the U.S. and some European nations, although the drug is still widely available as an over-the-counter pain reliever in Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

“Most patients who are using diclofenac have arthritis, and many of them are at risk of heart disease,” says Bhagwat Prasad, PharmD, an associate professor in the Washington State University College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences. “So there is a concern that taking diclofenac may be putting them at even greater risk of cardiovascular events such as heart attack and stroke.”

Prasad is senior author of a study, recently published in the journal Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, that found women, children and some ethnic groups are more at risk from diclofenac because they have low levels of an enzyme that helps metabolize the drug in their intestines.

The enzyme – known as UGT2B17 – is present at much lower levels in women than in men, which helps explain why there are more reports of women suffering heart damage after taking diclofenac. UGT2B17 is mostly absent in children under the age of nine.

Ethnic differences also play a role. In studies on human liver and intestinal samples, WSU researchers found that up to 90% of people of Japanese descent lack the gene for the enzyme, compared to just 20% of Caucasian people.

“No one knew why this heart toxicity is happening in some individuals,” said first author Deepak Ahire, a graduate student in the WSU College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences. “Our study showed, for the first time, that UGT2B17 is important in diclofenac metabolism and suggests that differences in UGT2B17 expression are what makes people’s response to diclofenac so variable, leading to toxicity in some whereas for others the drug simply does not work.”

Ahire and his colleagues hope to confirm their findings in a clinical trial. They also want to work with large hospitals to further study the connection between diclofenac and patients with heart problems. One way they suggest to reduce the risk of cardiovascular problems is to use genetic testing to screen patients who may have problems metabolizing diclofenac.

According to the FDA’s Adverse Events Reporting System, there have been over 27,000 serious medical cases involving diclofenac since 2010, including 2,827 deaths. The number of U.S. cases has tripled in recent years, with women involved in nearly twice as many adverse events as men.

In 2020, the FDA approved the use of diclofenac in Voltaren, a topical OTC gel that contains a small dose of diclofenac absorbed through the skin. The WSU study involved higher dose diclofenac tablets that are taken orally and absorbed in the digestive system. About half the prescriptions written for diclofenac in the U.S. are for tablets.

A large 2018 study in Denmark found that people who used diclofenac were 50 percent more likely to have cardiovascular problems within 30 days of taking the drug than those who took nothing. The risk of gastrointestinal bleeding was also higher. The authors of that study recommended that diclofenac not be available OTC and should only be prescribed with prominent warning labels.

Employers Use Co-Pay Assistance Programs for Costly ‘Nonessential’ Drugs

By Julie Appleby, Kaiser Health News

Anna Sutton was shocked when she received a letter from her husband’s job-based health plan stating that Humira, an expensive drug used to treat her daughter’s juvenile arthritis, was now on a long list of medications considered “nonessential benefits.”

The July 2021 letter said the family could either participate in a new effort overseen by a company called SaveOnSP and get the drug free of charge or be saddled with a monthly copayment that could top $1,000.

“It really gave us no choice,” said Sutton, of Woodinville, Washington. She added that “every single FDA-approved medication for juvenile arthritis” was on the list of nonessential benefits.

Sutton had unwittingly become part of a strategy that employers are using to deal with the high cost of drugs prescribed to treat conditions such as arthritis, psoriasis, cancer, and hemophilia.

Those employers are tapping into dollars provided through programs they have previously criticized: patient financial assistance initiatives set up by drugmakers, which some benefit managers have complained encourage patients to stay on expensive brand-name drugs when less expensive options might be available.

Now, though, employers, or the vendors and insurers they hire specifically to oversee such efforts, are seeking that money to offset their own costs. Drugmakers object, saying the money was intended primarily for patients. But some benefit brokers and companies like SaveOnSP say they can help trim employers’ spending on insurance — which, they say, could be the difference between an employer offering coverage to workers or not.

It’s the latest twist in a long-running dispute between the drug industry and insurers over which group is more to blame for rising costs to patients. And patients are, again, caught in the middle.

Patient advocates say the term “nonessential” stresses patients out even though it doesn’t mean the drugs — often called “specialty” drugs because of their high prices or the way they are made — are unnecessary.

Some advocates fear the new strategies could be “a way to weed out those with costly health care needs,” said Rachel Klein, deputy executive director of the AIDS Institute, a nonprofit advocacy group. Workers who rely on the drugs may feel pressured to change insurers or jobs, Klein said.

Gaming the System to Save Money

Two versions of the new strategy are in play. Both are used mainly by self-insured employers that hire vendors, like SaveOnSP, which then work with the employers’ pharmacy benefit managers, such as Express Scripts/Cigna, to implement the strategy. There are also smaller vendors, like SHARx and Payer Matrix, some of which work directly with employers.

In one approach, insurers or employers continue to cover the drugs but designate them as “nonessential,” which allows the health plans to bypass annual limits set by the Affordable Care Act on how much patients can pay in out-of-pocket costs for drugs. The employer or hired vendor then raises the copay required of the worker, often sharply, but offers to substantially cut or eliminate that copay if the patient participates in the new effort.

Workers who agree enroll in drugmaker financial assistance programs meant to cover the drug copays, and the vendor monitoring the effort aims to capture the maximum amount the drugmaker provides annually, according to a lawsuit filed in May by drugmaker Johnson & Johnson against SaveOnSP, which is based in Elma, New York.

The employer must still cover part of the cost of the drug, but the amount is reduced by the amount of copay assistance that is accessed. That assistance can vary widely and be as much as $20,000 a year for some drugs.

In the other approach, employers don’t bother naming drugs nonessential; they simply drop coverage for specific drugs or classes of drugs. Then, the outside vendor helps patients provide the financial and other information needed to apply for free medication from drugmakers through charity programs intended for uninsured patients.

“We’re seeing it in every state at this point,” said Becky Burns, chief operating officer and chief financial officer at the Bleeding and Clotting Disorders Institute in Peoria, Illinois, a federally funded hemophilia treatment center.

The strategies are mostly being used in self-insured employer health plans, which are governed by federal laws that give broad flexibility to employers in designing health benefits.

Still, some patient advocates say these programs can lead to delays for patients in accessing medications while applications are processed — and sometimes unexpected bills for consumers.

“We have patients get billed after they max out their assistance,” said Kollet Koulianos, vice president of payer relations at the National Hemophilia Foundation. Once she gets involved, vendors often claim the bills were sent in error, she said.

Even though only about 2% of the workforce needs the drugs, which can cost thousands of dollars a dose, they can lead to a hefty financial liability for self-insured employers, said Drew Mann, a benefits consultant in Knoxville, Tennessee, whose clientele includes employers that use variations of these programs.

Before employer health plans took advantage of such assistance, patients often signed up for these programs on their own, receiving coupons that covered their share of the drug’s cost. In that circumstance, drugmakers often paid less than they do under the new employer schemes because a patient’s out-of-pocket costs were capped at lower amounts.

Brokers and the CEOs of firms offering the new programs say that in most cases patients continue to get their drugs, often with little or no out-of-pocket costs.

If workers do not qualify for charity because their income is too high, or for another reason, the employer might make an exception and pay the claim or look for an alternative solution, Mann said. Patient groups noted that some specialty drugs may not have any alternatives.

Patients Caught in the Middle  

How this practice will play out in the long run remains uncertain. Drugmakers offer both copay assistance and charity care in part because they know many patients, even those with insurance, cannot afford their products. The programs are also good public relations and a tax write-off. But the new emphasis by some employers on maximizing the amount they or their insurers can collect from the programs could cause some drugmakers to take issue with the new strategies or even reconsider their programs.

“Even though our client, like most manufacturers, provides billions in discounts and rebates to health insurers as part of their negotiations, the insurers also want this additional pool of funds, which is meant to help people who can’t meet the copay,” said Harry Sandick, a lawyer representing J&J.

J&J’s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in New Jersey, alleges that patients are “coerced” into participating in copay assistance programs after their drugs are deemed “nonessential” and therefore are “no longer subject to the ACA’s annual out-of-pocket maximum.”

Once patients enroll, the money from the drugmaker goes to the insurer or employer plan, with SaveOnSP retaining 25%, according to the lawsuit. It claims J&J has lost $100 million to these efforts. None of that money counts toward patients’ deductibles or out-of-pocket maximums for the year.

In addition to the lawsuit over the copay assistance program efforts, there has been other reaction to the new employer strategies. In an October letter to physicians, the Johnson & Johnson Patient Assistance Foundation, a separate entity, said it will no longer offer free medications to patients with insurance starting in January, citing the rise of such “alternative funding programs.”

Still, J&J spokesperson L.D. Platt said the drugmaker has plans, also in January, to roll out other assistance to patients who may be “underinsured” so they won’t be affected by the foundation’s decision.

In a statement, SaveOnSP said that employers object to drug companies’ “using their employees’ ongoing need for these drugs as an excuse to keep hiking the drugs’ prices” and that the firm simply “advises these employers on how to fight back against rising prices while getting employees the drugs they need at no cost to the employees.”

In a court filing, SaveOnSP said drugmakers have another option if they don’t like efforts by insurers and employers to max out what they can get from the programs: reduce the amount of assistance available. J&J, the filing said, did just that when it recently cut its allotted amount of copay assistance for psoriasis drugs Stelara and Tremfya from $20,000 to $6,000 per participant annually. The filing noted that SaveOnSP participants would still have no copay for those drugs.

For Sutton’s part, her family did participate in the program offered through her husband’s work-based insurance plan, agreeing to have SaveOnSP monitor their enrollment and payments from the drugmaker.

So far, her 15-year-old daughter has continued to get Humira, and she has not been billed a copay.

Even so, “the whole process seems kind of slimy to me,” she said. “The patients are caught in the middle between the drug industry and the insurance industry, each trying to get as much money as possible out of the other.”

Kaiser Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues.

How Inflammation Can Lead to Chronic Pain

By Drs. Prakash Nagarkatti and Mitzi Nagarkatti, University of South Carolina

When your body fights off an infection, you develop a fever. If you have arthritis, your joints will hurt. If a bee stings your hand, your hand will swell up and become stiff. These are all manifestations of inflammation occurring in the body.

We are two immunologists who study how the immune system reacts during infections, vaccination and autoimmune diseases where the body starts attacking itself.

While inflammation is commonly associated with the pain of an injury or the many diseases it can cause, it is an important part of the normal immune response. The problems arise when this normally helpful function overreacts or overstays its welcome.

Generally speaking, the term inflammation refers to all activities of the immune system that occur where the body is trying to fight off potential or real infections, clear toxic molecules or recover from physical injury. There are five classic physical signs of acute inflammation: heat, pain, redness, swelling and loss of function. Low-grade inflammation might not even produce noticeable symptoms, but the underlying cellular process is the same.

Take a bee sting, for example. The immune system is like a military unit with a wide range of tools in its arsenal. After sensing the toxins, bacteria and physical damage from the sting, the immune system deploys various types of immune cells to the site of the sting. These include T cells, B cells, macrophages and neutrophils, among other cells.

The B cells produce antibodies. Those antibodies can kill any bacteria in the wound and neutralize toxins from the sting. Macrophages and neutrophils engulf bacteria and destroy them. T cells don’t produce antibodies, but kill any virus-infected cell to prevent viral spread.

Collateral Damage

Additionally, these immune cells produce hundreds of types of molecules called cytokines – otherwise known as mediators – that help fight threats and repair harm to the body. But just like in a military attack, inflammation comes with collateral damage.

The mediators that help kill bacteria also kill some healthy cells. Other similar mediating molecules cause blood vessels to leak, leading to accumulation of fluid and influx of more immune cells.

This collateral damage is the reason you develop swelling, redness and pain around a bee sting or after getting a flu shot. Once the immune system clears an infection or foreign invader – whether the toxin in a bee sting or a chemical from the environment – different parts of the inflammatory response take over and help repair the damaged tissue.

After a few days, your body will neutralize the poison from the sting, eliminate any bacteria that got inside and heal any tissue that was harmed.

Inflammation is a double-edged sword. It is critical for fighting infections and repairing damaged tissue, but when inflammation occurs for the wrong reasons or becomes chronic, the damage it causes can be harmful.

Allergies, for example, develop when the immune system mistakenly recognizes innocuous substances – like peanuts or pollen – as dangerous. The harm can be minor, like itchy skin, or dangerous if someone’s throat closes up.

Chronic inflammation damages tissues over time and can lead to many noninfectious clinical disorders, including cardiovascular diseases, neurodegenerative disorders, obesity, diabetes and some types of cancers.

The immune system can sometimes mistake one’s own organs and tissues for invaders, leading to inflammation throughout the body or in specific areas. This self-targeted inflammation is what causes the symptoms of autoimmune diseases such as lupus and arthritis.

Another cause of chronic inflammation that researchers like us are currently studying is defects in the mechanisms that curtail inflammation after the body clears an infection.

While inflammation mostly plays out at a cellular level in the body, it is far from a simple mechanism that happens in isolation. Stress, diet and nutrition, as well as genetic and environmental factors, have all been shown to regulate inflammation in some way.

There is still a lot to be learned about what leads to harmful forms of inflammation, but a healthy diet and avoiding stress can go a long way toward helping maintain the delicate balance between a strong immune response and harmful chronic inflammation.

Prakash Nagarkatti, PhD, and Mitzi Nagarkatti, PhD, are Professors of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology at the University of South Carolina. They receive funding from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

This article originally appeared in The Conversation and is republished with permission.

Older Adults Look Beyond Western Medicine for Help With Joint Pain

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Most older Americans use over-the-counter pain medication and exercise to manage their joint pain, according to a large new survey of adults over age 50. Marijuana, opioids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were rated the most effective pain relievers among those who used them.

The survey of 2,277 adults aged 50 to 80 was conducted online and over the phone early this year as part of the University of Michigan’s National Poll on Healthy Aging. It found that many older adults looked beyond conventional Western medicine for help with their joint pain, but few talked to their doctors about it.

Eight out of ten people (80%) with joint pain said they were confident they could manage it on their own. The survey found that two-thirds (66%) used over-the-counter pain relievers such as NSAID’s or acetaminophen.

The vast majority (89%) also used non-pharmacologic treatments to manage their symptoms, including exercise (64%), massage (26%), physical therapy (24%), splints or braces (13%), and acupuncture or acupressure (5%).

One in four (26%) said they take supplements, such as glucosamine, chondroitin and turmeric, while 11% use cannabidiol (CBD) products and 9% use marijuana.

Only a minority use prescription-based treatments, such as non-opioid pain relievers (18%), steroid joint injections (19%), oral steroids (14%), opioids (14%) and disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (4%).

NATIONAL POLL ON HEALTHY AGING

“There are sizable risks associated with many of these treatment options, especially when taken long-term or in combination with other drugs. Yet 60 percent of those taking two or more substances for their joint pain said their health care provider hadn’t talked with them about risks, or they couldn’t recall if they had,” said Beth Wallace, MD, Assistant Professor of Internal Medicine at Michigan Medicine and a staff rheumatologist at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System.

“This suggests a pressing need for providers to talk with their patients about how to manage their joint pain, and what interactions and long-term risks might arise if they use medications to do so.”

Both NSAIDs and oral steroids have health risks, especially for older adults. Chronic NSAID use can worsen medical conditions such as hypertension, kidney disease, gastrointestinal bleeding and cardiovascular disease. Short-term use of oral steroids is associated with similar problems, as well as increased risk of developing diabetes, cataracts, insomnia, depression, and anxiety.

The risks are even greater if NSAIDs and oral steroids are taken together. Despite this, about one in four older adults taking oral steroids for joint pain said they had not discussed the potential risks with their provider.

Joint pain is common among older adults, including those who have not been formally diagnosed with arthritis. Nearly half of those surveyed reported joint pain that limited their daily activities, but few rated their symptoms as severe and most regarded joint pain as a normal part of aging.

Those with severe joint pain were somewhat fatalistic about it, with nearly half (49%) agreeing with the statement that “there is nothing a person with arthritis or joint pain can do to make their symptoms better.” Only 10% of those with mild joint pain agreed there was nothing they could do about it.

“Older adults with fair or poor physical or mental health were much more likely to agree with the statement that there’s nothing that someone with joint pain can do to ease their symptoms, which we now know to be untrue. Health providers need to raise the topic of joint pain with their older patients, and help them make a plan for care that might work for them,” said poll director Preeti Malani, MD, a Michigan Medicine physician who specializes in geriatrics and infectious diseases.

Early Use of Methotrexate Slows Rheumatoid Arthritis

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Early treatment with methotrexate can significantly reduce joint pain and inflammation in patients showing early signs of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), according to a new study by Dutch researchers.

First used as a chemotherapy treatment because it prevents cancer cells from dividing, methotrexate became a first-line therapy for RA in the 1980’s because it also acts as an immune system inhibitor. RA is a chronic autoimmune disease in which the body’s own defenses attack joint tissues, causing pain, swelling, inflammation and bone erosion. 

Treatment with methotrexate usually isn’t initiated until RA is diagnosed, but researchers at Leiden University Medical Centre (LUMC) in the Netherlands found that early treatment of patients in the "pre-rheumatic phase" helped slow progression of the disease.

"At present, methotrexate is only prescribed to the patient following a rheumatoid arthritis diagnosis," said lead author Annette van der Helm, PhD, Professor of Rheumatology at LUMC. "But that is too late. By then, the disease is already considered chronic."

Van der Helm and her colleagues enrolled 236 patients who had joint pain and inflammation that could be seen on an MRI. Although RA was suspected, it was not yet confirmed. Half the patients were treated with methotrexate and the other half with a placebo. The effects of the treatments were assessed a year later.

The study findings, published in The Lancet, show that early treatment with methotrexate did not prevent the development of RA, but the diagnosis was delayed. Patients in the methotrexate group also had less pain and morning stiffness than those treated with a placebo. Their physical function was also better and their MRI scans showed less joint inflammation.

"This is an important step towards reducing disease burden for this group of patients," says Van der Helm. "This chronic disease is extremely burdensome to patients and their families. Our study is paving the way toward arthritis prevention."

In 2019, over a million people were prescribed methotrexate in the United States, where it is approved as a treatment for RA, psoriasis and cancer. The drug is also used “off-label” for lupus, migraine, multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s Disease and other autoimmune problems.   

‘Abortion-Inducing Drug’

Ironically, the Dutch study comes at a time when some female patients in the U.S. are losing access to methotrexate because the drug can cause miscarriages and be used to end ectopic pregnancies. After last month’s Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe vs. Wade, over half the states enacted or implemented abortion limits, including some that specifically list methotrexate as an “abortion-inducing drug.”  

Although the state laws don’t prohibit methotrexate from being used for other purposes, some doctors, pharmacies and insurers have become cautious about prescribing or dispensing the drug. The Arthritis Foundation has heard from several women who’ve had trouble getting methotrexate, including some beyond childbearing age.

“Some of the stories we’ve gotten in are of women who are over the age of 50 — they are past their reproductive years — and they’re still being asked really invasive questions and having roadblocks thrown up,” Dr. Anna Hyde of the Arthritis Foundation told NBC4 in Washington.

Up to 90% of RA patients are prescribed methotrexate at some point. It doesn’t work for everyone and can have side effects, but it’s the only affordable option for many patients, costing about $50 for a month’s supply of generic methotrexate tablets. Other treatments for RA, such as disease modifying biologic drugs, can cost as much as $3,000 a month and are not covered by insurance.  

Women Losing Access to Arthritis Drugs Due to Abortion Bans

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

It didn’t take long for last month’s Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade to have a ripple effect on the U.S. healthcare system – including unintended consequences for women of childbearing age who have painful conditions such as lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, migraine and multiple sclerosis (MS).

Methotrexate and other drugs used to treat autoimmune and neurological conditions can also be used to induce abortions because they prevent cells from dividing. Although not commonly used for that purpose, methotrexate is officially listed in Texas as an “abortion-inducing drug” – an abortifacient -- putting practitioners at risk of running afoul of the state’s $10,000 bounty on anyone who helps a woman end a pregnancy after six weeks.

Even in states where abortion is legal, physicians, pharmacists and other healthcare providers have become cautious about prescribing or dispensing methotrexate.

“I received an email from my rheumatologist today that they are stopping all refills of methotrexate because it is considered an abortifacient,” a Virginia woman with lupus posted on Twitter just days after Roe was overturned. “If this is happening in a blue state with no trigger law, think of those in red states where abortion isn’t even legal. And those states that have trigger laws causing extreme and immediate loss of access.”

On the same day Roe was overturned, another poster on Twitter said his wife’s rheumatologist took all his female patients off medications that might cause a miscarriage

“So those patients are going to have to go off the drugs that were helping to control their condition and have worse health outcomes. People are going to die because of this,” he said.

The Lupus Foundation of America and Arthritis Foundation said they were aware of the situation and encouraged affected patients to contact them directly.

In an op/ed published in JAMA Neurology, neurologists at UC San Francisco School of Medicine warn the new abortion limits could have life-changing and life-threatening consequences for women with migraine, MS and epilepsy.

"Even if prescribed for a neurological condition, there are reports from patients across the country stating they are now unable to access methotrexate because it can also be used to induce abortion," wrote lead author Sara LaHue, MD, of the UCSF Department of Neurology. "This could increase risk of morbidity, mortality and irreversible disability accumulation for women with neurologic diseases."

Ironically, some treatments for neurological conditions also increase the likelihood of an unplanned pregnancy because they reduce the effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives. Physicians may become reluctant to prescribe those drugs to women of childbearing age.

Some neurologists may also rule out the use of monoclonal antibodies for women — not because they are used in abortions, but because they may harm a fetus.

"In many settings, women with MS are treated with less effective therapies, because these medications are perceived to be safer in pregnancy," said co-author Riley Bove, MD, of the UCSF Department of Neurology. "Often, neurologists are not familiar with how to time or optimize certain medications, or of their updated safety profile. The reversal of Roe v. Wade may reinforce decisions to stick with the less effective therapies, which may result in irreversible disability for some women with MS."

This week the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) warned retail pharmacies they are at risk of violating federal civil rights law if they deny women access to medications used in abortions. The warning specifically mentions methotrexate when its prescribed to someone with rheumatoid arthritis or some other disabling condition.

“If the pharmacy refuses to fill the individual’s prescription or does not stock methotrexate because of its alternate uses, it may be discriminating on the basis of disability,” HHS said..

Lipofilling Improved Pain and Function in Patients with Finger Osteoarthritis

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

People who suffer from painful arthritic fingers have few treatment options to choose from. They can wrap their hand in a splint, take anti-inflammatory drugs or get steroid injections into their finger joints – all of which provide only temporary relief. More invasive surgical treatments include joint fusions or reconstruction, which can impair hand motion and take weeks to recover from.

German researchers have found that a less invasive treatment commonly used in plastic surgery – injecting fat tissue from one part of the body into another -- can provide lasting improvements in pain and function for patients with finger osteoarthritis. The technique – called lipofilling – resulted in “highly significant clear improvement" with no complications in a small pilot study of 15 patients.     

"We believe that for our patients the reduction of pain represents the most striking and important result, which also has the most pronounced and highly significant effect," said co-author Max Meyer-Marcotty, MD, Clinic for Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery/Hand Surgery in Lüdenscheid, Germany.

"Even over a long-term follow-up, the transfer of fatty tissue to arthritic fingers joints appears to provide a safe and minimally invasive alternative to conventional surgery for patients with osteoarthritis.”

In the lipofilling procedure, Meyer-Marcotty and his colleagues used liposuction to take a small sample of each patient's fatty tissue from their upper thigh or hip area. The autologous fat was then injected into their arthritic finger joints. Patients wore a splint around the treated fingers and took pain relievers for a week. There were no infections or other complications reported.

The researchers followed outcomes in 25 finger joints for an average of 44 months after treatment, and found that pain scores fell from a median of 6 (on a 10-point scale) before treatment to just 0.5 points at follow-up. Grip strength of the treated fingers approximately doubled, while fist closure and hand function performing everyday tasks also improved.

“Even after a follow-up examination period of 44 months, the transfer of fatty tissue to arthritic finger joints has shown itself to be a minimally invasive, safe, and promising alternative to conventional surgical techniques aimed at alleviating arthritic complaints, and one that among other things entails a highly significant improvement in postsurgical pain levels,” researchers reported in the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. “Further long-term follow-up studies of even larger patient cohorts would be needed to further corroborate these initial positive findings.”

In recent years, lipofilling procedures have been increasingly used in plastic and reconstructive surgery, as well as stem cell therapy.

When injected into patients, mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) in fat tissue can regenerate damaged or diseased tissue, including cartilage in arthritic joints. A small 2019 study found that MSCs collected from a patient’s bone marrow can significantly reduce pain from knee osteoarthritis for up to a year.

Osteoarthritis is a progressive joint disorder caused by the inflammation of soft tissue, which leads to thinning of cartilage and joint damage in the knees, hips, fingers and spine.

"The chance to preserve the joint with a minimally invasive procedure is of particular interest in the early, albeit painful, phases of finger osteoarthritis," said Meyer-Marcotty. "Since the lipofilling procedure is nondestructive, conventional joint surgery can still be performed later, if needed."

FDA Approves First ‘Interchangeable’ Biosimilar for Humira

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

People living with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis and other arthritic conditions will finally have a cheaper alternative to an expensive biologic drug — but they’ll have to wait a couple of years before its available.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Cyltezo (adalimumab-adbm) as the first “interchangeable” biosimilar product to treat chronic inflammatory diseases, making it eligible to be substituted for Humira (adalimumab). Cyltezo won’t be on the U.S. market until 2023.

An interchangeable biosimilar may be substituted without the prescriber having to change the prescription. The substitution may occur at the pharmacy, similar to how cheaper generic drugs are often substituted for brand name drugs by insurers.

Biologic drugs are derived from living organisms such as animal cells or bacteria, and are expensive to manufacture. Biosimilars are “highly similar” to biological products, clinically just as effective, and cheaper to make.

The cost savings will probably be significant for switching from Humira to Cyltezo. Humira is an injectable drug that costs $7,389 for a one-month supply, or about $88,000 a year.

Cyltezo is also injected and citrate-free, which results in less pain on injection. Cyltezo is expected to cost about 30% less than Humira.

"As the first interchangeable biosimilar of Humira, Cyltezo represents an important step toward bringing patients more affordable treatment options for complex, and often expensive, biologic reference products," Martin Alan Menter, MD, chair of the Division of Dermatology at Baylor University Medical Center, said in a statement on behalf of Boehringer Ingelheim, Cyltezo’s manufacturer.

"This is incredibly important for patients, who can be confident that once available, citrate-free Cyltezo has the same efficacy and safety as the originator medicine with the added benefit of cost savings."

Although Cyltezo was first approved by the FDA in 2017, its commercial launch was delayed by legal actions taken by AbbVie, Humira’s manufacturer. Humira is Abbvie’s top selling drug, and generated revenues of $4.8 billion in the first quarter of 2021.

Boehringer Ingelheim reached a settlement with AbbVie in 2019, agreeing to pay AbbVie royalties and delaying Cyltezo’s release until July 1, 2023.

The FDA has approved 31 biosimilar medications since 2015, but only about 60% have made it to market due patent disputes and legal maneuvers.

“The biosimilar and interchangeable approval pathway was created to help increase access to treatment options for patients with serious medical conditions,” said acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said in a statement. “We continue to be steadfast in our commitment to provide patients with alternative high-quality, affordable medications that are proven to be safe and effective.”   

Cyltezo is approved for the following conditions in adult patients:

• Moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis

• Psoriatic arthritis

• Ankylosing spondylitis

• Crohn’s disease

• Moderate to severe ulcerative colitis

• Moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis.

Cyltezo is also approved for moderate to severe active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis in children two years of age and older, and in pediatric patients six years of age or older with Crohn’s disease. 

"We are proud to be the company driving the advancement of biosimilars and delivering the first and only Interchangeable biosimilar with Humira. It is a true milestone and an important step forward for broader adoption in the U.S. and for patient access to affordable medicines," Thomas Seck, senior vice president at Boehringer Ingelheim, said in a statement.

One in Four U.S. Adults Have Arthritis

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Nearly one in four American adults --- 58.5 million people – report having arthritis, according to a new study by the CDC that highlights both the aging of the U.S. population and the challenges that poses for the nation’s healthcare system.

Arthritis is a disease that causes joint pain and stiffness, which typically worsen with age, and is the leading cause of adult disability. The most common types of arthritis are osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.

Researchers found that over half of Americans aged 65 and older have arthritis (50.4%); along with adults who are disabled or unable to work (52.3%); and adults who rate their health as either fair or poor (51.2%).

The national prevalence of disability linked to arthritis – what the CDC calls arthritis-attributable activity limitations (AAAL) – has been steadily rising for nearly two decades. The trend appears to be accelerating due to aging, rising levels of obesity and reduced physical activity. The CDC estimates nearly 26 million Americans had AAAL in 2016-2018.

SOURCE: CDC

"AAAL prevalence continues to increase more rapidly than was projected. Because population aging and other contributing factors (e.g., obesity) are expected to sustain these trends, public health, medical, and senior and other service systems face substantial challenges in addressing the needs of adults with arthritis, who already account for nearly one quarter of U.S. adults," researchers reported in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

To address the social, physical and economic challenges of arthritis, the report recommends an expansion of outreach programs to individuals and groups at high risk of arthritis. AAAL is common among adult American Indian or Alaskan Natives (60.7%); low income adults (53.3%); adults living near or below poverty levels (63.3%); disabled adults (82.6%); and those with serious psychological distress (76.3%).

“Existing self-management education and physical activity public health interventions that are arthritis-appropriate and inclusive of adults with disabilities have proven benefits, including improved aerobic activity, confidence, and self-rated health and reduced depression, fatigue, and pain. These positive effects might be bolstered by combination with medical management, particularly for joint symptoms and mental health,” researchers said.

One step arthritis sufferers can take to help themselves is to make greater use of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which is underused by people with rheumatic conditions. The ADA can help eliminate physical barriers and improve access to transportation, building access, and workplace accommodations. If you feel you've been discriminated against because of a disability, you can file a complaint with the U.S. Justice Department under the ADA.

The Job Accommodation Network is another free resource that can be used for confidential job counseling, employment advice, facilitation of workplace accommodations, and the resolution of disability-related employment issues.

Researchers Warn of Serious Risks in ‘Unproven’ Stem Cells

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A new study is warning patients and healthcare providers of possible bacterial contamination and other serious risks in “unproven” stem cell products being marketed as treatments for chronic pain, arthritis and other medical conditions.   

The study findings, published in JAMA Network Open, are the outcome of an investigation that began in 2018 after public health officials began receiving reports of bacterial infections in stem cell patients. At least 20 patients in eight states developed serious infections after receiving stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood.

All of the infections were traced back to a single stem cell manufacturing lab in California, where over half the samples tested by the CDC were found to be infected with E coli and other bacteria. The contaminated products were recalled and the lab was ordered to improve its infection control procedures, but researchers say the risk of another outbreak remains.

“The findings from this outbreak underscore that unapproved and unproven stem cell products can expose patients to serious risks without clear benefit, including the possibility of product contamination,” wrote lead author Kiran Perkins, MD, an epidemiologist at the CDC Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion. “Patients and health care practitioners who are considering the use of unapproved products marketed as stem cell treatment should be aware of their unproven benefits and potential risks, including serious infections.”

The only stem cell products that are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration are derived from umbilical cord blood, which are used to treat sickle cell disease and some cancers.

Despite FDA threats to crackdown on unproven stem cell treatments, over a thousand clinics have opened around the country, promoting stem cell injections and infusions to treat a wide variety of diseases and injuries. Many use stem cell products derived from a patient’s own body tissue – such as fat or bone marrow -- which clinic operators don’t consider a “drug” that falls under FDA jurisdiction.

Researchers say the clinics are taking advantage of desperate patients who want quick solutions to complex medical problems.

“Hundreds of clinics across the US unlawfully advertise stem cell treatments to patients as a cure for a variety of conditions for which there are currently no effective medical treatments, including certain neurological disorders, autism, and aging. Although some patients may be willing to risk unproven stem cell treatment over surgery for conditions such as chronic pain and degenerative joint diseases, this investigation demonstrates the potential risk associated with the use of these products,” Perkins and her colleagues wrote.

“Manufacturers of unlicensed products, such as those associated with this outbreak, violate the law for profit at the expense of public health. Many create market confusion by erroneously describing their products as novel therapies that do not require FDA premarketing review or approval. That is not the case.”

Of course, just because a treatment is unapproved or unlicensed doesn’t mean it’s ineffective. There are numerous examples of stem cells being used successfully to treat serious neurological conditions such as arachnoiditis and paralysis. Professional athletes have also embraced stem cells and platelet injections as therapies for stubborn muscle and joint injuries, often traveling overseas for treatments they can’t get in the U.S.

The FDA has been slow to take action against stem cell clinics and manufacturers, due in part to a “grace period” the agency adopted in 2017 to give them more time to submit new drug applications for FDA review. The grace period ended in May 2021, with no indication that many stem cell providers took the agency up on its offer.      

A recent report from the Pew Charitable Trust identified 360 patients who had adverse events involving stem cells over a 17-year period. While that pales in comparison to the number of Americans who die every year from medical errors -- over 250,000 --  Pew said it was time for “increased FDA enforcement action” against stem cell clinics.