User login
3D Total Body Photography Shown to Decrease Biopsies, Improve Dx of Nonmelanoma Skin Cancers
ORLANDO, Fla. — A study of automated three-dimensional total-body photography (3D TBP) found that it improved “hit” rates of positive malignant biopsies and reduced unnecessary biopsies of skin lesions but left unanswered questions about the practicality of its widespread use and cost-effectiveness.
“We did observe improved biopsy practices and outcomes,” said Jordan Phillipps, MD, a dermatology resident at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, who reported the results of the study during a late-breaker session at the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) 2025 Annual Meeting.
“We observed reduced unnecessary biopsies, which was driven by benign and premalignant, particularly actinic keratosis, lesions,” Phillipps said. “We observed improved malignancy detection, which was profoundly driven by nonmelanoma skin cancers.”
Study Design and Results
The retrospective study included 410 adult patients who had at least two sessions with the Vectra WB360 3D TBP imaging system at a dedicated 3D imaging clinic at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota Patient eligibility for the 3D clinic requires a previous melanoma diagnosis. All study participants also underwent dermoscopy, Phillipps said. Their average age was 51.6 years, and 53% were women.
The study accounted for 5981 total patient encounters, including 1150 dedicated Vectra imaging sessions, Phillipps said. In this group, 3006 biopsies were performed, of which 56% were benign, 32% were malignant, and 12% were premalignant. The study also separately evaluated lesion type, focusing on keratinocytic and pigmented lesions.
Most of the keratinocytic lesions were nonmelanoma skin cancers, he said, whereas the pigmented lesions were mostly benign.
“The intervention did significantly reduce biopsies per encounter by 35%, and this was driven by benign lesions and premalignant lesions, particularly actinic keratosis lesions,” Phillipps said.
Previous studies of automated TBP have been hampered by small study populations, he said, and this is one of the largest studies of the Vectra WB360 device. “Nonmelanoma skin cancers are underreported,” Phillipps said, noting that most studies focus on melanoma and pigmented lesions. “Our aim was to assess the effect of Vectra implementation on biopsy practice and outcomes,” he explained.
For malignant lesions, the investigators observed an improvement in malignancy detection, a modest 1.6% increase in hit rates of positive malignant biopsies, and a modest 1.3% decrease in the number needed to biopsy, he said.
A subgroup analysis of pigmented and keratinocytic lesions demonstrated that improved malignancy detection is “profoundly driven by nonmelanoma skin cancers” of 71% per biopsy, Phillipps said, along with “sizable” increases in the hit rate (+17%) and a reduction in the number of biopsies (–14%).
Melanoma detection decreased by 62% per biopsy. Phillipps said the reduction was probably because of the study methodology, specifically the eligibility requirement of having had a previous melanoma diagnosis. “These patients typically develop only one primary melanoma,” Phillipps said. To test this, the investigators compared melanoma hit rates with a matched, unexposed cohort that did not have Vectra imaging. They found that the hit rates were similar. “So this was reassuring that we weren’t missing any melanomas,” Phillipps said.
The results also showed improved efficacy for detecting severely dysplastic nevi, for which the hit rate increased by 16% and the number needed to biopsy decreased by 13%. “Actinic keratoses lesions were biopsied less,” he said, noting a 50% decrease. Both benign keratinocytic lesions, predominantly seborrheic keratosis and benign lichenoid keratosis, and benign pigmented (benign nevi) lesions were biopsied less.
Limitations and Questions
The highly selective nature of the patient population was a limitation of the study, Phillipps noted, along with financial and logistical challenges that impede the generalizability of the findings. Overall, he said, the study emphasized that 3D TBP is effective in skin cancer screening and diagnosis, notably beyond pigmented lesions.
Kristina Callis Duffin, MD, MS, chair of dermatology at The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, called the findings “exciting” but noted that the study did not compare results to the gold standard of clinician-performed skin screenings. “That absolutely would be the important way to do it, through a randomized trial,” she said, “but that’s a hard study to do.”
The cost-effectiveness of total-body imaging also needs to be evaluated, Duffin said. “You really have to look at a number of factors in terms of protection compared to a human gold standard, the rates of biopsies,” she said. “There are a lot of things to unpack; that cost-effectiveness has to be balanced with a more accurate diagnosis and reduction of morbidity with multiple biopsies.”
Phillipps reported no relevant financial relationships. Duffin disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Alumis, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, FIDE, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ORLANDO, Fla. — A study of automated three-dimensional total-body photography (3D TBP) found that it improved “hit” rates of positive malignant biopsies and reduced unnecessary biopsies of skin lesions but left unanswered questions about the practicality of its widespread use and cost-effectiveness.
“We did observe improved biopsy practices and outcomes,” said Jordan Phillipps, MD, a dermatology resident at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, who reported the results of the study during a late-breaker session at the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) 2025 Annual Meeting.
“We observed reduced unnecessary biopsies, which was driven by benign and premalignant, particularly actinic keratosis, lesions,” Phillipps said. “We observed improved malignancy detection, which was profoundly driven by nonmelanoma skin cancers.”
Study Design and Results
The retrospective study included 410 adult patients who had at least two sessions with the Vectra WB360 3D TBP imaging system at a dedicated 3D imaging clinic at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota Patient eligibility for the 3D clinic requires a previous melanoma diagnosis. All study participants also underwent dermoscopy, Phillipps said. Their average age was 51.6 years, and 53% were women.
The study accounted for 5981 total patient encounters, including 1150 dedicated Vectra imaging sessions, Phillipps said. In this group, 3006 biopsies were performed, of which 56% were benign, 32% were malignant, and 12% were premalignant. The study also separately evaluated lesion type, focusing on keratinocytic and pigmented lesions.
Most of the keratinocytic lesions were nonmelanoma skin cancers, he said, whereas the pigmented lesions were mostly benign.
“The intervention did significantly reduce biopsies per encounter by 35%, and this was driven by benign lesions and premalignant lesions, particularly actinic keratosis lesions,” Phillipps said.
Previous studies of automated TBP have been hampered by small study populations, he said, and this is one of the largest studies of the Vectra WB360 device. “Nonmelanoma skin cancers are underreported,” Phillipps said, noting that most studies focus on melanoma and pigmented lesions. “Our aim was to assess the effect of Vectra implementation on biopsy practice and outcomes,” he explained.
For malignant lesions, the investigators observed an improvement in malignancy detection, a modest 1.6% increase in hit rates of positive malignant biopsies, and a modest 1.3% decrease in the number needed to biopsy, he said.
A subgroup analysis of pigmented and keratinocytic lesions demonstrated that improved malignancy detection is “profoundly driven by nonmelanoma skin cancers” of 71% per biopsy, Phillipps said, along with “sizable” increases in the hit rate (+17%) and a reduction in the number of biopsies (–14%).
Melanoma detection decreased by 62% per biopsy. Phillipps said the reduction was probably because of the study methodology, specifically the eligibility requirement of having had a previous melanoma diagnosis. “These patients typically develop only one primary melanoma,” Phillipps said. To test this, the investigators compared melanoma hit rates with a matched, unexposed cohort that did not have Vectra imaging. They found that the hit rates were similar. “So this was reassuring that we weren’t missing any melanomas,” Phillipps said.
The results also showed improved efficacy for detecting severely dysplastic nevi, for which the hit rate increased by 16% and the number needed to biopsy decreased by 13%. “Actinic keratoses lesions were biopsied less,” he said, noting a 50% decrease. Both benign keratinocytic lesions, predominantly seborrheic keratosis and benign lichenoid keratosis, and benign pigmented (benign nevi) lesions were biopsied less.
Limitations and Questions
The highly selective nature of the patient population was a limitation of the study, Phillipps noted, along with financial and logistical challenges that impede the generalizability of the findings. Overall, he said, the study emphasized that 3D TBP is effective in skin cancer screening and diagnosis, notably beyond pigmented lesions.
Kristina Callis Duffin, MD, MS, chair of dermatology at The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, called the findings “exciting” but noted that the study did not compare results to the gold standard of clinician-performed skin screenings. “That absolutely would be the important way to do it, through a randomized trial,” she said, “but that’s a hard study to do.”
The cost-effectiveness of total-body imaging also needs to be evaluated, Duffin said. “You really have to look at a number of factors in terms of protection compared to a human gold standard, the rates of biopsies,” she said. “There are a lot of things to unpack; that cost-effectiveness has to be balanced with a more accurate diagnosis and reduction of morbidity with multiple biopsies.”
Phillipps reported no relevant financial relationships. Duffin disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Alumis, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, FIDE, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ORLANDO, Fla. — A study of automated three-dimensional total-body photography (3D TBP) found that it improved “hit” rates of positive malignant biopsies and reduced unnecessary biopsies of skin lesions but left unanswered questions about the practicality of its widespread use and cost-effectiveness.
“We did observe improved biopsy practices and outcomes,” said Jordan Phillipps, MD, a dermatology resident at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, who reported the results of the study during a late-breaker session at the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) 2025 Annual Meeting.
“We observed reduced unnecessary biopsies, which was driven by benign and premalignant, particularly actinic keratosis, lesions,” Phillipps said. “We observed improved malignancy detection, which was profoundly driven by nonmelanoma skin cancers.”
Study Design and Results
The retrospective study included 410 adult patients who had at least two sessions with the Vectra WB360 3D TBP imaging system at a dedicated 3D imaging clinic at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota Patient eligibility for the 3D clinic requires a previous melanoma diagnosis. All study participants also underwent dermoscopy, Phillipps said. Their average age was 51.6 years, and 53% were women.
The study accounted for 5981 total patient encounters, including 1150 dedicated Vectra imaging sessions, Phillipps said. In this group, 3006 biopsies were performed, of which 56% were benign, 32% were malignant, and 12% were premalignant. The study also separately evaluated lesion type, focusing on keratinocytic and pigmented lesions.
Most of the keratinocytic lesions were nonmelanoma skin cancers, he said, whereas the pigmented lesions were mostly benign.
“The intervention did significantly reduce biopsies per encounter by 35%, and this was driven by benign lesions and premalignant lesions, particularly actinic keratosis lesions,” Phillipps said.
Previous studies of automated TBP have been hampered by small study populations, he said, and this is one of the largest studies of the Vectra WB360 device. “Nonmelanoma skin cancers are underreported,” Phillipps said, noting that most studies focus on melanoma and pigmented lesions. “Our aim was to assess the effect of Vectra implementation on biopsy practice and outcomes,” he explained.
For malignant lesions, the investigators observed an improvement in malignancy detection, a modest 1.6% increase in hit rates of positive malignant biopsies, and a modest 1.3% decrease in the number needed to biopsy, he said.
A subgroup analysis of pigmented and keratinocytic lesions demonstrated that improved malignancy detection is “profoundly driven by nonmelanoma skin cancers” of 71% per biopsy, Phillipps said, along with “sizable” increases in the hit rate (+17%) and a reduction in the number of biopsies (–14%).
Melanoma detection decreased by 62% per biopsy. Phillipps said the reduction was probably because of the study methodology, specifically the eligibility requirement of having had a previous melanoma diagnosis. “These patients typically develop only one primary melanoma,” Phillipps said. To test this, the investigators compared melanoma hit rates with a matched, unexposed cohort that did not have Vectra imaging. They found that the hit rates were similar. “So this was reassuring that we weren’t missing any melanomas,” Phillipps said.
The results also showed improved efficacy for detecting severely dysplastic nevi, for which the hit rate increased by 16% and the number needed to biopsy decreased by 13%. “Actinic keratoses lesions were biopsied less,” he said, noting a 50% decrease. Both benign keratinocytic lesions, predominantly seborrheic keratosis and benign lichenoid keratosis, and benign pigmented (benign nevi) lesions were biopsied less.
Limitations and Questions
The highly selective nature of the patient population was a limitation of the study, Phillipps noted, along with financial and logistical challenges that impede the generalizability of the findings. Overall, he said, the study emphasized that 3D TBP is effective in skin cancer screening and diagnosis, notably beyond pigmented lesions.
Kristina Callis Duffin, MD, MS, chair of dermatology at The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, called the findings “exciting” but noted that the study did not compare results to the gold standard of clinician-performed skin screenings. “That absolutely would be the important way to do it, through a randomized trial,” she said, “but that’s a hard study to do.”
The cost-effectiveness of total-body imaging also needs to be evaluated, Duffin said. “You really have to look at a number of factors in terms of protection compared to a human gold standard, the rates of biopsies,” she said. “There are a lot of things to unpack; that cost-effectiveness has to be balanced with a more accurate diagnosis and reduction of morbidity with multiple biopsies.”
Phillipps reported no relevant financial relationships. Duffin disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Alumis, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, FIDE, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAD 2025
New Ideas on PsA Pathogenesis May Drive New Treatments
NEW YORK — Over the past year, new evidence has emerged in support of the idea that psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is neither exclusively immune mediated nor a classic autoimmune disease, but that both mechanisms may be essential in disease pathogenesis, and that innate immune cells may possess adaptive properties that may lead to worsening of inflammation of the skin and joints.
Recent findings help dermatologists and rheumatologists to better understand the pathogenesis of PsA and may lead to more targeted and personalized therapies, Christopher Ritchlin, MD, MPH, who’s led research into the pathogenesis of inflammatory diseases, reported at the NYU Langone Advanced Seminar in Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.
Psoriasis and PsA, along with ankylosing spondylitis and Crohn’s disease, have been thought to be either immune mediated or a classic autoimmune disorder, Ritchlin, a rheumatologist and internist and director of the Clinical Immunology Research Unit at the University of Rochester in New York, said in an interview. “But emerging data reveal that these disorders might be triggered and sustained by both autoimmune and immune-mediated events,” he said.
Autoimmunity vs Immune Mediated
Autoimmune diseases are characterized by a specific autoantigen and antibody, such as the anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody seen in rheumatoid arthritis, Ritchlin said. He cited a 2023 literature review from Italy that identified five autoantibodies and polymorphisms in PsA.
“In an immune-mediated disease, we demonstrate profound dysregulation of immune cells that promote inflammation, but we have not identified a specific autoantigen,” he said. “There’s an inflammatory response, which can be very severe, but we don’t know if it’s responding to an autoantigen or it’s just dysregulation of the T cells or the B cells or both.”
In a humanized mouse model developed by Maria Garcia-Hernandez, PhD, in Ritchlin’s lab, researchers found that both immunoglobulins and immune cells are required to recapitulate the skin and joint phenotypes. Ritchlin said that further analyses identified a putative autoantigen, which current experiments now underway are looking to confirm and should help discern distinctions in pathogenesis between a response to an autoantigen or cell dysregulation.
“There may be more than one type of immune inflammatory reaction that’s ongoing in individual tissue, and it may be different from one tissue to another,” Ritchlin said in an interview.
The immune-mediated and autoimmune properties of PsA are important to investigate, Jose U. Scher, MD, director of the Arthritis Clinic and Psoriatic Arthritis Center at NYU Langone Health in New York City, said in an interview.
“Classically considered an autoimmune disease, [PsA] may be better classified as an immune-mediated inflammatory disease,” Scher said. He noted one feature that makes PsA differ from classic autoimmunity is that it does not affect women predominantly.
“The fundamental question is whether there are elements of classic autoimmunity such as B cells that should be integrated into the research for future identification of novel therapeutics,” Scher said.
The ‘Additional Mechanism’
The additional mechanism Ritchlin referred to is “this idea of trained immunity,” he said, “where innate immune cells — fibroblasts, monocytes, keratinocytes — that are not considered to have [the] adaptive memory characteristic of T cells and B cells but act in an environment of inflammation and can actually develop sustained altered phenotypes in response to inflammation.”
A 2024 report from Europe outlined four characteristics of trained immunity, Ritchlin said, including that it is “antigen agnostic” and results from long-term reprogramming of cells through epigenetic and metabolic mechanisms. The effects of trained immunity are shorter in duration than that of classical adaptive immunity, he said.
These reprogrammed innate immune cells “retain a form of ‘memory’ after an initial stimulus, which can lead to enhanced or altered responses upon subsequent challenges,” Scher said.
In the context of PsA, Scher said, monocytes that express heightened inflammatory responses driven by metabolic and epigenetic reprogramming can become “trained” by triggers such as infections, cytokines (such as interleukin [IL]–1 beta and IL-17), or damage-associated molecular patterns that have been epigenetically modified to respond at higher rates in a future encounter with exacerbated production of proinflammatory cytokines, persistent inflammation, and flares.
Ritchlin explained how this emerging understanding of the mechanisms driving psoriasis and PsA is driving research into treatments.
“If you know that monocytes are undergoing change — these are innate cells, they’re not antigen driven — but that change is based on some type of pathway that makes the cell more inflammatory, then you can think about trying to block that pathway,” he said.
The goal would be to normalize the cellular environment that’s otherwise becoming activated to create the signs and symptoms of psoriasis and PsA, he said.
The other potential therapeutic target would be T cells, Ritchlin said. “There now are T cells that have been identified that have very specific alpha-beta receptors that are expanded in the peripheral blood, uveal fluid, and joints of HLAB27-positive patients with ankylosing spondylitis and anterior uveitis, which is thought to be immune mediated, not autoimmune.”
Those HLAB27-positive patients “have expansion of a certain subtype of T cells, they have a specific receptor, and specific autoantigens have been identified pointing to a potential autoimmune response,” Ritchlin added.
An antibody that binds and removes specific T-cell receptor subsets may be an effective strategy without being immunosuppressive, Ritchlin said. “That’s real exciting, and we’re all hoping that is going to be a therapeutic approach that could be successful.”
Ritchlin disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Scher had no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW YORK — Over the past year, new evidence has emerged in support of the idea that psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is neither exclusively immune mediated nor a classic autoimmune disease, but that both mechanisms may be essential in disease pathogenesis, and that innate immune cells may possess adaptive properties that may lead to worsening of inflammation of the skin and joints.
Recent findings help dermatologists and rheumatologists to better understand the pathogenesis of PsA and may lead to more targeted and personalized therapies, Christopher Ritchlin, MD, MPH, who’s led research into the pathogenesis of inflammatory diseases, reported at the NYU Langone Advanced Seminar in Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.
Psoriasis and PsA, along with ankylosing spondylitis and Crohn’s disease, have been thought to be either immune mediated or a classic autoimmune disorder, Ritchlin, a rheumatologist and internist and director of the Clinical Immunology Research Unit at the University of Rochester in New York, said in an interview. “But emerging data reveal that these disorders might be triggered and sustained by both autoimmune and immune-mediated events,” he said.
Autoimmunity vs Immune Mediated
Autoimmune diseases are characterized by a specific autoantigen and antibody, such as the anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody seen in rheumatoid arthritis, Ritchlin said. He cited a 2023 literature review from Italy that identified five autoantibodies and polymorphisms in PsA.
“In an immune-mediated disease, we demonstrate profound dysregulation of immune cells that promote inflammation, but we have not identified a specific autoantigen,” he said. “There’s an inflammatory response, which can be very severe, but we don’t know if it’s responding to an autoantigen or it’s just dysregulation of the T cells or the B cells or both.”
In a humanized mouse model developed by Maria Garcia-Hernandez, PhD, in Ritchlin’s lab, researchers found that both immunoglobulins and immune cells are required to recapitulate the skin and joint phenotypes. Ritchlin said that further analyses identified a putative autoantigen, which current experiments now underway are looking to confirm and should help discern distinctions in pathogenesis between a response to an autoantigen or cell dysregulation.
“There may be more than one type of immune inflammatory reaction that’s ongoing in individual tissue, and it may be different from one tissue to another,” Ritchlin said in an interview.
The immune-mediated and autoimmune properties of PsA are important to investigate, Jose U. Scher, MD, director of the Arthritis Clinic and Psoriatic Arthritis Center at NYU Langone Health in New York City, said in an interview.
“Classically considered an autoimmune disease, [PsA] may be better classified as an immune-mediated inflammatory disease,” Scher said. He noted one feature that makes PsA differ from classic autoimmunity is that it does not affect women predominantly.
“The fundamental question is whether there are elements of classic autoimmunity such as B cells that should be integrated into the research for future identification of novel therapeutics,” Scher said.
The ‘Additional Mechanism’
The additional mechanism Ritchlin referred to is “this idea of trained immunity,” he said, “where innate immune cells — fibroblasts, monocytes, keratinocytes — that are not considered to have [the] adaptive memory characteristic of T cells and B cells but act in an environment of inflammation and can actually develop sustained altered phenotypes in response to inflammation.”
A 2024 report from Europe outlined four characteristics of trained immunity, Ritchlin said, including that it is “antigen agnostic” and results from long-term reprogramming of cells through epigenetic and metabolic mechanisms. The effects of trained immunity are shorter in duration than that of classical adaptive immunity, he said.
These reprogrammed innate immune cells “retain a form of ‘memory’ after an initial stimulus, which can lead to enhanced or altered responses upon subsequent challenges,” Scher said.
In the context of PsA, Scher said, monocytes that express heightened inflammatory responses driven by metabolic and epigenetic reprogramming can become “trained” by triggers such as infections, cytokines (such as interleukin [IL]–1 beta and IL-17), or damage-associated molecular patterns that have been epigenetically modified to respond at higher rates in a future encounter with exacerbated production of proinflammatory cytokines, persistent inflammation, and flares.
Ritchlin explained how this emerging understanding of the mechanisms driving psoriasis and PsA is driving research into treatments.
“If you know that monocytes are undergoing change — these are innate cells, they’re not antigen driven — but that change is based on some type of pathway that makes the cell more inflammatory, then you can think about trying to block that pathway,” he said.
The goal would be to normalize the cellular environment that’s otherwise becoming activated to create the signs and symptoms of psoriasis and PsA, he said.
The other potential therapeutic target would be T cells, Ritchlin said. “There now are T cells that have been identified that have very specific alpha-beta receptors that are expanded in the peripheral blood, uveal fluid, and joints of HLAB27-positive patients with ankylosing spondylitis and anterior uveitis, which is thought to be immune mediated, not autoimmune.”
Those HLAB27-positive patients “have expansion of a certain subtype of T cells, they have a specific receptor, and specific autoantigens have been identified pointing to a potential autoimmune response,” Ritchlin added.
An antibody that binds and removes specific T-cell receptor subsets may be an effective strategy without being immunosuppressive, Ritchlin said. “That’s real exciting, and we’re all hoping that is going to be a therapeutic approach that could be successful.”
Ritchlin disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Scher had no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW YORK — Over the past year, new evidence has emerged in support of the idea that psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is neither exclusively immune mediated nor a classic autoimmune disease, but that both mechanisms may be essential in disease pathogenesis, and that innate immune cells may possess adaptive properties that may lead to worsening of inflammation of the skin and joints.
Recent findings help dermatologists and rheumatologists to better understand the pathogenesis of PsA and may lead to more targeted and personalized therapies, Christopher Ritchlin, MD, MPH, who’s led research into the pathogenesis of inflammatory diseases, reported at the NYU Langone Advanced Seminar in Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.
Psoriasis and PsA, along with ankylosing spondylitis and Crohn’s disease, have been thought to be either immune mediated or a classic autoimmune disorder, Ritchlin, a rheumatologist and internist and director of the Clinical Immunology Research Unit at the University of Rochester in New York, said in an interview. “But emerging data reveal that these disorders might be triggered and sustained by both autoimmune and immune-mediated events,” he said.
Autoimmunity vs Immune Mediated
Autoimmune diseases are characterized by a specific autoantigen and antibody, such as the anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody seen in rheumatoid arthritis, Ritchlin said. He cited a 2023 literature review from Italy that identified five autoantibodies and polymorphisms in PsA.
“In an immune-mediated disease, we demonstrate profound dysregulation of immune cells that promote inflammation, but we have not identified a specific autoantigen,” he said. “There’s an inflammatory response, which can be very severe, but we don’t know if it’s responding to an autoantigen or it’s just dysregulation of the T cells or the B cells or both.”
In a humanized mouse model developed by Maria Garcia-Hernandez, PhD, in Ritchlin’s lab, researchers found that both immunoglobulins and immune cells are required to recapitulate the skin and joint phenotypes. Ritchlin said that further analyses identified a putative autoantigen, which current experiments now underway are looking to confirm and should help discern distinctions in pathogenesis between a response to an autoantigen or cell dysregulation.
“There may be more than one type of immune inflammatory reaction that’s ongoing in individual tissue, and it may be different from one tissue to another,” Ritchlin said in an interview.
The immune-mediated and autoimmune properties of PsA are important to investigate, Jose U. Scher, MD, director of the Arthritis Clinic and Psoriatic Arthritis Center at NYU Langone Health in New York City, said in an interview.
“Classically considered an autoimmune disease, [PsA] may be better classified as an immune-mediated inflammatory disease,” Scher said. He noted one feature that makes PsA differ from classic autoimmunity is that it does not affect women predominantly.
“The fundamental question is whether there are elements of classic autoimmunity such as B cells that should be integrated into the research for future identification of novel therapeutics,” Scher said.
The ‘Additional Mechanism’
The additional mechanism Ritchlin referred to is “this idea of trained immunity,” he said, “where innate immune cells — fibroblasts, monocytes, keratinocytes — that are not considered to have [the] adaptive memory characteristic of T cells and B cells but act in an environment of inflammation and can actually develop sustained altered phenotypes in response to inflammation.”
A 2024 report from Europe outlined four characteristics of trained immunity, Ritchlin said, including that it is “antigen agnostic” and results from long-term reprogramming of cells through epigenetic and metabolic mechanisms. The effects of trained immunity are shorter in duration than that of classical adaptive immunity, he said.
These reprogrammed innate immune cells “retain a form of ‘memory’ after an initial stimulus, which can lead to enhanced or altered responses upon subsequent challenges,” Scher said.
In the context of PsA, Scher said, monocytes that express heightened inflammatory responses driven by metabolic and epigenetic reprogramming can become “trained” by triggers such as infections, cytokines (such as interleukin [IL]–1 beta and IL-17), or damage-associated molecular patterns that have been epigenetically modified to respond at higher rates in a future encounter with exacerbated production of proinflammatory cytokines, persistent inflammation, and flares.
Ritchlin explained how this emerging understanding of the mechanisms driving psoriasis and PsA is driving research into treatments.
“If you know that monocytes are undergoing change — these are innate cells, they’re not antigen driven — but that change is based on some type of pathway that makes the cell more inflammatory, then you can think about trying to block that pathway,” he said.
The goal would be to normalize the cellular environment that’s otherwise becoming activated to create the signs and symptoms of psoriasis and PsA, he said.
The other potential therapeutic target would be T cells, Ritchlin said. “There now are T cells that have been identified that have very specific alpha-beta receptors that are expanded in the peripheral blood, uveal fluid, and joints of HLAB27-positive patients with ankylosing spondylitis and anterior uveitis, which is thought to be immune mediated, not autoimmune.”
Those HLAB27-positive patients “have expansion of a certain subtype of T cells, they have a specific receptor, and specific autoantigens have been identified pointing to a potential autoimmune response,” Ritchlin added.
An antibody that binds and removes specific T-cell receptor subsets may be an effective strategy without being immunosuppressive, Ritchlin said. “That’s real exciting, and we’re all hoping that is going to be a therapeutic approach that could be successful.”
Ritchlin disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Scher had no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Why Sex and Gender Are Important Biomarkers in PsA
NEW YORK CITY — Rheumatologists, dermatologists, drug manufacturers, and researchers do not pay enough attention to the role sex and gender play in the pathogenesis and presentation of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), Lihi Eder, MD, PhD, said at the Tenth Annual NYU Langone Advanced Seminar in Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. Being mindful that the disease and treatments affect men and women differently makes patient management more personalized and effective, she noted.
“We tend to ignore sex and gender when we manage our patients in our approach to psoriatic arthritis as well as other rheumatic diseases,” Eder said. “We have to start thinking about sex of the patient as a biomarker that can potentially help us personalize care and move from a gender-blinded to a gender-specific approach.”
Eder, the Canada Research Chair in Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases at the Women’s College Hospital of the University of Toronto, in Ontario, Canada, said much of the obfuscation of the role gender plays in PsA begins with research. “There’s very little research into sex differences in PsA,” she said. A meta-analysis published last year by her group found that while 51% of participants in 54 PsA trials were women, only nine (17%) reported baseline characteristics by sex, 18 (33%) reported efficacy by sex, and two (4%) reported safety endpoints by sex.
Eder said sex is a biological factor, whereas gender is a “more complex” factor based on social and cultural aspects of men and women.
PsA Differences in Women vs Men
Although the prevalence of PsA in men and women is similar, sex affects the risk of developing rheumatic disease. For example, Eder cited a host of studies that showed Sjögren’s syndrome and systemic lupus erythematosus have a 9:1 and 7:1 prevalence in women vs men, whereas gout has a 1:4 prevalence.
Her group’s 2013 study, along with a 2023 study from Italy, found significant differences in how PsA disease activity and quality of life differ between the two sexes.
“Females tend to have a higher tender joint count and more clinical entheses,” Eder said. “They also have worse patient-reported outcomes when it comes to pain, fatigue, and physical dysfunction, and these are things that would influence quality of life.
“On the other hand, when we look at male patients, they tend to have higher CRP [C-reactive protein] levels, they tend to have more severe restriction in the spine, and they also tend to have more severe psoriasis.”
She added that women are less likely than men to develop joint damage that’s picked up on x-rays.
Questioning Drug Development
A gender gap exists across four phases of drug development, Eder said. Preclinical studies tend to rely on single-sex models, phase 1 clinical trials target a standard 70-kg healthy male, and phase 2 and 3 trials as well as postmarketing surveillance do not consider gender in study design and have limited reporting of sex-specific endpoints, she said.
“So, it’s very hard to pick up these signals, and this may explain why most of the drugs that are withdrawn from the market pose a greater risk for women than for men,” she said, citing a 2001 Government Accountability Office report that found that 80% of prescription drugs withdrawn from the market pose a greater risk for women.
That gender bias also carries over to drug commercialization, she said. The sleeping pill zolpidem remains one of the few drugs for which the Food and Drug Administration has approved sex-specific dosing, Eder noted.
Her group’s 2023 meta-analysis showed that men and women respond differently to approved biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. That research, which included a subanalysis of 18 trials and 6821 patients, found that men had a better American College of Rheumatology 20 response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin-17 (IL-17), and IL-23 inhibitors, but there was no difference between the sexes in response to Janus-activated kinase (JAK) and tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitors. The same subanalysis also found no difference in the placebo response between men and women in those trials.
“So this raises the question: Should we consider the sex of the patient when we select treatments?” Eder said.
A French study last year reported that men had higher rates of persistence after 1 year: 62% vs 52% for women for TNF inhibitor, IL-17 inhibitor, and IL-23 inhibitor agents, but persistence rates for JAK inhibitors were similar between sexes.
“People ask me should we start favoring JAK inhibitors for females,” Eder said. “I think it’s premature. We need to do more research, but it does raise the question.”
A study by Eder and her group reported that women were more likely than men to discontinue their medications because their symptoms did not improve or the side effects were intolerable.
Another sex-differentiating factor of PsA that clinicians should take into account, Eder said, is the way men and women experience pain. “Women tend to report higher levels of pain across different rheumatic conditions,” she said, citing her own group’s 2022 study and a 2020 Dutch study. Cultural differences in how the sexes approach pain may also come into play, with men expected to be more tolerant and women more susceptible to it, Eder added.
Evidence Is Mounting, but More Is Needed
The evidence that explains why these apparent differences exist between men and women with PsA is still lacking, Eder said in an interview with Medscape Medical News. “It’s very hard now because we don’t know the differences,” she said. “It’s very hard to know the solutions when you don’t know why things are happening.”
Nonetheless, she said, in her own practice she tries to be attuned to pain in women and is trying to stay unbiased when her patients talk about pain.
“I’ve also started asking females as they go into menopause or around the age of the mid-40s — those that complain about pain — about other menopausal-related symptoms, which I didn’t do before,” Eder said. She said she counsels patients whose pain might be driven by potentially menopausal transition, especially if they’re taking hormone-replacement therapy. She added that she is also using objective measures to differentiate PsA-related pain from other causes, such as fibromyalgia or depression.
Asked to comment on this topic, Iannis Adamopoulos, PhD, associate professor of medicine and director of the Arthritis Program and Head of the Osteoimmunology Laboratory at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, told Medscape Medical News, “the science is now building” to better understand how sex and gender influence PsA. He noted that the National Institutes of Health already mandates sex-specific mouse studies in any research it funds.
Human studies, however, must take into account a host of variables, Adamopoulos said. “You have more variation within the groups because you don’t control 100% of people; you don’t put them in cages,” he said.
In her presentation, Eder noted that her group’s research into sex dimorphisms in the proteomic profile in PsA found that men have 20 times more sex-specific differentially expressed proteins than women. But Adamopoulos said that “there are no male and female proteins at all. There could be different levels but not different proteins.”
The research into sex differences in PsA is nascent, he said, adding, “There’s still a lot to uncover.”
Eder disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, Bristol Myers Squibb, UCB, Fresenius Kabi, and Sandoz. Adamopoulos had no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW YORK CITY — Rheumatologists, dermatologists, drug manufacturers, and researchers do not pay enough attention to the role sex and gender play in the pathogenesis and presentation of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), Lihi Eder, MD, PhD, said at the Tenth Annual NYU Langone Advanced Seminar in Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. Being mindful that the disease and treatments affect men and women differently makes patient management more personalized and effective, she noted.
“We tend to ignore sex and gender when we manage our patients in our approach to psoriatic arthritis as well as other rheumatic diseases,” Eder said. “We have to start thinking about sex of the patient as a biomarker that can potentially help us personalize care and move from a gender-blinded to a gender-specific approach.”
Eder, the Canada Research Chair in Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases at the Women’s College Hospital of the University of Toronto, in Ontario, Canada, said much of the obfuscation of the role gender plays in PsA begins with research. “There’s very little research into sex differences in PsA,” she said. A meta-analysis published last year by her group found that while 51% of participants in 54 PsA trials were women, only nine (17%) reported baseline characteristics by sex, 18 (33%) reported efficacy by sex, and two (4%) reported safety endpoints by sex.
Eder said sex is a biological factor, whereas gender is a “more complex” factor based on social and cultural aspects of men and women.
PsA Differences in Women vs Men
Although the prevalence of PsA in men and women is similar, sex affects the risk of developing rheumatic disease. For example, Eder cited a host of studies that showed Sjögren’s syndrome and systemic lupus erythematosus have a 9:1 and 7:1 prevalence in women vs men, whereas gout has a 1:4 prevalence.
Her group’s 2013 study, along with a 2023 study from Italy, found significant differences in how PsA disease activity and quality of life differ between the two sexes.
“Females tend to have a higher tender joint count and more clinical entheses,” Eder said. “They also have worse patient-reported outcomes when it comes to pain, fatigue, and physical dysfunction, and these are things that would influence quality of life.
“On the other hand, when we look at male patients, they tend to have higher CRP [C-reactive protein] levels, they tend to have more severe restriction in the spine, and they also tend to have more severe psoriasis.”
She added that women are less likely than men to develop joint damage that’s picked up on x-rays.
Questioning Drug Development
A gender gap exists across four phases of drug development, Eder said. Preclinical studies tend to rely on single-sex models, phase 1 clinical trials target a standard 70-kg healthy male, and phase 2 and 3 trials as well as postmarketing surveillance do not consider gender in study design and have limited reporting of sex-specific endpoints, she said.
“So, it’s very hard to pick up these signals, and this may explain why most of the drugs that are withdrawn from the market pose a greater risk for women than for men,” she said, citing a 2001 Government Accountability Office report that found that 80% of prescription drugs withdrawn from the market pose a greater risk for women.
That gender bias also carries over to drug commercialization, she said. The sleeping pill zolpidem remains one of the few drugs for which the Food and Drug Administration has approved sex-specific dosing, Eder noted.
Her group’s 2023 meta-analysis showed that men and women respond differently to approved biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. That research, which included a subanalysis of 18 trials and 6821 patients, found that men had a better American College of Rheumatology 20 response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin-17 (IL-17), and IL-23 inhibitors, but there was no difference between the sexes in response to Janus-activated kinase (JAK) and tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitors. The same subanalysis also found no difference in the placebo response between men and women in those trials.
“So this raises the question: Should we consider the sex of the patient when we select treatments?” Eder said.
A French study last year reported that men had higher rates of persistence after 1 year: 62% vs 52% for women for TNF inhibitor, IL-17 inhibitor, and IL-23 inhibitor agents, but persistence rates for JAK inhibitors were similar between sexes.
“People ask me should we start favoring JAK inhibitors for females,” Eder said. “I think it’s premature. We need to do more research, but it does raise the question.”
A study by Eder and her group reported that women were more likely than men to discontinue their medications because their symptoms did not improve or the side effects were intolerable.
Another sex-differentiating factor of PsA that clinicians should take into account, Eder said, is the way men and women experience pain. “Women tend to report higher levels of pain across different rheumatic conditions,” she said, citing her own group’s 2022 study and a 2020 Dutch study. Cultural differences in how the sexes approach pain may also come into play, with men expected to be more tolerant and women more susceptible to it, Eder added.
Evidence Is Mounting, but More Is Needed
The evidence that explains why these apparent differences exist between men and women with PsA is still lacking, Eder said in an interview with Medscape Medical News. “It’s very hard now because we don’t know the differences,” she said. “It’s very hard to know the solutions when you don’t know why things are happening.”
Nonetheless, she said, in her own practice she tries to be attuned to pain in women and is trying to stay unbiased when her patients talk about pain.
“I’ve also started asking females as they go into menopause or around the age of the mid-40s — those that complain about pain — about other menopausal-related symptoms, which I didn’t do before,” Eder said. She said she counsels patients whose pain might be driven by potentially menopausal transition, especially if they’re taking hormone-replacement therapy. She added that she is also using objective measures to differentiate PsA-related pain from other causes, such as fibromyalgia or depression.
Asked to comment on this topic, Iannis Adamopoulos, PhD, associate professor of medicine and director of the Arthritis Program and Head of the Osteoimmunology Laboratory at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, told Medscape Medical News, “the science is now building” to better understand how sex and gender influence PsA. He noted that the National Institutes of Health already mandates sex-specific mouse studies in any research it funds.
Human studies, however, must take into account a host of variables, Adamopoulos said. “You have more variation within the groups because you don’t control 100% of people; you don’t put them in cages,” he said.
In her presentation, Eder noted that her group’s research into sex dimorphisms in the proteomic profile in PsA found that men have 20 times more sex-specific differentially expressed proteins than women. But Adamopoulos said that “there are no male and female proteins at all. There could be different levels but not different proteins.”
The research into sex differences in PsA is nascent, he said, adding, “There’s still a lot to uncover.”
Eder disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, Bristol Myers Squibb, UCB, Fresenius Kabi, and Sandoz. Adamopoulos had no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW YORK CITY — Rheumatologists, dermatologists, drug manufacturers, and researchers do not pay enough attention to the role sex and gender play in the pathogenesis and presentation of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), Lihi Eder, MD, PhD, said at the Tenth Annual NYU Langone Advanced Seminar in Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. Being mindful that the disease and treatments affect men and women differently makes patient management more personalized and effective, she noted.
“We tend to ignore sex and gender when we manage our patients in our approach to psoriatic arthritis as well as other rheumatic diseases,” Eder said. “We have to start thinking about sex of the patient as a biomarker that can potentially help us personalize care and move from a gender-blinded to a gender-specific approach.”
Eder, the Canada Research Chair in Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases at the Women’s College Hospital of the University of Toronto, in Ontario, Canada, said much of the obfuscation of the role gender plays in PsA begins with research. “There’s very little research into sex differences in PsA,” she said. A meta-analysis published last year by her group found that while 51% of participants in 54 PsA trials were women, only nine (17%) reported baseline characteristics by sex, 18 (33%) reported efficacy by sex, and two (4%) reported safety endpoints by sex.
Eder said sex is a biological factor, whereas gender is a “more complex” factor based on social and cultural aspects of men and women.
PsA Differences in Women vs Men
Although the prevalence of PsA in men and women is similar, sex affects the risk of developing rheumatic disease. For example, Eder cited a host of studies that showed Sjögren’s syndrome and systemic lupus erythematosus have a 9:1 and 7:1 prevalence in women vs men, whereas gout has a 1:4 prevalence.
Her group’s 2013 study, along with a 2023 study from Italy, found significant differences in how PsA disease activity and quality of life differ between the two sexes.
“Females tend to have a higher tender joint count and more clinical entheses,” Eder said. “They also have worse patient-reported outcomes when it comes to pain, fatigue, and physical dysfunction, and these are things that would influence quality of life.
“On the other hand, when we look at male patients, they tend to have higher CRP [C-reactive protein] levels, they tend to have more severe restriction in the spine, and they also tend to have more severe psoriasis.”
She added that women are less likely than men to develop joint damage that’s picked up on x-rays.
Questioning Drug Development
A gender gap exists across four phases of drug development, Eder said. Preclinical studies tend to rely on single-sex models, phase 1 clinical trials target a standard 70-kg healthy male, and phase 2 and 3 trials as well as postmarketing surveillance do not consider gender in study design and have limited reporting of sex-specific endpoints, she said.
“So, it’s very hard to pick up these signals, and this may explain why most of the drugs that are withdrawn from the market pose a greater risk for women than for men,” she said, citing a 2001 Government Accountability Office report that found that 80% of prescription drugs withdrawn from the market pose a greater risk for women.
That gender bias also carries over to drug commercialization, she said. The sleeping pill zolpidem remains one of the few drugs for which the Food and Drug Administration has approved sex-specific dosing, Eder noted.
Her group’s 2023 meta-analysis showed that men and women respond differently to approved biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. That research, which included a subanalysis of 18 trials and 6821 patients, found that men had a better American College of Rheumatology 20 response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin-17 (IL-17), and IL-23 inhibitors, but there was no difference between the sexes in response to Janus-activated kinase (JAK) and tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitors. The same subanalysis also found no difference in the placebo response between men and women in those trials.
“So this raises the question: Should we consider the sex of the patient when we select treatments?” Eder said.
A French study last year reported that men had higher rates of persistence after 1 year: 62% vs 52% for women for TNF inhibitor, IL-17 inhibitor, and IL-23 inhibitor agents, but persistence rates for JAK inhibitors were similar between sexes.
“People ask me should we start favoring JAK inhibitors for females,” Eder said. “I think it’s premature. We need to do more research, but it does raise the question.”
A study by Eder and her group reported that women were more likely than men to discontinue their medications because their symptoms did not improve or the side effects were intolerable.
Another sex-differentiating factor of PsA that clinicians should take into account, Eder said, is the way men and women experience pain. “Women tend to report higher levels of pain across different rheumatic conditions,” she said, citing her own group’s 2022 study and a 2020 Dutch study. Cultural differences in how the sexes approach pain may also come into play, with men expected to be more tolerant and women more susceptible to it, Eder added.
Evidence Is Mounting, but More Is Needed
The evidence that explains why these apparent differences exist between men and women with PsA is still lacking, Eder said in an interview with Medscape Medical News. “It’s very hard now because we don’t know the differences,” she said. “It’s very hard to know the solutions when you don’t know why things are happening.”
Nonetheless, she said, in her own practice she tries to be attuned to pain in women and is trying to stay unbiased when her patients talk about pain.
“I’ve also started asking females as they go into menopause or around the age of the mid-40s — those that complain about pain — about other menopausal-related symptoms, which I didn’t do before,” Eder said. She said she counsels patients whose pain might be driven by potentially menopausal transition, especially if they’re taking hormone-replacement therapy. She added that she is also using objective measures to differentiate PsA-related pain from other causes, such as fibromyalgia or depression.
Asked to comment on this topic, Iannis Adamopoulos, PhD, associate professor of medicine and director of the Arthritis Program and Head of the Osteoimmunology Laboratory at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, told Medscape Medical News, “the science is now building” to better understand how sex and gender influence PsA. He noted that the National Institutes of Health already mandates sex-specific mouse studies in any research it funds.
Human studies, however, must take into account a host of variables, Adamopoulos said. “You have more variation within the groups because you don’t control 100% of people; you don’t put them in cages,” he said.
In her presentation, Eder noted that her group’s research into sex dimorphisms in the proteomic profile in PsA found that men have 20 times more sex-specific differentially expressed proteins than women. But Adamopoulos said that “there are no male and female proteins at all. There could be different levels but not different proteins.”
The research into sex differences in PsA is nascent, he said, adding, “There’s still a lot to uncover.”
Eder disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, Bristol Myers Squibb, UCB, Fresenius Kabi, and Sandoz. Adamopoulos had no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Combined Clinics, Personalized Medicine for Psoriatic Disease Face Barriers
NEW YORK CITY — The idea of having dermatologists and rheumatologists under one roof to see patients with psoriasis prone to psoriatic arthritis (PsA) — a concept known as combined clinics — has been around for more than a decade, and the idea of personalized medicine for these patients even longer than that, yet both approaches to care have encountered a host of obstacles, a longtime research rheumatologist said.
“It’s important that we work together, but there is a problem in terms of staffing — managing the meetings with patients together — and in the states in particular it’s a matter of who’s charging for what,” Dafna Gladman, MD, a rheumatologist at the University of Toronto, in Ontario, Canada, told attendees at the annual New York University (NYU) Langone Advanced Seminar in Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. Her institution has one of the 44 worldwide combined clinics registered in the Psoriasis & Psoriatic Arthritis Clinics Multicenter Advancement Network (PPACMAN), of which Gladman is an advisory board member.
Barriers to Combined Clinics
“Some of the barriers are physical in the sense that, for the dermatologists and rheumatologists to work at the same time, you need the right space, and in many places, you just don’t have the space to have the two specialists sitting at the same time,” Gladman told Medscape Medical News.
Some centers get around this by having the dermatology and rheumatology clinics next to or near each other. “So these two specialists are close enough to be able to go from room to room,” she added.
Another challenge facing combined clinics lies in the nature of how dermatologists and rheumatologists see patients. “The dermatologist sees patients a lot faster than the rheumatologist, so if the dermatologist and rheumatologist are sitting together, the dermatologist may not see as many patients as they would otherwise and therefore may not get reimbursed properly,” Gladman said.
To overcome these challenges, different models have emerged, Gladman said. If space allows, the ideal model is to have both specialties in one clinic, she said, while compensating for the different pace at which dermatologists and rheumatologists see patients.
The other model is to locate the two clinics close enough so that a person with suspected PsA can get to the rheumatology clinic soon after their dermatologic consult, or the rheumatologist can go to the dermatology clinic, Gladman said. Or the situation may be reversed when the rheumatologist needs a dermatology consult, she added.
When that’s not possible, a virtual visit may be the solution, Gladman said. She noted that PPACMAN offers ways to overcome the challenges of running a combined clinic.
Whatever combined clinic model a center chooses, clinicians must be mindful of preventing patients from falling through the cracks, Gladman said.
“When you treat patients separately, the patient sees the rheumatologist, and the rheumatologist wants to do one thing; then they go to the dermatologist and the dermatologist wants to do another thing, and the patient doesn’t do anything because they don’t know what to choose,” she said.
The combined clinic allows the patient to get the opinions of both specialists and avoid the uncertainty about the course of treatment, Gladman added.
Some combined clinics may also house other specialists, such as gastroenterologists, cardiologists, and nurse practitioners, noted Jose U. Scher, MD, director of the Arthritis Clinic and Psoriatic Arthritis Center at NYU Langone Health in New York City. Such centers are typically in academic centers “given challenges with space, scheduling, and reimbursement,” he told Medscape Medical News. NYU has a PPACMAN-registered combined clinic.
Regardless of how combined clinics are organized, Scher said, “We have found that the most important aspect of combined clinics is the open communication and integration of care between and amongst specialists and patients.”
The Potential of Personalized Medicine
“Personalized medicine is where we need to get to,” Gladman told seminar attendees. She said she had hoped it would be further along by now and be more integrated into the care of patients with psoriasis and PsA. “The idea is to identify psoriasis patients that are destined to develop psoriatic arthritis,” she said.
Besides that, identifying biomarkers is key to advancing personalized medicine for psoriasis, Gladman noted.
“In the skin, it’s easy; even the patient can assess their psoriasis,” she said. “But in the joints, it’s very difficult, so it would be nice to have some kind of biomarker, whether it’s the blood or an imaging modality. We want to identify the biomarkers for drug response or lack thereof so we know what drugs would be appropriate for the individual patient, and therefore, we can provide the right drug for the right person and fortunately at the right time.”
In explaining why personalized medicine isn’t further along in dermatology and rheumatology, Gladman told Medscape Medical News, “It’s a matter of finding the right things; we haven’t solved the mystery.” She cited a previous discussion at the seminar about the pathogenesis of PsA. “One person thinks it’s the bone marrow and another thinks it’s the T cells, so we haven’t quite put it all together to have a definitive answer.”
Personalized medicine in psoriasis and PsA is a “key unmet need,” Scher said. “Multiomics” — a biological analysis approach that uses multiple “omes,” such as the genome and microbiome — digital features, and wearables “can unlock novel diagnostic and therapeutic pathways that are desperately needed to enhance clinical response in PsA,” he said.
Also emerging are humanized animal models for laboratory research, which Scher called “potentially very useful tools to personalize approaches to PsA pathogenesis and treatment.”
Gladman disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Scher had no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW YORK CITY — The idea of having dermatologists and rheumatologists under one roof to see patients with psoriasis prone to psoriatic arthritis (PsA) — a concept known as combined clinics — has been around for more than a decade, and the idea of personalized medicine for these patients even longer than that, yet both approaches to care have encountered a host of obstacles, a longtime research rheumatologist said.
“It’s important that we work together, but there is a problem in terms of staffing — managing the meetings with patients together — and in the states in particular it’s a matter of who’s charging for what,” Dafna Gladman, MD, a rheumatologist at the University of Toronto, in Ontario, Canada, told attendees at the annual New York University (NYU) Langone Advanced Seminar in Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. Her institution has one of the 44 worldwide combined clinics registered in the Psoriasis & Psoriatic Arthritis Clinics Multicenter Advancement Network (PPACMAN), of which Gladman is an advisory board member.
Barriers to Combined Clinics
“Some of the barriers are physical in the sense that, for the dermatologists and rheumatologists to work at the same time, you need the right space, and in many places, you just don’t have the space to have the two specialists sitting at the same time,” Gladman told Medscape Medical News.
Some centers get around this by having the dermatology and rheumatology clinics next to or near each other. “So these two specialists are close enough to be able to go from room to room,” she added.
Another challenge facing combined clinics lies in the nature of how dermatologists and rheumatologists see patients. “The dermatologist sees patients a lot faster than the rheumatologist, so if the dermatologist and rheumatologist are sitting together, the dermatologist may not see as many patients as they would otherwise and therefore may not get reimbursed properly,” Gladman said.
To overcome these challenges, different models have emerged, Gladman said. If space allows, the ideal model is to have both specialties in one clinic, she said, while compensating for the different pace at which dermatologists and rheumatologists see patients.
The other model is to locate the two clinics close enough so that a person with suspected PsA can get to the rheumatology clinic soon after their dermatologic consult, or the rheumatologist can go to the dermatology clinic, Gladman said. Or the situation may be reversed when the rheumatologist needs a dermatology consult, she added.
When that’s not possible, a virtual visit may be the solution, Gladman said. She noted that PPACMAN offers ways to overcome the challenges of running a combined clinic.
Whatever combined clinic model a center chooses, clinicians must be mindful of preventing patients from falling through the cracks, Gladman said.
“When you treat patients separately, the patient sees the rheumatologist, and the rheumatologist wants to do one thing; then they go to the dermatologist and the dermatologist wants to do another thing, and the patient doesn’t do anything because they don’t know what to choose,” she said.
The combined clinic allows the patient to get the opinions of both specialists and avoid the uncertainty about the course of treatment, Gladman added.
Some combined clinics may also house other specialists, such as gastroenterologists, cardiologists, and nurse practitioners, noted Jose U. Scher, MD, director of the Arthritis Clinic and Psoriatic Arthritis Center at NYU Langone Health in New York City. Such centers are typically in academic centers “given challenges with space, scheduling, and reimbursement,” he told Medscape Medical News. NYU has a PPACMAN-registered combined clinic.
Regardless of how combined clinics are organized, Scher said, “We have found that the most important aspect of combined clinics is the open communication and integration of care between and amongst specialists and patients.”
The Potential of Personalized Medicine
“Personalized medicine is where we need to get to,” Gladman told seminar attendees. She said she had hoped it would be further along by now and be more integrated into the care of patients with psoriasis and PsA. “The idea is to identify psoriasis patients that are destined to develop psoriatic arthritis,” she said.
Besides that, identifying biomarkers is key to advancing personalized medicine for psoriasis, Gladman noted.
“In the skin, it’s easy; even the patient can assess their psoriasis,” she said. “But in the joints, it’s very difficult, so it would be nice to have some kind of biomarker, whether it’s the blood or an imaging modality. We want to identify the biomarkers for drug response or lack thereof so we know what drugs would be appropriate for the individual patient, and therefore, we can provide the right drug for the right person and fortunately at the right time.”
In explaining why personalized medicine isn’t further along in dermatology and rheumatology, Gladman told Medscape Medical News, “It’s a matter of finding the right things; we haven’t solved the mystery.” She cited a previous discussion at the seminar about the pathogenesis of PsA. “One person thinks it’s the bone marrow and another thinks it’s the T cells, so we haven’t quite put it all together to have a definitive answer.”
Personalized medicine in psoriasis and PsA is a “key unmet need,” Scher said. “Multiomics” — a biological analysis approach that uses multiple “omes,” such as the genome and microbiome — digital features, and wearables “can unlock novel diagnostic and therapeutic pathways that are desperately needed to enhance clinical response in PsA,” he said.
Also emerging are humanized animal models for laboratory research, which Scher called “potentially very useful tools to personalize approaches to PsA pathogenesis and treatment.”
Gladman disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Scher had no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW YORK CITY — The idea of having dermatologists and rheumatologists under one roof to see patients with psoriasis prone to psoriatic arthritis (PsA) — a concept known as combined clinics — has been around for more than a decade, and the idea of personalized medicine for these patients even longer than that, yet both approaches to care have encountered a host of obstacles, a longtime research rheumatologist said.
“It’s important that we work together, but there is a problem in terms of staffing — managing the meetings with patients together — and in the states in particular it’s a matter of who’s charging for what,” Dafna Gladman, MD, a rheumatologist at the University of Toronto, in Ontario, Canada, told attendees at the annual New York University (NYU) Langone Advanced Seminar in Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. Her institution has one of the 44 worldwide combined clinics registered in the Psoriasis & Psoriatic Arthritis Clinics Multicenter Advancement Network (PPACMAN), of which Gladman is an advisory board member.
Barriers to Combined Clinics
“Some of the barriers are physical in the sense that, for the dermatologists and rheumatologists to work at the same time, you need the right space, and in many places, you just don’t have the space to have the two specialists sitting at the same time,” Gladman told Medscape Medical News.
Some centers get around this by having the dermatology and rheumatology clinics next to or near each other. “So these two specialists are close enough to be able to go from room to room,” she added.
Another challenge facing combined clinics lies in the nature of how dermatologists and rheumatologists see patients. “The dermatologist sees patients a lot faster than the rheumatologist, so if the dermatologist and rheumatologist are sitting together, the dermatologist may not see as many patients as they would otherwise and therefore may not get reimbursed properly,” Gladman said.
To overcome these challenges, different models have emerged, Gladman said. If space allows, the ideal model is to have both specialties in one clinic, she said, while compensating for the different pace at which dermatologists and rheumatologists see patients.
The other model is to locate the two clinics close enough so that a person with suspected PsA can get to the rheumatology clinic soon after their dermatologic consult, or the rheumatologist can go to the dermatology clinic, Gladman said. Or the situation may be reversed when the rheumatologist needs a dermatology consult, she added.
When that’s not possible, a virtual visit may be the solution, Gladman said. She noted that PPACMAN offers ways to overcome the challenges of running a combined clinic.
Whatever combined clinic model a center chooses, clinicians must be mindful of preventing patients from falling through the cracks, Gladman said.
“When you treat patients separately, the patient sees the rheumatologist, and the rheumatologist wants to do one thing; then they go to the dermatologist and the dermatologist wants to do another thing, and the patient doesn’t do anything because they don’t know what to choose,” she said.
The combined clinic allows the patient to get the opinions of both specialists and avoid the uncertainty about the course of treatment, Gladman added.
Some combined clinics may also house other specialists, such as gastroenterologists, cardiologists, and nurse practitioners, noted Jose U. Scher, MD, director of the Arthritis Clinic and Psoriatic Arthritis Center at NYU Langone Health in New York City. Such centers are typically in academic centers “given challenges with space, scheduling, and reimbursement,” he told Medscape Medical News. NYU has a PPACMAN-registered combined clinic.
Regardless of how combined clinics are organized, Scher said, “We have found that the most important aspect of combined clinics is the open communication and integration of care between and amongst specialists and patients.”
The Potential of Personalized Medicine
“Personalized medicine is where we need to get to,” Gladman told seminar attendees. She said she had hoped it would be further along by now and be more integrated into the care of patients with psoriasis and PsA. “The idea is to identify psoriasis patients that are destined to develop psoriatic arthritis,” she said.
Besides that, identifying biomarkers is key to advancing personalized medicine for psoriasis, Gladman noted.
“In the skin, it’s easy; even the patient can assess their psoriasis,” she said. “But in the joints, it’s very difficult, so it would be nice to have some kind of biomarker, whether it’s the blood or an imaging modality. We want to identify the biomarkers for drug response or lack thereof so we know what drugs would be appropriate for the individual patient, and therefore, we can provide the right drug for the right person and fortunately at the right time.”
In explaining why personalized medicine isn’t further along in dermatology and rheumatology, Gladman told Medscape Medical News, “It’s a matter of finding the right things; we haven’t solved the mystery.” She cited a previous discussion at the seminar about the pathogenesis of PsA. “One person thinks it’s the bone marrow and another thinks it’s the T cells, so we haven’t quite put it all together to have a definitive answer.”
Personalized medicine in psoriasis and PsA is a “key unmet need,” Scher said. “Multiomics” — a biological analysis approach that uses multiple “omes,” such as the genome and microbiome — digital features, and wearables “can unlock novel diagnostic and therapeutic pathways that are desperately needed to enhance clinical response in PsA,” he said.
Also emerging are humanized animal models for laboratory research, which Scher called “potentially very useful tools to personalize approaches to PsA pathogenesis and treatment.”
Gladman disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Scher had no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Study Finds Association Between Statins and Glaucoma
Adults with high cholesterol taking statins may have a significantly higher risk of developing glaucoma than those not taking the cholesterol-lowering drugs, an observational study of a large research database found.
The study, published in Ophthalmology Glaucoma, analyzed electronic health records of 79,742 adults with hyperlipidemia in the All of Us Research Program database from 2017 to 2022. The repository is maintained by the National Institutes of Health and provides data for research into precision medicine.
The 6365 statin users in the study population had a 47% greater unadjusted prevalence of glaucoma than nonusers of the drugs (P < .001) and a 13% greater prevalence in models that adjusted for potential confounding variables (P = .02). The researchers also found statin users had significantly higher levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), but even patients with optimal levels of LDL-C had higher rates of glaucoma.
‘A Little Unusual’
Drawing any clinically relevant conclusions from this latest study would be premature, said Victoria Tseng, MD, PhD, an assistant professor at UCLA Stein Eye Institute and Doheny Eye Centers UCLA, and the senior author of the study. “I certainly would not be telling my patients on statins to stop their statins.”
Tseng acknowledged her group’s finding runs counter to previous studies that found statins may help prevent glaucoma or at least have no effect on the eye disease, although the association between cholesterol and glaucoma has been well established.
A 2019 analysis of nearly 137,000 participants in three population studies found no connection between statin use and the risk for primary open-angle glaucoma. A 2012 study of more than 500,000 people with high cholesterol found statin use was associated with a significant reduction in the risk for open-angle glaucoma.
“It’s a little unusual that we found the opposite,” Tseng said in an interview.
One explanation is the observational nature of the AoU analysis Tseng’s group conducted. “We don’t know what these people look like or how well the data were collected, so we’re going off of what’s there in the database,” she said.
Another explanation could be the nature of hyperlipidemia itself, she said. “There have definitely been studies that suggest increased cholesterol levels are associated with an increased risk of glaucoma. Presumably, you’re not going to be taking a statin unless your cholesterol is a little worse.”
While the study analysis attempted to control for cholesterol levels, Tseng noted, “there could be some residual confounding from that.”
Statin users in the study had an average LDL-C level of 144.9 mg/dL vs 136.3 mg/dL in the population not taking any cholesterol medication (P < .001). Statin users with optimal LDL-C, defined as less than 100 mg/dL, had a 39% greater adjusted prevalence of glaucoma (P = .02), while those with high LDL-C (160-189 mg/dL) had a 37% greater adjusted prevalence (P = .005).
Age was another factor in the risk for glaucoma, the study found. Statin users aged 60-69 years had an adjusted rate of glaucoma 28% greater than that for nonusers (P = .05).
Laboratory studies may help clarify the relationships between statins and glaucoma, Tseng said. That could include putting statins directly on the optic nerve of laboratory mice and further investigating how statins affect the mechanisms that influence eye pressure, a key driver of glaucoma. From a population study perspective, a randomized trial of glaucoma patients comparing the effect of statins and other cholesterol-lowering medications with nonuse may provide answers.
Database Strengths and Limitations
The study “adds to the somewhat mixed literature on the potential association between statins and glaucoma,” Sophia Wang, MD, MS, a glaucoma specialist at Stanford Byers Eye Institute in Palo Alto, California, said in an interview.
The AoU research cohort is a “notable strength” of the new paper, added Wang, who has used the AoU database to study the relationship between blood pressure, blood pressure medications, and glaucoma.
“The population is especially large and diverse, with a large proportion of participants from backgrounds that are traditionally underrepresented in research,” she said. And The inclusion of both medical records and survey data means the health information on the cohort is detailed and longitudinal.
“The authors make excellent use here of the data by including in their analyses results of laboratory investigations — LDL-C, notably — which wouldn’t be readily available in other types of datasets such as claims datasets,” she said.
However, the database has limitations as well, including its reliance on coding, which is prone to errors, to determine glaucoma diagnosis and missing information on eye examinations. In addition, the study used one LDL-C measurement rather than multiple measurements, Wang pointed out, “and we know that LDL-C can vary over time.”
The study was funded by Research to Prevent Blindness. Tseng and Wang reported no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adults with high cholesterol taking statins may have a significantly higher risk of developing glaucoma than those not taking the cholesterol-lowering drugs, an observational study of a large research database found.
The study, published in Ophthalmology Glaucoma, analyzed electronic health records of 79,742 adults with hyperlipidemia in the All of Us Research Program database from 2017 to 2022. The repository is maintained by the National Institutes of Health and provides data for research into precision medicine.
The 6365 statin users in the study population had a 47% greater unadjusted prevalence of glaucoma than nonusers of the drugs (P < .001) and a 13% greater prevalence in models that adjusted for potential confounding variables (P = .02). The researchers also found statin users had significantly higher levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), but even patients with optimal levels of LDL-C had higher rates of glaucoma.
‘A Little Unusual’
Drawing any clinically relevant conclusions from this latest study would be premature, said Victoria Tseng, MD, PhD, an assistant professor at UCLA Stein Eye Institute and Doheny Eye Centers UCLA, and the senior author of the study. “I certainly would not be telling my patients on statins to stop their statins.”
Tseng acknowledged her group’s finding runs counter to previous studies that found statins may help prevent glaucoma or at least have no effect on the eye disease, although the association between cholesterol and glaucoma has been well established.
A 2019 analysis of nearly 137,000 participants in three population studies found no connection between statin use and the risk for primary open-angle glaucoma. A 2012 study of more than 500,000 people with high cholesterol found statin use was associated with a significant reduction in the risk for open-angle glaucoma.
“It’s a little unusual that we found the opposite,” Tseng said in an interview.
One explanation is the observational nature of the AoU analysis Tseng’s group conducted. “We don’t know what these people look like or how well the data were collected, so we’re going off of what’s there in the database,” she said.
Another explanation could be the nature of hyperlipidemia itself, she said. “There have definitely been studies that suggest increased cholesterol levels are associated with an increased risk of glaucoma. Presumably, you’re not going to be taking a statin unless your cholesterol is a little worse.”
While the study analysis attempted to control for cholesterol levels, Tseng noted, “there could be some residual confounding from that.”
Statin users in the study had an average LDL-C level of 144.9 mg/dL vs 136.3 mg/dL in the population not taking any cholesterol medication (P < .001). Statin users with optimal LDL-C, defined as less than 100 mg/dL, had a 39% greater adjusted prevalence of glaucoma (P = .02), while those with high LDL-C (160-189 mg/dL) had a 37% greater adjusted prevalence (P = .005).
Age was another factor in the risk for glaucoma, the study found. Statin users aged 60-69 years had an adjusted rate of glaucoma 28% greater than that for nonusers (P = .05).
Laboratory studies may help clarify the relationships between statins and glaucoma, Tseng said. That could include putting statins directly on the optic nerve of laboratory mice and further investigating how statins affect the mechanisms that influence eye pressure, a key driver of glaucoma. From a population study perspective, a randomized trial of glaucoma patients comparing the effect of statins and other cholesterol-lowering medications with nonuse may provide answers.
Database Strengths and Limitations
The study “adds to the somewhat mixed literature on the potential association between statins and glaucoma,” Sophia Wang, MD, MS, a glaucoma specialist at Stanford Byers Eye Institute in Palo Alto, California, said in an interview.
The AoU research cohort is a “notable strength” of the new paper, added Wang, who has used the AoU database to study the relationship between blood pressure, blood pressure medications, and glaucoma.
“The population is especially large and diverse, with a large proportion of participants from backgrounds that are traditionally underrepresented in research,” she said. And The inclusion of both medical records and survey data means the health information on the cohort is detailed and longitudinal.
“The authors make excellent use here of the data by including in their analyses results of laboratory investigations — LDL-C, notably — which wouldn’t be readily available in other types of datasets such as claims datasets,” she said.
However, the database has limitations as well, including its reliance on coding, which is prone to errors, to determine glaucoma diagnosis and missing information on eye examinations. In addition, the study used one LDL-C measurement rather than multiple measurements, Wang pointed out, “and we know that LDL-C can vary over time.”
The study was funded by Research to Prevent Blindness. Tseng and Wang reported no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adults with high cholesterol taking statins may have a significantly higher risk of developing glaucoma than those not taking the cholesterol-lowering drugs, an observational study of a large research database found.
The study, published in Ophthalmology Glaucoma, analyzed electronic health records of 79,742 adults with hyperlipidemia in the All of Us Research Program database from 2017 to 2022. The repository is maintained by the National Institutes of Health and provides data for research into precision medicine.
The 6365 statin users in the study population had a 47% greater unadjusted prevalence of glaucoma than nonusers of the drugs (P < .001) and a 13% greater prevalence in models that adjusted for potential confounding variables (P = .02). The researchers also found statin users had significantly higher levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), but even patients with optimal levels of LDL-C had higher rates of glaucoma.
‘A Little Unusual’
Drawing any clinically relevant conclusions from this latest study would be premature, said Victoria Tseng, MD, PhD, an assistant professor at UCLA Stein Eye Institute and Doheny Eye Centers UCLA, and the senior author of the study. “I certainly would not be telling my patients on statins to stop their statins.”
Tseng acknowledged her group’s finding runs counter to previous studies that found statins may help prevent glaucoma or at least have no effect on the eye disease, although the association between cholesterol and glaucoma has been well established.
A 2019 analysis of nearly 137,000 participants in three population studies found no connection between statin use and the risk for primary open-angle glaucoma. A 2012 study of more than 500,000 people with high cholesterol found statin use was associated with a significant reduction in the risk for open-angle glaucoma.
“It’s a little unusual that we found the opposite,” Tseng said in an interview.
One explanation is the observational nature of the AoU analysis Tseng’s group conducted. “We don’t know what these people look like or how well the data were collected, so we’re going off of what’s there in the database,” she said.
Another explanation could be the nature of hyperlipidemia itself, she said. “There have definitely been studies that suggest increased cholesterol levels are associated with an increased risk of glaucoma. Presumably, you’re not going to be taking a statin unless your cholesterol is a little worse.”
While the study analysis attempted to control for cholesterol levels, Tseng noted, “there could be some residual confounding from that.”
Statin users in the study had an average LDL-C level of 144.9 mg/dL vs 136.3 mg/dL in the population not taking any cholesterol medication (P < .001). Statin users with optimal LDL-C, defined as less than 100 mg/dL, had a 39% greater adjusted prevalence of glaucoma (P = .02), while those with high LDL-C (160-189 mg/dL) had a 37% greater adjusted prevalence (P = .005).
Age was another factor in the risk for glaucoma, the study found. Statin users aged 60-69 years had an adjusted rate of glaucoma 28% greater than that for nonusers (P = .05).
Laboratory studies may help clarify the relationships between statins and glaucoma, Tseng said. That could include putting statins directly on the optic nerve of laboratory mice and further investigating how statins affect the mechanisms that influence eye pressure, a key driver of glaucoma. From a population study perspective, a randomized trial of glaucoma patients comparing the effect of statins and other cholesterol-lowering medications with nonuse may provide answers.
Database Strengths and Limitations
The study “adds to the somewhat mixed literature on the potential association between statins and glaucoma,” Sophia Wang, MD, MS, a glaucoma specialist at Stanford Byers Eye Institute in Palo Alto, California, said in an interview.
The AoU research cohort is a “notable strength” of the new paper, added Wang, who has used the AoU database to study the relationship between blood pressure, blood pressure medications, and glaucoma.
“The population is especially large and diverse, with a large proportion of participants from backgrounds that are traditionally underrepresented in research,” she said. And The inclusion of both medical records and survey data means the health information on the cohort is detailed and longitudinal.
“The authors make excellent use here of the data by including in their analyses results of laboratory investigations — LDL-C, notably — which wouldn’t be readily available in other types of datasets such as claims datasets,” she said.
However, the database has limitations as well, including its reliance on coding, which is prone to errors, to determine glaucoma diagnosis and missing information on eye examinations. In addition, the study used one LDL-C measurement rather than multiple measurements, Wang pointed out, “and we know that LDL-C can vary over time.”
The study was funded by Research to Prevent Blindness. Tseng and Wang reported no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM OPHTHALMOLOGY GLAUCOMA
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in Rheumatology: A Promising Outlook But Many Barriers to Overcome
Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) — the practice of using laboratory testing to measure blood levels of drugs — has garnered growing interest among rheumatologists in managing patients on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), but that hasn’t exactly translated to widespread practice.
While TDM has made some inroads with patients taking monoclonal antibodies, specifically infliximab, its uptake has encountered a number of headwinds, not the least of which is a lack of evidence and clinical guidelines, uneven access and standards of assays, and even an uncertainty about how to interpret laboratory results.
“In some fields, such as neurology, TDM is accepted for antiepileptics,” Michelle Petri, MD, MPH, director of the Johns Hopkins Lupus Center, Baltimore, told Medscape Medical News. “In rheumatology, though, TDM is underutilized and not adequately championed by the American College of Rheumatology.”
She noted that TDM is most acutely needed for management of systemic lupus erythematosus, where nonadherence is a major problem. “Whole blood hydroxychloroquine monitoring has proven beneficial for identifying nonadherence, but also to pinpoint patients who are on too much, a risk factor for retinopathy,” Petri said.
“The state of therapeutic drug monitoring in general has been interesting when you think about its use in autoimmune disease because it’s very much used in gastroenterology and it’s been much less used in rheumatology,” Zachary Wallace, MD, codirector of the Rheumatology & Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, told Medscape Medical News. “Some of that may have to do with the interpretation of the availability of evidence, but I think it’s something clinicians will come across more and more often in their practice and wondering what its role might be,” he added.
The movement to precision medicine also portends to grow interest in TDM in rheumatology, said Stephen Balevic, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist and pharmacologist at Duke University and director of pharmacometrics at the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina.
“It’s a very exciting time for rheumatologists to begin thinking outside box on what it means to study precision medicine, and I think pharmacology is one of the most overlooked aspects of precision medicine in our community,” he told Medscape Medical News.
That may be because older DMARDs, namely hydroxychloroquine and methotrexate, came to market when regulatory requirements were different than they are today, Balevic said. “Many of the older conventional DMARDs were discovered incidentally and never really had the traditional pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic trials to determine optimal dosing, or perhaps that was extrapolated from other populations,” he said.
So, the “one-size-fits-all” approach does not work for prescribing older or even some of the newer DMARDs for rheumatologic disorders, Balevic said.
Reactive vs Proactive TDM
Among the few trials that examined TDM in rheumatology patients are the NOR-DRUM A and B trials in Norway. Marthe Brun, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, Norway, and a coauthor of the NOR-DRUM trials, told Medscape Medical News that the trials found an overall benefit to TDM during infliximab maintenance therapy. The trials included not only patients with inflammatory arthritis (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and spondyloarthritis) but also patients with inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis, Brun said.
Brun explained that two types of TDM exist: Reactive and proactive. “Reactive TDM is when you use it to find the reason for a patient having a flare or disease worsening,” she told Medscape Medical News. “Proactive TDM would be regular testing to keep a patient within a therapeutic range to avoid flare because of low drug concentrations.”
Gastroenterologists are more inclined than rheumatologists and dermatologists to use reactive TDM, she said. “There have been no recommendations regarding proactive TDM because of the lack of data.”
In Europe, Wallace noted that European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) recommendations consider the use of TDM in specific clinical scenarios, such as when treatment fails or to evaluate immunogenicity of a reaction, but they are limited. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) does not have any recommendations for the use of TDM.
Based on the NOR-DRUM trials, rheumatologists in Norway have published their own guidelines for TDM for infliximab in rheumatologic disease, but they are in Norwegian and have not yet been taken up by EULAR, Brun noted. Publication of those recommendations in English is pending, she said.
“But for other subcutaneously administered TNF inhibitors, there’s a lack of data,” Brun added.
The State of the Evidence
NOR-DRUM A did not support the use of proactive TDM in the 30-week induction period as a way to improve disease remission in patients with chronic immune-mediated inflammatory disease. NOR-DRUM B, which evaluated TDM over a year, found the approach was more likely to lead to sustained disease control for that period.
Brun’s group recently published an analysis of the trials. “We did not find an overall effect during the initial phase of the treatment, the first 30 weeks,” she told Medscape Medical News.
“Then we looked at subgroups, and we found that the patients that developed antidrug antibodies [ADAs] had an effect, and ADA are associated with poorer outcomes as well as infusion reactions for patients treated with infliximab.
“So, it’s probably a benefit to be able to detect these ADA early before the patient experiences a disease flare or infusion reaction,” Brun added. “It facilitates for the clinician to take action to, for example, increase the dosing or switch therapy.”
However, the quality of the data supporting TDM in rheumatology is limited, Balevic said. “There’s very good observational data, but we have very few clinical trials that actually leverage TDM,” he said.
NOR-DRUM is the exception, he said. “Ideally, we need more of these dose-optimization trials to help guide clinical practice,” he said. But it stands alone.
Wallace noted several take-home messages from the NOR-DRUM trials, namely that using TDM to prevent ADA may be more effective during the maintenance phase of treatment than the induction phase. However, he said, the evidence is still emerging.
“It’s reasonable to say that we’re at an early stage of the evidence,” he said. “If you look at the large trials that have been done in rheumatology, they’ve combined patients with many different types of conditions, and a lot of our recommendations in rheumatology are disease-specific — in rheumatoid arthritis, in vasculitis. There’s a lack of data in specific diseases to guide or examine what the role of TDM might be.”
In the meantime, no fewer than four clinical trials evaluating TDM with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in rheumatologic diseases are ongoing or have completed but not yet released results, according to Wallace. Three Adalimumab Drug Optimization in Rheumatoid Arthritis trials are underway: The first is evaluating drug tapering vs disease activity score; the second is testing low or usual drug concentration; and the third is studying switches to etanercept or a non-TNF inhibitor drug (abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, or sarilumab) in patients failing treatment. Another trial called Tocilizumab Drug Levels to Optimized Treatment in RA is randomizing patients with high drug levels to dose maintenance or dose reduction. All four trials are sponsored by the Reade Rheumatology Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Until clearer answers emerge from clinical trials, a number of barriers to and questions about the potential for TDM in rheumatology persist.
Barriers to Wider Use of TDM
“The biggest barrier with TDM is simply just a lack of what to do with the data,” Balevic said. “The clinician needs clear-cut guidance on what to do with the drug level. So, in other words, what is the target concentration for the drug? And if that target is not the goal, how should that dose be adjusted?”
The optimal drug levels, particularly for the older conventional synthetic DMARDs, simply have not been validated by clinical trials, he said.
“Different studies may report different target drug levels, and this could be due to different underlying population, or a different matrix — a measure of whole blood vs plasma — or even the timing of the sample,” he said. Balevic led a pharmacokinetic study earlier this year that proposed an algorithm for determining the number of missed hydroxychloroquine doses.
“This really goes back to the clinician needing to draw on a lot of pharmacology training to interpret the literature,” Balevic added.
That gets to the need for more education among rheumatologists, as Brun pointed out. “The physician needs to be educated about therapeutic ranges, when to assess concentrations of drug antibodies, and how to react to the results,” Brun said.
Which ADAs to identify is also problematic. “For antidrug antibodies, it’s especially challenging because there are so many assay formats in use, and it’s a bit complicated to analyze these antidrug antibodies,” Brun said. “There’s no consensus on what calibrators to use, and there’s no standardization of how to report the results, so you can’t really compare results from different assays. You need to know what your laboratory is using and how to interpret results from that particular assay, so that’s a challenge.”
Variability in drug tolerance also exists across assays, Wallace noted. “One of the challenges that have come up in the discussion of therapeutic drug monitoring is understanding what the target level is,” he said. “Defining what the target level might be for a specific condition is not something that’s well understood.”
Breaking down the science, he noted that an ADA can bind to a monoclonal antibody, forming an immune complex that avoids detection. Drug-sensitive assays may detect high concentrations of ADAs but miss low or moderate concentrations. Drug-tolerant assays may be more likely to detect low concentrations at ADAs, but the clinical significance is unclear.
Cost and Patient Trust as Barriers
“The costs vary a lot from assay to assay,” Brun said. “Some commercial assays can be really expensive.” In Norway, a dedicated lab with its own in-house assays helps to keep costs down, she said.
But that’s not the case in the United States, where insurance coverage can be a question mark, Shivani Garg, MD, a rheumatologist at the University of Wisconsin (UW)-Madison and director of the UW-Madison Health Lupus and Lupus Nephritis Clinics, told Medscape Medical News. “A lot of insurances are covering therapeutic drug monitoring, but for the high-deductible plans, there should be a way to offer these important tests to patients at a lower cost or figure out a way for coverage for those patients so that they can show that there are benefits of therapeutic drug monitoring without being sent a really big bill,” she said.
Patient trust could be another potential barrier, Garg said. “A lot of times there is not shared decision-making involved in why this test is being done, how those tests will help us as clinicians, and [patients’ understanding of] the use of the medicine,” Garg said.
“If the shared decision-making to build trust is not there, a lot of times patients worry that they’re being under surveillance or they’re being watched, so that might add to the lack of trust in the core issues that are critical threats to patients with chronic diseases because this is a lifelong partnership,” she said.
Convenience is another issue. “Particularly with mycophenolate levels, a lot of studies have used area under the curve, so getting an area under the curve level over a period of 12 hours would require several samples,” Garg said.
Testing protocols are also uncertain, Garg added. “A few data points ... are missing, like how we use the data over time,” she said. “If you do it for a given patient over several years, how often should you do it? How often do the levels fluctuate? How are the data used to inform dosing changes or monitoring changes?
“When those pieces are put together, then we are more likely to build up an intervention that clinicians can use in clinical practice, so they know how to order it and how frequently do it — every 6 months, 3 months, or every month. And then, over a period of time, how to adjust the dosing. That’s the big question.”
Who May Benefit Most From TDM?
In the NOR-DRUM trials, patients at risk of developing ADA early on, before a disease flare or infusion reaction, seemed to benefit most from TDM. But who are those patients?
“We looked at risk factors for developing antidrug antibodies, and we found that patients with high disease activity when starting treatment, smokers, and patients with rheumatoid arthritis had a higher risk than other patients, as did patients who are not using concomitant immunosuppressive therapy,” Brun said.
“During treatment, we also found that low serum drug levels and drug holidays above 11 weeks were also risk factors,” she added.
The NOR-DRUM researchers also evaluated genetic risk factors and found that patients with the HLA-DQ2 gene variant were also at increased risk of developing ADA.
While NOR-DRUM evaluated only infliximab, some of its lessons may be applied to other DMARDs, Brun said. “We think that for other subcutaneously administered TNF inhibitors, you would probably see the same effect of proactive TDM, but we currently do not have data on that,” she said. A study similar to the NOR-DRUM design will evaluate this in Norway, Brun added.
She explained why the findings with infliximab may extend to adalimumab, which may be the second most immunogenic TNF inhibitor after infliximab. “The administration is different; it’s administered more often than infliximab; that would also make the results more uncertain to generalize to the other treatments, but I would guess there are also benefits of using TDM in other treatments.”
Potential Risks for TDM
Wallace has noted that TDM, with the current state of evidence, carries a number of potential risks. “The potential risks might be that you unnecessarily discontinue a medication because you detected an antibody, or the level seems low and you’re not able to get it higher, but the patient is otherwise doing fine,” he said. “You might end up increasing doses of the medicine that would put the patient at potentially increased risk of infection, as well as obviously more costs.”
That would also lead to more utilization of resources and costs, he said. “Some of those reasons are why there has been hesitation with therapeutic drug monitoring,” Wallace added.
A number of questions also surround the use of biosimilars and ADA levels, Wallace said. While a review of clinical trials found no meaningful differences in terms of immunogenicity between biosimilars and reference products, it did note discrepancies in how the agents were evaluated.
What DMARDs Are Most Suitable for TDM?
Petri said TDM would be useful for monitoring patients on mycophenolate mofetil. “A trough level can at least tell us if a patient is taking it,” she said. “Tacrolimus, used for lupus nephritis, has well-accepted peak and trough trends due to widespread use in transplant.”
Drugs with a wide variability in pharmacokinetics may also be suitable for TDM, Balevic said. That would include hydroxychloroquine, azathioprine, mycophenolate, or even cyclophosphamide. Drugs that have a narrow therapeutic index, such as tacrolimus, cyclosporine, or again, cyclophosphamide, might also be amenable to TDM, he said.
Why Do TDM?
“The two main reasons why somebody would go on to detect drug levels: The first may be to assess medication adherence, and this applies virtually to any drug that rheumatologists use; the second reason is to optimize dozing, either for efficacy purposes or to prevent toxicity,” Balevic said.
“When it comes to optimizing dosing, you should really think about TDM as one tool in our toolbelt,” he said.
Dose is “just a surrogate,” he said. “When we prescribe a drug, what truly matters is the amount of active unbound drug at the site of action. That’s what’s responsible for a drug’s pharmacologic effect.”
However, the same dose, or even the same weight-based dose, does not necessarily mean similar patients will achieve the same amount of exposure to the drug, but TDM can help determine that, he said.
What’s Next
Studies into the use of TDM in rheumatology are ongoing. Brun said her group is currently conducting a cost-effective analysis from the NOR-DRUM trials.
“There’s going to be more studies coming out in the next few years, looking at what impact the use of therapeutic drug monitoring might have on outcomes,” Wallace said.
“As we accumulate more and more evidence, we might see organizations like ACR and EULAR start to weigh in more on whether or not therapeutic drug monitoring can or should be used.”
Petri, Brun, and Garg had no relevant disclosures. Wallace disclosed financial relationships with Amgen, Alexion, BioCryst, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Medpace, Novartis, Sanofi, Viela Bio, Visterra, Xencor, and Zenas. Balevic disclosed relationships with the National Institutes of Health, the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, and UCB.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) — the practice of using laboratory testing to measure blood levels of drugs — has garnered growing interest among rheumatologists in managing patients on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), but that hasn’t exactly translated to widespread practice.
While TDM has made some inroads with patients taking monoclonal antibodies, specifically infliximab, its uptake has encountered a number of headwinds, not the least of which is a lack of evidence and clinical guidelines, uneven access and standards of assays, and even an uncertainty about how to interpret laboratory results.
“In some fields, such as neurology, TDM is accepted for antiepileptics,” Michelle Petri, MD, MPH, director of the Johns Hopkins Lupus Center, Baltimore, told Medscape Medical News. “In rheumatology, though, TDM is underutilized and not adequately championed by the American College of Rheumatology.”
She noted that TDM is most acutely needed for management of systemic lupus erythematosus, where nonadherence is a major problem. “Whole blood hydroxychloroquine monitoring has proven beneficial for identifying nonadherence, but also to pinpoint patients who are on too much, a risk factor for retinopathy,” Petri said.
“The state of therapeutic drug monitoring in general has been interesting when you think about its use in autoimmune disease because it’s very much used in gastroenterology and it’s been much less used in rheumatology,” Zachary Wallace, MD, codirector of the Rheumatology & Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, told Medscape Medical News. “Some of that may have to do with the interpretation of the availability of evidence, but I think it’s something clinicians will come across more and more often in their practice and wondering what its role might be,” he added.
The movement to precision medicine also portends to grow interest in TDM in rheumatology, said Stephen Balevic, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist and pharmacologist at Duke University and director of pharmacometrics at the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina.
“It’s a very exciting time for rheumatologists to begin thinking outside box on what it means to study precision medicine, and I think pharmacology is one of the most overlooked aspects of precision medicine in our community,” he told Medscape Medical News.
That may be because older DMARDs, namely hydroxychloroquine and methotrexate, came to market when regulatory requirements were different than they are today, Balevic said. “Many of the older conventional DMARDs were discovered incidentally and never really had the traditional pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic trials to determine optimal dosing, or perhaps that was extrapolated from other populations,” he said.
So, the “one-size-fits-all” approach does not work for prescribing older or even some of the newer DMARDs for rheumatologic disorders, Balevic said.
Reactive vs Proactive TDM
Among the few trials that examined TDM in rheumatology patients are the NOR-DRUM A and B trials in Norway. Marthe Brun, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, Norway, and a coauthor of the NOR-DRUM trials, told Medscape Medical News that the trials found an overall benefit to TDM during infliximab maintenance therapy. The trials included not only patients with inflammatory arthritis (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and spondyloarthritis) but also patients with inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis, Brun said.
Brun explained that two types of TDM exist: Reactive and proactive. “Reactive TDM is when you use it to find the reason for a patient having a flare or disease worsening,” she told Medscape Medical News. “Proactive TDM would be regular testing to keep a patient within a therapeutic range to avoid flare because of low drug concentrations.”
Gastroenterologists are more inclined than rheumatologists and dermatologists to use reactive TDM, she said. “There have been no recommendations regarding proactive TDM because of the lack of data.”
In Europe, Wallace noted that European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) recommendations consider the use of TDM in specific clinical scenarios, such as when treatment fails or to evaluate immunogenicity of a reaction, but they are limited. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) does not have any recommendations for the use of TDM.
Based on the NOR-DRUM trials, rheumatologists in Norway have published their own guidelines for TDM for infliximab in rheumatologic disease, but they are in Norwegian and have not yet been taken up by EULAR, Brun noted. Publication of those recommendations in English is pending, she said.
“But for other subcutaneously administered TNF inhibitors, there’s a lack of data,” Brun added.
The State of the Evidence
NOR-DRUM A did not support the use of proactive TDM in the 30-week induction period as a way to improve disease remission in patients with chronic immune-mediated inflammatory disease. NOR-DRUM B, which evaluated TDM over a year, found the approach was more likely to lead to sustained disease control for that period.
Brun’s group recently published an analysis of the trials. “We did not find an overall effect during the initial phase of the treatment, the first 30 weeks,” she told Medscape Medical News.
“Then we looked at subgroups, and we found that the patients that developed antidrug antibodies [ADAs] had an effect, and ADA are associated with poorer outcomes as well as infusion reactions for patients treated with infliximab.
“So, it’s probably a benefit to be able to detect these ADA early before the patient experiences a disease flare or infusion reaction,” Brun added. “It facilitates for the clinician to take action to, for example, increase the dosing or switch therapy.”
However, the quality of the data supporting TDM in rheumatology is limited, Balevic said. “There’s very good observational data, but we have very few clinical trials that actually leverage TDM,” he said.
NOR-DRUM is the exception, he said. “Ideally, we need more of these dose-optimization trials to help guide clinical practice,” he said. But it stands alone.
Wallace noted several take-home messages from the NOR-DRUM trials, namely that using TDM to prevent ADA may be more effective during the maintenance phase of treatment than the induction phase. However, he said, the evidence is still emerging.
“It’s reasonable to say that we’re at an early stage of the evidence,” he said. “If you look at the large trials that have been done in rheumatology, they’ve combined patients with many different types of conditions, and a lot of our recommendations in rheumatology are disease-specific — in rheumatoid arthritis, in vasculitis. There’s a lack of data in specific diseases to guide or examine what the role of TDM might be.”
In the meantime, no fewer than four clinical trials evaluating TDM with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in rheumatologic diseases are ongoing or have completed but not yet released results, according to Wallace. Three Adalimumab Drug Optimization in Rheumatoid Arthritis trials are underway: The first is evaluating drug tapering vs disease activity score; the second is testing low or usual drug concentration; and the third is studying switches to etanercept or a non-TNF inhibitor drug (abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, or sarilumab) in patients failing treatment. Another trial called Tocilizumab Drug Levels to Optimized Treatment in RA is randomizing patients with high drug levels to dose maintenance or dose reduction. All four trials are sponsored by the Reade Rheumatology Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Until clearer answers emerge from clinical trials, a number of barriers to and questions about the potential for TDM in rheumatology persist.
Barriers to Wider Use of TDM
“The biggest barrier with TDM is simply just a lack of what to do with the data,” Balevic said. “The clinician needs clear-cut guidance on what to do with the drug level. So, in other words, what is the target concentration for the drug? And if that target is not the goal, how should that dose be adjusted?”
The optimal drug levels, particularly for the older conventional synthetic DMARDs, simply have not been validated by clinical trials, he said.
“Different studies may report different target drug levels, and this could be due to different underlying population, or a different matrix — a measure of whole blood vs plasma — or even the timing of the sample,” he said. Balevic led a pharmacokinetic study earlier this year that proposed an algorithm for determining the number of missed hydroxychloroquine doses.
“This really goes back to the clinician needing to draw on a lot of pharmacology training to interpret the literature,” Balevic added.
That gets to the need for more education among rheumatologists, as Brun pointed out. “The physician needs to be educated about therapeutic ranges, when to assess concentrations of drug antibodies, and how to react to the results,” Brun said.
Which ADAs to identify is also problematic. “For antidrug antibodies, it’s especially challenging because there are so many assay formats in use, and it’s a bit complicated to analyze these antidrug antibodies,” Brun said. “There’s no consensus on what calibrators to use, and there’s no standardization of how to report the results, so you can’t really compare results from different assays. You need to know what your laboratory is using and how to interpret results from that particular assay, so that’s a challenge.”
Variability in drug tolerance also exists across assays, Wallace noted. “One of the challenges that have come up in the discussion of therapeutic drug monitoring is understanding what the target level is,” he said. “Defining what the target level might be for a specific condition is not something that’s well understood.”
Breaking down the science, he noted that an ADA can bind to a monoclonal antibody, forming an immune complex that avoids detection. Drug-sensitive assays may detect high concentrations of ADAs but miss low or moderate concentrations. Drug-tolerant assays may be more likely to detect low concentrations at ADAs, but the clinical significance is unclear.
Cost and Patient Trust as Barriers
“The costs vary a lot from assay to assay,” Brun said. “Some commercial assays can be really expensive.” In Norway, a dedicated lab with its own in-house assays helps to keep costs down, she said.
But that’s not the case in the United States, where insurance coverage can be a question mark, Shivani Garg, MD, a rheumatologist at the University of Wisconsin (UW)-Madison and director of the UW-Madison Health Lupus and Lupus Nephritis Clinics, told Medscape Medical News. “A lot of insurances are covering therapeutic drug monitoring, but for the high-deductible plans, there should be a way to offer these important tests to patients at a lower cost or figure out a way for coverage for those patients so that they can show that there are benefits of therapeutic drug monitoring without being sent a really big bill,” she said.
Patient trust could be another potential barrier, Garg said. “A lot of times there is not shared decision-making involved in why this test is being done, how those tests will help us as clinicians, and [patients’ understanding of] the use of the medicine,” Garg said.
“If the shared decision-making to build trust is not there, a lot of times patients worry that they’re being under surveillance or they’re being watched, so that might add to the lack of trust in the core issues that are critical threats to patients with chronic diseases because this is a lifelong partnership,” she said.
Convenience is another issue. “Particularly with mycophenolate levels, a lot of studies have used area under the curve, so getting an area under the curve level over a period of 12 hours would require several samples,” Garg said.
Testing protocols are also uncertain, Garg added. “A few data points ... are missing, like how we use the data over time,” she said. “If you do it for a given patient over several years, how often should you do it? How often do the levels fluctuate? How are the data used to inform dosing changes or monitoring changes?
“When those pieces are put together, then we are more likely to build up an intervention that clinicians can use in clinical practice, so they know how to order it and how frequently do it — every 6 months, 3 months, or every month. And then, over a period of time, how to adjust the dosing. That’s the big question.”
Who May Benefit Most From TDM?
In the NOR-DRUM trials, patients at risk of developing ADA early on, before a disease flare or infusion reaction, seemed to benefit most from TDM. But who are those patients?
“We looked at risk factors for developing antidrug antibodies, and we found that patients with high disease activity when starting treatment, smokers, and patients with rheumatoid arthritis had a higher risk than other patients, as did patients who are not using concomitant immunosuppressive therapy,” Brun said.
“During treatment, we also found that low serum drug levels and drug holidays above 11 weeks were also risk factors,” she added.
The NOR-DRUM researchers also evaluated genetic risk factors and found that patients with the HLA-DQ2 gene variant were also at increased risk of developing ADA.
While NOR-DRUM evaluated only infliximab, some of its lessons may be applied to other DMARDs, Brun said. “We think that for other subcutaneously administered TNF inhibitors, you would probably see the same effect of proactive TDM, but we currently do not have data on that,” she said. A study similar to the NOR-DRUM design will evaluate this in Norway, Brun added.
She explained why the findings with infliximab may extend to adalimumab, which may be the second most immunogenic TNF inhibitor after infliximab. “The administration is different; it’s administered more often than infliximab; that would also make the results more uncertain to generalize to the other treatments, but I would guess there are also benefits of using TDM in other treatments.”
Potential Risks for TDM
Wallace has noted that TDM, with the current state of evidence, carries a number of potential risks. “The potential risks might be that you unnecessarily discontinue a medication because you detected an antibody, or the level seems low and you’re not able to get it higher, but the patient is otherwise doing fine,” he said. “You might end up increasing doses of the medicine that would put the patient at potentially increased risk of infection, as well as obviously more costs.”
That would also lead to more utilization of resources and costs, he said. “Some of those reasons are why there has been hesitation with therapeutic drug monitoring,” Wallace added.
A number of questions also surround the use of biosimilars and ADA levels, Wallace said. While a review of clinical trials found no meaningful differences in terms of immunogenicity between biosimilars and reference products, it did note discrepancies in how the agents were evaluated.
What DMARDs Are Most Suitable for TDM?
Petri said TDM would be useful for monitoring patients on mycophenolate mofetil. “A trough level can at least tell us if a patient is taking it,” she said. “Tacrolimus, used for lupus nephritis, has well-accepted peak and trough trends due to widespread use in transplant.”
Drugs with a wide variability in pharmacokinetics may also be suitable for TDM, Balevic said. That would include hydroxychloroquine, azathioprine, mycophenolate, or even cyclophosphamide. Drugs that have a narrow therapeutic index, such as tacrolimus, cyclosporine, or again, cyclophosphamide, might also be amenable to TDM, he said.
Why Do TDM?
“The two main reasons why somebody would go on to detect drug levels: The first may be to assess medication adherence, and this applies virtually to any drug that rheumatologists use; the second reason is to optimize dozing, either for efficacy purposes or to prevent toxicity,” Balevic said.
“When it comes to optimizing dosing, you should really think about TDM as one tool in our toolbelt,” he said.
Dose is “just a surrogate,” he said. “When we prescribe a drug, what truly matters is the amount of active unbound drug at the site of action. That’s what’s responsible for a drug’s pharmacologic effect.”
However, the same dose, or even the same weight-based dose, does not necessarily mean similar patients will achieve the same amount of exposure to the drug, but TDM can help determine that, he said.
What’s Next
Studies into the use of TDM in rheumatology are ongoing. Brun said her group is currently conducting a cost-effective analysis from the NOR-DRUM trials.
“There’s going to be more studies coming out in the next few years, looking at what impact the use of therapeutic drug monitoring might have on outcomes,” Wallace said.
“As we accumulate more and more evidence, we might see organizations like ACR and EULAR start to weigh in more on whether or not therapeutic drug monitoring can or should be used.”
Petri, Brun, and Garg had no relevant disclosures. Wallace disclosed financial relationships with Amgen, Alexion, BioCryst, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Medpace, Novartis, Sanofi, Viela Bio, Visterra, Xencor, and Zenas. Balevic disclosed relationships with the National Institutes of Health, the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, and UCB.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) — the practice of using laboratory testing to measure blood levels of drugs — has garnered growing interest among rheumatologists in managing patients on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), but that hasn’t exactly translated to widespread practice.
While TDM has made some inroads with patients taking monoclonal antibodies, specifically infliximab, its uptake has encountered a number of headwinds, not the least of which is a lack of evidence and clinical guidelines, uneven access and standards of assays, and even an uncertainty about how to interpret laboratory results.
“In some fields, such as neurology, TDM is accepted for antiepileptics,” Michelle Petri, MD, MPH, director of the Johns Hopkins Lupus Center, Baltimore, told Medscape Medical News. “In rheumatology, though, TDM is underutilized and not adequately championed by the American College of Rheumatology.”
She noted that TDM is most acutely needed for management of systemic lupus erythematosus, where nonadherence is a major problem. “Whole blood hydroxychloroquine monitoring has proven beneficial for identifying nonadherence, but also to pinpoint patients who are on too much, a risk factor for retinopathy,” Petri said.
“The state of therapeutic drug monitoring in general has been interesting when you think about its use in autoimmune disease because it’s very much used in gastroenterology and it’s been much less used in rheumatology,” Zachary Wallace, MD, codirector of the Rheumatology & Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, told Medscape Medical News. “Some of that may have to do with the interpretation of the availability of evidence, but I think it’s something clinicians will come across more and more often in their practice and wondering what its role might be,” he added.
The movement to precision medicine also portends to grow interest in TDM in rheumatology, said Stephen Balevic, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist and pharmacologist at Duke University and director of pharmacometrics at the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina.
“It’s a very exciting time for rheumatologists to begin thinking outside box on what it means to study precision medicine, and I think pharmacology is one of the most overlooked aspects of precision medicine in our community,” he told Medscape Medical News.
That may be because older DMARDs, namely hydroxychloroquine and methotrexate, came to market when regulatory requirements were different than they are today, Balevic said. “Many of the older conventional DMARDs were discovered incidentally and never really had the traditional pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic trials to determine optimal dosing, or perhaps that was extrapolated from other populations,” he said.
So, the “one-size-fits-all” approach does not work for prescribing older or even some of the newer DMARDs for rheumatologic disorders, Balevic said.
Reactive vs Proactive TDM
Among the few trials that examined TDM in rheumatology patients are the NOR-DRUM A and B trials in Norway. Marthe Brun, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, Norway, and a coauthor of the NOR-DRUM trials, told Medscape Medical News that the trials found an overall benefit to TDM during infliximab maintenance therapy. The trials included not only patients with inflammatory arthritis (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and spondyloarthritis) but also patients with inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis, Brun said.
Brun explained that two types of TDM exist: Reactive and proactive. “Reactive TDM is when you use it to find the reason for a patient having a flare or disease worsening,” she told Medscape Medical News. “Proactive TDM would be regular testing to keep a patient within a therapeutic range to avoid flare because of low drug concentrations.”
Gastroenterologists are more inclined than rheumatologists and dermatologists to use reactive TDM, she said. “There have been no recommendations regarding proactive TDM because of the lack of data.”
In Europe, Wallace noted that European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) recommendations consider the use of TDM in specific clinical scenarios, such as when treatment fails or to evaluate immunogenicity of a reaction, but they are limited. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) does not have any recommendations for the use of TDM.
Based on the NOR-DRUM trials, rheumatologists in Norway have published their own guidelines for TDM for infliximab in rheumatologic disease, but they are in Norwegian and have not yet been taken up by EULAR, Brun noted. Publication of those recommendations in English is pending, she said.
“But for other subcutaneously administered TNF inhibitors, there’s a lack of data,” Brun added.
The State of the Evidence
NOR-DRUM A did not support the use of proactive TDM in the 30-week induction period as a way to improve disease remission in patients with chronic immune-mediated inflammatory disease. NOR-DRUM B, which evaluated TDM over a year, found the approach was more likely to lead to sustained disease control for that period.
Brun’s group recently published an analysis of the trials. “We did not find an overall effect during the initial phase of the treatment, the first 30 weeks,” she told Medscape Medical News.
“Then we looked at subgroups, and we found that the patients that developed antidrug antibodies [ADAs] had an effect, and ADA are associated with poorer outcomes as well as infusion reactions for patients treated with infliximab.
“So, it’s probably a benefit to be able to detect these ADA early before the patient experiences a disease flare or infusion reaction,” Brun added. “It facilitates for the clinician to take action to, for example, increase the dosing or switch therapy.”
However, the quality of the data supporting TDM in rheumatology is limited, Balevic said. “There’s very good observational data, but we have very few clinical trials that actually leverage TDM,” he said.
NOR-DRUM is the exception, he said. “Ideally, we need more of these dose-optimization trials to help guide clinical practice,” he said. But it stands alone.
Wallace noted several take-home messages from the NOR-DRUM trials, namely that using TDM to prevent ADA may be more effective during the maintenance phase of treatment than the induction phase. However, he said, the evidence is still emerging.
“It’s reasonable to say that we’re at an early stage of the evidence,” he said. “If you look at the large trials that have been done in rheumatology, they’ve combined patients with many different types of conditions, and a lot of our recommendations in rheumatology are disease-specific — in rheumatoid arthritis, in vasculitis. There’s a lack of data in specific diseases to guide or examine what the role of TDM might be.”
In the meantime, no fewer than four clinical trials evaluating TDM with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in rheumatologic diseases are ongoing or have completed but not yet released results, according to Wallace. Three Adalimumab Drug Optimization in Rheumatoid Arthritis trials are underway: The first is evaluating drug tapering vs disease activity score; the second is testing low or usual drug concentration; and the third is studying switches to etanercept or a non-TNF inhibitor drug (abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, or sarilumab) in patients failing treatment. Another trial called Tocilizumab Drug Levels to Optimized Treatment in RA is randomizing patients with high drug levels to dose maintenance or dose reduction. All four trials are sponsored by the Reade Rheumatology Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Until clearer answers emerge from clinical trials, a number of barriers to and questions about the potential for TDM in rheumatology persist.
Barriers to Wider Use of TDM
“The biggest barrier with TDM is simply just a lack of what to do with the data,” Balevic said. “The clinician needs clear-cut guidance on what to do with the drug level. So, in other words, what is the target concentration for the drug? And if that target is not the goal, how should that dose be adjusted?”
The optimal drug levels, particularly for the older conventional synthetic DMARDs, simply have not been validated by clinical trials, he said.
“Different studies may report different target drug levels, and this could be due to different underlying population, or a different matrix — a measure of whole blood vs plasma — or even the timing of the sample,” he said. Balevic led a pharmacokinetic study earlier this year that proposed an algorithm for determining the number of missed hydroxychloroquine doses.
“This really goes back to the clinician needing to draw on a lot of pharmacology training to interpret the literature,” Balevic added.
That gets to the need for more education among rheumatologists, as Brun pointed out. “The physician needs to be educated about therapeutic ranges, when to assess concentrations of drug antibodies, and how to react to the results,” Brun said.
Which ADAs to identify is also problematic. “For antidrug antibodies, it’s especially challenging because there are so many assay formats in use, and it’s a bit complicated to analyze these antidrug antibodies,” Brun said. “There’s no consensus on what calibrators to use, and there’s no standardization of how to report the results, so you can’t really compare results from different assays. You need to know what your laboratory is using and how to interpret results from that particular assay, so that’s a challenge.”
Variability in drug tolerance also exists across assays, Wallace noted. “One of the challenges that have come up in the discussion of therapeutic drug monitoring is understanding what the target level is,” he said. “Defining what the target level might be for a specific condition is not something that’s well understood.”
Breaking down the science, he noted that an ADA can bind to a monoclonal antibody, forming an immune complex that avoids detection. Drug-sensitive assays may detect high concentrations of ADAs but miss low or moderate concentrations. Drug-tolerant assays may be more likely to detect low concentrations at ADAs, but the clinical significance is unclear.
Cost and Patient Trust as Barriers
“The costs vary a lot from assay to assay,” Brun said. “Some commercial assays can be really expensive.” In Norway, a dedicated lab with its own in-house assays helps to keep costs down, she said.
But that’s not the case in the United States, where insurance coverage can be a question mark, Shivani Garg, MD, a rheumatologist at the University of Wisconsin (UW)-Madison and director of the UW-Madison Health Lupus and Lupus Nephritis Clinics, told Medscape Medical News. “A lot of insurances are covering therapeutic drug monitoring, but for the high-deductible plans, there should be a way to offer these important tests to patients at a lower cost or figure out a way for coverage for those patients so that they can show that there are benefits of therapeutic drug monitoring without being sent a really big bill,” she said.
Patient trust could be another potential barrier, Garg said. “A lot of times there is not shared decision-making involved in why this test is being done, how those tests will help us as clinicians, and [patients’ understanding of] the use of the medicine,” Garg said.
“If the shared decision-making to build trust is not there, a lot of times patients worry that they’re being under surveillance or they’re being watched, so that might add to the lack of trust in the core issues that are critical threats to patients with chronic diseases because this is a lifelong partnership,” she said.
Convenience is another issue. “Particularly with mycophenolate levels, a lot of studies have used area under the curve, so getting an area under the curve level over a period of 12 hours would require several samples,” Garg said.
Testing protocols are also uncertain, Garg added. “A few data points ... are missing, like how we use the data over time,” she said. “If you do it for a given patient over several years, how often should you do it? How often do the levels fluctuate? How are the data used to inform dosing changes or monitoring changes?
“When those pieces are put together, then we are more likely to build up an intervention that clinicians can use in clinical practice, so they know how to order it and how frequently do it — every 6 months, 3 months, or every month. And then, over a period of time, how to adjust the dosing. That’s the big question.”
Who May Benefit Most From TDM?
In the NOR-DRUM trials, patients at risk of developing ADA early on, before a disease flare or infusion reaction, seemed to benefit most from TDM. But who are those patients?
“We looked at risk factors for developing antidrug antibodies, and we found that patients with high disease activity when starting treatment, smokers, and patients with rheumatoid arthritis had a higher risk than other patients, as did patients who are not using concomitant immunosuppressive therapy,” Brun said.
“During treatment, we also found that low serum drug levels and drug holidays above 11 weeks were also risk factors,” she added.
The NOR-DRUM researchers also evaluated genetic risk factors and found that patients with the HLA-DQ2 gene variant were also at increased risk of developing ADA.
While NOR-DRUM evaluated only infliximab, some of its lessons may be applied to other DMARDs, Brun said. “We think that for other subcutaneously administered TNF inhibitors, you would probably see the same effect of proactive TDM, but we currently do not have data on that,” she said. A study similar to the NOR-DRUM design will evaluate this in Norway, Brun added.
She explained why the findings with infliximab may extend to adalimumab, which may be the second most immunogenic TNF inhibitor after infliximab. “The administration is different; it’s administered more often than infliximab; that would also make the results more uncertain to generalize to the other treatments, but I would guess there are also benefits of using TDM in other treatments.”
Potential Risks for TDM
Wallace has noted that TDM, with the current state of evidence, carries a number of potential risks. “The potential risks might be that you unnecessarily discontinue a medication because you detected an antibody, or the level seems low and you’re not able to get it higher, but the patient is otherwise doing fine,” he said. “You might end up increasing doses of the medicine that would put the patient at potentially increased risk of infection, as well as obviously more costs.”
That would also lead to more utilization of resources and costs, he said. “Some of those reasons are why there has been hesitation with therapeutic drug monitoring,” Wallace added.
A number of questions also surround the use of biosimilars and ADA levels, Wallace said. While a review of clinical trials found no meaningful differences in terms of immunogenicity between biosimilars and reference products, it did note discrepancies in how the agents were evaluated.
What DMARDs Are Most Suitable for TDM?
Petri said TDM would be useful for monitoring patients on mycophenolate mofetil. “A trough level can at least tell us if a patient is taking it,” she said. “Tacrolimus, used for lupus nephritis, has well-accepted peak and trough trends due to widespread use in transplant.”
Drugs with a wide variability in pharmacokinetics may also be suitable for TDM, Balevic said. That would include hydroxychloroquine, azathioprine, mycophenolate, or even cyclophosphamide. Drugs that have a narrow therapeutic index, such as tacrolimus, cyclosporine, or again, cyclophosphamide, might also be amenable to TDM, he said.
Why Do TDM?
“The two main reasons why somebody would go on to detect drug levels: The first may be to assess medication adherence, and this applies virtually to any drug that rheumatologists use; the second reason is to optimize dozing, either for efficacy purposes or to prevent toxicity,” Balevic said.
“When it comes to optimizing dosing, you should really think about TDM as one tool in our toolbelt,” he said.
Dose is “just a surrogate,” he said. “When we prescribe a drug, what truly matters is the amount of active unbound drug at the site of action. That’s what’s responsible for a drug’s pharmacologic effect.”
However, the same dose, or even the same weight-based dose, does not necessarily mean similar patients will achieve the same amount of exposure to the drug, but TDM can help determine that, he said.
What’s Next
Studies into the use of TDM in rheumatology are ongoing. Brun said her group is currently conducting a cost-effective analysis from the NOR-DRUM trials.
“There’s going to be more studies coming out in the next few years, looking at what impact the use of therapeutic drug monitoring might have on outcomes,” Wallace said.
“As we accumulate more and more evidence, we might see organizations like ACR and EULAR start to weigh in more on whether or not therapeutic drug monitoring can or should be used.”
Petri, Brun, and Garg had no relevant disclosures. Wallace disclosed financial relationships with Amgen, Alexion, BioCryst, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Medpace, Novartis, Sanofi, Viela Bio, Visterra, Xencor, and Zenas. Balevic disclosed relationships with the National Institutes of Health, the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, and UCB.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Prediction, Management of Sjögren-Related Lymphomas Gain Ground With New Studies
, particularly mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma, based on recent findings that confirmed a key early biomarker and found that a systemic treatment strategy reduced Sjögren disease activity and the risk for lymphoma relapse.
Two European studies published in The Lancet Rheumatology — one a case-control study reporting that rheumatoid factor (RF) was an early and strong predictor of Sjögren disease–related MALT lymphoma and the other a retrospective study that found a combination of chemotherapy and anti-CD20 therapy with rituximab as a first-line treatment for lymphoma was more effective than localized treatment or watch-and-wait approach in minimizing autoimmune activity and treating the lymphoma — potentially shed new light on strategies to manage Sjögren disease–related lymphoma.
A commentary accompanying the studies noted that 5%-10% of patients with Sjögren disease will develop non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma, with marginal lymphoma the most common type of low-grade lymphoma. The commentary, led by Suzanne Arends, MD, a rheumatologist at the University of Groningen in Groningen, the Netherlands, found the studies “clinically relevant” but stated that the lack of consistent definitions between the two studies along with their retrospective nature prevent any “definitive conclusions.”
High Lymphoma Risk in Sjögren Disease
“It is the autoimmune disease in which the risk of lymphoma is the highest, a 10- to 20-fold increase of the risk of lymphoma in this disease,” Xavier Mariette, MD, PhD, co-senior author of the retrospective treatment study, said of Sjögren disease.
These lymphomas are predominantly the marginal zone type, specifically MALT occurring in the salivary glands, the same site of the autoimmune disease, said Dr. Mariette, who is the head of Rheumatology and professor at Université Paris-Saclay and Hôpital Bicêtre. Autoimmune B cells become lymphomatous. “So there is a continuity between autoimmunity and lymphoma genesis,” Dr. Mariette told this news organization. Typically, hematologists do not treat the lymphoma if it doesn’t migrate beyond the salivary glands, he said.
Dr. Mariette said his group’s findings make the case for a more aggressive treatment.
“When patients got the systemic treatment, there was a decreased risk of flare of the autoimmune disease of Sjögren’s, but there was no effect on the lymphoma formation,” Dr. Mariette said. “And when these patients have combined therapy, immunotherapy plus chemotherapy, compared to single immunotherapy, they did have improvement of the lymphoma progression-free survival.”
Their multicenter study enrolled 106 patients with Sjögren disease who developed lymphoma, 64% (n = 68) of whom had MALT, 13% (n = 14) of whom had other marginal zone subtypes, and the same percentage with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. With a median follow-up of 7 years, 32 patients with marginal zone subtypes who had combination chemotherapy and anti-CD20 therapy had a 64% greater chance of lymphoma progression-free survival than 18 of their counterparts who received anti-CD20 monotherapy. Overall, outcomes for Sjögren disease systemic activity or survival were no different between the combination therapy and monotherapy arms.
Patients who had a systemic approach had a 57% reduced risk for new Sjögren disease activity compared with those who had first-line surgery or radiation (16%, n = 13) or underwent watch and wait (23%, n = 19).
The study strengthens the argument for a systemic treatment approach over localized therapy “because patients with Sjögren’s have a higher degree of development of MALT lymphoma of the salivary glands,” Juan Pablo Alderuccio, MD, a hematologist and lymphoma clinical site disease group leader at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami Health Systems, Miami, Florida, told this news organization.
“We already knew that the combination of chemotherapy with rituximab usually achieves a better outcome,” Dr. Alderuccio added, citing a 2017 clinical trial that found combined chemotherapy with chlorambucil plus rituximab improved progression-free survival compared with either therapy alone. The latest retrospective study from France reinforces that, he said.
“The study also shows it’s very important to consider treatment-related specificities — to select the most appropriate treatment for these patients,” Dr. Alderuccio added.
RF Biomarker
The case-control study by researchers in Italy and Greece included 80 patients with Sjögren-related MALT lymphoma matched to controls with Sjögren disease who did not have lymphoma.
“We showed that rheumatoid factor positivity at the time of Sjögren’s disease diagnosis serves as the most reliable and temporally distant independent predictor of MALT lymphoma development,” lead author Andreas Goules, MD, a pathophysiologist at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece, told this news organization.
He added that the study found that specific biomarkers in addition to RF positivity were signs of a high risk for MALT lymphoma and a more advanced stage of Sjögren disease–related lymphomagenesis. They included high systemic disease activity, measured as a European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index ≥ 5, and specific B-cell manifestations, such as cryoglobulinemia, salivary gland enlargement, hypocomplementemia, and palpable purpura.
“Ideally, all patients should be evaluated at the time of diagnosis for the presence of RF and undergo a minor salivary gland biopsy to exclude an underlying ongoing lymphoproliferative process,” Dr. Goules said.
RF-positive patients with Sjögren disease require a closer follow-up to identify an advanced stage of lymphoma development, he added.
“It is well known that Sjögren’s disease is characterized by an increased mortality rate, compared to the general population, mainly due to the related lymphomas,” Dr. Goules added. “Thus, the early diagnosis of MALT lymphoma, which is associated with a better prognosis, is expected to improve the overall clinical outcome of Sjögren’s disease patients.”
Rheumatologists and hematologists should employ a similar strategy for Sjögren disease–related large B-cell lymphomas, he said.
“The pathogenetic mechanisms of these two lymphoma types are vastly different, so it wouldn’t be surprising if an entirely different risk factor emerges,” Dr. Goules said. “However, given the rarity of diffuse large B-cell lymphomas, much larger multinational cohorts will be necessary to obtain clinically and pathogenetically meaningful results.”
Alan Baer, MD, a rheumatologist and founder of the Sjögren’s Disease Clinic at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, noted Dr. Goules and colleagues are not the first to identify RF, along with a host of other clinical and laboratory findings, as a risk factor for lymphoma in patients with Sjögren disease. “The current study validates rheumatoid factor as an independent risk factor present at a time that is temporally distant from the time of lymphoma diagnosis,” he said.
However, he cautioned that RF alone isn’t highly predictive of Sjögren-related lymphoma. Up to 60% of patients with Sjögren disease are positive for RF at the time of the diagnosis, Dr. Baer said.
“Thus, the finding of rheumatoid factor alone does not necessarily mandate closer surveillance of this group of patients, with the potential for more frequent clinical exams, imaging, and laboratory testing,” he said. “Such an approach has the risk of subjecting patients to unnecessary testing, including invasive procedures.”
More detailed findings, such as if a certain RF level was more predictive of lymphoma or whether other features in combination with RF heightened the risk, would be helpful, he said.
What Future Studies Should Look At
The studies call for further research into biomarkers for Sjögren disease–related lymphoma and treatment of the disease, both Dr. Mariette and Dr. Goules said.
Dr. Goules said a multicenter prospective study is needed to measure RF positivity and RF titers over time and determine whether higher levels mean an increased risk for lymphoma development or a shorter time interval until lymphoma onset. “Such a study requires a large number of RF-positive Sjögren’s disease patients who would be followed up for a long period of time,” Dr. Goules said.
To further evaluate treatment approaches for Sjögren disease–related lymphoma, Dr. Mariette said, a prospective study should compare the watch-and-wait approach with combination chemotherapy and anti-CD20 therapy. “It would be difficult to run because the primary endpoint would be lymphoma progression–free survival, and the secondary would be Sjögren’s relapse and mortality, but it would take a lot of time,” he said.
He added, “It’s a reason why this retrospective study is important. Maybe if we had another retrospective study reaching the same conclusion, I think it would be very, very strong evidence.”
Funding for the case-control study came from the European Commission–Horizon 2020 program. The retrospective treatment study had no outside funding. Dr. Mariette disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Alderuccio, Dr. Goules, and Dr. Baer had no relevant relationships to disclose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, particularly mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma, based on recent findings that confirmed a key early biomarker and found that a systemic treatment strategy reduced Sjögren disease activity and the risk for lymphoma relapse.
Two European studies published in The Lancet Rheumatology — one a case-control study reporting that rheumatoid factor (RF) was an early and strong predictor of Sjögren disease–related MALT lymphoma and the other a retrospective study that found a combination of chemotherapy and anti-CD20 therapy with rituximab as a first-line treatment for lymphoma was more effective than localized treatment or watch-and-wait approach in minimizing autoimmune activity and treating the lymphoma — potentially shed new light on strategies to manage Sjögren disease–related lymphoma.
A commentary accompanying the studies noted that 5%-10% of patients with Sjögren disease will develop non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma, with marginal lymphoma the most common type of low-grade lymphoma. The commentary, led by Suzanne Arends, MD, a rheumatologist at the University of Groningen in Groningen, the Netherlands, found the studies “clinically relevant” but stated that the lack of consistent definitions between the two studies along with their retrospective nature prevent any “definitive conclusions.”
High Lymphoma Risk in Sjögren Disease
“It is the autoimmune disease in which the risk of lymphoma is the highest, a 10- to 20-fold increase of the risk of lymphoma in this disease,” Xavier Mariette, MD, PhD, co-senior author of the retrospective treatment study, said of Sjögren disease.
These lymphomas are predominantly the marginal zone type, specifically MALT occurring in the salivary glands, the same site of the autoimmune disease, said Dr. Mariette, who is the head of Rheumatology and professor at Université Paris-Saclay and Hôpital Bicêtre. Autoimmune B cells become lymphomatous. “So there is a continuity between autoimmunity and lymphoma genesis,” Dr. Mariette told this news organization. Typically, hematologists do not treat the lymphoma if it doesn’t migrate beyond the salivary glands, he said.
Dr. Mariette said his group’s findings make the case for a more aggressive treatment.
“When patients got the systemic treatment, there was a decreased risk of flare of the autoimmune disease of Sjögren’s, but there was no effect on the lymphoma formation,” Dr. Mariette said. “And when these patients have combined therapy, immunotherapy plus chemotherapy, compared to single immunotherapy, they did have improvement of the lymphoma progression-free survival.”
Their multicenter study enrolled 106 patients with Sjögren disease who developed lymphoma, 64% (n = 68) of whom had MALT, 13% (n = 14) of whom had other marginal zone subtypes, and the same percentage with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. With a median follow-up of 7 years, 32 patients with marginal zone subtypes who had combination chemotherapy and anti-CD20 therapy had a 64% greater chance of lymphoma progression-free survival than 18 of their counterparts who received anti-CD20 monotherapy. Overall, outcomes for Sjögren disease systemic activity or survival were no different between the combination therapy and monotherapy arms.
Patients who had a systemic approach had a 57% reduced risk for new Sjögren disease activity compared with those who had first-line surgery or radiation (16%, n = 13) or underwent watch and wait (23%, n = 19).
The study strengthens the argument for a systemic treatment approach over localized therapy “because patients with Sjögren’s have a higher degree of development of MALT lymphoma of the salivary glands,” Juan Pablo Alderuccio, MD, a hematologist and lymphoma clinical site disease group leader at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami Health Systems, Miami, Florida, told this news organization.
“We already knew that the combination of chemotherapy with rituximab usually achieves a better outcome,” Dr. Alderuccio added, citing a 2017 clinical trial that found combined chemotherapy with chlorambucil plus rituximab improved progression-free survival compared with either therapy alone. The latest retrospective study from France reinforces that, he said.
“The study also shows it’s very important to consider treatment-related specificities — to select the most appropriate treatment for these patients,” Dr. Alderuccio added.
RF Biomarker
The case-control study by researchers in Italy and Greece included 80 patients with Sjögren-related MALT lymphoma matched to controls with Sjögren disease who did not have lymphoma.
“We showed that rheumatoid factor positivity at the time of Sjögren’s disease diagnosis serves as the most reliable and temporally distant independent predictor of MALT lymphoma development,” lead author Andreas Goules, MD, a pathophysiologist at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece, told this news organization.
He added that the study found that specific biomarkers in addition to RF positivity were signs of a high risk for MALT lymphoma and a more advanced stage of Sjögren disease–related lymphomagenesis. They included high systemic disease activity, measured as a European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index ≥ 5, and specific B-cell manifestations, such as cryoglobulinemia, salivary gland enlargement, hypocomplementemia, and palpable purpura.
“Ideally, all patients should be evaluated at the time of diagnosis for the presence of RF and undergo a minor salivary gland biopsy to exclude an underlying ongoing lymphoproliferative process,” Dr. Goules said.
RF-positive patients with Sjögren disease require a closer follow-up to identify an advanced stage of lymphoma development, he added.
“It is well known that Sjögren’s disease is characterized by an increased mortality rate, compared to the general population, mainly due to the related lymphomas,” Dr. Goules added. “Thus, the early diagnosis of MALT lymphoma, which is associated with a better prognosis, is expected to improve the overall clinical outcome of Sjögren’s disease patients.”
Rheumatologists and hematologists should employ a similar strategy for Sjögren disease–related large B-cell lymphomas, he said.
“The pathogenetic mechanisms of these two lymphoma types are vastly different, so it wouldn’t be surprising if an entirely different risk factor emerges,” Dr. Goules said. “However, given the rarity of diffuse large B-cell lymphomas, much larger multinational cohorts will be necessary to obtain clinically and pathogenetically meaningful results.”
Alan Baer, MD, a rheumatologist and founder of the Sjögren’s Disease Clinic at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, noted Dr. Goules and colleagues are not the first to identify RF, along with a host of other clinical and laboratory findings, as a risk factor for lymphoma in patients with Sjögren disease. “The current study validates rheumatoid factor as an independent risk factor present at a time that is temporally distant from the time of lymphoma diagnosis,” he said.
However, he cautioned that RF alone isn’t highly predictive of Sjögren-related lymphoma. Up to 60% of patients with Sjögren disease are positive for RF at the time of the diagnosis, Dr. Baer said.
“Thus, the finding of rheumatoid factor alone does not necessarily mandate closer surveillance of this group of patients, with the potential for more frequent clinical exams, imaging, and laboratory testing,” he said. “Such an approach has the risk of subjecting patients to unnecessary testing, including invasive procedures.”
More detailed findings, such as if a certain RF level was more predictive of lymphoma or whether other features in combination with RF heightened the risk, would be helpful, he said.
What Future Studies Should Look At
The studies call for further research into biomarkers for Sjögren disease–related lymphoma and treatment of the disease, both Dr. Mariette and Dr. Goules said.
Dr. Goules said a multicenter prospective study is needed to measure RF positivity and RF titers over time and determine whether higher levels mean an increased risk for lymphoma development or a shorter time interval until lymphoma onset. “Such a study requires a large number of RF-positive Sjögren’s disease patients who would be followed up for a long period of time,” Dr. Goules said.
To further evaluate treatment approaches for Sjögren disease–related lymphoma, Dr. Mariette said, a prospective study should compare the watch-and-wait approach with combination chemotherapy and anti-CD20 therapy. “It would be difficult to run because the primary endpoint would be lymphoma progression–free survival, and the secondary would be Sjögren’s relapse and mortality, but it would take a lot of time,” he said.
He added, “It’s a reason why this retrospective study is important. Maybe if we had another retrospective study reaching the same conclusion, I think it would be very, very strong evidence.”
Funding for the case-control study came from the European Commission–Horizon 2020 program. The retrospective treatment study had no outside funding. Dr. Mariette disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Alderuccio, Dr. Goules, and Dr. Baer had no relevant relationships to disclose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, particularly mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma, based on recent findings that confirmed a key early biomarker and found that a systemic treatment strategy reduced Sjögren disease activity and the risk for lymphoma relapse.
Two European studies published in The Lancet Rheumatology — one a case-control study reporting that rheumatoid factor (RF) was an early and strong predictor of Sjögren disease–related MALT lymphoma and the other a retrospective study that found a combination of chemotherapy and anti-CD20 therapy with rituximab as a first-line treatment for lymphoma was more effective than localized treatment or watch-and-wait approach in minimizing autoimmune activity and treating the lymphoma — potentially shed new light on strategies to manage Sjögren disease–related lymphoma.
A commentary accompanying the studies noted that 5%-10% of patients with Sjögren disease will develop non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma, with marginal lymphoma the most common type of low-grade lymphoma. The commentary, led by Suzanne Arends, MD, a rheumatologist at the University of Groningen in Groningen, the Netherlands, found the studies “clinically relevant” but stated that the lack of consistent definitions between the two studies along with their retrospective nature prevent any “definitive conclusions.”
High Lymphoma Risk in Sjögren Disease
“It is the autoimmune disease in which the risk of lymphoma is the highest, a 10- to 20-fold increase of the risk of lymphoma in this disease,” Xavier Mariette, MD, PhD, co-senior author of the retrospective treatment study, said of Sjögren disease.
These lymphomas are predominantly the marginal zone type, specifically MALT occurring in the salivary glands, the same site of the autoimmune disease, said Dr. Mariette, who is the head of Rheumatology and professor at Université Paris-Saclay and Hôpital Bicêtre. Autoimmune B cells become lymphomatous. “So there is a continuity between autoimmunity and lymphoma genesis,” Dr. Mariette told this news organization. Typically, hematologists do not treat the lymphoma if it doesn’t migrate beyond the salivary glands, he said.
Dr. Mariette said his group’s findings make the case for a more aggressive treatment.
“When patients got the systemic treatment, there was a decreased risk of flare of the autoimmune disease of Sjögren’s, but there was no effect on the lymphoma formation,” Dr. Mariette said. “And when these patients have combined therapy, immunotherapy plus chemotherapy, compared to single immunotherapy, they did have improvement of the lymphoma progression-free survival.”
Their multicenter study enrolled 106 patients with Sjögren disease who developed lymphoma, 64% (n = 68) of whom had MALT, 13% (n = 14) of whom had other marginal zone subtypes, and the same percentage with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. With a median follow-up of 7 years, 32 patients with marginal zone subtypes who had combination chemotherapy and anti-CD20 therapy had a 64% greater chance of lymphoma progression-free survival than 18 of their counterparts who received anti-CD20 monotherapy. Overall, outcomes for Sjögren disease systemic activity or survival were no different between the combination therapy and monotherapy arms.
Patients who had a systemic approach had a 57% reduced risk for new Sjögren disease activity compared with those who had first-line surgery or radiation (16%, n = 13) or underwent watch and wait (23%, n = 19).
The study strengthens the argument for a systemic treatment approach over localized therapy “because patients with Sjögren’s have a higher degree of development of MALT lymphoma of the salivary glands,” Juan Pablo Alderuccio, MD, a hematologist and lymphoma clinical site disease group leader at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami Health Systems, Miami, Florida, told this news organization.
“We already knew that the combination of chemotherapy with rituximab usually achieves a better outcome,” Dr. Alderuccio added, citing a 2017 clinical trial that found combined chemotherapy with chlorambucil plus rituximab improved progression-free survival compared with either therapy alone. The latest retrospective study from France reinforces that, he said.
“The study also shows it’s very important to consider treatment-related specificities — to select the most appropriate treatment for these patients,” Dr. Alderuccio added.
RF Biomarker
The case-control study by researchers in Italy and Greece included 80 patients with Sjögren-related MALT lymphoma matched to controls with Sjögren disease who did not have lymphoma.
“We showed that rheumatoid factor positivity at the time of Sjögren’s disease diagnosis serves as the most reliable and temporally distant independent predictor of MALT lymphoma development,” lead author Andreas Goules, MD, a pathophysiologist at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece, told this news organization.
He added that the study found that specific biomarkers in addition to RF positivity were signs of a high risk for MALT lymphoma and a more advanced stage of Sjögren disease–related lymphomagenesis. They included high systemic disease activity, measured as a European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index ≥ 5, and specific B-cell manifestations, such as cryoglobulinemia, salivary gland enlargement, hypocomplementemia, and palpable purpura.
“Ideally, all patients should be evaluated at the time of diagnosis for the presence of RF and undergo a minor salivary gland biopsy to exclude an underlying ongoing lymphoproliferative process,” Dr. Goules said.
RF-positive patients with Sjögren disease require a closer follow-up to identify an advanced stage of lymphoma development, he added.
“It is well known that Sjögren’s disease is characterized by an increased mortality rate, compared to the general population, mainly due to the related lymphomas,” Dr. Goules added. “Thus, the early diagnosis of MALT lymphoma, which is associated with a better prognosis, is expected to improve the overall clinical outcome of Sjögren’s disease patients.”
Rheumatologists and hematologists should employ a similar strategy for Sjögren disease–related large B-cell lymphomas, he said.
“The pathogenetic mechanisms of these two lymphoma types are vastly different, so it wouldn’t be surprising if an entirely different risk factor emerges,” Dr. Goules said. “However, given the rarity of diffuse large B-cell lymphomas, much larger multinational cohorts will be necessary to obtain clinically and pathogenetically meaningful results.”
Alan Baer, MD, a rheumatologist and founder of the Sjögren’s Disease Clinic at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, noted Dr. Goules and colleagues are not the first to identify RF, along with a host of other clinical and laboratory findings, as a risk factor for lymphoma in patients with Sjögren disease. “The current study validates rheumatoid factor as an independent risk factor present at a time that is temporally distant from the time of lymphoma diagnosis,” he said.
However, he cautioned that RF alone isn’t highly predictive of Sjögren-related lymphoma. Up to 60% of patients with Sjögren disease are positive for RF at the time of the diagnosis, Dr. Baer said.
“Thus, the finding of rheumatoid factor alone does not necessarily mandate closer surveillance of this group of patients, with the potential for more frequent clinical exams, imaging, and laboratory testing,” he said. “Such an approach has the risk of subjecting patients to unnecessary testing, including invasive procedures.”
More detailed findings, such as if a certain RF level was more predictive of lymphoma or whether other features in combination with RF heightened the risk, would be helpful, he said.
What Future Studies Should Look At
The studies call for further research into biomarkers for Sjögren disease–related lymphoma and treatment of the disease, both Dr. Mariette and Dr. Goules said.
Dr. Goules said a multicenter prospective study is needed to measure RF positivity and RF titers over time and determine whether higher levels mean an increased risk for lymphoma development or a shorter time interval until lymphoma onset. “Such a study requires a large number of RF-positive Sjögren’s disease patients who would be followed up for a long period of time,” Dr. Goules said.
To further evaluate treatment approaches for Sjögren disease–related lymphoma, Dr. Mariette said, a prospective study should compare the watch-and-wait approach with combination chemotherapy and anti-CD20 therapy. “It would be difficult to run because the primary endpoint would be lymphoma progression–free survival, and the secondary would be Sjögren’s relapse and mortality, but it would take a lot of time,” he said.
He added, “It’s a reason why this retrospective study is important. Maybe if we had another retrospective study reaching the same conclusion, I think it would be very, very strong evidence.”
Funding for the case-control study came from the European Commission–Horizon 2020 program. The retrospective treatment study had no outside funding. Dr. Mariette disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Alderuccio, Dr. Goules, and Dr. Baer had no relevant relationships to disclose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET RHEUMATOLOGY
Experts Highlight Challenges That Remain for AI Devices in Triaging Skin Cancer
Emerging according to researchers and dermatologists investigating AI.
While some AI-integrated devices designed to triage skin lesions have emerged, including one that received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance earlier in 2024, it may be some time before AI has a meaningful clinical impact in dermatology and, more specifically, the diagnosis of skin cancer, Ivy Lee, MD, a dermatologist in Pasadena, California, and chair of the American Academy of Dermatology’s augmented intelligence committee, told this news organization.
“It hasn’t really translated into clinical practice yet,” Dr. Lee said of AI in dermatology. “There have been significant advances in terms of the technical possibility and feasibility of these tools, but the translation and integration of AI into actual clinical work flows to benefit patients beyond academic research studies has been limited.” More studies and more “easily accessible and digestible information” are needed to evaluate AI tools in dermatologic practice.
“In dermatology, we’re on a cusp with AI,” said Rebecca Hartman, MD, MPH, chief of dermatology at the VA Boston Healthcare System and director of melanoma epidemiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. “I think it’s going to come and change what we do,” which is especially true for any image-based specialty,” including radiology and pathology, in addition to dermatology.
Dr. Hartman led a study of one of these emerging technologies, the handheld elastic scattering spectroscopy device DermaSensor, which was cleared by the FDA in January for evaluating skin lesions suggestive of skin cancer.
Early AI Devices for Skin Cancer Detection
At the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (ASLMS) meeting in April, a panel explored a number of algorithms with dermatologic applications that use AI to triage skin lesions, including DermaSensor.
Raman spectroscopy, which contains a handheld Raman probe, a diode laser, and a detecting spectrograph. A laser beam — which at 1.56 W/cm2 is below the maximum permissible exposure — focuses on the skin target with a 3.5-mm spot, gathers data on the target, and feeds it back into the unit that houses the algorithm that evaluates the spot analysis. It’s still in the investigative phase. A clinical trial, published almost 5 years ago, demonstrated a sensitivity of 90%-99% and a specificity of 24%-66% for skin cancer.
A dermatoscope called Sklip clips onto a smartphone and performs what company cofounder Alexander Witkowski, MD, PhD, described as an “optical painless virtual biopsy” for at-home use. The device uploads the captured image to an AI platform for analysis. It received FDA breakthrough device designation in 2022. At the ASLMS meeting, Dr. Witkowski said that clinical performance showed the device had a 97% sensitivity and 30% specificity for skin cancer.
DermaSensor, described in the study conducted by Dr. Hartman and others as a noninvasive, point-and-click spectrometer, is a wireless handheld piece that weighs about 10 ounces. The unit captures five recordings to generate a spectral reading, which an algorithm in the software unit analyzes. The study found a sensitivity of 95.5% and specificity of 32.5% for melanoma detection with the device.
The target market for DermaSensor is primary care physicians, and, according to the FDA announcement in January, it is indicated for evaluating skin lesions “suggestive” of melanoma, basal cell carcinoma (BCC), and/or squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in patients aged 40 and older to “assist healthcare providers in determining whether to refer a patient to a dermatologist.”
So Many Cases, So Few Dermatologists
In dermatology, AI devices have the potential to streamline the crushing burden of diagnosing skin cancer, said Yun Liu, PhD, a senior staff scientist at Google Research, Mountain View, California, who’s worked on developing machine-learning tools in dermatology among other medical fields. “Many people cannot access dermatology expertise when they most need it, ie, without waiting a long time. This causes substantial morbidity for patients,” Dr. Liu said in an interview.
His own research of an AI-based tool to help primary care physicians and nurse practitioners in teledermatology practices diagnose skin conditions documented the shortage of dermatologists to triage lesions, including a finding that only about one quarter of skin conditions are seen by a specialist and that nonspecialists play a pivotal role in the management of skin lesions.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that about 6.1 million adults are treated for BCC and SCCs each year. The American Medical Association estimates that 13,200 active dermatologists practice in the United States.
Overcoming Barriers to AI in Dermatology
Before AI makes significant inroads in dermatology, clinicians need to see more verifiable data, said Roxana Daneshjou, MD, PhD, assistant professor of biomedical data science and dermatology at Stanford University, Stanford, California. “One of the challenges is having the availability of models that actually improve clinical care because we have some very early prospective trials on different devices, but we don’t have large-scale randomized clinical trials of AI devices showing definitive behaviors such as improved patient outcomes, that it helps curb skin cancer, or it catches it like dermatologists but helps reduce the biopsy load,” she said. “You need good data.”
Another challenge she noted was overcoming biases built into medicine. “A lot of the image-based models are built on datasets depicting skin disease on White skin, and those models don’t work so well on people with brown and black skin, who have historically had worse outcomes and also have been underrepresented in dermatology,” said Dr. Daneshjou, an associate editor of NEJM AI.
There’s also the challenge of getting verified AI models into the clinic. “Similar to many medical AI endeavors, developing a proof-of-concept or research prototype is far easier and faster than bringing the development to real users,” Dr. Liu said. “In particular, it is important to conduct thorough validation studies on various patient populations and settings and understand how these AI tools can best fit into the workflow or patient journey.”
A study published in 2023 documented progress Google made in deploying AI models in retina specialty clinics in India and Thailand, Dr. Liu noted.
Another challenge is to avoid overdiagnosis with these new technologies, Dr. Hartman said. Her group’s study showed the DermaSensor had a positive predictive value of 16% and a negative predictive value of 98.5%. “I think there’s some question about how this will factor into overdiagnosis. Could this actually bombard dermatologists more if the positive predictive value’s only 16%?”
One key to dermatologists accepting AI tools is having a transparent process for validating them, Dr. Lee said. “Even with FDA clearance, we don’t have the transparency we need as clinicians, researchers, and advocates of machine learning and AI in healthcare.”
But, Dr. Lee noted, the FDA in June took a step toward illuminating its validation process when it adopted guiding principles for transparency for machine learning–enabled devices. “Once we can get more access to this information and have more transparency, that’s where we can think about actually about making the decision to implement or not implement into local healthcare settings,” she said. The process was further enabled by a White House executive order in October 2023 on the safe, secure, and trustworthy development and use of AI.
The experience with telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic, when patients and providers quickly embraced the technology to stay connected, serves as a potential template for AI, Dr. Lee noted. “As we’d seen with telehealth through the pandemic, you also need the cultural evolution and the development of the infrastructure around it to actually make sure this is a sustainable implementation and a scalable implementation in healthcare.”
Dr. Lee had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Hartman received funding from DermaSensor for a study. Dr. Witkowski is a cofounder of Sklip. Dr. Liu is an employee of Google Research. Dr. Daneshjou reported financial relationships with MD Algorithms, Revea, and L’Oreal.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Emerging according to researchers and dermatologists investigating AI.
While some AI-integrated devices designed to triage skin lesions have emerged, including one that received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance earlier in 2024, it may be some time before AI has a meaningful clinical impact in dermatology and, more specifically, the diagnosis of skin cancer, Ivy Lee, MD, a dermatologist in Pasadena, California, and chair of the American Academy of Dermatology’s augmented intelligence committee, told this news organization.
“It hasn’t really translated into clinical practice yet,” Dr. Lee said of AI in dermatology. “There have been significant advances in terms of the technical possibility and feasibility of these tools, but the translation and integration of AI into actual clinical work flows to benefit patients beyond academic research studies has been limited.” More studies and more “easily accessible and digestible information” are needed to evaluate AI tools in dermatologic practice.
“In dermatology, we’re on a cusp with AI,” said Rebecca Hartman, MD, MPH, chief of dermatology at the VA Boston Healthcare System and director of melanoma epidemiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. “I think it’s going to come and change what we do,” which is especially true for any image-based specialty,” including radiology and pathology, in addition to dermatology.
Dr. Hartman led a study of one of these emerging technologies, the handheld elastic scattering spectroscopy device DermaSensor, which was cleared by the FDA in January for evaluating skin lesions suggestive of skin cancer.
Early AI Devices for Skin Cancer Detection
At the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (ASLMS) meeting in April, a panel explored a number of algorithms with dermatologic applications that use AI to triage skin lesions, including DermaSensor.
Raman spectroscopy, which contains a handheld Raman probe, a diode laser, and a detecting spectrograph. A laser beam — which at 1.56 W/cm2 is below the maximum permissible exposure — focuses on the skin target with a 3.5-mm spot, gathers data on the target, and feeds it back into the unit that houses the algorithm that evaluates the spot analysis. It’s still in the investigative phase. A clinical trial, published almost 5 years ago, demonstrated a sensitivity of 90%-99% and a specificity of 24%-66% for skin cancer.
A dermatoscope called Sklip clips onto a smartphone and performs what company cofounder Alexander Witkowski, MD, PhD, described as an “optical painless virtual biopsy” for at-home use. The device uploads the captured image to an AI platform for analysis. It received FDA breakthrough device designation in 2022. At the ASLMS meeting, Dr. Witkowski said that clinical performance showed the device had a 97% sensitivity and 30% specificity for skin cancer.
DermaSensor, described in the study conducted by Dr. Hartman and others as a noninvasive, point-and-click spectrometer, is a wireless handheld piece that weighs about 10 ounces. The unit captures five recordings to generate a spectral reading, which an algorithm in the software unit analyzes. The study found a sensitivity of 95.5% and specificity of 32.5% for melanoma detection with the device.
The target market for DermaSensor is primary care physicians, and, according to the FDA announcement in January, it is indicated for evaluating skin lesions “suggestive” of melanoma, basal cell carcinoma (BCC), and/or squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in patients aged 40 and older to “assist healthcare providers in determining whether to refer a patient to a dermatologist.”
So Many Cases, So Few Dermatologists
In dermatology, AI devices have the potential to streamline the crushing burden of diagnosing skin cancer, said Yun Liu, PhD, a senior staff scientist at Google Research, Mountain View, California, who’s worked on developing machine-learning tools in dermatology among other medical fields. “Many people cannot access dermatology expertise when they most need it, ie, without waiting a long time. This causes substantial morbidity for patients,” Dr. Liu said in an interview.
His own research of an AI-based tool to help primary care physicians and nurse practitioners in teledermatology practices diagnose skin conditions documented the shortage of dermatologists to triage lesions, including a finding that only about one quarter of skin conditions are seen by a specialist and that nonspecialists play a pivotal role in the management of skin lesions.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that about 6.1 million adults are treated for BCC and SCCs each year. The American Medical Association estimates that 13,200 active dermatologists practice in the United States.
Overcoming Barriers to AI in Dermatology
Before AI makes significant inroads in dermatology, clinicians need to see more verifiable data, said Roxana Daneshjou, MD, PhD, assistant professor of biomedical data science and dermatology at Stanford University, Stanford, California. “One of the challenges is having the availability of models that actually improve clinical care because we have some very early prospective trials on different devices, but we don’t have large-scale randomized clinical trials of AI devices showing definitive behaviors such as improved patient outcomes, that it helps curb skin cancer, or it catches it like dermatologists but helps reduce the biopsy load,” she said. “You need good data.”
Another challenge she noted was overcoming biases built into medicine. “A lot of the image-based models are built on datasets depicting skin disease on White skin, and those models don’t work so well on people with brown and black skin, who have historically had worse outcomes and also have been underrepresented in dermatology,” said Dr. Daneshjou, an associate editor of NEJM AI.
There’s also the challenge of getting verified AI models into the clinic. “Similar to many medical AI endeavors, developing a proof-of-concept or research prototype is far easier and faster than bringing the development to real users,” Dr. Liu said. “In particular, it is important to conduct thorough validation studies on various patient populations and settings and understand how these AI tools can best fit into the workflow or patient journey.”
A study published in 2023 documented progress Google made in deploying AI models in retina specialty clinics in India and Thailand, Dr. Liu noted.
Another challenge is to avoid overdiagnosis with these new technologies, Dr. Hartman said. Her group’s study showed the DermaSensor had a positive predictive value of 16% and a negative predictive value of 98.5%. “I think there’s some question about how this will factor into overdiagnosis. Could this actually bombard dermatologists more if the positive predictive value’s only 16%?”
One key to dermatologists accepting AI tools is having a transparent process for validating them, Dr. Lee said. “Even with FDA clearance, we don’t have the transparency we need as clinicians, researchers, and advocates of machine learning and AI in healthcare.”
But, Dr. Lee noted, the FDA in June took a step toward illuminating its validation process when it adopted guiding principles for transparency for machine learning–enabled devices. “Once we can get more access to this information and have more transparency, that’s where we can think about actually about making the decision to implement or not implement into local healthcare settings,” she said. The process was further enabled by a White House executive order in October 2023 on the safe, secure, and trustworthy development and use of AI.
The experience with telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic, when patients and providers quickly embraced the technology to stay connected, serves as a potential template for AI, Dr. Lee noted. “As we’d seen with telehealth through the pandemic, you also need the cultural evolution and the development of the infrastructure around it to actually make sure this is a sustainable implementation and a scalable implementation in healthcare.”
Dr. Lee had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Hartman received funding from DermaSensor for a study. Dr. Witkowski is a cofounder of Sklip. Dr. Liu is an employee of Google Research. Dr. Daneshjou reported financial relationships with MD Algorithms, Revea, and L’Oreal.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Emerging according to researchers and dermatologists investigating AI.
While some AI-integrated devices designed to triage skin lesions have emerged, including one that received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance earlier in 2024, it may be some time before AI has a meaningful clinical impact in dermatology and, more specifically, the diagnosis of skin cancer, Ivy Lee, MD, a dermatologist in Pasadena, California, and chair of the American Academy of Dermatology’s augmented intelligence committee, told this news organization.
“It hasn’t really translated into clinical practice yet,” Dr. Lee said of AI in dermatology. “There have been significant advances in terms of the technical possibility and feasibility of these tools, but the translation and integration of AI into actual clinical work flows to benefit patients beyond academic research studies has been limited.” More studies and more “easily accessible and digestible information” are needed to evaluate AI tools in dermatologic practice.
“In dermatology, we’re on a cusp with AI,” said Rebecca Hartman, MD, MPH, chief of dermatology at the VA Boston Healthcare System and director of melanoma epidemiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. “I think it’s going to come and change what we do,” which is especially true for any image-based specialty,” including radiology and pathology, in addition to dermatology.
Dr. Hartman led a study of one of these emerging technologies, the handheld elastic scattering spectroscopy device DermaSensor, which was cleared by the FDA in January for evaluating skin lesions suggestive of skin cancer.
Early AI Devices for Skin Cancer Detection
At the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (ASLMS) meeting in April, a panel explored a number of algorithms with dermatologic applications that use AI to triage skin lesions, including DermaSensor.
Raman spectroscopy, which contains a handheld Raman probe, a diode laser, and a detecting spectrograph. A laser beam — which at 1.56 W/cm2 is below the maximum permissible exposure — focuses on the skin target with a 3.5-mm spot, gathers data on the target, and feeds it back into the unit that houses the algorithm that evaluates the spot analysis. It’s still in the investigative phase. A clinical trial, published almost 5 years ago, demonstrated a sensitivity of 90%-99% and a specificity of 24%-66% for skin cancer.
A dermatoscope called Sklip clips onto a smartphone and performs what company cofounder Alexander Witkowski, MD, PhD, described as an “optical painless virtual biopsy” for at-home use. The device uploads the captured image to an AI platform for analysis. It received FDA breakthrough device designation in 2022. At the ASLMS meeting, Dr. Witkowski said that clinical performance showed the device had a 97% sensitivity and 30% specificity for skin cancer.
DermaSensor, described in the study conducted by Dr. Hartman and others as a noninvasive, point-and-click spectrometer, is a wireless handheld piece that weighs about 10 ounces. The unit captures five recordings to generate a spectral reading, which an algorithm in the software unit analyzes. The study found a sensitivity of 95.5% and specificity of 32.5% for melanoma detection with the device.
The target market for DermaSensor is primary care physicians, and, according to the FDA announcement in January, it is indicated for evaluating skin lesions “suggestive” of melanoma, basal cell carcinoma (BCC), and/or squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in patients aged 40 and older to “assist healthcare providers in determining whether to refer a patient to a dermatologist.”
So Many Cases, So Few Dermatologists
In dermatology, AI devices have the potential to streamline the crushing burden of diagnosing skin cancer, said Yun Liu, PhD, a senior staff scientist at Google Research, Mountain View, California, who’s worked on developing machine-learning tools in dermatology among other medical fields. “Many people cannot access dermatology expertise when they most need it, ie, without waiting a long time. This causes substantial morbidity for patients,” Dr. Liu said in an interview.
His own research of an AI-based tool to help primary care physicians and nurse practitioners in teledermatology practices diagnose skin conditions documented the shortage of dermatologists to triage lesions, including a finding that only about one quarter of skin conditions are seen by a specialist and that nonspecialists play a pivotal role in the management of skin lesions.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that about 6.1 million adults are treated for BCC and SCCs each year. The American Medical Association estimates that 13,200 active dermatologists practice in the United States.
Overcoming Barriers to AI in Dermatology
Before AI makes significant inroads in dermatology, clinicians need to see more verifiable data, said Roxana Daneshjou, MD, PhD, assistant professor of biomedical data science and dermatology at Stanford University, Stanford, California. “One of the challenges is having the availability of models that actually improve clinical care because we have some very early prospective trials on different devices, but we don’t have large-scale randomized clinical trials of AI devices showing definitive behaviors such as improved patient outcomes, that it helps curb skin cancer, or it catches it like dermatologists but helps reduce the biopsy load,” she said. “You need good data.”
Another challenge she noted was overcoming biases built into medicine. “A lot of the image-based models are built on datasets depicting skin disease on White skin, and those models don’t work so well on people with brown and black skin, who have historically had worse outcomes and also have been underrepresented in dermatology,” said Dr. Daneshjou, an associate editor of NEJM AI.
There’s also the challenge of getting verified AI models into the clinic. “Similar to many medical AI endeavors, developing a proof-of-concept or research prototype is far easier and faster than bringing the development to real users,” Dr. Liu said. “In particular, it is important to conduct thorough validation studies on various patient populations and settings and understand how these AI tools can best fit into the workflow or patient journey.”
A study published in 2023 documented progress Google made in deploying AI models in retina specialty clinics in India and Thailand, Dr. Liu noted.
Another challenge is to avoid overdiagnosis with these new technologies, Dr. Hartman said. Her group’s study showed the DermaSensor had a positive predictive value of 16% and a negative predictive value of 98.5%. “I think there’s some question about how this will factor into overdiagnosis. Could this actually bombard dermatologists more if the positive predictive value’s only 16%?”
One key to dermatologists accepting AI tools is having a transparent process for validating them, Dr. Lee said. “Even with FDA clearance, we don’t have the transparency we need as clinicians, researchers, and advocates of machine learning and AI in healthcare.”
But, Dr. Lee noted, the FDA in June took a step toward illuminating its validation process when it adopted guiding principles for transparency for machine learning–enabled devices. “Once we can get more access to this information and have more transparency, that’s where we can think about actually about making the decision to implement or not implement into local healthcare settings,” she said. The process was further enabled by a White House executive order in October 2023 on the safe, secure, and trustworthy development and use of AI.
The experience with telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic, when patients and providers quickly embraced the technology to stay connected, serves as a potential template for AI, Dr. Lee noted. “As we’d seen with telehealth through the pandemic, you also need the cultural evolution and the development of the infrastructure around it to actually make sure this is a sustainable implementation and a scalable implementation in healthcare.”
Dr. Lee had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Hartman received funding from DermaSensor for a study. Dr. Witkowski is a cofounder of Sklip. Dr. Liu is an employee of Google Research. Dr. Daneshjou reported financial relationships with MD Algorithms, Revea, and L’Oreal.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Twice-Yearly PrEP Gives ‘Huge’ 100% Protection
Twice-yearly injections are 100% effective in preventing new infections, according to the final results from the PURPOSE 1 trial of lenacapavir.
For weeks, the HIV community has been talking about this highly anticipated clinical trial and whether the strong — and to many, surprising — interim results would hold at final presentation at the International AIDS Conference 2024 in Munich, Germany.
Presenting the results, Linda-Gail Bekker, MD, director of the Desmond Tutu HIV Center at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, reported zero new infections in those who got the shots in the study of about 5000 young women. In the group given daily oral preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), roughly 2% contracted HIV from infected partners.
“A twice-yearly PrEP choice could overcome some of the adherence and persistence challenges and contribute critically to our quest to reduce HIV infection in women around the world,” Dr. Bekker said about the results, which were published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.
PURPOSE 1 confirmed that lenacapavir is a “breakthrough” for HIV prevention, said International AIDS Society president Sharon Lewin, PhD, MBBS. It has “huge public health potential,” said Dr. Lewin, the AIDS 2024 conference cochair and director of the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity at the University of Melbourne in Australia.
Lenacapavir is a novel, first-in-class multistage HIV-1 capsid inhibitor with a long half-life, which enables the twice-yearly dosing.
PURPOSE 1 enrolled women aged 15-25 years who were at risk for HIV in South Africa and Uganda, with a primary endpoint of HIV infection. Because of the previously announced interim results, which showed the injection was preventing infections, study sponsor Gilead Sciences discontinued the randomized phase of the trial and shifted to an open-label design for lenacapavir.
“One hundred percent efficacy is more that we could ever have hoped for a potential prevention efficacy,” said Christoph Spinner, MD, MBA, an infectious disease specialist at the University Hospital of the Technical University of Munich and AIDS 2024 conference cochair.
Dr. Spinner added that while this is the first study of lenacapavir for PrEP, it’s also the first to explore outcomes of emtricitabine-tenofovir in cisgender women.
Strong Adherence Rates
The twice-yearly injection demonstrated adherence rates above 90% in the trial for both the 6- and 12-month injection intervals.
“Adherence was 91.5% at week 26 and 92.8% at week 52,” Dr. Bekker reported.
The trial compared three PrEP options including the lenacapavir injection to once-daily oral emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir-alafenamide 25 mg (F/TAF) and once-daily emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir–disoproxil fumarate 300 mg (F/TDF).
“Most participants in both the F/TAF and F/TDF groups had low adherence, and this declined over time,” Dr. Bekker reported. At 52 weeks, the vast majority of patients on both oral therapies had low adherence with dosing, defined at less than two doses a week.
Dr. Bekker called the adherence to the oral agents in this trial “disappointing.”
Findings from the trial underscore the challenges of adherence to a daily oral medication, Rochelle Walensky, MD, and Lindsey Baden, MD, from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and Harvard Business School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, wrote in an editorial accompanying the published results.
With almost 92% attendance for the twice-yearly lenacapavir injections, the “well-done,” large, randomized, controlled trial “exemplifies not only that women can dependably adhere to this administration schedule, but also that levels of an HIV-1 capsid inhibitor can remain high enough over a period of 6 months to reliably prevent infection,” they added.
Another key focus of the presentation was adverse events. The rate of adverse events grade 3 or more in the lenacapavir arm was 4.1%, Bekker said, which is slightly lower than the rates in the oral arms. The rates of serious adverse events were 2.8% for lenacapavir, 4% for F/TAF and 3.3% for F/TDF.
Injection Site Reactions
Injection site reactions occurred in 68% of the lenacapavir group, including 63% with subcutaneous nodules.
The injection can form “a drug depot which may be palpable as a nodule,” Dr. Bekker said. In the placebo group, 34% of patients had injection-site reactions and 16% had nodules. Nearly all injection-site reactions were grade 1 or 2, she said. “Higher grade injection-site reactions were rare and not serious and occurred in a similar percentage in lenacapavir and placebo,” she said.
Overall, more than 25,000 injections of lenacapavir have been given, Dr. Bekker said, and four patients discontinued treatment because of injection-site reactions. “Reporting of injection-site reactions, including nodules, decreased with subsequent doses,” she said.
Contraception was not a requirement for enrollment in the study, Dr. Bekker pointed out, and pregnancy outcomes across the treatment arms were similar to the general population.
First in a Series of Trials
This is the first in a series of PURPOSE trials, Bekker reported. The phase 3 PURPOSE 2 trial, enrolling 3000 gay men, transgender women, transgender men and gender nonbinary people who have sex with male partners, is the second pivotal trial now underway.
Three other smaller trials are in the clinic in the United States and Europe.
PURPOSE 1 participants will continue to access lenacapavir until the product is available in South Africa and Uganda, Dr. Bekker said. Trial sponsor Gilead Sciences is also developing a direct licensing program to expedite generic access to the drug in high-incidence, resource-limited countries, she said.
Dr. Walensky and Dr. Baden report that lenacapavir currently costs about $43,000 annually in the United States. “But the results of the PURPOSE 1 trial have now created a moral imperative to make lenacapavir broadly accessible and affordable as PrEP” to people who were enrolled, as well as all those who are similarly eligible and could benefit.
So now we have a PrEP product with high efficacy, they added. “That is great news for science but not (yet) great for women.”
Given the high pregnancy rate among participants in the PURPOSE 1 trial, Dr. Walensky and Dr. Baden point out the assessment of lenacapavir safety is a priority. They are also interested in learning more about drug resistance with this new option.
“I f approved and delivered — rapidly, affordably, and equitably — to those who need or want it, this long-acting tool could help accelerate global progress in HIV prevention,” Dr. Lewin said.
Now, she added, “we eagerly await results from PURPOSE 2.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Twice-yearly injections are 100% effective in preventing new infections, according to the final results from the PURPOSE 1 trial of lenacapavir.
For weeks, the HIV community has been talking about this highly anticipated clinical trial and whether the strong — and to many, surprising — interim results would hold at final presentation at the International AIDS Conference 2024 in Munich, Germany.
Presenting the results, Linda-Gail Bekker, MD, director of the Desmond Tutu HIV Center at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, reported zero new infections in those who got the shots in the study of about 5000 young women. In the group given daily oral preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), roughly 2% contracted HIV from infected partners.
“A twice-yearly PrEP choice could overcome some of the adherence and persistence challenges and contribute critically to our quest to reduce HIV infection in women around the world,” Dr. Bekker said about the results, which were published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.
PURPOSE 1 confirmed that lenacapavir is a “breakthrough” for HIV prevention, said International AIDS Society president Sharon Lewin, PhD, MBBS. It has “huge public health potential,” said Dr. Lewin, the AIDS 2024 conference cochair and director of the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity at the University of Melbourne in Australia.
Lenacapavir is a novel, first-in-class multistage HIV-1 capsid inhibitor with a long half-life, which enables the twice-yearly dosing.
PURPOSE 1 enrolled women aged 15-25 years who were at risk for HIV in South Africa and Uganda, with a primary endpoint of HIV infection. Because of the previously announced interim results, which showed the injection was preventing infections, study sponsor Gilead Sciences discontinued the randomized phase of the trial and shifted to an open-label design for lenacapavir.
“One hundred percent efficacy is more that we could ever have hoped for a potential prevention efficacy,” said Christoph Spinner, MD, MBA, an infectious disease specialist at the University Hospital of the Technical University of Munich and AIDS 2024 conference cochair.
Dr. Spinner added that while this is the first study of lenacapavir for PrEP, it’s also the first to explore outcomes of emtricitabine-tenofovir in cisgender women.
Strong Adherence Rates
The twice-yearly injection demonstrated adherence rates above 90% in the trial for both the 6- and 12-month injection intervals.
“Adherence was 91.5% at week 26 and 92.8% at week 52,” Dr. Bekker reported.
The trial compared three PrEP options including the lenacapavir injection to once-daily oral emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir-alafenamide 25 mg (F/TAF) and once-daily emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir–disoproxil fumarate 300 mg (F/TDF).
“Most participants in both the F/TAF and F/TDF groups had low adherence, and this declined over time,” Dr. Bekker reported. At 52 weeks, the vast majority of patients on both oral therapies had low adherence with dosing, defined at less than two doses a week.
Dr. Bekker called the adherence to the oral agents in this trial “disappointing.”
Findings from the trial underscore the challenges of adherence to a daily oral medication, Rochelle Walensky, MD, and Lindsey Baden, MD, from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and Harvard Business School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, wrote in an editorial accompanying the published results.
With almost 92% attendance for the twice-yearly lenacapavir injections, the “well-done,” large, randomized, controlled trial “exemplifies not only that women can dependably adhere to this administration schedule, but also that levels of an HIV-1 capsid inhibitor can remain high enough over a period of 6 months to reliably prevent infection,” they added.
Another key focus of the presentation was adverse events. The rate of adverse events grade 3 or more in the lenacapavir arm was 4.1%, Bekker said, which is slightly lower than the rates in the oral arms. The rates of serious adverse events were 2.8% for lenacapavir, 4% for F/TAF and 3.3% for F/TDF.
Injection Site Reactions
Injection site reactions occurred in 68% of the lenacapavir group, including 63% with subcutaneous nodules.
The injection can form “a drug depot which may be palpable as a nodule,” Dr. Bekker said. In the placebo group, 34% of patients had injection-site reactions and 16% had nodules. Nearly all injection-site reactions were grade 1 or 2, she said. “Higher grade injection-site reactions were rare and not serious and occurred in a similar percentage in lenacapavir and placebo,” she said.
Overall, more than 25,000 injections of lenacapavir have been given, Dr. Bekker said, and four patients discontinued treatment because of injection-site reactions. “Reporting of injection-site reactions, including nodules, decreased with subsequent doses,” she said.
Contraception was not a requirement for enrollment in the study, Dr. Bekker pointed out, and pregnancy outcomes across the treatment arms were similar to the general population.
First in a Series of Trials
This is the first in a series of PURPOSE trials, Bekker reported. The phase 3 PURPOSE 2 trial, enrolling 3000 gay men, transgender women, transgender men and gender nonbinary people who have sex with male partners, is the second pivotal trial now underway.
Three other smaller trials are in the clinic in the United States and Europe.
PURPOSE 1 participants will continue to access lenacapavir until the product is available in South Africa and Uganda, Dr. Bekker said. Trial sponsor Gilead Sciences is also developing a direct licensing program to expedite generic access to the drug in high-incidence, resource-limited countries, she said.
Dr. Walensky and Dr. Baden report that lenacapavir currently costs about $43,000 annually in the United States. “But the results of the PURPOSE 1 trial have now created a moral imperative to make lenacapavir broadly accessible and affordable as PrEP” to people who were enrolled, as well as all those who are similarly eligible and could benefit.
So now we have a PrEP product with high efficacy, they added. “That is great news for science but not (yet) great for women.”
Given the high pregnancy rate among participants in the PURPOSE 1 trial, Dr. Walensky and Dr. Baden point out the assessment of lenacapavir safety is a priority. They are also interested in learning more about drug resistance with this new option.
“I f approved and delivered — rapidly, affordably, and equitably — to those who need or want it, this long-acting tool could help accelerate global progress in HIV prevention,” Dr. Lewin said.
Now, she added, “we eagerly await results from PURPOSE 2.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Twice-yearly injections are 100% effective in preventing new infections, according to the final results from the PURPOSE 1 trial of lenacapavir.
For weeks, the HIV community has been talking about this highly anticipated clinical trial and whether the strong — and to many, surprising — interim results would hold at final presentation at the International AIDS Conference 2024 in Munich, Germany.
Presenting the results, Linda-Gail Bekker, MD, director of the Desmond Tutu HIV Center at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, reported zero new infections in those who got the shots in the study of about 5000 young women. In the group given daily oral preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), roughly 2% contracted HIV from infected partners.
“A twice-yearly PrEP choice could overcome some of the adherence and persistence challenges and contribute critically to our quest to reduce HIV infection in women around the world,” Dr. Bekker said about the results, which were published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.
PURPOSE 1 confirmed that lenacapavir is a “breakthrough” for HIV prevention, said International AIDS Society president Sharon Lewin, PhD, MBBS. It has “huge public health potential,” said Dr. Lewin, the AIDS 2024 conference cochair and director of the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity at the University of Melbourne in Australia.
Lenacapavir is a novel, first-in-class multistage HIV-1 capsid inhibitor with a long half-life, which enables the twice-yearly dosing.
PURPOSE 1 enrolled women aged 15-25 years who were at risk for HIV in South Africa and Uganda, with a primary endpoint of HIV infection. Because of the previously announced interim results, which showed the injection was preventing infections, study sponsor Gilead Sciences discontinued the randomized phase of the trial and shifted to an open-label design for lenacapavir.
“One hundred percent efficacy is more that we could ever have hoped for a potential prevention efficacy,” said Christoph Spinner, MD, MBA, an infectious disease specialist at the University Hospital of the Technical University of Munich and AIDS 2024 conference cochair.
Dr. Spinner added that while this is the first study of lenacapavir for PrEP, it’s also the first to explore outcomes of emtricitabine-tenofovir in cisgender women.
Strong Adherence Rates
The twice-yearly injection demonstrated adherence rates above 90% in the trial for both the 6- and 12-month injection intervals.
“Adherence was 91.5% at week 26 and 92.8% at week 52,” Dr. Bekker reported.
The trial compared three PrEP options including the lenacapavir injection to once-daily oral emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir-alafenamide 25 mg (F/TAF) and once-daily emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir–disoproxil fumarate 300 mg (F/TDF).
“Most participants in both the F/TAF and F/TDF groups had low adherence, and this declined over time,” Dr. Bekker reported. At 52 weeks, the vast majority of patients on both oral therapies had low adherence with dosing, defined at less than two doses a week.
Dr. Bekker called the adherence to the oral agents in this trial “disappointing.”
Findings from the trial underscore the challenges of adherence to a daily oral medication, Rochelle Walensky, MD, and Lindsey Baden, MD, from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and Harvard Business School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, wrote in an editorial accompanying the published results.
With almost 92% attendance for the twice-yearly lenacapavir injections, the “well-done,” large, randomized, controlled trial “exemplifies not only that women can dependably adhere to this administration schedule, but also that levels of an HIV-1 capsid inhibitor can remain high enough over a period of 6 months to reliably prevent infection,” they added.
Another key focus of the presentation was adverse events. The rate of adverse events grade 3 or more in the lenacapavir arm was 4.1%, Bekker said, which is slightly lower than the rates in the oral arms. The rates of serious adverse events were 2.8% for lenacapavir, 4% for F/TAF and 3.3% for F/TDF.
Injection Site Reactions
Injection site reactions occurred in 68% of the lenacapavir group, including 63% with subcutaneous nodules.
The injection can form “a drug depot which may be palpable as a nodule,” Dr. Bekker said. In the placebo group, 34% of patients had injection-site reactions and 16% had nodules. Nearly all injection-site reactions were grade 1 or 2, she said. “Higher grade injection-site reactions were rare and not serious and occurred in a similar percentage in lenacapavir and placebo,” she said.
Overall, more than 25,000 injections of lenacapavir have been given, Dr. Bekker said, and four patients discontinued treatment because of injection-site reactions. “Reporting of injection-site reactions, including nodules, decreased with subsequent doses,” she said.
Contraception was not a requirement for enrollment in the study, Dr. Bekker pointed out, and pregnancy outcomes across the treatment arms were similar to the general population.
First in a Series of Trials
This is the first in a series of PURPOSE trials, Bekker reported. The phase 3 PURPOSE 2 trial, enrolling 3000 gay men, transgender women, transgender men and gender nonbinary people who have sex with male partners, is the second pivotal trial now underway.
Three other smaller trials are in the clinic in the United States and Europe.
PURPOSE 1 participants will continue to access lenacapavir until the product is available in South Africa and Uganda, Dr. Bekker said. Trial sponsor Gilead Sciences is also developing a direct licensing program to expedite generic access to the drug in high-incidence, resource-limited countries, she said.
Dr. Walensky and Dr. Baden report that lenacapavir currently costs about $43,000 annually in the United States. “But the results of the PURPOSE 1 trial have now created a moral imperative to make lenacapavir broadly accessible and affordable as PrEP” to people who were enrolled, as well as all those who are similarly eligible and could benefit.
So now we have a PrEP product with high efficacy, they added. “That is great news for science but not (yet) great for women.”
Given the high pregnancy rate among participants in the PURPOSE 1 trial, Dr. Walensky and Dr. Baden point out the assessment of lenacapavir safety is a priority. They are also interested in learning more about drug resistance with this new option.
“I f approved and delivered — rapidly, affordably, and equitably — to those who need or want it, this long-acting tool could help accelerate global progress in HIV prevention,” Dr. Lewin said.
Now, she added, “we eagerly await results from PURPOSE 2.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AIDS 2024
How Dermatologists Can Safeguard Against Malpractice Claims
for liability. Dermatologists can protect themselves by understanding malpractice trends and taking preventive steps, such as making sure NPOs have appropriate training and using a rigorous informed consent process, according to a dermatology resident and a dermatologist who have researched recent trends in dermatology lawsuits.
“It’s really important that physicians recognize their responsibility when delegating procedures to nonphysician operators and the physician’s role in supervision of these procedures,” Scott Stratman, MD, MPH, a dermatology resident at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, told this news organization. He led a study recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, which found that the majority (52%) of malpractice cases for cutaneous energy-based device procedures in the LexisNexis database from 1985 to September 2023 involved NPOs. The study did not break the data down between different types of NPOs.
Trends in Dermatology Malpractice
This follows a similar trend reported in a 2014 study led by Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of the MGH Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. The study analyzed liability claims related to cutaneous laser surgery performed by nonphysicians from January 1999 to December 2012.
“With nonphysician litigation data, we saw trend lines beginning in 2008 where the proportion of cases began to increase,” Dr. Avram said at the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (ASLMS) meeting on April 12, 2024. “Over a period of 2008-2012, it went from 36% of cases to about 78%,” he said.
About a quarter (23.4%) of those were in medical offices; 76.6% were in nontraditional settings such as medical spas, he added. The proportion of NPOs was similar in a 2022 study that looked at causes of litigation in cutaneous laser surgery from 2012 to 2020, Dr. Avram said. Again, neither study broke down cases involving NPOs by specific type, but the 2014 study reported that 64% of cases by NPOs occurred outside of a traditional medical setting.
“So it seems that the location and potentially the supervision are issues that are important to patient safety,” Dr. Avram said at the meeting. While state laws regarding laser delegation vary widely, “depending on where you practice, it’s incumbent upon you to know that.”
Dr. Avram and colleagues were also the authors of a study published in June in Dermatologic Surgery that looked at the reasons behind ligations involving dermatologists in a retrospective analysis of 48 state and federal cases between 2011 and 2022. The majority of cases — 54.2% — were for unexpected harm, followed by wrong or delayed diagnoses, which accounted for a third of litigations.
Dr. Stratman’s study found that laser hair removal was the most common procedure for malpractice claims in dermatology among cutaneous energy-based device procedures. Complications from energy-based devices included burns, scarring, and pigmentation changes.
The growth of malpractice suits involving NPOs could be because NPOs are performing a greater proportion of dermatologic procedures, “particularly those practicing without direct supervision, such as in the context of a medical spa,” Dr. Stratman said in the interview. “Again, this highlights a physician’s responsibility in delegating these kinds of procedures to NPOs.”
Training Is a Must — But Not Standardized
Comprehensive training for physicians, staff, NPOs, and physicians “is all necessary and paramount in order to diminish adverse outcomes and legal risk, and then, of course, all these practitioners, be it staff or [NPOs], and, of course, physicians, are all held to the same standard of care,” Dr. Stratman said.
However, he added, “There is really no standardized training to operate these devices. That being said, it’s really important to know that both providers and facility owners have a significant obligation to their patients to make sure that their staff in their centers are appropriately trained.”
Training not only involves protocols and procedures but also how to handle patient interactions, Dr. Stratman said.
The legal concept of respondeat superior applies when nonphysicians participate in a patient’s care, Dr. Avram said at the ASLMS meeting. The physician is held liable for a nonphysician’s “negligence provided he or she is an employee receiving a salary [and] benefits and is performing within the scope of his or her duty,” regardless of whether the physician saw the patient or not at that visit, he said. Again, supervision of nonphysician laser procedures varies from state to state, he added.
“So the take-home point is to provide excellent training and appropriate supervision, and if you’re the owner of that practice, you are liable in the event of negligence even though you never were part of the treatment,” Dr. Avram said.
Ins and Outs of Informed Consent
When a patient outcome is less than desirable, or at least less than what the patient expected, a transparent and thorough informed consent process can protect the practice and physician, Dr. Avram said at the meeting.
“Malpractice and consent have nothing to do with each other,” he said. “Consent is getting permission to do a procedure. It’s needed actually for any medical intervention that you perform. What you need to do is to provide information to enable the patient or guardian or to choose knowledgeably among reasonable medical alternatives. This places the patient in control of the course of their medical treatment.”
The information conveyed to the patient should include the diagnosis, the medical causes, the nature and purpose of the treatment, and the risks and alternatives of procedure, “particularly if they’re high risk,” Dr. Avram said.
“Failure to obtain informed consent constitutes a civil battery, and the physician is liable for civil damages,” he said. “The patient need only show that he or she was not informed of the medical nature of the medical touching; physical injury is not necessary.”
A battery could occur if a procedure extends beyond the scope or area of treatment the patient agreed to — for example, extending a liposuction to an area that wasn’t originally targeted, or extending a laser procedure to an area of the body as a presumed favor to the patient. “It does not require a standard of care or an expert witness,” Dr. Avram said. “One only needs to show nonconsensual touching.”
Informed consents should include plain language, he said. “The whole idea is the patient understands what the risks and benefits are,” Dr. Avram said. “You don’t need to use medical jargon.” As an example, he suggested using the term “blisters” instead of “bullae.” If the treatment involves an off-label procedure, include that too, he said.
He also advised avoiding blanket authorizations. “Courts disfavor them,” he noted. “They need more specificity. So those are not valid.”
Dr. Stratman added that providers should think about the setting in which they obtain informed consent. “It’s really important that providers are consenting their patients in private and quiet places, free from distractions, that they accommodate patients who might have disabilities or limitations in English proficiency, using a teach-back method to help patients understand or demonstrate their understanding of the procedure in order to gauge comprehension,” he said.
Both Dr. Avram and Dr. Stratman pointed out that another strategy to prevent malpractice is to build trusting patient-provider relationships. “The patient-provider relationship is paramount not only to the success of the procedure but to the clinical visit as a whole,” Dr. Stratman said.
That’s a two-way street, he added. Patients should be able to trust that their provider provides them with the best treatment based on their own history, and providers should also be able to trust that patients are providing them with an accurate history, asking relevant questions, or expressing any level of apprehension about the procedure or visit. “The patient-provider relationship is everything,” Dr. Stratman said.
Dr. Stratman and Dr. Avram had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
for liability. Dermatologists can protect themselves by understanding malpractice trends and taking preventive steps, such as making sure NPOs have appropriate training and using a rigorous informed consent process, according to a dermatology resident and a dermatologist who have researched recent trends in dermatology lawsuits.
“It’s really important that physicians recognize their responsibility when delegating procedures to nonphysician operators and the physician’s role in supervision of these procedures,” Scott Stratman, MD, MPH, a dermatology resident at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, told this news organization. He led a study recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, which found that the majority (52%) of malpractice cases for cutaneous energy-based device procedures in the LexisNexis database from 1985 to September 2023 involved NPOs. The study did not break the data down between different types of NPOs.
Trends in Dermatology Malpractice
This follows a similar trend reported in a 2014 study led by Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of the MGH Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. The study analyzed liability claims related to cutaneous laser surgery performed by nonphysicians from January 1999 to December 2012.
“With nonphysician litigation data, we saw trend lines beginning in 2008 where the proportion of cases began to increase,” Dr. Avram said at the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (ASLMS) meeting on April 12, 2024. “Over a period of 2008-2012, it went from 36% of cases to about 78%,” he said.
About a quarter (23.4%) of those were in medical offices; 76.6% were in nontraditional settings such as medical spas, he added. The proportion of NPOs was similar in a 2022 study that looked at causes of litigation in cutaneous laser surgery from 2012 to 2020, Dr. Avram said. Again, neither study broke down cases involving NPOs by specific type, but the 2014 study reported that 64% of cases by NPOs occurred outside of a traditional medical setting.
“So it seems that the location and potentially the supervision are issues that are important to patient safety,” Dr. Avram said at the meeting. While state laws regarding laser delegation vary widely, “depending on where you practice, it’s incumbent upon you to know that.”
Dr. Avram and colleagues were also the authors of a study published in June in Dermatologic Surgery that looked at the reasons behind ligations involving dermatologists in a retrospective analysis of 48 state and federal cases between 2011 and 2022. The majority of cases — 54.2% — were for unexpected harm, followed by wrong or delayed diagnoses, which accounted for a third of litigations.
Dr. Stratman’s study found that laser hair removal was the most common procedure for malpractice claims in dermatology among cutaneous energy-based device procedures. Complications from energy-based devices included burns, scarring, and pigmentation changes.
The growth of malpractice suits involving NPOs could be because NPOs are performing a greater proportion of dermatologic procedures, “particularly those practicing without direct supervision, such as in the context of a medical spa,” Dr. Stratman said in the interview. “Again, this highlights a physician’s responsibility in delegating these kinds of procedures to NPOs.”
Training Is a Must — But Not Standardized
Comprehensive training for physicians, staff, NPOs, and physicians “is all necessary and paramount in order to diminish adverse outcomes and legal risk, and then, of course, all these practitioners, be it staff or [NPOs], and, of course, physicians, are all held to the same standard of care,” Dr. Stratman said.
However, he added, “There is really no standardized training to operate these devices. That being said, it’s really important to know that both providers and facility owners have a significant obligation to their patients to make sure that their staff in their centers are appropriately trained.”
Training not only involves protocols and procedures but also how to handle patient interactions, Dr. Stratman said.
The legal concept of respondeat superior applies when nonphysicians participate in a patient’s care, Dr. Avram said at the ASLMS meeting. The physician is held liable for a nonphysician’s “negligence provided he or she is an employee receiving a salary [and] benefits and is performing within the scope of his or her duty,” regardless of whether the physician saw the patient or not at that visit, he said. Again, supervision of nonphysician laser procedures varies from state to state, he added.
“So the take-home point is to provide excellent training and appropriate supervision, and if you’re the owner of that practice, you are liable in the event of negligence even though you never were part of the treatment,” Dr. Avram said.
Ins and Outs of Informed Consent
When a patient outcome is less than desirable, or at least less than what the patient expected, a transparent and thorough informed consent process can protect the practice and physician, Dr. Avram said at the meeting.
“Malpractice and consent have nothing to do with each other,” he said. “Consent is getting permission to do a procedure. It’s needed actually for any medical intervention that you perform. What you need to do is to provide information to enable the patient or guardian or to choose knowledgeably among reasonable medical alternatives. This places the patient in control of the course of their medical treatment.”
The information conveyed to the patient should include the diagnosis, the medical causes, the nature and purpose of the treatment, and the risks and alternatives of procedure, “particularly if they’re high risk,” Dr. Avram said.
“Failure to obtain informed consent constitutes a civil battery, and the physician is liable for civil damages,” he said. “The patient need only show that he or she was not informed of the medical nature of the medical touching; physical injury is not necessary.”
A battery could occur if a procedure extends beyond the scope or area of treatment the patient agreed to — for example, extending a liposuction to an area that wasn’t originally targeted, or extending a laser procedure to an area of the body as a presumed favor to the patient. “It does not require a standard of care or an expert witness,” Dr. Avram said. “One only needs to show nonconsensual touching.”
Informed consents should include plain language, he said. “The whole idea is the patient understands what the risks and benefits are,” Dr. Avram said. “You don’t need to use medical jargon.” As an example, he suggested using the term “blisters” instead of “bullae.” If the treatment involves an off-label procedure, include that too, he said.
He also advised avoiding blanket authorizations. “Courts disfavor them,” he noted. “They need more specificity. So those are not valid.”
Dr. Stratman added that providers should think about the setting in which they obtain informed consent. “It’s really important that providers are consenting their patients in private and quiet places, free from distractions, that they accommodate patients who might have disabilities or limitations in English proficiency, using a teach-back method to help patients understand or demonstrate their understanding of the procedure in order to gauge comprehension,” he said.
Both Dr. Avram and Dr. Stratman pointed out that another strategy to prevent malpractice is to build trusting patient-provider relationships. “The patient-provider relationship is paramount not only to the success of the procedure but to the clinical visit as a whole,” Dr. Stratman said.
That’s a two-way street, he added. Patients should be able to trust that their provider provides them with the best treatment based on their own history, and providers should also be able to trust that patients are providing them with an accurate history, asking relevant questions, or expressing any level of apprehension about the procedure or visit. “The patient-provider relationship is everything,” Dr. Stratman said.
Dr. Stratman and Dr. Avram had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
for liability. Dermatologists can protect themselves by understanding malpractice trends and taking preventive steps, such as making sure NPOs have appropriate training and using a rigorous informed consent process, according to a dermatology resident and a dermatologist who have researched recent trends in dermatology lawsuits.
“It’s really important that physicians recognize their responsibility when delegating procedures to nonphysician operators and the physician’s role in supervision of these procedures,” Scott Stratman, MD, MPH, a dermatology resident at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, told this news organization. He led a study recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, which found that the majority (52%) of malpractice cases for cutaneous energy-based device procedures in the LexisNexis database from 1985 to September 2023 involved NPOs. The study did not break the data down between different types of NPOs.
Trends in Dermatology Malpractice
This follows a similar trend reported in a 2014 study led by Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of the MGH Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. The study analyzed liability claims related to cutaneous laser surgery performed by nonphysicians from January 1999 to December 2012.
“With nonphysician litigation data, we saw trend lines beginning in 2008 where the proportion of cases began to increase,” Dr. Avram said at the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (ASLMS) meeting on April 12, 2024. “Over a period of 2008-2012, it went from 36% of cases to about 78%,” he said.
About a quarter (23.4%) of those were in medical offices; 76.6% were in nontraditional settings such as medical spas, he added. The proportion of NPOs was similar in a 2022 study that looked at causes of litigation in cutaneous laser surgery from 2012 to 2020, Dr. Avram said. Again, neither study broke down cases involving NPOs by specific type, but the 2014 study reported that 64% of cases by NPOs occurred outside of a traditional medical setting.
“So it seems that the location and potentially the supervision are issues that are important to patient safety,” Dr. Avram said at the meeting. While state laws regarding laser delegation vary widely, “depending on where you practice, it’s incumbent upon you to know that.”
Dr. Avram and colleagues were also the authors of a study published in June in Dermatologic Surgery that looked at the reasons behind ligations involving dermatologists in a retrospective analysis of 48 state and federal cases between 2011 and 2022. The majority of cases — 54.2% — were for unexpected harm, followed by wrong or delayed diagnoses, which accounted for a third of litigations.
Dr. Stratman’s study found that laser hair removal was the most common procedure for malpractice claims in dermatology among cutaneous energy-based device procedures. Complications from energy-based devices included burns, scarring, and pigmentation changes.
The growth of malpractice suits involving NPOs could be because NPOs are performing a greater proportion of dermatologic procedures, “particularly those practicing without direct supervision, such as in the context of a medical spa,” Dr. Stratman said in the interview. “Again, this highlights a physician’s responsibility in delegating these kinds of procedures to NPOs.”
Training Is a Must — But Not Standardized
Comprehensive training for physicians, staff, NPOs, and physicians “is all necessary and paramount in order to diminish adverse outcomes and legal risk, and then, of course, all these practitioners, be it staff or [NPOs], and, of course, physicians, are all held to the same standard of care,” Dr. Stratman said.
However, he added, “There is really no standardized training to operate these devices. That being said, it’s really important to know that both providers and facility owners have a significant obligation to their patients to make sure that their staff in their centers are appropriately trained.”
Training not only involves protocols and procedures but also how to handle patient interactions, Dr. Stratman said.
The legal concept of respondeat superior applies when nonphysicians participate in a patient’s care, Dr. Avram said at the ASLMS meeting. The physician is held liable for a nonphysician’s “negligence provided he or she is an employee receiving a salary [and] benefits and is performing within the scope of his or her duty,” regardless of whether the physician saw the patient or not at that visit, he said. Again, supervision of nonphysician laser procedures varies from state to state, he added.
“So the take-home point is to provide excellent training and appropriate supervision, and if you’re the owner of that practice, you are liable in the event of negligence even though you never were part of the treatment,” Dr. Avram said.
Ins and Outs of Informed Consent
When a patient outcome is less than desirable, or at least less than what the patient expected, a transparent and thorough informed consent process can protect the practice and physician, Dr. Avram said at the meeting.
“Malpractice and consent have nothing to do with each other,” he said. “Consent is getting permission to do a procedure. It’s needed actually for any medical intervention that you perform. What you need to do is to provide information to enable the patient or guardian or to choose knowledgeably among reasonable medical alternatives. This places the patient in control of the course of their medical treatment.”
The information conveyed to the patient should include the diagnosis, the medical causes, the nature and purpose of the treatment, and the risks and alternatives of procedure, “particularly if they’re high risk,” Dr. Avram said.
“Failure to obtain informed consent constitutes a civil battery, and the physician is liable for civil damages,” he said. “The patient need only show that he or she was not informed of the medical nature of the medical touching; physical injury is not necessary.”
A battery could occur if a procedure extends beyond the scope or area of treatment the patient agreed to — for example, extending a liposuction to an area that wasn’t originally targeted, or extending a laser procedure to an area of the body as a presumed favor to the patient. “It does not require a standard of care or an expert witness,” Dr. Avram said. “One only needs to show nonconsensual touching.”
Informed consents should include plain language, he said. “The whole idea is the patient understands what the risks and benefits are,” Dr. Avram said. “You don’t need to use medical jargon.” As an example, he suggested using the term “blisters” instead of “bullae.” If the treatment involves an off-label procedure, include that too, he said.
He also advised avoiding blanket authorizations. “Courts disfavor them,” he noted. “They need more specificity. So those are not valid.”
Dr. Stratman added that providers should think about the setting in which they obtain informed consent. “It’s really important that providers are consenting their patients in private and quiet places, free from distractions, that they accommodate patients who might have disabilities or limitations in English proficiency, using a teach-back method to help patients understand or demonstrate their understanding of the procedure in order to gauge comprehension,” he said.
Both Dr. Avram and Dr. Stratman pointed out that another strategy to prevent malpractice is to build trusting patient-provider relationships. “The patient-provider relationship is paramount not only to the success of the procedure but to the clinical visit as a whole,” Dr. Stratman said.
That’s a two-way street, he added. Patients should be able to trust that their provider provides them with the best treatment based on their own history, and providers should also be able to trust that patients are providing them with an accurate history, asking relevant questions, or expressing any level of apprehension about the procedure or visit. “The patient-provider relationship is everything,” Dr. Stratman said.
Dr. Stratman and Dr. Avram had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.