PHYSICIAN LEADERSHIP: RACIAL DISPARITIES AND RACISM. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

BIFTU MENGESHA, MD, MAS; KAVITA SHAH ARORA, MD, MBE, MS; AND BARBARA LEVY, MD

(COMMENTARY; AUGUST 2020)

Political diatribe paints a huge swath

I read the above referenced article with equal measure of angst and offense, amazement and incredulity, irritation and, some would say, typical white male denial. The authors have succumbed to the zeitgeist currently enveloping our country and painted us all with one huge swath of the same proverbial brush—inappropriately.

No doubt certain reforms are needed in our society and perhaps within areas of medicine. I am for anything that improves all peoples’ lives and health. The country is rightfully clamoring for equality. That means equality for all, however. But by way of one small example of systemic overreaction, many articles now are replete with comments about “Black people and Brown people and white people.” Adjectives have been turned into proper nouns, but applied only to some groups, not all. That foments continued inequity, not equality.

The authors implore us to strive for “engaged, passionate, and innovative leadership deliberately aimed toward antiracism and equity.” In my view, the best way I can do that is not by words but actions, and that is to do what I am trained to do, which is take care of patients the best I can regardless of their color or creed. I have always done that, and everyone I work with does as well. For the authors to imply I (we) don’t is at a minimum offensive and pejorative, and flat wrong.

I agree to a certain extent that our health care contributes to poor, or at least less desirable, outcomes. But so do the actions or inactions of our patients. I do not agree that it is a racial issue. It affects all people. I see it every day. I am probably in the minority of physicians who think we should go to a single-payor system (note I did not say free). But to state that the system creates poor outcomes only for “Blacks, Indigenous, and Latinx,” I disagree. Tennessee has TennCare (Medicaid) and almost anyone can get it, and if they are pregnant they certainly can. Access is not an issue. All people have to do is avail themselves of it. It does not matter the race!

The authors call for the implementation “of system-wide intersectional and antiracist practices” to address “racism, sexism, gender discrimination, economic and social injustice.” They are preaching to the wrong crowd. If I (we) pursued all these lofty goals, I (we) would not have time to care for the very patients they are now lamenting don’t have enough care or proper care.

I facilitate conversations on a regular basis with my black patients as well as my white patients. I recently asked a patient if she distrusted me because I am a white male. It is enlightening to hear patient comments, which are mostly along the lines of “the world has gone crazy.” That is a polite interpretation of their comments. Maybe they say what they think I want to hear, but I don’t think so.

“Repair what we have broken…” by “uplifting their voices and redistributing our power to them.” I don’t see how I (we) have broken anything. If taking care of all comers as best as one can has broken something, then I am guilty. Regarding that I need to examine how “we have eroded the trust of the very communities we care for” and that we are guilty of “medical experimentation on and exploitation of Black and Brown bodies,” what are we to examine? How have I (we) eroded the trust? Present-day physicians had nothing to do with things like the Tuskegee Institute experiment, and I hardly see how blaming us today for that abominable episode in our HISTORY is a valid point. Implying that we add to that distrust by not giving the same pain relief to certain people because of race is just preposterous. Further, asking to let others lead, for example, on the medical executive committee or in positions such as chief of service or chief of staff usually are not something one “gets” to be, but something one usually is “talked into.” There is not a racial barrier to those roles, at least at my institution, and once again the brush has inappropriately painted us all.

I understand the general gestalt of this article and agree with its basic premises. But while well meaning, this political diatribe belongs in the halls of Congress, not in the halls of our hospitals or the pages of a medical journal. I am tired of being told, directly or indirectly, that I am a racist by TV news, newspapers, social media, professional sports teams, and now by my medical journals. I would ask the authors to be careful who they throw under the bus.

Scott Peters, MD

Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Continue to: Drs. Mengesha, Arora, and Levy respond...

 

 

Drs. Mengesha, Arora, and Levy respond

We appreciate the opportunity to respond to Dr. Peters. Our article brings long overdue awareness to systemic and structural problems that result in disproportionately inequitable outcomes for people of color. We are not debating the morality of individuals or talking about racism as an inherently “bad” trait that some people have, but rather recognizing the impact of social structures on health and well-being in which we all—Black, Brown, and White—live. We all have inherent biases, recognized or unrecognized, that impact our actions, decisions, and behaviors. We are humans with upbringing, backgrounds, and learned frameworks influenced by our sociocultural context that conditions our responses to a given situation. This is also woven into our hospitals, exam rooms, and even our medical journals. It constantly influences the health, well-being, and livelihood of patients—nothing that we do in medicine is in isolation of this greater context. Our health care system is steeped in this sociocultural context and impacts all patients in intersecting ways, whether that be by race, class, gender, or other social identities. And while we did not create the system in which we operate, we now have abundant evidence that shows it continually delivers inequitable outcomes particularly for people of color.

We are very clear that physicians and health care professionals strive to provide the very best care for each and every patient. We do not discount the hard work and good intentions of our colleagues. And while some individual patient behaviors may somewhat modify outcomes, we also strongly disagree with the premise that patients are to blame for poor or less desirable outcomes they face. Instead, our position is focused on the impact that the systems we work in are creating barriers to equitable care at levels of influence above a single individual, and that it is our collective professional responsibility to acknowledge and take action to lessen those barriers.

System-wide changes would not be at the expense of patient care, and physicians cannot and in fact should not shoulder these changes alone. Our current paradigm of training does not give us the capacity to do so, and a single individual cannot make such a large system change alone. The change we are advocating for requires collaboration within multidisciplinary and interprofessional teams, long-term planning, and incremental but intentional change. This is not dissimilar to the recognition over 20 years ago by the Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine) that “to err is human.” Our eyes were opened to the structural issues resulting in medical errors, and very slowly our profession has acknowledged the necessity to recognize, report, and analyze the root causes of those errors. We do so because it is critically important to ensure that the same error never happens again. It is part of the commitment to honor our oath to “do no harm.” Similarly, racial inequities in health outcomes should also be “never events” as there is no biological basis or individual blame for these inequities, but rather systemic and structural processes (which is de facto racism) that contribute to disproportionately worse outcomes.

Disparities in COVID-19 vaccination rates for people of color is a current example that illustrates the deep distrust in our health care system that historical events, like Tuskegee, have created. In Tennessee, for example, 7% of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered to Black people despite the fact that they make up 15% of cases, 18% of deaths, and 16% of the total population.1 There are other ongoing systemic issues, including inequities in distribution, prioritization, and access, that are contributing to the lower vaccination rates among people of color; however, as physicians and advocates for our patients, it is crucial for us to acknowledge the fear of, and resistance to, government-sponsored health programs which has resulted from events like Tuskegee.

We are advocating for building our systems to help support all of the social and societal determinants of health our patients are faced with, including racism, while they are receiving care from us. Patients are faced with undue morbidity and mortality because of our health care system’s ineffectiveness in incorporating this as a part of systemic care delivery to all. We must work together alongside other health care professionals, public health and policy agencies, and community advocates to stop this deadly cycle. There will be no improvement and no end in sight unless we work together toward this common goal.

Reference 

1. Ndugga N, Pham O, Hill L, et al. Latest data on COVID-19 vaccinations: race/ethnicity. Kaiser Family Foundation website. February 1, 2021. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/latest-data-covid-19-vaccinations-cases-deaths-race-ethnicity/. Accessed February 11, 2021.

PHYSICIAN LEADERSHIP: RACIAL DISPARITIES AND RACISM. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

BIFTU MENGESHA, MD, MAS; KAVITA SHAH ARORA, MD, MBE, MS; AND BARBARA LEVY, MD

(COMMENTARY; AUGUST 2020)

Political diatribe paints a huge swath

I read the above referenced article with equal measure of angst and offense, amazement and incredulity, irritation and, some would say, typical white male denial. The authors have succumbed to the zeitgeist currently enveloping our country and painted us all with one huge swath of the same proverbial brush—inappropriately.

No doubt certain reforms are needed in our society and perhaps within areas of medicine. I am for anything that improves all peoples’ lives and health. The country is rightfully clamoring for equality. That means equality for all, however. But by way of one small example of systemic overreaction, many articles now are replete with comments about “Black people and Brown people and white people.” Adjectives have been turned into proper nouns, but applied only to some groups, not all. That foments continued inequity, not equality.

The authors implore us to strive for “engaged, passionate, and innovative leadership deliberately aimed toward antiracism and equity.” In my view, the best way I can do that is not by words but actions, and that is to do what I am trained to do, which is take care of patients the best I can regardless of their color or creed. I have always done that, and everyone I work with does as well. For the authors to imply I (we) don’t is at a minimum offensive and pejorative, and flat wrong.

I agree to a certain extent that our health care contributes to poor, or at least less desirable, outcomes. But so do the actions or inactions of our patients. I do not agree that it is a racial issue. It affects all people. I see it every day. I am probably in the minority of physicians who think we should go to a single-payor system (note I did not say free). But to state that the system creates poor outcomes only for “Blacks, Indigenous, and Latinx,” I disagree. Tennessee has TennCare (Medicaid) and almost anyone can get it, and if they are pregnant they certainly can. Access is not an issue. All people have to do is avail themselves of it. It does not matter the race!

The authors call for the implementation “of system-wide intersectional and antiracist practices” to address “racism, sexism, gender discrimination, economic and social injustice.” They are preaching to the wrong crowd. If I (we) pursued all these lofty goals, I (we) would not have time to care for the very patients they are now lamenting don’t have enough care or proper care.

I facilitate conversations on a regular basis with my black patients as well as my white patients. I recently asked a patient if she distrusted me because I am a white male. It is enlightening to hear patient comments, which are mostly along the lines of “the world has gone crazy.” That is a polite interpretation of their comments. Maybe they say what they think I want to hear, but I don’t think so.

“Repair what we have broken…” by “uplifting their voices and redistributing our power to them.” I don’t see how I (we) have broken anything. If taking care of all comers as best as one can has broken something, then I am guilty. Regarding that I need to examine how “we have eroded the trust of the very communities we care for” and that we are guilty of “medical experimentation on and exploitation of Black and Brown bodies,” what are we to examine? How have I (we) eroded the trust? Present-day physicians had nothing to do with things like the Tuskegee Institute experiment, and I hardly see how blaming us today for that abominable episode in our HISTORY is a valid point. Implying that we add to that distrust by not giving the same pain relief to certain people because of race is just preposterous. Further, asking to let others lead, for example, on the medical executive committee or in positions such as chief of service or chief of staff usually are not something one “gets” to be, but something one usually is “talked into.” There is not a racial barrier to those roles, at least at my institution, and once again the brush has inappropriately painted us all.

I understand the general gestalt of this article and agree with its basic premises. But while well meaning, this political diatribe belongs in the halls of Congress, not in the halls of our hospitals or the pages of a medical journal. I am tired of being told, directly or indirectly, that I am a racist by TV news, newspapers, social media, professional sports teams, and now by my medical journals. I would ask the authors to be careful who they throw under the bus.

Scott Peters, MD

Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Continue to: Drs. Mengesha, Arora, and Levy respond...

 

 

Drs. Mengesha, Arora, and Levy respond

We appreciate the opportunity to respond to Dr. Peters. Our article brings long overdue awareness to systemic and structural problems that result in disproportionately inequitable outcomes for people of color. We are not debating the morality of individuals or talking about racism as an inherently “bad” trait that some people have, but rather recognizing the impact of social structures on health and well-being in which we all—Black, Brown, and White—live. We all have inherent biases, recognized or unrecognized, that impact our actions, decisions, and behaviors. We are humans with upbringing, backgrounds, and learned frameworks influenced by our sociocultural context that conditions our responses to a given situation. This is also woven into our hospitals, exam rooms, and even our medical journals. It constantly influences the health, well-being, and livelihood of patients—nothing that we do in medicine is in isolation of this greater context. Our health care system is steeped in this sociocultural context and impacts all patients in intersecting ways, whether that be by race, class, gender, or other social identities. And while we did not create the system in which we operate, we now have abundant evidence that shows it continually delivers inequitable outcomes particularly for people of color.

We are very clear that physicians and health care professionals strive to provide the very best care for each and every patient. We do not discount the hard work and good intentions of our colleagues. And while some individual patient behaviors may somewhat modify outcomes, we also strongly disagree with the premise that patients are to blame for poor or less desirable outcomes they face. Instead, our position is focused on the impact that the systems we work in are creating barriers to equitable care at levels of influence above a single individual, and that it is our collective professional responsibility to acknowledge and take action to lessen those barriers.

System-wide changes would not be at the expense of patient care, and physicians cannot and in fact should not shoulder these changes alone. Our current paradigm of training does not give us the capacity to do so, and a single individual cannot make such a large system change alone. The change we are advocating for requires collaboration within multidisciplinary and interprofessional teams, long-term planning, and incremental but intentional change. This is not dissimilar to the recognition over 20 years ago by the Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine) that “to err is human.” Our eyes were opened to the structural issues resulting in medical errors, and very slowly our profession has acknowledged the necessity to recognize, report, and analyze the root causes of those errors. We do so because it is critically important to ensure that the same error never happens again. It is part of the commitment to honor our oath to “do no harm.” Similarly, racial inequities in health outcomes should also be “never events” as there is no biological basis or individual blame for these inequities, but rather systemic and structural processes (which is de facto racism) that contribute to disproportionately worse outcomes.

Disparities in COVID-19 vaccination rates for people of color is a current example that illustrates the deep distrust in our health care system that historical events, like Tuskegee, have created. In Tennessee, for example, 7% of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered to Black people despite the fact that they make up 15% of cases, 18% of deaths, and 16% of the total population.1 There are other ongoing systemic issues, including inequities in distribution, prioritization, and access, that are contributing to the lower vaccination rates among people of color; however, as physicians and advocates for our patients, it is crucial for us to acknowledge the fear of, and resistance to, government-sponsored health programs which has resulted from events like Tuskegee.

We are advocating for building our systems to help support all of the social and societal determinants of health our patients are faced with, including racism, while they are receiving care from us. Patients are faced with undue morbidity and mortality because of our health care system’s ineffectiveness in incorporating this as a part of systemic care delivery to all. We must work together alongside other health care professionals, public health and policy agencies, and community advocates to stop this deadly cycle. There will be no improvement and no end in sight unless we work together toward this common goal.

Reference 

1. Ndugga N, Pham O, Hill L, et al. Latest data on COVID-19 vaccinations: race/ethnicity. Kaiser Family Foundation website. February 1, 2021. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/latest-data-covid-19-vaccinations-cases-deaths-race-ethnicity/. Accessed February 11, 2021.

PHYSICIAN LEADERSHIP: RACIAL DISPARITIES AND RACISM. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

BIFTU MENGESHA, MD, MAS; KAVITA SHAH ARORA, MD, MBE, MS; AND BARBARA LEVY, MD

(COMMENTARY; AUGUST 2020)

Political diatribe paints a huge swath

I read the above referenced article with equal measure of angst and offense, amazement and incredulity, irritation and, some would say, typical white male denial. The authors have succumbed to the zeitgeist currently enveloping our country and painted us all with one huge swath of the same proverbial brush—inappropriately.

No doubt certain reforms are needed in our society and perhaps within areas of medicine. I am for anything that improves all peoples’ lives and health. The country is rightfully clamoring for equality. That means equality for all, however. But by way of one small example of systemic overreaction, many articles now are replete with comments about “Black people and Brown people and white people.” Adjectives have been turned into proper nouns, but applied only to some groups, not all. That foments continued inequity, not equality.

The authors implore us to strive for “engaged, passionate, and innovative leadership deliberately aimed toward antiracism and equity.” In my view, the best way I can do that is not by words but actions, and that is to do what I am trained to do, which is take care of patients the best I can regardless of their color or creed. I have always done that, and everyone I work with does as well. For the authors to imply I (we) don’t is at a minimum offensive and pejorative, and flat wrong.

I agree to a certain extent that our health care contributes to poor, or at least less desirable, outcomes. But so do the actions or inactions of our patients. I do not agree that it is a racial issue. It affects all people. I see it every day. I am probably in the minority of physicians who think we should go to a single-payor system (note I did not say free). But to state that the system creates poor outcomes only for “Blacks, Indigenous, and Latinx,” I disagree. Tennessee has TennCare (Medicaid) and almost anyone can get it, and if they are pregnant they certainly can. Access is not an issue. All people have to do is avail themselves of it. It does not matter the race!

The authors call for the implementation “of system-wide intersectional and antiracist practices” to address “racism, sexism, gender discrimination, economic and social injustice.” They are preaching to the wrong crowd. If I (we) pursued all these lofty goals, I (we) would not have time to care for the very patients they are now lamenting don’t have enough care or proper care.

I facilitate conversations on a regular basis with my black patients as well as my white patients. I recently asked a patient if she distrusted me because I am a white male. It is enlightening to hear patient comments, which are mostly along the lines of “the world has gone crazy.” That is a polite interpretation of their comments. Maybe they say what they think I want to hear, but I don’t think so.

“Repair what we have broken…” by “uplifting their voices and redistributing our power to them.” I don’t see how I (we) have broken anything. If taking care of all comers as best as one can has broken something, then I am guilty. Regarding that I need to examine how “we have eroded the trust of the very communities we care for” and that we are guilty of “medical experimentation on and exploitation of Black and Brown bodies,” what are we to examine? How have I (we) eroded the trust? Present-day physicians had nothing to do with things like the Tuskegee Institute experiment, and I hardly see how blaming us today for that abominable episode in our HISTORY is a valid point. Implying that we add to that distrust by not giving the same pain relief to certain people because of race is just preposterous. Further, asking to let others lead, for example, on the medical executive committee or in positions such as chief of service or chief of staff usually are not something one “gets” to be, but something one usually is “talked into.” There is not a racial barrier to those roles, at least at my institution, and once again the brush has inappropriately painted us all.

I understand the general gestalt of this article and agree with its basic premises. But while well meaning, this political diatribe belongs in the halls of Congress, not in the halls of our hospitals or the pages of a medical journal. I am tired of being told, directly or indirectly, that I am a racist by TV news, newspapers, social media, professional sports teams, and now by my medical journals. I would ask the authors to be careful who they throw under the bus.

Scott Peters, MD

Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Continue to: Drs. Mengesha, Arora, and Levy respond...

 

 

Drs. Mengesha, Arora, and Levy respond

We appreciate the opportunity to respond to Dr. Peters. Our article brings long overdue awareness to systemic and structural problems that result in disproportionately inequitable outcomes for people of color. We are not debating the morality of individuals or talking about racism as an inherently “bad” trait that some people have, but rather recognizing the impact of social structures on health and well-being in which we all—Black, Brown, and White—live. We all have inherent biases, recognized or unrecognized, that impact our actions, decisions, and behaviors. We are humans with upbringing, backgrounds, and learned frameworks influenced by our sociocultural context that conditions our responses to a given situation. This is also woven into our hospitals, exam rooms, and even our medical journals. It constantly influences the health, well-being, and livelihood of patients—nothing that we do in medicine is in isolation of this greater context. Our health care system is steeped in this sociocultural context and impacts all patients in intersecting ways, whether that be by race, class, gender, or other social identities. And while we did not create the system in which we operate, we now have abundant evidence that shows it continually delivers inequitable outcomes particularly for people of color.

We are very clear that physicians and health care professionals strive to provide the very best care for each and every patient. We do not discount the hard work and good intentions of our colleagues. And while some individual patient behaviors may somewhat modify outcomes, we also strongly disagree with the premise that patients are to blame for poor or less desirable outcomes they face. Instead, our position is focused on the impact that the systems we work in are creating barriers to equitable care at levels of influence above a single individual, and that it is our collective professional responsibility to acknowledge and take action to lessen those barriers.

System-wide changes would not be at the expense of patient care, and physicians cannot and in fact should not shoulder these changes alone. Our current paradigm of training does not give us the capacity to do so, and a single individual cannot make such a large system change alone. The change we are advocating for requires collaboration within multidisciplinary and interprofessional teams, long-term planning, and incremental but intentional change. This is not dissimilar to the recognition over 20 years ago by the Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine) that “to err is human.” Our eyes were opened to the structural issues resulting in medical errors, and very slowly our profession has acknowledged the necessity to recognize, report, and analyze the root causes of those errors. We do so because it is critically important to ensure that the same error never happens again. It is part of the commitment to honor our oath to “do no harm.” Similarly, racial inequities in health outcomes should also be “never events” as there is no biological basis or individual blame for these inequities, but rather systemic and structural processes (which is de facto racism) that contribute to disproportionately worse outcomes.

Disparities in COVID-19 vaccination rates for people of color is a current example that illustrates the deep distrust in our health care system that historical events, like Tuskegee, have created. In Tennessee, for example, 7% of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered to Black people despite the fact that they make up 15% of cases, 18% of deaths, and 16% of the total population.1 There are other ongoing systemic issues, including inequities in distribution, prioritization, and access, that are contributing to the lower vaccination rates among people of color; however, as physicians and advocates for our patients, it is crucial for us to acknowledge the fear of, and resistance to, government-sponsored health programs which has resulted from events like Tuskegee.

We are advocating for building our systems to help support all of the social and societal determinants of health our patients are faced with, including racism, while they are receiving care from us. Patients are faced with undue morbidity and mortality because of our health care system’s ineffectiveness in incorporating this as a part of systemic care delivery to all. We must work together alongside other health care professionals, public health and policy agencies, and community advocates to stop this deadly cycle. There will be no improvement and no end in sight unless we work together toward this common goal.

Reference 

1. Ndugga N, Pham O, Hill L, et al. Latest data on COVID-19 vaccinations: race/ethnicity. Kaiser Family Foundation website. February 1, 2021. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/latest-data-covid-19-vaccinations-cases-deaths-race-ethnicity/. Accessed February 11, 2021.

Any level of hepatitis B virus (HBV) viremia was associated with increased hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk in adults with HIV/HBV coinfection, according to new research presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (Abstract 136).

sarathsasidharan/Thinkstock

“Chronic HBV coinfection is common among people with HIV, but the determinants of HBV-associated HCC are not well characterized,” said presenter H. Nina Kim MD, MSc, of the University of Washington, Seattle. “We sought to identify factors that contribute to HCC development in persons with HIV/HBV coinfection to guide early detection and prevention measures.”

The researchers conducted a longitudinal cohort study within the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design (NA-ACCORD), a collaboration of single-site and multisite cohorts throughout the United States and Canada; 22 cohorts from NA-ACCORD were included in the analysis.

Potential HIV and HBV risk factors were examined, including viremia and CD4 percentage, as well as HBV DNA levels. Traditional risk factors for liver disease progression, including age, sex, and heavy alcohol use, were also assessed.

Eligible patients were 18 years of age or older who were followed for at least 6 months, had evidence of chronic HBV, and had HIV RNA or CD4+ cell measurement during this period. Persons with prevalent HCC at baseline were excluded.

The primary outcome was first occurrence of HCC, which was adjudicated by medical chart review and/or cancer registry. Multivariable Cox regression was used to determine adjusted hazard ratios of risk factors.
 

Results

Among 9,383 HIV/HBV-coinfected individuals identified, 8,354 (89%) were included in the analysis. The median age of participants was 43 years and 93.1% were male. Heavy alcohol use (35.3%) and chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfection (21.6%) were common among participants.

Among 8,354 eligible participants, 115 developed HCC over a median 6.9 years of follow-up (incidence rate, 1.8 events per 1,000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-2.1).

Independent risk factors for HCC were chronic HCV coinfection (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.60 [95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.39]), age 40 years and older (aHR, 2.14 [1.36-3.37]), and heavy alcohol use (aHR, 1.51 [1.03-2.21]); however, time-updated CD4+ percentage less than 14% (aHR, 1.03 [0.56-1.90]) and time-updated HIV RNA level over 500 copies/mL (aHR, 0.88 [0.55-1.41]) were not associated with HCC risk.

In a second model, among 3,054 patients who had HBV DNA measured, the risk of HCC was higher with HBV DNA levels greater than 200 IU/mL (aHR, 2.70 [1.23-5.93]), and the risk was particularly elevated at levels greater than 200,000 IU/mL (aHR, 4.34 [1.72-10.94]).

The researchers also found that the risk of HCC was significantly lower in patients with HBV DNA suppression less than 200 IU/mL receiving HBV-active ART for 1 year or more (aHR, 0.42 [0.24-0.73]). In addition, a dose-response relationship was observed between the duration of suppression and this protective effect.

Dr. Nina Kim acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was inconsistent monitoring of HBV DNA level while patients were on treatment. Furthermore, given the demographics of the cohort, these results may not be generalizable outside of North America.

“Our study was the first to show that any level of HBV viremia using 200 as a threshold of detection was associated with HCC risk in a large regionally diverse cohort of adults outside of Asia,” Dr. Kim said. “To gain maximal protective benefit from antiviral therapy for HCC prevention, sustained and ideally uninterrupted suppression of HBV may be necessary over years.”

“HIV/HBV coinfected patients can take much longer than a year to achieve less than 200 copies on HBV DNA due to their baseline levels, but we still don’t know if HBV therapy intensification could hasten this process,” said moderator Robert T. Schooley, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

Dr. Kim disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by multiple sources, including the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Cancer Institute.

Any level of hepatitis B virus (HBV) viremia was associated with increased hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk in adults with HIV/HBV coinfection, according to new research presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (Abstract 136).

sarathsasidharan/Thinkstock

“Chronic HBV coinfection is common among people with HIV, but the determinants of HBV-associated HCC are not well characterized,” said presenter H. Nina Kim MD, MSc, of the University of Washington, Seattle. “We sought to identify factors that contribute to HCC development in persons with HIV/HBV coinfection to guide early detection and prevention measures.”

The researchers conducted a longitudinal cohort study within the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design (NA-ACCORD), a collaboration of single-site and multisite cohorts throughout the United States and Canada; 22 cohorts from NA-ACCORD were included in the analysis.

Potential HIV and HBV risk factors were examined, including viremia and CD4 percentage, as well as HBV DNA levels. Traditional risk factors for liver disease progression, including age, sex, and heavy alcohol use, were also assessed.

Eligible patients were 18 years of age or older who were followed for at least 6 months, had evidence of chronic HBV, and had HIV RNA or CD4+ cell measurement during this period. Persons with prevalent HCC at baseline were excluded.

The primary outcome was first occurrence of HCC, which was adjudicated by medical chart review and/or cancer registry. Multivariable Cox regression was used to determine adjusted hazard ratios of risk factors.
 

Results

Among 9,383 HIV/HBV-coinfected individuals identified, 8,354 (89%) were included in the analysis. The median age of participants was 43 years and 93.1% were male. Heavy alcohol use (35.3%) and chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfection (21.6%) were common among participants.

Among 8,354 eligible participants, 115 developed HCC over a median 6.9 years of follow-up (incidence rate, 1.8 events per 1,000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-2.1).

Independent risk factors for HCC were chronic HCV coinfection (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.60 [95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.39]), age 40 years and older (aHR, 2.14 [1.36-3.37]), and heavy alcohol use (aHR, 1.51 [1.03-2.21]); however, time-updated CD4+ percentage less than 14% (aHR, 1.03 [0.56-1.90]) and time-updated HIV RNA level over 500 copies/mL (aHR, 0.88 [0.55-1.41]) were not associated with HCC risk.

In a second model, among 3,054 patients who had HBV DNA measured, the risk of HCC was higher with HBV DNA levels greater than 200 IU/mL (aHR, 2.70 [1.23-5.93]), and the risk was particularly elevated at levels greater than 200,000 IU/mL (aHR, 4.34 [1.72-10.94]).

The researchers also found that the risk of HCC was significantly lower in patients with HBV DNA suppression less than 200 IU/mL receiving HBV-active ART for 1 year or more (aHR, 0.42 [0.24-0.73]). In addition, a dose-response relationship was observed between the duration of suppression and this protective effect.

Dr. Nina Kim acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was inconsistent monitoring of HBV DNA level while patients were on treatment. Furthermore, given the demographics of the cohort, these results may not be generalizable outside of North America.

“Our study was the first to show that any level of HBV viremia using 200 as a threshold of detection was associated with HCC risk in a large regionally diverse cohort of adults outside of Asia,” Dr. Kim said. “To gain maximal protective benefit from antiviral therapy for HCC prevention, sustained and ideally uninterrupted suppression of HBV may be necessary over years.”

“HIV/HBV coinfected patients can take much longer than a year to achieve less than 200 copies on HBV DNA due to their baseline levels, but we still don’t know if HBV therapy intensification could hasten this process,” said moderator Robert T. Schooley, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

Dr. Kim disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by multiple sources, including the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Cancer Institute.

Any level of hepatitis B virus (HBV) viremia was associated with increased hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk in adults with HIV/HBV coinfection, according to new research presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (Abstract 136).

sarathsasidharan/Thinkstock

“Chronic HBV coinfection is common among people with HIV, but the determinants of HBV-associated HCC are not well characterized,” said presenter H. Nina Kim MD, MSc, of the University of Washington, Seattle. “We sought to identify factors that contribute to HCC development in persons with HIV/HBV coinfection to guide early detection and prevention measures.”

The researchers conducted a longitudinal cohort study within the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design (NA-ACCORD), a collaboration of single-site and multisite cohorts throughout the United States and Canada; 22 cohorts from NA-ACCORD were included in the analysis.

Potential HIV and HBV risk factors were examined, including viremia and CD4 percentage, as well as HBV DNA levels. Traditional risk factors for liver disease progression, including age, sex, and heavy alcohol use, were also assessed.

Eligible patients were 18 years of age or older who were followed for at least 6 months, had evidence of chronic HBV, and had HIV RNA or CD4+ cell measurement during this period. Persons with prevalent HCC at baseline were excluded.

The primary outcome was first occurrence of HCC, which was adjudicated by medical chart review and/or cancer registry. Multivariable Cox regression was used to determine adjusted hazard ratios of risk factors.
 

Results

Among 9,383 HIV/HBV-coinfected individuals identified, 8,354 (89%) were included in the analysis. The median age of participants was 43 years and 93.1% were male. Heavy alcohol use (35.3%) and chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfection (21.6%) were common among participants.

Among 8,354 eligible participants, 115 developed HCC over a median 6.9 years of follow-up (incidence rate, 1.8 events per 1,000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-2.1).

Independent risk factors for HCC were chronic HCV coinfection (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.60 [95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.39]), age 40 years and older (aHR, 2.14 [1.36-3.37]), and heavy alcohol use (aHR, 1.51 [1.03-2.21]); however, time-updated CD4+ percentage less than 14% (aHR, 1.03 [0.56-1.90]) and time-updated HIV RNA level over 500 copies/mL (aHR, 0.88 [0.55-1.41]) were not associated with HCC risk.

In a second model, among 3,054 patients who had HBV DNA measured, the risk of HCC was higher with HBV DNA levels greater than 200 IU/mL (aHR, 2.70 [1.23-5.93]), and the risk was particularly elevated at levels greater than 200,000 IU/mL (aHR, 4.34 [1.72-10.94]).

The researchers also found that the risk of HCC was significantly lower in patients with HBV DNA suppression less than 200 IU/mL receiving HBV-active ART for 1 year or more (aHR, 0.42 [0.24-0.73]). In addition, a dose-response relationship was observed between the duration of suppression and this protective effect.

Dr. Nina Kim acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was inconsistent monitoring of HBV DNA level while patients were on treatment. Furthermore, given the demographics of the cohort, these results may not be generalizable outside of North America.

“Our study was the first to show that any level of HBV viremia using 200 as a threshold of detection was associated with HCC risk in a large regionally diverse cohort of adults outside of Asia,” Dr. Kim said. “To gain maximal protective benefit from antiviral therapy for HCC prevention, sustained and ideally uninterrupted suppression of HBV may be necessary over years.”

“HIV/HBV coinfected patients can take much longer than a year to achieve less than 200 copies on HBV DNA due to their baseline levels, but we still don’t know if HBV therapy intensification could hasten this process,” said moderator Robert T. Schooley, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

Dr. Kim disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by multiple sources, including the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Cancer Institute.

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) improve functional dyspepsia (FD) by reducing duodenal eosinophils and mast cells, according to a prospective study.

This suggests that the anti-inflammatory effects of PPIs are responsible for symptom improvement, and not barrier-protective or acid-suppressive effects, a finding that may guide future therapies and biomarkers, reported lead author Lucas Wauters, PhD, of University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium), and colleagues reported in Gastroenterology.

“FD is a common and unexplained disorder with unknown pathophysiology, hampering a conclusive diagnosis and the development of effective drugs,” the investigators wrote.

Although PPIs are currently used as first-line FD therapy, ostensibly for acid suppression, “the exact mechanism of action of PPIs in FD is unknown,” the investigators noted.

According to Dr. Wauters and colleagues, previous FD studies, such as a 2020 study published in Gut, have reported a variety of pathophysiological findings in the duodenum, including increased eosinophils and mast cells, as well as activation of duodenogastric reflexes, which suggests “a primary role for duodenal pathology in FD symptom generation.” Several drivers of this pathology have been proposed. Some, such as aberrations in bile salts and acidity, point to local, luminal changes, whereas others, such as dysregulated hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis responsiveness and psychosocial factors, implicate a broader set of drivers, the investigators wrote.

The present study explored this landscape through a prospective trial that enrolled 30 healthy volunteers and 47 patients with FD (2 patients with FD did not complete the study).

Patients with FD were subgrouped into “FD-starters” who had not taken PPIs and/or acid suppression for at least 3 months leading up to the trial (n = 28) and “FD-stoppers” who had refractory symptoms after at least 1 month of daily PPI usage (n = 19). Among participants with FD, 25 had postprandial distress syndrome (PDS), 9 had epigastric pain syndrome (EPS), and 13 had subtype overlap.

For the trial, FD-starters and healthy volunteers took 4 weeks of pantoprazole 40 mg once daily, whereas FD-stoppers ceased PPI therapy for 8 weeks. Before and after these respective periods, certain study procedures were conducted, including duodenal biopsy collection, duodenal fluid aspiration, and questionnaires for symptoms and stress. The study also included use of Ussing chambers for biopsies, immunohistochemistry, and bile salt measurements.

FD-starters were significantly more symptomatic than healthy volunteers were at baseline. After starting PPIs, those with FD had symptom improvements, confirming “clinical efficacy of a standard course of PPIs in all FD subtypes,” whereas healthy volunteers showed no significant change in symptoms.

Similarly, baseline duodenal eosinophil counts were higher in FD-starters than in healthy volunteers. On starting PPIs, however, eosinophil counts in these two groups moved in opposite directions: FD-starters’ counts dropped from a mean of 331 to 183 eosinophils/mm², whereas healthy volunteers’ counts rose from a mean of 115 to 229 eosinophils/mm² (P < .0001). Changes in mast cells and paracellular passage followed the same pattern, falling in FD-starters and rising in healthy volunteers. On the other hand, symptoms actually improved in the FD-stoppers after they went off PPIs, although they did not reach symptom levels of the healthy volunteers.

“Differential effects of PPIs in healthy volunteers point to the role of luminal changes in determining low-grade mucosal immune activation in the duodenum, which can also occur in FD after long-term use and provide arguments against continued use in refractory patients,” the investigators wrote.

Dr. Wauters and colleagues suggested that their findings could guide future approaches to FD management.

“Our results suggest that quantification of duodenal eosinophils has the potential to become part of diagnostic workup and guide therapeutic decisions in FD,” they wrote. “Additional study of the underlying mediators might lead to the discovery of new potential biomarkers or novel therapeutic targets, potentially allowing the identification of subgroups responding to biologically targeted rather than symptom-based treatments.”

The study was supported by the clinical research fund of the University Hospitals Leuven. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) improve functional dyspepsia (FD) by reducing duodenal eosinophils and mast cells, according to a prospective study.

This suggests that the anti-inflammatory effects of PPIs are responsible for symptom improvement, and not barrier-protective or acid-suppressive effects, a finding that may guide future therapies and biomarkers, reported lead author Lucas Wauters, PhD, of University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium), and colleagues reported in Gastroenterology.

“FD is a common and unexplained disorder with unknown pathophysiology, hampering a conclusive diagnosis and the development of effective drugs,” the investigators wrote.

Although PPIs are currently used as first-line FD therapy, ostensibly for acid suppression, “the exact mechanism of action of PPIs in FD is unknown,” the investigators noted.

According to Dr. Wauters and colleagues, previous FD studies, such as a 2020 study published in Gut, have reported a variety of pathophysiological findings in the duodenum, including increased eosinophils and mast cells, as well as activation of duodenogastric reflexes, which suggests “a primary role for duodenal pathology in FD symptom generation.” Several drivers of this pathology have been proposed. Some, such as aberrations in bile salts and acidity, point to local, luminal changes, whereas others, such as dysregulated hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis responsiveness and psychosocial factors, implicate a broader set of drivers, the investigators wrote.

The present study explored this landscape through a prospective trial that enrolled 30 healthy volunteers and 47 patients with FD (2 patients with FD did not complete the study).

Patients with FD were subgrouped into “FD-starters” who had not taken PPIs and/or acid suppression for at least 3 months leading up to the trial (n = 28) and “FD-stoppers” who had refractory symptoms after at least 1 month of daily PPI usage (n = 19). Among participants with FD, 25 had postprandial distress syndrome (PDS), 9 had epigastric pain syndrome (EPS), and 13 had subtype overlap.

For the trial, FD-starters and healthy volunteers took 4 weeks of pantoprazole 40 mg once daily, whereas FD-stoppers ceased PPI therapy for 8 weeks. Before and after these respective periods, certain study procedures were conducted, including duodenal biopsy collection, duodenal fluid aspiration, and questionnaires for symptoms and stress. The study also included use of Ussing chambers for biopsies, immunohistochemistry, and bile salt measurements.

FD-starters were significantly more symptomatic than healthy volunteers were at baseline. After starting PPIs, those with FD had symptom improvements, confirming “clinical efficacy of a standard course of PPIs in all FD subtypes,” whereas healthy volunteers showed no significant change in symptoms.

Similarly, baseline duodenal eosinophil counts were higher in FD-starters than in healthy volunteers. On starting PPIs, however, eosinophil counts in these two groups moved in opposite directions: FD-starters’ counts dropped from a mean of 331 to 183 eosinophils/mm², whereas healthy volunteers’ counts rose from a mean of 115 to 229 eosinophils/mm² (P < .0001). Changes in mast cells and paracellular passage followed the same pattern, falling in FD-starters and rising in healthy volunteers. On the other hand, symptoms actually improved in the FD-stoppers after they went off PPIs, although they did not reach symptom levels of the healthy volunteers.

“Differential effects of PPIs in healthy volunteers point to the role of luminal changes in determining low-grade mucosal immune activation in the duodenum, which can also occur in FD after long-term use and provide arguments against continued use in refractory patients,” the investigators wrote.

Dr. Wauters and colleagues suggested that their findings could guide future approaches to FD management.

“Our results suggest that quantification of duodenal eosinophils has the potential to become part of diagnostic workup and guide therapeutic decisions in FD,” they wrote. “Additional study of the underlying mediators might lead to the discovery of new potential biomarkers or novel therapeutic targets, potentially allowing the identification of subgroups responding to biologically targeted rather than symptom-based treatments.”

The study was supported by the clinical research fund of the University Hospitals Leuven. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) improve functional dyspepsia (FD) by reducing duodenal eosinophils and mast cells, according to a prospective study.

This suggests that the anti-inflammatory effects of PPIs are responsible for symptom improvement, and not barrier-protective or acid-suppressive effects, a finding that may guide future therapies and biomarkers, reported lead author Lucas Wauters, PhD, of University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium), and colleagues reported in Gastroenterology.

“FD is a common and unexplained disorder with unknown pathophysiology, hampering a conclusive diagnosis and the development of effective drugs,” the investigators wrote.

Although PPIs are currently used as first-line FD therapy, ostensibly for acid suppression, “the exact mechanism of action of PPIs in FD is unknown,” the investigators noted.

According to Dr. Wauters and colleagues, previous FD studies, such as a 2020 study published in Gut, have reported a variety of pathophysiological findings in the duodenum, including increased eosinophils and mast cells, as well as activation of duodenogastric reflexes, which suggests “a primary role for duodenal pathology in FD symptom generation.” Several drivers of this pathology have been proposed. Some, such as aberrations in bile salts and acidity, point to local, luminal changes, whereas others, such as dysregulated hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis responsiveness and psychosocial factors, implicate a broader set of drivers, the investigators wrote.

The present study explored this landscape through a prospective trial that enrolled 30 healthy volunteers and 47 patients with FD (2 patients with FD did not complete the study).

Patients with FD were subgrouped into “FD-starters” who had not taken PPIs and/or acid suppression for at least 3 months leading up to the trial (n = 28) and “FD-stoppers” who had refractory symptoms after at least 1 month of daily PPI usage (n = 19). Among participants with FD, 25 had postprandial distress syndrome (PDS), 9 had epigastric pain syndrome (EPS), and 13 had subtype overlap.

For the trial, FD-starters and healthy volunteers took 4 weeks of pantoprazole 40 mg once daily, whereas FD-stoppers ceased PPI therapy for 8 weeks. Before and after these respective periods, certain study procedures were conducted, including duodenal biopsy collection, duodenal fluid aspiration, and questionnaires for symptoms and stress. The study also included use of Ussing chambers for biopsies, immunohistochemistry, and bile salt measurements.

FD-starters were significantly more symptomatic than healthy volunteers were at baseline. After starting PPIs, those with FD had symptom improvements, confirming “clinical efficacy of a standard course of PPIs in all FD subtypes,” whereas healthy volunteers showed no significant change in symptoms.

Similarly, baseline duodenal eosinophil counts were higher in FD-starters than in healthy volunteers. On starting PPIs, however, eosinophil counts in these two groups moved in opposite directions: FD-starters’ counts dropped from a mean of 331 to 183 eosinophils/mm², whereas healthy volunteers’ counts rose from a mean of 115 to 229 eosinophils/mm² (P < .0001). Changes in mast cells and paracellular passage followed the same pattern, falling in FD-starters and rising in healthy volunteers. On the other hand, symptoms actually improved in the FD-stoppers after they went off PPIs, although they did not reach symptom levels of the healthy volunteers.

“Differential effects of PPIs in healthy volunteers point to the role of luminal changes in determining low-grade mucosal immune activation in the duodenum, which can also occur in FD after long-term use and provide arguments against continued use in refractory patients,” the investigators wrote.

Dr. Wauters and colleagues suggested that their findings could guide future approaches to FD management.

“Our results suggest that quantification of duodenal eosinophils has the potential to become part of diagnostic workup and guide therapeutic decisions in FD,” they wrote. “Additional study of the underlying mediators might lead to the discovery of new potential biomarkers or novel therapeutic targets, potentially allowing the identification of subgroups responding to biologically targeted rather than symptom-based treatments.”

The study was supported by the clinical research fund of the University Hospitals Leuven. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

Almost one in four men and women diagnosed with kidney stones have osteoporosis or a history of fracture at the time of their diagnosis, yet fewer than 10% undergo bone mineral density (BMD) screening, a retrospective analysis of a Veterans Health Administration database shows.

kgerakis/Getty Images

Because the majority of those analyzed in the VA dataset were men, this means that middle-aged and older men with kidney stones have about the same risk for osteoporosis as postmenopausal women do, but BMD screening for such men is not currently recommended, the study notes.

“These findings suggest that the risk of osteoporosis or fractures in patients with kidney stone disease is not restricted to postmenopausal women but is also observed in men, a group that is less well recognized to be at risk,” Calyani Ganesan, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues say in their article, published online March 3 in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

“We hope this work raises awareness regarding the possibility of reduced bone strength in patients with kidney stones, [and] in our future work, we hope to identify which patients with kidney stones are at higher risk for osteoporosis or fracture to help guide bone density screening efforts by clinicians in this population,” Dr. Ganesan added in a statement.
 

VA dataset: Just 9.1% had DXA after kidney stone diagnosed

A total of 531,431 patients with a history of kidney stone disease were identified in the VA dataset. Of these, 23.6% either had been diagnosed with osteoporosis or had a history of fracture around the time of their kidney stone diagnosis. The most common diagnosis was a non-hip fracture, seen in 19% of patients, Dr. Ganesan and colleagues note, followed by osteoporosis in 6.1%, and hip fracture in 2.1%.

The mean age of the patients who concurrently had received a diagnosis of kidney stone disease and osteoporosis or had a fracture history was 64.2 years. In this cohort, more than 91% were men. The majority of the patients were White.

Among some 462,681 patients who had no prior history of either osteoporosis or fracture before their diagnosis of kidney stones, only 9.1% had undergone dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) screening for BMD in the 5 years after their kidney stone diagnosis.

“Of those who completed DXA ... 20% were subsequently diagnosed with osteoporosis,” the authors note – 19% with non-hip fracture, and 2.4% with hip fracture.

Importantly, 85% of patients with kidney stone disease who were screened with DXA and were later diagnosed with osteoporosis were men.

“Given that almost 20% of patients in our cohort had a non-hip fracture, we contend that osteoporosis is underdiagnosed and undertreated in older men with kidney stone disease,” the authors stress.

Perform DXA screen in older men, even in absence of hypercalciuria

The authors also explain that the most common metabolic abnormality associated with kidney stones is high urine calcium excretion, or hypercalciuria.

“In a subset of patients with kidney stones, dysregulated calcium homeostasis may be present in which calcium is resorbed from bone and excreted into the urine, which can lead to osteoporosis and the formation of calcium stones,” they explain.

However, when they carried out a 24-hour assessment of urine calcium excretion on a small subset of patients with kidney stones, “we found no correlation between osteoporosis and the level of 24-hour urine calcium excretion,” they point out.

Even when the authors excluded patients who were taking a thiazide diuretic – a class of drugs that decreases urine calcium excretion – there was no correlation between osteoporosis and the level of 24-hour urine calcium excretion.

The investigators suggest it is possible that, in the majority of patients with kidney stones, the cause of hypercalciuria is more closely related to overabsorption of calcium from the gut, not to overresorption of calcium from the bone.

“Nonetheless, our findings indicate that patients with kidney stone disease could benefit from DXA screening even in the absence of hypercalciuria,” they state.

“And our findings provide support for wider use of bone mineral density screening in patients with kidney stone disease, including middle-aged and older men, for whom efforts to mitigate risks of osteoporosis and fractures are not commonly emphasized,” they reaffirm.

The study was funded by the VA Merit Review and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Almost one in four men and women diagnosed with kidney stones have osteoporosis or a history of fracture at the time of their diagnosis, yet fewer than 10% undergo bone mineral density (BMD) screening, a retrospective analysis of a Veterans Health Administration database shows.

kgerakis/Getty Images

Because the majority of those analyzed in the VA dataset were men, this means that middle-aged and older men with kidney stones have about the same risk for osteoporosis as postmenopausal women do, but BMD screening for such men is not currently recommended, the study notes.

“These findings suggest that the risk of osteoporosis or fractures in patients with kidney stone disease is not restricted to postmenopausal women but is also observed in men, a group that is less well recognized to be at risk,” Calyani Ganesan, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues say in their article, published online March 3 in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

“We hope this work raises awareness regarding the possibility of reduced bone strength in patients with kidney stones, [and] in our future work, we hope to identify which patients with kidney stones are at higher risk for osteoporosis or fracture to help guide bone density screening efforts by clinicians in this population,” Dr. Ganesan added in a statement.
 

VA dataset: Just 9.1% had DXA after kidney stone diagnosed

A total of 531,431 patients with a history of kidney stone disease were identified in the VA dataset. Of these, 23.6% either had been diagnosed with osteoporosis or had a history of fracture around the time of their kidney stone diagnosis. The most common diagnosis was a non-hip fracture, seen in 19% of patients, Dr. Ganesan and colleagues note, followed by osteoporosis in 6.1%, and hip fracture in 2.1%.

The mean age of the patients who concurrently had received a diagnosis of kidney stone disease and osteoporosis or had a fracture history was 64.2 years. In this cohort, more than 91% were men. The majority of the patients were White.

Among some 462,681 patients who had no prior history of either osteoporosis or fracture before their diagnosis of kidney stones, only 9.1% had undergone dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) screening for BMD in the 5 years after their kidney stone diagnosis.

“Of those who completed DXA ... 20% were subsequently diagnosed with osteoporosis,” the authors note – 19% with non-hip fracture, and 2.4% with hip fracture.

Importantly, 85% of patients with kidney stone disease who were screened with DXA and were later diagnosed with osteoporosis were men.

“Given that almost 20% of patients in our cohort had a non-hip fracture, we contend that osteoporosis is underdiagnosed and undertreated in older men with kidney stone disease,” the authors stress.

Perform DXA screen in older men, even in absence of hypercalciuria

The authors also explain that the most common metabolic abnormality associated with kidney stones is high urine calcium excretion, or hypercalciuria.

“In a subset of patients with kidney stones, dysregulated calcium homeostasis may be present in which calcium is resorbed from bone and excreted into the urine, which can lead to osteoporosis and the formation of calcium stones,” they explain.

However, when they carried out a 24-hour assessment of urine calcium excretion on a small subset of patients with kidney stones, “we found no correlation between osteoporosis and the level of 24-hour urine calcium excretion,” they point out.

Even when the authors excluded patients who were taking a thiazide diuretic – a class of drugs that decreases urine calcium excretion – there was no correlation between osteoporosis and the level of 24-hour urine calcium excretion.

The investigators suggest it is possible that, in the majority of patients with kidney stones, the cause of hypercalciuria is more closely related to overabsorption of calcium from the gut, not to overresorption of calcium from the bone.

“Nonetheless, our findings indicate that patients with kidney stone disease could benefit from DXA screening even in the absence of hypercalciuria,” they state.

“And our findings provide support for wider use of bone mineral density screening in patients with kidney stone disease, including middle-aged and older men, for whom efforts to mitigate risks of osteoporosis and fractures are not commonly emphasized,” they reaffirm.

The study was funded by the VA Merit Review and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Almost one in four men and women diagnosed with kidney stones have osteoporosis or a history of fracture at the time of their diagnosis, yet fewer than 10% undergo bone mineral density (BMD) screening, a retrospective analysis of a Veterans Health Administration database shows.

kgerakis/Getty Images

Because the majority of those analyzed in the VA dataset were men, this means that middle-aged and older men with kidney stones have about the same risk for osteoporosis as postmenopausal women do, but BMD screening for such men is not currently recommended, the study notes.

“These findings suggest that the risk of osteoporosis or fractures in patients with kidney stone disease is not restricted to postmenopausal women but is also observed in men, a group that is less well recognized to be at risk,” Calyani Ganesan, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues say in their article, published online March 3 in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

“We hope this work raises awareness regarding the possibility of reduced bone strength in patients with kidney stones, [and] in our future work, we hope to identify which patients with kidney stones are at higher risk for osteoporosis or fracture to help guide bone density screening efforts by clinicians in this population,” Dr. Ganesan added in a statement.
 

VA dataset: Just 9.1% had DXA after kidney stone diagnosed

A total of 531,431 patients with a history of kidney stone disease were identified in the VA dataset. Of these, 23.6% either had been diagnosed with osteoporosis or had a history of fracture around the time of their kidney stone diagnosis. The most common diagnosis was a non-hip fracture, seen in 19% of patients, Dr. Ganesan and colleagues note, followed by osteoporosis in 6.1%, and hip fracture in 2.1%.

The mean age of the patients who concurrently had received a diagnosis of kidney stone disease and osteoporosis or had a fracture history was 64.2 years. In this cohort, more than 91% were men. The majority of the patients were White.

Among some 462,681 patients who had no prior history of either osteoporosis or fracture before their diagnosis of kidney stones, only 9.1% had undergone dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) screening for BMD in the 5 years after their kidney stone diagnosis.

“Of those who completed DXA ... 20% were subsequently diagnosed with osteoporosis,” the authors note – 19% with non-hip fracture, and 2.4% with hip fracture.

Importantly, 85% of patients with kidney stone disease who were screened with DXA and were later diagnosed with osteoporosis were men.

“Given that almost 20% of patients in our cohort had a non-hip fracture, we contend that osteoporosis is underdiagnosed and undertreated in older men with kidney stone disease,” the authors stress.

Perform DXA screen in older men, even in absence of hypercalciuria

The authors also explain that the most common metabolic abnormality associated with kidney stones is high urine calcium excretion, or hypercalciuria.

“In a subset of patients with kidney stones, dysregulated calcium homeostasis may be present in which calcium is resorbed from bone and excreted into the urine, which can lead to osteoporosis and the formation of calcium stones,” they explain.

However, when they carried out a 24-hour assessment of urine calcium excretion on a small subset of patients with kidney stones, “we found no correlation between osteoporosis and the level of 24-hour urine calcium excretion,” they point out.

Even when the authors excluded patients who were taking a thiazide diuretic – a class of drugs that decreases urine calcium excretion – there was no correlation between osteoporosis and the level of 24-hour urine calcium excretion.

The investigators suggest it is possible that, in the majority of patients with kidney stones, the cause of hypercalciuria is more closely related to overabsorption of calcium from the gut, not to overresorption of calcium from the bone.

“Nonetheless, our findings indicate that patients with kidney stone disease could benefit from DXA screening even in the absence of hypercalciuria,” they state.

“And our findings provide support for wider use of bone mineral density screening in patients with kidney stone disease, including middle-aged and older men, for whom efforts to mitigate risks of osteoporosis and fractures are not commonly emphasized,” they reaffirm.

The study was funded by the VA Merit Review and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Palliative care for people with dementia is increasingly recognized as a way to improve quality of life and provide relief from the myriad physical and psychological symptoms of advancing neurodegenerative disease. But unlike in cancer, relatively few patients with terminal dementia receive referrals to palliative care.

A new literature review has found these referrals to be all over the map among patients with dementia – with many occurring very late in the disease process – and do not reflect any consistent criteria based on patient needs.

For their research, published March 2 in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Li Mo, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and colleagues looked at nearly 60 studies dating back to the early 1990s that contained information on referrals to palliative care for patients with dementia. While a palliative care approach can be provided by nonspecialists, all the included studies dealt at least in part with specialist care.
 

Standardized criteria is lacking

The investigators found advanced or late-stage dementia to be the most common reason cited for referral, with three quarters of the studies recommending palliative care for late-stage or advanced dementia, generally without qualifying what symptoms or needs were present. Patients received palliative care across a range of settings, including nursing homes, hospitals, and their own homes, though many articles did not include information on where patients received care.

A fifth of the articles suggested that medical complications of dementia including falls, pneumonia, and ulcers should trigger referrals to palliative care, while another fifth cited poor prognosis, defined varyingly as having between 2 years and 6 months likely left to live. Poor nutrition status was identified in 10% of studies as meriting referral.

Only 20% of the studies identified patient needs – evidence of psychological distress or functional decline, for example – as criteria for referral, despite these being ubiquitous in dementia. The authors said they were surprised by this finding, which could possibly be explained, they wrote, by “the interest among geriatrician, neurologist, and primary care teams to provide good symptom management,” reflecting a de facto palliative care approach. “There is also significant stigma associated with a specialist palliative care referral,” the authors noted.

Curiously, the researchers noted, a new diagnosis of dementia in more than a quarter of the studies triggered referral, a finding that possibly reflected delayed diagnoses.

The findings revealed “heterogeneity in the literature in reasons for involving specialist palliative care, which may partly explain the variation in patterns of palliative care referral,” Dr. Mo and colleagues wrote, stressing that more standardized criteria are urgently needed to bring dementia in line with cancer in terms of providing timely palliative care.

Patients with advancing dementia have little chance to self-report symptoms, meaning that more attention to patient complaints earlier in the disease course, and greater sensitivity to patient distress, are required. By routinely screening symptoms, clinicians could use specific cutoffs “as triggers to initiate automatic timely palliative care referral,” the authors concluded, noting that more research was needed before these cutoffs, whether based on symptom intensity or other measures, could be calculated.

Dr. Mo and colleagues acknowledged as weaknesses of their study the fact that a third of the articles in the review were based on expert consensus, while others did not distinguish clearly between primary and specialist palliative care.
 

A starting point for further discussion

Asked to comment on the findings, Elizabeth Sampson, MD, a palliative care researcher at University College London, praised Dr. Mo and colleagues’ study as “starting to pull together the strands” of a systematic approach to referrals and access to palliative care in dementia.

Dr. Sampson’s group is leading a UK-government funded research effort that aims to develop cost-effective palliative care interventions in dementia, in part through a tool that uses caregiver reports to assess symptom burden and patient needs. The research program “is founded on a needs-based approach, which aims to look at people’s individual needs and responding to them in a proactive way,” she said.

One of the obstacles to timely palliative care in dementia, Dr. Sampson said, is weighing resource allocation against what can be wildly varying prognoses. “Hospices understand when someone has terminal cancer and [is] likely to die within a few weeks, but it’s not unheard of for someone in very advanced stages of dementia to live another year,” she said. “There are concerns that a rapid increase in people with dementia being moved to palliative care could overwhelm already limited hospice capacity. We would argue that the best approach is to get palliative care out to where people with dementia live, which is usually the care home.”

Dr. Mo and colleagues’ study received funding from the National Institutes of Health, and its authors disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Sampson’s work is supported by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council and National Institute for Health Research. She disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Palliative care for people with dementia is increasingly recognized as a way to improve quality of life and provide relief from the myriad physical and psychological symptoms of advancing neurodegenerative disease. But unlike in cancer, relatively few patients with terminal dementia receive referrals to palliative care.

A new literature review has found these referrals to be all over the map among patients with dementia – with many occurring very late in the disease process – and do not reflect any consistent criteria based on patient needs.

For their research, published March 2 in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Li Mo, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and colleagues looked at nearly 60 studies dating back to the early 1990s that contained information on referrals to palliative care for patients with dementia. While a palliative care approach can be provided by nonspecialists, all the included studies dealt at least in part with specialist care.
 

Standardized criteria is lacking

The investigators found advanced or late-stage dementia to be the most common reason cited for referral, with three quarters of the studies recommending palliative care for late-stage or advanced dementia, generally without qualifying what symptoms or needs were present. Patients received palliative care across a range of settings, including nursing homes, hospitals, and their own homes, though many articles did not include information on where patients received care.

A fifth of the articles suggested that medical complications of dementia including falls, pneumonia, and ulcers should trigger referrals to palliative care, while another fifth cited poor prognosis, defined varyingly as having between 2 years and 6 months likely left to live. Poor nutrition status was identified in 10% of studies as meriting referral.

Only 20% of the studies identified patient needs – evidence of psychological distress or functional decline, for example – as criteria for referral, despite these being ubiquitous in dementia. The authors said they were surprised by this finding, which could possibly be explained, they wrote, by “the interest among geriatrician, neurologist, and primary care teams to provide good symptom management,” reflecting a de facto palliative care approach. “There is also significant stigma associated with a specialist palliative care referral,” the authors noted.

Curiously, the researchers noted, a new diagnosis of dementia in more than a quarter of the studies triggered referral, a finding that possibly reflected delayed diagnoses.

The findings revealed “heterogeneity in the literature in reasons for involving specialist palliative care, which may partly explain the variation in patterns of palliative care referral,” Dr. Mo and colleagues wrote, stressing that more standardized criteria are urgently needed to bring dementia in line with cancer in terms of providing timely palliative care.

Patients with advancing dementia have little chance to self-report symptoms, meaning that more attention to patient complaints earlier in the disease course, and greater sensitivity to patient distress, are required. By routinely screening symptoms, clinicians could use specific cutoffs “as triggers to initiate automatic timely palliative care referral,” the authors concluded, noting that more research was needed before these cutoffs, whether based on symptom intensity or other measures, could be calculated.

Dr. Mo and colleagues acknowledged as weaknesses of their study the fact that a third of the articles in the review were based on expert consensus, while others did not distinguish clearly between primary and specialist palliative care.
 

A starting point for further discussion

Asked to comment on the findings, Elizabeth Sampson, MD, a palliative care researcher at University College London, praised Dr. Mo and colleagues’ study as “starting to pull together the strands” of a systematic approach to referrals and access to palliative care in dementia.

Dr. Sampson’s group is leading a UK-government funded research effort that aims to develop cost-effective palliative care interventions in dementia, in part through a tool that uses caregiver reports to assess symptom burden and patient needs. The research program “is founded on a needs-based approach, which aims to look at people’s individual needs and responding to them in a proactive way,” she said.

One of the obstacles to timely palliative care in dementia, Dr. Sampson said, is weighing resource allocation against what can be wildly varying prognoses. “Hospices understand when someone has terminal cancer and [is] likely to die within a few weeks, but it’s not unheard of for someone in very advanced stages of dementia to live another year,” she said. “There are concerns that a rapid increase in people with dementia being moved to palliative care could overwhelm already limited hospice capacity. We would argue that the best approach is to get palliative care out to where people with dementia live, which is usually the care home.”

Dr. Mo and colleagues’ study received funding from the National Institutes of Health, and its authors disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Sampson’s work is supported by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council and National Institute for Health Research. She disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Palliative care for people with dementia is increasingly recognized as a way to improve quality of life and provide relief from the myriad physical and psychological symptoms of advancing neurodegenerative disease. But unlike in cancer, relatively few patients with terminal dementia receive referrals to palliative care.

A new literature review has found these referrals to be all over the map among patients with dementia – with many occurring very late in the disease process – and do not reflect any consistent criteria based on patient needs.

For their research, published March 2 in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Li Mo, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and colleagues looked at nearly 60 studies dating back to the early 1990s that contained information on referrals to palliative care for patients with dementia. While a palliative care approach can be provided by nonspecialists, all the included studies dealt at least in part with specialist care.
 

Standardized criteria is lacking

The investigators found advanced or late-stage dementia to be the most common reason cited for referral, with three quarters of the studies recommending palliative care for late-stage or advanced dementia, generally without qualifying what symptoms or needs were present. Patients received palliative care across a range of settings, including nursing homes, hospitals, and their own homes, though many articles did not include information on where patients received care.

A fifth of the articles suggested that medical complications of dementia including falls, pneumonia, and ulcers should trigger referrals to palliative care, while another fifth cited poor prognosis, defined varyingly as having between 2 years and 6 months likely left to live. Poor nutrition status was identified in 10% of studies as meriting referral.

Only 20% of the studies identified patient needs – evidence of psychological distress or functional decline, for example – as criteria for referral, despite these being ubiquitous in dementia. The authors said they were surprised by this finding, which could possibly be explained, they wrote, by “the interest among geriatrician, neurologist, and primary care teams to provide good symptom management,” reflecting a de facto palliative care approach. “There is also significant stigma associated with a specialist palliative care referral,” the authors noted.

Curiously, the researchers noted, a new diagnosis of dementia in more than a quarter of the studies triggered referral, a finding that possibly reflected delayed diagnoses.

The findings revealed “heterogeneity in the literature in reasons for involving specialist palliative care, which may partly explain the variation in patterns of palliative care referral,” Dr. Mo and colleagues wrote, stressing that more standardized criteria are urgently needed to bring dementia in line with cancer in terms of providing timely palliative care.

Patients with advancing dementia have little chance to self-report symptoms, meaning that more attention to patient complaints earlier in the disease course, and greater sensitivity to patient distress, are required. By routinely screening symptoms, clinicians could use specific cutoffs “as triggers to initiate automatic timely palliative care referral,” the authors concluded, noting that more research was needed before these cutoffs, whether based on symptom intensity or other measures, could be calculated.

Dr. Mo and colleagues acknowledged as weaknesses of their study the fact that a third of the articles in the review were based on expert consensus, while others did not distinguish clearly between primary and specialist palliative care.
 

A starting point for further discussion

Asked to comment on the findings, Elizabeth Sampson, MD, a palliative care researcher at University College London, praised Dr. Mo and colleagues’ study as “starting to pull together the strands” of a systematic approach to referrals and access to palliative care in dementia.

Dr. Sampson’s group is leading a UK-government funded research effort that aims to develop cost-effective palliative care interventions in dementia, in part through a tool that uses caregiver reports to assess symptom burden and patient needs. The research program “is founded on a needs-based approach, which aims to look at people’s individual needs and responding to them in a proactive way,” she said.

One of the obstacles to timely palliative care in dementia, Dr. Sampson said, is weighing resource allocation against what can be wildly varying prognoses. “Hospices understand when someone has terminal cancer and [is] likely to die within a few weeks, but it’s not unheard of for someone in very advanced stages of dementia to live another year,” she said. “There are concerns that a rapid increase in people with dementia being moved to palliative care could overwhelm already limited hospice capacity. We would argue that the best approach is to get palliative care out to where people with dementia live, which is usually the care home.”

Dr. Mo and colleagues’ study received funding from the National Institutes of Health, and its authors disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Sampson’s work is supported by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council and National Institute for Health Research. She disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) affects Whites, African Americans, and Hispanics differently, a new study finds, and there are big gaps in how they respond to disease-modifying therapies (DMTs).

“Hispanics and African Americans develop a more severe disease course and accumulate more MS-related disability over time despite similar sociodemographic backgrounds and similar patterns of DMT use throughout their disease, suggesting that socioeconomic status and access to health care may not be the main determinants of health,” said neurologist Carlos Pérez, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston. He spoke at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and in a follow-up interview.

“In addition,” Dr. Pérez said, “therapeutic responses to individual DMTs, as well as tolerance and side-effect profiles, are also variable among racial/ethnic groups.”

The researchers tracked 150 patients with MS at the University of Texas Health Science Center – 50 Whites, 50 African American, and 50 Hispanic – who were age and gender matched. The average age of the subjects was 45, and 74% of those in each group were women.

While educational levels between the groups were similar, African Americans had a much higher rate of lost employment because of disability (38%) than Hispanics (19%) and Whites (15%, P = .02). Fifty-seven patients (38%) needed escalation of therapy, and 63% were African American.

About 30% of subjects switched DMTs because of intolerance/adverse events, and 47% of those were African American. Interferons most commonly caused adverse effects in African Americans (61%), and Whites were the most likely to not tolerate glatiramer acetate (39%) than Hispanics (8%) and African Americans (13%).

What might be behind the disparities? “It is possible that genetic factors may play a greater role than previously thought. A recent study reported that Hispanic and African American patients with MS have higher levels of peripheral blood plasmablasts, which may provide indirect evidence for potential biological mechanisms underlying racial and clinical disparities in MS,” Dr. Pérez said. “These mechanisms appear to involve higher degrees of inflammation in the central nervous system. This may explain why African Americans may respond better to higher-efficacy therapies initially, when inflammatory processes predominate MS-related pathology, rather than at later stages of the disease when inflammation plays a less prominent role. Neurologists should consider higher-efficacy DMT as first line. We have begun to do this in our practice.”

Dr. Pérez said the findings offer other lessons. “Neurologists should consider that Caucasian patients tolerate glatiramer acetate less frequently, compared with other racial groups, and potentially consider using alternative DMTs unless the benefits outweigh the risks, such as during pregnancy.”

He also noted that African Americans treated with oral DMTs at baseline were more likely to develop worsening disability over time. “This argues in favor of infusion therapies as first-line treatment,” he said, adding that more Hispanics with MS were not on treatment – or discontinued treatment – compared with Whites and African Americans.
 

Close patient monitoring is key

Atlanta-area neurologist Mitzi Joi Williams, MD, who was asked to comment on the study findings, said in an interview that it “adds to the body of real-world evidence to assist understanding of MS in minority populations.”

She noted that African American patients who started on infusions appeared to be more stable. “There are a great deal of questions surrounding starting patients on injectables versus higher-efficacy therapy initially to prevent disability and this may lend credence to the need for closer examination of initial therapy for these patients. It is important to closely monitor patients and consider a switch in DMT if there is any clinical or radiologic progression, especially for African American and Hispanic patients since there is a great deal of data to suggest they may have more aggressive disease.”

Moving forward, more research like this is needed, she said. “Patients did all have insurance and were largely educated, but there could be other social determinants of health – i.e., transportation, lapses in insurance, or technology barriers – that may have led to worse outcomes.”

No study funding was reported, and Dr. Pérez reported no disclosures. Dr. Williams disclosed research support from EMD Serono, Genentech, and Novartis and advisory committee/consultant relationships with AbbVie, Biogen Idec, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) affects Whites, African Americans, and Hispanics differently, a new study finds, and there are big gaps in how they respond to disease-modifying therapies (DMTs).

“Hispanics and African Americans develop a more severe disease course and accumulate more MS-related disability over time despite similar sociodemographic backgrounds and similar patterns of DMT use throughout their disease, suggesting that socioeconomic status and access to health care may not be the main determinants of health,” said neurologist Carlos Pérez, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston. He spoke at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and in a follow-up interview.

“In addition,” Dr. Pérez said, “therapeutic responses to individual DMTs, as well as tolerance and side-effect profiles, are also variable among racial/ethnic groups.”

The researchers tracked 150 patients with MS at the University of Texas Health Science Center – 50 Whites, 50 African American, and 50 Hispanic – who were age and gender matched. The average age of the subjects was 45, and 74% of those in each group were women.

While educational levels between the groups were similar, African Americans had a much higher rate of lost employment because of disability (38%) than Hispanics (19%) and Whites (15%, P = .02). Fifty-seven patients (38%) needed escalation of therapy, and 63% were African American.

About 30% of subjects switched DMTs because of intolerance/adverse events, and 47% of those were African American. Interferons most commonly caused adverse effects in African Americans (61%), and Whites were the most likely to not tolerate glatiramer acetate (39%) than Hispanics (8%) and African Americans (13%).

What might be behind the disparities? “It is possible that genetic factors may play a greater role than previously thought. A recent study reported that Hispanic and African American patients with MS have higher levels of peripheral blood plasmablasts, which may provide indirect evidence for potential biological mechanisms underlying racial and clinical disparities in MS,” Dr. Pérez said. “These mechanisms appear to involve higher degrees of inflammation in the central nervous system. This may explain why African Americans may respond better to higher-efficacy therapies initially, when inflammatory processes predominate MS-related pathology, rather than at later stages of the disease when inflammation plays a less prominent role. Neurologists should consider higher-efficacy DMT as first line. We have begun to do this in our practice.”

Dr. Pérez said the findings offer other lessons. “Neurologists should consider that Caucasian patients tolerate glatiramer acetate less frequently, compared with other racial groups, and potentially consider using alternative DMTs unless the benefits outweigh the risks, such as during pregnancy.”

He also noted that African Americans treated with oral DMTs at baseline were more likely to develop worsening disability over time. “This argues in favor of infusion therapies as first-line treatment,” he said, adding that more Hispanics with MS were not on treatment – or discontinued treatment – compared with Whites and African Americans.
 

Close patient monitoring is key

Atlanta-area neurologist Mitzi Joi Williams, MD, who was asked to comment on the study findings, said in an interview that it “adds to the body of real-world evidence to assist understanding of MS in minority populations.”

She noted that African American patients who started on infusions appeared to be more stable. “There are a great deal of questions surrounding starting patients on injectables versus higher-efficacy therapy initially to prevent disability and this may lend credence to the need for closer examination of initial therapy for these patients. It is important to closely monitor patients and consider a switch in DMT if there is any clinical or radiologic progression, especially for African American and Hispanic patients since there is a great deal of data to suggest they may have more aggressive disease.”

Moving forward, more research like this is needed, she said. “Patients did all have insurance and were largely educated, but there could be other social determinants of health – i.e., transportation, lapses in insurance, or technology barriers – that may have led to worse outcomes.”

No study funding was reported, and Dr. Pérez reported no disclosures. Dr. Williams disclosed research support from EMD Serono, Genentech, and Novartis and advisory committee/consultant relationships with AbbVie, Biogen Idec, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) affects Whites, African Americans, and Hispanics differently, a new study finds, and there are big gaps in how they respond to disease-modifying therapies (DMTs).

“Hispanics and African Americans develop a more severe disease course and accumulate more MS-related disability over time despite similar sociodemographic backgrounds and similar patterns of DMT use throughout their disease, suggesting that socioeconomic status and access to health care may not be the main determinants of health,” said neurologist Carlos Pérez, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston. He spoke at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and in a follow-up interview.

“In addition,” Dr. Pérez said, “therapeutic responses to individual DMTs, as well as tolerance and side-effect profiles, are also variable among racial/ethnic groups.”

The researchers tracked 150 patients with MS at the University of Texas Health Science Center – 50 Whites, 50 African American, and 50 Hispanic – who were age and gender matched. The average age of the subjects was 45, and 74% of those in each group were women.

While educational levels between the groups were similar, African Americans had a much higher rate of lost employment because of disability (38%) than Hispanics (19%) and Whites (15%, P = .02). Fifty-seven patients (38%) needed escalation of therapy, and 63% were African American.

About 30% of subjects switched DMTs because of intolerance/adverse events, and 47% of those were African American. Interferons most commonly caused adverse effects in African Americans (61%), and Whites were the most likely to not tolerate glatiramer acetate (39%) than Hispanics (8%) and African Americans (13%).

What might be behind the disparities? “It is possible that genetic factors may play a greater role than previously thought. A recent study reported that Hispanic and African American patients with MS have higher levels of peripheral blood plasmablasts, which may provide indirect evidence for potential biological mechanisms underlying racial and clinical disparities in MS,” Dr. Pérez said. “These mechanisms appear to involve higher degrees of inflammation in the central nervous system. This may explain why African Americans may respond better to higher-efficacy therapies initially, when inflammatory processes predominate MS-related pathology, rather than at later stages of the disease when inflammation plays a less prominent role. Neurologists should consider higher-efficacy DMT as first line. We have begun to do this in our practice.”

Dr. Pérez said the findings offer other lessons. “Neurologists should consider that Caucasian patients tolerate glatiramer acetate less frequently, compared with other racial groups, and potentially consider using alternative DMTs unless the benefits outweigh the risks, such as during pregnancy.”

He also noted that African Americans treated with oral DMTs at baseline were more likely to develop worsening disability over time. “This argues in favor of infusion therapies as first-line treatment,” he said, adding that more Hispanics with MS were not on treatment – or discontinued treatment – compared with Whites and African Americans.
 

Close patient monitoring is key

Atlanta-area neurologist Mitzi Joi Williams, MD, who was asked to comment on the study findings, said in an interview that it “adds to the body of real-world evidence to assist understanding of MS in minority populations.”

She noted that African American patients who started on infusions appeared to be more stable. “There are a great deal of questions surrounding starting patients on injectables versus higher-efficacy therapy initially to prevent disability and this may lend credence to the need for closer examination of initial therapy for these patients. It is important to closely monitor patients and consider a switch in DMT if there is any clinical or radiologic progression, especially for African American and Hispanic patients since there is a great deal of data to suggest they may have more aggressive disease.”

Moving forward, more research like this is needed, she said. “Patients did all have insurance and were largely educated, but there could be other social determinants of health – i.e., transportation, lapses in insurance, or technology barriers – that may have led to worse outcomes.”

No study funding was reported, and Dr. Pérez reported no disclosures. Dr. Williams disclosed research support from EMD Serono, Genentech, and Novartis and advisory committee/consultant relationships with AbbVie, Biogen Idec, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme.

While they’re extraordinarily expensive, a trio of newly approved medications is providing a variety of effective treatment options for patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), a neurologist told colleagues.

“Patients have a choice of different options with different types of action. It’s good news,” said Sean J. Pittock, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “If you don’t stop the clinical attacks, patients can become very disabled very quickly. These medications have a significant impact in reducing the likelihood of having a clinical relapse. If you can stop the relapses, you certainly can eventually stop most – if not all – of the disability accrual.”

Dr. Pittock spoke at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and answered follow-up questions in an interview.
 

Treatment advances for NMOSD

NMOSD, also known as NMO, is a relapsing autoimmune inflammatory disorder that causes recurrent optic neuritis and myelitis. It’s a rare disease, affecting 0.5-10 people per 100,000, mostly women.

Several recent trials have supported the use of the drugs eculizumab (Soliris), satralizumab (Enspryng) and inebilizumab (Uplizna) in NMOSD, Dr. Pittock said, and all have received Food and Drug Administration approval to treat the condition over the past 2 years. Dr. Pittock led the PREVENT trial of eculizumab, which showed a 94% reduction of relapse risk versus placebo.

The newly approved drugs are stunningly expensive. According to Dr. Pittock, eculizumab costs $710,000 a year, while inebilizumab runs $393,000 the first year, then $262,000 a year. Satralizumab is $219,000 the first year, then $190,000 a year. Assistance programs are available, Dr. Pittock said, “and we’ve not had any major problems in terms of initiation.”

The cost of rituximab (Rituxan), which has a history of use as an off-label treatment option, is $18,000 a year and dropping, according to Dr. Pittock. There’s also new research on rituximab: In 2020, a small Japanese trial (n = 38) reported prevention of relapses compared with placebo, but Dr. Pittock cautioned that “the placebo patients seem to have a more benign course or more benign phenotypes” than the intervention group.

“There’s no doubt that rituximab works, but does it work as well as the other medications that have been through more of a robust trial process?” he asked. Keep in mind, he added, that perhaps 20%-50% of patients will relapse on rituximab.

Dr. Pittock advised colleagues to consider factors like patient schedules and compliance when choosing a drug. Satralizumab is self-administered monthly, while inebilizumab and rituximab are infused every 6 months.
 

Progress in anti-MOG disease

The trials in NMOSD should spur studies of the drugs in anti–myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) disease, he said. “I think we’ll see a more rapid move toward phase 3 trials because of the experience with NMO. We will just have to wait and see which medications enter trial.”

Anti-MOG disease, also known as MOG antibody disease (MOGAD) and anti-MOG–associated encephalomyelitis, is caused by anti-MOG antibodies. Optic neuritis is very common, and transverse myelitis can occur.

The condition “actually responds to different drugs than MS and has a different immune pathophysiology,” Dr. Pittock said.

He cautioned colleagues to be aware that “the ability of the antibody to tell you whether or not the patient has the disease is less clear for MOGAD than it is for other diseases. If your patient has a low titer of MOG antibody, and their phenotype really doesn’t look like [MOGAD], you really need to interpret that with significant caution.”

He also highlighted a 2018 report that offers guidance about diagnosis and when MOG-IgC antibody tests are appropriate in CNS demyelinating disease.

Dr. Pittock reported numerous disclosures plus patents issued or pending.

While they’re extraordinarily expensive, a trio of newly approved medications is providing a variety of effective treatment options for patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), a neurologist told colleagues.

“Patients have a choice of different options with different types of action. It’s good news,” said Sean J. Pittock, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “If you don’t stop the clinical attacks, patients can become very disabled very quickly. These medications have a significant impact in reducing the likelihood of having a clinical relapse. If you can stop the relapses, you certainly can eventually stop most – if not all – of the disability accrual.”

Dr. Pittock spoke at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and answered follow-up questions in an interview.
 

Treatment advances for NMOSD

NMOSD, also known as NMO, is a relapsing autoimmune inflammatory disorder that causes recurrent optic neuritis and myelitis. It’s a rare disease, affecting 0.5-10 people per 100,000, mostly women.

Several recent trials have supported the use of the drugs eculizumab (Soliris), satralizumab (Enspryng) and inebilizumab (Uplizna) in NMOSD, Dr. Pittock said, and all have received Food and Drug Administration approval to treat the condition over the past 2 years. Dr. Pittock led the PREVENT trial of eculizumab, which showed a 94% reduction of relapse risk versus placebo.

The newly approved drugs are stunningly expensive. According to Dr. Pittock, eculizumab costs $710,000 a year, while inebilizumab runs $393,000 the first year, then $262,000 a year. Satralizumab is $219,000 the first year, then $190,000 a year. Assistance programs are available, Dr. Pittock said, “and we’ve not had any major problems in terms of initiation.”

The cost of rituximab (Rituxan), which has a history of use as an off-label treatment option, is $18,000 a year and dropping, according to Dr. Pittock. There’s also new research on rituximab: In 2020, a small Japanese trial (n = 38) reported prevention of relapses compared with placebo, but Dr. Pittock cautioned that “the placebo patients seem to have a more benign course or more benign phenotypes” than the intervention group.

“There’s no doubt that rituximab works, but does it work as well as the other medications that have been through more of a robust trial process?” he asked. Keep in mind, he added, that perhaps 20%-50% of patients will relapse on rituximab.

Dr. Pittock advised colleagues to consider factors like patient schedules and compliance when choosing a drug. Satralizumab is self-administered monthly, while inebilizumab and rituximab are infused every 6 months.
 

Progress in anti-MOG disease

The trials in NMOSD should spur studies of the drugs in anti–myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) disease, he said. “I think we’ll see a more rapid move toward phase 3 trials because of the experience with NMO. We will just have to wait and see which medications enter trial.”

Anti-MOG disease, also known as MOG antibody disease (MOGAD) and anti-MOG–associated encephalomyelitis, is caused by anti-MOG antibodies. Optic neuritis is very common, and transverse myelitis can occur.

The condition “actually responds to different drugs than MS and has a different immune pathophysiology,” Dr. Pittock said.

He cautioned colleagues to be aware that “the ability of the antibody to tell you whether or not the patient has the disease is less clear for MOGAD than it is for other diseases. If your patient has a low titer of MOG antibody, and their phenotype really doesn’t look like [MOGAD], you really need to interpret that with significant caution.”

He also highlighted a 2018 report that offers guidance about diagnosis and when MOG-IgC antibody tests are appropriate in CNS demyelinating disease.

Dr. Pittock reported numerous disclosures plus patents issued or pending.

While they’re extraordinarily expensive, a trio of newly approved medications is providing a variety of effective treatment options for patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), a neurologist told colleagues.

“Patients have a choice of different options with different types of action. It’s good news,” said Sean J. Pittock, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “If you don’t stop the clinical attacks, patients can become very disabled very quickly. These medications have a significant impact in reducing the likelihood of having a clinical relapse. If you can stop the relapses, you certainly can eventually stop most – if not all – of the disability accrual.”

Dr. Pittock spoke at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and answered follow-up questions in an interview.
 

Treatment advances for NMOSD

NMOSD, also known as NMO, is a relapsing autoimmune inflammatory disorder that causes recurrent optic neuritis and myelitis. It’s a rare disease, affecting 0.5-10 people per 100,000, mostly women.

Several recent trials have supported the use of the drugs eculizumab (Soliris), satralizumab (Enspryng) and inebilizumab (Uplizna) in NMOSD, Dr. Pittock said, and all have received Food and Drug Administration approval to treat the condition over the past 2 years. Dr. Pittock led the PREVENT trial of eculizumab, which showed a 94% reduction of relapse risk versus placebo.

The newly approved drugs are stunningly expensive. According to Dr. Pittock, eculizumab costs $710,000 a year, while inebilizumab runs $393,000 the first year, then $262,000 a year. Satralizumab is $219,000 the first year, then $190,000 a year. Assistance programs are available, Dr. Pittock said, “and we’ve not had any major problems in terms of initiation.”

The cost of rituximab (Rituxan), which has a history of use as an off-label treatment option, is $18,000 a year and dropping, according to Dr. Pittock. There’s also new research on rituximab: In 2020, a small Japanese trial (n = 38) reported prevention of relapses compared with placebo, but Dr. Pittock cautioned that “the placebo patients seem to have a more benign course or more benign phenotypes” than the intervention group.

“There’s no doubt that rituximab works, but does it work as well as the other medications that have been through more of a robust trial process?” he asked. Keep in mind, he added, that perhaps 20%-50% of patients will relapse on rituximab.

Dr. Pittock advised colleagues to consider factors like patient schedules and compliance when choosing a drug. Satralizumab is self-administered monthly, while inebilizumab and rituximab are infused every 6 months.
 

Progress in anti-MOG disease

The trials in NMOSD should spur studies of the drugs in anti–myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) disease, he said. “I think we’ll see a more rapid move toward phase 3 trials because of the experience with NMO. We will just have to wait and see which medications enter trial.”

Anti-MOG disease, also known as MOG antibody disease (MOGAD) and anti-MOG–associated encephalomyelitis, is caused by anti-MOG antibodies. Optic neuritis is very common, and transverse myelitis can occur.

The condition “actually responds to different drugs than MS and has a different immune pathophysiology,” Dr. Pittock said.

He cautioned colleagues to be aware that “the ability of the antibody to tell you whether or not the patient has the disease is less clear for MOGAD than it is for other diseases. If your patient has a low titer of MOG antibody, and their phenotype really doesn’t look like [MOGAD], you really need to interpret that with significant caution.”

He also highlighted a 2018 report that offers guidance about diagnosis and when MOG-IgC antibody tests are appropriate in CNS demyelinating disease.

Dr. Pittock reported numerous disclosures plus patents issued or pending.

An exploratory analysis recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology examines whether it is possible to classify dermatologists and internists into different patterns of prescribing behavior for patients with acne.

“Prior research has highlighted that prescribing for acne may not be aligned with guideline recommendations, including the overuse of oral antibiotics and lack of use of concomitant topical medications such as topical retinoids,” the study’s corresponding author, John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, of the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

“In addition, there is substantial variation in prescribing practices among clinicians. We were interested in examining whether it is possible to identify different prescribing phenotypes among dermatologists and internists who care for patients with acne. By identifying such groups, it would facilitate future qualitative interviews to understand factors that might contribute to clinicians having certain prescribing patterns, which could help guide implementation science work to better align practices with evidence and guidelines.”

For the study, which appeared online on March 1, Dr. Barbieri and colleague David J. Margolis, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, evaluated all clinical encounters associated with an ICD-9 or ICD-10 code for acne that occurred in the university’s departments of dermatology and internal medicine between Jan. 1, 2011, and Dec. 31, 2019. They used a machine-learning method known as k-means clustering to cluster clinicians based on their relative use of acne medications, as well as the ratio of spironolactone versus tetracycline use among female patients and stratified their analyses by specialty.

Of the 116 dermatologists included in the analysis, the researchers identified three clusters. The first cluster included 17 dermatologists (14.7%) and was characterized by low use of topical retinoids, high use of oral tetracycline, and low use of spironolactone, compared with oral antibiotics, among women with acne. Physicians in this cluster were more likely to be male and to have more years in practice.

The second cluster included 46 dermatologists (39.6%) and was marked by high use of spironolactone and low use of isotretinoin. The third cluster included 53 dermatologists (45.7%) and was characterized by high use of topical retinoids and frequent use of systemic medications.

Of the 86 internists included in the study, the researchers identified three clusters. The first cluster included 39 internists (45.4%) and was characterized by low use of topical retinoids, high use of oral tetracycline, and limited use of spironolactone. The second cluster included 34 internists (39.5%) and was marked by low use of topical retinoids and systemic medications. The third cluster included 13 clinicians (15.1%), most of whom were nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and other advanced practice providers. This cluster was characterized by high use of topical retinoids and relatively high use of spironolactone.

“There are likely opportunities to improve the use of topical retinoids by internists caring for patients with acne, since these are a first-line treatment option that may be underutilized by internists,” Dr. Barbieri said in the interview. “Future work is needed to identify underlying factors associated with different prescribing phenotypes among both dermatologists and internists. By understanding these factors, we can develop implementation science efforts to align prescribing behavior with best practices based on the guidelines and available evidence.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including its single-center design and the lack of data on patient characteristics. “Future studies are needed to examine whether our results generalize to other settings,” he said.

Dr. Barbieri disclosed that he receives partial salary support through a Pfizer Fellowship in Dermatology Patient Oriented Research grant to the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania. The authors had no other disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

An exploratory analysis recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology examines whether it is possible to classify dermatologists and internists into different patterns of prescribing behavior for patients with acne.

“Prior research has highlighted that prescribing for acne may not be aligned with guideline recommendations, including the overuse of oral antibiotics and lack of use of concomitant topical medications such as topical retinoids,” the study’s corresponding author, John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, of the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

“In addition, there is substantial variation in prescribing practices among clinicians. We were interested in examining whether it is possible to identify different prescribing phenotypes among dermatologists and internists who care for patients with acne. By identifying such groups, it would facilitate future qualitative interviews to understand factors that might contribute to clinicians having certain prescribing patterns, which could help guide implementation science work to better align practices with evidence and guidelines.”

For the study, which appeared online on March 1, Dr. Barbieri and colleague David J. Margolis, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, evaluated all clinical encounters associated with an ICD-9 or ICD-10 code for acne that occurred in the university’s departments of dermatology and internal medicine between Jan. 1, 2011, and Dec. 31, 2019. They used a machine-learning method known as k-means clustering to cluster clinicians based on their relative use of acne medications, as well as the ratio of spironolactone versus tetracycline use among female patients and stratified their analyses by specialty.

Of the 116 dermatologists included in the analysis, the researchers identified three clusters. The first cluster included 17 dermatologists (14.7%) and was characterized by low use of topical retinoids, high use of oral tetracycline, and low use of spironolactone, compared with oral antibiotics, among women with acne. Physicians in this cluster were more likely to be male and to have more years in practice.

The second cluster included 46 dermatologists (39.6%) and was marked by high use of spironolactone and low use of isotretinoin. The third cluster included 53 dermatologists (45.7%) and was characterized by high use of topical retinoids and frequent use of systemic medications.

Of the 86 internists included in the study, the researchers identified three clusters. The first cluster included 39 internists (45.4%) and was characterized by low use of topical retinoids, high use of oral tetracycline, and limited use of spironolactone. The second cluster included 34 internists (39.5%) and was marked by low use of topical retinoids and systemic medications. The third cluster included 13 clinicians (15.1%), most of whom were nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and other advanced practice providers. This cluster was characterized by high use of topical retinoids and relatively high use of spironolactone.

“There are likely opportunities to improve the use of topical retinoids by internists caring for patients with acne, since these are a first-line treatment option that may be underutilized by internists,” Dr. Barbieri said in the interview. “Future work is needed to identify underlying factors associated with different prescribing phenotypes among both dermatologists and internists. By understanding these factors, we can develop implementation science efforts to align prescribing behavior with best practices based on the guidelines and available evidence.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including its single-center design and the lack of data on patient characteristics. “Future studies are needed to examine whether our results generalize to other settings,” he said.

Dr. Barbieri disclosed that he receives partial salary support through a Pfizer Fellowship in Dermatology Patient Oriented Research grant to the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania. The authors had no other disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

An exploratory analysis recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology examines whether it is possible to classify dermatologists and internists into different patterns of prescribing behavior for patients with acne.

“Prior research has highlighted that prescribing for acne may not be aligned with guideline recommendations, including the overuse of oral antibiotics and lack of use of concomitant topical medications such as topical retinoids,” the study’s corresponding author, John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, of the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

“In addition, there is substantial variation in prescribing practices among clinicians. We were interested in examining whether it is possible to identify different prescribing phenotypes among dermatologists and internists who care for patients with acne. By identifying such groups, it would facilitate future qualitative interviews to understand factors that might contribute to clinicians having certain prescribing patterns, which could help guide implementation science work to better align practices with evidence and guidelines.”

For the study, which appeared online on March 1, Dr. Barbieri and colleague David J. Margolis, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, evaluated all clinical encounters associated with an ICD-9 or ICD-10 code for acne that occurred in the university’s departments of dermatology and internal medicine between Jan. 1, 2011, and Dec. 31, 2019. They used a machine-learning method known as k-means clustering to cluster clinicians based on their relative use of acne medications, as well as the ratio of spironolactone versus tetracycline use among female patients and stratified their analyses by specialty.

Of the 116 dermatologists included in the analysis, the researchers identified three clusters. The first cluster included 17 dermatologists (14.7%) and was characterized by low use of topical retinoids, high use of oral tetracycline, and low use of spironolactone, compared with oral antibiotics, among women with acne. Physicians in this cluster were more likely to be male and to have more years in practice.

The second cluster included 46 dermatologists (39.6%) and was marked by high use of spironolactone and low use of isotretinoin. The third cluster included 53 dermatologists (45.7%) and was characterized by high use of topical retinoids and frequent use of systemic medications.

Of the 86 internists included in the study, the researchers identified three clusters. The first cluster included 39 internists (45.4%) and was characterized by low use of topical retinoids, high use of oral tetracycline, and limited use of spironolactone. The second cluster included 34 internists (39.5%) and was marked by low use of topical retinoids and systemic medications. The third cluster included 13 clinicians (15.1%), most of whom were nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and other advanced practice providers. This cluster was characterized by high use of topical retinoids and relatively high use of spironolactone.

“There are likely opportunities to improve the use of topical retinoids by internists caring for patients with acne, since these are a first-line treatment option that may be underutilized by internists,” Dr. Barbieri said in the interview. “Future work is needed to identify underlying factors associated with different prescribing phenotypes among both dermatologists and internists. By understanding these factors, we can develop implementation science efforts to align prescribing behavior with best practices based on the guidelines and available evidence.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including its single-center design and the lack of data on patient characteristics. “Future studies are needed to examine whether our results generalize to other settings,” he said.

Dr. Barbieri disclosed that he receives partial salary support through a Pfizer Fellowship in Dermatology Patient Oriented Research grant to the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania. The authors had no other disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

MYTH: I shouldn’t get the vaccine because of potential long-term side effects

We know that 68 million people in the United States and 244 million people worldwide have already received messenger RNA (mRNA) SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna). So for the short-term side effects we already know more than we would know about most vaccines.

What about the long-term side effects? There are myths that these vaccines somehow could cause autoimmunity. This came from three publications where the possibility of mRNA vaccines to produce autoimmunity was brought up as a discussion point.^1-3 There was no evidence given in these publications, it was raised only as a hypothetical possibility.

There’s no evidence that mRNA or replication-defective DNA vaccines (AstraZeneca/Oxford and Johnson & Johnson) produce autoimmunity. Moreover, the mRNA and replication-defective DNA, once it’s inside of the muscle cell, is gone within a few days. What’s left after ribosome processing is the spike (S) protein as an immunogen. We’ve been vaccinating with proteins for 50 years and we haven’t seen autoimmunity.
 

MYTH: The vaccines aren’t safe because they were developed so quickly

These vaccines were developed at “warp speed” – that doesn’t mean they were developed without all the same safety safeguards that the Food and Drug Administration requires. The reason it happened so fast is because the seriousness of the pandemic allowed us, as a community, to enroll the patients into the studies fast. In a matter of months, we had all the studies filled. In a normal circumstance, that might take 2 or 3 years. And all of the regulatory agencies – the National Institutes of Health, the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – were ready to take the information and put a panel of specialists together and immediately review the data. No safety steps were missed. The same process that’s always required of phase 1, of phase 2, and then at phase 3 were accomplished.

The novelty of these vaccines was that they could be made so quickly. Messenger RNA vaccines can be made in a matter of days and then manufactured in a matter of 2 months. The DNA vaccines has a similar timeline trajectory.
 

MYTH: There’s no point in getting the vaccines because we still have to wear masks

Right now, out of an abundance of caution, until it’s proven that we don’t have to wear masks, it’s being recommended that we do so for the safety of others. Early data suggest that this will be temporary. In time, I suspect it will be shown that, after we receive the vaccine, it will be shown that we are not contagious to others and we’ll be able to get rid of our masks.

MYTH: I already had COVID-19 so I don’t need the vaccine

Some people have already caught the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes this infection and so they feel that they’re immune and they don’t need to get the vaccine. Time will tell if that’s the case. Right now, we don’t know for sure. Early data suggest that a single dose of vaccine in persons who have had the infection may be sufficient. Over time, what happens in the vaccine field is we measure the immunity from the vaccine, and from people who’ve gotten the infection, and we find that there’s a measurement in the blood that correlates with protection. Right now, we don’t know that correlate of protection level. So, out of an abundance of caution, it’s being recommended that, even if you had the disease, maybe you didn’t develop enough immunity, and it’s better to get the vaccine than to get the illness a second time.

MYTH: The vaccines can give me SARS-CoV-2 infection

The new vaccines for COVID-19, released under emergency use Authorization, are mRNA and DNA vaccines. They are a blueprint for the Spike (S) protein of the virus. In order to become a protein, the mRNA, once it’s inside the cell, is processed by ribosomes. The product of the ribosome processing is a protein that cannot possibly cause harm as a virus. It’s a little piece of mRNA inside of a lipid nanoparticle, which is just a casing to protect the mRNA from breaking down until it’s injected in the body. The replication defective DNA vaccines (AstraZeneca/Oxford and Johnson & Johnson) are packaged inside of virus cells (adenoviruses). The DNA vaccines involve a three-step process:

• 1. The adenovirus, containing replication-defective DNA that encodes mRNA for the Spike (S) protein, is taken up by the host cells where it must make its way to the nucleus of the muscle cell.
• 2. The DNA is injected into the host cell nucleus and in the nucleus the DNA is decoded to an mRNA.
• 3. The mRNA is released from the nucleus and transported to the cell cytoplasm where the ribosomes process the mRNA in an identical manner as mRNA vaccines.

MYTH: The COVID-19 vaccines can alter my DNA

The mRNA and replication-defective DNA vaccines never interact with your DNA. mRNA vaccines never enter the nucleus. Replication-defective DNA vaccines cannot replicate and do not interact with host DNA. The vaccines can’t change your DNA.

Here is a link to YouTube videos I made on this topic: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLve-0UW04UMRKHfFbXyEpLY8GCm2WyJHD.

Here is a photo of me receiving my first SARS-CoV-2 shot (Moderna) in January 2021. I received my second shot in February. I am a lot less anxious. I hope my vaccine card will be a ticket to travel in the future.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to report.

References

1. Peck KM and Lauring AS. J Virol. 2018. doi: 10.1128/JVI.01031-17.

2. Pepini T et al. J Immunol. 2017 May 15. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1601877.

3. Theofilopoulos AN et al. Annu Rev Immunol. 2005. doi: 10.1146/annurev.immunol.23.021704.115843.

MYTH: I shouldn’t get the vaccine because of potential long-term side effects

We know that 68 million people in the United States and 244 million people worldwide have already received messenger RNA (mRNA) SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna). So for the short-term side effects we already know more than we would know about most vaccines.

What about the long-term side effects? There are myths that these vaccines somehow could cause autoimmunity. This came from three publications where the possibility of mRNA vaccines to produce autoimmunity was brought up as a discussion point.^1-3 There was no evidence given in these publications, it was raised only as a hypothetical possibility.

There’s no evidence that mRNA or replication-defective DNA vaccines (AstraZeneca/Oxford and Johnson & Johnson) produce autoimmunity. Moreover, the mRNA and replication-defective DNA, once it’s inside of the muscle cell, is gone within a few days. What’s left after ribosome processing is the spike (S) protein as an immunogen. We’ve been vaccinating with proteins for 50 years and we haven’t seen autoimmunity.
 

MYTH: The vaccines aren’t safe because they were developed so quickly

These vaccines were developed at “warp speed” – that doesn’t mean they were developed without all the same safety safeguards that the Food and Drug Administration requires. The reason it happened so fast is because the seriousness of the pandemic allowed us, as a community, to enroll the patients into the studies fast. In a matter of months, we had all the studies filled. In a normal circumstance, that might take 2 or 3 years. And all of the regulatory agencies – the National Institutes of Health, the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – were ready to take the information and put a panel of specialists together and immediately review the data. No safety steps were missed. The same process that’s always required of phase 1, of phase 2, and then at phase 3 were accomplished.

The novelty of these vaccines was that they could be made so quickly. Messenger RNA vaccines can be made in a matter of days and then manufactured in a matter of 2 months. The DNA vaccines has a similar timeline trajectory.
 

MYTH: There’s no point in getting the vaccines because we still have to wear masks

Right now, out of an abundance of caution, until it’s proven that we don’t have to wear masks, it’s being recommended that we do so for the safety of others. Early data suggest that this will be temporary. In time, I suspect it will be shown that, after we receive the vaccine, it will be shown that we are not contagious to others and we’ll be able to get rid of our masks.

MYTH: I already had COVID-19 so I don’t need the vaccine

Some people have already caught the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes this infection and so they feel that they’re immune and they don’t need to get the vaccine. Time will tell if that’s the case. Right now, we don’t know for sure. Early data suggest that a single dose of vaccine in persons who have had the infection may be sufficient. Over time, what happens in the vaccine field is we measure the immunity from the vaccine, and from people who’ve gotten the infection, and we find that there’s a measurement in the blood that correlates with protection. Right now, we don’t know that correlate of protection level. So, out of an abundance of caution, it’s being recommended that, even if you had the disease, maybe you didn’t develop enough immunity, and it’s better to get the vaccine than to get the illness a second time.

MYTH: The vaccines can give me SARS-CoV-2 infection

The new vaccines for COVID-19, released under emergency use Authorization, are mRNA and DNA vaccines. They are a blueprint for the Spike (S) protein of the virus. In order to become a protein, the mRNA, once it’s inside the cell, is processed by ribosomes. The product of the ribosome processing is a protein that cannot possibly cause harm as a virus. It’s a little piece of mRNA inside of a lipid nanoparticle, which is just a casing to protect the mRNA from breaking down until it’s injected in the body. The replication defective DNA vaccines (AstraZeneca/Oxford and Johnson & Johnson) are packaged inside of virus cells (adenoviruses). The DNA vaccines involve a three-step process:

• 1. The adenovirus, containing replication-defective DNA that encodes mRNA for the Spike (S) protein, is taken up by the host cells where it must make its way to the nucleus of the muscle cell.
• 2. The DNA is injected into the host cell nucleus and in the nucleus the DNA is decoded to an mRNA.
• 3. The mRNA is released from the nucleus and transported to the cell cytoplasm where the ribosomes process the mRNA in an identical manner as mRNA vaccines.

MYTH: The COVID-19 vaccines can alter my DNA

The mRNA and replication-defective DNA vaccines never interact with your DNA. mRNA vaccines never enter the nucleus. Replication-defective DNA vaccines cannot replicate and do not interact with host DNA. The vaccines can’t change your DNA.

Here is a link to YouTube videos I made on this topic: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLve-0UW04UMRKHfFbXyEpLY8GCm2WyJHD.

Here is a photo of me receiving my first SARS-CoV-2 shot (Moderna) in January 2021. I received my second shot in February. I am a lot less anxious. I hope my vaccine card will be a ticket to travel in the future.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to report.

References

1. Peck KM and Lauring AS. J Virol. 2018. doi: 10.1128/JVI.01031-17.

2. Pepini T et al. J Immunol. 2017 May 15. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1601877.

3. Theofilopoulos AN et al. Annu Rev Immunol. 2005. doi: 10.1146/annurev.immunol.23.021704.115843.

MYTH: I shouldn’t get the vaccine because of potential long-term side effects

We know that 68 million people in the United States and 244 million people worldwide have already received messenger RNA (mRNA) SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna). So for the short-term side effects we already know more than we would know about most vaccines.

What about the long-term side effects? There are myths that these vaccines somehow could cause autoimmunity. This came from three publications where the possibility of mRNA vaccines to produce autoimmunity was brought up as a discussion point.^1-3 There was no evidence given in these publications, it was raised only as a hypothetical possibility.

There’s no evidence that mRNA or replication-defective DNA vaccines (AstraZeneca/Oxford and Johnson & Johnson) produce autoimmunity. Moreover, the mRNA and replication-defective DNA, once it’s inside of the muscle cell, is gone within a few days. What’s left after ribosome processing is the spike (S) protein as an immunogen. We’ve been vaccinating with proteins for 50 years and we haven’t seen autoimmunity.
 

MYTH: The vaccines aren’t safe because they were developed so quickly

These vaccines were developed at “warp speed” – that doesn’t mean they were developed without all the same safety safeguards that the Food and Drug Administration requires. The reason it happened so fast is because the seriousness of the pandemic allowed us, as a community, to enroll the patients into the studies fast. In a matter of months, we had all the studies filled. In a normal circumstance, that might take 2 or 3 years. And all of the regulatory agencies – the National Institutes of Health, the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – were ready to take the information and put a panel of specialists together and immediately review the data. No safety steps were missed. The same process that’s always required of phase 1, of phase 2, and then at phase 3 were accomplished.

The novelty of these vaccines was that they could be made so quickly. Messenger RNA vaccines can be made in a matter of days and then manufactured in a matter of 2 months. The DNA vaccines has a similar timeline trajectory.
 

MYTH: There’s no point in getting the vaccines because we still have to wear masks

Right now, out of an abundance of caution, until it’s proven that we don’t have to wear masks, it’s being recommended that we do so for the safety of others. Early data suggest that this will be temporary. In time, I suspect it will be shown that, after we receive the vaccine, it will be shown that we are not contagious to others and we’ll be able to get rid of our masks.

MYTH: I already had COVID-19 so I don’t need the vaccine

Some people have already caught the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes this infection and so they feel that they’re immune and they don’t need to get the vaccine. Time will tell if that’s the case. Right now, we don’t know for sure. Early data suggest that a single dose of vaccine in persons who have had the infection may be sufficient. Over time, what happens in the vaccine field is we measure the immunity from the vaccine, and from people who’ve gotten the infection, and we find that there’s a measurement in the blood that correlates with protection. Right now, we don’t know that correlate of protection level. So, out of an abundance of caution, it’s being recommended that, even if you had the disease, maybe you didn’t develop enough immunity, and it’s better to get the vaccine than to get the illness a second time.

MYTH: The vaccines can give me SARS-CoV-2 infection

The new vaccines for COVID-19, released under emergency use Authorization, are mRNA and DNA vaccines. They are a blueprint for the Spike (S) protein of the virus. In order to become a protein, the mRNA, once it’s inside the cell, is processed by ribosomes. The product of the ribosome processing is a protein that cannot possibly cause harm as a virus. It’s a little piece of mRNA inside of a lipid nanoparticle, which is just a casing to protect the mRNA from breaking down until it’s injected in the body. The replication defective DNA vaccines (AstraZeneca/Oxford and Johnson & Johnson) are packaged inside of virus cells (adenoviruses). The DNA vaccines involve a three-step process:

• 1. The adenovirus, containing replication-defective DNA that encodes mRNA for the Spike (S) protein, is taken up by the host cells where it must make its way to the nucleus of the muscle cell.
• 2. The DNA is injected into the host cell nucleus and in the nucleus the DNA is decoded to an mRNA.
• 3. The mRNA is released from the nucleus and transported to the cell cytoplasm where the ribosomes process the mRNA in an identical manner as mRNA vaccines.

MYTH: The COVID-19 vaccines can alter my DNA

The mRNA and replication-defective DNA vaccines never interact with your DNA. mRNA vaccines never enter the nucleus. Replication-defective DNA vaccines cannot replicate and do not interact with host DNA. The vaccines can’t change your DNA.

Here is a link to YouTube videos I made on this topic: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLve-0UW04UMRKHfFbXyEpLY8GCm2WyJHD.

Here is a photo of me receiving my first SARS-CoV-2 shot (Moderna) in January 2021. I received my second shot in February. I am a lot less anxious. I hope my vaccine card will be a ticket to travel in the future.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to report.

References

1. Peck KM and Lauring AS. J Virol. 2018. doi: 10.1128/JVI.01031-17.

2. Pepini T et al. J Immunol. 2017 May 15. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1601877.

3. Theofilopoulos AN et al. Annu Rev Immunol. 2005. doi: 10.1146/annurev.immunol.23.021704.115843.

Skin microbiome therapy to protect against Staphylococcus aureus in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) proved safe in a phase 1 randomized clinical trial that also demonstrated “encouraging clinical and mechanistic results,” Richard L. Gallo, MD, PhD, and his coinvestigators have reported in Nature Medicine.

Findings from the 1-week, 54-patient trial of a topical formulation containing Staphylococcus hominis A9 (ShA9) offer evidence that the strain directly kills S. aureus, inhibits the production of S. aureus–generated toxins, and enables expansion of a healthy bacterial community, “allowing the rest of the microbiome to start to recover to normal,” Dr. Gallo, professor and chairman of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

“And perhaps most exciting,” Dr. Gallo added, is the finding that the subset of patients with AD who were most responsive to the ShA9 compound – approximately two-thirds of the participants who were randomized to receive it – showed improvement in local EASI (Eczema Area and Severity Index) and SCORAD (Scoring Atopic Dermatitis) scores used to assess inflammation. Plans are underway for a larger and longer trial, he said.

S. aureus commonly colonizes patients with AD and exacerbates disease by causing inflammation. In recent years, Dr. Gallo and other investigators have come to believe that AD is a cyclic disease in which the skin’s microbiome affects the host, and the host affects the microbiome. The goal of bacteriotherapy is to break the cycle of S. aureus colonization and improve the skin immune and barrier dysfunction characteristics of AD, Dr. Gallo said.

ShA9, a bacterium isolated from healthy human skin, was chosen as a potential topical therapy for AD based on its capacity both to selectively kill S. aureus and to inhibit toxin production by S. aureus. Dr. Gallo’s team’s preclinical work involved screening thousands of isolates of coagulase-negative staphylococci for gene products that perform these two functions by expressing both antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) and autoinducing peptides (AIPs), the latter of which inhibit the S. aureus quorum-sending system that leads to toxin production. Most patients with AD lack protective strains of coagulase-negative staphylococci, including S. hominis, prior research has found.

The double-blind phase 1 trial randomized 54 adults with moderate-severe AD affecting the ventral forearms in a 2:1 fashion to receive the proprietary lyophilized preparation of ShA9 or an ShA9-free formulation twice daily for 1 week. All participants were culture positive for S. aureus.

Clinical assessments and skin swabs were obtained before and within an hour after the first application of day 1, and swabs were collected on days 4 and 7 within 4 hours of the first application.

Blinded physician assessments and skin swabs were also obtained at 24, 48, and 96 hours after the final dose on day 7.

Based on structured daily diaries, there were no serious adverse events, and significantly fewer adverse events in those treated with ShA9, compared with the vehicle alone; 55.6% versus 83.3%, respectively, were considered to have adverse events.

The adverse event–reporting system captured the normal fluctuation of eczema and considered any report of fluctuation above baseline to be an adverse event. “Patients treated with the [placebo formulation] had the expected high frequency of itching, burning, and pain that you see with AD but it was encouraging that the frequency of reporting these events was significantly less in those treated with the active [formulation],” Dr. Gallo said in the interview.

Their report describes a decrease in S. aureus in participants treated with ShA9, and increases in ShA9 DNA. Not all S. aureus strains were directly killed by ShA9, but all strains had reduced expression of mRNA for psm-alpha, an important virulence factor. That reduced expression correlated with ShA9 AIPs and improved EASI scores, the latter of which was observed in a post-hoc analysis. “Participants with S. aureus not killed by ShA9 were still sensitive to inhibition of toxin production, a mechanistic outcome that predicted clinical improvement in mice and may require longer therapy to observe clinical improvement in humans,” the investigators wrote.

Local eczema severity was not significantly different between the bacteriotherapy and control groups. But the post-hoc analysis showed that after 7 days of treatment, and up to 4 days after treatment was discontinued, the patients with S. aureus that was sensitive to killing by ShA9 (21 out of 35 total who received the bacteriotherapy) showed improvement in EASI and SCORAD scores, compared with control patients.

Future research will assess the compound in both S. aureus culture-positive and culture-negative patients, and in patients with mild disease, Dr. Gallo said.

The trial was conducted at USCD and the National Jewish Health General Clinical Research Center in Denver, and was sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The ShA9 formulation and related technology are licensed to MatriSys Bioscience, of which Dr. Gallo is the cofounder and an advisory board member. Dr. Gallo holds equity interest in the company.

Skin microbiome therapy to protect against Staphylococcus aureus in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) proved safe in a phase 1 randomized clinical trial that also demonstrated “encouraging clinical and mechanistic results,” Richard L. Gallo, MD, PhD, and his coinvestigators have reported in Nature Medicine.

Findings from the 1-week, 54-patient trial of a topical formulation containing Staphylococcus hominis A9 (ShA9) offer evidence that the strain directly kills S. aureus, inhibits the production of S. aureus–generated toxins, and enables expansion of a healthy bacterial community, “allowing the rest of the microbiome to start to recover to normal,” Dr. Gallo, professor and chairman of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

“And perhaps most exciting,” Dr. Gallo added, is the finding that the subset of patients with AD who were most responsive to the ShA9 compound – approximately two-thirds of the participants who were randomized to receive it – showed improvement in local EASI (Eczema Area and Severity Index) and SCORAD (Scoring Atopic Dermatitis) scores used to assess inflammation. Plans are underway for a larger and longer trial, he said.

S. aureus commonly colonizes patients with AD and exacerbates disease by causing inflammation. In recent years, Dr. Gallo and other investigators have come to believe that AD is a cyclic disease in which the skin’s microbiome affects the host, and the host affects the microbiome. The goal of bacteriotherapy is to break the cycle of S. aureus colonization and improve the skin immune and barrier dysfunction characteristics of AD, Dr. Gallo said.

ShA9, a bacterium isolated from healthy human skin, was chosen as a potential topical therapy for AD based on its capacity both to selectively kill S. aureus and to inhibit toxin production by S. aureus. Dr. Gallo’s team’s preclinical work involved screening thousands of isolates of coagulase-negative staphylococci for gene products that perform these two functions by expressing both antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) and autoinducing peptides (AIPs), the latter of which inhibit the S. aureus quorum-sending system that leads to toxin production. Most patients with AD lack protective strains of coagulase-negative staphylococci, including S. hominis, prior research has found.

The double-blind phase 1 trial randomized 54 adults with moderate-severe AD affecting the ventral forearms in a 2:1 fashion to receive the proprietary lyophilized preparation of ShA9 or an ShA9-free formulation twice daily for 1 week. All participants were culture positive for S. aureus.

Clinical assessments and skin swabs were obtained before and within an hour after the first application of day 1, and swabs were collected on days 4 and 7 within 4 hours of the first application.

Blinded physician assessments and skin swabs were also obtained at 24, 48, and 96 hours after the final dose on day 7.

Based on structured daily diaries, there were no serious adverse events, and significantly fewer adverse events in those treated with ShA9, compared with the vehicle alone; 55.6% versus 83.3%, respectively, were considered to have adverse events.

The adverse event–reporting system captured the normal fluctuation of eczema and considered any report of fluctuation above baseline to be an adverse event. “Patients treated with the [placebo formulation] had the expected high frequency of itching, burning, and pain that you see with AD but it was encouraging that the frequency of reporting these events was significantly less in those treated with the active [formulation],” Dr. Gallo said in the interview.

Their report describes a decrease in S. aureus in participants treated with ShA9, and increases in ShA9 DNA. Not all S. aureus strains were directly killed by ShA9, but all strains had reduced expression of mRNA for psm-alpha, an important virulence factor. That reduced expression correlated with ShA9 AIPs and improved EASI scores, the latter of which was observed in a post-hoc analysis. “Participants with S. aureus not killed by ShA9 were still sensitive to inhibition of toxin production, a mechanistic outcome that predicted clinical improvement in mice and may require longer therapy to observe clinical improvement in humans,” the investigators wrote.

Local eczema severity was not significantly different between the bacteriotherapy and control groups. But the post-hoc analysis showed that after 7 days of treatment, and up to 4 days after treatment was discontinued, the patients with S. aureus that was sensitive to killing by ShA9 (21 out of 35 total who received the bacteriotherapy) showed improvement in EASI and SCORAD scores, compared with control patients.

Future research will assess the compound in both S. aureus culture-positive and culture-negative patients, and in patients with mild disease, Dr. Gallo said.

The trial was conducted at USCD and the National Jewish Health General Clinical Research Center in Denver, and was sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The ShA9 formulation and related technology are licensed to MatriSys Bioscience, of which Dr. Gallo is the cofounder and an advisory board member. Dr. Gallo holds equity interest in the company.

Skin microbiome therapy to protect against Staphylococcus aureus in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) proved safe in a phase 1 randomized clinical trial that also demonstrated “encouraging clinical and mechanistic results,” Richard L. Gallo, MD, PhD, and his coinvestigators have reported in Nature Medicine.

Findings from the 1-week, 54-patient trial of a topical formulation containing Staphylococcus hominis A9 (ShA9) offer evidence that the strain directly kills S. aureus, inhibits the production of S. aureus–generated toxins, and enables expansion of a healthy bacterial community, “allowing the rest of the microbiome to start to recover to normal,” Dr. Gallo, professor and chairman of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

“And perhaps most exciting,” Dr. Gallo added, is the finding that the subset of patients with AD who were most responsive to the ShA9 compound – approximately two-thirds of the participants who were randomized to receive it – showed improvement in local EASI (Eczema Area and Severity Index) and SCORAD (Scoring Atopic Dermatitis) scores used to assess inflammation. Plans are underway for a larger and longer trial, he said.

S. aureus commonly colonizes patients with AD and exacerbates disease by causing inflammation. In recent years, Dr. Gallo and other investigators have come to believe that AD is a cyclic disease in which the skin’s microbiome affects the host, and the host affects the microbiome. The goal of bacteriotherapy is to break the cycle of S. aureus colonization and improve the skin immune and barrier dysfunction characteristics of AD, Dr. Gallo said.

ShA9, a bacterium isolated from healthy human skin, was chosen as a potential topical therapy for AD based on its capacity both to selectively kill S. aureus and to inhibit toxin production by S. aureus. Dr. Gallo’s team’s preclinical work involved screening thousands of isolates of coagulase-negative staphylococci for gene products that perform these two functions by expressing both antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) and autoinducing peptides (AIPs), the latter of which inhibit the S. aureus quorum-sending system that leads to toxin production. Most patients with AD lack protective strains of coagulase-negative staphylococci, including S. hominis, prior research has found.

The double-blind phase 1 trial randomized 54 adults with moderate-severe AD affecting the ventral forearms in a 2:1 fashion to receive the proprietary lyophilized preparation of ShA9 or an ShA9-free formulation twice daily for 1 week. All participants were culture positive for S. aureus.

Clinical assessments and skin swabs were obtained before and within an hour after the first application of day 1, and swabs were collected on days 4 and 7 within 4 hours of the first application.

Blinded physician assessments and skin swabs were also obtained at 24, 48, and 96 hours after the final dose on day 7.

Based on structured daily diaries, there were no serious adverse events, and significantly fewer adverse events in those treated with ShA9, compared with the vehicle alone; 55.6% versus 83.3%, respectively, were considered to have adverse events.

The adverse event–reporting system captured the normal fluctuation of eczema and considered any report of fluctuation above baseline to be an adverse event. “Patients treated with the [placebo formulation] had the expected high frequency of itching, burning, and pain that you see with AD but it was encouraging that the frequency of reporting these events was significantly less in those treated with the active [formulation],” Dr. Gallo said in the interview.

Their report describes a decrease in S. aureus in participants treated with ShA9, and increases in ShA9 DNA. Not all S. aureus strains were directly killed by ShA9, but all strains had reduced expression of mRNA for psm-alpha, an important virulence factor. That reduced expression correlated with ShA9 AIPs and improved EASI scores, the latter of which was observed in a post-hoc analysis. “Participants with S. aureus not killed by ShA9 were still sensitive to inhibition of toxin production, a mechanistic outcome that predicted clinical improvement in mice and may require longer therapy to observe clinical improvement in humans,” the investigators wrote.

Local eczema severity was not significantly different between the bacteriotherapy and control groups. But the post-hoc analysis showed that after 7 days of treatment, and up to 4 days after treatment was discontinued, the patients with S. aureus that was sensitive to killing by ShA9 (21 out of 35 total who received the bacteriotherapy) showed improvement in EASI and SCORAD scores, compared with control patients.

Future research will assess the compound in both S. aureus culture-positive and culture-negative patients, and in patients with mild disease, Dr. Gallo said.

The trial was conducted at USCD and the National Jewish Health General Clinical Research Center in Denver, and was sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The ShA9 formulation and related technology are licensed to MatriSys Bioscience, of which Dr. Gallo is the cofounder and an advisory board member. Dr. Gallo holds equity interest in the company.