Internal Medicine News

TOPLINE:

Between 2011 and 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported recalls of 334 cosmetic dermatology products in the United States, affecting over 77 million units, predominantly due to bacterial contamination.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the FDA Enforcement Report database for cosmetic dermatology products from 2011 to 2023.
• Cosmetic products are any article “intended for body cleaning or beauty enhancement,” as defined by the FDA.
• Recalls were categorized by product type, reason for the recall, microbial contaminant, inorganic contaminant, distribution, and risk classification.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the study period, 334 voluntary and manufacturer-initiated recalls of cosmetic products were reported, affecting 77,135,700 units.
• A total of 297 recalls (88.9%) were categorized as Class II, indicating that they caused “medically reversible health consequences.” The median recall duration was 307 days.
• Hygiene and cleaning products accounted for most of the recalls (51.5%). Makeup gels, soaps, shampoos, tattoo ink, wipes, and lotions were the most recalled product categories. Nearly 51% of the products were distributed internationally.
• Microbial and inorganic contamination accounted for 76.8% and 10.2% of the recalls (the two most common reasons for the recall), respectively, with bacteria (80%) the most common contaminating pathogen (primarily Pseudomonas and Burkholderia species).

IN PRACTICE:

With 77 million units recalled by the FDA over 12 years, cosmetic recalls have remained common, the authors concluded, adding that “dermatologists should be key voices in pharmacovigilance given scientific expertise and frontline experience managing products and associated concerns.” Dermatologists, they added, “should also be aware of FDA enforcement reports for recall updates given that average recall termination took approximately 1 year.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kaushik P. Venkatesh, MBA, MPH, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and was published online on October 29 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s limitations include the potential underreporting of Class III recalls (products that are unlikely to cause any adverse health reaction but violate FDA labeling or manufacturing laws) and lack of complete information on contaminants.

DISCLOSURES:

No information on funding was provided in the study. No conflicts of interest were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Between 2011 and 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported recalls of 334 cosmetic dermatology products in the United States, affecting over 77 million units, predominantly due to bacterial contamination.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the FDA Enforcement Report database for cosmetic dermatology products from 2011 to 2023.
• Cosmetic products are any article “intended for body cleaning or beauty enhancement,” as defined by the FDA.
• Recalls were categorized by product type, reason for the recall, microbial contaminant, inorganic contaminant, distribution, and risk classification.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the study period, 334 voluntary and manufacturer-initiated recalls of cosmetic products were reported, affecting 77,135,700 units.
• A total of 297 recalls (88.9%) were categorized as Class II, indicating that they caused “medically reversible health consequences.” The median recall duration was 307 days.
• Hygiene and cleaning products accounted for most of the recalls (51.5%). Makeup gels, soaps, shampoos, tattoo ink, wipes, and lotions were the most recalled product categories. Nearly 51% of the products were distributed internationally.
• Microbial and inorganic contamination accounted for 76.8% and 10.2% of the recalls (the two most common reasons for the recall), respectively, with bacteria (80%) the most common contaminating pathogen (primarily Pseudomonas and Burkholderia species).

IN PRACTICE:

With 77 million units recalled by the FDA over 12 years, cosmetic recalls have remained common, the authors concluded, adding that “dermatologists should be key voices in pharmacovigilance given scientific expertise and frontline experience managing products and associated concerns.” Dermatologists, they added, “should also be aware of FDA enforcement reports for recall updates given that average recall termination took approximately 1 year.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kaushik P. Venkatesh, MBA, MPH, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and was published online on October 29 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s limitations include the potential underreporting of Class III recalls (products that are unlikely to cause any adverse health reaction but violate FDA labeling or manufacturing laws) and lack of complete information on contaminants.

DISCLOSURES:

No information on funding was provided in the study. No conflicts of interest were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Between 2011 and 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported recalls of 334 cosmetic dermatology products in the United States, affecting over 77 million units, predominantly due to bacterial contamination.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the FDA Enforcement Report database for cosmetic dermatology products from 2011 to 2023.
• Cosmetic products are any article “intended for body cleaning or beauty enhancement,” as defined by the FDA.
• Recalls were categorized by product type, reason for the recall, microbial contaminant, inorganic contaminant, distribution, and risk classification.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the study period, 334 voluntary and manufacturer-initiated recalls of cosmetic products were reported, affecting 77,135,700 units.
• A total of 297 recalls (88.9%) were categorized as Class II, indicating that they caused “medically reversible health consequences.” The median recall duration was 307 days.
• Hygiene and cleaning products accounted for most of the recalls (51.5%). Makeup gels, soaps, shampoos, tattoo ink, wipes, and lotions were the most recalled product categories. Nearly 51% of the products were distributed internationally.
• Microbial and inorganic contamination accounted for 76.8% and 10.2% of the recalls (the two most common reasons for the recall), respectively, with bacteria (80%) the most common contaminating pathogen (primarily Pseudomonas and Burkholderia species).

IN PRACTICE:

With 77 million units recalled by the FDA over 12 years, cosmetic recalls have remained common, the authors concluded, adding that “dermatologists should be key voices in pharmacovigilance given scientific expertise and frontline experience managing products and associated concerns.” Dermatologists, they added, “should also be aware of FDA enforcement reports for recall updates given that average recall termination took approximately 1 year.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kaushik P. Venkatesh, MBA, MPH, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and was published online on October 29 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s limitations include the potential underreporting of Class III recalls (products that are unlikely to cause any adverse health reaction but violate FDA labeling or manufacturing laws) and lack of complete information on contaminants.

DISCLOSURES:

No information on funding was provided in the study. No conflicts of interest were reported.

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

With the discovery of autoantibodies and other risk factors for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), researchers developed clinical trials to see whether the disease can be prevented entirely. In the past 10 years, a number of these trials have concluded, with variable results.

While some trials demonstrated no effect at all, others showed that medical intervention can delay the onset of disease in certain populations and even reduce the rates of progression to RA. These completed trials also offer researchers the chance to identify opportunities to improve RA prevention trials moving forward.

“We’re looking at all that data and trying to figure out what the next step is going to be,” said Kevin Deane, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine and a rheumatologist at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora.

Key lessons include the need for improved risk stratification tools and better understanding of RA pathogenesis, he said.
 

The Research So Far

All RA prevention trials except for one have been completed and/or published within the past decade, bringing valuable insights to the field. (See chart below.)

MDedge News

Atorvastatin (STAPRA) and hydroxychloroquine (StopRA) proved ineffective in preventing the onset of RA, and both trials were stopped early. Rituximab and methotrexate (MTX) both delayed the onset of RA, but the effect disappeared by the end of the follow-up periods.

However, the 2-year results from the TREAT EARLIER trial showed that compared with patients given placebo, those given MTX showed improved MRI-detected joint inflammation, physical functioning, and reported symptoms.

The 4-year analysis of the trial further risk stratified participants and found that MTX showed a preventive effect in anti–citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)–negative participants at an increased risk for RA.

Abatacept also showed promise in preventing RA in two separate trials. In the ARIAA trial, compared with placebo, 6 months of treatment with abatacept reduced MRI inflammation and symptoms and lowered the rates of progression to RA. This treatment effect lessened during the 1-year follow-up period, but the difference between the two groups was still significant at 18 months.

In the APIPPRA trial, 12 months of treatment with abatacept improved subclinical inflammation and quality-of-life measures in participants and reduced the rates of progression to RA through another 12 months of observation. However, during this post-treatment follow-up period, the treatment effect began to diminish.

While there have been some promising findings — not only in disease prevention but also in disease modification — these studies all looked at different patient groups, noted Kulveer Mankia, MA, DM, an associate professor and consulting rheumatologist at the Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds in England.

“You have disparate, different inclusion criteria in different studies, all of which take years to complete,” he said. For example, while the TREAT EARLIER trial recruited patients with joint pain and subclinical joint inflammation via MRI, regardless of autoantibody status, the APIPPRA trial enrolled patients that were both ACPA+ and rheumatoid factor (RF)+ with joint pain.

“You’re left extrapolating as to whether [these interventions] will work in different at-risk populations,” he said.

Even with specific inclusion criteria in each study, there can still be heterogeneity in risk within a study group, Deane said. In the TREAT EARLIER study, 18%-20% of participants ultimately developed RA over the study period, which is lower than expected.

“While it seemed like a pretty high-risk group, it wasn’t as high risk as we thought,” he said, “and that’s why we’ve gone back to the drawing board.”
 

Risk Stratification Efforts

There are now two ongoing joint efforts by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) to define these populations and “bring some consensus to the field,” Mankia said.

Voisin / Science Source

The first aims to create a unanimous risk stratification tool for future RA prevention studies. The proposed system, devised for individuals with new joint symptoms who are at a risk for RA, was presented at the EULAR 2024 annual meeting and will be further discussed at the upcoming ACR 2024 annual meeting in Washington, DC.

The system uses a point system based on six criteria — three lab tests and three criteria commonly assessed in clinical practice:

• Morning stiffness
• Patient-reported joint swelling
• Difficulty making a fist
• Increased C-reactive protein
• RF positivity
• ACPA positivity

These criteria were picked so that the risk stratification tool can be used without imaging; however, the inclusion of MRI can further refine the score.

The ACR-EULAR task force that created the tool has emphasized that this criterion is specifically designed for research purposes and should not be used in clinical practice. Using this stratification tool should allow future clinical studies to group patients by similar risk, Deane said.

“Not that all studies have to look at exactly the same people, but each study should have similar risk stratification,” he said.

The second ACR-EULAR joint effort is taking a population-based approach to risk stratification, Deane said, to better predict RA risk in individuals without common symptoms like joint pain.

The aim is to create something analogous to the Framingham Risk Score in predicting cardiovascular disease, in which simple variables like total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, and smoking status can be used to calculate an individual’s 10-year risk for CVD, Deane explained.

The second approach could also identify patients earlier in the progression to RA, which may be easier to treat than later stages of disease.
 

Understanding RA Origins

However, treating an earlier stage of disease might require a different approach. Up to this point, medical interventions for RA prevention used drugs approved to treat RA, but inventions during the pre-RA stage — before any joint symptoms appear — might require targeting different immunologic pathways.

“The general concept is if there is a pre-RA stage when joints are not involved, that means all the immunologic abnormalities are probably happening somewhere else in the body,” he said. “The big question is: Where is that, and how exactly is that happening?”

One theory is that RA begins to develop in mucosal sites, such as the intestines or lungs, before it involves synovial joints.

“In the absence of resolution, these localized immune processes transition into a systemic process that targets the joints, either by direct effects of microbiota, molecular mimicry, and/or immune amplification,” wrote Deane and coauthors in a recent review article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. “This, in turn, leads to inappropriate engagement of a range of effector mechanisms in both synovium and periarticular sites.”

Following this logic, the progression of the at-risk stage of RA could be considered a continuum along which there are multiple possible points for intervention. It’s also probable that the disease can develop through multiple pathways, Deane said.

“If you look at all the people who get rheumatoid arthritis, there’s probably no way those could have the same exact pathways,” he said. “There’s probably going to be different endotypes and understanding that is going to help us prevent disease in a better way.”
 

Looking Forward

Beyond improving risk stratification and understanding RA pathogenesis, researchers are also considering novel therapeutic approaches for future trials. Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists could be worth exploring in RA prevention and treatment, said Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

These drugs — initially developed for diabetes — have already shown anti-inflammatory effects, and one study suggested that GLP-1s lowered the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in individuals with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. Obesity is a known risk factor for RA, so weight loss aided by GLP-1 drugs could also help reduce risk in certain patients. Clinical trials are needed to explore GLP-1s for both RA prevention and treatment, he said.

While prevention trials up to this point have used one-time, time-limited interventions, longer durations of medication or multiple rounds of therapy may be more efficacious. Even for trials that demonstrated the intervention arms had less progression to RA, this effect diminished once participants stopped the medication. In the ARIAA and APIPPRA trials using abatacept, “it wasn’t like we hit a reset button and [patients] just permanently now did not get rheumatoid arthritis,” Deane said, suggesting that alternative approaches should be explored.

“Future studies need to look at potentially longer doses of drug or lower doses of drug, or some combination that might be effective,” he said.

Deane received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Thermo Fisher, and Werfen and grant funding from Janssen Research and Development and Gilead Sciences. Mankia received grant support from Gilead, Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Serac Life Sciences and honoraria or consultant fees from AbbVie, UCB, Lilly, Galapagos, DeepCure, Serac Life Sciences, AstraZeneca, and Zura Bio. Sparks received research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Sonoma Biotherapeutics. He consulted for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Merck, Mustang, Optum, Pfizer, ReCor Medical, Sana, Sobi, and UCB.

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

With the discovery of autoantibodies and other risk factors for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), researchers developed clinical trials to see whether the disease can be prevented entirely. In the past 10 years, a number of these trials have concluded, with variable results.

While some trials demonstrated no effect at all, others showed that medical intervention can delay the onset of disease in certain populations and even reduce the rates of progression to RA. These completed trials also offer researchers the chance to identify opportunities to improve RA prevention trials moving forward.

“We’re looking at all that data and trying to figure out what the next step is going to be,” said Kevin Deane, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine and a rheumatologist at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora.

Key lessons include the need for improved risk stratification tools and better understanding of RA pathogenesis, he said.
 

The Research So Far

All RA prevention trials except for one have been completed and/or published within the past decade, bringing valuable insights to the field. (See chart below.)

MDedge News

Atorvastatin (STAPRA) and hydroxychloroquine (StopRA) proved ineffective in preventing the onset of RA, and both trials were stopped early. Rituximab and methotrexate (MTX) both delayed the onset of RA, but the effect disappeared by the end of the follow-up periods.

However, the 2-year results from the TREAT EARLIER trial showed that compared with patients given placebo, those given MTX showed improved MRI-detected joint inflammation, physical functioning, and reported symptoms.

The 4-year analysis of the trial further risk stratified participants and found that MTX showed a preventive effect in anti–citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)–negative participants at an increased risk for RA.

Abatacept also showed promise in preventing RA in two separate trials. In the ARIAA trial, compared with placebo, 6 months of treatment with abatacept reduced MRI inflammation and symptoms and lowered the rates of progression to RA. This treatment effect lessened during the 1-year follow-up period, but the difference between the two groups was still significant at 18 months.

In the APIPPRA trial, 12 months of treatment with abatacept improved subclinical inflammation and quality-of-life measures in participants and reduced the rates of progression to RA through another 12 months of observation. However, during this post-treatment follow-up period, the treatment effect began to diminish.

While there have been some promising findings — not only in disease prevention but also in disease modification — these studies all looked at different patient groups, noted Kulveer Mankia, MA, DM, an associate professor and consulting rheumatologist at the Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds in England.

“You have disparate, different inclusion criteria in different studies, all of which take years to complete,” he said. For example, while the TREAT EARLIER trial recruited patients with joint pain and subclinical joint inflammation via MRI, regardless of autoantibody status, the APIPPRA trial enrolled patients that were both ACPA+ and rheumatoid factor (RF)+ with joint pain.

“You’re left extrapolating as to whether [these interventions] will work in different at-risk populations,” he said.

Even with specific inclusion criteria in each study, there can still be heterogeneity in risk within a study group, Deane said. In the TREAT EARLIER study, 18%-20% of participants ultimately developed RA over the study period, which is lower than expected.

“While it seemed like a pretty high-risk group, it wasn’t as high risk as we thought,” he said, “and that’s why we’ve gone back to the drawing board.”
 

Risk Stratification Efforts

There are now two ongoing joint efforts by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) to define these populations and “bring some consensus to the field,” Mankia said.

Voisin / Science Source

The first aims to create a unanimous risk stratification tool for future RA prevention studies. The proposed system, devised for individuals with new joint symptoms who are at a risk for RA, was presented at the EULAR 2024 annual meeting and will be further discussed at the upcoming ACR 2024 annual meeting in Washington, DC.

The system uses a point system based on six criteria — three lab tests and three criteria commonly assessed in clinical practice:

• Morning stiffness
• Patient-reported joint swelling
• Difficulty making a fist
• Increased C-reactive protein
• RF positivity
• ACPA positivity

These criteria were picked so that the risk stratification tool can be used without imaging; however, the inclusion of MRI can further refine the score.

The ACR-EULAR task force that created the tool has emphasized that this criterion is specifically designed for research purposes and should not be used in clinical practice. Using this stratification tool should allow future clinical studies to group patients by similar risk, Deane said.

“Not that all studies have to look at exactly the same people, but each study should have similar risk stratification,” he said.

The second ACR-EULAR joint effort is taking a population-based approach to risk stratification, Deane said, to better predict RA risk in individuals without common symptoms like joint pain.

The aim is to create something analogous to the Framingham Risk Score in predicting cardiovascular disease, in which simple variables like total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, and smoking status can be used to calculate an individual’s 10-year risk for CVD, Deane explained.

The second approach could also identify patients earlier in the progression to RA, which may be easier to treat than later stages of disease.
 

Understanding RA Origins

However, treating an earlier stage of disease might require a different approach. Up to this point, medical interventions for RA prevention used drugs approved to treat RA, but inventions during the pre-RA stage — before any joint symptoms appear — might require targeting different immunologic pathways.

“The general concept is if there is a pre-RA stage when joints are not involved, that means all the immunologic abnormalities are probably happening somewhere else in the body,” he said. “The big question is: Where is that, and how exactly is that happening?”

One theory is that RA begins to develop in mucosal sites, such as the intestines or lungs, before it involves synovial joints.

“In the absence of resolution, these localized immune processes transition into a systemic process that targets the joints, either by direct effects of microbiota, molecular mimicry, and/or immune amplification,” wrote Deane and coauthors in a recent review article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. “This, in turn, leads to inappropriate engagement of a range of effector mechanisms in both synovium and periarticular sites.”

Following this logic, the progression of the at-risk stage of RA could be considered a continuum along which there are multiple possible points for intervention. It’s also probable that the disease can develop through multiple pathways, Deane said.

“If you look at all the people who get rheumatoid arthritis, there’s probably no way those could have the same exact pathways,” he said. “There’s probably going to be different endotypes and understanding that is going to help us prevent disease in a better way.”
 

Looking Forward

Beyond improving risk stratification and understanding RA pathogenesis, researchers are also considering novel therapeutic approaches for future trials. Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists could be worth exploring in RA prevention and treatment, said Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

These drugs — initially developed for diabetes — have already shown anti-inflammatory effects, and one study suggested that GLP-1s lowered the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in individuals with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. Obesity is a known risk factor for RA, so weight loss aided by GLP-1 drugs could also help reduce risk in certain patients. Clinical trials are needed to explore GLP-1s for both RA prevention and treatment, he said.

While prevention trials up to this point have used one-time, time-limited interventions, longer durations of medication or multiple rounds of therapy may be more efficacious. Even for trials that demonstrated the intervention arms had less progression to RA, this effect diminished once participants stopped the medication. In the ARIAA and APIPPRA trials using abatacept, “it wasn’t like we hit a reset button and [patients] just permanently now did not get rheumatoid arthritis,” Deane said, suggesting that alternative approaches should be explored.

“Future studies need to look at potentially longer doses of drug or lower doses of drug, or some combination that might be effective,” he said.

Deane received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Thermo Fisher, and Werfen and grant funding from Janssen Research and Development and Gilead Sciences. Mankia received grant support from Gilead, Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Serac Life Sciences and honoraria or consultant fees from AbbVie, UCB, Lilly, Galapagos, DeepCure, Serac Life Sciences, AstraZeneca, and Zura Bio. Sparks received research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Sonoma Biotherapeutics. He consulted for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Merck, Mustang, Optum, Pfizer, ReCor Medical, Sana, Sobi, and UCB.

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

With the discovery of autoantibodies and other risk factors for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), researchers developed clinical trials to see whether the disease can be prevented entirely. In the past 10 years, a number of these trials have concluded, with variable results.

While some trials demonstrated no effect at all, others showed that medical intervention can delay the onset of disease in certain populations and even reduce the rates of progression to RA. These completed trials also offer researchers the chance to identify opportunities to improve RA prevention trials moving forward.

“We’re looking at all that data and trying to figure out what the next step is going to be,” said Kevin Deane, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine and a rheumatologist at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora.

Key lessons include the need for improved risk stratification tools and better understanding of RA pathogenesis, he said.
 

The Research So Far

All RA prevention trials except for one have been completed and/or published within the past decade, bringing valuable insights to the field. (See chart below.)

MDedge News

Atorvastatin (STAPRA) and hydroxychloroquine (StopRA) proved ineffective in preventing the onset of RA, and both trials were stopped early. Rituximab and methotrexate (MTX) both delayed the onset of RA, but the effect disappeared by the end of the follow-up periods.

However, the 2-year results from the TREAT EARLIER trial showed that compared with patients given placebo, those given MTX showed improved MRI-detected joint inflammation, physical functioning, and reported symptoms.

The 4-year analysis of the trial further risk stratified participants and found that MTX showed a preventive effect in anti–citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)–negative participants at an increased risk for RA.

Abatacept also showed promise in preventing RA in two separate trials. In the ARIAA trial, compared with placebo, 6 months of treatment with abatacept reduced MRI inflammation and symptoms and lowered the rates of progression to RA. This treatment effect lessened during the 1-year follow-up period, but the difference between the two groups was still significant at 18 months.

In the APIPPRA trial, 12 months of treatment with abatacept improved subclinical inflammation and quality-of-life measures in participants and reduced the rates of progression to RA through another 12 months of observation. However, during this post-treatment follow-up period, the treatment effect began to diminish.

While there have been some promising findings — not only in disease prevention but also in disease modification — these studies all looked at different patient groups, noted Kulveer Mankia, MA, DM, an associate professor and consulting rheumatologist at the Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds in England.

“You have disparate, different inclusion criteria in different studies, all of which take years to complete,” he said. For example, while the TREAT EARLIER trial recruited patients with joint pain and subclinical joint inflammation via MRI, regardless of autoantibody status, the APIPPRA trial enrolled patients that were both ACPA+ and rheumatoid factor (RF)+ with joint pain.

“You’re left extrapolating as to whether [these interventions] will work in different at-risk populations,” he said.

Even with specific inclusion criteria in each study, there can still be heterogeneity in risk within a study group, Deane said. In the TREAT EARLIER study, 18%-20% of participants ultimately developed RA over the study period, which is lower than expected.

“While it seemed like a pretty high-risk group, it wasn’t as high risk as we thought,” he said, “and that’s why we’ve gone back to the drawing board.”
 

Risk Stratification Efforts

There are now two ongoing joint efforts by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) to define these populations and “bring some consensus to the field,” Mankia said.

Voisin / Science Source

The first aims to create a unanimous risk stratification tool for future RA prevention studies. The proposed system, devised for individuals with new joint symptoms who are at a risk for RA, was presented at the EULAR 2024 annual meeting and will be further discussed at the upcoming ACR 2024 annual meeting in Washington, DC.

The system uses a point system based on six criteria — three lab tests and three criteria commonly assessed in clinical practice:

• Morning stiffness
• Patient-reported joint swelling
• Difficulty making a fist
• Increased C-reactive protein
• RF positivity
• ACPA positivity

These criteria were picked so that the risk stratification tool can be used without imaging; however, the inclusion of MRI can further refine the score.

The ACR-EULAR task force that created the tool has emphasized that this criterion is specifically designed for research purposes and should not be used in clinical practice. Using this stratification tool should allow future clinical studies to group patients by similar risk, Deane said.

“Not that all studies have to look at exactly the same people, but each study should have similar risk stratification,” he said.

The second ACR-EULAR joint effort is taking a population-based approach to risk stratification, Deane said, to better predict RA risk in individuals without common symptoms like joint pain.

The aim is to create something analogous to the Framingham Risk Score in predicting cardiovascular disease, in which simple variables like total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, and smoking status can be used to calculate an individual’s 10-year risk for CVD, Deane explained.

The second approach could also identify patients earlier in the progression to RA, which may be easier to treat than later stages of disease.
 

Understanding RA Origins

However, treating an earlier stage of disease might require a different approach. Up to this point, medical interventions for RA prevention used drugs approved to treat RA, but inventions during the pre-RA stage — before any joint symptoms appear — might require targeting different immunologic pathways.

“The general concept is if there is a pre-RA stage when joints are not involved, that means all the immunologic abnormalities are probably happening somewhere else in the body,” he said. “The big question is: Where is that, and how exactly is that happening?”

One theory is that RA begins to develop in mucosal sites, such as the intestines or lungs, before it involves synovial joints.

“In the absence of resolution, these localized immune processes transition into a systemic process that targets the joints, either by direct effects of microbiota, molecular mimicry, and/or immune amplification,” wrote Deane and coauthors in a recent review article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. “This, in turn, leads to inappropriate engagement of a range of effector mechanisms in both synovium and periarticular sites.”

Following this logic, the progression of the at-risk stage of RA could be considered a continuum along which there are multiple possible points for intervention. It’s also probable that the disease can develop through multiple pathways, Deane said.

“If you look at all the people who get rheumatoid arthritis, there’s probably no way those could have the same exact pathways,” he said. “There’s probably going to be different endotypes and understanding that is going to help us prevent disease in a better way.”
 

Looking Forward

Beyond improving risk stratification and understanding RA pathogenesis, researchers are also considering novel therapeutic approaches for future trials. Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists could be worth exploring in RA prevention and treatment, said Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

These drugs — initially developed for diabetes — have already shown anti-inflammatory effects, and one study suggested that GLP-1s lowered the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in individuals with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. Obesity is a known risk factor for RA, so weight loss aided by GLP-1 drugs could also help reduce risk in certain patients. Clinical trials are needed to explore GLP-1s for both RA prevention and treatment, he said.

While prevention trials up to this point have used one-time, time-limited interventions, longer durations of medication or multiple rounds of therapy may be more efficacious. Even for trials that demonstrated the intervention arms had less progression to RA, this effect diminished once participants stopped the medication. In the ARIAA and APIPPRA trials using abatacept, “it wasn’t like we hit a reset button and [patients] just permanently now did not get rheumatoid arthritis,” Deane said, suggesting that alternative approaches should be explored.

“Future studies need to look at potentially longer doses of drug or lower doses of drug, or some combination that might be effective,” he said.

Deane received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Thermo Fisher, and Werfen and grant funding from Janssen Research and Development and Gilead Sciences. Mankia received grant support from Gilead, Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Serac Life Sciences and honoraria or consultant fees from AbbVie, UCB, Lilly, Galapagos, DeepCure, Serac Life Sciences, AstraZeneca, and Zura Bio. Sparks received research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Sonoma Biotherapeutics. He consulted for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Merck, Mustang, Optum, Pfizer, ReCor Medical, Sana, Sobi, and UCB.

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

Our current healthcare system, which is a costly and unending cycle of merely managing chronic disease symptoms, is failing us. What we truly need is a patient-centered approach that restores health by addressing not just diagnoses but also the physical, emotional, and social needs of each individual. This is the essence of whole-person health, and transformation toward this model of care is already underway.

This shift underscores why clinicians like me support placing lifestyle medicine at the foundation of health and healthcare. Evidence-based lifestyle medicine — which applies interventions in nutrition, physical activity, restorative sleep, stress management, positive social connections, and avoidance of risky substances to prevent, treat, and when used intensively, even reverse lifestyle-related chronic disease — is a medical specialty equipped to successfully address patients’ whole-person health in an effective, high-value clinical care delivery model.

As this transformation continues, here are four key lifestyle medicine trends for 2025.
 

Lifestyle Medicine Becomes More Ingrained in Primary Care

The 2021 National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine report, “Implementing High-Quality Primary Care” sounded the alarm about the state of primary care and outlined a comprehensive approach to transform it. Lifestyle medicine emerged as a solution as clinicians found innovative ways to integrate lifestyle behavior interventions into existing care models in a financially sustainable, scalable manner. Examples include Blue Zones Health, a new delivery model that aligns lifestyle medicine–certified clinicians with community and payers in California, and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center lifestyle medicine program, where primary care patients are referred to virtual group coaching, a teaching kitchen, and classes on food as medicine, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and more.

Organizations dedicated to advancing primary care are paying close attention to the potential of lifestyle medicine. Currently, The Primary Care Collaborative has launched a new multi-year initiative on whole-person care and lifestyle medicine. This initiative aims to broaden the primary care community’s understanding of whole health and lifestyle medicine concepts and the evidence behind them, as well as lay the groundwork for future work to promote whole-person primary care and lifestyle medicine among an engaged and committed community of members. 
 

Digital Tools and AI Spark Lifestyle Medicine Innovations

American College of Lifestyle Medicine partner organizations are increasingly utilizing digital tools, such as health apps tailored to lifestyle behavior interventions, to expand access to care and support behavior change. One of the biggest challenges in lifestyle interventions is the limited time during patient encounters. But artificial intelligence (AI) tools can record (with patient permission) and summarize encounters, enabling clinicians to turn away from their keyboards and be more present to learn about the unique living, environmental, and societal factors that impact every individual’s lifestyle choices. AI tools can create individualized whole-food, plant-predominant meal plans or physical activity schedules for patients in just a few seconds. The potential for AI in lifestyle medicine is vast, and its applications were further explored at the American College of Lifestyle Medicine’s annual conference in October.

Behavior Change and Sustainability of the Food-as-Medicine Movement

Significant investments have been made in food as medicine to address diet-related chronic diseases. But merely providing medically tailored meals or produce prescriptions is not enough because once the prescriptions end, so will the health benefits. Clinicians certified in lifestyle medicine are prepared to coach patients into long-term behavior change, supporting them with education and information to shop for and prepare tasty, nutritious, and affordable food. The same applies to the use of glucagon-like peptide 1 drugs. Although the initial weight loss offers motivation, lifestyle changes are necessary to sustain long-term health benefits beyond medications.

Lifestyle Medicine Emerges as a Strategy to Achieve Health Equity 

Lifestyle behavior interventions have the unique ability to address health status and social drivers of health. For example, food as medicine affects an individual’s health while also addressing nutrition security. Certainly, no medication can both improve health status and feed someone. The addition of payment for the screening of social drivers of health to the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule is an important step toward connecting clinicians with community health–based organizations that can address factors that influence patients’ ability to adhere to lifestyle behavior care plans. Lifestyle medicine clinicians are poised to lead this effort because they are already having conversations with patients about their environment, living conditions, and access to nutritious food. 

The changes coming to our healthcare system are exciting and long overdue. Lifestyle medicine is positioned to be at the forefront of this transformation now and in the future.

Dr. Patel, president of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine in St. Louis, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Our current healthcare system, which is a costly and unending cycle of merely managing chronic disease symptoms, is failing us. What we truly need is a patient-centered approach that restores health by addressing not just diagnoses but also the physical, emotional, and social needs of each individual. This is the essence of whole-person health, and transformation toward this model of care is already underway.

This shift underscores why clinicians like me support placing lifestyle medicine at the foundation of health and healthcare. Evidence-based lifestyle medicine — which applies interventions in nutrition, physical activity, restorative sleep, stress management, positive social connections, and avoidance of risky substances to prevent, treat, and when used intensively, even reverse lifestyle-related chronic disease — is a medical specialty equipped to successfully address patients’ whole-person health in an effective, high-value clinical care delivery model.

As this transformation continues, here are four key lifestyle medicine trends for 2025.
 

Lifestyle Medicine Becomes More Ingrained in Primary Care

The 2021 National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine report, “Implementing High-Quality Primary Care” sounded the alarm about the state of primary care and outlined a comprehensive approach to transform it. Lifestyle medicine emerged as a solution as clinicians found innovative ways to integrate lifestyle behavior interventions into existing care models in a financially sustainable, scalable manner. Examples include Blue Zones Health, a new delivery model that aligns lifestyle medicine–certified clinicians with community and payers in California, and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center lifestyle medicine program, where primary care patients are referred to virtual group coaching, a teaching kitchen, and classes on food as medicine, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and more.

Organizations dedicated to advancing primary care are paying close attention to the potential of lifestyle medicine. Currently, The Primary Care Collaborative has launched a new multi-year initiative on whole-person care and lifestyle medicine. This initiative aims to broaden the primary care community’s understanding of whole health and lifestyle medicine concepts and the evidence behind them, as well as lay the groundwork for future work to promote whole-person primary care and lifestyle medicine among an engaged and committed community of members. 
 

Digital Tools and AI Spark Lifestyle Medicine Innovations

American College of Lifestyle Medicine partner organizations are increasingly utilizing digital tools, such as health apps tailored to lifestyle behavior interventions, to expand access to care and support behavior change. One of the biggest challenges in lifestyle interventions is the limited time during patient encounters. But artificial intelligence (AI) tools can record (with patient permission) and summarize encounters, enabling clinicians to turn away from their keyboards and be more present to learn about the unique living, environmental, and societal factors that impact every individual’s lifestyle choices. AI tools can create individualized whole-food, plant-predominant meal plans or physical activity schedules for patients in just a few seconds. The potential for AI in lifestyle medicine is vast, and its applications were further explored at the American College of Lifestyle Medicine’s annual conference in October.

Behavior Change and Sustainability of the Food-as-Medicine Movement

Significant investments have been made in food as medicine to address diet-related chronic diseases. But merely providing medically tailored meals or produce prescriptions is not enough because once the prescriptions end, so will the health benefits. Clinicians certified in lifestyle medicine are prepared to coach patients into long-term behavior change, supporting them with education and information to shop for and prepare tasty, nutritious, and affordable food. The same applies to the use of glucagon-like peptide 1 drugs. Although the initial weight loss offers motivation, lifestyle changes are necessary to sustain long-term health benefits beyond medications.

Lifestyle Medicine Emerges as a Strategy to Achieve Health Equity 

Lifestyle behavior interventions have the unique ability to address health status and social drivers of health. For example, food as medicine affects an individual’s health while also addressing nutrition security. Certainly, no medication can both improve health status and feed someone. The addition of payment for the screening of social drivers of health to the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule is an important step toward connecting clinicians with community health–based organizations that can address factors that influence patients’ ability to adhere to lifestyle behavior care plans. Lifestyle medicine clinicians are poised to lead this effort because they are already having conversations with patients about their environment, living conditions, and access to nutritious food. 

The changes coming to our healthcare system are exciting and long overdue. Lifestyle medicine is positioned to be at the forefront of this transformation now and in the future.

Dr. Patel, president of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine in St. Louis, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Our current healthcare system, which is a costly and unending cycle of merely managing chronic disease symptoms, is failing us. What we truly need is a patient-centered approach that restores health by addressing not just diagnoses but also the physical, emotional, and social needs of each individual. This is the essence of whole-person health, and transformation toward this model of care is already underway.

This shift underscores why clinicians like me support placing lifestyle medicine at the foundation of health and healthcare. Evidence-based lifestyle medicine — which applies interventions in nutrition, physical activity, restorative sleep, stress management, positive social connections, and avoidance of risky substances to prevent, treat, and when used intensively, even reverse lifestyle-related chronic disease — is a medical specialty equipped to successfully address patients’ whole-person health in an effective, high-value clinical care delivery model.

As this transformation continues, here are four key lifestyle medicine trends for 2025.
 

Lifestyle Medicine Becomes More Ingrained in Primary Care

The 2021 National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine report, “Implementing High-Quality Primary Care” sounded the alarm about the state of primary care and outlined a comprehensive approach to transform it. Lifestyle medicine emerged as a solution as clinicians found innovative ways to integrate lifestyle behavior interventions into existing care models in a financially sustainable, scalable manner. Examples include Blue Zones Health, a new delivery model that aligns lifestyle medicine–certified clinicians with community and payers in California, and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center lifestyle medicine program, where primary care patients are referred to virtual group coaching, a teaching kitchen, and classes on food as medicine, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and more.

Organizations dedicated to advancing primary care are paying close attention to the potential of lifestyle medicine. Currently, The Primary Care Collaborative has launched a new multi-year initiative on whole-person care and lifestyle medicine. This initiative aims to broaden the primary care community’s understanding of whole health and lifestyle medicine concepts and the evidence behind them, as well as lay the groundwork for future work to promote whole-person primary care and lifestyle medicine among an engaged and committed community of members. 
 

Digital Tools and AI Spark Lifestyle Medicine Innovations

American College of Lifestyle Medicine partner organizations are increasingly utilizing digital tools, such as health apps tailored to lifestyle behavior interventions, to expand access to care and support behavior change. One of the biggest challenges in lifestyle interventions is the limited time during patient encounters. But artificial intelligence (AI) tools can record (with patient permission) and summarize encounters, enabling clinicians to turn away from their keyboards and be more present to learn about the unique living, environmental, and societal factors that impact every individual’s lifestyle choices. AI tools can create individualized whole-food, plant-predominant meal plans or physical activity schedules for patients in just a few seconds. The potential for AI in lifestyle medicine is vast, and its applications were further explored at the American College of Lifestyle Medicine’s annual conference in October.

Behavior Change and Sustainability of the Food-as-Medicine Movement

Significant investments have been made in food as medicine to address diet-related chronic diseases. But merely providing medically tailored meals or produce prescriptions is not enough because once the prescriptions end, so will the health benefits. Clinicians certified in lifestyle medicine are prepared to coach patients into long-term behavior change, supporting them with education and information to shop for and prepare tasty, nutritious, and affordable food. The same applies to the use of glucagon-like peptide 1 drugs. Although the initial weight loss offers motivation, lifestyle changes are necessary to sustain long-term health benefits beyond medications.

Lifestyle Medicine Emerges as a Strategy to Achieve Health Equity 

Lifestyle behavior interventions have the unique ability to address health status and social drivers of health. For example, food as medicine affects an individual’s health while also addressing nutrition security. Certainly, no medication can both improve health status and feed someone. The addition of payment for the screening of social drivers of health to the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule is an important step toward connecting clinicians with community health–based organizations that can address factors that influence patients’ ability to adhere to lifestyle behavior care plans. Lifestyle medicine clinicians are poised to lead this effort because they are already having conversations with patients about their environment, living conditions, and access to nutritious food. 

The changes coming to our healthcare system are exciting and long overdue. Lifestyle medicine is positioned to be at the forefront of this transformation now and in the future.

Dr. Patel, president of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine in St. Louis, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) experienced improved symptoms with iberdomide, a cereblon modulator, added to standard lupus medications, particularly in subacute and chronic cases.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a randomized phase 2 trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of iberdomide in 288 patients with CLE (mean age, 45 years; 97% women). Iberdomide is a cereblon modulator, which results in degradation of two transcription factors of immune cell development and homeostasis — Ikaros and Aiolos — that have been implicated in the genetic predisposition of systemic lupus.
• CLE Disease Area and Severity Index Activity (CLASI-A) endpoints included mean percent change from baseline and ≥ 50% reduction from baseline (CLASI-50), which were evaluated in all patients with baseline CLASI-A scores ≥ 8 and by CLE subtypes (acute, subacute, and chronic).
• At baseline, 56% of patients had acute CLE, 29% had chronic CLE, and 16% had subacute CLE; 28% of patients had a baseline CLASI-A score ≥ 8.
• Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral iberdomide (0.45 mg, 0.30 mg, 0.15 mg, or placebo daily) for 24 weeks while continuing standard lupus medications. At week 24, patients on placebo were rerandomized to iberdomide 0.45 mg or 0.30 mg once a day, while those on iberdomide continued their assigned dose through week 52.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among patients with baseline CLASI-A ≥ 8, the mean change in CLASI-A score from baseline at week 24 was −66.7% for those on iberdomide 0.45 mg vs −54.2% for placebo (P = .295).
• At week 24, patients with subacute CLE showed a significantly greater mean percent change from baseline in CLASI-A with iberdomide 0.45 mg vs placebo (−90.5% vs −51.2%; P = .007), while no significant differences were observed with the 0.45-mg dose vs placebo in patients with chronic or acute CLE.
• Overall, CLASI-50 responses were not significantly different among those on 0.45 mg vs placebo (55.6% vs 44.6%). The proportions of patients achieving CLASI-50 at week 24 were significantly greater for iberdomide 0.45 mg vs placebo for those with subacute CLE (91.7% vs 52.9%; P = .035) and chronic CLE (62.1% vs 27.8%; P = .029), but not for those with baseline CLASI-A ≥ 8 (66.7% vs 50%).
• More than 80% of patients had treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), which were mostly mild to moderate. Over 2 years, the most common were urinary tract infections, upper respiratory tract infections, neutropenia, and nasopharyngitis. TEAEs leading to iberdomide discontinuation in one or more patients were neutropenia (n = 7), rash (n = 7), increased hepatic enzymes (n = 4), and deep vein thrombosis (n = 3).

IN PRACTICE:

“Data from this phase 2 trial of iberdomide in patients with SLE suggest that a greater proportion of patients with subacute or chronic CLE who received the higher dose of 0.45 mg iberdomide achieved CLASI-50 vs placebo. For the overall population, CLASI-50 response was not significantly different between treatment groups at week 24, partly due to a high placebo response that may have been driven by patients with acute CLE,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Victoria P. Werth, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania and the Veteran’s Administration Medical Center, both in Philadelphia, and was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included small patient subgroups for different CLE subtypes, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. CLE subtype was determined by the investigator without additional photographic adjudication. Additionally, the use of background lupus medications could have influenced the placebo group’s response, limiting the ability to observe the treatment effect of iberdomide monotherapy.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Six authors reported being employed by Bristol-Myers Squibb, and several others reported consultancy and research support from various sources including Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) experienced improved symptoms with iberdomide, a cereblon modulator, added to standard lupus medications, particularly in subacute and chronic cases.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a randomized phase 2 trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of iberdomide in 288 patients with CLE (mean age, 45 years; 97% women). Iberdomide is a cereblon modulator, which results in degradation of two transcription factors of immune cell development and homeostasis — Ikaros and Aiolos — that have been implicated in the genetic predisposition of systemic lupus.
• CLE Disease Area and Severity Index Activity (CLASI-A) endpoints included mean percent change from baseline and ≥ 50% reduction from baseline (CLASI-50), which were evaluated in all patients with baseline CLASI-A scores ≥ 8 and by CLE subtypes (acute, subacute, and chronic).
• At baseline, 56% of patients had acute CLE, 29% had chronic CLE, and 16% had subacute CLE; 28% of patients had a baseline CLASI-A score ≥ 8.
• Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral iberdomide (0.45 mg, 0.30 mg, 0.15 mg, or placebo daily) for 24 weeks while continuing standard lupus medications. At week 24, patients on placebo were rerandomized to iberdomide 0.45 mg or 0.30 mg once a day, while those on iberdomide continued their assigned dose through week 52.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among patients with baseline CLASI-A ≥ 8, the mean change in CLASI-A score from baseline at week 24 was −66.7% for those on iberdomide 0.45 mg vs −54.2% for placebo (P = .295).
• At week 24, patients with subacute CLE showed a significantly greater mean percent change from baseline in CLASI-A with iberdomide 0.45 mg vs placebo (−90.5% vs −51.2%; P = .007), while no significant differences were observed with the 0.45-mg dose vs placebo in patients with chronic or acute CLE.
• Overall, CLASI-50 responses were not significantly different among those on 0.45 mg vs placebo (55.6% vs 44.6%). The proportions of patients achieving CLASI-50 at week 24 were significantly greater for iberdomide 0.45 mg vs placebo for those with subacute CLE (91.7% vs 52.9%; P = .035) and chronic CLE (62.1% vs 27.8%; P = .029), but not for those with baseline CLASI-A ≥ 8 (66.7% vs 50%).
• More than 80% of patients had treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), which were mostly mild to moderate. Over 2 years, the most common were urinary tract infections, upper respiratory tract infections, neutropenia, and nasopharyngitis. TEAEs leading to iberdomide discontinuation in one or more patients were neutropenia (n = 7), rash (n = 7), increased hepatic enzymes (n = 4), and deep vein thrombosis (n = 3).

IN PRACTICE:

“Data from this phase 2 trial of iberdomide in patients with SLE suggest that a greater proportion of patients with subacute or chronic CLE who received the higher dose of 0.45 mg iberdomide achieved CLASI-50 vs placebo. For the overall population, CLASI-50 response was not significantly different between treatment groups at week 24, partly due to a high placebo response that may have been driven by patients with acute CLE,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Victoria P. Werth, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania and the Veteran’s Administration Medical Center, both in Philadelphia, and was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included small patient subgroups for different CLE subtypes, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. CLE subtype was determined by the investigator without additional photographic adjudication. Additionally, the use of background lupus medications could have influenced the placebo group’s response, limiting the ability to observe the treatment effect of iberdomide monotherapy.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Six authors reported being employed by Bristol-Myers Squibb, and several others reported consultancy and research support from various sources including Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) experienced improved symptoms with iberdomide, a cereblon modulator, added to standard lupus medications, particularly in subacute and chronic cases.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a randomized phase 2 trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of iberdomide in 288 patients with CLE (mean age, 45 years; 97% women). Iberdomide is a cereblon modulator, which results in degradation of two transcription factors of immune cell development and homeostasis — Ikaros and Aiolos — that have been implicated in the genetic predisposition of systemic lupus.
• CLE Disease Area and Severity Index Activity (CLASI-A) endpoints included mean percent change from baseline and ≥ 50% reduction from baseline (CLASI-50), which were evaluated in all patients with baseline CLASI-A scores ≥ 8 and by CLE subtypes (acute, subacute, and chronic).
• At baseline, 56% of patients had acute CLE, 29% had chronic CLE, and 16% had subacute CLE; 28% of patients had a baseline CLASI-A score ≥ 8.
• Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral iberdomide (0.45 mg, 0.30 mg, 0.15 mg, or placebo daily) for 24 weeks while continuing standard lupus medications. At week 24, patients on placebo were rerandomized to iberdomide 0.45 mg or 0.30 mg once a day, while those on iberdomide continued their assigned dose through week 52.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among patients with baseline CLASI-A ≥ 8, the mean change in CLASI-A score from baseline at week 24 was −66.7% for those on iberdomide 0.45 mg vs −54.2% for placebo (P = .295).
• At week 24, patients with subacute CLE showed a significantly greater mean percent change from baseline in CLASI-A with iberdomide 0.45 mg vs placebo (−90.5% vs −51.2%; P = .007), while no significant differences were observed with the 0.45-mg dose vs placebo in patients with chronic or acute CLE.
• Overall, CLASI-50 responses were not significantly different among those on 0.45 mg vs placebo (55.6% vs 44.6%). The proportions of patients achieving CLASI-50 at week 24 were significantly greater for iberdomide 0.45 mg vs placebo for those with subacute CLE (91.7% vs 52.9%; P = .035) and chronic CLE (62.1% vs 27.8%; P = .029), but not for those with baseline CLASI-A ≥ 8 (66.7% vs 50%).
• More than 80% of patients had treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), which were mostly mild to moderate. Over 2 years, the most common were urinary tract infections, upper respiratory tract infections, neutropenia, and nasopharyngitis. TEAEs leading to iberdomide discontinuation in one or more patients were neutropenia (n = 7), rash (n = 7), increased hepatic enzymes (n = 4), and deep vein thrombosis (n = 3).

IN PRACTICE:

“Data from this phase 2 trial of iberdomide in patients with SLE suggest that a greater proportion of patients with subacute or chronic CLE who received the higher dose of 0.45 mg iberdomide achieved CLASI-50 vs placebo. For the overall population, CLASI-50 response was not significantly different between treatment groups at week 24, partly due to a high placebo response that may have been driven by patients with acute CLE,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Victoria P. Werth, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania and the Veteran’s Administration Medical Center, both in Philadelphia, and was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included small patient subgroups for different CLE subtypes, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. CLE subtype was determined by the investigator without additional photographic adjudication. Additionally, the use of background lupus medications could have influenced the placebo group’s response, limiting the ability to observe the treatment effect of iberdomide monotherapy.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Six authors reported being employed by Bristol-Myers Squibb, and several others reported consultancy and research support from various sources including Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

BOSTON — Social adversity is associated with worse survival among patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH), according to a new retrospective study of a New York City population. Among HIV+ patients with heart failure, PH was associated with about a threefold increase in all-cause mortality, but that risk increased to about sevenfold when social adversity, identified by a licensed social worker, was also present.

A sub-analysis of both HIV+ and HIV– patients showed worse mortality outcomes with social adversity in both groups.

“Almost the majority of patients that we treat have either some social adversity or no insurance or are undocumented, so as a group of residents, we decided to study the impact of these factors on their health and the care that can be provided. We started using the two cohorts and now we keep it going with every new resident,” said Luca Biavati, MD, who presented the study at the CHEST Annual Meeting.

“The presence of any form of socioeconomic disadvantage is negatively impacting care and for a large part of the population, there are some factors that could probably be addressed by either an institutional or hospital policy,” said Dr. Biavati, who is an internal medicine resident at Jacobi Medical Center, New York.

Other factors are more difficult to address, such as lack of education. “[Some patients] don’t understand the gravity of their issue and medical condition until it’s too late, and then they’re not fit enough for the treatment, or just because of the social situation, they cannot qualify for advanced therapies,” said Dr. Biavati.

The researchers established two cohorts: One consisting of patients with HIV and heart failure who may or may not have had PH and one comprising patients with PH with or without HIV and heart failure. In the HIV/heart failure group, PH without social adversity was associated with a nearly threefold increase in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 2.83; P = .004), whereas PH with social adversity was linked to a more than sevenfold increase in all-cause mortality (HR, 7.14; P < .001). Social adversity without PA was associated with a more than fourfold increase (HR, 4.47; P < .001).

Within the PH cohort, social adversity was associated with lower survival (P < .001). When the researchers broke down the results by types of social adversity, they found statistically significant relationships between greater mortality risk and economic instability within the HIV+ population (HR, 2.59; P = .040), transportation issues within the HIV– population (HR, 12.8; P < .001), and lack of social or family support within both the HIV– (HR, 5.49; P < .001) and the HIV+ population (HR, 2.03; P = .028). 

The research has prompted interventions, which are now being studied at the institution, according to Dr. Biavati. “We have a policy of giving medications in bags when we discharge a patient with a social adversity. We literally go to the pharmacy, bring up the bag of medication, and we [put it] in their hands before they leave the hospital. They get a 1- or 3-month supply, depending on the medication, and then we usually discharge them with a clinical appointment already scheduled with either a pulmonary or primary care provider, and we usually call them before every appointment to confirm that they’re coming. That increases the chances of some success, but there’s still a very long way to go,” said Dr. Biavati.

Dr. Biavati was blinded to the results of the intervention, so he could not report on whether it was working. “But I can tell you that I’ve had busier clinics, so hopefully that means that they’re showing up more,” he said.

The problem is complex, according to Sandeep Jain, MD, who moderated the session. “Social adversity means lack of education. Lack of education means lack of compliance. Lack of compliance means what can you do if people are not taking medications? So it’s all matched together. It’s all lack of education and lack of money, lack of family support. And these drugs they have to take every single day. It’s not that easy. It’s very easy for us to say I had antiretroviral treatment for 6 months. It is almost impossible to continue regular treatment for that long [for a patient with social adversity]. You can’t blame them if they aren’t taking treatments. It’s very difficult for them,” said Dr. Jain.

That underscores the need for interventions that can address the needs of patients with social adversity. “We have to [practice] medicine considering the social situation of the patient and not just the medicine that we study in books. That’s kind of what we are faced with every day. We have therapies, and then life happens. It’s much harder to care for those patients,” said Dr. Biavati.

Dr. Biavati and Dr. Jain reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

BOSTON — Social adversity is associated with worse survival among patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH), according to a new retrospective study of a New York City population. Among HIV+ patients with heart failure, PH was associated with about a threefold increase in all-cause mortality, but that risk increased to about sevenfold when social adversity, identified by a licensed social worker, was also present.

A sub-analysis of both HIV+ and HIV– patients showed worse mortality outcomes with social adversity in both groups.

“Almost the majority of patients that we treat have either some social adversity or no insurance or are undocumented, so as a group of residents, we decided to study the impact of these factors on their health and the care that can be provided. We started using the two cohorts and now we keep it going with every new resident,” said Luca Biavati, MD, who presented the study at the CHEST Annual Meeting.

“The presence of any form of socioeconomic disadvantage is negatively impacting care and for a large part of the population, there are some factors that could probably be addressed by either an institutional or hospital policy,” said Dr. Biavati, who is an internal medicine resident at Jacobi Medical Center, New York.

Other factors are more difficult to address, such as lack of education. “[Some patients] don’t understand the gravity of their issue and medical condition until it’s too late, and then they’re not fit enough for the treatment, or just because of the social situation, they cannot qualify for advanced therapies,” said Dr. Biavati.

The researchers established two cohorts: One consisting of patients with HIV and heart failure who may or may not have had PH and one comprising patients with PH with or without HIV and heart failure. In the HIV/heart failure group, PH without social adversity was associated with a nearly threefold increase in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 2.83; P = .004), whereas PH with social adversity was linked to a more than sevenfold increase in all-cause mortality (HR, 7.14; P < .001). Social adversity without PA was associated with a more than fourfold increase (HR, 4.47; P < .001).

Within the PH cohort, social adversity was associated with lower survival (P < .001). When the researchers broke down the results by types of social adversity, they found statistically significant relationships between greater mortality risk and economic instability within the HIV+ population (HR, 2.59; P = .040), transportation issues within the HIV– population (HR, 12.8; P < .001), and lack of social or family support within both the HIV– (HR, 5.49; P < .001) and the HIV+ population (HR, 2.03; P = .028). 

The research has prompted interventions, which are now being studied at the institution, according to Dr. Biavati. “We have a policy of giving medications in bags when we discharge a patient with a social adversity. We literally go to the pharmacy, bring up the bag of medication, and we [put it] in their hands before they leave the hospital. They get a 1- or 3-month supply, depending on the medication, and then we usually discharge them with a clinical appointment already scheduled with either a pulmonary or primary care provider, and we usually call them before every appointment to confirm that they’re coming. That increases the chances of some success, but there’s still a very long way to go,” said Dr. Biavati.

Dr. Biavati was blinded to the results of the intervention, so he could not report on whether it was working. “But I can tell you that I’ve had busier clinics, so hopefully that means that they’re showing up more,” he said.

The problem is complex, according to Sandeep Jain, MD, who moderated the session. “Social adversity means lack of education. Lack of education means lack of compliance. Lack of compliance means what can you do if people are not taking medications? So it’s all matched together. It’s all lack of education and lack of money, lack of family support. And these drugs they have to take every single day. It’s not that easy. It’s very easy for us to say I had antiretroviral treatment for 6 months. It is almost impossible to continue regular treatment for that long [for a patient with social adversity]. You can’t blame them if they aren’t taking treatments. It’s very difficult for them,” said Dr. Jain.

That underscores the need for interventions that can address the needs of patients with social adversity. “We have to [practice] medicine considering the social situation of the patient and not just the medicine that we study in books. That’s kind of what we are faced with every day. We have therapies, and then life happens. It’s much harder to care for those patients,” said Dr. Biavati.

Dr. Biavati and Dr. Jain reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

BOSTON — Social adversity is associated with worse survival among patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH), according to a new retrospective study of a New York City population. Among HIV+ patients with heart failure, PH was associated with about a threefold increase in all-cause mortality, but that risk increased to about sevenfold when social adversity, identified by a licensed social worker, was also present.

A sub-analysis of both HIV+ and HIV– patients showed worse mortality outcomes with social adversity in both groups.

“Almost the majority of patients that we treat have either some social adversity or no insurance or are undocumented, so as a group of residents, we decided to study the impact of these factors on their health and the care that can be provided. We started using the two cohorts and now we keep it going with every new resident,” said Luca Biavati, MD, who presented the study at the CHEST Annual Meeting.

“The presence of any form of socioeconomic disadvantage is negatively impacting care and for a large part of the population, there are some factors that could probably be addressed by either an institutional or hospital policy,” said Dr. Biavati, who is an internal medicine resident at Jacobi Medical Center, New York.

Other factors are more difficult to address, such as lack of education. “[Some patients] don’t understand the gravity of their issue and medical condition until it’s too late, and then they’re not fit enough for the treatment, or just because of the social situation, they cannot qualify for advanced therapies,” said Dr. Biavati.

The researchers established two cohorts: One consisting of patients with HIV and heart failure who may or may not have had PH and one comprising patients with PH with or without HIV and heart failure. In the HIV/heart failure group, PH without social adversity was associated with a nearly threefold increase in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 2.83; P = .004), whereas PH with social adversity was linked to a more than sevenfold increase in all-cause mortality (HR, 7.14; P < .001). Social adversity without PA was associated with a more than fourfold increase (HR, 4.47; P < .001).

Within the PH cohort, social adversity was associated with lower survival (P < .001). When the researchers broke down the results by types of social adversity, they found statistically significant relationships between greater mortality risk and economic instability within the HIV+ population (HR, 2.59; P = .040), transportation issues within the HIV– population (HR, 12.8; P < .001), and lack of social or family support within both the HIV– (HR, 5.49; P < .001) and the HIV+ population (HR, 2.03; P = .028). 

The research has prompted interventions, which are now being studied at the institution, according to Dr. Biavati. “We have a policy of giving medications in bags when we discharge a patient with a social adversity. We literally go to the pharmacy, bring up the bag of medication, and we [put it] in their hands before they leave the hospital. They get a 1- or 3-month supply, depending on the medication, and then we usually discharge them with a clinical appointment already scheduled with either a pulmonary or primary care provider, and we usually call them before every appointment to confirm that they’re coming. That increases the chances of some success, but there’s still a very long way to go,” said Dr. Biavati.

Dr. Biavati was blinded to the results of the intervention, so he could not report on whether it was working. “But I can tell you that I’ve had busier clinics, so hopefully that means that they’re showing up more,” he said.

The problem is complex, according to Sandeep Jain, MD, who moderated the session. “Social adversity means lack of education. Lack of education means lack of compliance. Lack of compliance means what can you do if people are not taking medications? So it’s all matched together. It’s all lack of education and lack of money, lack of family support. And these drugs they have to take every single day. It’s not that easy. It’s very easy for us to say I had antiretroviral treatment for 6 months. It is almost impossible to continue regular treatment for that long [for a patient with social adversity]. You can’t blame them if they aren’t taking treatments. It’s very difficult for them,” said Dr. Jain.

That underscores the need for interventions that can address the needs of patients with social adversity. “We have to [practice] medicine considering the social situation of the patient and not just the medicine that we study in books. That’s kind of what we are faced with every day. We have therapies, and then life happens. It’s much harder to care for those patients,” said Dr. Biavati.

Dr. Biavati and Dr. Jain reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

TOPLINE: 

Virtual yoga classes significantly reduced chronic low back pain intensity and improved back-related function in health system employees. Improvements were sustained at 24 weeks, with reduced pain medication use and better sleep quality.

METHODOLOGY:

• A single-blinded, 24-week, 2-arm, randomized clinical trial was conducted from May 3, 2022, through May 23, 2023, comparing live-streamed yoga classes with a wait-list control among adults with chronic low back pain.
• A total of 140 participants aged 18-64 years with chronic low back pain were recruited from the Cleveland Clinic Employee Health Plan.
• Inclusion criteria included a mean low back pain intensity score of at least 4 on an 11-point numerical rating scale and daily back pain interference about half or more of the days.
• The intervention consisted of 12 consecutive weekly, 60-minute, virtual, live-streamed hatha yoga group classes.

Coprimary outcomes were mean pain intensity in the previous week on the 11-point numerical rating scale and back-related function as assessed using the 23-point modified Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire at 12 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants in the virtual yoga group showed greater reductions in mean pain intensity at 12 weeks (mean change, –1.5 points; P < .001) and 24 weeks (mean change, –2.3 points; P < .001) compared to the wait-list control group.
• Back-related function improved significantly in the virtual yoga group at 12 weeks (mean change, –2.8 points; P < .001) and 24 weeks (mean change, –4.6 points; P < .001), compared with the control group.
• Virtual yoga participants reported 21.2 percentage points less use of any analgesic medication during the past week at 24 weeks, compared with the control group.
• Sleep quality improved more in the virtual yoga group at 12 weeks (mean change, 0.4 points; P = .008) and 24 weeks (mean change, 0.4 points; P = .005), compared with the control group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given the demonstrated noninferiority of yoga to physical therapy, structured virtual yoga programs and physical therapy are reasonable choices for patients with [chronic low back pain] depending on accessibility, cost, and patient preference. These findings support the call by the National Academy of Medicine for increased evidenced-based pain treatments that can be disseminated via technology-based platforms,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Hallie Tankha, PhD, Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. It was published online on November 1, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study had a low adherence rate, with only 36.6% of participants attending at least 50% of the yoga classes. There was also a higher rate of missing data in the yoga group compared to the control group. The study did not include a longer-term follow-up assessment beyond 24 weeks.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from Cleveland Clinic Healthcare Delivery and Implementation Science Center. One coauthor disclosed receiving personal fees from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Eric Roseen, DC, PhD, reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. One coauthor disclosed receiving personal fees from UpToDate and grants from NCCIH related to yoga and tai chi for treatment of pain. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE: 

Virtual yoga classes significantly reduced chronic low back pain intensity and improved back-related function in health system employees. Improvements were sustained at 24 weeks, with reduced pain medication use and better sleep quality.

METHODOLOGY:

• A single-blinded, 24-week, 2-arm, randomized clinical trial was conducted from May 3, 2022, through May 23, 2023, comparing live-streamed yoga classes with a wait-list control among adults with chronic low back pain.
• A total of 140 participants aged 18-64 years with chronic low back pain were recruited from the Cleveland Clinic Employee Health Plan.
• Inclusion criteria included a mean low back pain intensity score of at least 4 on an 11-point numerical rating scale and daily back pain interference about half or more of the days.
• The intervention consisted of 12 consecutive weekly, 60-minute, virtual, live-streamed hatha yoga group classes.

Coprimary outcomes were mean pain intensity in the previous week on the 11-point numerical rating scale and back-related function as assessed using the 23-point modified Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire at 12 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants in the virtual yoga group showed greater reductions in mean pain intensity at 12 weeks (mean change, –1.5 points; P < .001) and 24 weeks (mean change, –2.3 points; P < .001) compared to the wait-list control group.
• Back-related function improved significantly in the virtual yoga group at 12 weeks (mean change, –2.8 points; P < .001) and 24 weeks (mean change, –4.6 points; P < .001), compared with the control group.
• Virtual yoga participants reported 21.2 percentage points less use of any analgesic medication during the past week at 24 weeks, compared with the control group.
• Sleep quality improved more in the virtual yoga group at 12 weeks (mean change, 0.4 points; P = .008) and 24 weeks (mean change, 0.4 points; P = .005), compared with the control group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given the demonstrated noninferiority of yoga to physical therapy, structured virtual yoga programs and physical therapy are reasonable choices for patients with [chronic low back pain] depending on accessibility, cost, and patient preference. These findings support the call by the National Academy of Medicine for increased evidenced-based pain treatments that can be disseminated via technology-based platforms,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Hallie Tankha, PhD, Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. It was published online on November 1, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study had a low adherence rate, with only 36.6% of participants attending at least 50% of the yoga classes. There was also a higher rate of missing data in the yoga group compared to the control group. The study did not include a longer-term follow-up assessment beyond 24 weeks.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from Cleveland Clinic Healthcare Delivery and Implementation Science Center. One coauthor disclosed receiving personal fees from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Eric Roseen, DC, PhD, reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. One coauthor disclosed receiving personal fees from UpToDate and grants from NCCIH related to yoga and tai chi for treatment of pain. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE: 

Virtual yoga classes significantly reduced chronic low back pain intensity and improved back-related function in health system employees. Improvements were sustained at 24 weeks, with reduced pain medication use and better sleep quality.

METHODOLOGY:

• A single-blinded, 24-week, 2-arm, randomized clinical trial was conducted from May 3, 2022, through May 23, 2023, comparing live-streamed yoga classes with a wait-list control among adults with chronic low back pain.
• A total of 140 participants aged 18-64 years with chronic low back pain were recruited from the Cleveland Clinic Employee Health Plan.
• Inclusion criteria included a mean low back pain intensity score of at least 4 on an 11-point numerical rating scale and daily back pain interference about half or more of the days.
• The intervention consisted of 12 consecutive weekly, 60-minute, virtual, live-streamed hatha yoga group classes.

Coprimary outcomes were mean pain intensity in the previous week on the 11-point numerical rating scale and back-related function as assessed using the 23-point modified Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire at 12 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants in the virtual yoga group showed greater reductions in mean pain intensity at 12 weeks (mean change, –1.5 points; P < .001) and 24 weeks (mean change, –2.3 points; P < .001) compared to the wait-list control group.
• Back-related function improved significantly in the virtual yoga group at 12 weeks (mean change, –2.8 points; P < .001) and 24 weeks (mean change, –4.6 points; P < .001), compared with the control group.
• Virtual yoga participants reported 21.2 percentage points less use of any analgesic medication during the past week at 24 weeks, compared with the control group.
• Sleep quality improved more in the virtual yoga group at 12 weeks (mean change, 0.4 points; P = .008) and 24 weeks (mean change, 0.4 points; P = .005), compared with the control group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given the demonstrated noninferiority of yoga to physical therapy, structured virtual yoga programs and physical therapy are reasonable choices for patients with [chronic low back pain] depending on accessibility, cost, and patient preference. These findings support the call by the National Academy of Medicine for increased evidenced-based pain treatments that can be disseminated via technology-based platforms,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Hallie Tankha, PhD, Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. It was published online on November 1, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study had a low adherence rate, with only 36.6% of participants attending at least 50% of the yoga classes. There was also a higher rate of missing data in the yoga group compared to the control group. The study did not include a longer-term follow-up assessment beyond 24 weeks.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from Cleveland Clinic Healthcare Delivery and Implementation Science Center. One coauthor disclosed receiving personal fees from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Eric Roseen, DC, PhD, reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. One coauthor disclosed receiving personal fees from UpToDate and grants from NCCIH related to yoga and tai chi for treatment of pain. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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