DUBLIN – Changing the way food options and information is presented on food delivery apps, as well as default smaller portions, may encourage healthier selections, lowering the calorie intake by 4%-15%, show three new randomized trials from the United Kingdom.

The prominent positioning of low-calorie menu items, and restaurants with low-calorie main meals, on a food app emerged as the most promising approach to promote healthier eating, followed by preselecting smaller portions by default, and finally calorie labels, Anna Keleher, MPA, a behavioral scientist at Nesta, London, reported at the European Congress on Obesity (ECO) meeting.

“Many out-of-home meals have more calories than meals cooked in-home and using delivery apps is linked with a higher risk of becoming overweight or obese,” she remarked. “We’re interested in understanding more about delivery apps because they can be modified at scale easily and can reach millions of people with interventions to promote healthier and more nutritious options in these settings.”

Food delivery apps have surged in use in the United Kingdom with a 55% increase since 2015; examples include Uber Eats, Just Eat, and Deliveroo. “This trend is similar in the United States, with more and more consumers using delivery apps to buy food,” said Ms. Keleher, a senior adviser at the Behavioral Insights Team, New York. 

Emma Boyland, PhD, an obesity psychologist from Liverpool (England) University, said: “Apps are an increasingly popular way for people to buy food and the virtual food environment is becoming as prominent as the physical food environment in how we go about obtaining meals.”

She highlighted the need to understand more about how food apps change the way we purchase and eat, but noted that “the work presented today” showed that “moving the position of food choices and information, as well as the brand name and imagery, influences what people end up buying and consuming.

“I think there’s a place for interventions that challenge these things and improve dietary health,” said Dr. Boyland, who chaired the session during which Ms. Keleher presented her results. “However, as we’ve seen with calorie labeling, they don’t always have the biggest effect on their own, so as is often the case, we need to take multiple actions, incorporating all the elements of the environment to make a meaningful difference.”
 

Three trials changing displays on simulated food delivery apps

“Delivery apps could reach millions of people and help us select healthier food options, and yet there is very little research looking at what works to promote healthier and more nutritious options in these settings,” Filippo Bianchi, MD, a colleague working with Ms. Keleher, said in a press release issued by ECO.

So the research team carried out a proof-of-concept testing of health-promoting interventions by developing a simulated food delivery app and asking 23,783 adults who typically use such services to choose a meal for themselves as if it were a real-life food delivery order.

“As a first step, we developed a simulated online food delivery platform to generate evidence on the effectiveness of our interventions,” Ms. Keleher explained, noting that the simulated platform included 21 restaurants and almost 600 food and drink items to choose from.

The research evaluated 14 interventions across three randomized controlled trials, displaying various food-ordering options that promoted lower-calorie options against a control. The trials investigated default choices (promoting the selection of small portion sizes through defaults, n = 6,000); positioning (promoting the selection of less calorie-dense options through positioning, n = 9,003); and labeling (promoting the selection of less calorific options through calorie labels, n = 8,780).

The primary outcome was the total number of calories in the basket at checkout. The results were adjusted for potentially confounding factors, such as body mass index, age, gender, and income.

For the trial that promoted smaller portions by default, “all of our interventions significantly reduced calorie purchases, with each additional intervention element increasing the effect sizes, which ranged from a 6% to 13% reduction in calories [–5.5% to –12.5% kcal/order; P < .05],” reported Ms. Keleher.

The second trial varied the position of both items on the menu and the order of restaurants – effectively, lower-calorie menu options were more prominent, and restaurant options with lower-calorie main meals were placed at the top of the restaurant selection page.

Ms. Keleher noted that there have been some concerns about whether this strategy would negatively affect restaurant business, so the research team counteracted this by also incorporating an option where low-calorie but high-price options were placed near the top of the display to promote healthier options but without loss of income for participating restaurants. This last intervention with low-calorie/high-price options placed near the top also led to reduced calorie intake.

“This showed that promoting low-calorie options does not necessarily mean damaging business revenue,” she said. “We hope that the industry can evolve to meet the widely recognized needs of society and consumers.”

Repositioning restaurants emerged as more effective than repositioning foods on the menu, while all interventions significantly reduced calorie purchases. “Effect sizes ranged from 6% to 15% reductions in calories purchased per order [P < .05],” reported Ms. Keleher.

The last trial tested seven calorie labels: four that changed the font size and location of the label, two that added a switch on/off filter for calorie label display, and one that was a calorie summary at checkout.

“All these standard calorie labels directionally reduced the number of excess calories with two [options] reaching statistical significance. Five out of seven labels significantly reduced calorie purchases with effect sizes ranging from 4.3% to –7.8% kcal/order (P < .05),” reported Ms. Keleher.

“This research is important for policymakers so they can understand the best way for companies to display calorie labels and what to include in regulations and guidelines,” she summarized.
 

Qualitative think-aloud study explored views around food delivery apps

Another piece of research, the think-aloud study, by the same authors, was presented at ECO, and explored how best to enhance the effectiveness and acceptability of calorie labels in food delivery apps in consultation with 20 adult delivery app users in the United Kingdom.

Researchers tried to document the range of views people have about calorie labels, including variation both between people and within an individual.

“For example, on a weekend, people might not want to engage with calories at all because they are more concerned to treat themselves, whereas at a mid-week lunch that same person might really want the ability to check the calorie content of their food,” Ms. Keleher reported.

She said that considerations varied significantly between people such that they described different ways in which calorie labeling impacted their food-ordering experience.

“Some people felt labels supported their existing intentions, whereas others felt labels built their knowledge. Still others felt calorie labels were insufficient to support their health and wanted more information, such as on macronutrients,” said Ms. Keleher, quoting one participant: “There’s no situation in which I would look at [calories]. I look at nutrients. I prefer the traffic light system [color-coding salt, fat, and sugar content],” she relayed.   

The key recommendations based on the think-aloud study included providing a filter that allows users to switch calorie labels on and off; communicating recommended energy intake per meal (that is, 600 kcal) and not just per day (that is, 2,000 kcal); and avoiding framing calorie label messaging or formatting as judgmental (for example, red fonts).

“These studies provide encouraging proof-of-concept evidence that small tweaks in delivery apps could help many people to identify and select healthier foods. Testing similar initiatives with real restaurants and delivery apps will be important to assess the long-term impact of these interventions in the real world. Further research should also explore the best way to balance desired health impacts while minimizing effects on businesses and on cost-of-living concerns for consumers,” concluded Dr. Bianchi.
 

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

DUBLIN – Changing the way food options and information is presented on food delivery apps, as well as default smaller portions, may encourage healthier selections, lowering the calorie intake by 4%-15%, show three new randomized trials from the United Kingdom.

The prominent positioning of low-calorie menu items, and restaurants with low-calorie main meals, on a food app emerged as the most promising approach to promote healthier eating, followed by preselecting smaller portions by default, and finally calorie labels, Anna Keleher, MPA, a behavioral scientist at Nesta, London, reported at the European Congress on Obesity (ECO) meeting.

“Many out-of-home meals have more calories than meals cooked in-home and using delivery apps is linked with a higher risk of becoming overweight or obese,” she remarked. “We’re interested in understanding more about delivery apps because they can be modified at scale easily and can reach millions of people with interventions to promote healthier and more nutritious options in these settings.”

Food delivery apps have surged in use in the United Kingdom with a 55% increase since 2015; examples include Uber Eats, Just Eat, and Deliveroo. “This trend is similar in the United States, with more and more consumers using delivery apps to buy food,” said Ms. Keleher, a senior adviser at the Behavioral Insights Team, New York. 

Emma Boyland, PhD, an obesity psychologist from Liverpool (England) University, said: “Apps are an increasingly popular way for people to buy food and the virtual food environment is becoming as prominent as the physical food environment in how we go about obtaining meals.”

She highlighted the need to understand more about how food apps change the way we purchase and eat, but noted that “the work presented today” showed that “moving the position of food choices and information, as well as the brand name and imagery, influences what people end up buying and consuming.

“I think there’s a place for interventions that challenge these things and improve dietary health,” said Dr. Boyland, who chaired the session during which Ms. Keleher presented her results. “However, as we’ve seen with calorie labeling, they don’t always have the biggest effect on their own, so as is often the case, we need to take multiple actions, incorporating all the elements of the environment to make a meaningful difference.”
 

Three trials changing displays on simulated food delivery apps

“Delivery apps could reach millions of people and help us select healthier food options, and yet there is very little research looking at what works to promote healthier and more nutritious options in these settings,” Filippo Bianchi, MD, a colleague working with Ms. Keleher, said in a press release issued by ECO.

So the research team carried out a proof-of-concept testing of health-promoting interventions by developing a simulated food delivery app and asking 23,783 adults who typically use such services to choose a meal for themselves as if it were a real-life food delivery order.

“As a first step, we developed a simulated online food delivery platform to generate evidence on the effectiveness of our interventions,” Ms. Keleher explained, noting that the simulated platform included 21 restaurants and almost 600 food and drink items to choose from.

The research evaluated 14 interventions across three randomized controlled trials, displaying various food-ordering options that promoted lower-calorie options against a control. The trials investigated default choices (promoting the selection of small portion sizes through defaults, n = 6,000); positioning (promoting the selection of less calorie-dense options through positioning, n = 9,003); and labeling (promoting the selection of less calorific options through calorie labels, n = 8,780).

The primary outcome was the total number of calories in the basket at checkout. The results were adjusted for potentially confounding factors, such as body mass index, age, gender, and income.

For the trial that promoted smaller portions by default, “all of our interventions significantly reduced calorie purchases, with each additional intervention element increasing the effect sizes, which ranged from a 6% to 13% reduction in calories [–5.5% to –12.5% kcal/order; P < .05],” reported Ms. Keleher.

The second trial varied the position of both items on the menu and the order of restaurants – effectively, lower-calorie menu options were more prominent, and restaurant options with lower-calorie main meals were placed at the top of the restaurant selection page.

Ms. Keleher noted that there have been some concerns about whether this strategy would negatively affect restaurant business, so the research team counteracted this by also incorporating an option where low-calorie but high-price options were placed near the top of the display to promote healthier options but without loss of income for participating restaurants. This last intervention with low-calorie/high-price options placed near the top also led to reduced calorie intake.

“This showed that promoting low-calorie options does not necessarily mean damaging business revenue,” she said. “We hope that the industry can evolve to meet the widely recognized needs of society and consumers.”

Repositioning restaurants emerged as more effective than repositioning foods on the menu, while all interventions significantly reduced calorie purchases. “Effect sizes ranged from 6% to 15% reductions in calories purchased per order [P < .05],” reported Ms. Keleher.

The last trial tested seven calorie labels: four that changed the font size and location of the label, two that added a switch on/off filter for calorie label display, and one that was a calorie summary at checkout.

“All these standard calorie labels directionally reduced the number of excess calories with two [options] reaching statistical significance. Five out of seven labels significantly reduced calorie purchases with effect sizes ranging from 4.3% to –7.8% kcal/order (P < .05),” reported Ms. Keleher.

“This research is important for policymakers so they can understand the best way for companies to display calorie labels and what to include in regulations and guidelines,” she summarized.
 

Qualitative think-aloud study explored views around food delivery apps

Another piece of research, the think-aloud study, by the same authors, was presented at ECO, and explored how best to enhance the effectiveness and acceptability of calorie labels in food delivery apps in consultation with 20 adult delivery app users in the United Kingdom.

Researchers tried to document the range of views people have about calorie labels, including variation both between people and within an individual.

“For example, on a weekend, people might not want to engage with calories at all because they are more concerned to treat themselves, whereas at a mid-week lunch that same person might really want the ability to check the calorie content of their food,” Ms. Keleher reported.

She said that considerations varied significantly between people such that they described different ways in which calorie labeling impacted their food-ordering experience.

“Some people felt labels supported their existing intentions, whereas others felt labels built their knowledge. Still others felt calorie labels were insufficient to support their health and wanted more information, such as on macronutrients,” said Ms. Keleher, quoting one participant: “There’s no situation in which I would look at [calories]. I look at nutrients. I prefer the traffic light system [color-coding salt, fat, and sugar content],” she relayed.   

The key recommendations based on the think-aloud study included providing a filter that allows users to switch calorie labels on and off; communicating recommended energy intake per meal (that is, 600 kcal) and not just per day (that is, 2,000 kcal); and avoiding framing calorie label messaging or formatting as judgmental (for example, red fonts).

“These studies provide encouraging proof-of-concept evidence that small tweaks in delivery apps could help many people to identify and select healthier foods. Testing similar initiatives with real restaurants and delivery apps will be important to assess the long-term impact of these interventions in the real world. Further research should also explore the best way to balance desired health impacts while minimizing effects on businesses and on cost-of-living concerns for consumers,” concluded Dr. Bianchi.
 

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

DUBLIN – Changing the way food options and information is presented on food delivery apps, as well as default smaller portions, may encourage healthier selections, lowering the calorie intake by 4%-15%, show three new randomized trials from the United Kingdom.

The prominent positioning of low-calorie menu items, and restaurants with low-calorie main meals, on a food app emerged as the most promising approach to promote healthier eating, followed by preselecting smaller portions by default, and finally calorie labels, Anna Keleher, MPA, a behavioral scientist at Nesta, London, reported at the European Congress on Obesity (ECO) meeting.

“Many out-of-home meals have more calories than meals cooked in-home and using delivery apps is linked with a higher risk of becoming overweight or obese,” she remarked. “We’re interested in understanding more about delivery apps because they can be modified at scale easily and can reach millions of people with interventions to promote healthier and more nutritious options in these settings.”

Food delivery apps have surged in use in the United Kingdom with a 55% increase since 2015; examples include Uber Eats, Just Eat, and Deliveroo. “This trend is similar in the United States, with more and more consumers using delivery apps to buy food,” said Ms. Keleher, a senior adviser at the Behavioral Insights Team, New York. 

Emma Boyland, PhD, an obesity psychologist from Liverpool (England) University, said: “Apps are an increasingly popular way for people to buy food and the virtual food environment is becoming as prominent as the physical food environment in how we go about obtaining meals.”

She highlighted the need to understand more about how food apps change the way we purchase and eat, but noted that “the work presented today” showed that “moving the position of food choices and information, as well as the brand name and imagery, influences what people end up buying and consuming.

“I think there’s a place for interventions that challenge these things and improve dietary health,” said Dr. Boyland, who chaired the session during which Ms. Keleher presented her results. “However, as we’ve seen with calorie labeling, they don’t always have the biggest effect on their own, so as is often the case, we need to take multiple actions, incorporating all the elements of the environment to make a meaningful difference.”
 

Three trials changing displays on simulated food delivery apps

“Delivery apps could reach millions of people and help us select healthier food options, and yet there is very little research looking at what works to promote healthier and more nutritious options in these settings,” Filippo Bianchi, MD, a colleague working with Ms. Keleher, said in a press release issued by ECO.

So the research team carried out a proof-of-concept testing of health-promoting interventions by developing a simulated food delivery app and asking 23,783 adults who typically use such services to choose a meal for themselves as if it were a real-life food delivery order.

“As a first step, we developed a simulated online food delivery platform to generate evidence on the effectiveness of our interventions,” Ms. Keleher explained, noting that the simulated platform included 21 restaurants and almost 600 food and drink items to choose from.

The research evaluated 14 interventions across three randomized controlled trials, displaying various food-ordering options that promoted lower-calorie options against a control. The trials investigated default choices (promoting the selection of small portion sizes through defaults, n = 6,000); positioning (promoting the selection of less calorie-dense options through positioning, n = 9,003); and labeling (promoting the selection of less calorific options through calorie labels, n = 8,780).

The primary outcome was the total number of calories in the basket at checkout. The results were adjusted for potentially confounding factors, such as body mass index, age, gender, and income.

For the trial that promoted smaller portions by default, “all of our interventions significantly reduced calorie purchases, with each additional intervention element increasing the effect sizes, which ranged from a 6% to 13% reduction in calories [–5.5% to –12.5% kcal/order; P < .05],” reported Ms. Keleher.

The second trial varied the position of both items on the menu and the order of restaurants – effectively, lower-calorie menu options were more prominent, and restaurant options with lower-calorie main meals were placed at the top of the restaurant selection page.

Ms. Keleher noted that there have been some concerns about whether this strategy would negatively affect restaurant business, so the research team counteracted this by also incorporating an option where low-calorie but high-price options were placed near the top of the display to promote healthier options but without loss of income for participating restaurants. This last intervention with low-calorie/high-price options placed near the top also led to reduced calorie intake.

“This showed that promoting low-calorie options does not necessarily mean damaging business revenue,” she said. “We hope that the industry can evolve to meet the widely recognized needs of society and consumers.”

Repositioning restaurants emerged as more effective than repositioning foods on the menu, while all interventions significantly reduced calorie purchases. “Effect sizes ranged from 6% to 15% reductions in calories purchased per order [P < .05],” reported Ms. Keleher.

The last trial tested seven calorie labels: four that changed the font size and location of the label, two that added a switch on/off filter for calorie label display, and one that was a calorie summary at checkout.

“All these standard calorie labels directionally reduced the number of excess calories with two [options] reaching statistical significance. Five out of seven labels significantly reduced calorie purchases with effect sizes ranging from 4.3% to –7.8% kcal/order (P < .05),” reported Ms. Keleher.

“This research is important for policymakers so they can understand the best way for companies to display calorie labels and what to include in regulations and guidelines,” she summarized.
 

Qualitative think-aloud study explored views around food delivery apps

Another piece of research, the think-aloud study, by the same authors, was presented at ECO, and explored how best to enhance the effectiveness and acceptability of calorie labels in food delivery apps in consultation with 20 adult delivery app users in the United Kingdom.

Researchers tried to document the range of views people have about calorie labels, including variation both between people and within an individual.

“For example, on a weekend, people might not want to engage with calories at all because they are more concerned to treat themselves, whereas at a mid-week lunch that same person might really want the ability to check the calorie content of their food,” Ms. Keleher reported.

She said that considerations varied significantly between people such that they described different ways in which calorie labeling impacted their food-ordering experience.

“Some people felt labels supported their existing intentions, whereas others felt labels built their knowledge. Still others felt calorie labels were insufficient to support their health and wanted more information, such as on macronutrients,” said Ms. Keleher, quoting one participant: “There’s no situation in which I would look at [calories]. I look at nutrients. I prefer the traffic light system [color-coding salt, fat, and sugar content],” she relayed.   

The key recommendations based on the think-aloud study included providing a filter that allows users to switch calorie labels on and off; communicating recommended energy intake per meal (that is, 600 kcal) and not just per day (that is, 2,000 kcal); and avoiding framing calorie label messaging or formatting as judgmental (for example, red fonts).

“These studies provide encouraging proof-of-concept evidence that small tweaks in delivery apps could help many people to identify and select healthier foods. Testing similar initiatives with real restaurants and delivery apps will be important to assess the long-term impact of these interventions in the real world. Further research should also explore the best way to balance desired health impacts while minimizing effects on businesses and on cost-of-living concerns for consumers,” concluded Dr. Bianchi.
 

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

A new prospective, observational study from the Lupus Research Alliance (LRA) aims to enroll 3,500 patients in an effort to accelerate the development of personalized treatments for individuals living with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

The LRA on May 23 announced the launch of the Lupus Landmark Study (LLS). The study will be conducted in partnership with Lupus Therapeutics, the clinical research affiliate of the LRA.

The study will be a key feature of the Lupus Nexus, a unique combination of lupus patient registry, biorepository, and portal for data sharing and analysis.

“The aim of the Lupus Nexus is to transform lupus research and drug development through unprecedented information exchange capabilities,” according to the LRA press release.

“SLE is a debilitating autoimmune disease that disproportionately impacts women and people from minority groups, but the cause of lupus is unknown, and no single laboratory test can definitively identify lupus,” lead investigator S. Sam Lim, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization.

“Nevertheless, early detection and treatment can often lessen the progression and severity of the disease. Although there are numerous contributing factors to the lag in research discoveries and new treatments for patients with lupus, limited access to standardized, high-quality biological samples and natural history data provides a significant roadblock to advancing lupus research,” Dr. Lim said.

“Existing registry and biorepository resources in the lupus field are largely siloed, mostly limited to relatively small or discrete patient populations, and frequently not designed for broad sharing across all stakeholders of the research community,” Dr. Lim said. The LRA and its affiliate Lupus Therapeutics are committed to developing Lupus Nexus, a first-of-its-kind registry and biorepository, to serve as a collaborative research platform for lupus and a leading source of prospective, longitudinal patient data and biological samples for the research community, Dr. Lim added.

“The Lupus Landmark Study will form the foundation of this registry and biorepository and will provide a critical resource to enable the understanding of lupus heterogeneity at the molecular level,” Dr. Lim said. The molecular data can be linked to clinical phenotypes, he explained, “while providing an opportunity to better understand the holistic experience of patients with lupus, thus helping patients address the daily life challenges they face.”

The Lupus Accelerating Breakthroughs Consortium (Lupus ABC) was announced earlier this spring by the LRA. It represents a collaboration between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the lupus community to improve and accelerate the development of safer and more effective treatments for people with lupus, Dr. Lim said. “Data and other results from the LLS will inform this collaboration,” he said.

“The LLS will provide greater insight into the pathogenesis and evolution of the condition, providing much needed information and guidance to clinicians so that the disease can be detected and treated earlier and with better precision,” Dr. Lim said. “The partnership with patients will ensure that advances will not only be meaningful to clinicians but their patients and caregivers as well,” he added.

Individuals living with lupus were essential to the development of the Lupus Nexus, and patients will continue to be engaged through participation in the LLS, which will not only generate data to promote patient-centered treatments but will also give participants more insight into their health data, according to the LRA press release.

The clinical coordinating center and biorepository elements of the Lupus Nexus will be managed by Embleema and Azenta Life Sciences, respectively, according the LRA.

Biomarker analysis will be conducted by DxTerity Diagnostics via the company’s proprietary DxCollection MicroCollection Device and Modular Immune Profile platform.

The LLS is scheduled to begin enrolling patients through select academic medical centers in the Lupus Therapeutics Lupus Clinical Investigators Network later in 2023, with an expanded roll-out in 2024, according to the press release. More information about the Lupus Landmark Study is available from Lupus Nexus at [email protected].

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

A new prospective, observational study from the Lupus Research Alliance (LRA) aims to enroll 3,500 patients in an effort to accelerate the development of personalized treatments for individuals living with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

The LRA on May 23 announced the launch of the Lupus Landmark Study (LLS). The study will be conducted in partnership with Lupus Therapeutics, the clinical research affiliate of the LRA.

The study will be a key feature of the Lupus Nexus, a unique combination of lupus patient registry, biorepository, and portal for data sharing and analysis.

“The aim of the Lupus Nexus is to transform lupus research and drug development through unprecedented information exchange capabilities,” according to the LRA press release.

“SLE is a debilitating autoimmune disease that disproportionately impacts women and people from minority groups, but the cause of lupus is unknown, and no single laboratory test can definitively identify lupus,” lead investigator S. Sam Lim, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization.

“Nevertheless, early detection and treatment can often lessen the progression and severity of the disease. Although there are numerous contributing factors to the lag in research discoveries and new treatments for patients with lupus, limited access to standardized, high-quality biological samples and natural history data provides a significant roadblock to advancing lupus research,” Dr. Lim said.

“Existing registry and biorepository resources in the lupus field are largely siloed, mostly limited to relatively small or discrete patient populations, and frequently not designed for broad sharing across all stakeholders of the research community,” Dr. Lim said. The LRA and its affiliate Lupus Therapeutics are committed to developing Lupus Nexus, a first-of-its-kind registry and biorepository, to serve as a collaborative research platform for lupus and a leading source of prospective, longitudinal patient data and biological samples for the research community, Dr. Lim added.

“The Lupus Landmark Study will form the foundation of this registry and biorepository and will provide a critical resource to enable the understanding of lupus heterogeneity at the molecular level,” Dr. Lim said. The molecular data can be linked to clinical phenotypes, he explained, “while providing an opportunity to better understand the holistic experience of patients with lupus, thus helping patients address the daily life challenges they face.”

The Lupus Accelerating Breakthroughs Consortium (Lupus ABC) was announced earlier this spring by the LRA. It represents a collaboration between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the lupus community to improve and accelerate the development of safer and more effective treatments for people with lupus, Dr. Lim said. “Data and other results from the LLS will inform this collaboration,” he said.

“The LLS will provide greater insight into the pathogenesis and evolution of the condition, providing much needed information and guidance to clinicians so that the disease can be detected and treated earlier and with better precision,” Dr. Lim said. “The partnership with patients will ensure that advances will not only be meaningful to clinicians but their patients and caregivers as well,” he added.

Individuals living with lupus were essential to the development of the Lupus Nexus, and patients will continue to be engaged through participation in the LLS, which will not only generate data to promote patient-centered treatments but will also give participants more insight into their health data, according to the LRA press release.

The clinical coordinating center and biorepository elements of the Lupus Nexus will be managed by Embleema and Azenta Life Sciences, respectively, according the LRA.

Biomarker analysis will be conducted by DxTerity Diagnostics via the company’s proprietary DxCollection MicroCollection Device and Modular Immune Profile platform.

The LLS is scheduled to begin enrolling patients through select academic medical centers in the Lupus Therapeutics Lupus Clinical Investigators Network later in 2023, with an expanded roll-out in 2024, according to the press release. More information about the Lupus Landmark Study is available from Lupus Nexus at [email protected].

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

A new prospective, observational study from the Lupus Research Alliance (LRA) aims to enroll 3,500 patients in an effort to accelerate the development of personalized treatments for individuals living with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

The LRA on May 23 announced the launch of the Lupus Landmark Study (LLS). The study will be conducted in partnership with Lupus Therapeutics, the clinical research affiliate of the LRA.

The study will be a key feature of the Lupus Nexus, a unique combination of lupus patient registry, biorepository, and portal for data sharing and analysis.

“The aim of the Lupus Nexus is to transform lupus research and drug development through unprecedented information exchange capabilities,” according to the LRA press release.

“SLE is a debilitating autoimmune disease that disproportionately impacts women and people from minority groups, but the cause of lupus is unknown, and no single laboratory test can definitively identify lupus,” lead investigator S. Sam Lim, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization.

“Nevertheless, early detection and treatment can often lessen the progression and severity of the disease. Although there are numerous contributing factors to the lag in research discoveries and new treatments for patients with lupus, limited access to standardized, high-quality biological samples and natural history data provides a significant roadblock to advancing lupus research,” Dr. Lim said.

“Existing registry and biorepository resources in the lupus field are largely siloed, mostly limited to relatively small or discrete patient populations, and frequently not designed for broad sharing across all stakeholders of the research community,” Dr. Lim said. The LRA and its affiliate Lupus Therapeutics are committed to developing Lupus Nexus, a first-of-its-kind registry and biorepository, to serve as a collaborative research platform for lupus and a leading source of prospective, longitudinal patient data and biological samples for the research community, Dr. Lim added.

“The Lupus Landmark Study will form the foundation of this registry and biorepository and will provide a critical resource to enable the understanding of lupus heterogeneity at the molecular level,” Dr. Lim said. The molecular data can be linked to clinical phenotypes, he explained, “while providing an opportunity to better understand the holistic experience of patients with lupus, thus helping patients address the daily life challenges they face.”

The Lupus Accelerating Breakthroughs Consortium (Lupus ABC) was announced earlier this spring by the LRA. It represents a collaboration between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the lupus community to improve and accelerate the development of safer and more effective treatments for people with lupus, Dr. Lim said. “Data and other results from the LLS will inform this collaboration,” he said.

“The LLS will provide greater insight into the pathogenesis and evolution of the condition, providing much needed information and guidance to clinicians so that the disease can be detected and treated earlier and with better precision,” Dr. Lim said. “The partnership with patients will ensure that advances will not only be meaningful to clinicians but their patients and caregivers as well,” he added.

Individuals living with lupus were essential to the development of the Lupus Nexus, and patients will continue to be engaged through participation in the LLS, which will not only generate data to promote patient-centered treatments but will also give participants more insight into their health data, according to the LRA press release.

The clinical coordinating center and biorepository elements of the Lupus Nexus will be managed by Embleema and Azenta Life Sciences, respectively, according the LRA.

Biomarker analysis will be conducted by DxTerity Diagnostics via the company’s proprietary DxCollection MicroCollection Device and Modular Immune Profile platform.

The LLS is scheduled to begin enrolling patients through select academic medical centers in the Lupus Therapeutics Lupus Clinical Investigators Network later in 2023, with an expanded roll-out in 2024, according to the press release. More information about the Lupus Landmark Study is available from Lupus Nexus at [email protected].

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

To the Editor:

Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis (CNH) is a benign inflammatory condition of the cartilage of the helix or antihelix as well as the overlying skin. Inflammation produces a firm painful nodule that often forms a central crust and enlarges rapidly, mimicking cutaneous malignancy. Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis is believed to be caused by chronic pressure on the pinna, usually from sleeping, which causes compromised blood supply. However, there is a wide range of additional risk factors,¹ including trauma (eg, pressure), environmental insult (eg, sun or cold exposure), and autoimmune processes (eg, systemic lupus erythematosus, scleroderma). Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis after Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is rare. We report a novel case of CNH as a postoperative complication of MMS following adjuvant radiation therapy.

A 61-year-old man presented to the MMS clinic for treatment of a primary squamous cell carcinoma of the right posterior helix. Stage I MMS demonstrated tumor invasion in the deep dermis directly overlying the auricular cartilage, as well as large-nerve (ie, >0.1 mm) perineural invasion. Two additional stages were taken; negative margins were obtained on Stage III. The defect was repaired by primary closure (Figure 1). Considering the presence of perineural invasion around a large nerve, the patient elected to receive adjuvant radiation therapy consisting of 50 Gy in 20 fractions administered to the right ear over 1 month.

Two months after completion of adjuvant radiation therapy, the patient returned to the clinic with a tender pink papule on the right crus within the radiation portal but nonadjacent to the surgical scar (Figure 2). Histopathology from a tangential biopsy revealed acanthosis, dermal sclerosis, and degenerated cartilage, consistent with CNH. Stellate fibroblasts also were seen, suggesting changes related to prior radiation therapy (Figure 3).

Although CNH is a benign condition, it can be concerning in the context of patient follow-up after MMS given its clinical appearance, which is similar to nonmelanoma skin cancer. The differential diagnosis of CNH includes hypertrophic actinic keratosis, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma. The diagnosis is based on clinical history and confirmed by histopathologic examination.

Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis in close proximity to a prior MMS site should lower the threshold for biopsy because the area is already known to be affected by actinic damage and cutaneous carcinogenesis. The histopathology of CNH often is characterized by epidermal acanthosis with ulceration, perichondral fibrosis, and a variable degree of cartilage degeneration associated with granulation tissue.²

The scarce subcutaneous tissue and limited blood supply of the pinna offer minimal cushioning and poor circulation to underlying cartilage. These anatomic features predispose the pinna to inflammation and ischemia.¹ Mohs micrographic surgery may inadvertently cause damage to surrounding tissue because of excision of cartilage, mechanical manipulation, severance of the extant blood supply, electrocautery, fenestration in preparation for skin grafting, compression from a wound dressing, and other factors related to surgery. In addition, following MMS, scar tissue and swelling with compression of adjacent structures can further inhibit circulation and lead to CNH.

In our case, multiple factors may have contributed to CNH after MMS, including postoperative swelling and compression, prior actinic damage, and other environmental factors. Given that CNH occurred within the radiation portal, we postulated that adjuvant radiation may have played a role in the pathogenesis of the patient’s CNH. Pandya et al³ reported CNH after radiation therapy for a brain tumor.

One prior study showed that CNH treated by surgical excision recurred in 34% of patients.⁴ In all of these patients, the CNH was completely excised; however, trauma from the surgical procedure itself likely resulted in recurrence of CNH. Darragh et al⁵ reported a case of CNH after MMS on the right nasal vestibule following wound reconstruction that utilized a cartilage graft from the right ear.

Our patient demonstrated an unusual but concerning complication associated with MMS. The location of CNH also was not in a traditional location but rather near the superior helical crus. Although CNH is benign by nature, it can mimic recurrence of a tumor when it presents close to the site of prior MMS. Diagnostic biopsy of CNH should be considered to rule out recurrence of skin cancer.

To the Editor:

Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis (CNH) is a benign inflammatory condition of the cartilage of the helix or antihelix as well as the overlying skin. Inflammation produces a firm painful nodule that often forms a central crust and enlarges rapidly, mimicking cutaneous malignancy. Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis is believed to be caused by chronic pressure on the pinna, usually from sleeping, which causes compromised blood supply. However, there is a wide range of additional risk factors,¹ including trauma (eg, pressure), environmental insult (eg, sun or cold exposure), and autoimmune processes (eg, systemic lupus erythematosus, scleroderma). Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis after Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is rare. We report a novel case of CNH as a postoperative complication of MMS following adjuvant radiation therapy.

A 61-year-old man presented to the MMS clinic for treatment of a primary squamous cell carcinoma of the right posterior helix. Stage I MMS demonstrated tumor invasion in the deep dermis directly overlying the auricular cartilage, as well as large-nerve (ie, >0.1 mm) perineural invasion. Two additional stages were taken; negative margins were obtained on Stage III. The defect was repaired by primary closure (Figure 1). Considering the presence of perineural invasion around a large nerve, the patient elected to receive adjuvant radiation therapy consisting of 50 Gy in 20 fractions administered to the right ear over 1 month.

Two months after completion of adjuvant radiation therapy, the patient returned to the clinic with a tender pink papule on the right crus within the radiation portal but nonadjacent to the surgical scar (Figure 2). Histopathology from a tangential biopsy revealed acanthosis, dermal sclerosis, and degenerated cartilage, consistent with CNH. Stellate fibroblasts also were seen, suggesting changes related to prior radiation therapy (Figure 3).

Although CNH is a benign condition, it can be concerning in the context of patient follow-up after MMS given its clinical appearance, which is similar to nonmelanoma skin cancer. The differential diagnosis of CNH includes hypertrophic actinic keratosis, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma. The diagnosis is based on clinical history and confirmed by histopathologic examination.

Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis in close proximity to a prior MMS site should lower the threshold for biopsy because the area is already known to be affected by actinic damage and cutaneous carcinogenesis. The histopathology of CNH often is characterized by epidermal acanthosis with ulceration, perichondral fibrosis, and a variable degree of cartilage degeneration associated with granulation tissue.²

The scarce subcutaneous tissue and limited blood supply of the pinna offer minimal cushioning and poor circulation to underlying cartilage. These anatomic features predispose the pinna to inflammation and ischemia.¹ Mohs micrographic surgery may inadvertently cause damage to surrounding tissue because of excision of cartilage, mechanical manipulation, severance of the extant blood supply, electrocautery, fenestration in preparation for skin grafting, compression from a wound dressing, and other factors related to surgery. In addition, following MMS, scar tissue and swelling with compression of adjacent structures can further inhibit circulation and lead to CNH.

In our case, multiple factors may have contributed to CNH after MMS, including postoperative swelling and compression, prior actinic damage, and other environmental factors. Given that CNH occurred within the radiation portal, we postulated that adjuvant radiation may have played a role in the pathogenesis of the patient’s CNH. Pandya et al³ reported CNH after radiation therapy for a brain tumor.

One prior study showed that CNH treated by surgical excision recurred in 34% of patients.⁴ In all of these patients, the CNH was completely excised; however, trauma from the surgical procedure itself likely resulted in recurrence of CNH. Darragh et al⁵ reported a case of CNH after MMS on the right nasal vestibule following wound reconstruction that utilized a cartilage graft from the right ear.

Our patient demonstrated an unusual but concerning complication associated with MMS. The location of CNH also was not in a traditional location but rather near the superior helical crus. Although CNH is benign by nature, it can mimic recurrence of a tumor when it presents close to the site of prior MMS. Diagnostic biopsy of CNH should be considered to rule out recurrence of skin cancer.

To the Editor:

Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis (CNH) is a benign inflammatory condition of the cartilage of the helix or antihelix as well as the overlying skin. Inflammation produces a firm painful nodule that often forms a central crust and enlarges rapidly, mimicking cutaneous malignancy. Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis is believed to be caused by chronic pressure on the pinna, usually from sleeping, which causes compromised blood supply. However, there is a wide range of additional risk factors,¹ including trauma (eg, pressure), environmental insult (eg, sun or cold exposure), and autoimmune processes (eg, systemic lupus erythematosus, scleroderma). Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis after Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is rare. We report a novel case of CNH as a postoperative complication of MMS following adjuvant radiation therapy.

A 61-year-old man presented to the MMS clinic for treatment of a primary squamous cell carcinoma of the right posterior helix. Stage I MMS demonstrated tumor invasion in the deep dermis directly overlying the auricular cartilage, as well as large-nerve (ie, >0.1 mm) perineural invasion. Two additional stages were taken; negative margins were obtained on Stage III. The defect was repaired by primary closure (Figure 1). Considering the presence of perineural invasion around a large nerve, the patient elected to receive adjuvant radiation therapy consisting of 50 Gy in 20 fractions administered to the right ear over 1 month.

Two months after completion of adjuvant radiation therapy, the patient returned to the clinic with a tender pink papule on the right crus within the radiation portal but nonadjacent to the surgical scar (Figure 2). Histopathology from a tangential biopsy revealed acanthosis, dermal sclerosis, and degenerated cartilage, consistent with CNH. Stellate fibroblasts also were seen, suggesting changes related to prior radiation therapy (Figure 3).

Although CNH is a benign condition, it can be concerning in the context of patient follow-up after MMS given its clinical appearance, which is similar to nonmelanoma skin cancer. The differential diagnosis of CNH includes hypertrophic actinic keratosis, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma. The diagnosis is based on clinical history and confirmed by histopathologic examination.

Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis in close proximity to a prior MMS site should lower the threshold for biopsy because the area is already known to be affected by actinic damage and cutaneous carcinogenesis. The histopathology of CNH often is characterized by epidermal acanthosis with ulceration, perichondral fibrosis, and a variable degree of cartilage degeneration associated with granulation tissue.²

The scarce subcutaneous tissue and limited blood supply of the pinna offer minimal cushioning and poor circulation to underlying cartilage. These anatomic features predispose the pinna to inflammation and ischemia.¹ Mohs micrographic surgery may inadvertently cause damage to surrounding tissue because of excision of cartilage, mechanical manipulation, severance of the extant blood supply, electrocautery, fenestration in preparation for skin grafting, compression from a wound dressing, and other factors related to surgery. In addition, following MMS, scar tissue and swelling with compression of adjacent structures can further inhibit circulation and lead to CNH.

In our case, multiple factors may have contributed to CNH after MMS, including postoperative swelling and compression, prior actinic damage, and other environmental factors. Given that CNH occurred within the radiation portal, we postulated that adjuvant radiation may have played a role in the pathogenesis of the patient’s CNH. Pandya et al³ reported CNH after radiation therapy for a brain tumor.

One prior study showed that CNH treated by surgical excision recurred in 34% of patients.⁴ In all of these patients, the CNH was completely excised; however, trauma from the surgical procedure itself likely resulted in recurrence of CNH. Darragh et al⁵ reported a case of CNH after MMS on the right nasal vestibule following wound reconstruction that utilized a cartilage graft from the right ear.

Our patient demonstrated an unusual but concerning complication associated with MMS. The location of CNH also was not in a traditional location but rather near the superior helical crus. Although CNH is benign by nature, it can mimic recurrence of a tumor when it presents close to the site of prior MMS. Diagnostic biopsy of CNH should be considered to rule out recurrence of skin cancer.

Psoriasis is an inflammatory autoimmune skin condition that affects approximately 125 million individuals worldwide, with approximately 8 million patients in the United States.¹ Psoriasis not only involves a cosmetic component but also comprises other comorbidities, such as psoriatic arthritis, cardiovascular disease, and psychiatric disorders, that can influence patient quality of life.^2-4 In addition, the costs associated with psoriasis are substantial, with an estimated economic burden of $35.2 billion in the United States in 2015.⁵ Given the prevalence of psoriasis and its many effects on patients, it is important that providers have high-quality evidence regarding efficacious treatment options.

Systematic reviews, which compile all available evidence on a subject to answer a specific question, represent the gold standard of research.⁶ However, studies have demonstrated that when referencing research literature, physicians tend to read only the abstract of a study rather than the entire article.^7,8 A study by Marcelo et al⁸ showed that residents at a tertiary care center answered clinical questions using only the abstract of a paper 69% of the time. Based on these findings, it is imperative that the results of systematic reviews be accurately reported in their abstracts because they can influence patient care.

Referencing only the abstracts of systematic reviews can be problematic if the abstract contains spin. Spin is a form of reporting that inappropriately highlights the benefits of a treatment with greater emphasis than what is shown by the results.⁹ Research has identified the presence of spin in the abstracts of randomized controlled trials.^10-12 For example, Cooper et al¹⁰ found that 70% (33/47) of abstracts in otolaryngology randomized controlled trials contained spin. Additionally, Arthur et al¹¹ and Austin et al¹² had similar findings within abstracts of orthopedic and obesity trials, where 44.8% (112/250) and 46.7% (21/45) contained spin, respectively. Ottwell et al¹³ found that the presence of spin in abstracts is not limited to randomized controlled trials; they demonstrated that the abstracts of nearly one-third (31% [11/36]) of systematic reviews focused on the treatment of acne vulgaris contained spin.

In our study, we aimed to evaluate the presence of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews focused on the treatment of psoriasis.

Methods

Reproducibility and Reporting—Our study did not meet the regulatory definition for human subjects research per the US Code of Federal Regulations because the study did not involve human research subjects. The study also was not subject to review by the institutional review board. Our protocol, data set, analysis scripts, extraction forms, and other material related to the study have been placed on Open Science Framework to provide transparency and ensure reproducibility. To further allow for analytic reproducibility, our data set was given to an independent laboratory and reanalyzed with a masked approach. Our study was carried out alongside other studies assessing spin in systematic reviews regarding different specialties and disease states. Because these studies were similar in design, this methodology also has been reported elsewhere. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA)¹⁴ and the guidelines for meta-epidemiological studies developed by Murad and Wang¹⁵ were used in drafting this article.

Search Strategy—The search strategies for the MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) databases were created by a systematic review librarian (D.N.W.) to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses regarding treatments for psoriasis (Figure 1). The searches were performed on June 2, 2020, and uploaded to Rayyan, a systematic review screening platform.¹⁶ After duplicates were removed, the records were screened for eligibility by 2 authors (C.H. and A.L.) using the titles and abstracts. Screening was conducted independently while each of these authors was masked to the other’s results; disagreements were resolved through discussion.

Eligibility Criteria—An article had to meet the following criteria for inclusion in our study: (1) be a systematic review with or without a meta-analysis; (2) relate to the treatment of psoriasis; and (3) be written in English and include human patients only. The PRISMA definition of systematic reviews and meta-analyses was applied.¹⁷

Training—Various training occurred throughout our study to ensure understanding of each step and mitigate subjectivity. Before beginning screening, 2 investigators (C.H. and A.L.) completed the Introduction to Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis course offered by Johns Hopkins University.¹⁸ They also underwent 2 days of online and in-person training on the definition and interpretation of the 9 most severe types of spin found in the abstracts of systematic reviews as defined by Yavchitz et al.⁹ Finally, they were trained to use A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) to appraise the methodological quality of each systematic review. Our protocol contained an outline of all training modules used.

Data Extraction—The investigators (C.H. and A.L.) analyzed included abstracts for the 9 most severe types of spin (Table 1). Data were extracted in a masked duplicate fashion using the Google form. AMSTAR-2 was used to assess systematic reviews for methodological quality. AMSTAR-2 is an appraisal tool consisting of a 16-item checklist for systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Scores range from critically low to high based on the methodological quality of the review. Interrater reliability of AMSTAR-2 scores has been moderate to high across studies. Construct validity coefficients have been high with the original AMSTAR instrument (r=0.91) and the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews instrument (r=0.84).¹⁹

During data extraction from each included systematic review, the following additional items were obtained: (1) the date the review was received; (2) intervention type (ie, pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, surgery, light therapy, mixed); (3) the funding source(s) for each systematic review (ie, industry, private, public, none, not mentioned, hospital, a combination of funding not including industry, a combination of funding including industry, other); (4) whether the journal submission guidelines suggested adherence to PRISMA guidelines; (5) whether the review discussed adherence to PRISMA¹⁴ or PRISMA for Abstracts²⁰ (PRISMA-A); (6) the publishing journal’s 5-year impact factor; and (6) the country of the systematic review’s origin. When data extraction was complete, investigators (C.H. and A.L.) were unmasked and met to resolve any disagreements by discussion. Two authors (R.O. or M.V.) served as arbiters in the case that an agreement between C.H. and A.L. could not be reached.

Statistical Analysis—Frequencies and percentages were calculated to evaluate the most common types of spin found within systematic reviews and meta-analyses. One author (M.H.) prespecified the possibility of a binary logistic regression and calculated a power analysis to determine sample size, as stated in our protocol. Our final sample size of 173 was not powered to perform the multivariable logistic regression; therefore, we calculated unadjusted odds ratios to enable assessing relationships between the presence of spin in abstracts and the various study characteristics. We used Stata 16.1 for all analyses, and all analytic decisions can be found in our protocol.

Results

General Characteristics—Our systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase returned 3200 articles, of which 665 were duplicates that were removed. An additional 2253 articles were excluded during initial abstract and title screening, and full-text screening led to the exclusion of another 109 articles. In total, 173 systematic reviews were included for data extraction. Figure 2 illustrates the screening process with the rationale for all exclusions.

Of the 173 included systematic reviews and meta-analyses, 150 (86.7%) focused on pharmacologic interventions. The majority of studies did not mention adhering to PRISMA guidelines (125/173 [72.3%]), and the publishing journals recommended their authors adhere to PRISMA for only 66 (38.2%) of the included articles. For the articles that received funding (90/173 [52.0%]), industry sources were the most common funding source (40/90 [44.4%]), followed by private (27/90 [30%]) and public funding sources (23/90 [25.6%]). Of the remaining studies, 46 articles did not include a funding statement (46/83 [55.4%]), and 37 studies were not funded (37/83 [44.6%]). The average (SD) 5-year impact factor of our included journals was 4.68 (4.64). Systematic reviews were from 31 different countries. All studies were received by their respective journals between the years 2000 and 2020 (Table 2).

Abstracts Containing Spin—We found that 37 (21.4%) of the abstracts of systematic reviews focused on psoriasis treatments contained at least 1 type of spin. Some abstracts had more than 1 type; thus, a total of 51 different instances of spin were detected. Spin type 6—selective reporting of or overemphasis on harm outcomes or analysis favoring the safety of the experimental intervention—was the most common type ofspin, found in 19 of 173 abstracts (11.0%). The most severe type of spin—type 1 (conclusion contains recommendations for clinical practice not supported by the findings)—occurred in only 1 abstract (0.6%). Spin type 8 did not occur in any of the abstracts (Table 1). There was no statistically significant association between the presence of spin and any of the study characteristics (Table 2).

AMSTAR Ratings—After using AMSTAR-2 to appraise the included systematic reviews, we found that 6 (3.5%) of the 173 studies could be rated as high; 36 (20.8%) as moderate; 25 (14.5%) as low; and 106 (61.3%) as critically low. Of the 37 abstracts containing spin, 2 (5.4%) had an AMSTAR-2 rating of high, 10 (27%) had a rating of moderate, 6 (16.2%) had a rating of low, and 19 (51.4%) had a rating of critically low (Table 2). No statistically significant associations were seen between abstracts found to have spin and the AMSTAR-2 rating of the review.

Nearly all (160/173 [92.5%]) of the included reviews were compliant with the inclusion of Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) method. Only 17 of 173 (9.8%) reviews reported funding sources for the studies included. See Table 3 for all AMSTAR-2 items.

Comment

Primary Findings—We evaluated the abstracts of systematic reviews for the treatment of psoriasis and found that more than one-fifth of them contained spin. Our study contributes to the existing literature surrounding spin. Spin in randomized controlled trials is well documented across several fields of medicine, including otolaryngology,¹⁰ obesity medicine,¹² dermatology,²¹ anesthesiology,²² psychiatry,²³ orthopedics,²⁴ emergency medicine,²⁵ oncology,²⁶ and cardiology.²⁷ More recently, studies have emerged evaluating the presence of spin in systematic reviews. Specific to dermatology, one study found that 74% (84/113) of systematic reviews related to atopic dermatitis treatment contained spin.²⁸ Additionally, Ottwell et al¹³ identified spin in 31% (11/36) of the systematic reviews related to the treatment of acne vulgaris, which is similar to our results for systematic reviews focused on psoriasis treatments. When comparing the presence of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews from the field of dermatology with other specialties, dermatology-focused systematic reviews appear to contain more spin in the abstract than systematic reviews focused on tinnitus and glaucoma therapies.^29,30 However, systematic reviews from the field of dermatology appear to contain less spin than systematic reviews focused on therapies for lower back pain.³¹ For example, Nascimento et al³¹ found that 80% (53/66) of systematic reviews focused on low-back pain treatments contained spin.

Examples of Spin—The most common type of spin found in our study was type 6.⁹ An example of spin type 6 can be found in an article by Bai et al³² that investigated the short-term efficacy and safety of multiple interleukin inhibitors for the treatment of plaque psoriasis. The conclusion of the abstract states, “Risankizumab appeared to have relatively high efficacy and low risk.” However, in the results section, the authors showed that risankizumab had the highest risk of serious adverse events and was ranked highest for discontinuation because of adverse events when compared with other interleukin inhibitors. Here, the presence of spin in the abstract may mislead the reader to accept the “low risk” of risankizumab without understanding the study’s full results.³²

Another example of selective reporting of harm outcomes in a systematic review can be found in the article by Wu et al,³³ which focused on assessing IL-17 antagonists for the treatment of plaque psoriasis. The conclusion of the abstract indicated that IL-17 antagonists should be accepted as safe; however, in the results section, the authors discussed serious safety concerns with brodalumab, including the death of 4 patients from suicide.³³ This example of spin type 6 highlights how the overgeneralization of a drug’s safety profile neglects serious harm outcomes that are critical to patient safety. In fact, against the safety claims of Wu et al,³³ brodalumab later received a boxed warning from the US Food and Drug Administration after 6 patients died from suicide while receiving the drug, which led to early discontinuation of the trials.^34,35 Although studies suggest this relationship is not causal,^34-36 the purpose of our study was not to investigate this association but to highlight the importance of this finding. Thus, with this example of spin in mind, we offer recommendations that we believe will improve reporting in abstracts as well as quality of patient care.

Recommendations for Reporting in Abstracts—Regarding the boxed warning³⁷ for brodalumab because of suicidal ideation and behavior, the US Food and Drug Administration recommends that prior to prescribing brodalumab, clinicians consider the potential benefits and risks in patients with a history of depression and/or suicidal ideation or behavior. However, a clinician would not adequately assess the full risks and benefits when an abstract, such as that for the article by Wu et al,³³ contains spin through selectively reporting harm outcomes. Arguably, clinicians could just read the full text; however, research confirms that abstracts often are utilized by clinicians and commonly are used to guide clinical decisions.^7,38 It is reasonable that clinicians would use abstracts in this fashion because they provide a quick synopsis of the full article’s findings and are widely available to clinicians who may not have access to article databases. Initiatives are in place to improve the quality of reporting in an abstract, such as PRISMA-A,²⁰ but even this fails to address spin. In fact, it may suggest spin because checklist item 10 of PRISMA-A advises authors of systematic reviews to provide a “general interpretation of the results and important implications.” This item is concerning because it suggests that the authors interpret importance rather than the clinician who prescribes the drug and is ultimately responsible for patient safety. Therefore, we recommend a reform to abstract reporting and an update to PRISMA-A that leads authors to report all benefits and risks encountered instead of reporting what the authors define as important.

Strengths and Limitations—Our study has several strengths as well as limitations. One of these strengths is that our protocol was strictly adhered to; any deviations were noted and added as an amendment. Our protocol, data, and all study artifacts were made freely available online on the Open Science Framework to strengthen reproducibility (https://osf.io/zrxh8/). Investigators underwent training to ensure comprehension of spin and systematic review designs. All data were extracted in masked duplicate fashion per the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.³⁹

Regarding limitations, only 2 databases were searched—MEDLINE and Embase. Therefore, our screening process may not have included every available systematic review on the treatment of psoriasis. Journal impact factors may be inaccurate for the systematic reviews that were published earlier in our data date range; however, we attempted to negate this limitation by using a 5-year average. Our study characteristic regarding PRISMA adherence did not account for studies published before the PRISMA statement release; we also could not access prior submission guidelines to determine when a journal began recommending PRISMA adherence. Another limitation of our study was the intrinsic subjectivity behind spin. Some may disagree with our classifications. Finally, our cross-sectional design should not be generalized to study types that are not systematic reviews or published in other journals during different periods.

Conclusion

Evidence of spin was present in many of the abstracts of systematic reviews pertaining to the treatment of psoriasis. Future clinical research should investigate any reporting of spin and search for ways to better reduce spin within literature. Continued research is necessary to evaluate the presence of spin within dermatology and other specialties.

Psoriasis is an inflammatory autoimmune skin condition that affects approximately 125 million individuals worldwide, with approximately 8 million patients in the United States.¹ Psoriasis not only involves a cosmetic component but also comprises other comorbidities, such as psoriatic arthritis, cardiovascular disease, and psychiatric disorders, that can influence patient quality of life.^2-4 In addition, the costs associated with psoriasis are substantial, with an estimated economic burden of $35.2 billion in the United States in 2015.⁵ Given the prevalence of psoriasis and its many effects on patients, it is important that providers have high-quality evidence regarding efficacious treatment options.

Systematic reviews, which compile all available evidence on a subject to answer a specific question, represent the gold standard of research.⁶ However, studies have demonstrated that when referencing research literature, physicians tend to read only the abstract of a study rather than the entire article.^7,8 A study by Marcelo et al⁸ showed that residents at a tertiary care center answered clinical questions using only the abstract of a paper 69% of the time. Based on these findings, it is imperative that the results of systematic reviews be accurately reported in their abstracts because they can influence patient care.

Referencing only the abstracts of systematic reviews can be problematic if the abstract contains spin. Spin is a form of reporting that inappropriately highlights the benefits of a treatment with greater emphasis than what is shown by the results.⁹ Research has identified the presence of spin in the abstracts of randomized controlled trials.^10-12 For example, Cooper et al¹⁰ found that 70% (33/47) of abstracts in otolaryngology randomized controlled trials contained spin. Additionally, Arthur et al¹¹ and Austin et al¹² had similar findings within abstracts of orthopedic and obesity trials, where 44.8% (112/250) and 46.7% (21/45) contained spin, respectively. Ottwell et al¹³ found that the presence of spin in abstracts is not limited to randomized controlled trials; they demonstrated that the abstracts of nearly one-third (31% [11/36]) of systematic reviews focused on the treatment of acne vulgaris contained spin.

In our study, we aimed to evaluate the presence of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews focused on the treatment of psoriasis.

Methods

Reproducibility and Reporting—Our study did not meet the regulatory definition for human subjects research per the US Code of Federal Regulations because the study did not involve human research subjects. The study also was not subject to review by the institutional review board. Our protocol, data set, analysis scripts, extraction forms, and other material related to the study have been placed on Open Science Framework to provide transparency and ensure reproducibility. To further allow for analytic reproducibility, our data set was given to an independent laboratory and reanalyzed with a masked approach. Our study was carried out alongside other studies assessing spin in systematic reviews regarding different specialties and disease states. Because these studies were similar in design, this methodology also has been reported elsewhere. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA)¹⁴ and the guidelines for meta-epidemiological studies developed by Murad and Wang¹⁵ were used in drafting this article.

Search Strategy—The search strategies for the MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) databases were created by a systematic review librarian (D.N.W.) to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses regarding treatments for psoriasis (Figure 1). The searches were performed on June 2, 2020, and uploaded to Rayyan, a systematic review screening platform.¹⁶ After duplicates were removed, the records were screened for eligibility by 2 authors (C.H. and A.L.) using the titles and abstracts. Screening was conducted independently while each of these authors was masked to the other’s results; disagreements were resolved through discussion.

Eligibility Criteria—An article had to meet the following criteria for inclusion in our study: (1) be a systematic review with or without a meta-analysis; (2) relate to the treatment of psoriasis; and (3) be written in English and include human patients only. The PRISMA definition of systematic reviews and meta-analyses was applied.¹⁷

Training—Various training occurred throughout our study to ensure understanding of each step and mitigate subjectivity. Before beginning screening, 2 investigators (C.H. and A.L.) completed the Introduction to Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis course offered by Johns Hopkins University.¹⁸ They also underwent 2 days of online and in-person training on the definition and interpretation of the 9 most severe types of spin found in the abstracts of systematic reviews as defined by Yavchitz et al.⁹ Finally, they were trained to use A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) to appraise the methodological quality of each systematic review. Our protocol contained an outline of all training modules used.

Data Extraction—The investigators (C.H. and A.L.) analyzed included abstracts for the 9 most severe types of spin (Table 1). Data were extracted in a masked duplicate fashion using the Google form. AMSTAR-2 was used to assess systematic reviews for methodological quality. AMSTAR-2 is an appraisal tool consisting of a 16-item checklist for systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Scores range from critically low to high based on the methodological quality of the review. Interrater reliability of AMSTAR-2 scores has been moderate to high across studies. Construct validity coefficients have been high with the original AMSTAR instrument (r=0.91) and the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews instrument (r=0.84).¹⁹

During data extraction from each included systematic review, the following additional items were obtained: (1) the date the review was received; (2) intervention type (ie, pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, surgery, light therapy, mixed); (3) the funding source(s) for each systematic review (ie, industry, private, public, none, not mentioned, hospital, a combination of funding not including industry, a combination of funding including industry, other); (4) whether the journal submission guidelines suggested adherence to PRISMA guidelines; (5) whether the review discussed adherence to PRISMA¹⁴ or PRISMA for Abstracts²⁰ (PRISMA-A); (6) the publishing journal’s 5-year impact factor; and (6) the country of the systematic review’s origin. When data extraction was complete, investigators (C.H. and A.L.) were unmasked and met to resolve any disagreements by discussion. Two authors (R.O. or M.V.) served as arbiters in the case that an agreement between C.H. and A.L. could not be reached.

Statistical Analysis—Frequencies and percentages were calculated to evaluate the most common types of spin found within systematic reviews and meta-analyses. One author (M.H.) prespecified the possibility of a binary logistic regression and calculated a power analysis to determine sample size, as stated in our protocol. Our final sample size of 173 was not powered to perform the multivariable logistic regression; therefore, we calculated unadjusted odds ratios to enable assessing relationships between the presence of spin in abstracts and the various study characteristics. We used Stata 16.1 for all analyses, and all analytic decisions can be found in our protocol.

Results

General Characteristics—Our systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase returned 3200 articles, of which 665 were duplicates that were removed. An additional 2253 articles were excluded during initial abstract and title screening, and full-text screening led to the exclusion of another 109 articles. In total, 173 systematic reviews were included for data extraction. Figure 2 illustrates the screening process with the rationale for all exclusions.

Of the 173 included systematic reviews and meta-analyses, 150 (86.7%) focused on pharmacologic interventions. The majority of studies did not mention adhering to PRISMA guidelines (125/173 [72.3%]), and the publishing journals recommended their authors adhere to PRISMA for only 66 (38.2%) of the included articles. For the articles that received funding (90/173 [52.0%]), industry sources were the most common funding source (40/90 [44.4%]), followed by private (27/90 [30%]) and public funding sources (23/90 [25.6%]). Of the remaining studies, 46 articles did not include a funding statement (46/83 [55.4%]), and 37 studies were not funded (37/83 [44.6%]). The average (SD) 5-year impact factor of our included journals was 4.68 (4.64). Systematic reviews were from 31 different countries. All studies were received by their respective journals between the years 2000 and 2020 (Table 2).

Abstracts Containing Spin—We found that 37 (21.4%) of the abstracts of systematic reviews focused on psoriasis treatments contained at least 1 type of spin. Some abstracts had more than 1 type; thus, a total of 51 different instances of spin were detected. Spin type 6—selective reporting of or overemphasis on harm outcomes or analysis favoring the safety of the experimental intervention—was the most common type ofspin, found in 19 of 173 abstracts (11.0%). The most severe type of spin—type 1 (conclusion contains recommendations for clinical practice not supported by the findings)—occurred in only 1 abstract (0.6%). Spin type 8 did not occur in any of the abstracts (Table 1). There was no statistically significant association between the presence of spin and any of the study characteristics (Table 2).

AMSTAR Ratings—After using AMSTAR-2 to appraise the included systematic reviews, we found that 6 (3.5%) of the 173 studies could be rated as high; 36 (20.8%) as moderate; 25 (14.5%) as low; and 106 (61.3%) as critically low. Of the 37 abstracts containing spin, 2 (5.4%) had an AMSTAR-2 rating of high, 10 (27%) had a rating of moderate, 6 (16.2%) had a rating of low, and 19 (51.4%) had a rating of critically low (Table 2). No statistically significant associations were seen between abstracts found to have spin and the AMSTAR-2 rating of the review.

Nearly all (160/173 [92.5%]) of the included reviews were compliant with the inclusion of Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) method. Only 17 of 173 (9.8%) reviews reported funding sources for the studies included. See Table 3 for all AMSTAR-2 items.

Comment

Primary Findings—We evaluated the abstracts of systematic reviews for the treatment of psoriasis and found that more than one-fifth of them contained spin. Our study contributes to the existing literature surrounding spin. Spin in randomized controlled trials is well documented across several fields of medicine, including otolaryngology,¹⁰ obesity medicine,¹² dermatology,²¹ anesthesiology,²² psychiatry,²³ orthopedics,²⁴ emergency medicine,²⁵ oncology,²⁶ and cardiology.²⁷ More recently, studies have emerged evaluating the presence of spin in systematic reviews. Specific to dermatology, one study found that 74% (84/113) of systematic reviews related to atopic dermatitis treatment contained spin.²⁸ Additionally, Ottwell et al¹³ identified spin in 31% (11/36) of the systematic reviews related to the treatment of acne vulgaris, which is similar to our results for systematic reviews focused on psoriasis treatments. When comparing the presence of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews from the field of dermatology with other specialties, dermatology-focused systematic reviews appear to contain more spin in the abstract than systematic reviews focused on tinnitus and glaucoma therapies.^29,30 However, systematic reviews from the field of dermatology appear to contain less spin than systematic reviews focused on therapies for lower back pain.³¹ For example, Nascimento et al³¹ found that 80% (53/66) of systematic reviews focused on low-back pain treatments contained spin.

Examples of Spin—The most common type of spin found in our study was type 6.⁹ An example of spin type 6 can be found in an article by Bai et al³² that investigated the short-term efficacy and safety of multiple interleukin inhibitors for the treatment of plaque psoriasis. The conclusion of the abstract states, “Risankizumab appeared to have relatively high efficacy and low risk.” However, in the results section, the authors showed that risankizumab had the highest risk of serious adverse events and was ranked highest for discontinuation because of adverse events when compared with other interleukin inhibitors. Here, the presence of spin in the abstract may mislead the reader to accept the “low risk” of risankizumab without understanding the study’s full results.³²

Another example of selective reporting of harm outcomes in a systematic review can be found in the article by Wu et al,³³ which focused on assessing IL-17 antagonists for the treatment of plaque psoriasis. The conclusion of the abstract indicated that IL-17 antagonists should be accepted as safe; however, in the results section, the authors discussed serious safety concerns with brodalumab, including the death of 4 patients from suicide.³³ This example of spin type 6 highlights how the overgeneralization of a drug’s safety profile neglects serious harm outcomes that are critical to patient safety. In fact, against the safety claims of Wu et al,³³ brodalumab later received a boxed warning from the US Food and Drug Administration after 6 patients died from suicide while receiving the drug, which led to early discontinuation of the trials.^34,35 Although studies suggest this relationship is not causal,^34-36 the purpose of our study was not to investigate this association but to highlight the importance of this finding. Thus, with this example of spin in mind, we offer recommendations that we believe will improve reporting in abstracts as well as quality of patient care.

Recommendations for Reporting in Abstracts—Regarding the boxed warning³⁷ for brodalumab because of suicidal ideation and behavior, the US Food and Drug Administration recommends that prior to prescribing brodalumab, clinicians consider the potential benefits and risks in patients with a history of depression and/or suicidal ideation or behavior. However, a clinician would not adequately assess the full risks and benefits when an abstract, such as that for the article by Wu et al,³³ contains spin through selectively reporting harm outcomes. Arguably, clinicians could just read the full text; however, research confirms that abstracts often are utilized by clinicians and commonly are used to guide clinical decisions.^7,38 It is reasonable that clinicians would use abstracts in this fashion because they provide a quick synopsis of the full article’s findings and are widely available to clinicians who may not have access to article databases. Initiatives are in place to improve the quality of reporting in an abstract, such as PRISMA-A,²⁰ but even this fails to address spin. In fact, it may suggest spin because checklist item 10 of PRISMA-A advises authors of systematic reviews to provide a “general interpretation of the results and important implications.” This item is concerning because it suggests that the authors interpret importance rather than the clinician who prescribes the drug and is ultimately responsible for patient safety. Therefore, we recommend a reform to abstract reporting and an update to PRISMA-A that leads authors to report all benefits and risks encountered instead of reporting what the authors define as important.

Strengths and Limitations—Our study has several strengths as well as limitations. One of these strengths is that our protocol was strictly adhered to; any deviations were noted and added as an amendment. Our protocol, data, and all study artifacts were made freely available online on the Open Science Framework to strengthen reproducibility (https://osf.io/zrxh8/). Investigators underwent training to ensure comprehension of spin and systematic review designs. All data were extracted in masked duplicate fashion per the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.³⁹

Regarding limitations, only 2 databases were searched—MEDLINE and Embase. Therefore, our screening process may not have included every available systematic review on the treatment of psoriasis. Journal impact factors may be inaccurate for the systematic reviews that were published earlier in our data date range; however, we attempted to negate this limitation by using a 5-year average. Our study characteristic regarding PRISMA adherence did not account for studies published before the PRISMA statement release; we also could not access prior submission guidelines to determine when a journal began recommending PRISMA adherence. Another limitation of our study was the intrinsic subjectivity behind spin. Some may disagree with our classifications. Finally, our cross-sectional design should not be generalized to study types that are not systematic reviews or published in other journals during different periods.

Conclusion

Evidence of spin was present in many of the abstracts of systematic reviews pertaining to the treatment of psoriasis. Future clinical research should investigate any reporting of spin and search for ways to better reduce spin within literature. Continued research is necessary to evaluate the presence of spin within dermatology and other specialties.

Psoriasis is an inflammatory autoimmune skin condition that affects approximately 125 million individuals worldwide, with approximately 8 million patients in the United States.¹ Psoriasis not only involves a cosmetic component but also comprises other comorbidities, such as psoriatic arthritis, cardiovascular disease, and psychiatric disorders, that can influence patient quality of life.^2-4 In addition, the costs associated with psoriasis are substantial, with an estimated economic burden of $35.2 billion in the United States in 2015.⁵ Given the prevalence of psoriasis and its many effects on patients, it is important that providers have high-quality evidence regarding efficacious treatment options.

Systematic reviews, which compile all available evidence on a subject to answer a specific question, represent the gold standard of research.⁶ However, studies have demonstrated that when referencing research literature, physicians tend to read only the abstract of a study rather than the entire article.^7,8 A study by Marcelo et al⁸ showed that residents at a tertiary care center answered clinical questions using only the abstract of a paper 69% of the time. Based on these findings, it is imperative that the results of systematic reviews be accurately reported in their abstracts because they can influence patient care.

Referencing only the abstracts of systematic reviews can be problematic if the abstract contains spin. Spin is a form of reporting that inappropriately highlights the benefits of a treatment with greater emphasis than what is shown by the results.⁹ Research has identified the presence of spin in the abstracts of randomized controlled trials.^10-12 For example, Cooper et al¹⁰ found that 70% (33/47) of abstracts in otolaryngology randomized controlled trials contained spin. Additionally, Arthur et al¹¹ and Austin et al¹² had similar findings within abstracts of orthopedic and obesity trials, where 44.8% (112/250) and 46.7% (21/45) contained spin, respectively. Ottwell et al¹³ found that the presence of spin in abstracts is not limited to randomized controlled trials; they demonstrated that the abstracts of nearly one-third (31% [11/36]) of systematic reviews focused on the treatment of acne vulgaris contained spin.

In our study, we aimed to evaluate the presence of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews focused on the treatment of psoriasis.

Methods

Reproducibility and Reporting—Our study did not meet the regulatory definition for human subjects research per the US Code of Federal Regulations because the study did not involve human research subjects. The study also was not subject to review by the institutional review board. Our protocol, data set, analysis scripts, extraction forms, and other material related to the study have been placed on Open Science Framework to provide transparency and ensure reproducibility. To further allow for analytic reproducibility, our data set was given to an independent laboratory and reanalyzed with a masked approach. Our study was carried out alongside other studies assessing spin in systematic reviews regarding different specialties and disease states. Because these studies were similar in design, this methodology also has been reported elsewhere. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA)¹⁴ and the guidelines for meta-epidemiological studies developed by Murad and Wang¹⁵ were used in drafting this article.

Search Strategy—The search strategies for the MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) databases were created by a systematic review librarian (D.N.W.) to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses regarding treatments for psoriasis (Figure 1). The searches were performed on June 2, 2020, and uploaded to Rayyan, a systematic review screening platform.¹⁶ After duplicates were removed, the records were screened for eligibility by 2 authors (C.H. and A.L.) using the titles and abstracts. Screening was conducted independently while each of these authors was masked to the other’s results; disagreements were resolved through discussion.

Eligibility Criteria—An article had to meet the following criteria for inclusion in our study: (1) be a systematic review with or without a meta-analysis; (2) relate to the treatment of psoriasis; and (3) be written in English and include human patients only. The PRISMA definition of systematic reviews and meta-analyses was applied.¹⁷

Training—Various training occurred throughout our study to ensure understanding of each step and mitigate subjectivity. Before beginning screening, 2 investigators (C.H. and A.L.) completed the Introduction to Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis course offered by Johns Hopkins University.¹⁸ They also underwent 2 days of online and in-person training on the definition and interpretation of the 9 most severe types of spin found in the abstracts of systematic reviews as defined by Yavchitz et al.⁹ Finally, they were trained to use A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) to appraise the methodological quality of each systematic review. Our protocol contained an outline of all training modules used.

Data Extraction—The investigators (C.H. and A.L.) analyzed included abstracts for the 9 most severe types of spin (Table 1). Data were extracted in a masked duplicate fashion using the Google form. AMSTAR-2 was used to assess systematic reviews for methodological quality. AMSTAR-2 is an appraisal tool consisting of a 16-item checklist for systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Scores range from critically low to high based on the methodological quality of the review. Interrater reliability of AMSTAR-2 scores has been moderate to high across studies. Construct validity coefficients have been high with the original AMSTAR instrument (r=0.91) and the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews instrument (r=0.84).¹⁹

During data extraction from each included systematic review, the following additional items were obtained: (1) the date the review was received; (2) intervention type (ie, pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, surgery, light therapy, mixed); (3) the funding source(s) for each systematic review (ie, industry, private, public, none, not mentioned, hospital, a combination of funding not including industry, a combination of funding including industry, other); (4) whether the journal submission guidelines suggested adherence to PRISMA guidelines; (5) whether the review discussed adherence to PRISMA¹⁴ or PRISMA for Abstracts²⁰ (PRISMA-A); (6) the publishing journal’s 5-year impact factor; and (6) the country of the systematic review’s origin. When data extraction was complete, investigators (C.H. and A.L.) were unmasked and met to resolve any disagreements by discussion. Two authors (R.O. or M.V.) served as arbiters in the case that an agreement between C.H. and A.L. could not be reached.

Statistical Analysis—Frequencies and percentages were calculated to evaluate the most common types of spin found within systematic reviews and meta-analyses. One author (M.H.) prespecified the possibility of a binary logistic regression and calculated a power analysis to determine sample size, as stated in our protocol. Our final sample size of 173 was not powered to perform the multivariable logistic regression; therefore, we calculated unadjusted odds ratios to enable assessing relationships between the presence of spin in abstracts and the various study characteristics. We used Stata 16.1 for all analyses, and all analytic decisions can be found in our protocol.

Results

General Characteristics—Our systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase returned 3200 articles, of which 665 were duplicates that were removed. An additional 2253 articles were excluded during initial abstract and title screening, and full-text screening led to the exclusion of another 109 articles. In total, 173 systematic reviews were included for data extraction. Figure 2 illustrates the screening process with the rationale for all exclusions.

Of the 173 included systematic reviews and meta-analyses, 150 (86.7%) focused on pharmacologic interventions. The majority of studies did not mention adhering to PRISMA guidelines (125/173 [72.3%]), and the publishing journals recommended their authors adhere to PRISMA for only 66 (38.2%) of the included articles. For the articles that received funding (90/173 [52.0%]), industry sources were the most common funding source (40/90 [44.4%]), followed by private (27/90 [30%]) and public funding sources (23/90 [25.6%]). Of the remaining studies, 46 articles did not include a funding statement (46/83 [55.4%]), and 37 studies were not funded (37/83 [44.6%]). The average (SD) 5-year impact factor of our included journals was 4.68 (4.64). Systematic reviews were from 31 different countries. All studies were received by their respective journals between the years 2000 and 2020 (Table 2).

Abstracts Containing Spin—We found that 37 (21.4%) of the abstracts of systematic reviews focused on psoriasis treatments contained at least 1 type of spin. Some abstracts had more than 1 type; thus, a total of 51 different instances of spin were detected. Spin type 6—selective reporting of or overemphasis on harm outcomes or analysis favoring the safety of the experimental intervention—was the most common type ofspin, found in 19 of 173 abstracts (11.0%). The most severe type of spin—type 1 (conclusion contains recommendations for clinical practice not supported by the findings)—occurred in only 1 abstract (0.6%). Spin type 8 did not occur in any of the abstracts (Table 1). There was no statistically significant association between the presence of spin and any of the study characteristics (Table 2).

AMSTAR Ratings—After using AMSTAR-2 to appraise the included systematic reviews, we found that 6 (3.5%) of the 173 studies could be rated as high; 36 (20.8%) as moderate; 25 (14.5%) as low; and 106 (61.3%) as critically low. Of the 37 abstracts containing spin, 2 (5.4%) had an AMSTAR-2 rating of high, 10 (27%) had a rating of moderate, 6 (16.2%) had a rating of low, and 19 (51.4%) had a rating of critically low (Table 2). No statistically significant associations were seen between abstracts found to have spin and the AMSTAR-2 rating of the review.

Nearly all (160/173 [92.5%]) of the included reviews were compliant with the inclusion of Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) method. Only 17 of 173 (9.8%) reviews reported funding sources for the studies included. See Table 3 for all AMSTAR-2 items.

Comment

Primary Findings—We evaluated the abstracts of systematic reviews for the treatment of psoriasis and found that more than one-fifth of them contained spin. Our study contributes to the existing literature surrounding spin. Spin in randomized controlled trials is well documented across several fields of medicine, including otolaryngology,¹⁰ obesity medicine,¹² dermatology,²¹ anesthesiology,²² psychiatry,²³ orthopedics,²⁴ emergency medicine,²⁵ oncology,²⁶ and cardiology.²⁷ More recently, studies have emerged evaluating the presence of spin in systematic reviews. Specific to dermatology, one study found that 74% (84/113) of systematic reviews related to atopic dermatitis treatment contained spin.²⁸ Additionally, Ottwell et al¹³ identified spin in 31% (11/36) of the systematic reviews related to the treatment of acne vulgaris, which is similar to our results for systematic reviews focused on psoriasis treatments. When comparing the presence of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews from the field of dermatology with other specialties, dermatology-focused systematic reviews appear to contain more spin in the abstract than systematic reviews focused on tinnitus and glaucoma therapies.^29,30 However, systematic reviews from the field of dermatology appear to contain less spin than systematic reviews focused on therapies for lower back pain.³¹ For example, Nascimento et al³¹ found that 80% (53/66) of systematic reviews focused on low-back pain treatments contained spin.

Examples of Spin—The most common type of spin found in our study was type 6.⁹ An example of spin type 6 can be found in an article by Bai et al³² that investigated the short-term efficacy and safety of multiple interleukin inhibitors for the treatment of plaque psoriasis. The conclusion of the abstract states, “Risankizumab appeared to have relatively high efficacy and low risk.” However, in the results section, the authors showed that risankizumab had the highest risk of serious adverse events and was ranked highest for discontinuation because of adverse events when compared with other interleukin inhibitors. Here, the presence of spin in the abstract may mislead the reader to accept the “low risk” of risankizumab without understanding the study’s full results.³²

Another example of selective reporting of harm outcomes in a systematic review can be found in the article by Wu et al,³³ which focused on assessing IL-17 antagonists for the treatment of plaque psoriasis. The conclusion of the abstract indicated that IL-17 antagonists should be accepted as safe; however, in the results section, the authors discussed serious safety concerns with brodalumab, including the death of 4 patients from suicide.³³ This example of spin type 6 highlights how the overgeneralization of a drug’s safety profile neglects serious harm outcomes that are critical to patient safety. In fact, against the safety claims of Wu et al,³³ brodalumab later received a boxed warning from the US Food and Drug Administration after 6 patients died from suicide while receiving the drug, which led to early discontinuation of the trials.^34,35 Although studies suggest this relationship is not causal,^34-36 the purpose of our study was not to investigate this association but to highlight the importance of this finding. Thus, with this example of spin in mind, we offer recommendations that we believe will improve reporting in abstracts as well as quality of patient care.

Recommendations for Reporting in Abstracts—Regarding the boxed warning³⁷ for brodalumab because of suicidal ideation and behavior, the US Food and Drug Administration recommends that prior to prescribing brodalumab, clinicians consider the potential benefits and risks in patients with a history of depression and/or suicidal ideation or behavior. However, a clinician would not adequately assess the full risks and benefits when an abstract, such as that for the article by Wu et al,³³ contains spin through selectively reporting harm outcomes. Arguably, clinicians could just read the full text; however, research confirms that abstracts often are utilized by clinicians and commonly are used to guide clinical decisions.^7,38 It is reasonable that clinicians would use abstracts in this fashion because they provide a quick synopsis of the full article’s findings and are widely available to clinicians who may not have access to article databases. Initiatives are in place to improve the quality of reporting in an abstract, such as PRISMA-A,²⁰ but even this fails to address spin. In fact, it may suggest spin because checklist item 10 of PRISMA-A advises authors of systematic reviews to provide a “general interpretation of the results and important implications.” This item is concerning because it suggests that the authors interpret importance rather than the clinician who prescribes the drug and is ultimately responsible for patient safety. Therefore, we recommend a reform to abstract reporting and an update to PRISMA-A that leads authors to report all benefits and risks encountered instead of reporting what the authors define as important.

Strengths and Limitations—Our study has several strengths as well as limitations. One of these strengths is that our protocol was strictly adhered to; any deviations were noted and added as an amendment. Our protocol, data, and all study artifacts were made freely available online on the Open Science Framework to strengthen reproducibility (https://osf.io/zrxh8/). Investigators underwent training to ensure comprehension of spin and systematic review designs. All data were extracted in masked duplicate fashion per the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.³⁹

Regarding limitations, only 2 databases were searched—MEDLINE and Embase. Therefore, our screening process may not have included every available systematic review on the treatment of psoriasis. Journal impact factors may be inaccurate for the systematic reviews that were published earlier in our data date range; however, we attempted to negate this limitation by using a 5-year average. Our study characteristic regarding PRISMA adherence did not account for studies published before the PRISMA statement release; we also could not access prior submission guidelines to determine when a journal began recommending PRISMA adherence. Another limitation of our study was the intrinsic subjectivity behind spin. Some may disagree with our classifications. Finally, our cross-sectional design should not be generalized to study types that are not systematic reviews or published in other journals during different periods.

Conclusion

Evidence of spin was present in many of the abstracts of systematic reviews pertaining to the treatment of psoriasis. Future clinical research should investigate any reporting of spin and search for ways to better reduce spin within literature. Continued research is necessary to evaluate the presence of spin within dermatology and other specialties.

In a first-of-its-kind in utero surgery, researchers have successfully repaired a cerebrovascular malformation, which often leads to heart failure, severe brain injury, or possibly death soon after birth.
 

The team from Boston Children’s Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital used ultrasound guidance to repair the vein of Galen malformation, which causes excessively high blood flow, resulting in both neurologic and cardiac complications. 

The surgery was performed in a fetus at 34 weeks’ gestational age, with remarkable results. Since birth, the baby girl, who was identified in utero as being at high risk of suffering serious complications of the malformation, has required no medication to treat heart failure and no postnatal surgery.

Repeated echocardiograms after birth displayed marked improvement in cardiac output, and brain MRI showed no brain injury and a normal neurologic exam.

“This is incredibly exciting. The hope is that this baby, and others with this condition who receive this in utero surgery in future, will go on to have a normal life,” lead researcher Darren B. Orbach, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“We were thrilled to see that the aggressive decline usually seen after birth simply did not appear. We are pleased to report that at 6 weeks, the infant is progressing remarkably well, on no medications, eating normally, gaining weight and is back home. There are no signs of any negative effects on the brain,” he added.

Dr. Orbach, codirector of the Cerebrovascular Surgery & Interventions Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, and colleagues described this first case report of the in utero vein of Galen malformation repair in a research letter, published online in the journal Stroke.
 

Vein of Galen malformation

Dr. Orbach explained that vein of Galen malformation, which occurs in around 1 in every 60,000 births, is a cerebrovascular anomaly in which the arterial system is directly connected to the venous system rather than to capillaries that are necessary to slow blood flow and deliver oxygen to surrounding brain tissue.

“The arterial and venous systems are fundamentally very different. The arterial system is high pressure, high flow; while the venous system is low pressure, low flow. They shouldn’t be directly connected,” he noted.

The vein of Galen malformation is the most extreme version of such an anomaly. Developing in early gestation, it is associated with a large increase in blood flow through the brain which grows over time and can sometimes result in twice the total cardiac output of the body or even more, Dr. Orbach said.

The placenta is believed to be protective as most babies don’t have overt physiologic problems in utero, but they can run into crisis after birth, with the abnormally high blood flow causing an immense stress to the heart.

Babies typically present with heart failure as their first major symptom soon after birth, Dr. Orbach said. “Although the anatomical problem is in the brain, the clinical manifestation is high-output heart failure. The heart is trying to do double its normal work, pumping the blood to the malformation and immediately back to the heart and that blood is not performing any useful function.

“These newborns can get very sick. They need multiple medications to support their cardiovascular system and we need to do procedures to try and reduce the blood flow,” he explained. 

Brain injury is also a common problem. “The brain circulation is very abnormal. The blood is being shunted through the malformation rather than circulating through the brain tissue which can become ischemic,” Dr. Orbach commented.

“The babies who get sick would have a very high mortality (up to 90%) without expert care. Even those who do receive expert care at a specialty center have a mortality rate of 30% to 40% and those who survive have a high risk of neurologic and cognitive impairment,” he added.

The current treatment for babies born with the condition involves transarterial embolization, by which a catheter is inserted into the arterial system to enable the malformation to be occluded by various techniques. 

But Dr. Orbach pointed out that some babies are born too sick to have the postnatal intervention. “The heart failure and brain injury is so overwhelming that no matter what we do, we cannot reverse it, and these babies normally do not survive. What we are doing with the fetal surgery is trying to help those babies who cannot be treated with the current postnatal approach,” he said.

The first stage of this research involved trying to identify these very-high-risk babies in utero, and the researchers found that on fetal MRI a particular measurement of one of the venous sinuses that drains the main malformation was a good predictor of how the baby would fare after birth. The babies predicted to do poorly from this test are the targets for the fetal surgery.

The technique used for the postnatal intervention is too technically challenging to perform in utero. “So we have developed a different approach for the in utero surgery that involves navigating into the accepting vein in the malformation with a needle under ultrasound guidance, and then packing the vein with metal coils to dramatically reduce the blood flow,” Dr. Orbach explained.

This procedure was performed in this first patient on March 15. The surgery was part of a clinical trial that is planned to include 20 cases in total.

“The immediate goal is to see whether we can transform those fetuses who are at very high risk of getting sick after birth into babies who do well in the [neonatal] ICU and are able to be sent home for elective treatment at a few months of age,” Dr. Orbach noted. “The study is continuing as it is vital that we continue and show efficacy and safety in other patients as well,” he added.

Dr. Orbach said the results of this first case were extremely encouraging. “Each stage was exciting – the technical success of the procedure, and then seeing the [blood] flow diminish on the ultrasound right there during the procedure; then the next day we did a fetal echocardiogram, and we could see that the abnormal cardiac output was dramatically reduced, and a fetal MRI scan also showed the malformation was already coming down in size.”

The baby was born prematurely 2 days after the procedure because of ruptured membranes with a birth weight of 1.9 kg (4.2 lb). She has not required any cardiovascular support or postnatal embolization.

“We were waiting with bated breath until the baby was born to see how she did clinically. I was trying to be conservative in my expectations, but it was quickly apparent that she was going to do great,” he said. Now at home, she has some oxygen treatment for the first few weeks, “but right now her neurological status is completely intact and essentially she looks like any other baby,” Dr. Orbach commented.

It is not yet known whether the infant will need any additional procedures. “We will follow her closely and make a decision on whether further treatment is needed based on whether the malformation is growing or not,” Dr. Orbach said. Longer term follow-up will also assess secondary problems sometimes seen, such as learning problems and seizures.

Although other fetal surgeries are now routinely performed, this is believed to be the first in utero surgery aimed at the cerebrovascular system.

“There were a lot of uncertainties,” Dr. Orbach said. “We didn’t even know if we would be able to see our instruments on ultrasound.” To model the procedure, the researchers had a phantom fetal skull and brain constructed with a vein of Galen malformation, which was key to obtaining Food and Drug Administration approval for the study.

If the study shows success in the other patients too, the technique could be rolled out to other centers. “There definitely needs to be fetal surgery and neurointerventional teams familiar with vein of Galen malformation in place, and ready to manage complications after delivery regardless of outcome. But we are not the only center with those capabilities, so if our trial pans out, yes, the hope is that other teams in specialist children’s hospitals around the world could do this too,” he added.
 

Pioneering work

Commenting on the case report in an American Heart Association press release, Colin Derdeyn, MD, a neurointerventional radiologist at University of Iowa Health Care, Iowa City, who performs vein of Galen malformation embolizations on neonates, said: “The key advance here is to intervene before the physiologic events of birth can cause life-threatening heart failure.”

Dr. Derdeyn, who is a past chair of the American Heart Association’s Stroke Council, cautioned that one successful case is not enough experience to conclude that the risks of this procedure are worth the benefits.

But, he added: “The positive hemodynamic changes that they observed in utero and after birth – reduction in flow, reduction in size of the draining vein, reversal of the abnormal reversed flow in the aorta – are really encouraging. These are some of the most exciting and surprising aspects of this case report. This is pioneering work being done in a very careful and responsible way.”

The study was funded by a grant from the Sage Schermerhorn Chair for Image-Guided Therapy.

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

In a first-of-its-kind in utero surgery, researchers have successfully repaired a cerebrovascular malformation, which often leads to heart failure, severe brain injury, or possibly death soon after birth.
 

The team from Boston Children’s Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital used ultrasound guidance to repair the vein of Galen malformation, which causes excessively high blood flow, resulting in both neurologic and cardiac complications. 

The surgery was performed in a fetus at 34 weeks’ gestational age, with remarkable results. Since birth, the baby girl, who was identified in utero as being at high risk of suffering serious complications of the malformation, has required no medication to treat heart failure and no postnatal surgery.

Repeated echocardiograms after birth displayed marked improvement in cardiac output, and brain MRI showed no brain injury and a normal neurologic exam.

“This is incredibly exciting. The hope is that this baby, and others with this condition who receive this in utero surgery in future, will go on to have a normal life,” lead researcher Darren B. Orbach, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“We were thrilled to see that the aggressive decline usually seen after birth simply did not appear. We are pleased to report that at 6 weeks, the infant is progressing remarkably well, on no medications, eating normally, gaining weight and is back home. There are no signs of any negative effects on the brain,” he added.

Dr. Orbach, codirector of the Cerebrovascular Surgery & Interventions Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, and colleagues described this first case report of the in utero vein of Galen malformation repair in a research letter, published online in the journal Stroke.
 

Vein of Galen malformation

Dr. Orbach explained that vein of Galen malformation, which occurs in around 1 in every 60,000 births, is a cerebrovascular anomaly in which the arterial system is directly connected to the venous system rather than to capillaries that are necessary to slow blood flow and deliver oxygen to surrounding brain tissue.

“The arterial and venous systems are fundamentally very different. The arterial system is high pressure, high flow; while the venous system is low pressure, low flow. They shouldn’t be directly connected,” he noted.

The vein of Galen malformation is the most extreme version of such an anomaly. Developing in early gestation, it is associated with a large increase in blood flow through the brain which grows over time and can sometimes result in twice the total cardiac output of the body or even more, Dr. Orbach said.

The placenta is believed to be protective as most babies don’t have overt physiologic problems in utero, but they can run into crisis after birth, with the abnormally high blood flow causing an immense stress to the heart.

Babies typically present with heart failure as their first major symptom soon after birth, Dr. Orbach said. “Although the anatomical problem is in the brain, the clinical manifestation is high-output heart failure. The heart is trying to do double its normal work, pumping the blood to the malformation and immediately back to the heart and that blood is not performing any useful function.

“These newborns can get very sick. They need multiple medications to support their cardiovascular system and we need to do procedures to try and reduce the blood flow,” he explained. 

Brain injury is also a common problem. “The brain circulation is very abnormal. The blood is being shunted through the malformation rather than circulating through the brain tissue which can become ischemic,” Dr. Orbach commented.

“The babies who get sick would have a very high mortality (up to 90%) without expert care. Even those who do receive expert care at a specialty center have a mortality rate of 30% to 40% and those who survive have a high risk of neurologic and cognitive impairment,” he added.

The current treatment for babies born with the condition involves transarterial embolization, by which a catheter is inserted into the arterial system to enable the malformation to be occluded by various techniques. 

But Dr. Orbach pointed out that some babies are born too sick to have the postnatal intervention. “The heart failure and brain injury is so overwhelming that no matter what we do, we cannot reverse it, and these babies normally do not survive. What we are doing with the fetal surgery is trying to help those babies who cannot be treated with the current postnatal approach,” he said.

The first stage of this research involved trying to identify these very-high-risk babies in utero, and the researchers found that on fetal MRI a particular measurement of one of the venous sinuses that drains the main malformation was a good predictor of how the baby would fare after birth. The babies predicted to do poorly from this test are the targets for the fetal surgery.

The technique used for the postnatal intervention is too technically challenging to perform in utero. “So we have developed a different approach for the in utero surgery that involves navigating into the accepting vein in the malformation with a needle under ultrasound guidance, and then packing the vein with metal coils to dramatically reduce the blood flow,” Dr. Orbach explained.

This procedure was performed in this first patient on March 15. The surgery was part of a clinical trial that is planned to include 20 cases in total.

“The immediate goal is to see whether we can transform those fetuses who are at very high risk of getting sick after birth into babies who do well in the [neonatal] ICU and are able to be sent home for elective treatment at a few months of age,” Dr. Orbach noted. “The study is continuing as it is vital that we continue and show efficacy and safety in other patients as well,” he added.

Dr. Orbach said the results of this first case were extremely encouraging. “Each stage was exciting – the technical success of the procedure, and then seeing the [blood] flow diminish on the ultrasound right there during the procedure; then the next day we did a fetal echocardiogram, and we could see that the abnormal cardiac output was dramatically reduced, and a fetal MRI scan also showed the malformation was already coming down in size.”

The baby was born prematurely 2 days after the procedure because of ruptured membranes with a birth weight of 1.9 kg (4.2 lb). She has not required any cardiovascular support or postnatal embolization.

“We were waiting with bated breath until the baby was born to see how she did clinically. I was trying to be conservative in my expectations, but it was quickly apparent that she was going to do great,” he said. Now at home, she has some oxygen treatment for the first few weeks, “but right now her neurological status is completely intact and essentially she looks like any other baby,” Dr. Orbach commented.

It is not yet known whether the infant will need any additional procedures. “We will follow her closely and make a decision on whether further treatment is needed based on whether the malformation is growing or not,” Dr. Orbach said. Longer term follow-up will also assess secondary problems sometimes seen, such as learning problems and seizures.

Although other fetal surgeries are now routinely performed, this is believed to be the first in utero surgery aimed at the cerebrovascular system.

“There were a lot of uncertainties,” Dr. Orbach said. “We didn’t even know if we would be able to see our instruments on ultrasound.” To model the procedure, the researchers had a phantom fetal skull and brain constructed with a vein of Galen malformation, which was key to obtaining Food and Drug Administration approval for the study.

If the study shows success in the other patients too, the technique could be rolled out to other centers. “There definitely needs to be fetal surgery and neurointerventional teams familiar with vein of Galen malformation in place, and ready to manage complications after delivery regardless of outcome. But we are not the only center with those capabilities, so if our trial pans out, yes, the hope is that other teams in specialist children’s hospitals around the world could do this too,” he added.
 

Pioneering work

Commenting on the case report in an American Heart Association press release, Colin Derdeyn, MD, a neurointerventional radiologist at University of Iowa Health Care, Iowa City, who performs vein of Galen malformation embolizations on neonates, said: “The key advance here is to intervene before the physiologic events of birth can cause life-threatening heart failure.”

Dr. Derdeyn, who is a past chair of the American Heart Association’s Stroke Council, cautioned that one successful case is not enough experience to conclude that the risks of this procedure are worth the benefits.

But, he added: “The positive hemodynamic changes that they observed in utero and after birth – reduction in flow, reduction in size of the draining vein, reversal of the abnormal reversed flow in the aorta – are really encouraging. These are some of the most exciting and surprising aspects of this case report. This is pioneering work being done in a very careful and responsible way.”

The study was funded by a grant from the Sage Schermerhorn Chair for Image-Guided Therapy.

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

In a first-of-its-kind in utero surgery, researchers have successfully repaired a cerebrovascular malformation, which often leads to heart failure, severe brain injury, or possibly death soon after birth.
 

The team from Boston Children’s Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital used ultrasound guidance to repair the vein of Galen malformation, which causes excessively high blood flow, resulting in both neurologic and cardiac complications. 

The surgery was performed in a fetus at 34 weeks’ gestational age, with remarkable results. Since birth, the baby girl, who was identified in utero as being at high risk of suffering serious complications of the malformation, has required no medication to treat heart failure and no postnatal surgery.

Repeated echocardiograms after birth displayed marked improvement in cardiac output, and brain MRI showed no brain injury and a normal neurologic exam.

“This is incredibly exciting. The hope is that this baby, and others with this condition who receive this in utero surgery in future, will go on to have a normal life,” lead researcher Darren B. Orbach, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“We were thrilled to see that the aggressive decline usually seen after birth simply did not appear. We are pleased to report that at 6 weeks, the infant is progressing remarkably well, on no medications, eating normally, gaining weight and is back home. There are no signs of any negative effects on the brain,” he added.

Dr. Orbach, codirector of the Cerebrovascular Surgery & Interventions Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, and colleagues described this first case report of the in utero vein of Galen malformation repair in a research letter, published online in the journal Stroke.
 

Vein of Galen malformation

Dr. Orbach explained that vein of Galen malformation, which occurs in around 1 in every 60,000 births, is a cerebrovascular anomaly in which the arterial system is directly connected to the venous system rather than to capillaries that are necessary to slow blood flow and deliver oxygen to surrounding brain tissue.

“The arterial and venous systems are fundamentally very different. The arterial system is high pressure, high flow; while the venous system is low pressure, low flow. They shouldn’t be directly connected,” he noted.

The vein of Galen malformation is the most extreme version of such an anomaly. Developing in early gestation, it is associated with a large increase in blood flow through the brain which grows over time and can sometimes result in twice the total cardiac output of the body or even more, Dr. Orbach said.

The placenta is believed to be protective as most babies don’t have overt physiologic problems in utero, but they can run into crisis after birth, with the abnormally high blood flow causing an immense stress to the heart.

Babies typically present with heart failure as their first major symptom soon after birth, Dr. Orbach said. “Although the anatomical problem is in the brain, the clinical manifestation is high-output heart failure. The heart is trying to do double its normal work, pumping the blood to the malformation and immediately back to the heart and that blood is not performing any useful function.

“These newborns can get very sick. They need multiple medications to support their cardiovascular system and we need to do procedures to try and reduce the blood flow,” he explained. 

Brain injury is also a common problem. “The brain circulation is very abnormal. The blood is being shunted through the malformation rather than circulating through the brain tissue which can become ischemic,” Dr. Orbach commented.

“The babies who get sick would have a very high mortality (up to 90%) without expert care. Even those who do receive expert care at a specialty center have a mortality rate of 30% to 40% and those who survive have a high risk of neurologic and cognitive impairment,” he added.

The current treatment for babies born with the condition involves transarterial embolization, by which a catheter is inserted into the arterial system to enable the malformation to be occluded by various techniques. 

But Dr. Orbach pointed out that some babies are born too sick to have the postnatal intervention. “The heart failure and brain injury is so overwhelming that no matter what we do, we cannot reverse it, and these babies normally do not survive. What we are doing with the fetal surgery is trying to help those babies who cannot be treated with the current postnatal approach,” he said.

The first stage of this research involved trying to identify these very-high-risk babies in utero, and the researchers found that on fetal MRI a particular measurement of one of the venous sinuses that drains the main malformation was a good predictor of how the baby would fare after birth. The babies predicted to do poorly from this test are the targets for the fetal surgery.

The technique used for the postnatal intervention is too technically challenging to perform in utero. “So we have developed a different approach for the in utero surgery that involves navigating into the accepting vein in the malformation with a needle under ultrasound guidance, and then packing the vein with metal coils to dramatically reduce the blood flow,” Dr. Orbach explained.

This procedure was performed in this first patient on March 15. The surgery was part of a clinical trial that is planned to include 20 cases in total.

“The immediate goal is to see whether we can transform those fetuses who are at very high risk of getting sick after birth into babies who do well in the [neonatal] ICU and are able to be sent home for elective treatment at a few months of age,” Dr. Orbach noted. “The study is continuing as it is vital that we continue and show efficacy and safety in other patients as well,” he added.

Dr. Orbach said the results of this first case were extremely encouraging. “Each stage was exciting – the technical success of the procedure, and then seeing the [blood] flow diminish on the ultrasound right there during the procedure; then the next day we did a fetal echocardiogram, and we could see that the abnormal cardiac output was dramatically reduced, and a fetal MRI scan also showed the malformation was already coming down in size.”

The baby was born prematurely 2 days after the procedure because of ruptured membranes with a birth weight of 1.9 kg (4.2 lb). She has not required any cardiovascular support or postnatal embolization.

“We were waiting with bated breath until the baby was born to see how she did clinically. I was trying to be conservative in my expectations, but it was quickly apparent that she was going to do great,” he said. Now at home, she has some oxygen treatment for the first few weeks, “but right now her neurological status is completely intact and essentially she looks like any other baby,” Dr. Orbach commented.

It is not yet known whether the infant will need any additional procedures. “We will follow her closely and make a decision on whether further treatment is needed based on whether the malformation is growing or not,” Dr. Orbach said. Longer term follow-up will also assess secondary problems sometimes seen, such as learning problems and seizures.

Although other fetal surgeries are now routinely performed, this is believed to be the first in utero surgery aimed at the cerebrovascular system.

“There were a lot of uncertainties,” Dr. Orbach said. “We didn’t even know if we would be able to see our instruments on ultrasound.” To model the procedure, the researchers had a phantom fetal skull and brain constructed with a vein of Galen malformation, which was key to obtaining Food and Drug Administration approval for the study.

If the study shows success in the other patients too, the technique could be rolled out to other centers. “There definitely needs to be fetal surgery and neurointerventional teams familiar with vein of Galen malformation in place, and ready to manage complications after delivery regardless of outcome. But we are not the only center with those capabilities, so if our trial pans out, yes, the hope is that other teams in specialist children’s hospitals around the world could do this too,” he added.
 

Pioneering work

Commenting on the case report in an American Heart Association press release, Colin Derdeyn, MD, a neurointerventional radiologist at University of Iowa Health Care, Iowa City, who performs vein of Galen malformation embolizations on neonates, said: “The key advance here is to intervene before the physiologic events of birth can cause life-threatening heart failure.”

Dr. Derdeyn, who is a past chair of the American Heart Association’s Stroke Council, cautioned that one successful case is not enough experience to conclude that the risks of this procedure are worth the benefits.

But, he added: “The positive hemodynamic changes that they observed in utero and after birth – reduction in flow, reduction in size of the draining vein, reversal of the abnormal reversed flow in the aorta – are really encouraging. These are some of the most exciting and surprising aspects of this case report. This is pioneering work being done in a very careful and responsible way.”

The study was funded by a grant from the Sage Schermerhorn Chair for Image-Guided Therapy.

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

CHICAGO - The American Urological Association and the Society of Urologic Oncology (SUO) for the first time have taken a position on the type of biopsy men with prostate lesions should undergo, endorsing both transperineal and transrectal biopsy instead of choosing one over the other.

The new guidelines, issued at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association, contrast with 2021 recommendations from the European Association of Urologists (EAU), which regard the transperineal approach as superior to and safer than the transrectal approach.

The new guidelines state: “Clinicians may use either a transrectal or transperineal biopsy route when performing a biopsy. (Conditional Recommendation; Evidence Level: Grade C).” Grade C is the lowest grade of acceptance the guideline committee could issue, according to Daniel Lin, MD, vice-chair of the AUA guideline panel.

“The AUA looked at all the higher-level data comparing the two procedures. There was a lack of that data,” Dr. Lin, chief of urologic oncology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. He said the literature consists mainly of systematic single-center reviews, rather than multicenter randomized trials.

But Hendrik Van Poppel, MD, policy chief for the EAU, said that in Europe, transrectal biopsies are now considered “medical malpractice.”

Philip Cornford, MD, associate professor of urology at the University of Liverpool, England, and chair of the prostate biopsy guidelines panel for the EAU, said the society in 2021 concluded that the transperineal approach is the preferred one.

The EAU stated that transperineal prostate biopsies should be performed “due to the lower risk of infectious complications.” The EAU described the evidence as strong: A meta-analysis of seven studies that included 1,330 patients showed that for patients undergoing transperineal biopsy, infectious complications were significantly reduced.

Dr. Cornford said in essence, the EAU made its decision out of concern about infections, whereas the AUA and SUO based their decision on the ability of the methods to detect cancer.

Advocates for transperineal procedures cite several studies that show that the rate of infection, including sepsis, with such biopsies is virtually zero.

However, Dr. Lin noted that the committee said existing data on infection did not support this position. He also cited a “a fairly compelling” single-center randomized study with 750 patients that showed no difference in infection rates. The study was presented at the AUA meeting.
 

Agents of death and destruction?

Badar Mian, MD, professor of surgery at Albany (N.Y.) Medical College, who led the study, told an AUA session that urology has been trapped in an “echo chamber” regarding the relative safety of biopsies.

Clinicians hear “loud proclamations, which get repeated and magnified, that there is a real zero risk of complications after transperineal biopsies as compared to the horrendous 5% to 10% or higher rate of transrectal biopsy complications and that you, with your transrectal biopsies, are the cause of death and destruction all around,” Dr. Mian said. “Well, if you step out of the echo chamber, what you’ll find is that the accurate complications amongst the two procedures are not that dramatically different, much less dramatic than what you’ve been told to believe.”

The campaign to end transrectal biopsies in Europe started in 2018 with the death of a Norwegian man who experienced an infection after the procedure. Truls Bjerklund Johansen, MD, who’d performed the biopsy on the patient and who worked with the man’s daughter to change national practice, persuaded the EAU to look at the issue.

Advocates also say transperineal biopsies are better at detecting anterior and apical cancers.

“I would agree the data on cancer detection is less convincing, but that is not the basis of the EAU recommendation,” Dr. Cornford said.

Arvin George, MD, leads the transperineal biopsy program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and directs the transperineal training program at the AUA’s annual meeting. He said his course was sold out early and included about 60 trainees.

Dr. George said the new guideline statement “is not an unequivocal endorsement for transperineal biopsy as the preferred approach for diagnostic sampling but rather an acknowledgment of this approach as an alternative option.”

He said that although the new position statement should increase awareness of the transperineal approach in the United States, “without a strong recommendation, the guideline statement is unlikely to spark a large switch to the transperineal biopsy but rather supports the continued slow and steady adoption.”

Matthew Allaway, DO, founder of Perineologic, developer of the PrecisionPoint Transperineal Access System, said industry figures show that about 10% of the 1.5 million prostate biopsies performed in the United States annually are performed transperineally, a doubling in 2 years.

Jeremy Grummet, MD, clinical professor of urology at Monash University, Melbourne, and leader of the TREXIT (Transperineal Exit) movement to abandon transrectal procedures, said the AUA guidelines are biased toward “physician convenience.”
 

Lack of training

The AUA said another reason it did not endorse the transperineal approach was that currently, American urologists lack training and experience with transperineal procedures.

Dr. Grummet blamed major medical centers for any gap in the familiarity of clinicians with transperineal biopsies, which have been available for more than a decade.

“It is incumbent on the leaders of urology departments globally to ensure that their colleagues are trained in transperineal biopsy and have access to the appropriate equipment,” he said in an interview. “Lack of training didn’t seem to prevent the rapid uptake of robotic prostatectomy – a far more complex procedure.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

CHICAGO - The American Urological Association and the Society of Urologic Oncology (SUO) for the first time have taken a position on the type of biopsy men with prostate lesions should undergo, endorsing both transperineal and transrectal biopsy instead of choosing one over the other.

The new guidelines, issued at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association, contrast with 2021 recommendations from the European Association of Urologists (EAU), which regard the transperineal approach as superior to and safer than the transrectal approach.

The new guidelines state: “Clinicians may use either a transrectal or transperineal biopsy route when performing a biopsy. (Conditional Recommendation; Evidence Level: Grade C).” Grade C is the lowest grade of acceptance the guideline committee could issue, according to Daniel Lin, MD, vice-chair of the AUA guideline panel.

“The AUA looked at all the higher-level data comparing the two procedures. There was a lack of that data,” Dr. Lin, chief of urologic oncology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. He said the literature consists mainly of systematic single-center reviews, rather than multicenter randomized trials.

But Hendrik Van Poppel, MD, policy chief for the EAU, said that in Europe, transrectal biopsies are now considered “medical malpractice.”

Philip Cornford, MD, associate professor of urology at the University of Liverpool, England, and chair of the prostate biopsy guidelines panel for the EAU, said the society in 2021 concluded that the transperineal approach is the preferred one.

The EAU stated that transperineal prostate biopsies should be performed “due to the lower risk of infectious complications.” The EAU described the evidence as strong: A meta-analysis of seven studies that included 1,330 patients showed that for patients undergoing transperineal biopsy, infectious complications were significantly reduced.

Dr. Cornford said in essence, the EAU made its decision out of concern about infections, whereas the AUA and SUO based their decision on the ability of the methods to detect cancer.

Advocates for transperineal procedures cite several studies that show that the rate of infection, including sepsis, with such biopsies is virtually zero.

However, Dr. Lin noted that the committee said existing data on infection did not support this position. He also cited a “a fairly compelling” single-center randomized study with 750 patients that showed no difference in infection rates. The study was presented at the AUA meeting.
 

Agents of death and destruction?

Badar Mian, MD, professor of surgery at Albany (N.Y.) Medical College, who led the study, told an AUA session that urology has been trapped in an “echo chamber” regarding the relative safety of biopsies.

Clinicians hear “loud proclamations, which get repeated and magnified, that there is a real zero risk of complications after transperineal biopsies as compared to the horrendous 5% to 10% or higher rate of transrectal biopsy complications and that you, with your transrectal biopsies, are the cause of death and destruction all around,” Dr. Mian said. “Well, if you step out of the echo chamber, what you’ll find is that the accurate complications amongst the two procedures are not that dramatically different, much less dramatic than what you’ve been told to believe.”

The campaign to end transrectal biopsies in Europe started in 2018 with the death of a Norwegian man who experienced an infection after the procedure. Truls Bjerklund Johansen, MD, who’d performed the biopsy on the patient and who worked with the man’s daughter to change national practice, persuaded the EAU to look at the issue.

Advocates also say transperineal biopsies are better at detecting anterior and apical cancers.

“I would agree the data on cancer detection is less convincing, but that is not the basis of the EAU recommendation,” Dr. Cornford said.

Arvin George, MD, leads the transperineal biopsy program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and directs the transperineal training program at the AUA’s annual meeting. He said his course was sold out early and included about 60 trainees.

Dr. George said the new guideline statement “is not an unequivocal endorsement for transperineal biopsy as the preferred approach for diagnostic sampling but rather an acknowledgment of this approach as an alternative option.”

He said that although the new position statement should increase awareness of the transperineal approach in the United States, “without a strong recommendation, the guideline statement is unlikely to spark a large switch to the transperineal biopsy but rather supports the continued slow and steady adoption.”

Matthew Allaway, DO, founder of Perineologic, developer of the PrecisionPoint Transperineal Access System, said industry figures show that about 10% of the 1.5 million prostate biopsies performed in the United States annually are performed transperineally, a doubling in 2 years.

Jeremy Grummet, MD, clinical professor of urology at Monash University, Melbourne, and leader of the TREXIT (Transperineal Exit) movement to abandon transrectal procedures, said the AUA guidelines are biased toward “physician convenience.”
 

Lack of training

The AUA said another reason it did not endorse the transperineal approach was that currently, American urologists lack training and experience with transperineal procedures.

Dr. Grummet blamed major medical centers for any gap in the familiarity of clinicians with transperineal biopsies, which have been available for more than a decade.

“It is incumbent on the leaders of urology departments globally to ensure that their colleagues are trained in transperineal biopsy and have access to the appropriate equipment,” he said in an interview. “Lack of training didn’t seem to prevent the rapid uptake of robotic prostatectomy – a far more complex procedure.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

CHICAGO - The American Urological Association and the Society of Urologic Oncology (SUO) for the first time have taken a position on the type of biopsy men with prostate lesions should undergo, endorsing both transperineal and transrectal biopsy instead of choosing one over the other.

The new guidelines, issued at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association, contrast with 2021 recommendations from the European Association of Urologists (EAU), which regard the transperineal approach as superior to and safer than the transrectal approach.

The new guidelines state: “Clinicians may use either a transrectal or transperineal biopsy route when performing a biopsy. (Conditional Recommendation; Evidence Level: Grade C).” Grade C is the lowest grade of acceptance the guideline committee could issue, according to Daniel Lin, MD, vice-chair of the AUA guideline panel.

“The AUA looked at all the higher-level data comparing the two procedures. There was a lack of that data,” Dr. Lin, chief of urologic oncology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. He said the literature consists mainly of systematic single-center reviews, rather than multicenter randomized trials.

But Hendrik Van Poppel, MD, policy chief for the EAU, said that in Europe, transrectal biopsies are now considered “medical malpractice.”

Philip Cornford, MD, associate professor of urology at the University of Liverpool, England, and chair of the prostate biopsy guidelines panel for the EAU, said the society in 2021 concluded that the transperineal approach is the preferred one.

The EAU stated that transperineal prostate biopsies should be performed “due to the lower risk of infectious complications.” The EAU described the evidence as strong: A meta-analysis of seven studies that included 1,330 patients showed that for patients undergoing transperineal biopsy, infectious complications were significantly reduced.

Dr. Cornford said in essence, the EAU made its decision out of concern about infections, whereas the AUA and SUO based their decision on the ability of the methods to detect cancer.

Advocates for transperineal procedures cite several studies that show that the rate of infection, including sepsis, with such biopsies is virtually zero.

However, Dr. Lin noted that the committee said existing data on infection did not support this position. He also cited a “a fairly compelling” single-center randomized study with 750 patients that showed no difference in infection rates. The study was presented at the AUA meeting.
 

Agents of death and destruction?

Badar Mian, MD, professor of surgery at Albany (N.Y.) Medical College, who led the study, told an AUA session that urology has been trapped in an “echo chamber” regarding the relative safety of biopsies.

Clinicians hear “loud proclamations, which get repeated and magnified, that there is a real zero risk of complications after transperineal biopsies as compared to the horrendous 5% to 10% or higher rate of transrectal biopsy complications and that you, with your transrectal biopsies, are the cause of death and destruction all around,” Dr. Mian said. “Well, if you step out of the echo chamber, what you’ll find is that the accurate complications amongst the two procedures are not that dramatically different, much less dramatic than what you’ve been told to believe.”

The campaign to end transrectal biopsies in Europe started in 2018 with the death of a Norwegian man who experienced an infection after the procedure. Truls Bjerklund Johansen, MD, who’d performed the biopsy on the patient and who worked with the man’s daughter to change national practice, persuaded the EAU to look at the issue.

Advocates also say transperineal biopsies are better at detecting anterior and apical cancers.

“I would agree the data on cancer detection is less convincing, but that is not the basis of the EAU recommendation,” Dr. Cornford said.

Arvin George, MD, leads the transperineal biopsy program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and directs the transperineal training program at the AUA’s annual meeting. He said his course was sold out early and included about 60 trainees.

Dr. George said the new guideline statement “is not an unequivocal endorsement for transperineal biopsy as the preferred approach for diagnostic sampling but rather an acknowledgment of this approach as an alternative option.”

He said that although the new position statement should increase awareness of the transperineal approach in the United States, “without a strong recommendation, the guideline statement is unlikely to spark a large switch to the transperineal biopsy but rather supports the continued slow and steady adoption.”

Matthew Allaway, DO, founder of Perineologic, developer of the PrecisionPoint Transperineal Access System, said industry figures show that about 10% of the 1.5 million prostate biopsies performed in the United States annually are performed transperineally, a doubling in 2 years.

Jeremy Grummet, MD, clinical professor of urology at Monash University, Melbourne, and leader of the TREXIT (Transperineal Exit) movement to abandon transrectal procedures, said the AUA guidelines are biased toward “physician convenience.”
 

Lack of training

The AUA said another reason it did not endorse the transperineal approach was that currently, American urologists lack training and experience with transperineal procedures.

Dr. Grummet blamed major medical centers for any gap in the familiarity of clinicians with transperineal biopsies, which have been available for more than a decade.

“It is incumbent on the leaders of urology departments globally to ensure that their colleagues are trained in transperineal biopsy and have access to the appropriate equipment,” he said in an interview. “Lack of training didn’t seem to prevent the rapid uptake of robotic prostatectomy – a far more complex procedure.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A family physician whom a young patient’s mother accused of being impaired at work has won his lawsuit against a Kentucky hospital.
 

A jury on May 2 awarded John M. Farmer, MD, $3.7 million for emotional distress and contract damages against Baptist Health Madisonville and Baptist Health Medical Group for a series of actions they took against Dr. Farmer after the impairment complaint.

“It’s been the worst thing that I’ve ever gone through in my entire life,” Dr. Farmer said in an interview. “My career was disrupted, because I couldn’t finish residency on time, and I had difficulty finding full-time employment comparable to what I expected to obtain immediately following residency. It continues to significantly impact my life and my job, because I remain subject to random drug testing at any time and must check in every day to see whether I have to get drug tested.”

Dr. Farmer was in his third year of residency at the hospital when the mother of two young patients accused the doctor of being “on something” during a visit with her children, said Kathleen DeLaney, an Indianapolis-based attorney who represented Dr. Farmer in the case.

According to the lawsuit, the hospital violated its fitness for duty and drug testing policy by not immediately notifying Dr. Farmer of the complaint nor immediately testing him to prove whether or not there was a factual basis for the allegation. Repercussions from the unproven complaint damaged Dr. Farmer’s personal and professional reputation. It severely limited his job prospects and earning potential, the suit alleged.

Baptist Health spokeswoman Rebecca Towles Brown said Baptist Health is exploring its legal options after the jury’s decision. “We strongly disagree with the allegations made against Baptist Health in this case and are disappointed in the jury’s verdict. Baptist Health followed its medical staff policies and appropriately responded to concerns raised about Dr. Farmer’s well-being and behavior on the date in question. We are evaluating our postverdict options, as we believe the facts as they occurred do not support the verdict. Our primary focus remains providing high-quality care to our patients and families.”
 

What sparked the complaint?

On Nov. 4, 2019, Dr. Farmer worked a full day in the clinic at Baptist Health, visiting and treating patients and interacting with colleagues, according to court documents. In the late afternoon, he conducted a routine appointment with two children while their mother, her boyfriend, and a medical student were present.

Following the afternoon appointment, the mother issued a complaint to an office manager that Dr. Farmer was impaired, noting that he was “touching his nose a lot,” according to the lawsuit.

The next morning, hospital administrators met with Dr. Farmer and asked whether he was impaired the day before, to which he replied, “Absolutely not,” court documents state. Dr. Farmer asked to be given a urine drug screen immediately, but administrators allegedly said he needed to be tested at the Kentucky Physicians Health Foundation in Louisville.

Dr. Farmer immediately made the 3-hour drive to the facility, and Baptist Health placed him on leave, pending the evaluation. The health foundation sent Dr. Farmer to a third-party vendor to complete a urine drug screen, which returned a result of “dilute.” (A “dilute” result occurs when the urine concentration is weak because of too much water in the urine and testers are unable to detect whether alcohol or drugs are present.)

He was then instructed to go to a separate alcohol treatment facility for a 96-hour evaluation, where he was ultimately diagnosed with mild alcohol use disorder, according to Ms. DeLaney. The facility did not recommend that he receive any inpatient care.

Hospital administrators later sent a letter to the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure alerting them of the patient’s complaint. The board opened an investigation, and Farmer was required to sign an interim order in which he agreed not to practice medicine until approved by the board, according to court documents. The order was reported to the National Practitioner’s Data Bank.

To maintain his employment and complete his residency, Dr. Farmer was ultimately required to sign a 2-year agreement with Kentucky Physicians Health Foundation, which included regular testing, monitoring, and therapy. The board later extended the agreement to 5 years and made Dr. Farmer’s compliance a condition of retaining his medical license, according to legal records.

Dr. Farmer sued Baptist Health Medical Group and Baptist Heath Madisonville in 2021, alleging breach of contract and tortious interference with prospective business advantage.

At trial, coworkers, including Farmer’s attending physicians, testified that Dr. Farmer was not impaired on the date in question, Ms. DeLaney said. A key fact highlighted at trial is that Dr. Farmer has ADHD.

“My client has ADHD, so he’s normally a twitchy person,” she said. “There was lots of testimony about how he moves a lot and that he’s fidgety and doesn’t stand still. The two attending doctors that were supervising him at clinic that afternoon both said 100% he was not impaired; he was his usual self. They told the residency director that right after the incident. They both testified at trial they thought that would be the end of the matter.”

Baptist Health would not comment about whether it followed its fitness for duty and drug testing policy or whether leaders spoke with other medical professionals who worked with Dr. Farmer on the day of the complaint.

Dr. Farmer said he feels vindicated by the verdict and grateful to the jury.

“I intend to continue practicing as a family medicine doctor and hope to continue to grow and advance in my career,” he said.
 

Have you been falsely accused? Here’s what to do

Dr. Farmer is not alone in fighting back against allegations by hospitals regarding conduct associated with impairment.

In 2020, an ob.gyn. who had been accused of being under the influence while working won $4.75 million in fraud and defamation damages against St. Vincent Carmel (Ind.) Hospital and St. Vincent Carmel Medical Group for its treatment following an impairment complaint by a nurse.

It’s unclear how prevalent such scenarios are because frequently, physicians are embarrassed and keep quiet about the situation and how they were treated, said Louise B. Andrew, MD, JD, an emergency physician/internist and attorney who consults on physician health and wellness, litigation stress, and disability discrimination.

“Physicians are unlikely to reveal that it’s happened to them unless they happen to have had a good outcome” she said. “All we know is that we’re hearing more and more about it, and that might be because people are becoming more open and outraged when it happens. It’s quite easy for anyone in a hospital environment or in an office environment, for a competitor, a coworker, or even a disgruntled patient to allege a physician has ‘glazed eyes’ or ‘alcohol on the breath,’ and that’s all it takes to start the ball rolling.”

If you are falsely accused of being impaired at work or are suddenly confronted with a complaint, the first step is to remain calm, said Kernan Manion, MD, executive director for the Center for Physician Rights, a nonprofit organization that assists physicians who have been subject to unfair medical board, health program, or peer review processes.

“The first thing is to keep your wits about you,” he said, “because often, docs get frightened or angry, and they overact. You have to gain your composure and ask for documentation about the nature of the allegation.”

Obtain in writing any and all information that supports the allegation. Physicians who are asked to report to a physician health program should ask the reason they are being referred and whether it is for a medical evaluation or another type of evaluation, he said. If it’s a medical reason, the process needs to follow medical parameters in terms of confidentiality.

“The bottom line is that a doctor should not take everything at face value and follow the organization’s orders unquestioning,” Dr. Manion said. “They have a right to get their concerns addressed.”

Physicians who are accused of using substances on duty or being under the influence while working have to right to undergo testing immediately, Dr. Andrew said.

“If you’re told on the spot: ‘You need to submit to testing,’ then you should do it, but make sure it’s done properly,” she said. “Ensure that forensically, you give two samples and that they are sealed and the chain of evidence is maintained. The reason for that is if one of them is a false positive, the second one can be reviewed separately.”

If administrators do not allow for prompt testing, get yourself tested immediately on your own, she said.

As far as leaves of absence are concerned, ensure you know what type of leave is being executed, Dr. Manion said. Ask the nature of the leave and whether the leave counts as a suspension that will go against your medical license and be reportable to the NPDB. In such cases, the only reason to suspend a doctor’s privileges is because they are considered a danger to others, or, in other words, there’s been an allegation of unsafe care.

“If there is an allegation of unsafe care, the physician should ask for documentation of the patient safety issues in question and why they are being deemed unsafe to practice,” he said.

Ms. DeLaney recommended physicians not report to or communicate with any state medical association, physician health foundation, or licensing authority without first getting legal advice.

In addition, doctors will likely be tested for acute and long-term drug and alcohol use, so it’s a good idea to avoid any activity or substances that could result in a dilute sample or a positive result on a drug or alcohol test, she said.

As for broader solutions, it’s important that more physicians come out of the shadows and tell their stories when these injustices take place, said Dr. Andrew.

“Doctors need to be more open about this when it happens, which is not easy,” she said. “More need to be suing, which is certainly not cheap. Also, when they do come to settlements, they should not sign nondisclosure agreements so that they can talk about what happened and it can be publicized. This way, more doctors are aware of the types of tactics used against physicians and what other doctors have done that can help.”

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

A family physician whom a young patient’s mother accused of being impaired at work has won his lawsuit against a Kentucky hospital.
 

A jury on May 2 awarded John M. Farmer, MD, $3.7 million for emotional distress and contract damages against Baptist Health Madisonville and Baptist Health Medical Group for a series of actions they took against Dr. Farmer after the impairment complaint.

“It’s been the worst thing that I’ve ever gone through in my entire life,” Dr. Farmer said in an interview. “My career was disrupted, because I couldn’t finish residency on time, and I had difficulty finding full-time employment comparable to what I expected to obtain immediately following residency. It continues to significantly impact my life and my job, because I remain subject to random drug testing at any time and must check in every day to see whether I have to get drug tested.”

Dr. Farmer was in his third year of residency at the hospital when the mother of two young patients accused the doctor of being “on something” during a visit with her children, said Kathleen DeLaney, an Indianapolis-based attorney who represented Dr. Farmer in the case.

According to the lawsuit, the hospital violated its fitness for duty and drug testing policy by not immediately notifying Dr. Farmer of the complaint nor immediately testing him to prove whether or not there was a factual basis for the allegation. Repercussions from the unproven complaint damaged Dr. Farmer’s personal and professional reputation. It severely limited his job prospects and earning potential, the suit alleged.

Baptist Health spokeswoman Rebecca Towles Brown said Baptist Health is exploring its legal options after the jury’s decision. “We strongly disagree with the allegations made against Baptist Health in this case and are disappointed in the jury’s verdict. Baptist Health followed its medical staff policies and appropriately responded to concerns raised about Dr. Farmer’s well-being and behavior on the date in question. We are evaluating our postverdict options, as we believe the facts as they occurred do not support the verdict. Our primary focus remains providing high-quality care to our patients and families.”
 

What sparked the complaint?

On Nov. 4, 2019, Dr. Farmer worked a full day in the clinic at Baptist Health, visiting and treating patients and interacting with colleagues, according to court documents. In the late afternoon, he conducted a routine appointment with two children while their mother, her boyfriend, and a medical student were present.

Following the afternoon appointment, the mother issued a complaint to an office manager that Dr. Farmer was impaired, noting that he was “touching his nose a lot,” according to the lawsuit.

The next morning, hospital administrators met with Dr. Farmer and asked whether he was impaired the day before, to which he replied, “Absolutely not,” court documents state. Dr. Farmer asked to be given a urine drug screen immediately, but administrators allegedly said he needed to be tested at the Kentucky Physicians Health Foundation in Louisville.

Dr. Farmer immediately made the 3-hour drive to the facility, and Baptist Health placed him on leave, pending the evaluation. The health foundation sent Dr. Farmer to a third-party vendor to complete a urine drug screen, which returned a result of “dilute.” (A “dilute” result occurs when the urine concentration is weak because of too much water in the urine and testers are unable to detect whether alcohol or drugs are present.)

He was then instructed to go to a separate alcohol treatment facility for a 96-hour evaluation, where he was ultimately diagnosed with mild alcohol use disorder, according to Ms. DeLaney. The facility did not recommend that he receive any inpatient care.

Hospital administrators later sent a letter to the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure alerting them of the patient’s complaint. The board opened an investigation, and Farmer was required to sign an interim order in which he agreed not to practice medicine until approved by the board, according to court documents. The order was reported to the National Practitioner’s Data Bank.

To maintain his employment and complete his residency, Dr. Farmer was ultimately required to sign a 2-year agreement with Kentucky Physicians Health Foundation, which included regular testing, monitoring, and therapy. The board later extended the agreement to 5 years and made Dr. Farmer’s compliance a condition of retaining his medical license, according to legal records.

Dr. Farmer sued Baptist Health Medical Group and Baptist Heath Madisonville in 2021, alleging breach of contract and tortious interference with prospective business advantage.

At trial, coworkers, including Farmer’s attending physicians, testified that Dr. Farmer was not impaired on the date in question, Ms. DeLaney said. A key fact highlighted at trial is that Dr. Farmer has ADHD.

“My client has ADHD, so he’s normally a twitchy person,” she said. “There was lots of testimony about how he moves a lot and that he’s fidgety and doesn’t stand still. The two attending doctors that were supervising him at clinic that afternoon both said 100% he was not impaired; he was his usual self. They told the residency director that right after the incident. They both testified at trial they thought that would be the end of the matter.”

Baptist Health would not comment about whether it followed its fitness for duty and drug testing policy or whether leaders spoke with other medical professionals who worked with Dr. Farmer on the day of the complaint.

Dr. Farmer said he feels vindicated by the verdict and grateful to the jury.

“I intend to continue practicing as a family medicine doctor and hope to continue to grow and advance in my career,” he said.
 

Have you been falsely accused? Here’s what to do

Dr. Farmer is not alone in fighting back against allegations by hospitals regarding conduct associated with impairment.

In 2020, an ob.gyn. who had been accused of being under the influence while working won $4.75 million in fraud and defamation damages against St. Vincent Carmel (Ind.) Hospital and St. Vincent Carmel Medical Group for its treatment following an impairment complaint by a nurse.

It’s unclear how prevalent such scenarios are because frequently, physicians are embarrassed and keep quiet about the situation and how they were treated, said Louise B. Andrew, MD, JD, an emergency physician/internist and attorney who consults on physician health and wellness, litigation stress, and disability discrimination.

“Physicians are unlikely to reveal that it’s happened to them unless they happen to have had a good outcome” she said. “All we know is that we’re hearing more and more about it, and that might be because people are becoming more open and outraged when it happens. It’s quite easy for anyone in a hospital environment or in an office environment, for a competitor, a coworker, or even a disgruntled patient to allege a physician has ‘glazed eyes’ or ‘alcohol on the breath,’ and that’s all it takes to start the ball rolling.”

If you are falsely accused of being impaired at work or are suddenly confronted with a complaint, the first step is to remain calm, said Kernan Manion, MD, executive director for the Center for Physician Rights, a nonprofit organization that assists physicians who have been subject to unfair medical board, health program, or peer review processes.

“The first thing is to keep your wits about you,” he said, “because often, docs get frightened or angry, and they overact. You have to gain your composure and ask for documentation about the nature of the allegation.”

Obtain in writing any and all information that supports the allegation. Physicians who are asked to report to a physician health program should ask the reason they are being referred and whether it is for a medical evaluation or another type of evaluation, he said. If it’s a medical reason, the process needs to follow medical parameters in terms of confidentiality.

“The bottom line is that a doctor should not take everything at face value and follow the organization’s orders unquestioning,” Dr. Manion said. “They have a right to get their concerns addressed.”

Physicians who are accused of using substances on duty or being under the influence while working have to right to undergo testing immediately, Dr. Andrew said.

“If you’re told on the spot: ‘You need to submit to testing,’ then you should do it, but make sure it’s done properly,” she said. “Ensure that forensically, you give two samples and that they are sealed and the chain of evidence is maintained. The reason for that is if one of them is a false positive, the second one can be reviewed separately.”

If administrators do not allow for prompt testing, get yourself tested immediately on your own, she said.

As far as leaves of absence are concerned, ensure you know what type of leave is being executed, Dr. Manion said. Ask the nature of the leave and whether the leave counts as a suspension that will go against your medical license and be reportable to the NPDB. In such cases, the only reason to suspend a doctor’s privileges is because they are considered a danger to others, or, in other words, there’s been an allegation of unsafe care.

“If there is an allegation of unsafe care, the physician should ask for documentation of the patient safety issues in question and why they are being deemed unsafe to practice,” he said.

Ms. DeLaney recommended physicians not report to or communicate with any state medical association, physician health foundation, or licensing authority without first getting legal advice.

In addition, doctors will likely be tested for acute and long-term drug and alcohol use, so it’s a good idea to avoid any activity or substances that could result in a dilute sample or a positive result on a drug or alcohol test, she said.

As for broader solutions, it’s important that more physicians come out of the shadows and tell their stories when these injustices take place, said Dr. Andrew.

“Doctors need to be more open about this when it happens, which is not easy,” she said. “More need to be suing, which is certainly not cheap. Also, when they do come to settlements, they should not sign nondisclosure agreements so that they can talk about what happened and it can be publicized. This way, more doctors are aware of the types of tactics used against physicians and what other doctors have done that can help.”

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

A family physician whom a young patient’s mother accused of being impaired at work has won his lawsuit against a Kentucky hospital.
 

A jury on May 2 awarded John M. Farmer, MD, $3.7 million for emotional distress and contract damages against Baptist Health Madisonville and Baptist Health Medical Group for a series of actions they took against Dr. Farmer after the impairment complaint.

“It’s been the worst thing that I’ve ever gone through in my entire life,” Dr. Farmer said in an interview. “My career was disrupted, because I couldn’t finish residency on time, and I had difficulty finding full-time employment comparable to what I expected to obtain immediately following residency. It continues to significantly impact my life and my job, because I remain subject to random drug testing at any time and must check in every day to see whether I have to get drug tested.”

Dr. Farmer was in his third year of residency at the hospital when the mother of two young patients accused the doctor of being “on something” during a visit with her children, said Kathleen DeLaney, an Indianapolis-based attorney who represented Dr. Farmer in the case.

According to the lawsuit, the hospital violated its fitness for duty and drug testing policy by not immediately notifying Dr. Farmer of the complaint nor immediately testing him to prove whether or not there was a factual basis for the allegation. Repercussions from the unproven complaint damaged Dr. Farmer’s personal and professional reputation. It severely limited his job prospects and earning potential, the suit alleged.

Baptist Health spokeswoman Rebecca Towles Brown said Baptist Health is exploring its legal options after the jury’s decision. “We strongly disagree with the allegations made against Baptist Health in this case and are disappointed in the jury’s verdict. Baptist Health followed its medical staff policies and appropriately responded to concerns raised about Dr. Farmer’s well-being and behavior on the date in question. We are evaluating our postverdict options, as we believe the facts as they occurred do not support the verdict. Our primary focus remains providing high-quality care to our patients and families.”
 

What sparked the complaint?

On Nov. 4, 2019, Dr. Farmer worked a full day in the clinic at Baptist Health, visiting and treating patients and interacting with colleagues, according to court documents. In the late afternoon, he conducted a routine appointment with two children while their mother, her boyfriend, and a medical student were present.

Following the afternoon appointment, the mother issued a complaint to an office manager that Dr. Farmer was impaired, noting that he was “touching his nose a lot,” according to the lawsuit.

The next morning, hospital administrators met with Dr. Farmer and asked whether he was impaired the day before, to which he replied, “Absolutely not,” court documents state. Dr. Farmer asked to be given a urine drug screen immediately, but administrators allegedly said he needed to be tested at the Kentucky Physicians Health Foundation in Louisville.

Dr. Farmer immediately made the 3-hour drive to the facility, and Baptist Health placed him on leave, pending the evaluation. The health foundation sent Dr. Farmer to a third-party vendor to complete a urine drug screen, which returned a result of “dilute.” (A “dilute” result occurs when the urine concentration is weak because of too much water in the urine and testers are unable to detect whether alcohol or drugs are present.)

He was then instructed to go to a separate alcohol treatment facility for a 96-hour evaluation, where he was ultimately diagnosed with mild alcohol use disorder, according to Ms. DeLaney. The facility did not recommend that he receive any inpatient care.

Hospital administrators later sent a letter to the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure alerting them of the patient’s complaint. The board opened an investigation, and Farmer was required to sign an interim order in which he agreed not to practice medicine until approved by the board, according to court documents. The order was reported to the National Practitioner’s Data Bank.

To maintain his employment and complete his residency, Dr. Farmer was ultimately required to sign a 2-year agreement with Kentucky Physicians Health Foundation, which included regular testing, monitoring, and therapy. The board later extended the agreement to 5 years and made Dr. Farmer’s compliance a condition of retaining his medical license, according to legal records.

Dr. Farmer sued Baptist Health Medical Group and Baptist Heath Madisonville in 2021, alleging breach of contract and tortious interference with prospective business advantage.

At trial, coworkers, including Farmer’s attending physicians, testified that Dr. Farmer was not impaired on the date in question, Ms. DeLaney said. A key fact highlighted at trial is that Dr. Farmer has ADHD.

“My client has ADHD, so he’s normally a twitchy person,” she said. “There was lots of testimony about how he moves a lot and that he’s fidgety and doesn’t stand still. The two attending doctors that were supervising him at clinic that afternoon both said 100% he was not impaired; he was his usual self. They told the residency director that right after the incident. They both testified at trial they thought that would be the end of the matter.”

Baptist Health would not comment about whether it followed its fitness for duty and drug testing policy or whether leaders spoke with other medical professionals who worked with Dr. Farmer on the day of the complaint.

Dr. Farmer said he feels vindicated by the verdict and grateful to the jury.

“I intend to continue practicing as a family medicine doctor and hope to continue to grow and advance in my career,” he said.
 

Have you been falsely accused? Here’s what to do

Dr. Farmer is not alone in fighting back against allegations by hospitals regarding conduct associated with impairment.

In 2020, an ob.gyn. who had been accused of being under the influence while working won $4.75 million in fraud and defamation damages against St. Vincent Carmel (Ind.) Hospital and St. Vincent Carmel Medical Group for its treatment following an impairment complaint by a nurse.

It’s unclear how prevalent such scenarios are because frequently, physicians are embarrassed and keep quiet about the situation and how they were treated, said Louise B. Andrew, MD, JD, an emergency physician/internist and attorney who consults on physician health and wellness, litigation stress, and disability discrimination.

“Physicians are unlikely to reveal that it’s happened to them unless they happen to have had a good outcome” she said. “All we know is that we’re hearing more and more about it, and that might be because people are becoming more open and outraged when it happens. It’s quite easy for anyone in a hospital environment or in an office environment, for a competitor, a coworker, or even a disgruntled patient to allege a physician has ‘glazed eyes’ or ‘alcohol on the breath,’ and that’s all it takes to start the ball rolling.”

If you are falsely accused of being impaired at work or are suddenly confronted with a complaint, the first step is to remain calm, said Kernan Manion, MD, executive director for the Center for Physician Rights, a nonprofit organization that assists physicians who have been subject to unfair medical board, health program, or peer review processes.

“The first thing is to keep your wits about you,” he said, “because often, docs get frightened or angry, and they overact. You have to gain your composure and ask for documentation about the nature of the allegation.”

Obtain in writing any and all information that supports the allegation. Physicians who are asked to report to a physician health program should ask the reason they are being referred and whether it is for a medical evaluation or another type of evaluation, he said. If it’s a medical reason, the process needs to follow medical parameters in terms of confidentiality.

“The bottom line is that a doctor should not take everything at face value and follow the organization’s orders unquestioning,” Dr. Manion said. “They have a right to get their concerns addressed.”

Physicians who are accused of using substances on duty or being under the influence while working have to right to undergo testing immediately, Dr. Andrew said.

“If you’re told on the spot: ‘You need to submit to testing,’ then you should do it, but make sure it’s done properly,” she said. “Ensure that forensically, you give two samples and that they are sealed and the chain of evidence is maintained. The reason for that is if one of them is a false positive, the second one can be reviewed separately.”

If administrators do not allow for prompt testing, get yourself tested immediately on your own, she said.

As far as leaves of absence are concerned, ensure you know what type of leave is being executed, Dr. Manion said. Ask the nature of the leave and whether the leave counts as a suspension that will go against your medical license and be reportable to the NPDB. In such cases, the only reason to suspend a doctor’s privileges is because they are considered a danger to others, or, in other words, there’s been an allegation of unsafe care.

“If there is an allegation of unsafe care, the physician should ask for documentation of the patient safety issues in question and why they are being deemed unsafe to practice,” he said.

Ms. DeLaney recommended physicians not report to or communicate with any state medical association, physician health foundation, or licensing authority without first getting legal advice.

In addition, doctors will likely be tested for acute and long-term drug and alcohol use, so it’s a good idea to avoid any activity or substances that could result in a dilute sample or a positive result on a drug or alcohol test, she said.

As for broader solutions, it’s important that more physicians come out of the shadows and tell their stories when these injustices take place, said Dr. Andrew.

“Doctors need to be more open about this when it happens, which is not easy,” she said. “More need to be suing, which is certainly not cheap. Also, when they do come to settlements, they should not sign nondisclosure agreements so that they can talk about what happened and it can be publicized. This way, more doctors are aware of the types of tactics used against physicians and what other doctors have done that can help.”

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

The relationship between enthesitis and synovitis is of considerable interest to both clinicians and researchers. This relationship is best evaluated using imaging, particularly ultrasonography, and could provide pathophysiologic insights. Balulu and colleagues recruited 158 patients with PsA who underwent sonographic assessment of 52 joints, 40 tendons, and 14 entheses as well as clinical evaluation. Overall, total sonographic enthesitis scores were significantly associated with total sonographic synovitis and sonographic tenosynovitis scores and also with older age, male sex, swollen joint count, C-reactive protein, physical occupation, and patient-reported outcomes. The association between enthesitis and synovitis was also demonstrated at the elbows, knees, and ankles. This study demonstrates that psoriatic enthesitis and synovitis are closely related and thus may share pathophysiologic mechanisms. Longitudinal studies in very early PsA using ultrasound might provide clues to confirm the hypothesis that psoriatic synovitis is secondary to enthesitis.

Another important domain that is increasingly studied is axial PsA. Currently, the evidence for treatment of axial PsA is extrapolated from that for axial spondyloarthritis (SpA), in the belief that the two diseases are pathophysiologically similar. However, there is increasing evidence for differences between axial PsA and axial SpA that might influence the choice of treatment. In a recent study, de Hooge and colleagues demonstrated that patients with axial PsA have lower severity of damage to the spine compared with those with axial SpA. Using data from 312 patients with PsA and 213 patients with SpA who underwent radiographic imaging assessment in the Belgian Epidemiological Psoriatic Arthritis Study (BEPAS) and the Ghent and Belgian Inflammatory Arthritis and Spondylitis (Be-GIANT) study, respectively, they show that the proportion of patients with PsA vs SpA having spinal damage was comparable. Patients with SpA and spinal damage had higher modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Scores, indicating more severe damage. These results are consistent with other published studies and indicate that patients with PsA have less severe spinal disease compared with other patients with axial SpA. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) specifically investigating the treatment of axial PsA are currently underway. Nevertheless, post hoc analyses of data from PsA RCTs indicate that most drugs efficacious for PsA overall also provide benefit in axial disease.

In a recent report, Baraliakos and colleagues analyzed data from the SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2 trials that evaluated the efficacy of upadacitinib in PsA. They show that, compared with placebo, 15 mg upadacitinib led to a greater improvement in axial symptoms. The improvement in overall Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index score at week 24 was significantly higher with 15 mg upadacitinib compared with placebo in both trials. However, these results are not definitive because there is yet no consensus on the definition of and outcome measures for axial PsA.

The relationship between enthesitis and synovitis is of considerable interest to both clinicians and researchers. This relationship is best evaluated using imaging, particularly ultrasonography, and could provide pathophysiologic insights. Balulu and colleagues recruited 158 patients with PsA who underwent sonographic assessment of 52 joints, 40 tendons, and 14 entheses as well as clinical evaluation. Overall, total sonographic enthesitis scores were significantly associated with total sonographic synovitis and sonographic tenosynovitis scores and also with older age, male sex, swollen joint count, C-reactive protein, physical occupation, and patient-reported outcomes. The association between enthesitis and synovitis was also demonstrated at the elbows, knees, and ankles. This study demonstrates that psoriatic enthesitis and synovitis are closely related and thus may share pathophysiologic mechanisms. Longitudinal studies in very early PsA using ultrasound might provide clues to confirm the hypothesis that psoriatic synovitis is secondary to enthesitis.

Another important domain that is increasingly studied is axial PsA. Currently, the evidence for treatment of axial PsA is extrapolated from that for axial spondyloarthritis (SpA), in the belief that the two diseases are pathophysiologically similar. However, there is increasing evidence for differences between axial PsA and axial SpA that might influence the choice of treatment. In a recent study, de Hooge and colleagues demonstrated that patients with axial PsA have lower severity of damage to the spine compared with those with axial SpA. Using data from 312 patients with PsA and 213 patients with SpA who underwent radiographic imaging assessment in the Belgian Epidemiological Psoriatic Arthritis Study (BEPAS) and the Ghent and Belgian Inflammatory Arthritis and Spondylitis (Be-GIANT) study, respectively, they show that the proportion of patients with PsA vs SpA having spinal damage was comparable. Patients with SpA and spinal damage had higher modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Scores, indicating more severe damage. These results are consistent with other published studies and indicate that patients with PsA have less severe spinal disease compared with other patients with axial SpA. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) specifically investigating the treatment of axial PsA are currently underway. Nevertheless, post hoc analyses of data from PsA RCTs indicate that most drugs efficacious for PsA overall also provide benefit in axial disease.

In a recent report, Baraliakos and colleagues analyzed data from the SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2 trials that evaluated the efficacy of upadacitinib in PsA. They show that, compared with placebo, 15 mg upadacitinib led to a greater improvement in axial symptoms. The improvement in overall Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index score at week 24 was significantly higher with 15 mg upadacitinib compared with placebo in both trials. However, these results are not definitive because there is yet no consensus on the definition of and outcome measures for axial PsA.

The relationship between enthesitis and synovitis is of considerable interest to both clinicians and researchers. This relationship is best evaluated using imaging, particularly ultrasonography, and could provide pathophysiologic insights. Balulu and colleagues recruited 158 patients with PsA who underwent sonographic assessment of 52 joints, 40 tendons, and 14 entheses as well as clinical evaluation. Overall, total sonographic enthesitis scores were significantly associated with total sonographic synovitis and sonographic tenosynovitis scores and also with older age, male sex, swollen joint count, C-reactive protein, physical occupation, and patient-reported outcomes. The association between enthesitis and synovitis was also demonstrated at the elbows, knees, and ankles. This study demonstrates that psoriatic enthesitis and synovitis are closely related and thus may share pathophysiologic mechanisms. Longitudinal studies in very early PsA using ultrasound might provide clues to confirm the hypothesis that psoriatic synovitis is secondary to enthesitis.

Another important domain that is increasingly studied is axial PsA. Currently, the evidence for treatment of axial PsA is extrapolated from that for axial spondyloarthritis (SpA), in the belief that the two diseases are pathophysiologically similar. However, there is increasing evidence for differences between axial PsA and axial SpA that might influence the choice of treatment. In a recent study, de Hooge and colleagues demonstrated that patients with axial PsA have lower severity of damage to the spine compared with those with axial SpA. Using data from 312 patients with PsA and 213 patients with SpA who underwent radiographic imaging assessment in the Belgian Epidemiological Psoriatic Arthritis Study (BEPAS) and the Ghent and Belgian Inflammatory Arthritis and Spondylitis (Be-GIANT) study, respectively, they show that the proportion of patients with PsA vs SpA having spinal damage was comparable. Patients with SpA and spinal damage had higher modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Scores, indicating more severe damage. These results are consistent with other published studies and indicate that patients with PsA have less severe spinal disease compared with other patients with axial SpA. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) specifically investigating the treatment of axial PsA are currently underway. Nevertheless, post hoc analyses of data from PsA RCTs indicate that most drugs efficacious for PsA overall also provide benefit in axial disease.

In a recent report, Baraliakos and colleagues analyzed data from the SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2 trials that evaluated the efficacy of upadacitinib in PsA. They show that, compared with placebo, 15 mg upadacitinib led to a greater improvement in axial symptoms. The improvement in overall Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index score at week 24 was significantly higher with 15 mg upadacitinib compared with placebo in both trials. However, these results are not definitive because there is yet no consensus on the definition of and outcome measures for axial PsA.