MDedge Rheumatology

MILAN – Rheumatic disease is not considered a significant risk factor for long COVID, according to the findings of a Dutch prospective cohort study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Although more patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (iRD) report symptoms resembling long COVID, the data suggest that many of these symptoms can be attributed to the underlying rheumatic disease. “Overall, we find the data quite reassuring,” said Laura Boekel, Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Amsterdam University Medical Center.

The results were also published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

The risk of developing long COVID after infection with the Omicron variant appeared to be higher in patients with iRD, with 21% meeting the criteria set by the World Health Organization, compared with 13% of healthy individuals (odds ratio, 1.58; P = .037). Fatigue and loss of fitness were the most common long COVID symptoms reported by both iRD patients and controls. However, the difference in risk decreased after accounting for factors that are significantly associated with an increased risk for long COVID, such as body mass index and the severity of the acute COVID-19 infection (adjusted OR, 1.46; P = .081). The duration of symptoms did not show a statistically significant difference.

Kim Lauper, MD, University of Geneva, who chaired the session in which Ms. Boekel reported the study, said in an interview that the data should be interpreted with caution. “The data demonstrate that rheumatic disease itself is not a risk factor for long COVID. However, patients with rheumatic diseases are at a higher risk of severe disease, which in turn increases the likelihood of long COVID. Therefore, as a population, these patients are more susceptible to long COVID overall.”

Moreover, irrespective of their previous COVID-19 infection status, iRD patients often exhibit symptoms similar to those of long COVID even without a prior COVID-19 infection. (There was no history of COVID-19 in 21% of iRD patients vs. 11% of controls.) This suggests that some of the reported long COVID symptoms may actually be clinical manifestations of the underlying rheumatic disease, thereby complicating the diagnosis of long COVID in this population. The study employed the WHO definition of long COVID, which includes persistent symptoms lasting at least 8 weeks, beginning within 3 months of a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that cannot be attributed to an alternative diagnosis. However, the data presented in Milan indicate that the WHO definition “is not well suited for patients with iRD due to significant overlap in symptoms and features,” Ms. Boekel concluded.

The cases of Omicron COVID-19 were identified during Jan. 1–April 25, 2022, among iRD patients recruited from the Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center. The population with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection during this period was monitored for long COVID. The total number of patients included in the study consisted of 77 iRD patients and 23 healthy controls. When asked about the potential risk of selection bias in the survey, Ms. Boekel stated that only approximately 8% of participants declined to respond, and the nonresponders were comparable with the respondents. She concluded that “the risk of selection bias is minimal.”

In an editorial published in The Lancet Rheumatology, Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, Cleveland Clinic, provided his insights on the findings. He emphasized that, “at present, long COVID remains an important reality that significantly impacts the lives of millions of individuals, yet it remains incompletely defined. ... These limitations in defining cases should not in any way undermine the experiences of those suffering from long COVID. Instead, they should serve as a reminder that, at this stage of the pandemic, we unfortunately still lack validated classification criteria for long COVID. It is crucial to include non–SARS-CoV-2–infected controls in all studies to further enhance our understanding.”

Ms. Boekel and coauthors, as well as Dr. Lauper and Dr. Calabrese, reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN – Rheumatic disease is not considered a significant risk factor for long COVID, according to the findings of a Dutch prospective cohort study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Although more patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (iRD) report symptoms resembling long COVID, the data suggest that many of these symptoms can be attributed to the underlying rheumatic disease. “Overall, we find the data quite reassuring,” said Laura Boekel, Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Amsterdam University Medical Center.

The results were also published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

The risk of developing long COVID after infection with the Omicron variant appeared to be higher in patients with iRD, with 21% meeting the criteria set by the World Health Organization, compared with 13% of healthy individuals (odds ratio, 1.58; P = .037). Fatigue and loss of fitness were the most common long COVID symptoms reported by both iRD patients and controls. However, the difference in risk decreased after accounting for factors that are significantly associated with an increased risk for long COVID, such as body mass index and the severity of the acute COVID-19 infection (adjusted OR, 1.46; P = .081). The duration of symptoms did not show a statistically significant difference.

Kim Lauper, MD, University of Geneva, who chaired the session in which Ms. Boekel reported the study, said in an interview that the data should be interpreted with caution. “The data demonstrate that rheumatic disease itself is not a risk factor for long COVID. However, patients with rheumatic diseases are at a higher risk of severe disease, which in turn increases the likelihood of long COVID. Therefore, as a population, these patients are more susceptible to long COVID overall.”

Moreover, irrespective of their previous COVID-19 infection status, iRD patients often exhibit symptoms similar to those of long COVID even without a prior COVID-19 infection. (There was no history of COVID-19 in 21% of iRD patients vs. 11% of controls.) This suggests that some of the reported long COVID symptoms may actually be clinical manifestations of the underlying rheumatic disease, thereby complicating the diagnosis of long COVID in this population. The study employed the WHO definition of long COVID, which includes persistent symptoms lasting at least 8 weeks, beginning within 3 months of a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that cannot be attributed to an alternative diagnosis. However, the data presented in Milan indicate that the WHO definition “is not well suited for patients with iRD due to significant overlap in symptoms and features,” Ms. Boekel concluded.

The cases of Omicron COVID-19 were identified during Jan. 1–April 25, 2022, among iRD patients recruited from the Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center. The population with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection during this period was monitored for long COVID. The total number of patients included in the study consisted of 77 iRD patients and 23 healthy controls. When asked about the potential risk of selection bias in the survey, Ms. Boekel stated that only approximately 8% of participants declined to respond, and the nonresponders were comparable with the respondents. She concluded that “the risk of selection bias is minimal.”

In an editorial published in The Lancet Rheumatology, Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, Cleveland Clinic, provided his insights on the findings. He emphasized that, “at present, long COVID remains an important reality that significantly impacts the lives of millions of individuals, yet it remains incompletely defined. ... These limitations in defining cases should not in any way undermine the experiences of those suffering from long COVID. Instead, they should serve as a reminder that, at this stage of the pandemic, we unfortunately still lack validated classification criteria for long COVID. It is crucial to include non–SARS-CoV-2–infected controls in all studies to further enhance our understanding.”

Ms. Boekel and coauthors, as well as Dr. Lauper and Dr. Calabrese, reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN – Rheumatic disease is not considered a significant risk factor for long COVID, according to the findings of a Dutch prospective cohort study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Although more patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (iRD) report symptoms resembling long COVID, the data suggest that many of these symptoms can be attributed to the underlying rheumatic disease. “Overall, we find the data quite reassuring,” said Laura Boekel, Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Amsterdam University Medical Center.

The results were also published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

The risk of developing long COVID after infection with the Omicron variant appeared to be higher in patients with iRD, with 21% meeting the criteria set by the World Health Organization, compared with 13% of healthy individuals (odds ratio, 1.58; P = .037). Fatigue and loss of fitness were the most common long COVID symptoms reported by both iRD patients and controls. However, the difference in risk decreased after accounting for factors that are significantly associated with an increased risk for long COVID, such as body mass index and the severity of the acute COVID-19 infection (adjusted OR, 1.46; P = .081). The duration of symptoms did not show a statistically significant difference.

Kim Lauper, MD, University of Geneva, who chaired the session in which Ms. Boekel reported the study, said in an interview that the data should be interpreted with caution. “The data demonstrate that rheumatic disease itself is not a risk factor for long COVID. However, patients with rheumatic diseases are at a higher risk of severe disease, which in turn increases the likelihood of long COVID. Therefore, as a population, these patients are more susceptible to long COVID overall.”

Moreover, irrespective of their previous COVID-19 infection status, iRD patients often exhibit symptoms similar to those of long COVID even without a prior COVID-19 infection. (There was no history of COVID-19 in 21% of iRD patients vs. 11% of controls.) This suggests that some of the reported long COVID symptoms may actually be clinical manifestations of the underlying rheumatic disease, thereby complicating the diagnosis of long COVID in this population. The study employed the WHO definition of long COVID, which includes persistent symptoms lasting at least 8 weeks, beginning within 3 months of a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that cannot be attributed to an alternative diagnosis. However, the data presented in Milan indicate that the WHO definition “is not well suited for patients with iRD due to significant overlap in symptoms and features,” Ms. Boekel concluded.

The cases of Omicron COVID-19 were identified during Jan. 1–April 25, 2022, among iRD patients recruited from the Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center. The population with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection during this period was monitored for long COVID. The total number of patients included in the study consisted of 77 iRD patients and 23 healthy controls. When asked about the potential risk of selection bias in the survey, Ms. Boekel stated that only approximately 8% of participants declined to respond, and the nonresponders were comparable with the respondents. She concluded that “the risk of selection bias is minimal.”

In an editorial published in The Lancet Rheumatology, Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, Cleveland Clinic, provided his insights on the findings. He emphasized that, “at present, long COVID remains an important reality that significantly impacts the lives of millions of individuals, yet it remains incompletely defined. ... These limitations in defining cases should not in any way undermine the experiences of those suffering from long COVID. Instead, they should serve as a reminder that, at this stage of the pandemic, we unfortunately still lack validated classification criteria for long COVID. It is crucial to include non–SARS-CoV-2–infected controls in all studies to further enhance our understanding.”

Ms. Boekel and coauthors, as well as Dr. Lauper and Dr. Calabrese, reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The ways in which artificial intelligence (AI) may transform the future of medicine is making headlines across the globe. But chances are, you’re already using AI in your practice every day – you may just not realize it.
 

And whether you recognize the presence of AI or not, the technology could be putting you in danger of a lawsuit, legal experts say.

The use of AI in your daily practice can come with hidden liabilities, say legal experts, and as hospitals and medical groups deploy AI into more areas of health care, new liability exposures may be on the horizon.

“For physicians, AI has also not yet drastically changed or improved the way care is provided or consumed,” said Michael LeTang, chief nursing informatics officer and vice president of risk management and patient safety at Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group. “Consequently, it may seem like AI is not present in their work streams, but in reality, it has been utilized in health care for several years. As AI technologies continue to develop and become more sophisticated, we can expect them to play an increasingly significant role in health care.”

Today, most AI applications in health care use narrow AI, which is designed to complete a single task without human assistance, as opposed to artificial general intelligence (AGI), which pertains to human-level reasoning and problem solving across a broad spectrum. Here are some ways doctors are using AI throughout the day – sometimes being aware of its assistance, and sometimes being unaware:

• Many doctors use electronic health records (EHRs) with integrated AI that include computerized clinical decision support tools designed to reduce the risk of diagnostic error and to integrate decision-making in the medication ordering function.
• Cardiologists, pathologists, and dermatologists use AI in the interpretation of vast amounts of images, tracings, and complex patterns.
• Surgeons are using AI-enhanced surgical robotics for orthopedic surgeries, such as joint replacement and spine surgery.
• A growing number of doctors are using ChatGPT to assist in drafting prior authorization letters for insurers. Experts say more doctors are also experimenting with ChatGPT to support medical decision-making.
• Within oncology, physicians use machine learning techniques in the form of computer-aided detection systems for early breast cancer detection.
• AI algorithms are often used by health systems for workflow, staffing optimization, population management, and care coordination.
• Some systems within EHRs use AI to indicate high-risk patients.
• Physicians are using AI applications for the early recognition of sepsis, including EHR-integrated decision tools, such as the Hospital Corporation of America Healthcare’s Sepsis Prediction and Optimization Therapy and the Sepsis Early Risk Assessment algorithm.
• About 30% of radiologists use AI in their practice to analyze x-rays and CT scans.
• Epic Systems recently announced a partnership with Microsoft to integrate ChatGPT into MyChart, Epic’s patient portal system. Pilot hospitals will utilize ChatGPT to automatically generate responses to patient-generated questions sent via the portal.

The growth of AI in health care has been enormous, and it’s only going to continue, said Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor in the department of medical ethics and health policy and medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“What’s really critical is that physicians, clinicians, and nurses using AI are provided with the tools to understand how artificial intelligence works and, most importantly, understand that they are still accountable for making the ultimate decision,” Mr. LeTang said, “The information is not always going to be the right thing to do or the most accurate thing to do. They’re still liable for making a bad decision, even if AI is driving that.”
 

What are the top AI legal dangers of today?

A pressing legal risk is becoming too reliant on the suggestions that AI-based systems provide, which can lead to poor care decisions, said Kenneth Rashbaum, a New York–based cybersecurity attorney with more than 25 years of experience in medical malpractice defense.

This can occur, for example, when using clinical support systems that leverage AI, machine learning, or statistical pattern recognition. Today, clinical support systems are commonly administered through EHRs and other computerized clinical workflows. In general, such systems match a patient’s characteristics to a computerized clinical knowledge base. An assessment or recommendation is then presented to the physician for a decision.

“If the clinician blindly accepts it without considering whether it’s appropriate for this patient at this time with this presentation, the clinician may bear some responsibility if there is an untoward result,” Mr. Rashbaum said.

“A common claim even in the days before the EMR [electronic medical record] and AI, was that the clinician did not take all available information into account in rendering treatment, including history of past and present condition, as reflected in the records, communication with past and other present treating clinicians, lab and radiology results, discussions with the patient, and physical examination findings,” he said. “So, if the clinician relied upon the support prompt to the exclusion of these other sources of information, that could be a very strong argument for the plaintiff.”

Chatbots, such OpenAI’s ChatGPT, are another form of AI raising legal red flags. ChatGPT, trained on a massive set of text data, can carry out conversations, write code, draft emails, and answer any question posed. The chatbot has gained considerable credibility for accurately diagnosing rare conditions in seconds, and it recently passed the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination.

It’s unclear how many doctors are signing onto the ChatGPT website daily, but physicians are actively using the chatbot, particularly for assistance with prior authorization letters and to support decision-making processes in their practices, said Mr. LeTang.

When physicians ask ChatGPT a question, however, they should be mindful that ChatGPT could “hallucinate,” a term that refers to a generated response that sounds plausible but is factually incorrect or is unrelated to the context, explains Harvey Castro, MD, an emergency physician, ChatGPT health care expert, and author of the 2023 book “ChatGPT and Healthcare: Unlocking the Potential of Patient Empowerment.”

Acting on ChatGPT’s response without vetting the information places doctors at serious risk of a lawsuit, he said.

“Sometimes, the response is half true and half false,” he said. “Say, I go outside my specialty of emergency medicine and ask it about a pediatric surgical procedure. It could give me a response that sounds medically correct, but then I ask a pediatric cardiologist, and he says, ‘We don’t even do this. This doesn’t even exist!’ Physicians really have to make sure they are vetting the information provided.”

In response to ChatGPT’s growing usage by health care professionals, hospitals and practices are quickly implementing guidelines, policies, and restrictions that caution physicians about the accuracy of ChatGPT-generated information, adds Mr. LeTang.

Emerging best practices include avoiding the input of patient health information, personally identifiable information, or any data that could be commercially valuable or considered the intellectual property of a hospital or health system, he said.

“Another crucial guideline is not to rely solely on ChatGPT as a definitive source for clinical decision-making; physicians must exercise their professional judgment,” he said. “If best practices are not adhered to, the associated risks are present today. However, these risks may become more significant as AI technologies continue to evolve and become increasingly integrated into health care.”

The potential for misdiagnosis by AI systems and the risk of unnecessary procedures if physicians do not thoroughly evaluate and validate AI predictions are other dangers.

As an example, Mr. LeTang described a case in which a physician documents in the EHR that a patient has presented to the emergency department with chest pains and other signs of a heart attack, and an AI algorithm predicts that the patient is experiencing an active myocardial infarction. If the physician then sends the patient for stenting or an angioplasty without other concrete evidence or tests to confirm the diagnosis, the doctor could later face a misdiagnosis complaint if the costly procedures were unnecessary.

“That’s one of the risks of using artificial intelligence,” he said. “A large percentage of malpractice claims is failure to diagnose, delayed diagnosis, or inaccurate diagnosis. What falls in the category of failure to diagnose is sending a patient for an unnecessary procedure or having an adverse event or bad outcome because of the failure to diagnose.”

So far, no AI lawsuits have been filed, but they may make an appearance soon, said Sue Boisvert, senior patient safety risk manager at The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer.

“There are hundreds of AI programs currently in use in health care,” she said. “At some point, a provider will make a decision that is contrary to what the AI recommended. The AI may be wrong, or the provider may be wrong. Either way, the provider will neglect to document their clinical reasoning, a patient will be harmed, and we will have the first AI claim.”
 

Upcoming AI legal risks to watch for

Lawsuits that allege biased patient care by physicians on the basis of algorithmic bias may also be forthcoming, analysts warn.

Much has been written about algorithmic bias that compounds and worsens inequities in socioeconomic status, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender in health systems. In 2019, a groundbreaking article in Science shed light on commonly used algorithms that are considered racially biased and how health care professionals often use such information to make medical decisions.

No claims involving AI bias have come down the pipeline yet, but it’s an area to watch, said Ms. Boisvert. She noted a website that highlights complaints and accusations of AI bias, including in health care.

“We need to be sure the training of the AI is appropriate, current, and broad enough so that there is no bias in the AI when it’s participating in the decision-making,” said Ms. Boisvert. “Imagine if the AI is diagnosing based on a dataset that is not local. It doesn’t represent the population at that particular hospital, and it’s providing inaccurate information to the physicians who are then making decisions about treatment.”

In pain management, for example, there are known differences in how patients experience pain, Ms. Boisvert said. If AI was being used to develop an algorithm for how a particular patient’s postoperative pain should be managed, and the algorithm did not include the differences, the pain control for a certain patient could be inappropriate. A poor outcome resulting from the treatment could lead to a claim against the physician or hospital that used the biased AI system, she said.

In the future, as AI becomes more integrated and accepted in medicine, there may be a risk of legal complaints against doctors for not using AI, said Saurabh Jha, MD, an associate professor of radiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and a scholar of AI in radiology.

“Ultimately, we might get to a place where AI starts helping physicians detect more or reduce the miss of certain conditions, and it becomes the standard of care,” Dr. Jha said. “For example, if it became part of the standard of care for pulmonary embolism [PE] detection, and you didn’t use it for PE detection, and there was a miss. That could put you at legal risk. We’re not at that stage yet, but that is one future possibility.”

Dr. Parikh envisions an even cloudier liability landscape as the potential grows for AI to control patient care decisions. In such a scenario, rather than just issuing an alert or prediction to a physician, the AI system could trigger an action.

For instance, if an algorithm is trained to predict sepsis and, once triggered, the AI could initiate a nurse-led rapid response or a change in patient care outside the clinician’s control, said Dr. Parikh, who coauthored a recent article on AI and medical liability in The Milbank Quarterly.

“That’s still very much the minority of how AI is being used, but as evidence is growing that AI-based diagnostic tools perform equivalent or even superior to physicians, these autonomous workflows are being considered,” Dr. Parikh said. “When the ultimate action upon the patient is more determined by the AI than what the clinician does, then I think the liability picture gets murkier, and we should be thinking about how we can respond to that from a liability framework.”
 

How you can prevent AI-related lawsuits

The first step to preventing an AI-related claim is being aware of when and how you are using AI.

Ensure you’re informed about how the AI was trained, Ms. Boisvert stresses.

“Ask questions!” she said. “Is the AI safe? Are the recommendations accurate? Does the AI perform better than current systems? In what way? What databases were used, and did the programmers consider bias? Do I understand how to use the results?”

Never blindly trust the AI but rather view it as a data point in a medical decision, said Dr. Parikh. Ensure that other sources of medical information are properly accessed and that best practices for your specialty are still being followed.

When using any form of AI, document your usage, adds Mr. Rashbaum. A record that clearly outlines how the physician incorporated the AI is critical if a claim later arises in which the doctor is accused of AI-related malpractice, he said.

“Indicating how the AI tool was used, why it was used, and that it was used in conjunction with available clinical information and the clinician’s best judgment could reduce the risk of being found responsible as a result of AI use in a particular case,” he said.

Use chatbots, such as ChatGPT, the way they were intended, as support tools, rather than definitive diagnostic instruments, adds Dr. Castro.

“Doctors should also be well-trained in interpreting and understanding the suggestions provided by ChatGPT and should use their clinical judgment and experience alongside the AI tool for more accurate decision-making,” he said.

In addition, because no AI insurance product exists on the market, physicians and organizations using AI – particularly for direct health care – should evaluate their current insurance or insurance-like products to determine where a claim involving AI might fall and whether the policy would respond, said Ms. Boisvert. The AI vendor/manufacturer will likely have indemnified themselves in the purchase and sale agreement or contract, she said.

It will also become increasingly important for medical practices, hospitals, and health systems to put in place strong data governance strategies, Mr. LeTang said.

“AI relies on good data,” he said. “A data governance strategy is a key component to making sure we understand where the data is coming from, what is represents, how accurate it is, if it’s reproducible, what controls are in place to ensure the right people have the right access, and that if we’re starting to use it to build algorithms, that it’s deidentified.”

While no malpractice claims associated with the use of AI have yet surfaced, this may change as legal courts catch up on the backlog of malpractice claims that were delayed because of COVID-19, and even more so as AI becomes more prevalent in health care, Mr. LeTang said.

“Similar to the attention that autonomous driving systems, like Tesla, receive when the system fails and accidents occur, we can be assured that media outlets will widely publicize AI-related medical adverse events,” he said. “It is crucial for health care professionals, AI developers, and regulatory authorities to work together to ensure the responsible use of AI in health care, with patient safety as the top priority. By doing so, they can mitigate the risks associated with AI implementation and minimize the potential for legal disputes arising from AI-related medical errors.”

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

The ways in which artificial intelligence (AI) may transform the future of medicine is making headlines across the globe. But chances are, you’re already using AI in your practice every day – you may just not realize it.
 

And whether you recognize the presence of AI or not, the technology could be putting you in danger of a lawsuit, legal experts say.

The use of AI in your daily practice can come with hidden liabilities, say legal experts, and as hospitals and medical groups deploy AI into more areas of health care, new liability exposures may be on the horizon.

“For physicians, AI has also not yet drastically changed or improved the way care is provided or consumed,” said Michael LeTang, chief nursing informatics officer and vice president of risk management and patient safety at Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group. “Consequently, it may seem like AI is not present in their work streams, but in reality, it has been utilized in health care for several years. As AI technologies continue to develop and become more sophisticated, we can expect them to play an increasingly significant role in health care.”

Today, most AI applications in health care use narrow AI, which is designed to complete a single task without human assistance, as opposed to artificial general intelligence (AGI), which pertains to human-level reasoning and problem solving across a broad spectrum. Here are some ways doctors are using AI throughout the day – sometimes being aware of its assistance, and sometimes being unaware:

• Many doctors use electronic health records (EHRs) with integrated AI that include computerized clinical decision support tools designed to reduce the risk of diagnostic error and to integrate decision-making in the medication ordering function.
• Cardiologists, pathologists, and dermatologists use AI in the interpretation of vast amounts of images, tracings, and complex patterns.
• Surgeons are using AI-enhanced surgical robotics for orthopedic surgeries, such as joint replacement and spine surgery.
• A growing number of doctors are using ChatGPT to assist in drafting prior authorization letters for insurers. Experts say more doctors are also experimenting with ChatGPT to support medical decision-making.
• Within oncology, physicians use machine learning techniques in the form of computer-aided detection systems for early breast cancer detection.
• AI algorithms are often used by health systems for workflow, staffing optimization, population management, and care coordination.
• Some systems within EHRs use AI to indicate high-risk patients.
• Physicians are using AI applications for the early recognition of sepsis, including EHR-integrated decision tools, such as the Hospital Corporation of America Healthcare’s Sepsis Prediction and Optimization Therapy and the Sepsis Early Risk Assessment algorithm.
• About 30% of radiologists use AI in their practice to analyze x-rays and CT scans.
• Epic Systems recently announced a partnership with Microsoft to integrate ChatGPT into MyChart, Epic’s patient portal system. Pilot hospitals will utilize ChatGPT to automatically generate responses to patient-generated questions sent via the portal.

The growth of AI in health care has been enormous, and it’s only going to continue, said Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor in the department of medical ethics and health policy and medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“What’s really critical is that physicians, clinicians, and nurses using AI are provided with the tools to understand how artificial intelligence works and, most importantly, understand that they are still accountable for making the ultimate decision,” Mr. LeTang said, “The information is not always going to be the right thing to do or the most accurate thing to do. They’re still liable for making a bad decision, even if AI is driving that.”
 

What are the top AI legal dangers of today?

A pressing legal risk is becoming too reliant on the suggestions that AI-based systems provide, which can lead to poor care decisions, said Kenneth Rashbaum, a New York–based cybersecurity attorney with more than 25 years of experience in medical malpractice defense.

This can occur, for example, when using clinical support systems that leverage AI, machine learning, or statistical pattern recognition. Today, clinical support systems are commonly administered through EHRs and other computerized clinical workflows. In general, such systems match a patient’s characteristics to a computerized clinical knowledge base. An assessment or recommendation is then presented to the physician for a decision.

“If the clinician blindly accepts it without considering whether it’s appropriate for this patient at this time with this presentation, the clinician may bear some responsibility if there is an untoward result,” Mr. Rashbaum said.

“A common claim even in the days before the EMR [electronic medical record] and AI, was that the clinician did not take all available information into account in rendering treatment, including history of past and present condition, as reflected in the records, communication with past and other present treating clinicians, lab and radiology results, discussions with the patient, and physical examination findings,” he said. “So, if the clinician relied upon the support prompt to the exclusion of these other sources of information, that could be a very strong argument for the plaintiff.”

Chatbots, such OpenAI’s ChatGPT, are another form of AI raising legal red flags. ChatGPT, trained on a massive set of text data, can carry out conversations, write code, draft emails, and answer any question posed. The chatbot has gained considerable credibility for accurately diagnosing rare conditions in seconds, and it recently passed the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination.

It’s unclear how many doctors are signing onto the ChatGPT website daily, but physicians are actively using the chatbot, particularly for assistance with prior authorization letters and to support decision-making processes in their practices, said Mr. LeTang.

When physicians ask ChatGPT a question, however, they should be mindful that ChatGPT could “hallucinate,” a term that refers to a generated response that sounds plausible but is factually incorrect or is unrelated to the context, explains Harvey Castro, MD, an emergency physician, ChatGPT health care expert, and author of the 2023 book “ChatGPT and Healthcare: Unlocking the Potential of Patient Empowerment.”

Acting on ChatGPT’s response without vetting the information places doctors at serious risk of a lawsuit, he said.

“Sometimes, the response is half true and half false,” he said. “Say, I go outside my specialty of emergency medicine and ask it about a pediatric surgical procedure. It could give me a response that sounds medically correct, but then I ask a pediatric cardiologist, and he says, ‘We don’t even do this. This doesn’t even exist!’ Physicians really have to make sure they are vetting the information provided.”

In response to ChatGPT’s growing usage by health care professionals, hospitals and practices are quickly implementing guidelines, policies, and restrictions that caution physicians about the accuracy of ChatGPT-generated information, adds Mr. LeTang.

Emerging best practices include avoiding the input of patient health information, personally identifiable information, or any data that could be commercially valuable or considered the intellectual property of a hospital or health system, he said.

“Another crucial guideline is not to rely solely on ChatGPT as a definitive source for clinical decision-making; physicians must exercise their professional judgment,” he said. “If best practices are not adhered to, the associated risks are present today. However, these risks may become more significant as AI technologies continue to evolve and become increasingly integrated into health care.”

The potential for misdiagnosis by AI systems and the risk of unnecessary procedures if physicians do not thoroughly evaluate and validate AI predictions are other dangers.

As an example, Mr. LeTang described a case in which a physician documents in the EHR that a patient has presented to the emergency department with chest pains and other signs of a heart attack, and an AI algorithm predicts that the patient is experiencing an active myocardial infarction. If the physician then sends the patient for stenting or an angioplasty without other concrete evidence or tests to confirm the diagnosis, the doctor could later face a misdiagnosis complaint if the costly procedures were unnecessary.

“That’s one of the risks of using artificial intelligence,” he said. “A large percentage of malpractice claims is failure to diagnose, delayed diagnosis, or inaccurate diagnosis. What falls in the category of failure to diagnose is sending a patient for an unnecessary procedure or having an adverse event or bad outcome because of the failure to diagnose.”

So far, no AI lawsuits have been filed, but they may make an appearance soon, said Sue Boisvert, senior patient safety risk manager at The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer.

“There are hundreds of AI programs currently in use in health care,” she said. “At some point, a provider will make a decision that is contrary to what the AI recommended. The AI may be wrong, or the provider may be wrong. Either way, the provider will neglect to document their clinical reasoning, a patient will be harmed, and we will have the first AI claim.”
 

Upcoming AI legal risks to watch for

Lawsuits that allege biased patient care by physicians on the basis of algorithmic bias may also be forthcoming, analysts warn.

Much has been written about algorithmic bias that compounds and worsens inequities in socioeconomic status, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender in health systems. In 2019, a groundbreaking article in Science shed light on commonly used algorithms that are considered racially biased and how health care professionals often use such information to make medical decisions.

No claims involving AI bias have come down the pipeline yet, but it’s an area to watch, said Ms. Boisvert. She noted a website that highlights complaints and accusations of AI bias, including in health care.

“We need to be sure the training of the AI is appropriate, current, and broad enough so that there is no bias in the AI when it’s participating in the decision-making,” said Ms. Boisvert. “Imagine if the AI is diagnosing based on a dataset that is not local. It doesn’t represent the population at that particular hospital, and it’s providing inaccurate information to the physicians who are then making decisions about treatment.”

In pain management, for example, there are known differences in how patients experience pain, Ms. Boisvert said. If AI was being used to develop an algorithm for how a particular patient’s postoperative pain should be managed, and the algorithm did not include the differences, the pain control for a certain patient could be inappropriate. A poor outcome resulting from the treatment could lead to a claim against the physician or hospital that used the biased AI system, she said.

In the future, as AI becomes more integrated and accepted in medicine, there may be a risk of legal complaints against doctors for not using AI, said Saurabh Jha, MD, an associate professor of radiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and a scholar of AI in radiology.

“Ultimately, we might get to a place where AI starts helping physicians detect more or reduce the miss of certain conditions, and it becomes the standard of care,” Dr. Jha said. “For example, if it became part of the standard of care for pulmonary embolism [PE] detection, and you didn’t use it for PE detection, and there was a miss. That could put you at legal risk. We’re not at that stage yet, but that is one future possibility.”

Dr. Parikh envisions an even cloudier liability landscape as the potential grows for AI to control patient care decisions. In such a scenario, rather than just issuing an alert or prediction to a physician, the AI system could trigger an action.

For instance, if an algorithm is trained to predict sepsis and, once triggered, the AI could initiate a nurse-led rapid response or a change in patient care outside the clinician’s control, said Dr. Parikh, who coauthored a recent article on AI and medical liability in The Milbank Quarterly.

“That’s still very much the minority of how AI is being used, but as evidence is growing that AI-based diagnostic tools perform equivalent or even superior to physicians, these autonomous workflows are being considered,” Dr. Parikh said. “When the ultimate action upon the patient is more determined by the AI than what the clinician does, then I think the liability picture gets murkier, and we should be thinking about how we can respond to that from a liability framework.”
 

How you can prevent AI-related lawsuits

The first step to preventing an AI-related claim is being aware of when and how you are using AI.

Ensure you’re informed about how the AI was trained, Ms. Boisvert stresses.

“Ask questions!” she said. “Is the AI safe? Are the recommendations accurate? Does the AI perform better than current systems? In what way? What databases were used, and did the programmers consider bias? Do I understand how to use the results?”

Never blindly trust the AI but rather view it as a data point in a medical decision, said Dr. Parikh. Ensure that other sources of medical information are properly accessed and that best practices for your specialty are still being followed.

When using any form of AI, document your usage, adds Mr. Rashbaum. A record that clearly outlines how the physician incorporated the AI is critical if a claim later arises in which the doctor is accused of AI-related malpractice, he said.

“Indicating how the AI tool was used, why it was used, and that it was used in conjunction with available clinical information and the clinician’s best judgment could reduce the risk of being found responsible as a result of AI use in a particular case,” he said.

Use chatbots, such as ChatGPT, the way they were intended, as support tools, rather than definitive diagnostic instruments, adds Dr. Castro.

“Doctors should also be well-trained in interpreting and understanding the suggestions provided by ChatGPT and should use their clinical judgment and experience alongside the AI tool for more accurate decision-making,” he said.

In addition, because no AI insurance product exists on the market, physicians and organizations using AI – particularly for direct health care – should evaluate their current insurance or insurance-like products to determine where a claim involving AI might fall and whether the policy would respond, said Ms. Boisvert. The AI vendor/manufacturer will likely have indemnified themselves in the purchase and sale agreement or contract, she said.

It will also become increasingly important for medical practices, hospitals, and health systems to put in place strong data governance strategies, Mr. LeTang said.

“AI relies on good data,” he said. “A data governance strategy is a key component to making sure we understand where the data is coming from, what is represents, how accurate it is, if it’s reproducible, what controls are in place to ensure the right people have the right access, and that if we’re starting to use it to build algorithms, that it’s deidentified.”

While no malpractice claims associated with the use of AI have yet surfaced, this may change as legal courts catch up on the backlog of malpractice claims that were delayed because of COVID-19, and even more so as AI becomes more prevalent in health care, Mr. LeTang said.

“Similar to the attention that autonomous driving systems, like Tesla, receive when the system fails and accidents occur, we can be assured that media outlets will widely publicize AI-related medical adverse events,” he said. “It is crucial for health care professionals, AI developers, and regulatory authorities to work together to ensure the responsible use of AI in health care, with patient safety as the top priority. By doing so, they can mitigate the risks associated with AI implementation and minimize the potential for legal disputes arising from AI-related medical errors.”

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

The ways in which artificial intelligence (AI) may transform the future of medicine is making headlines across the globe. But chances are, you’re already using AI in your practice every day – you may just not realize it.
 

And whether you recognize the presence of AI or not, the technology could be putting you in danger of a lawsuit, legal experts say.

The use of AI in your daily practice can come with hidden liabilities, say legal experts, and as hospitals and medical groups deploy AI into more areas of health care, new liability exposures may be on the horizon.

“For physicians, AI has also not yet drastically changed or improved the way care is provided or consumed,” said Michael LeTang, chief nursing informatics officer and vice president of risk management and patient safety at Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group. “Consequently, it may seem like AI is not present in their work streams, but in reality, it has been utilized in health care for several years. As AI technologies continue to develop and become more sophisticated, we can expect them to play an increasingly significant role in health care.”

Today, most AI applications in health care use narrow AI, which is designed to complete a single task without human assistance, as opposed to artificial general intelligence (AGI), which pertains to human-level reasoning and problem solving across a broad spectrum. Here are some ways doctors are using AI throughout the day – sometimes being aware of its assistance, and sometimes being unaware:

• Many doctors use electronic health records (EHRs) with integrated AI that include computerized clinical decision support tools designed to reduce the risk of diagnostic error and to integrate decision-making in the medication ordering function.
• Cardiologists, pathologists, and dermatologists use AI in the interpretation of vast amounts of images, tracings, and complex patterns.
• Surgeons are using AI-enhanced surgical robotics for orthopedic surgeries, such as joint replacement and spine surgery.
• A growing number of doctors are using ChatGPT to assist in drafting prior authorization letters for insurers. Experts say more doctors are also experimenting with ChatGPT to support medical decision-making.
• Within oncology, physicians use machine learning techniques in the form of computer-aided detection systems for early breast cancer detection.
• AI algorithms are often used by health systems for workflow, staffing optimization, population management, and care coordination.
• Some systems within EHRs use AI to indicate high-risk patients.
• Physicians are using AI applications for the early recognition of sepsis, including EHR-integrated decision tools, such as the Hospital Corporation of America Healthcare’s Sepsis Prediction and Optimization Therapy and the Sepsis Early Risk Assessment algorithm.
• About 30% of radiologists use AI in their practice to analyze x-rays and CT scans.
• Epic Systems recently announced a partnership with Microsoft to integrate ChatGPT into MyChart, Epic’s patient portal system. Pilot hospitals will utilize ChatGPT to automatically generate responses to patient-generated questions sent via the portal.

The growth of AI in health care has been enormous, and it’s only going to continue, said Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor in the department of medical ethics and health policy and medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“What’s really critical is that physicians, clinicians, and nurses using AI are provided with the tools to understand how artificial intelligence works and, most importantly, understand that they are still accountable for making the ultimate decision,” Mr. LeTang said, “The information is not always going to be the right thing to do or the most accurate thing to do. They’re still liable for making a bad decision, even if AI is driving that.”
 

What are the top AI legal dangers of today?

A pressing legal risk is becoming too reliant on the suggestions that AI-based systems provide, which can lead to poor care decisions, said Kenneth Rashbaum, a New York–based cybersecurity attorney with more than 25 years of experience in medical malpractice defense.

This can occur, for example, when using clinical support systems that leverage AI, machine learning, or statistical pattern recognition. Today, clinical support systems are commonly administered through EHRs and other computerized clinical workflows. In general, such systems match a patient’s characteristics to a computerized clinical knowledge base. An assessment or recommendation is then presented to the physician for a decision.

“If the clinician blindly accepts it without considering whether it’s appropriate for this patient at this time with this presentation, the clinician may bear some responsibility if there is an untoward result,” Mr. Rashbaum said.

“A common claim even in the days before the EMR [electronic medical record] and AI, was that the clinician did not take all available information into account in rendering treatment, including history of past and present condition, as reflected in the records, communication with past and other present treating clinicians, lab and radiology results, discussions with the patient, and physical examination findings,” he said. “So, if the clinician relied upon the support prompt to the exclusion of these other sources of information, that could be a very strong argument for the plaintiff.”

Chatbots, such OpenAI’s ChatGPT, are another form of AI raising legal red flags. ChatGPT, trained on a massive set of text data, can carry out conversations, write code, draft emails, and answer any question posed. The chatbot has gained considerable credibility for accurately diagnosing rare conditions in seconds, and it recently passed the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination.

It’s unclear how many doctors are signing onto the ChatGPT website daily, but physicians are actively using the chatbot, particularly for assistance with prior authorization letters and to support decision-making processes in their practices, said Mr. LeTang.

When physicians ask ChatGPT a question, however, they should be mindful that ChatGPT could “hallucinate,” a term that refers to a generated response that sounds plausible but is factually incorrect or is unrelated to the context, explains Harvey Castro, MD, an emergency physician, ChatGPT health care expert, and author of the 2023 book “ChatGPT and Healthcare: Unlocking the Potential of Patient Empowerment.”

Acting on ChatGPT’s response without vetting the information places doctors at serious risk of a lawsuit, he said.

“Sometimes, the response is half true and half false,” he said. “Say, I go outside my specialty of emergency medicine and ask it about a pediatric surgical procedure. It could give me a response that sounds medically correct, but then I ask a pediatric cardiologist, and he says, ‘We don’t even do this. This doesn’t even exist!’ Physicians really have to make sure they are vetting the information provided.”

In response to ChatGPT’s growing usage by health care professionals, hospitals and practices are quickly implementing guidelines, policies, and restrictions that caution physicians about the accuracy of ChatGPT-generated information, adds Mr. LeTang.

Emerging best practices include avoiding the input of patient health information, personally identifiable information, or any data that could be commercially valuable or considered the intellectual property of a hospital or health system, he said.

“Another crucial guideline is not to rely solely on ChatGPT as a definitive source for clinical decision-making; physicians must exercise their professional judgment,” he said. “If best practices are not adhered to, the associated risks are present today. However, these risks may become more significant as AI technologies continue to evolve and become increasingly integrated into health care.”

The potential for misdiagnosis by AI systems and the risk of unnecessary procedures if physicians do not thoroughly evaluate and validate AI predictions are other dangers.

As an example, Mr. LeTang described a case in which a physician documents in the EHR that a patient has presented to the emergency department with chest pains and other signs of a heart attack, and an AI algorithm predicts that the patient is experiencing an active myocardial infarction. If the physician then sends the patient for stenting or an angioplasty without other concrete evidence or tests to confirm the diagnosis, the doctor could later face a misdiagnosis complaint if the costly procedures were unnecessary.

“That’s one of the risks of using artificial intelligence,” he said. “A large percentage of malpractice claims is failure to diagnose, delayed diagnosis, or inaccurate diagnosis. What falls in the category of failure to diagnose is sending a patient for an unnecessary procedure or having an adverse event or bad outcome because of the failure to diagnose.”

So far, no AI lawsuits have been filed, but they may make an appearance soon, said Sue Boisvert, senior patient safety risk manager at The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer.

“There are hundreds of AI programs currently in use in health care,” she said. “At some point, a provider will make a decision that is contrary to what the AI recommended. The AI may be wrong, or the provider may be wrong. Either way, the provider will neglect to document their clinical reasoning, a patient will be harmed, and we will have the first AI claim.”
 

Upcoming AI legal risks to watch for

Lawsuits that allege biased patient care by physicians on the basis of algorithmic bias may also be forthcoming, analysts warn.

Much has been written about algorithmic bias that compounds and worsens inequities in socioeconomic status, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender in health systems. In 2019, a groundbreaking article in Science shed light on commonly used algorithms that are considered racially biased and how health care professionals often use such information to make medical decisions.

No claims involving AI bias have come down the pipeline yet, but it’s an area to watch, said Ms. Boisvert. She noted a website that highlights complaints and accusations of AI bias, including in health care.

“We need to be sure the training of the AI is appropriate, current, and broad enough so that there is no bias in the AI when it’s participating in the decision-making,” said Ms. Boisvert. “Imagine if the AI is diagnosing based on a dataset that is not local. It doesn’t represent the population at that particular hospital, and it’s providing inaccurate information to the physicians who are then making decisions about treatment.”

In pain management, for example, there are known differences in how patients experience pain, Ms. Boisvert said. If AI was being used to develop an algorithm for how a particular patient’s postoperative pain should be managed, and the algorithm did not include the differences, the pain control for a certain patient could be inappropriate. A poor outcome resulting from the treatment could lead to a claim against the physician or hospital that used the biased AI system, she said.

In the future, as AI becomes more integrated and accepted in medicine, there may be a risk of legal complaints against doctors for not using AI, said Saurabh Jha, MD, an associate professor of radiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and a scholar of AI in radiology.

“Ultimately, we might get to a place where AI starts helping physicians detect more or reduce the miss of certain conditions, and it becomes the standard of care,” Dr. Jha said. “For example, if it became part of the standard of care for pulmonary embolism [PE] detection, and you didn’t use it for PE detection, and there was a miss. That could put you at legal risk. We’re not at that stage yet, but that is one future possibility.”

Dr. Parikh envisions an even cloudier liability landscape as the potential grows for AI to control patient care decisions. In such a scenario, rather than just issuing an alert or prediction to a physician, the AI system could trigger an action.

For instance, if an algorithm is trained to predict sepsis and, once triggered, the AI could initiate a nurse-led rapid response or a change in patient care outside the clinician’s control, said Dr. Parikh, who coauthored a recent article on AI and medical liability in The Milbank Quarterly.

“That’s still very much the minority of how AI is being used, but as evidence is growing that AI-based diagnostic tools perform equivalent or even superior to physicians, these autonomous workflows are being considered,” Dr. Parikh said. “When the ultimate action upon the patient is more determined by the AI than what the clinician does, then I think the liability picture gets murkier, and we should be thinking about how we can respond to that from a liability framework.”
 

How you can prevent AI-related lawsuits

The first step to preventing an AI-related claim is being aware of when and how you are using AI.

Ensure you’re informed about how the AI was trained, Ms. Boisvert stresses.

“Ask questions!” she said. “Is the AI safe? Are the recommendations accurate? Does the AI perform better than current systems? In what way? What databases were used, and did the programmers consider bias? Do I understand how to use the results?”

Never blindly trust the AI but rather view it as a data point in a medical decision, said Dr. Parikh. Ensure that other sources of medical information are properly accessed and that best practices for your specialty are still being followed.

When using any form of AI, document your usage, adds Mr. Rashbaum. A record that clearly outlines how the physician incorporated the AI is critical if a claim later arises in which the doctor is accused of AI-related malpractice, he said.

“Indicating how the AI tool was used, why it was used, and that it was used in conjunction with available clinical information and the clinician’s best judgment could reduce the risk of being found responsible as a result of AI use in a particular case,” he said.

Use chatbots, such as ChatGPT, the way they were intended, as support tools, rather than definitive diagnostic instruments, adds Dr. Castro.

“Doctors should also be well-trained in interpreting and understanding the suggestions provided by ChatGPT and should use their clinical judgment and experience alongside the AI tool for more accurate decision-making,” he said.

In addition, because no AI insurance product exists on the market, physicians and organizations using AI – particularly for direct health care – should evaluate their current insurance or insurance-like products to determine where a claim involving AI might fall and whether the policy would respond, said Ms. Boisvert. The AI vendor/manufacturer will likely have indemnified themselves in the purchase and sale agreement or contract, she said.

It will also become increasingly important for medical practices, hospitals, and health systems to put in place strong data governance strategies, Mr. LeTang said.

“AI relies on good data,” he said. “A data governance strategy is a key component to making sure we understand where the data is coming from, what is represents, how accurate it is, if it’s reproducible, what controls are in place to ensure the right people have the right access, and that if we’re starting to use it to build algorithms, that it’s deidentified.”

While no malpractice claims associated with the use of AI have yet surfaced, this may change as legal courts catch up on the backlog of malpractice claims that were delayed because of COVID-19, and even more so as AI becomes more prevalent in health care, Mr. LeTang said.

“Similar to the attention that autonomous driving systems, like Tesla, receive when the system fails and accidents occur, we can be assured that media outlets will widely publicize AI-related medical adverse events,” he said. “It is crucial for health care professionals, AI developers, and regulatory authorities to work together to ensure the responsible use of AI in health care, with patient safety as the top priority. By doing so, they can mitigate the risks associated with AI implementation and minimize the potential for legal disputes arising from AI-related medical errors.”

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

A blood biomarker that measures astrocyte reactivity may help determine who, among cognitively unimpaired older adults with amyloid-beta, will go on to develop Alzheimer’s disease (AD), new research suggests.

Investigators tested the blood of 1,000 cognitively healthy individuals with and without amyloid-beta pathology and found that only those with a combination of amyloid-beta burden and abnormal astrocyte activation subsequently progressed to AD.

“Our study argues that testing for the presence of brain amyloid along with blood biomarkers of astrocyte reactivity is the optimal screening to identify patients who are most at risk for progressing to Alzheimer’s disease,” senior investigator Tharick A. Pascoal, MD, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and neurology, University of Pittsburgh, said in a release.

At this point, the biomarker is a research tool, but its application in clinical practice “is not very far away,” Dr. Pascoal told this news organization.

The study was published online  in Nature Medicine.  
 

Multicenter study

In AD, accumulation of amyloid-beta in the brain precedes tau pathology, but not everyone with amyloid-beta develops tau, and, consequently, clinical symptoms. Approximately 30% of older adults have brain amyloid but many never progress to AD, said Dr. Pascoal.

This suggests other biological processes may trigger the deleterious effects of amyloid-beta in the early stages of AD.

Finding predictive markers of early amyloid-beta–related tau pathology would help identify cognitively normal individuals who are more likely to develop AD.

Post-mortem studies show astrocyte reactivity – changes in glial cells in the brain and spinal cord because of an insult in the brain – is an early AD abnormality. Other research suggests a close link between amyloid-beta, astrocyte reactivity, and tau.

In addition, evidence suggests plasma measures of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) could be a strong proxy of astrocyte reactivity in the brain. Dr. Pascoal explained that when astrocytes are changed or become bigger, more GFAP is released.

The study included 1,016 cognitively normal individuals from three centers; some had amyloid pathology, some did not. Participants’ mean age was 69.6 years, and all were deemed negative or positive for astrocyte reactivity based on plasma GFAP levels.

Results showed amyloid-beta is associated with increased plasma phosphorylated tau only in individuals positive for astrocyte reactivity. In addition, analyses using PET scans showed an AD-like pattern of tau tangle accumulation as a function of amyloid-beta exclusively in those same individuals.
 

Early upstream event

The findings suggest abnormalities in astrocyte reactivity is an early upstream event that likely occurs prior to tau pathology, which is closely related to the development of neurodegeneration and cognitive decline.

It’s likely many types of insults or processes can lead to astrocyte reactivity, possibly including COVID, but more research in this area is needed, said Dr. Pascoal.

“Our study only looked at the consequence of having both amyloid and astrocyte reactivity; it did not elucidate what is causing either of them,” he said.

Although “we were able to have very good results” in the current study, additional studies are needed to better establish the cut-off for GFAP levels that signal progression, said Dr. Pascoal.

The effect of astrocyte reactivity on the association between amyloid-beta and tau phosphorylation was greater in men than women. Dr. Pascoal noted anti-amyloid therapies, which might be modifying the amyloid-beta-astrocyte-tau pathway, tend to have a much larger effect in men than women.

Further studies that measure amyloid-beta, tau, and GFAP biomarkers at multiple timepoints, and with long follow-up, are needed, the investigators note.

The results may have implications for clinical trials, which have increasingly focused on individuals in the earliest preclinical phases of AD. Future studies should include cognitively normal patients who are positive for both amyloid pathology and astrocyte reactivity but have no overt p-tau abnormality, said Dr. Pascoal.

This may provide a time window for interventions very early in the disease process in those at increased risk for AD-related progression.

The study did not determine whether participants with both amyloid and astrocyte reactivity will inevitably develop AD, and to do so would require a longer follow up. “Our outcome was correlation to tau in the brain, which is something we know will lead to AD.”

Although the cohort represents significant socioeconomic diversity, a main limitation of the study was that subjects were mainly White, which limits the generalizability of the findings to a more diverse population.

The study received support from the National Institute of Aging; National Heart Lung and Blood Institute; Alzheimer’s Association; Fonds de Recherche du Québec-Santé; Canadian Consortium of Neurodegeneration in Aging; Weston Brain Institute; Colin Adair Charitable Foundation; Swedish Research Council; Wallenberg Scholar; BrightFocus Foundation; Swedish Alzheimer Foundation; Swedish Brain Foundation; Agneta Prytz-Folkes & Gösta Folkes Foundation; European Union; Swedish State Support for Clinical Research; Alzheimer Drug Discovery Foundation; Bluefield Project, the Olav Thon Foundation, the Erling-Persson Family Foundation, Stiftelsen för Gamla Tjänarinnor, Hjärnfonden, Sweden; the UK Dementia Research Institute at UCL; National Academy of Neuropsychology; Fundação de Amparo a pesquisa do Rio Grande do Sul; Instituto Serrapilheira; and Hjärnfonden.

Dr. Pascoal reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

A blood biomarker that measures astrocyte reactivity may help determine who, among cognitively unimpaired older adults with amyloid-beta, will go on to develop Alzheimer’s disease (AD), new research suggests.

Investigators tested the blood of 1,000 cognitively healthy individuals with and without amyloid-beta pathology and found that only those with a combination of amyloid-beta burden and abnormal astrocyte activation subsequently progressed to AD.

“Our study argues that testing for the presence of brain amyloid along with blood biomarkers of astrocyte reactivity is the optimal screening to identify patients who are most at risk for progressing to Alzheimer’s disease,” senior investigator Tharick A. Pascoal, MD, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and neurology, University of Pittsburgh, said in a release.

At this point, the biomarker is a research tool, but its application in clinical practice “is not very far away,” Dr. Pascoal told this news organization.

The study was published online  in Nature Medicine.  
 

Multicenter study

In AD, accumulation of amyloid-beta in the brain precedes tau pathology, but not everyone with amyloid-beta develops tau, and, consequently, clinical symptoms. Approximately 30% of older adults have brain amyloid but many never progress to AD, said Dr. Pascoal.

This suggests other biological processes may trigger the deleterious effects of amyloid-beta in the early stages of AD.

Finding predictive markers of early amyloid-beta–related tau pathology would help identify cognitively normal individuals who are more likely to develop AD.

Post-mortem studies show astrocyte reactivity – changes in glial cells in the brain and spinal cord because of an insult in the brain – is an early AD abnormality. Other research suggests a close link between amyloid-beta, astrocyte reactivity, and tau.

In addition, evidence suggests plasma measures of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) could be a strong proxy of astrocyte reactivity in the brain. Dr. Pascoal explained that when astrocytes are changed or become bigger, more GFAP is released.

The study included 1,016 cognitively normal individuals from three centers; some had amyloid pathology, some did not. Participants’ mean age was 69.6 years, and all were deemed negative or positive for astrocyte reactivity based on plasma GFAP levels.

Results showed amyloid-beta is associated with increased plasma phosphorylated tau only in individuals positive for astrocyte reactivity. In addition, analyses using PET scans showed an AD-like pattern of tau tangle accumulation as a function of amyloid-beta exclusively in those same individuals.
 

Early upstream event

The findings suggest abnormalities in astrocyte reactivity is an early upstream event that likely occurs prior to tau pathology, which is closely related to the development of neurodegeneration and cognitive decline.

It’s likely many types of insults or processes can lead to astrocyte reactivity, possibly including COVID, but more research in this area is needed, said Dr. Pascoal.

“Our study only looked at the consequence of having both amyloid and astrocyte reactivity; it did not elucidate what is causing either of them,” he said.

Although “we were able to have very good results” in the current study, additional studies are needed to better establish the cut-off for GFAP levels that signal progression, said Dr. Pascoal.

The effect of astrocyte reactivity on the association between amyloid-beta and tau phosphorylation was greater in men than women. Dr. Pascoal noted anti-amyloid therapies, which might be modifying the amyloid-beta-astrocyte-tau pathway, tend to have a much larger effect in men than women.

Further studies that measure amyloid-beta, tau, and GFAP biomarkers at multiple timepoints, and with long follow-up, are needed, the investigators note.

The results may have implications for clinical trials, which have increasingly focused on individuals in the earliest preclinical phases of AD. Future studies should include cognitively normal patients who are positive for both amyloid pathology and astrocyte reactivity but have no overt p-tau abnormality, said Dr. Pascoal.

This may provide a time window for interventions very early in the disease process in those at increased risk for AD-related progression.

The study did not determine whether participants with both amyloid and astrocyte reactivity will inevitably develop AD, and to do so would require a longer follow up. “Our outcome was correlation to tau in the brain, which is something we know will lead to AD.”

Although the cohort represents significant socioeconomic diversity, a main limitation of the study was that subjects were mainly White, which limits the generalizability of the findings to a more diverse population.

The study received support from the National Institute of Aging; National Heart Lung and Blood Institute; Alzheimer’s Association; Fonds de Recherche du Québec-Santé; Canadian Consortium of Neurodegeneration in Aging; Weston Brain Institute; Colin Adair Charitable Foundation; Swedish Research Council; Wallenberg Scholar; BrightFocus Foundation; Swedish Alzheimer Foundation; Swedish Brain Foundation; Agneta Prytz-Folkes & Gösta Folkes Foundation; European Union; Swedish State Support for Clinical Research; Alzheimer Drug Discovery Foundation; Bluefield Project, the Olav Thon Foundation, the Erling-Persson Family Foundation, Stiftelsen för Gamla Tjänarinnor, Hjärnfonden, Sweden; the UK Dementia Research Institute at UCL; National Academy of Neuropsychology; Fundação de Amparo a pesquisa do Rio Grande do Sul; Instituto Serrapilheira; and Hjärnfonden.

Dr. Pascoal reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

A blood biomarker that measures astrocyte reactivity may help determine who, among cognitively unimpaired older adults with amyloid-beta, will go on to develop Alzheimer’s disease (AD), new research suggests.

Investigators tested the blood of 1,000 cognitively healthy individuals with and without amyloid-beta pathology and found that only those with a combination of amyloid-beta burden and abnormal astrocyte activation subsequently progressed to AD.

“Our study argues that testing for the presence of brain amyloid along with blood biomarkers of astrocyte reactivity is the optimal screening to identify patients who are most at risk for progressing to Alzheimer’s disease,” senior investigator Tharick A. Pascoal, MD, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and neurology, University of Pittsburgh, said in a release.

At this point, the biomarker is a research tool, but its application in clinical practice “is not very far away,” Dr. Pascoal told this news organization.

The study was published online  in Nature Medicine.  
 

Multicenter study

In AD, accumulation of amyloid-beta in the brain precedes tau pathology, but not everyone with amyloid-beta develops tau, and, consequently, clinical symptoms. Approximately 30% of older adults have brain amyloid but many never progress to AD, said Dr. Pascoal.

This suggests other biological processes may trigger the deleterious effects of amyloid-beta in the early stages of AD.

Finding predictive markers of early amyloid-beta–related tau pathology would help identify cognitively normal individuals who are more likely to develop AD.

Post-mortem studies show astrocyte reactivity – changes in glial cells in the brain and spinal cord because of an insult in the brain – is an early AD abnormality. Other research suggests a close link between amyloid-beta, astrocyte reactivity, and tau.

In addition, evidence suggests plasma measures of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) could be a strong proxy of astrocyte reactivity in the brain. Dr. Pascoal explained that when astrocytes are changed or become bigger, more GFAP is released.

The study included 1,016 cognitively normal individuals from three centers; some had amyloid pathology, some did not. Participants’ mean age was 69.6 years, and all were deemed negative or positive for astrocyte reactivity based on plasma GFAP levels.

Results showed amyloid-beta is associated with increased plasma phosphorylated tau only in individuals positive for astrocyte reactivity. In addition, analyses using PET scans showed an AD-like pattern of tau tangle accumulation as a function of amyloid-beta exclusively in those same individuals.
 

Early upstream event

The findings suggest abnormalities in astrocyte reactivity is an early upstream event that likely occurs prior to tau pathology, which is closely related to the development of neurodegeneration and cognitive decline.

It’s likely many types of insults or processes can lead to astrocyte reactivity, possibly including COVID, but more research in this area is needed, said Dr. Pascoal.

“Our study only looked at the consequence of having both amyloid and astrocyte reactivity; it did not elucidate what is causing either of them,” he said.

Although “we were able to have very good results” in the current study, additional studies are needed to better establish the cut-off for GFAP levels that signal progression, said Dr. Pascoal.

The effect of astrocyte reactivity on the association between amyloid-beta and tau phosphorylation was greater in men than women. Dr. Pascoal noted anti-amyloid therapies, which might be modifying the amyloid-beta-astrocyte-tau pathway, tend to have a much larger effect in men than women.

Further studies that measure amyloid-beta, tau, and GFAP biomarkers at multiple timepoints, and with long follow-up, are needed, the investigators note.

The results may have implications for clinical trials, which have increasingly focused on individuals in the earliest preclinical phases of AD. Future studies should include cognitively normal patients who are positive for both amyloid pathology and astrocyte reactivity but have no overt p-tau abnormality, said Dr. Pascoal.

This may provide a time window for interventions very early in the disease process in those at increased risk for AD-related progression.

The study did not determine whether participants with both amyloid and astrocyte reactivity will inevitably develop AD, and to do so would require a longer follow up. “Our outcome was correlation to tau in the brain, which is something we know will lead to AD.”

Although the cohort represents significant socioeconomic diversity, a main limitation of the study was that subjects were mainly White, which limits the generalizability of the findings to a more diverse population.

The study received support from the National Institute of Aging; National Heart Lung and Blood Institute; Alzheimer’s Association; Fonds de Recherche du Québec-Santé; Canadian Consortium of Neurodegeneration in Aging; Weston Brain Institute; Colin Adair Charitable Foundation; Swedish Research Council; Wallenberg Scholar; BrightFocus Foundation; Swedish Alzheimer Foundation; Swedish Brain Foundation; Agneta Prytz-Folkes & Gösta Folkes Foundation; European Union; Swedish State Support for Clinical Research; Alzheimer Drug Discovery Foundation; Bluefield Project, the Olav Thon Foundation, the Erling-Persson Family Foundation, Stiftelsen för Gamla Tjänarinnor, Hjärnfonden, Sweden; the UK Dementia Research Institute at UCL; National Academy of Neuropsychology; Fundação de Amparo a pesquisa do Rio Grande do Sul; Instituto Serrapilheira; and Hjärnfonden.

Dr. Pascoal reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sowing the seeds of cancer prevention

Are you looking to add to your quality of life, even though pets are not your speed? Might we suggest something with lower maintenance? Something a little greener?

Indoor plants can purify the air that comes from outside. Researchers at the University of Technology Sydney, in partnership with the plantscaping company Ambius, showed that a “green wall” made up of mixed indoor plants was able to suck up 97% of “the most toxic compounds” from the air in just 8 hours. We’re talking about lung-irritating, headache-inducing, cancer risk–boosting compounds from gasoline fumes, including benzene.

Fraser Torpy/University of Technology Sydney

Public health initiatives often strive to reduce cardiovascular and obesity risks, but breathing seems pretty important too. According to the World Health Organization, household air pollution is responsible for about 2.5 million global premature deaths each year. And since 2020 we’ve become accustomed to spending more time inside and at home.

“This new research proves that plants should not just be seen as ‘nice to have,’ but rather a crucial part of every workplace wellness plan,” Ambius General Manager Johan Hodgson said in statement released by the university.

So don’t spend hundreds of dollars on a fancy air filtration system when a wall of plants can do that for next to nothing. Find what works for you and your space and become a plant parent today! Your lungs will thank you.
 

But officer, I had to swerve to miss the duodenal ampulla

Tiny video capsule endoscopes have been around for many years, but they have one big weakness: The ingestible cameras’ journey through the GI tract is passively driven by gravity and the natural movement of the body, so they often miss potential problem areas.

AnX Robotica

Not anymore. That flaw has been addressed by medical technology company AnX Robotica, which has taken endoscopy to the next level by adding that wondrous directional control device of the modern electronic age, a joystick.

The new system “uses an external magnet and hand-held video game style joysticks to move the capsule in three dimensions,” which allows physicians to “remotely drive a miniature video capsule to all regions of the stomach to visualize and photograph potential problem areas,” according to Andrew C. Meltzer, MD, of George Washington University and associates, who conducted a pilot study funded by AnX Robotica.

The video capsule provided a 95% rate of visualization in the stomachs of 40 patients who were examined at a medical office building by an emergency medicine physician who had no previous specialty training in endoscopy. “Capsules were driven by the ER physician and then the study reports were reviewed by an attending gastroenterologist who was physically off site,” the investigators said in a written statement.

The capsule operator did receive some additional training, and development of artificial intelligence to self-drive the capsule is in the works, but for now, we’re talking about a device controlled by a human using a joystick. And we all know that 50-year-olds are not especially known for their joystick skills. For that we need real experts. Yup, we need to put those joystick-controlled capsule endoscopes in the hands of teenage gamers. Who wants to go first?
 

Maybe AI isn’t ready for the big time after all

“How long before some intrepid stockholder says: ‘Hey, instead of paying doctors, why don’t we just use the free robot instead?’ ” Those words appeared on LOTME but a month ago. After all, the AI is supposed to be smarter and more empathetic than a doctor. And did we mention it’s free? Or at least extremely cheap. Cheaper than, say, a group of recently unionized health care workers.

maewjpho/Thinkstock

In early May, the paid employees manning the National Eating Disorders Association emergency hotline voted to unionize, as they felt overwhelmed and underpaid. Apparently, paying six people an extra few thousand a year was too much for NEDA’s leadership, as they decided a few weeks later to fire those workers, fully closing down the hotline. Instead of talking to a real person, people “calling in” for support would be met with Tessa, a wellness chatbot that would hopefully guide them through their crisis. Key word, hopefully.

In perhaps the least surprising twist of the year, NEDA was forced to walk back its decision about a week after its initial announcement. It all started with a viral Instagram post from a woman who called in and received the following advice from Tessa: Lose 1-2 pounds a week, count calories and work for a 500- to 1,000-calorie deficit, weigh herself weekly, and restrict her diet. Unfortunately, all of these suggestions were things that led to the development of the woman’s eating disorder.

Naturally, NEDA responded in good grace, accusing the woman of lying. A NEDA vice president even left some nasty comments on the post, but hastily deleted them a day later when NEDA announced it was shutting down Tessa “until further notice for a complete investigation.” NEDA’s CEO insisted they hadn’t seen that behavior from Tessa before, calling it a “bug” and insisting the bot would only be down temporarily until the triggers causing the bug were fixed.

In the aftermath, several doctors and psychologists chimed in, terming the rush to automate human roles dangerous and risky. After all, much of what makes these hotlines effective is the volunteers speaking from their own experience. An unsupervised bot doesn’t seem to have what it takes to deal with a mental health crisis, but we’re betting that Tessa will be back. As a wise cephalopod once said: Nobody gives a care about the fate of labor as long as they can get their instant gratification.
 

You can’t spell existential without s-t-e-n-t

This week, we’re including a special “bonus” item that, to be honest, has nothing to do with stents. That’s why our editor is making us call this a “bonus” (and making us use quote marks, too): It doesn’t really have anything to do with stents or health care or those who practice health care. Actually, his exact words were, “You can’t just give the readers someone else’s ****ing list and expect to get paid for it.” Did we mention that he looks like Jack Nicklaus but acts like BoJack Horseman?

Anywaaay, we’re pretty sure that the list in question – “America’s Top 10 Most Googled Existential Questions” – says something about the human condition, just not about stents:

1. Why is the sky blue?

2. What do dreams mean?

3. What is the meaning of life?

4. Why am I so tired?

5. Who am I?

6. What is love?

7. Is a hot dog a sandwich?

8. What came first, the chicken or the egg?

9. What should I do?

10. Do animals have souls?

Sowing the seeds of cancer prevention

Are you looking to add to your quality of life, even though pets are not your speed? Might we suggest something with lower maintenance? Something a little greener?

Indoor plants can purify the air that comes from outside. Researchers at the University of Technology Sydney, in partnership with the plantscaping company Ambius, showed that a “green wall” made up of mixed indoor plants was able to suck up 97% of “the most toxic compounds” from the air in just 8 hours. We’re talking about lung-irritating, headache-inducing, cancer risk–boosting compounds from gasoline fumes, including benzene.

Fraser Torpy/University of Technology Sydney

Public health initiatives often strive to reduce cardiovascular and obesity risks, but breathing seems pretty important too. According to the World Health Organization, household air pollution is responsible for about 2.5 million global premature deaths each year. And since 2020 we’ve become accustomed to spending more time inside and at home.

“This new research proves that plants should not just be seen as ‘nice to have,’ but rather a crucial part of every workplace wellness plan,” Ambius General Manager Johan Hodgson said in statement released by the university.

So don’t spend hundreds of dollars on a fancy air filtration system when a wall of plants can do that for next to nothing. Find what works for you and your space and become a plant parent today! Your lungs will thank you.
 

But officer, I had to swerve to miss the duodenal ampulla

Tiny video capsule endoscopes have been around for many years, but they have one big weakness: The ingestible cameras’ journey through the GI tract is passively driven by gravity and the natural movement of the body, so they often miss potential problem areas.

AnX Robotica

Not anymore. That flaw has been addressed by medical technology company AnX Robotica, which has taken endoscopy to the next level by adding that wondrous directional control device of the modern electronic age, a joystick.

The new system “uses an external magnet and hand-held video game style joysticks to move the capsule in three dimensions,” which allows physicians to “remotely drive a miniature video capsule to all regions of the stomach to visualize and photograph potential problem areas,” according to Andrew C. Meltzer, MD, of George Washington University and associates, who conducted a pilot study funded by AnX Robotica.

The video capsule provided a 95% rate of visualization in the stomachs of 40 patients who were examined at a medical office building by an emergency medicine physician who had no previous specialty training in endoscopy. “Capsules were driven by the ER physician and then the study reports were reviewed by an attending gastroenterologist who was physically off site,” the investigators said in a written statement.

The capsule operator did receive some additional training, and development of artificial intelligence to self-drive the capsule is in the works, but for now, we’re talking about a device controlled by a human using a joystick. And we all know that 50-year-olds are not especially known for their joystick skills. For that we need real experts. Yup, we need to put those joystick-controlled capsule endoscopes in the hands of teenage gamers. Who wants to go first?
 

Maybe AI isn’t ready for the big time after all

“How long before some intrepid stockholder says: ‘Hey, instead of paying doctors, why don’t we just use the free robot instead?’ ” Those words appeared on LOTME but a month ago. After all, the AI is supposed to be smarter and more empathetic than a doctor. And did we mention it’s free? Or at least extremely cheap. Cheaper than, say, a group of recently unionized health care workers.

maewjpho/Thinkstock

In early May, the paid employees manning the National Eating Disorders Association emergency hotline voted to unionize, as they felt overwhelmed and underpaid. Apparently, paying six people an extra few thousand a year was too much for NEDA’s leadership, as they decided a few weeks later to fire those workers, fully closing down the hotline. Instead of talking to a real person, people “calling in” for support would be met with Tessa, a wellness chatbot that would hopefully guide them through their crisis. Key word, hopefully.

In perhaps the least surprising twist of the year, NEDA was forced to walk back its decision about a week after its initial announcement. It all started with a viral Instagram post from a woman who called in and received the following advice from Tessa: Lose 1-2 pounds a week, count calories and work for a 500- to 1,000-calorie deficit, weigh herself weekly, and restrict her diet. Unfortunately, all of these suggestions were things that led to the development of the woman’s eating disorder.

Naturally, NEDA responded in good grace, accusing the woman of lying. A NEDA vice president even left some nasty comments on the post, but hastily deleted them a day later when NEDA announced it was shutting down Tessa “until further notice for a complete investigation.” NEDA’s CEO insisted they hadn’t seen that behavior from Tessa before, calling it a “bug” and insisting the bot would only be down temporarily until the triggers causing the bug were fixed.

In the aftermath, several doctors and psychologists chimed in, terming the rush to automate human roles dangerous and risky. After all, much of what makes these hotlines effective is the volunteers speaking from their own experience. An unsupervised bot doesn’t seem to have what it takes to deal with a mental health crisis, but we’re betting that Tessa will be back. As a wise cephalopod once said: Nobody gives a care about the fate of labor as long as they can get their instant gratification.
 

You can’t spell existential without s-t-e-n-t

This week, we’re including a special “bonus” item that, to be honest, has nothing to do with stents. That’s why our editor is making us call this a “bonus” (and making us use quote marks, too): It doesn’t really have anything to do with stents or health care or those who practice health care. Actually, his exact words were, “You can’t just give the readers someone else’s ****ing list and expect to get paid for it.” Did we mention that he looks like Jack Nicklaus but acts like BoJack Horseman?

Anywaaay, we’re pretty sure that the list in question – “America’s Top 10 Most Googled Existential Questions” – says something about the human condition, just not about stents:

1. Why is the sky blue?

2. What do dreams mean?

3. What is the meaning of life?

4. Why am I so tired?

5. Who am I?

6. What is love?

7. Is a hot dog a sandwich?

8. What came first, the chicken or the egg?

9. What should I do?

10. Do animals have souls?

Sowing the seeds of cancer prevention

Are you looking to add to your quality of life, even though pets are not your speed? Might we suggest something with lower maintenance? Something a little greener?

Indoor plants can purify the air that comes from outside. Researchers at the University of Technology Sydney, in partnership with the plantscaping company Ambius, showed that a “green wall” made up of mixed indoor plants was able to suck up 97% of “the most toxic compounds” from the air in just 8 hours. We’re talking about lung-irritating, headache-inducing, cancer risk–boosting compounds from gasoline fumes, including benzene.

Fraser Torpy/University of Technology Sydney

Public health initiatives often strive to reduce cardiovascular and obesity risks, but breathing seems pretty important too. According to the World Health Organization, household air pollution is responsible for about 2.5 million global premature deaths each year. And since 2020 we’ve become accustomed to spending more time inside and at home.

“This new research proves that plants should not just be seen as ‘nice to have,’ but rather a crucial part of every workplace wellness plan,” Ambius General Manager Johan Hodgson said in statement released by the university.

So don’t spend hundreds of dollars on a fancy air filtration system when a wall of plants can do that for next to nothing. Find what works for you and your space and become a plant parent today! Your lungs will thank you.
 

But officer, I had to swerve to miss the duodenal ampulla

Tiny video capsule endoscopes have been around for many years, but they have one big weakness: The ingestible cameras’ journey through the GI tract is passively driven by gravity and the natural movement of the body, so they often miss potential problem areas.

AnX Robotica

Not anymore. That flaw has been addressed by medical technology company AnX Robotica, which has taken endoscopy to the next level by adding that wondrous directional control device of the modern electronic age, a joystick.

The new system “uses an external magnet and hand-held video game style joysticks to move the capsule in three dimensions,” which allows physicians to “remotely drive a miniature video capsule to all regions of the stomach to visualize and photograph potential problem areas,” according to Andrew C. Meltzer, MD, of George Washington University and associates, who conducted a pilot study funded by AnX Robotica.

The video capsule provided a 95% rate of visualization in the stomachs of 40 patients who were examined at a medical office building by an emergency medicine physician who had no previous specialty training in endoscopy. “Capsules were driven by the ER physician and then the study reports were reviewed by an attending gastroenterologist who was physically off site,” the investigators said in a written statement.

The capsule operator did receive some additional training, and development of artificial intelligence to self-drive the capsule is in the works, but for now, we’re talking about a device controlled by a human using a joystick. And we all know that 50-year-olds are not especially known for their joystick skills. For that we need real experts. Yup, we need to put those joystick-controlled capsule endoscopes in the hands of teenage gamers. Who wants to go first?
 

Maybe AI isn’t ready for the big time after all

“How long before some intrepid stockholder says: ‘Hey, instead of paying doctors, why don’t we just use the free robot instead?’ ” Those words appeared on LOTME but a month ago. After all, the AI is supposed to be smarter and more empathetic than a doctor. And did we mention it’s free? Or at least extremely cheap. Cheaper than, say, a group of recently unionized health care workers.

maewjpho/Thinkstock

In early May, the paid employees manning the National Eating Disorders Association emergency hotline voted to unionize, as they felt overwhelmed and underpaid. Apparently, paying six people an extra few thousand a year was too much for NEDA’s leadership, as they decided a few weeks later to fire those workers, fully closing down the hotline. Instead of talking to a real person, people “calling in” for support would be met with Tessa, a wellness chatbot that would hopefully guide them through their crisis. Key word, hopefully.

In perhaps the least surprising twist of the year, NEDA was forced to walk back its decision about a week after its initial announcement. It all started with a viral Instagram post from a woman who called in and received the following advice from Tessa: Lose 1-2 pounds a week, count calories and work for a 500- to 1,000-calorie deficit, weigh herself weekly, and restrict her diet. Unfortunately, all of these suggestions were things that led to the development of the woman’s eating disorder.

Naturally, NEDA responded in good grace, accusing the woman of lying. A NEDA vice president even left some nasty comments on the post, but hastily deleted them a day later when NEDA announced it was shutting down Tessa “until further notice for a complete investigation.” NEDA’s CEO insisted they hadn’t seen that behavior from Tessa before, calling it a “bug” and insisting the bot would only be down temporarily until the triggers causing the bug were fixed.

In the aftermath, several doctors and psychologists chimed in, terming the rush to automate human roles dangerous and risky. After all, much of what makes these hotlines effective is the volunteers speaking from their own experience. An unsupervised bot doesn’t seem to have what it takes to deal with a mental health crisis, but we’re betting that Tessa will be back. As a wise cephalopod once said: Nobody gives a care about the fate of labor as long as they can get their instant gratification.
 

You can’t spell existential without s-t-e-n-t

This week, we’re including a special “bonus” item that, to be honest, has nothing to do with stents. That’s why our editor is making us call this a “bonus” (and making us use quote marks, too): It doesn’t really have anything to do with stents or health care or those who practice health care. Actually, his exact words were, “You can’t just give the readers someone else’s ****ing list and expect to get paid for it.” Did we mention that he looks like Jack Nicklaus but acts like BoJack Horseman?

Anywaaay, we’re pretty sure that the list in question – “America’s Top 10 Most Googled Existential Questions” – says something about the human condition, just not about stents:

1. Why is the sky blue?

2. What do dreams mean?

3. What is the meaning of life?

4. Why am I so tired?

5. Who am I?

6. What is love?

7. Is a hot dog a sandwich?

8. What came first, the chicken or the egg?

9. What should I do?

10. Do animals have souls?

Milan – Clinical trial and registry data comparisons between patients with rheumatoid arthritis who take Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) such as tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) continue to contribute to a better understanding of their efficacy and cardiovascular safety profile, based on presentations given at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Tofacitinib vs. TNFi efficacy with or without history of atherosclerotic CVD

The efficacy of tofacitinib appears to be at least as good as TNFi, regardless of the presence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and baseline cardiovascular risk, according to a post hoc analysis of the ORAL Surveillance study presented by Maya Buch, MD, PhD, of NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre and University of Manchester, England. ORAL Surveillance was a randomized, open-label, postmarketing safety study sponsored by Pfizer. The study enrolled patients aged 50 or older, with one or more additional CV risk factors, and with active disease despite methotrexate treatment. The cohort included patients treated with the tofacitinib at two different doses (5 mg or 10 mg daily) or TNFi.

Given that a prior “post hoc analysis showed differences in the risk of major adverse CV events (MACE) with tofacitinib versus TNFi, depending on the personal history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Buch and coauthors aimed to further characterize the benefit/risk profile of tofacitinib by evaluating its efficacy, compared with TNFi, in patients with a history of ASCVD and baseline CV risk. Out of the 4,362 patients, 640 (14.7%) had a positive history of ASCVD, while 3,722 (85.3%) did not. For the latter group, the 10-year risk of ASCVD was calculated at baseline, which was high (≥ 20%) in 22.5% and intermediate (≥ 7.5% to < 20%) in 39.4%.

The analysis demonstrated that in patients without a history of ASCVD, the odds of achieving either remission (Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI] ≤ 2.8) or low disease activity (CDAI ≤ 10) were greater with tofacitinib vs. TNFi. With a history of ASCVD, the likelihood of achieving remission or low disease activity (LDA) was not statistically different between tofacitinib and TNFi. Patients with high or intermediate CV risk scores tended to be more likely to reach remission or LDA with tofacitinib vs. TNFi.

Dr. Buch emphasized that selecting the right therapy for each patient requires careful consideration of potential benefits and risks by the rheumatologist, taking into account individual patient history. “Stratification by baseline risk of CV events may help ensure appropriate and effective use of tofacitinib in patients with RA,” she concluded.

Kim Lauper, MD, of the division of rheumatology at Geneva University Hospitals, who was not involved in the study, commented on the importance of this data: “These findings are important because we currently lack information on how the presence of CV comorbidities can impact the efficacy of RA drugs.”
 

A real-world perspective

MACE occurred at similar rates between JAKi and TNFi, as well as for biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) with other modes of action (OMA) vs. TNFi, in the JAK-Pot study, an international collaboration of RA registries, reported Romain Aymon, of Geneva University Hospitals. But a subanalysis of JAK-Pot in patients resembling the population in the ORAL Surveillance trial found that the incidence of MACE was higher in each treatment group, compared with the overall population. However, no significant difference was found between JAKi vs. TNFi and OMA vs. TNFi.

Mr. Aymon said that the analysis is still ongoing, with additional registries being included.

Dr. Lauper, who is the principal investigator of the study presented by Mr. Aymon, noted that “the absence of a difference in MACE risk in the population resembling the ORAL Surveillance study is in contrast with the results from the ORAL Surveillance itself. This may be due to differences in the populations, with the ORAL Surveillance study having a more selected set of patients.”
 

The Dutch perspective

In line with the findings from the JAK-Pot study, a retrospective inception cohort study conducted on a Dutch RA population also revealed no difference in the incidence of cardiovascular events between JAKi starters and bDMARD starters, according to Merel Opdam, MSc, of Sint Maartenskliniek in Ubbergen, the Netherlands, who reported the findings at the meeting. Two subanalyses of the cohort study, funded by Pfizer, also did not show any difference between tofacitinib and baricitinib (Olumiant), compared with DMARDs, or in patients above 65 years of age. The analysis was conducted on 15,191 patients with RA who were initiating treatment with a JAKi or a new bDMARD, selected from IQVIA’s Dutch Real-World Data Longitudinal Prescription database, which covers approximately 63% of outpatient prescriptions in the Netherlands.

“Not all DMARDs have similar effects on cardiovascular outcomes, and observational studies can contribute to understanding the cardiovascular risks associated with JAKi,” Ms. Opdam said.

“Real-world data holds significant importance as it provides insights into a broader spectrum of patients and reflects the actual clinical practice where treatment decisions are tailored to individual patient needs,” commented Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, of the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin, and Charité University Medicine Berlin. She said that registries have a pivotal role in this regard.

Dr. Buch reports serving on a speakers bureau for AbbVie; serving as a consultant to AbbVie, CESAS Medical, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, and Pfizer; and receiving grant/research support from Gilead, Pfizer, and UCB. Mr. Aymon and Ms. Opdam report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Milan – Clinical trial and registry data comparisons between patients with rheumatoid arthritis who take Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) such as tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) continue to contribute to a better understanding of their efficacy and cardiovascular safety profile, based on presentations given at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Tofacitinib vs. TNFi efficacy with or without history of atherosclerotic CVD

The efficacy of tofacitinib appears to be at least as good as TNFi, regardless of the presence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and baseline cardiovascular risk, according to a post hoc analysis of the ORAL Surveillance study presented by Maya Buch, MD, PhD, of NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre and University of Manchester, England. ORAL Surveillance was a randomized, open-label, postmarketing safety study sponsored by Pfizer. The study enrolled patients aged 50 or older, with one or more additional CV risk factors, and with active disease despite methotrexate treatment. The cohort included patients treated with the tofacitinib at two different doses (5 mg or 10 mg daily) or TNFi.

Given that a prior “post hoc analysis showed differences in the risk of major adverse CV events (MACE) with tofacitinib versus TNFi, depending on the personal history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Buch and coauthors aimed to further characterize the benefit/risk profile of tofacitinib by evaluating its efficacy, compared with TNFi, in patients with a history of ASCVD and baseline CV risk. Out of the 4,362 patients, 640 (14.7%) had a positive history of ASCVD, while 3,722 (85.3%) did not. For the latter group, the 10-year risk of ASCVD was calculated at baseline, which was high (≥ 20%) in 22.5% and intermediate (≥ 7.5% to < 20%) in 39.4%.

The analysis demonstrated that in patients without a history of ASCVD, the odds of achieving either remission (Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI] ≤ 2.8) or low disease activity (CDAI ≤ 10) were greater with tofacitinib vs. TNFi. With a history of ASCVD, the likelihood of achieving remission or low disease activity (LDA) was not statistically different between tofacitinib and TNFi. Patients with high or intermediate CV risk scores tended to be more likely to reach remission or LDA with tofacitinib vs. TNFi.

Dr. Buch emphasized that selecting the right therapy for each patient requires careful consideration of potential benefits and risks by the rheumatologist, taking into account individual patient history. “Stratification by baseline risk of CV events may help ensure appropriate and effective use of tofacitinib in patients with RA,” she concluded.

Kim Lauper, MD, of the division of rheumatology at Geneva University Hospitals, who was not involved in the study, commented on the importance of this data: “These findings are important because we currently lack information on how the presence of CV comorbidities can impact the efficacy of RA drugs.”
 

A real-world perspective

MACE occurred at similar rates between JAKi and TNFi, as well as for biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) with other modes of action (OMA) vs. TNFi, in the JAK-Pot study, an international collaboration of RA registries, reported Romain Aymon, of Geneva University Hospitals. But a subanalysis of JAK-Pot in patients resembling the population in the ORAL Surveillance trial found that the incidence of MACE was higher in each treatment group, compared with the overall population. However, no significant difference was found between JAKi vs. TNFi and OMA vs. TNFi.

Mr. Aymon said that the analysis is still ongoing, with additional registries being included.

Dr. Lauper, who is the principal investigator of the study presented by Mr. Aymon, noted that “the absence of a difference in MACE risk in the population resembling the ORAL Surveillance study is in contrast with the results from the ORAL Surveillance itself. This may be due to differences in the populations, with the ORAL Surveillance study having a more selected set of patients.”
 

The Dutch perspective

In line with the findings from the JAK-Pot study, a retrospective inception cohort study conducted on a Dutch RA population also revealed no difference in the incidence of cardiovascular events between JAKi starters and bDMARD starters, according to Merel Opdam, MSc, of Sint Maartenskliniek in Ubbergen, the Netherlands, who reported the findings at the meeting. Two subanalyses of the cohort study, funded by Pfizer, also did not show any difference between tofacitinib and baricitinib (Olumiant), compared with DMARDs, or in patients above 65 years of age. The analysis was conducted on 15,191 patients with RA who were initiating treatment with a JAKi or a new bDMARD, selected from IQVIA’s Dutch Real-World Data Longitudinal Prescription database, which covers approximately 63% of outpatient prescriptions in the Netherlands.

“Not all DMARDs have similar effects on cardiovascular outcomes, and observational studies can contribute to understanding the cardiovascular risks associated with JAKi,” Ms. Opdam said.

“Real-world data holds significant importance as it provides insights into a broader spectrum of patients and reflects the actual clinical practice where treatment decisions are tailored to individual patient needs,” commented Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, of the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin, and Charité University Medicine Berlin. She said that registries have a pivotal role in this regard.

Dr. Buch reports serving on a speakers bureau for AbbVie; serving as a consultant to AbbVie, CESAS Medical, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, and Pfizer; and receiving grant/research support from Gilead, Pfizer, and UCB. Mr. Aymon and Ms. Opdam report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Milan – Clinical trial and registry data comparisons between patients with rheumatoid arthritis who take Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) such as tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) continue to contribute to a better understanding of their efficacy and cardiovascular safety profile, based on presentations given at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Tofacitinib vs. TNFi efficacy with or without history of atherosclerotic CVD

The efficacy of tofacitinib appears to be at least as good as TNFi, regardless of the presence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and baseline cardiovascular risk, according to a post hoc analysis of the ORAL Surveillance study presented by Maya Buch, MD, PhD, of NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre and University of Manchester, England. ORAL Surveillance was a randomized, open-label, postmarketing safety study sponsored by Pfizer. The study enrolled patients aged 50 or older, with one or more additional CV risk factors, and with active disease despite methotrexate treatment. The cohort included patients treated with the tofacitinib at two different doses (5 mg or 10 mg daily) or TNFi.

Given that a prior “post hoc analysis showed differences in the risk of major adverse CV events (MACE) with tofacitinib versus TNFi, depending on the personal history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Buch and coauthors aimed to further characterize the benefit/risk profile of tofacitinib by evaluating its efficacy, compared with TNFi, in patients with a history of ASCVD and baseline CV risk. Out of the 4,362 patients, 640 (14.7%) had a positive history of ASCVD, while 3,722 (85.3%) did not. For the latter group, the 10-year risk of ASCVD was calculated at baseline, which was high (≥ 20%) in 22.5% and intermediate (≥ 7.5% to < 20%) in 39.4%.

The analysis demonstrated that in patients without a history of ASCVD, the odds of achieving either remission (Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI] ≤ 2.8) or low disease activity (CDAI ≤ 10) were greater with tofacitinib vs. TNFi. With a history of ASCVD, the likelihood of achieving remission or low disease activity (LDA) was not statistically different between tofacitinib and TNFi. Patients with high or intermediate CV risk scores tended to be more likely to reach remission or LDA with tofacitinib vs. TNFi.

Dr. Buch emphasized that selecting the right therapy for each patient requires careful consideration of potential benefits and risks by the rheumatologist, taking into account individual patient history. “Stratification by baseline risk of CV events may help ensure appropriate and effective use of tofacitinib in patients with RA,” she concluded.

Kim Lauper, MD, of the division of rheumatology at Geneva University Hospitals, who was not involved in the study, commented on the importance of this data: “These findings are important because we currently lack information on how the presence of CV comorbidities can impact the efficacy of RA drugs.”
 

A real-world perspective

MACE occurred at similar rates between JAKi and TNFi, as well as for biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) with other modes of action (OMA) vs. TNFi, in the JAK-Pot study, an international collaboration of RA registries, reported Romain Aymon, of Geneva University Hospitals. But a subanalysis of JAK-Pot in patients resembling the population in the ORAL Surveillance trial found that the incidence of MACE was higher in each treatment group, compared with the overall population. However, no significant difference was found between JAKi vs. TNFi and OMA vs. TNFi.

Mr. Aymon said that the analysis is still ongoing, with additional registries being included.

Dr. Lauper, who is the principal investigator of the study presented by Mr. Aymon, noted that “the absence of a difference in MACE risk in the population resembling the ORAL Surveillance study is in contrast with the results from the ORAL Surveillance itself. This may be due to differences in the populations, with the ORAL Surveillance study having a more selected set of patients.”
 

The Dutch perspective

In line with the findings from the JAK-Pot study, a retrospective inception cohort study conducted on a Dutch RA population also revealed no difference in the incidence of cardiovascular events between JAKi starters and bDMARD starters, according to Merel Opdam, MSc, of Sint Maartenskliniek in Ubbergen, the Netherlands, who reported the findings at the meeting. Two subanalyses of the cohort study, funded by Pfizer, also did not show any difference between tofacitinib and baricitinib (Olumiant), compared with DMARDs, or in patients above 65 years of age. The analysis was conducted on 15,191 patients with RA who were initiating treatment with a JAKi or a new bDMARD, selected from IQVIA’s Dutch Real-World Data Longitudinal Prescription database, which covers approximately 63% of outpatient prescriptions in the Netherlands.

“Not all DMARDs have similar effects on cardiovascular outcomes, and observational studies can contribute to understanding the cardiovascular risks associated with JAKi,” Ms. Opdam said.

“Real-world data holds significant importance as it provides insights into a broader spectrum of patients and reflects the actual clinical practice where treatment decisions are tailored to individual patient needs,” commented Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, of the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin, and Charité University Medicine Berlin. She said that registries have a pivotal role in this regard.

Dr. Buch reports serving on a speakers bureau for AbbVie; serving as a consultant to AbbVie, CESAS Medical, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, and Pfizer; and receiving grant/research support from Gilead, Pfizer, and UCB. Mr. Aymon and Ms. Opdam report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with gout may have smaller brain volumes and higher brain iron markers than people without gout, and also be more likely to develop Parkinson’s disease, probable essential tremor, and dementia, researchers in the United Kingdom report.

“We were surprised about the regions of the brain affected by gout, several of which are important for motor function. The other intriguing finding was that the risk of dementia amongst gout patients was strongly time-dependent: highest in the first 3 years after their gout diagnosis,” lead study author Anya Topiwala, BMBCh, DPhil, said in an interview.

“Our combination of traditional and genetic approaches increases the confidence that gout is causing the brain findings,” said Dr. Topiwala, a clinical research fellow and consultant psychiatrist in the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford, England.

“We suggest that clinicians be vigilant for cognitive and motor problems after gout diagnosis, particularly in the early stages,” she added.


 

Links between gout and neurodegenerative diseases debated in earlier studies

Gout, the most common inflammatory arthritis, affects around 1%-4% of people, the authors wrote, with monosodium urate crystal deposits causing acute flares of pain and swelling in joints and periarticular tissues.

Whether and how gout may affect the brain has been debated in the literature. Gout and hyperuricemia have been linked with elevated stroke risk; and although observational studies have linked hyperuricemia with lower dementia risk, especially Alzheimer’s disease, Mendelian randomization studies have had conflicting results in Alzheimer’s disease.
 

A novel approach that analyzes brain structure and genetics

In a study published in Nature Communications, Dr. Topiwala and her colleagues combined observational and Mendelian randomization techniques to explore relationships between gout and neurodegenerative diseases. They analyzed data from over 303,000 volunteer participants between 40 and 69 years of age recruited between 2006 and 2010 to contribute their detailed genetic and health information to the U.K. Biobank, a large-scale biomedical database and research resource.

Patients with gout tended to be older and male. At baseline, all participants’ serum urate levels were measured, and 30.8% of patients with gout reported that they currently used urate-lowering therapy.
 

MRI shows brain changes in patients with gout

In what the authors said is the first investigation of neuroimaging markers in patients with gout, they compared differences in gray matter volumes found in the 1,165 participants with gout and the 32,202 controls without gout who had MRI data.

They found no marked sex differences in associations. Urate was inversely linked with global brain volume and with gray and white matter volumes, and gout appeared to age global gray matter by 2 years.

Patients with gout and higher urate showed significant differences in regional gray matter volumes, especially in the cerebellum, pons, and midbrain, as well as subcortical differences in the nucleus accumbens, putamen, and caudate. They also showed significant differences in white matter tract microstructure in the fornix.

Patients with gout were more likely to develop dementia (average hazard ratio [HR] over study = 1.60), especially in the first 3 years after gout diagnosis (HR = 7.40). They were also at higher risk for vascular dementia (average HR = 2.41), compared with all-cause dementia, but not for Alzheimer’s disease (average HR = 1.62).

In asymptomatic participants though, urate and dementia were inversely linked (HR = 0.85), with no time dependence.

Gout was linked with higher incidence of Parkinson’s disease (HR = 1.43) and probable essential tremor (HR = 6.75). In asymptomatic participants, urate and Parkinson’s disease (HR = 0.89), but not probable essential tremor, were inversely linked.
 

Genetic analyses reinforce MRI results

Using Mendelian randomization estimates, the authors found that genetic links generally reflected their observational findings. Both genetically predicted gout and serum urate were significantly linked with regional gray matter volumes, including cerebellar, midbrain, pons, and brainstem.

They also found significant links with higher magnetic susceptibility in the putamen and caudate, markers of higher iron. But while genetically predicted gout was significantly linked with global gray matter volume, urate was not.

In males, but not in females, urate was positively linked with alcohol intake and lower socioeconomic status.

Dr. Topiwala acknowledged several limitations to the study, writing that “the results from the volunteer participants may not apply to other populations; the cross-sectional serum urate measurements may not reflect chronic exposure; and Parkinson’s disease and essential tremor may have been diagnostically confounded.”
 

A novel approach that suggests further related research

Asked to comment on the study, Puja Khanna, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist and clinical associate professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, called its novel use of neuroimaging interesting.

Dr. Khanna, who was not involved in the study, said she would like to know more about the role that horizontal pleiotropy – one genetic variant having independent effects on multiple traits – plays in this disease process, and about the impact of the antioxidative properties of urate in maintaining neuroprotection.

“[The] U.K. Biobank is an excellent database to look at questions of association,” John D. FitzGerald, MD, PhD, MPH, MBA, professor and clinical chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Early diagnosis benefits patients

Dr. Khanna and Dr. FitzGerald joined the authors in advising doctors to monitor their gout patients for cognitive and motor symptoms of neurodegenerative disease.

“It is clearly important to pay close attention to the neurologic exam and history in gout, especially because it is a disease of the aging population,” Dr. Khanna advised. “Addressing dementia when gout is diagnosed can lead to prompt mitigation strategies that can hugely impact patients.”

Dr. Topiwala and her colleagues would like to investigate why the dementia risk was time-dependent. “Is this because of the acute inflammatory response in gout, or could it just be that patients with gout visit their doctors more frequently, so any cognitive problems are picked up sooner?” she asked.

The authors, and Dr. Khanna and Dr. FitzGerald, report no relevant financial relationships. The Wellcome Trust; the U.K. Medical Research Council; the European Commission Horizon 2020 research and innovation program; the British Heart Foundation; the U.S. National Institutes of Health; the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council; and the National Institute for Health and Care Research funded the study.

Patients with gout may have smaller brain volumes and higher brain iron markers than people without gout, and also be more likely to develop Parkinson’s disease, probable essential tremor, and dementia, researchers in the United Kingdom report.

“We were surprised about the regions of the brain affected by gout, several of which are important for motor function. The other intriguing finding was that the risk of dementia amongst gout patients was strongly time-dependent: highest in the first 3 years after their gout diagnosis,” lead study author Anya Topiwala, BMBCh, DPhil, said in an interview.

“Our combination of traditional and genetic approaches increases the confidence that gout is causing the brain findings,” said Dr. Topiwala, a clinical research fellow and consultant psychiatrist in the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford, England.

“We suggest that clinicians be vigilant for cognitive and motor problems after gout diagnosis, particularly in the early stages,” she added.


 

Links between gout and neurodegenerative diseases debated in earlier studies

Gout, the most common inflammatory arthritis, affects around 1%-4% of people, the authors wrote, with monosodium urate crystal deposits causing acute flares of pain and swelling in joints and periarticular tissues.

Whether and how gout may affect the brain has been debated in the literature. Gout and hyperuricemia have been linked with elevated stroke risk; and although observational studies have linked hyperuricemia with lower dementia risk, especially Alzheimer’s disease, Mendelian randomization studies have had conflicting results in Alzheimer’s disease.
 

A novel approach that analyzes brain structure and genetics

In a study published in Nature Communications, Dr. Topiwala and her colleagues combined observational and Mendelian randomization techniques to explore relationships between gout and neurodegenerative diseases. They analyzed data from over 303,000 volunteer participants between 40 and 69 years of age recruited between 2006 and 2010 to contribute their detailed genetic and health information to the U.K. Biobank, a large-scale biomedical database and research resource.

Patients with gout tended to be older and male. At baseline, all participants’ serum urate levels were measured, and 30.8% of patients with gout reported that they currently used urate-lowering therapy.
 

MRI shows brain changes in patients with gout

In what the authors said is the first investigation of neuroimaging markers in patients with gout, they compared differences in gray matter volumes found in the 1,165 participants with gout and the 32,202 controls without gout who had MRI data.

They found no marked sex differences in associations. Urate was inversely linked with global brain volume and with gray and white matter volumes, and gout appeared to age global gray matter by 2 years.

Patients with gout and higher urate showed significant differences in regional gray matter volumes, especially in the cerebellum, pons, and midbrain, as well as subcortical differences in the nucleus accumbens, putamen, and caudate. They also showed significant differences in white matter tract microstructure in the fornix.

Patients with gout were more likely to develop dementia (average hazard ratio [HR] over study = 1.60), especially in the first 3 years after gout diagnosis (HR = 7.40). They were also at higher risk for vascular dementia (average HR = 2.41), compared with all-cause dementia, but not for Alzheimer’s disease (average HR = 1.62).

In asymptomatic participants though, urate and dementia were inversely linked (HR = 0.85), with no time dependence.

Gout was linked with higher incidence of Parkinson’s disease (HR = 1.43) and probable essential tremor (HR = 6.75). In asymptomatic participants, urate and Parkinson’s disease (HR = 0.89), but not probable essential tremor, were inversely linked.
 

Genetic analyses reinforce MRI results

Using Mendelian randomization estimates, the authors found that genetic links generally reflected their observational findings. Both genetically predicted gout and serum urate were significantly linked with regional gray matter volumes, including cerebellar, midbrain, pons, and brainstem.

They also found significant links with higher magnetic susceptibility in the putamen and caudate, markers of higher iron. But while genetically predicted gout was significantly linked with global gray matter volume, urate was not.

In males, but not in females, urate was positively linked with alcohol intake and lower socioeconomic status.

Dr. Topiwala acknowledged several limitations to the study, writing that “the results from the volunteer participants may not apply to other populations; the cross-sectional serum urate measurements may not reflect chronic exposure; and Parkinson’s disease and essential tremor may have been diagnostically confounded.”
 

A novel approach that suggests further related research

Asked to comment on the study, Puja Khanna, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist and clinical associate professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, called its novel use of neuroimaging interesting.

Dr. Khanna, who was not involved in the study, said she would like to know more about the role that horizontal pleiotropy – one genetic variant having independent effects on multiple traits – plays in this disease process, and about the impact of the antioxidative properties of urate in maintaining neuroprotection.

“[The] U.K. Biobank is an excellent database to look at questions of association,” John D. FitzGerald, MD, PhD, MPH, MBA, professor and clinical chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Early diagnosis benefits patients

Dr. Khanna and Dr. FitzGerald joined the authors in advising doctors to monitor their gout patients for cognitive and motor symptoms of neurodegenerative disease.

“It is clearly important to pay close attention to the neurologic exam and history in gout, especially because it is a disease of the aging population,” Dr. Khanna advised. “Addressing dementia when gout is diagnosed can lead to prompt mitigation strategies that can hugely impact patients.”

Dr. Topiwala and her colleagues would like to investigate why the dementia risk was time-dependent. “Is this because of the acute inflammatory response in gout, or could it just be that patients with gout visit their doctors more frequently, so any cognitive problems are picked up sooner?” she asked.

The authors, and Dr. Khanna and Dr. FitzGerald, report no relevant financial relationships. The Wellcome Trust; the U.K. Medical Research Council; the European Commission Horizon 2020 research and innovation program; the British Heart Foundation; the U.S. National Institutes of Health; the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council; and the National Institute for Health and Care Research funded the study.

Patients with gout may have smaller brain volumes and higher brain iron markers than people without gout, and also be more likely to develop Parkinson’s disease, probable essential tremor, and dementia, researchers in the United Kingdom report.

“We were surprised about the regions of the brain affected by gout, several of which are important for motor function. The other intriguing finding was that the risk of dementia amongst gout patients was strongly time-dependent: highest in the first 3 years after their gout diagnosis,” lead study author Anya Topiwala, BMBCh, DPhil, said in an interview.

“Our combination of traditional and genetic approaches increases the confidence that gout is causing the brain findings,” said Dr. Topiwala, a clinical research fellow and consultant psychiatrist in the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford, England.

“We suggest that clinicians be vigilant for cognitive and motor problems after gout diagnosis, particularly in the early stages,” she added.


 

Links between gout and neurodegenerative diseases debated in earlier studies

Gout, the most common inflammatory arthritis, affects around 1%-4% of people, the authors wrote, with monosodium urate crystal deposits causing acute flares of pain and swelling in joints and periarticular tissues.

Whether and how gout may affect the brain has been debated in the literature. Gout and hyperuricemia have been linked with elevated stroke risk; and although observational studies have linked hyperuricemia with lower dementia risk, especially Alzheimer’s disease, Mendelian randomization studies have had conflicting results in Alzheimer’s disease.
 

A novel approach that analyzes brain structure and genetics

In a study published in Nature Communications, Dr. Topiwala and her colleagues combined observational and Mendelian randomization techniques to explore relationships between gout and neurodegenerative diseases. They analyzed data from over 303,000 volunteer participants between 40 and 69 years of age recruited between 2006 and 2010 to contribute their detailed genetic and health information to the U.K. Biobank, a large-scale biomedical database and research resource.

Patients with gout tended to be older and male. At baseline, all participants’ serum urate levels were measured, and 30.8% of patients with gout reported that they currently used urate-lowering therapy.
 

MRI shows brain changes in patients with gout

In what the authors said is the first investigation of neuroimaging markers in patients with gout, they compared differences in gray matter volumes found in the 1,165 participants with gout and the 32,202 controls without gout who had MRI data.

They found no marked sex differences in associations. Urate was inversely linked with global brain volume and with gray and white matter volumes, and gout appeared to age global gray matter by 2 years.

Patients with gout and higher urate showed significant differences in regional gray matter volumes, especially in the cerebellum, pons, and midbrain, as well as subcortical differences in the nucleus accumbens, putamen, and caudate. They also showed significant differences in white matter tract microstructure in the fornix.

Patients with gout were more likely to develop dementia (average hazard ratio [HR] over study = 1.60), especially in the first 3 years after gout diagnosis (HR = 7.40). They were also at higher risk for vascular dementia (average HR = 2.41), compared with all-cause dementia, but not for Alzheimer’s disease (average HR = 1.62).

In asymptomatic participants though, urate and dementia were inversely linked (HR = 0.85), with no time dependence.

Gout was linked with higher incidence of Parkinson’s disease (HR = 1.43) and probable essential tremor (HR = 6.75). In asymptomatic participants, urate and Parkinson’s disease (HR = 0.89), but not probable essential tremor, were inversely linked.
 

Genetic analyses reinforce MRI results

Using Mendelian randomization estimates, the authors found that genetic links generally reflected their observational findings. Both genetically predicted gout and serum urate were significantly linked with regional gray matter volumes, including cerebellar, midbrain, pons, and brainstem.

They also found significant links with higher magnetic susceptibility in the putamen and caudate, markers of higher iron. But while genetically predicted gout was significantly linked with global gray matter volume, urate was not.

In males, but not in females, urate was positively linked with alcohol intake and lower socioeconomic status.

Dr. Topiwala acknowledged several limitations to the study, writing that “the results from the volunteer participants may not apply to other populations; the cross-sectional serum urate measurements may not reflect chronic exposure; and Parkinson’s disease and essential tremor may have been diagnostically confounded.”
 

A novel approach that suggests further related research

Asked to comment on the study, Puja Khanna, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist and clinical associate professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, called its novel use of neuroimaging interesting.

Dr. Khanna, who was not involved in the study, said she would like to know more about the role that horizontal pleiotropy – one genetic variant having independent effects on multiple traits – plays in this disease process, and about the impact of the antioxidative properties of urate in maintaining neuroprotection.

“[The] U.K. Biobank is an excellent database to look at questions of association,” John D. FitzGerald, MD, PhD, MPH, MBA, professor and clinical chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Early diagnosis benefits patients

Dr. Khanna and Dr. FitzGerald joined the authors in advising doctors to monitor their gout patients for cognitive and motor symptoms of neurodegenerative disease.

“It is clearly important to pay close attention to the neurologic exam and history in gout, especially because it is a disease of the aging population,” Dr. Khanna advised. “Addressing dementia when gout is diagnosed can lead to prompt mitigation strategies that can hugely impact patients.”

Dr. Topiwala and her colleagues would like to investigate why the dementia risk was time-dependent. “Is this because of the acute inflammatory response in gout, or could it just be that patients with gout visit their doctors more frequently, so any cognitive problems are picked up sooner?” she asked.

The authors, and Dr. Khanna and Dr. FitzGerald, report no relevant financial relationships. The Wellcome Trust; the U.K. Medical Research Council; the European Commission Horizon 2020 research and innovation program; the British Heart Foundation; the U.S. National Institutes of Health; the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council; and the National Institute for Health and Care Research funded the study.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me to discuss ways to address and reform the toxic culture associated with medical training is Dr. Amy Faith Ho, senior vice president of clinical informatics and analytics at Integrative Emergency Services in Dallas. Also joining us is Dr. Júlia Loyola Ferreira, a pediatric surgeon originally from Brazil, now practicing at Montreal Children’s and focused on advocacy for gender equity and patient-centered care.

Welcome to both of you. Thanks so much for joining me.

Amy Faith Ho, MD, MPH: Thanks so much for having us, Rob.

Dr. Glatter: Amy, I noticed a tweet recently where you talked about how your career choice was affected by the toxic environment in medical school, affecting your choice of residency. Can you elaborate on that?

Dr. Ho: This is a super-important topic, not in just one specialty but in all of medicine, because what you’re talking about is toxic workplace culture that is certainly directed toward certain groups. In this instance, what we’re talking about is gender, but it can be directed toward any number of other groups as well.

What you’re alluding to is a tweet by Stanford Surgery Group showing the next residency class, and what was really stunning about this residency class was that it was almost all females. And this was something that took off on social media.

When I saw this, I was really brought back to one of my personal experiences that I chose to share, which was basically that, as a medical student, I really wanted to be a surgeon. I’m an emergency medicine doctor now, so you know that didn’t happen.

The story that I was sharing was that when I was a third-year medical student rotating on surgery, we had a male attending who was very well known at that school at the time who basically would take the female medical students, and instead of clinic, he would round us up. He would have us sit around him in the workplace room while everyone else was seeing patients, and he would have you look at news clippings of himself. He would tell you stories about himself, like he was holding court for the ladies.

It was this very weird culture where my takeaway as a med student was like, “Wow, this is kind of abusive patriarchy that is supported,” because everyone knew about it and was complicit. Even though I really liked surgery, this was just one instance and one example of where you see this culture that really resonates into the rest of life that I didn’t really want to be a part of.

I went into emergency medicine and loved it. It’s also highly procedural, and I was very happy with where I was. What was really interesting about this tweet to me, though, is that it really took off and garnered hundreds of thousands of views on a very niche topic, because what was most revealing is that everyone has a story like this.

It is not just surgery. It is definitely not just one specialty and it is not just one school. It is an endemic problem in medicine. Not only does it change the lives of young women, but it also says so much about the complicity and the culture that we have in medicine that many people were upset about just the same way I was.
 

Medical training experience in other countries vs. the United States

Dr. Glatter: Júlia, I want to hear about your experience in medical school, surgery, and then fellowship training and up to the present, if possible.

Júlia Loyola Ferreira, MD: In Brazil, as in many countries now, women have made up the majority of the medical students since 2010. It’s a more female-friendly environment when you’re going through medical school, and I was lucky enough to do rotations in areas of surgery where people were friendly to women.

I lived in this tiny bubble that also gave me the privilege of not facing some things that I can imagine that people in Brazil in different areas and smaller towns face. In Brazil, people try to not talk about this gender agenda. This is something that’s being talked about outside Brazil. But in Brazil, we are years back. People are not really engaging on this conversation. I thought it was going to be hard for me as a woman, because Brazil has around 20% female surgeons.

I knew it was going to be challenging, but I had no idea how bad it was. When I started and things started happening, the list was big. I have an example of everything that is written about – microaggression, implicit bias, discrimination, harassment.

Every time I would try to speak about it and talk to someone, I would be strongly gaslighted. It was the whole training, the whole 5 years. People would say, “Oh, I don’t think it was like that. I think you were overreacting.” People would come with all these different answers for what I was experiencing, and that was frustrating. That was even harder because I had to cope with everything that was happening and I had no one to turn to. I had no mentors.

When I looked up to women who were in surgery, they would be tougher on us young surgeons than the men and they would tell us that we should not complain because in their time it was even harder. Now, it’s getting better and we are supposed to accept whatever comes.

That was at least a little bit of what I experienced in my training. It was only after I finished and started to do research about it that I really encountered a field of people who would echo what I was trying to say to many people in different hospitals that I attended to.

That was the key for me to get out of that situation of being gaslighted and of not being able to really talk about it. Suddenly, I started to publish things about Brazil that nobody was even writing or studying. That gave me a large amount of responsibility, but also motivation to keep going and to see the change.
 

Valuing women in medicine

Dr. Glatter: This is a very important point that you’re raising about the environment of women being hard on other women. We know that men can be very difficult on and also judgmental toward their trainees.

Amy, how would you respond to that? Was your experience similar in emergency medicine training?

Dr. Ho: I actually don’t feel like it was. I think what Júlia is alluding to is this “mean girls” idea, of “I went through it and thus you have to go through it.” I think you do see this in many specialties. One of the classic ones we hear about, and I don’t want to speak to it too much because it’s not my specialty, is ob.gyn., where it is a very female-dominant surgery group. There’s almost a hazing level that you hear about in some of the more malignant workplaces.

I think that you speak to two really important things. Number one is the numbers game. As you were saying, Brazil actually has many women. That’s awesome. That’s actually different from the United States, especially for the historic, existing workplace and less so for the medical students and for residents. I think step one is having minorities like women just present and there.

Step two is actually including and valuing them. While I think it’s really easy to move away from the women discussion, because there are women when you look around in medicine, it doesn’t mean that women are actually being heard, that they’re actually being accepted, or that their viewpoints are being listened to. A big part of it is normalizing not only seeing women in medicine but also normalizing the narrative of women in medicine.

It’s not just about motherhood; it’s about things like normalizing talking about advancement, academic promotions, pay, culture, being called things like “too reactive,” “anxious,” or “too assertive.” These are all classic things that we hear about when we talk about women.

That’s why we’re looking to not only conversations like this, but also structured ways for women to discuss being women in medicine. There are many women in medicine groups in emergency medicine, including: Females Working in Emergency Medicine (FemInEM); the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) women’s groups, which are American Association of Women Emergency Physicians (AAWEP) and Academy for Women in Academic Emergency Medicine (AWAEM), respectively; and the American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA), which is the American Medical Association’s offshoot.

All of these groups are geared toward normalizing women in medicine, normalizing the narrative of women in medicine, and then working on mentoring and educating so that we can advance our initiatives.
 

Gender balance is not gender equity

Dr. Glatter: Amy, you bring up a very critical point that mentoring is sort of the antidote to gender-based discrimination. Júlia had written a paper back in November of 2022 that was published in the Journal of Surgical Research talking exactly about this and how important it is to develop mentoring. Part of her research showed that about 20% of medical students who took the survey, about 1,000 people, had mentors, which was very disturbing.

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Mentorship is one of the ways of changing the reality about gender-based discrimination. Amy’s comment was very strong and we need to really keep saying it, which is that gender balance is not gender equity.

The idea of having more women is not the same as women being recognized as equals, as able as men, and as valued as men. To change this very long culture of male domination, we need support, and this support comes from mentorship.

Although I didn’t have one, I feel that since I started being a mentor for some students, it changed not only them but myself. It gave me strength to keep going, studying, publishing, and going further with this discussion. I feel like the relationship was as good for them as it is for me. That’s how things change.
 

Diversity, equity, and inclusion training

Dr. Glatter: We’re talking about the reality of gender equity in terms of the ability to have equal respect, recognition, opportunities, and access. That’s really an important point to realize, and for our audience, to understand that gender equity is not gender balance.

Amy, I want to talk about medical school curriculums. Are there advances that you’re aware of being made at certain schools, programs, even in residencies, to enforce these things and make it a priority?

Dr. Ho: We’re really lucky that, as a culture in the United States, medical training is certainly very geared toward diversity. Some of that is certainly unofficial. Some of that just means when they’re looking at a medical school class or looking at rank lists for residency, that they’re cognizant of the different backgrounds that people have. That’s still a step. That is a step, that we’re at least acknowledging it.

There are multiple medical schools and residencies that have more formal unconscious-bias training or diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training, both of which are excellent not only for us in the workplace but also for our patients. Almost all of us will see patients of highly diverse backgrounds. I think the biggest push is looking toward the criteria that we use for selecting trainees and students into our programs. Historically, it’s been MCAT, GPA, and so on.

We’ve really started to ask the question of, are these sorts of “objective criteria” actually biased in institutional ways? They talk about this all the time where GPAs will bias against students from underrepresented minorities (URM). I think all medical students and residencies have really acknowledged that. Although there are still test cutoffs, we are putting an inquisitive eye to what those mean, why they exist, and what are the other things that we should consider. This is all very heartening from what I’m seeing in medical training.

Dr. Glatter: There’s no formal rating system for DEI curriculums right now, like ranking of this school, or this program has more advanced recognition in terms of DEI?

Dr. Ho: No, but on the flip side, the U.S. News & World Report was classically one of the major rankings for medical schools. What we saw fairly recently was that very high-tier schools like Harvard and University of Chicago pulled out of that ranking because that ranking did not acknowledge the value of diversity. That was an incredible stance for medical schools to take, to say, “Hey, you are not evaluating an important criterion of ours.”

Dr. Glatter: That’s a great point. Júlia, where are we now in Brazil in terms of awareness of DEI and curriculum in schools and training programs?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Our reality is not as good as in the U.S., unfortunately. I don’t see much discussion on residency programs or medical schools at the moment. I see many students bringing it out and trying to make their schools engage in that discussion. This is something that is coming from the bottom up and not from the top down. I think it can lead to change as well. It is a step and it’s a beginning. Institutions should take the responsibility of doing this from the beginning. This is something where Brazil is still years behind you guys.

Dr. Glatter: It’s unfortunate, but certainly it’s important to hear that. What about in Canada and certainly your institution, McGill, where you just completed a master’s degree?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Canada is very much like the U.S. This is something that is really happening and it’s happening fast. I see, at least at McGill, a large amount of DEI inclusion and everything on this discussion. They have institutional courses for us to do as students, and we are all obliged to do many courses, which I think is really educating, especially for people with different cultures and backgrounds.

Dr. Glatter: Amy, where do you think we are in emergency medicine to look at the other side of it? Comparing surgery with emergency medicine, do you think we’re well advanced in terms of DEI, inclusion criteria, respect, and dignity, or are we really far off?

Dr. Ho: I may be biased, but I think emergency medicine is one of the best in terms of this, and I think there are a couple of reasons for it. One is that we are an inherently team-based organization. The attending, the residents, and the students all work in line with one another. There’s less of a hierarchy.

The same is true for our nurses, pharmacists, techs, and EMS. We all work together as a team. Because of that fairly flat structure, it’s really easy for us to value one another as individuals with our diverse backgrounds. In a way, that’s harder for specialties that are more hierarchical, and I think surgery is certainly one of the most hierarchical.

The second reason why emergency medicine is fairly well off in this is that we’re, by nature, a safety-net specialty. We see patients of all-comers, all walks, all backgrounds. I think we both recognize the value of physician-patient concordance. When we share characteristics with our patients, we recognize that value immediately at the bedside.

It exposes us to so much diversity. I see a refugee one day and the next patient is someone who is incarcerated. The next patient after that is an important businessman in society. That diversity and whiplash in the type of patients that we see back-to-back helps us see the playing field in a really flat, diverse way. Because of that, I think our culture is much better, as is our understanding of the value and importance of diversity not only for our programs, but also for our patients.
 

Do female doctors have better patient outcomes?

Dr. Glatter: Specialties working together in the emergency department is so important. Building that team and that togetherness is so critical. Júlia, would you agree?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Definitely. Something Amy said that is beautiful is that you recognize yourself in these patients. In surgery, we are taught to try to be away from the patients and not to put ourselves in the same position. We are taught to be less engaging, and this is not good. The good thing is when we really have patient-centered care, when we listen to them, and when we are involved with them.

I saw a publication showing that female and male surgeons treating similar patients had the same surgical outcomes. Women are as good as men technically to do surgery and have the same surgical outcomes. However, there is research showing that surgical teams with greater representation of women have improved surgical outcomes because of patient-centered care and the way women conduct bedside attention to patients. And they have better patient experience measures afterward. That is not only from the women who are treating the patients, but the whole environment. Women end up bringing men [into the conversation] and this better improves patient-centered care, and that makes the whole team a better team attending patients. Definitely, we are in the moment of patient experience and satisfaction, and increasing women is a way of achieving better patient satisfaction and experience.

Dr. Ho: There’s much to be said about having female clinicians available for patients. It doesn’t have to be just for female patients, although again, concordance between physicians and patients is certainly beneficial. Besides outcomes benefit, there’s even just a communication benefit. The way that women and men communicate is inherently different. The way women and men experience certain things is also inherently different.

A classic example of this is women who are experiencing a heart attack may not actually have chest pain but present with nausea. As a female who’s sensitive to this, when I see a woman throwing up, I am very attuned to something actually being wrong, knowing that they may not present with classic pain for a syndrome, but actually may be presenting with nausea instead. It doesn’t have to be a woman who takes that knowledge and turns it into something at the bedside. It certainly doesn’t have to, but it is just a natural, easy thing to step into as a female.

While I’m really careful to not step into this “women are better than men” or “men are better than women” argument, there’s something to be said about how the availability of female clinicians for all patients, not just female patients, can have benefit. Again, it’s shown in studies with cardiovascular outcomes and cardiologists, it’s certainly shown in ob.gyn., particularly for underrepresented minorities as well for maternal outcomes of Black mothers. It’s certainly shown again in patient satisfaction, which is concordance.

There is a profound level of research already on this that goes beyond just the idea of stacking the bench and putting more women in there. That’s not the value. We’re not just here to check off the box. We’re here to actually lend some value to our patients and, again, to one another as well.

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. These are excellent points. The point you make about patient presentation is so vital. The fact that women have nausea sometimes in ACS presentations, the research never was really attentive to this. It was biased. The symptoms that women may have that are not “typical” for ACS weren’t included in patient presentations. Educating everyone about, overall, the types of presentations that we can recognize is vital and important.

Dr. Ho: Yes. It’s worth saying that, when you look at how medicine and research developed, classically, who were the research participants? They were often White men. They were college students who, historically, because women were not allowed to go to college, were men.

I say that not to fault the institution, because that was the culture of our history, but to just say it is okay to question things. It is okay to realize that someone’s presenting outside of the box and that maybe we actually need to reframe what even created the walls of the box in the first place.

Dr. Glatter: Thank you again for joining us. I truly appreciate your insight and expertise.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, Hofstra/Northwell, New York. Dr. Ho is senior vice president of clinical informatics & analytics, department of emergency medicine, Integrative Emergency Services, Dallas. Dr. Loyola Ferreira is a master of science candidate, department of experimental surgery, McGill University, Montreal. They reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me to discuss ways to address and reform the toxic culture associated with medical training is Dr. Amy Faith Ho, senior vice president of clinical informatics and analytics at Integrative Emergency Services in Dallas. Also joining us is Dr. Júlia Loyola Ferreira, a pediatric surgeon originally from Brazil, now practicing at Montreal Children’s and focused on advocacy for gender equity and patient-centered care.

Welcome to both of you. Thanks so much for joining me.

Amy Faith Ho, MD, MPH: Thanks so much for having us, Rob.

Dr. Glatter: Amy, I noticed a tweet recently where you talked about how your career choice was affected by the toxic environment in medical school, affecting your choice of residency. Can you elaborate on that?

Dr. Ho: This is a super-important topic, not in just one specialty but in all of medicine, because what you’re talking about is toxic workplace culture that is certainly directed toward certain groups. In this instance, what we’re talking about is gender, but it can be directed toward any number of other groups as well.

What you’re alluding to is a tweet by Stanford Surgery Group showing the next residency class, and what was really stunning about this residency class was that it was almost all females. And this was something that took off on social media.

When I saw this, I was really brought back to one of my personal experiences that I chose to share, which was basically that, as a medical student, I really wanted to be a surgeon. I’m an emergency medicine doctor now, so you know that didn’t happen.

The story that I was sharing was that when I was a third-year medical student rotating on surgery, we had a male attending who was very well known at that school at the time who basically would take the female medical students, and instead of clinic, he would round us up. He would have us sit around him in the workplace room while everyone else was seeing patients, and he would have you look at news clippings of himself. He would tell you stories about himself, like he was holding court for the ladies.

It was this very weird culture where my takeaway as a med student was like, “Wow, this is kind of abusive patriarchy that is supported,” because everyone knew about it and was complicit. Even though I really liked surgery, this was just one instance and one example of where you see this culture that really resonates into the rest of life that I didn’t really want to be a part of.

I went into emergency medicine and loved it. It’s also highly procedural, and I was very happy with where I was. What was really interesting about this tweet to me, though, is that it really took off and garnered hundreds of thousands of views on a very niche topic, because what was most revealing is that everyone has a story like this.

It is not just surgery. It is definitely not just one specialty and it is not just one school. It is an endemic problem in medicine. Not only does it change the lives of young women, but it also says so much about the complicity and the culture that we have in medicine that many people were upset about just the same way I was.
 

Medical training experience in other countries vs. the United States

Dr. Glatter: Júlia, I want to hear about your experience in medical school, surgery, and then fellowship training and up to the present, if possible.

Júlia Loyola Ferreira, MD: In Brazil, as in many countries now, women have made up the majority of the medical students since 2010. It’s a more female-friendly environment when you’re going through medical school, and I was lucky enough to do rotations in areas of surgery where people were friendly to women.

I lived in this tiny bubble that also gave me the privilege of not facing some things that I can imagine that people in Brazil in different areas and smaller towns face. In Brazil, people try to not talk about this gender agenda. This is something that’s being talked about outside Brazil. But in Brazil, we are years back. People are not really engaging on this conversation. I thought it was going to be hard for me as a woman, because Brazil has around 20% female surgeons.

I knew it was going to be challenging, but I had no idea how bad it was. When I started and things started happening, the list was big. I have an example of everything that is written about – microaggression, implicit bias, discrimination, harassment.

Every time I would try to speak about it and talk to someone, I would be strongly gaslighted. It was the whole training, the whole 5 years. People would say, “Oh, I don’t think it was like that. I think you were overreacting.” People would come with all these different answers for what I was experiencing, and that was frustrating. That was even harder because I had to cope with everything that was happening and I had no one to turn to. I had no mentors.

When I looked up to women who were in surgery, they would be tougher on us young surgeons than the men and they would tell us that we should not complain because in their time it was even harder. Now, it’s getting better and we are supposed to accept whatever comes.

That was at least a little bit of what I experienced in my training. It was only after I finished and started to do research about it that I really encountered a field of people who would echo what I was trying to say to many people in different hospitals that I attended to.

That was the key for me to get out of that situation of being gaslighted and of not being able to really talk about it. Suddenly, I started to publish things about Brazil that nobody was even writing or studying. That gave me a large amount of responsibility, but also motivation to keep going and to see the change.
 

Valuing women in medicine

Dr. Glatter: This is a very important point that you’re raising about the environment of women being hard on other women. We know that men can be very difficult on and also judgmental toward their trainees.

Amy, how would you respond to that? Was your experience similar in emergency medicine training?

Dr. Ho: I actually don’t feel like it was. I think what Júlia is alluding to is this “mean girls” idea, of “I went through it and thus you have to go through it.” I think you do see this in many specialties. One of the classic ones we hear about, and I don’t want to speak to it too much because it’s not my specialty, is ob.gyn., where it is a very female-dominant surgery group. There’s almost a hazing level that you hear about in some of the more malignant workplaces.

I think that you speak to two really important things. Number one is the numbers game. As you were saying, Brazil actually has many women. That’s awesome. That’s actually different from the United States, especially for the historic, existing workplace and less so for the medical students and for residents. I think step one is having minorities like women just present and there.

Step two is actually including and valuing them. While I think it’s really easy to move away from the women discussion, because there are women when you look around in medicine, it doesn’t mean that women are actually being heard, that they’re actually being accepted, or that their viewpoints are being listened to. A big part of it is normalizing not only seeing women in medicine but also normalizing the narrative of women in medicine.

It’s not just about motherhood; it’s about things like normalizing talking about advancement, academic promotions, pay, culture, being called things like “too reactive,” “anxious,” or “too assertive.” These are all classic things that we hear about when we talk about women.

That’s why we’re looking to not only conversations like this, but also structured ways for women to discuss being women in medicine. There are many women in medicine groups in emergency medicine, including: Females Working in Emergency Medicine (FemInEM); the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) women’s groups, which are American Association of Women Emergency Physicians (AAWEP) and Academy for Women in Academic Emergency Medicine (AWAEM), respectively; and the American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA), which is the American Medical Association’s offshoot.

All of these groups are geared toward normalizing women in medicine, normalizing the narrative of women in medicine, and then working on mentoring and educating so that we can advance our initiatives.
 

Gender balance is not gender equity

Dr. Glatter: Amy, you bring up a very critical point that mentoring is sort of the antidote to gender-based discrimination. Júlia had written a paper back in November of 2022 that was published in the Journal of Surgical Research talking exactly about this and how important it is to develop mentoring. Part of her research showed that about 20% of medical students who took the survey, about 1,000 people, had mentors, which was very disturbing.

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Mentorship is one of the ways of changing the reality about gender-based discrimination. Amy’s comment was very strong and we need to really keep saying it, which is that gender balance is not gender equity.

The idea of having more women is not the same as women being recognized as equals, as able as men, and as valued as men. To change this very long culture of male domination, we need support, and this support comes from mentorship.

Although I didn’t have one, I feel that since I started being a mentor for some students, it changed not only them but myself. It gave me strength to keep going, studying, publishing, and going further with this discussion. I feel like the relationship was as good for them as it is for me. That’s how things change.
 

Diversity, equity, and inclusion training

Dr. Glatter: We’re talking about the reality of gender equity in terms of the ability to have equal respect, recognition, opportunities, and access. That’s really an important point to realize, and for our audience, to understand that gender equity is not gender balance.

Amy, I want to talk about medical school curriculums. Are there advances that you’re aware of being made at certain schools, programs, even in residencies, to enforce these things and make it a priority?

Dr. Ho: We’re really lucky that, as a culture in the United States, medical training is certainly very geared toward diversity. Some of that is certainly unofficial. Some of that just means when they’re looking at a medical school class or looking at rank lists for residency, that they’re cognizant of the different backgrounds that people have. That’s still a step. That is a step, that we’re at least acknowledging it.

There are multiple medical schools and residencies that have more formal unconscious-bias training or diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training, both of which are excellent not only for us in the workplace but also for our patients. Almost all of us will see patients of highly diverse backgrounds. I think the biggest push is looking toward the criteria that we use for selecting trainees and students into our programs. Historically, it’s been MCAT, GPA, and so on.

We’ve really started to ask the question of, are these sorts of “objective criteria” actually biased in institutional ways? They talk about this all the time where GPAs will bias against students from underrepresented minorities (URM). I think all medical students and residencies have really acknowledged that. Although there are still test cutoffs, we are putting an inquisitive eye to what those mean, why they exist, and what are the other things that we should consider. This is all very heartening from what I’m seeing in medical training.

Dr. Glatter: There’s no formal rating system for DEI curriculums right now, like ranking of this school, or this program has more advanced recognition in terms of DEI?

Dr. Ho: No, but on the flip side, the U.S. News & World Report was classically one of the major rankings for medical schools. What we saw fairly recently was that very high-tier schools like Harvard and University of Chicago pulled out of that ranking because that ranking did not acknowledge the value of diversity. That was an incredible stance for medical schools to take, to say, “Hey, you are not evaluating an important criterion of ours.”

Dr. Glatter: That’s a great point. Júlia, where are we now in Brazil in terms of awareness of DEI and curriculum in schools and training programs?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Our reality is not as good as in the U.S., unfortunately. I don’t see much discussion on residency programs or medical schools at the moment. I see many students bringing it out and trying to make their schools engage in that discussion. This is something that is coming from the bottom up and not from the top down. I think it can lead to change as well. It is a step and it’s a beginning. Institutions should take the responsibility of doing this from the beginning. This is something where Brazil is still years behind you guys.

Dr. Glatter: It’s unfortunate, but certainly it’s important to hear that. What about in Canada and certainly your institution, McGill, where you just completed a master’s degree?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Canada is very much like the U.S. This is something that is really happening and it’s happening fast. I see, at least at McGill, a large amount of DEI inclusion and everything on this discussion. They have institutional courses for us to do as students, and we are all obliged to do many courses, which I think is really educating, especially for people with different cultures and backgrounds.

Dr. Glatter: Amy, where do you think we are in emergency medicine to look at the other side of it? Comparing surgery with emergency medicine, do you think we’re well advanced in terms of DEI, inclusion criteria, respect, and dignity, or are we really far off?

Dr. Ho: I may be biased, but I think emergency medicine is one of the best in terms of this, and I think there are a couple of reasons for it. One is that we are an inherently team-based organization. The attending, the residents, and the students all work in line with one another. There’s less of a hierarchy.

The same is true for our nurses, pharmacists, techs, and EMS. We all work together as a team. Because of that fairly flat structure, it’s really easy for us to value one another as individuals with our diverse backgrounds. In a way, that’s harder for specialties that are more hierarchical, and I think surgery is certainly one of the most hierarchical.

The second reason why emergency medicine is fairly well off in this is that we’re, by nature, a safety-net specialty. We see patients of all-comers, all walks, all backgrounds. I think we both recognize the value of physician-patient concordance. When we share characteristics with our patients, we recognize that value immediately at the bedside.

It exposes us to so much diversity. I see a refugee one day and the next patient is someone who is incarcerated. The next patient after that is an important businessman in society. That diversity and whiplash in the type of patients that we see back-to-back helps us see the playing field in a really flat, diverse way. Because of that, I think our culture is much better, as is our understanding of the value and importance of diversity not only for our programs, but also for our patients.
 

Do female doctors have better patient outcomes?

Dr. Glatter: Specialties working together in the emergency department is so important. Building that team and that togetherness is so critical. Júlia, would you agree?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Definitely. Something Amy said that is beautiful is that you recognize yourself in these patients. In surgery, we are taught to try to be away from the patients and not to put ourselves in the same position. We are taught to be less engaging, and this is not good. The good thing is when we really have patient-centered care, when we listen to them, and when we are involved with them.

I saw a publication showing that female and male surgeons treating similar patients had the same surgical outcomes. Women are as good as men technically to do surgery and have the same surgical outcomes. However, there is research showing that surgical teams with greater representation of women have improved surgical outcomes because of patient-centered care and the way women conduct bedside attention to patients. And they have better patient experience measures afterward. That is not only from the women who are treating the patients, but the whole environment. Women end up bringing men [into the conversation] and this better improves patient-centered care, and that makes the whole team a better team attending patients. Definitely, we are in the moment of patient experience and satisfaction, and increasing women is a way of achieving better patient satisfaction and experience.

Dr. Ho: There’s much to be said about having female clinicians available for patients. It doesn’t have to be just for female patients, although again, concordance between physicians and patients is certainly beneficial. Besides outcomes benefit, there’s even just a communication benefit. The way that women and men communicate is inherently different. The way women and men experience certain things is also inherently different.

A classic example of this is women who are experiencing a heart attack may not actually have chest pain but present with nausea. As a female who’s sensitive to this, when I see a woman throwing up, I am very attuned to something actually being wrong, knowing that they may not present with classic pain for a syndrome, but actually may be presenting with nausea instead. It doesn’t have to be a woman who takes that knowledge and turns it into something at the bedside. It certainly doesn’t have to, but it is just a natural, easy thing to step into as a female.

While I’m really careful to not step into this “women are better than men” or “men are better than women” argument, there’s something to be said about how the availability of female clinicians for all patients, not just female patients, can have benefit. Again, it’s shown in studies with cardiovascular outcomes and cardiologists, it’s certainly shown in ob.gyn., particularly for underrepresented minorities as well for maternal outcomes of Black mothers. It’s certainly shown again in patient satisfaction, which is concordance.

There is a profound level of research already on this that goes beyond just the idea of stacking the bench and putting more women in there. That’s not the value. We’re not just here to check off the box. We’re here to actually lend some value to our patients and, again, to one another as well.

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. These are excellent points. The point you make about patient presentation is so vital. The fact that women have nausea sometimes in ACS presentations, the research never was really attentive to this. It was biased. The symptoms that women may have that are not “typical” for ACS weren’t included in patient presentations. Educating everyone about, overall, the types of presentations that we can recognize is vital and important.

Dr. Ho: Yes. It’s worth saying that, when you look at how medicine and research developed, classically, who were the research participants? They were often White men. They were college students who, historically, because women were not allowed to go to college, were men.

I say that not to fault the institution, because that was the culture of our history, but to just say it is okay to question things. It is okay to realize that someone’s presenting outside of the box and that maybe we actually need to reframe what even created the walls of the box in the first place.

Dr. Glatter: Thank you again for joining us. I truly appreciate your insight and expertise.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, Hofstra/Northwell, New York. Dr. Ho is senior vice president of clinical informatics & analytics, department of emergency medicine, Integrative Emergency Services, Dallas. Dr. Loyola Ferreira is a master of science candidate, department of experimental surgery, McGill University, Montreal. They reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me to discuss ways to address and reform the toxic culture associated with medical training is Dr. Amy Faith Ho, senior vice president of clinical informatics and analytics at Integrative Emergency Services in Dallas. Also joining us is Dr. Júlia Loyola Ferreira, a pediatric surgeon originally from Brazil, now practicing at Montreal Children’s and focused on advocacy for gender equity and patient-centered care.

Welcome to both of you. Thanks so much for joining me.

Amy Faith Ho, MD, MPH: Thanks so much for having us, Rob.

Dr. Glatter: Amy, I noticed a tweet recently where you talked about how your career choice was affected by the toxic environment in medical school, affecting your choice of residency. Can you elaborate on that?

Dr. Ho: This is a super-important topic, not in just one specialty but in all of medicine, because what you’re talking about is toxic workplace culture that is certainly directed toward certain groups. In this instance, what we’re talking about is gender, but it can be directed toward any number of other groups as well.

What you’re alluding to is a tweet by Stanford Surgery Group showing the next residency class, and what was really stunning about this residency class was that it was almost all females. And this was something that took off on social media.

When I saw this, I was really brought back to one of my personal experiences that I chose to share, which was basically that, as a medical student, I really wanted to be a surgeon. I’m an emergency medicine doctor now, so you know that didn’t happen.

The story that I was sharing was that when I was a third-year medical student rotating on surgery, we had a male attending who was very well known at that school at the time who basically would take the female medical students, and instead of clinic, he would round us up. He would have us sit around him in the workplace room while everyone else was seeing patients, and he would have you look at news clippings of himself. He would tell you stories about himself, like he was holding court for the ladies.

It was this very weird culture where my takeaway as a med student was like, “Wow, this is kind of abusive patriarchy that is supported,” because everyone knew about it and was complicit. Even though I really liked surgery, this was just one instance and one example of where you see this culture that really resonates into the rest of life that I didn’t really want to be a part of.

I went into emergency medicine and loved it. It’s also highly procedural, and I was very happy with where I was. What was really interesting about this tweet to me, though, is that it really took off and garnered hundreds of thousands of views on a very niche topic, because what was most revealing is that everyone has a story like this.

It is not just surgery. It is definitely not just one specialty and it is not just one school. It is an endemic problem in medicine. Not only does it change the lives of young women, but it also says so much about the complicity and the culture that we have in medicine that many people were upset about just the same way I was.
 

Medical training experience in other countries vs. the United States

Dr. Glatter: Júlia, I want to hear about your experience in medical school, surgery, and then fellowship training and up to the present, if possible.

Júlia Loyola Ferreira, MD: In Brazil, as in many countries now, women have made up the majority of the medical students since 2010. It’s a more female-friendly environment when you’re going through medical school, and I was lucky enough to do rotations in areas of surgery where people were friendly to women.

I lived in this tiny bubble that also gave me the privilege of not facing some things that I can imagine that people in Brazil in different areas and smaller towns face. In Brazil, people try to not talk about this gender agenda. This is something that’s being talked about outside Brazil. But in Brazil, we are years back. People are not really engaging on this conversation. I thought it was going to be hard for me as a woman, because Brazil has around 20% female surgeons.

I knew it was going to be challenging, but I had no idea how bad it was. When I started and things started happening, the list was big. I have an example of everything that is written about – microaggression, implicit bias, discrimination, harassment.

Every time I would try to speak about it and talk to someone, I would be strongly gaslighted. It was the whole training, the whole 5 years. People would say, “Oh, I don’t think it was like that. I think you were overreacting.” People would come with all these different answers for what I was experiencing, and that was frustrating. That was even harder because I had to cope with everything that was happening and I had no one to turn to. I had no mentors.

When I looked up to women who were in surgery, they would be tougher on us young surgeons than the men and they would tell us that we should not complain because in their time it was even harder. Now, it’s getting better and we are supposed to accept whatever comes.

That was at least a little bit of what I experienced in my training. It was only after I finished and started to do research about it that I really encountered a field of people who would echo what I was trying to say to many people in different hospitals that I attended to.

That was the key for me to get out of that situation of being gaslighted and of not being able to really talk about it. Suddenly, I started to publish things about Brazil that nobody was even writing or studying. That gave me a large amount of responsibility, but also motivation to keep going and to see the change.
 

Valuing women in medicine

Dr. Glatter: This is a very important point that you’re raising about the environment of women being hard on other women. We know that men can be very difficult on and also judgmental toward their trainees.

Amy, how would you respond to that? Was your experience similar in emergency medicine training?

Dr. Ho: I actually don’t feel like it was. I think what Júlia is alluding to is this “mean girls” idea, of “I went through it and thus you have to go through it.” I think you do see this in many specialties. One of the classic ones we hear about, and I don’t want to speak to it too much because it’s not my specialty, is ob.gyn., where it is a very female-dominant surgery group. There’s almost a hazing level that you hear about in some of the more malignant workplaces.

I think that you speak to two really important things. Number one is the numbers game. As you were saying, Brazil actually has many women. That’s awesome. That’s actually different from the United States, especially for the historic, existing workplace and less so for the medical students and for residents. I think step one is having minorities like women just present and there.

Step two is actually including and valuing them. While I think it’s really easy to move away from the women discussion, because there are women when you look around in medicine, it doesn’t mean that women are actually being heard, that they’re actually being accepted, or that their viewpoints are being listened to. A big part of it is normalizing not only seeing women in medicine but also normalizing the narrative of women in medicine.

It’s not just about motherhood; it’s about things like normalizing talking about advancement, academic promotions, pay, culture, being called things like “too reactive,” “anxious,” or “too assertive.” These are all classic things that we hear about when we talk about women.

That’s why we’re looking to not only conversations like this, but also structured ways for women to discuss being women in medicine. There are many women in medicine groups in emergency medicine, including: Females Working in Emergency Medicine (FemInEM); the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) women’s groups, which are American Association of Women Emergency Physicians (AAWEP) and Academy for Women in Academic Emergency Medicine (AWAEM), respectively; and the American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA), which is the American Medical Association’s offshoot.

All of these groups are geared toward normalizing women in medicine, normalizing the narrative of women in medicine, and then working on mentoring and educating so that we can advance our initiatives.
 

Gender balance is not gender equity

Dr. Glatter: Amy, you bring up a very critical point that mentoring is sort of the antidote to gender-based discrimination. Júlia had written a paper back in November of 2022 that was published in the Journal of Surgical Research talking exactly about this and how important it is to develop mentoring. Part of her research showed that about 20% of medical students who took the survey, about 1,000 people, had mentors, which was very disturbing.

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Mentorship is one of the ways of changing the reality about gender-based discrimination. Amy’s comment was very strong and we need to really keep saying it, which is that gender balance is not gender equity.

The idea of having more women is not the same as women being recognized as equals, as able as men, and as valued as men. To change this very long culture of male domination, we need support, and this support comes from mentorship.

Although I didn’t have one, I feel that since I started being a mentor for some students, it changed not only them but myself. It gave me strength to keep going, studying, publishing, and going further with this discussion. I feel like the relationship was as good for them as it is for me. That’s how things change.
 

Diversity, equity, and inclusion training

Dr. Glatter: We’re talking about the reality of gender equity in terms of the ability to have equal respect, recognition, opportunities, and access. That’s really an important point to realize, and for our audience, to understand that gender equity is not gender balance.

Amy, I want to talk about medical school curriculums. Are there advances that you’re aware of being made at certain schools, programs, even in residencies, to enforce these things and make it a priority?

Dr. Ho: We’re really lucky that, as a culture in the United States, medical training is certainly very geared toward diversity. Some of that is certainly unofficial. Some of that just means when they’re looking at a medical school class or looking at rank lists for residency, that they’re cognizant of the different backgrounds that people have. That’s still a step. That is a step, that we’re at least acknowledging it.

There are multiple medical schools and residencies that have more formal unconscious-bias training or diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training, both of which are excellent not only for us in the workplace but also for our patients. Almost all of us will see patients of highly diverse backgrounds. I think the biggest push is looking toward the criteria that we use for selecting trainees and students into our programs. Historically, it’s been MCAT, GPA, and so on.

We’ve really started to ask the question of, are these sorts of “objective criteria” actually biased in institutional ways? They talk about this all the time where GPAs will bias against students from underrepresented minorities (URM). I think all medical students and residencies have really acknowledged that. Although there are still test cutoffs, we are putting an inquisitive eye to what those mean, why they exist, and what are the other things that we should consider. This is all very heartening from what I’m seeing in medical training.

Dr. Glatter: There’s no formal rating system for DEI curriculums right now, like ranking of this school, or this program has more advanced recognition in terms of DEI?

Dr. Ho: No, but on the flip side, the U.S. News & World Report was classically one of the major rankings for medical schools. What we saw fairly recently was that very high-tier schools like Harvard and University of Chicago pulled out of that ranking because that ranking did not acknowledge the value of diversity. That was an incredible stance for medical schools to take, to say, “Hey, you are not evaluating an important criterion of ours.”

Dr. Glatter: That’s a great point. Júlia, where are we now in Brazil in terms of awareness of DEI and curriculum in schools and training programs?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Our reality is not as good as in the U.S., unfortunately. I don’t see much discussion on residency programs or medical schools at the moment. I see many students bringing it out and trying to make their schools engage in that discussion. This is something that is coming from the bottom up and not from the top down. I think it can lead to change as well. It is a step and it’s a beginning. Institutions should take the responsibility of doing this from the beginning. This is something where Brazil is still years behind you guys.

Dr. Glatter: It’s unfortunate, but certainly it’s important to hear that. What about in Canada and certainly your institution, McGill, where you just completed a master’s degree?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Canada is very much like the U.S. This is something that is really happening and it’s happening fast. I see, at least at McGill, a large amount of DEI inclusion and everything on this discussion. They have institutional courses for us to do as students, and we are all obliged to do many courses, which I think is really educating, especially for people with different cultures and backgrounds.

Dr. Glatter: Amy, where do you think we are in emergency medicine to look at the other side of it? Comparing surgery with emergency medicine, do you think we’re well advanced in terms of DEI, inclusion criteria, respect, and dignity, or are we really far off?

Dr. Ho: I may be biased, but I think emergency medicine is one of the best in terms of this, and I think there are a couple of reasons for it. One is that we are an inherently team-based organization. The attending, the residents, and the students all work in line with one another. There’s less of a hierarchy.

The same is true for our nurses, pharmacists, techs, and EMS. We all work together as a team. Because of that fairly flat structure, it’s really easy for us to value one another as individuals with our diverse backgrounds. In a way, that’s harder for specialties that are more hierarchical, and I think surgery is certainly one of the most hierarchical.

The second reason why emergency medicine is fairly well off in this is that we’re, by nature, a safety-net specialty. We see patients of all-comers, all walks, all backgrounds. I think we both recognize the value of physician-patient concordance. When we share characteristics with our patients, we recognize that value immediately at the bedside.

It exposes us to so much diversity. I see a refugee one day and the next patient is someone who is incarcerated. The next patient after that is an important businessman in society. That diversity and whiplash in the type of patients that we see back-to-back helps us see the playing field in a really flat, diverse way. Because of that, I think our culture is much better, as is our understanding of the value and importance of diversity not only for our programs, but also for our patients.
 

Do female doctors have better patient outcomes?

Dr. Glatter: Specialties working together in the emergency department is so important. Building that team and that togetherness is so critical. Júlia, would you agree?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Definitely. Something Amy said that is beautiful is that you recognize yourself in these patients. In surgery, we are taught to try to be away from the patients and not to put ourselves in the same position. We are taught to be less engaging, and this is not good. The good thing is when we really have patient-centered care, when we listen to them, and when we are involved with them.

I saw a publication showing that female and male surgeons treating similar patients had the same surgical outcomes. Women are as good as men technically to do surgery and have the same surgical outcomes. However, there is research showing that surgical teams with greater representation of women have improved surgical outcomes because of patient-centered care and the way women conduct bedside attention to patients. And they have better patient experience measures afterward. That is not only from the women who are treating the patients, but the whole environment. Women end up bringing men [into the conversation] and this better improves patient-centered care, and that makes the whole team a better team attending patients. Definitely, we are in the moment of patient experience and satisfaction, and increasing women is a way of achieving better patient satisfaction and experience.

Dr. Ho: There’s much to be said about having female clinicians available for patients. It doesn’t have to be just for female patients, although again, concordance between physicians and patients is certainly beneficial. Besides outcomes benefit, there’s even just a communication benefit. The way that women and men communicate is inherently different. The way women and men experience certain things is also inherently different.

A classic example of this is women who are experiencing a heart attack may not actually have chest pain but present with nausea. As a female who’s sensitive to this, when I see a woman throwing up, I am very attuned to something actually being wrong, knowing that they may not present with classic pain for a syndrome, but actually may be presenting with nausea instead. It doesn’t have to be a woman who takes that knowledge and turns it into something at the bedside. It certainly doesn’t have to, but it is just a natural, easy thing to step into as a female.

While I’m really careful to not step into this “women are better than men” or “men are better than women” argument, there’s something to be said about how the availability of female clinicians for all patients, not just female patients, can have benefit. Again, it’s shown in studies with cardiovascular outcomes and cardiologists, it’s certainly shown in ob.gyn., particularly for underrepresented minorities as well for maternal outcomes of Black mothers. It’s certainly shown again in patient satisfaction, which is concordance.

There is a profound level of research already on this that goes beyond just the idea of stacking the bench and putting more women in there. That’s not the value. We’re not just here to check off the box. We’re here to actually lend some value to our patients and, again, to one another as well.

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. These are excellent points. The point you make about patient presentation is so vital. The fact that women have nausea sometimes in ACS presentations, the research never was really attentive to this. It was biased. The symptoms that women may have that are not “typical” for ACS weren’t included in patient presentations. Educating everyone about, overall, the types of presentations that we can recognize is vital and important.

Dr. Ho: Yes. It’s worth saying that, when you look at how medicine and research developed, classically, who were the research participants? They were often White men. They were college students who, historically, because women were not allowed to go to college, were men.

I say that not to fault the institution, because that was the culture of our history, but to just say it is okay to question things. It is okay to realize that someone’s presenting outside of the box and that maybe we actually need to reframe what even created the walls of the box in the first place.

Dr. Glatter: Thank you again for joining us. I truly appreciate your insight and expertise.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, Hofstra/Northwell, New York. Dr. Ho is senior vice president of clinical informatics & analytics, department of emergency medicine, Integrative Emergency Services, Dallas. Dr. Loyola Ferreira is a master of science candidate, department of experimental surgery, McGill University, Montreal. They reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

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

The activity and clustering of certain cell types may distinguish mild and severe forms of psoriasis, with severe disease altering the cellular and metabolic composition of distal unaffected skin sites, according to a new analysis using single-cell transcriptomic technology.

On the surface, psoriasis severity is identified based on the visible lesions, Rochelle L. Castillo, MD, of the division of rheumatology and the NYU Psoriatic Arthritis Center, NYU Langone Health, New York, and colleagues wrote in their study, published in Science Immunology. Although cellular and molecular features of inflammatory skin diseases such as psoriasis have been characterized, activity at the tissue level and its systemic impact has not been explored.

“Our initial goal was to find measurable molecular signals that could tell us who is more likely to develop severe psoriasis, as well as who is at higher risk of developing related disorders that often accompany psoriasis, such as arthritis and cardiovascular disease,” study co–senior investigator Jose Scher, MD, director of the Psoriatic Arthritis Center and the Judith and Stewart Colton Center for Autoimmunity at NYU Langone Health, said in a press release accompanying the publication of the findings. “Having found signals with potential systemic consequences, we are now working to understand how skin inflammation can lead to widespread disease affecting other organs,”

In the study, the researchers used spatial transcriptomics, a technique that positions tissue sections onto genetic arrays to determine gene expression by cell type and histological location, helping to create a broad image-based map of where certain cell types are located in tissues and with what other cells they are communicating. They characterized the cell activity of skin samples from 11 men and women with mild to severe psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, and three healthy adults who did not have psoriasis. They defined the cellular composition of 25 healthy skin biopsies and matched skin biopsies from psoriatic lesional and nonlesional skin, and identified 17 distinct clusters of cells, which they grouped into epidermal, dermis, pilosebaceous, and adipose categories.

The researchers found that cell activity associated with inflammation, as shown by clusters of fibroblasts and dermal macrophages, was more common in the upper layers of the skin in samples from patients with more severe psoriasis, compared with healthy control samples.

They also examined patterns of immune activity at the cellular level and found significant patterns around the upper follicle, around the perifollicular dermis, and within the hair follicle, where immune cells were enriched in healthy skin. Other cells enriched in these upper layer areas in healthy skin included dendritic cells, innate lymphoid cells, T helper cells, T cytotoxic cells, and myeloid cells.

Clusters of fibroblasts and macrophages, which are associated with inflammation, were clustered in psoriatic lesional skin, which also showed more inflammation at the dermal and suprabasal epidermal levels. B lymphocytes also were more prevalent in lesional skin.

The researchers then analyzed the skin samples according to disease severity; mild psoriasis was defined as a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score less than 12; moderate to severe disease was defined as a PASI score of 12 or higher. The macrophage, fibroblast, and lymphatic endothelium–associated clusters distinguished mild and moderate to severe endotypes.

The pathology of moderate to severe psoriasis in lesional and nonlesional skin showed the extensive effects of psoriasis-related inflammation. Although nonlesional mild disease was clustered with healthy skin, in cases of moderate to severe disease, nonlesional and lesional groups were clustered together. This effect was segregated according to disease severity, independent of the presence of joint disease, and “was particularly evident in distal, nonlesional samples,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers also found evidence of increased gene activity in more than three dozen molecular pathways associated with metabolism and lipid levels in areas of lesional and nonlesional skin, Dr. Scher said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size and the limits of spatial transcriptomics technology resolution, the researchers wrote. “As this technology evolves, platforms with higher density, and by extension, resolution, of spatially barcoded beads will provide more granularity about cellular microenvironments in healthy and diseased states.”

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Psoriasis Foundation, the NYU Colton Center for Autoimmunity, the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis, the Beatrice Snyder Foundation, The Riley Family Foundation, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the NY Stem Cell Foundation. Dr. Castillo had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Scher has served as a consultant for Janssen, Abbvie, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, and has received research funding from Janssen and Pfizer.

The activity and clustering of certain cell types may distinguish mild and severe forms of psoriasis, with severe disease altering the cellular and metabolic composition of distal unaffected skin sites, according to a new analysis using single-cell transcriptomic technology.

On the surface, psoriasis severity is identified based on the visible lesions, Rochelle L. Castillo, MD, of the division of rheumatology and the NYU Psoriatic Arthritis Center, NYU Langone Health, New York, and colleagues wrote in their study, published in Science Immunology. Although cellular and molecular features of inflammatory skin diseases such as psoriasis have been characterized, activity at the tissue level and its systemic impact has not been explored.

“Our initial goal was to find measurable molecular signals that could tell us who is more likely to develop severe psoriasis, as well as who is at higher risk of developing related disorders that often accompany psoriasis, such as arthritis and cardiovascular disease,” study co–senior investigator Jose Scher, MD, director of the Psoriatic Arthritis Center and the Judith and Stewart Colton Center for Autoimmunity at NYU Langone Health, said in a press release accompanying the publication of the findings. “Having found signals with potential systemic consequences, we are now working to understand how skin inflammation can lead to widespread disease affecting other organs,”

In the study, the researchers used spatial transcriptomics, a technique that positions tissue sections onto genetic arrays to determine gene expression by cell type and histological location, helping to create a broad image-based map of where certain cell types are located in tissues and with what other cells they are communicating. They characterized the cell activity of skin samples from 11 men and women with mild to severe psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, and three healthy adults who did not have psoriasis. They defined the cellular composition of 25 healthy skin biopsies and matched skin biopsies from psoriatic lesional and nonlesional skin, and identified 17 distinct clusters of cells, which they grouped into epidermal, dermis, pilosebaceous, and adipose categories.

The researchers found that cell activity associated with inflammation, as shown by clusters of fibroblasts and dermal macrophages, was more common in the upper layers of the skin in samples from patients with more severe psoriasis, compared with healthy control samples.

They also examined patterns of immune activity at the cellular level and found significant patterns around the upper follicle, around the perifollicular dermis, and within the hair follicle, where immune cells were enriched in healthy skin. Other cells enriched in these upper layer areas in healthy skin included dendritic cells, innate lymphoid cells, T helper cells, T cytotoxic cells, and myeloid cells.

Clusters of fibroblasts and macrophages, which are associated with inflammation, were clustered in psoriatic lesional skin, which also showed more inflammation at the dermal and suprabasal epidermal levels. B lymphocytes also were more prevalent in lesional skin.

The researchers then analyzed the skin samples according to disease severity; mild psoriasis was defined as a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score less than 12; moderate to severe disease was defined as a PASI score of 12 or higher. The macrophage, fibroblast, and lymphatic endothelium–associated clusters distinguished mild and moderate to severe endotypes.

The pathology of moderate to severe psoriasis in lesional and nonlesional skin showed the extensive effects of psoriasis-related inflammation. Although nonlesional mild disease was clustered with healthy skin, in cases of moderate to severe disease, nonlesional and lesional groups were clustered together. This effect was segregated according to disease severity, independent of the presence of joint disease, and “was particularly evident in distal, nonlesional samples,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers also found evidence of increased gene activity in more than three dozen molecular pathways associated with metabolism and lipid levels in areas of lesional and nonlesional skin, Dr. Scher said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size and the limits of spatial transcriptomics technology resolution, the researchers wrote. “As this technology evolves, platforms with higher density, and by extension, resolution, of spatially barcoded beads will provide more granularity about cellular microenvironments in healthy and diseased states.”

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Psoriasis Foundation, the NYU Colton Center for Autoimmunity, the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis, the Beatrice Snyder Foundation, The Riley Family Foundation, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the NY Stem Cell Foundation. Dr. Castillo had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Scher has served as a consultant for Janssen, Abbvie, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, and has received research funding from Janssen and Pfizer.

The activity and clustering of certain cell types may distinguish mild and severe forms of psoriasis, with severe disease altering the cellular and metabolic composition of distal unaffected skin sites, according to a new analysis using single-cell transcriptomic technology.

On the surface, psoriasis severity is identified based on the visible lesions, Rochelle L. Castillo, MD, of the division of rheumatology and the NYU Psoriatic Arthritis Center, NYU Langone Health, New York, and colleagues wrote in their study, published in Science Immunology. Although cellular and molecular features of inflammatory skin diseases such as psoriasis have been characterized, activity at the tissue level and its systemic impact has not been explored.

“Our initial goal was to find measurable molecular signals that could tell us who is more likely to develop severe psoriasis, as well as who is at higher risk of developing related disorders that often accompany psoriasis, such as arthritis and cardiovascular disease,” study co–senior investigator Jose Scher, MD, director of the Psoriatic Arthritis Center and the Judith and Stewart Colton Center for Autoimmunity at NYU Langone Health, said in a press release accompanying the publication of the findings. “Having found signals with potential systemic consequences, we are now working to understand how skin inflammation can lead to widespread disease affecting other organs,”

In the study, the researchers used spatial transcriptomics, a technique that positions tissue sections onto genetic arrays to determine gene expression by cell type and histological location, helping to create a broad image-based map of where certain cell types are located in tissues and with what other cells they are communicating. They characterized the cell activity of skin samples from 11 men and women with mild to severe psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, and three healthy adults who did not have psoriasis. They defined the cellular composition of 25 healthy skin biopsies and matched skin biopsies from psoriatic lesional and nonlesional skin, and identified 17 distinct clusters of cells, which they grouped into epidermal, dermis, pilosebaceous, and adipose categories.

The researchers found that cell activity associated with inflammation, as shown by clusters of fibroblasts and dermal macrophages, was more common in the upper layers of the skin in samples from patients with more severe psoriasis, compared with healthy control samples.

They also examined patterns of immune activity at the cellular level and found significant patterns around the upper follicle, around the perifollicular dermis, and within the hair follicle, where immune cells were enriched in healthy skin. Other cells enriched in these upper layer areas in healthy skin included dendritic cells, innate lymphoid cells, T helper cells, T cytotoxic cells, and myeloid cells.

Clusters of fibroblasts and macrophages, which are associated with inflammation, were clustered in psoriatic lesional skin, which also showed more inflammation at the dermal and suprabasal epidermal levels. B lymphocytes also were more prevalent in lesional skin.

The researchers then analyzed the skin samples according to disease severity; mild psoriasis was defined as a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score less than 12; moderate to severe disease was defined as a PASI score of 12 or higher. The macrophage, fibroblast, and lymphatic endothelium–associated clusters distinguished mild and moderate to severe endotypes.

The pathology of moderate to severe psoriasis in lesional and nonlesional skin showed the extensive effects of psoriasis-related inflammation. Although nonlesional mild disease was clustered with healthy skin, in cases of moderate to severe disease, nonlesional and lesional groups were clustered together. This effect was segregated according to disease severity, independent of the presence of joint disease, and “was particularly evident in distal, nonlesional samples,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers also found evidence of increased gene activity in more than three dozen molecular pathways associated with metabolism and lipid levels in areas of lesional and nonlesional skin, Dr. Scher said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size and the limits of spatial transcriptomics technology resolution, the researchers wrote. “As this technology evolves, platforms with higher density, and by extension, resolution, of spatially barcoded beads will provide more granularity about cellular microenvironments in healthy and diseased states.”

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Psoriasis Foundation, the NYU Colton Center for Autoimmunity, the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis, the Beatrice Snyder Foundation, The Riley Family Foundation, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the NY Stem Cell Foundation. Dr. Castillo had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Scher has served as a consultant for Janssen, Abbvie, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, and has received research funding from Janssen and Pfizer.

MILAN – Most people with recent-onset chronic back pain who are referred to a rheumatologist and then diagnosed with definite axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) maintain that diagnosis over the next 2 years, but for those with residual diagnostic uncertainty for axSpA, particular characteristics may help to identify those who will or will not go on to receive a definite diagnosis, according to presentations given at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Although a rheumatologist’s early axSpA diagnosis is reliable, new research also presented at the meeting reveals that the axSpA clinical phenotype presentation has great heterogeneity around the world, adding to the challenge.

These findings also dovetail with the consensus of an expert panel from the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) that determined early axSpA should be defined by a duration of axial symptoms of less than 2 years, a move that should make research studies of early disease more consistent.
 

Diagnosis at first sight

To help in overcoming the long diagnostic delay typically encountered by patients with axSpA, researchers involved in the longitudinal Spondyloarthritis Caught Early (SPACE) cohort have sought to measure the prevalence of axSpA and the reliability of an early diagnosis in patients with chronic back pain (CBP). SPACE researcher Mary Lucy Marques, MD, a rheumatologist at Coimbra (Portugal) Hospital and University Center, and PhD student at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, presented the main results of the study, which included patients younger than 45 years with CBP of unknown origin lasting 3 months to 2 years.

Patients referred to rheumatologists were judged at each visit for the presence or absence of axSpA, and the baseline judgment was reviewed after 2 years to assess its reliability. Baseline diagnostic judgments remained rather stable, and definite axSpA was present in one-third of the patients referred to the rheumatologist (175 out of 555 patients; 32%). After 2 years, the number of patients with definite axSpA diagnosis changed to 165, due to 5% of the definite diagnoses being refuted and 8% gaining a definite axSpA diagnosis. Among the features related to axSpA, the presence (or absence) of imaging-detected sacroiliitis at baseline was the best discriminator for a definite diagnosis at 2 years.

In commenting on these findings, Alexandre Sepriano, MD, PhD, assistant professor of rheumatology, NOVA Medical School, Lisbon, Portugal, who was not involved in the study, said: “These data show that the key is likely the referral of the ‘right patients’ to tertiary care centers. The [ASAS] has developed referral criteria that can be used for this purpose. According to these, patients with chronic low back pain starting before 45 years of age should be referred to a rheumatologist if at least one additional SpA feature is present.

“It should be acknowledged that axSpA is not a disease of males only. In fact, there is a 1:1 ratio between males and females in the full spectrum of the disease. Also, although imaging findings are important, not all patients will have these. Similarly, not all patients with imaging abnormalities will have the disease, and their sole presence without other SpA features does not suffice for diagnosis.”
 

Repeated assessment: Is it worth it?

Despite the positive findings described above, residual diagnostic uncertainty remained for 15% of patients, representing an obstacle to initiating an appropriate treatment. Therefore, it is important to understand whether and how the repeated assessment of axSpA features is of value for a definite diagnosis.

This last question was addressed in a second abstract also presented by Dr. Marques that focused on the yield of repeated assessment in CBP patients with suspected axSpA from the SPACE cohort. The main outcome of the study was the clinical diagnosis of definite axSpA at 2 years. Compared with baseline, at the 2-year evaluation 32 patients changed their diagnosis and were classified as definite axSpA: Sixteen were previously described as uncertain axSpA at baseline, 11 as uncertain no axSpA, and 5 as definite no axSpA.

On average, three axSpA features were present at baseline with one or two adjunctive features found throughout the study that led to the final diagnosis of definite axSpA. These adjunctive features were most commonly response to NSAIDs and sacroiliitis on MRI. Dr. Marques and colleagues concluded that the yield of repeated assessment in this setting was modest for a new diagnosis of definite axSpA. “Usefulness of repeating MRI in terms of diagnostic yield is low but can be considered in HLA-B27+ patients, especially if male,” Dr. Marques said, commenting on the analysis of SpA features in patients who changed their diagnosis to definite axSpA at 2 years.

“The early diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis remains a challenge,” Dr. Sepriano said in commenting on the second SPACE study. “Probably one of the main reasons is the yet suboptimal awareness of the [full spectrum] of the disease in a primary care setting, in which most patients will first show up to get medical care. It is now well-known that patients do not always have changes in pelvic radiographs and that waiting for these to make a diagnosis of [radiographic] axSpA results in further delay and in missing many patients who will never develop these changes.

“Still, recognizing the clinical picture of early axSpA and differentiating it from other more common causes of chronic back pain (e.g., degenerative spinal disease) can sometimes be difficult. Continuous efforts in raising awareness and in education will likely result in further reducing the diagnostic delay gap and, as such, improve the prognosis of this often-debilitating rheumatic inflammatory disease.”

One epidemiologic size does not fit all

According to data from the International Map of Axial Spondyloarthritis (IMAS), axSpA clinical phenotype presentation shows great heterogeneity around the world. Marco Garrido-Cumbrera, PhD, of the University of Seville in Spain, presented the results of an analysis of an IMAS online survey (2017-2022).

The study, supported by Novartis, aimed at exploring differences in axSpA clinical phenotype presentation in a large sample of unselected patients: a total of 5,557 individuals from 27 countries across five regions. The results showed statistically significant differences among countries in almost all the analyzed characteristics, from age at onset of symptoms (the highest in Latin America) to HLA-B27 positivity frequency (lowest in Latin America and highest in Asia).

Differences also emerged in the presence of a positive family history of the disease (most common in Europe) and of physical and mental comorbidities (common in Africa). The authors also reported treatment data showing that most of the patients had used NSAIDs, and almost half of the patients had ever taken biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Data also showed a mean delay in diagnosis of 7 years, with the longest values observed in South Africa and the lowest in Asia.
 

A consensus definition of early AxSpA

Early axSpA for the first time has been defined based on ASAS expert consensus, and the definition was presented at the meeting by Victoria Navarro-Compán, MD, PhD, of La Paz University Hospital, Madrid. An international working group came to a definition based on the symptom duration and taking solely axial symptoms into account. At the end of a five-step process, the group successfully developed the first consensus definition of early axSpA: “patients with diagnosis of axSpA with axial symptoms duration of ≤ 2 years.” Also to be noted are axial symptoms as assessed by a rheumatologist, which should include spinal/buttock pain or morning stiffness.

As reported by the authors, this ASAS definition is based on expert consensus, with the limitation of a lack of scientific evidence to support it, especially with regard to the specific duration of symptoms from the time of disease onset. Nonetheless, ASAS recommends the use of this definition in studies referring to early axSpA.

Dr. Marques reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Navarro-Compán reports serving on the speakers bureau for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; consulting for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, MoonLake, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; and receiving grant/research support from AbbVie and Novartis. Dr. Garrido-Cumbrera reports receiving grant or research support from Novartis.
 

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

MILAN – Most people with recent-onset chronic back pain who are referred to a rheumatologist and then diagnosed with definite axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) maintain that diagnosis over the next 2 years, but for those with residual diagnostic uncertainty for axSpA, particular characteristics may help to identify those who will or will not go on to receive a definite diagnosis, according to presentations given at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Although a rheumatologist’s early axSpA diagnosis is reliable, new research also presented at the meeting reveals that the axSpA clinical phenotype presentation has great heterogeneity around the world, adding to the challenge.

These findings also dovetail with the consensus of an expert panel from the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) that determined early axSpA should be defined by a duration of axial symptoms of less than 2 years, a move that should make research studies of early disease more consistent.
 

Diagnosis at first sight

To help in overcoming the long diagnostic delay typically encountered by patients with axSpA, researchers involved in the longitudinal Spondyloarthritis Caught Early (SPACE) cohort have sought to measure the prevalence of axSpA and the reliability of an early diagnosis in patients with chronic back pain (CBP). SPACE researcher Mary Lucy Marques, MD, a rheumatologist at Coimbra (Portugal) Hospital and University Center, and PhD student at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, presented the main results of the study, which included patients younger than 45 years with CBP of unknown origin lasting 3 months to 2 years.

Patients referred to rheumatologists were judged at each visit for the presence or absence of axSpA, and the baseline judgment was reviewed after 2 years to assess its reliability. Baseline diagnostic judgments remained rather stable, and definite axSpA was present in one-third of the patients referred to the rheumatologist (175 out of 555 patients; 32%). After 2 years, the number of patients with definite axSpA diagnosis changed to 165, due to 5% of the definite diagnoses being refuted and 8% gaining a definite axSpA diagnosis. Among the features related to axSpA, the presence (or absence) of imaging-detected sacroiliitis at baseline was the best discriminator for a definite diagnosis at 2 years.

In commenting on these findings, Alexandre Sepriano, MD, PhD, assistant professor of rheumatology, NOVA Medical School, Lisbon, Portugal, who was not involved in the study, said: “These data show that the key is likely the referral of the ‘right patients’ to tertiary care centers. The [ASAS] has developed referral criteria that can be used for this purpose. According to these, patients with chronic low back pain starting before 45 years of age should be referred to a rheumatologist if at least one additional SpA feature is present.

“It should be acknowledged that axSpA is not a disease of males only. In fact, there is a 1:1 ratio between males and females in the full spectrum of the disease. Also, although imaging findings are important, not all patients will have these. Similarly, not all patients with imaging abnormalities will have the disease, and their sole presence without other SpA features does not suffice for diagnosis.”
 

Repeated assessment: Is it worth it?

Despite the positive findings described above, residual diagnostic uncertainty remained for 15% of patients, representing an obstacle to initiating an appropriate treatment. Therefore, it is important to understand whether and how the repeated assessment of axSpA features is of value for a definite diagnosis.

This last question was addressed in a second abstract also presented by Dr. Marques that focused on the yield of repeated assessment in CBP patients with suspected axSpA from the SPACE cohort. The main outcome of the study was the clinical diagnosis of definite axSpA at 2 years. Compared with baseline, at the 2-year evaluation 32 patients changed their diagnosis and were classified as definite axSpA: Sixteen were previously described as uncertain axSpA at baseline, 11 as uncertain no axSpA, and 5 as definite no axSpA.

On average, three axSpA features were present at baseline with one or two adjunctive features found throughout the study that led to the final diagnosis of definite axSpA. These adjunctive features were most commonly response to NSAIDs and sacroiliitis on MRI. Dr. Marques and colleagues concluded that the yield of repeated assessment in this setting was modest for a new diagnosis of definite axSpA. “Usefulness of repeating MRI in terms of diagnostic yield is low but can be considered in HLA-B27+ patients, especially if male,” Dr. Marques said, commenting on the analysis of SpA features in patients who changed their diagnosis to definite axSpA at 2 years.

“The early diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis remains a challenge,” Dr. Sepriano said in commenting on the second SPACE study. “Probably one of the main reasons is the yet suboptimal awareness of the [full spectrum] of the disease in a primary care setting, in which most patients will first show up to get medical care. It is now well-known that patients do not always have changes in pelvic radiographs and that waiting for these to make a diagnosis of [radiographic] axSpA results in further delay and in missing many patients who will never develop these changes.

“Still, recognizing the clinical picture of early axSpA and differentiating it from other more common causes of chronic back pain (e.g., degenerative spinal disease) can sometimes be difficult. Continuous efforts in raising awareness and in education will likely result in further reducing the diagnostic delay gap and, as such, improve the prognosis of this often-debilitating rheumatic inflammatory disease.”

One epidemiologic size does not fit all

According to data from the International Map of Axial Spondyloarthritis (IMAS), axSpA clinical phenotype presentation shows great heterogeneity around the world. Marco Garrido-Cumbrera, PhD, of the University of Seville in Spain, presented the results of an analysis of an IMAS online survey (2017-2022).

The study, supported by Novartis, aimed at exploring differences in axSpA clinical phenotype presentation in a large sample of unselected patients: a total of 5,557 individuals from 27 countries across five regions. The results showed statistically significant differences among countries in almost all the analyzed characteristics, from age at onset of symptoms (the highest in Latin America) to HLA-B27 positivity frequency (lowest in Latin America and highest in Asia).

Differences also emerged in the presence of a positive family history of the disease (most common in Europe) and of physical and mental comorbidities (common in Africa). The authors also reported treatment data showing that most of the patients had used NSAIDs, and almost half of the patients had ever taken biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Data also showed a mean delay in diagnosis of 7 years, with the longest values observed in South Africa and the lowest in Asia.
 

A consensus definition of early AxSpA

Early axSpA for the first time has been defined based on ASAS expert consensus, and the definition was presented at the meeting by Victoria Navarro-Compán, MD, PhD, of La Paz University Hospital, Madrid. An international working group came to a definition based on the symptom duration and taking solely axial symptoms into account. At the end of a five-step process, the group successfully developed the first consensus definition of early axSpA: “patients with diagnosis of axSpA with axial symptoms duration of ≤ 2 years.” Also to be noted are axial symptoms as assessed by a rheumatologist, which should include spinal/buttock pain or morning stiffness.

As reported by the authors, this ASAS definition is based on expert consensus, with the limitation of a lack of scientific evidence to support it, especially with regard to the specific duration of symptoms from the time of disease onset. Nonetheless, ASAS recommends the use of this definition in studies referring to early axSpA.

Dr. Marques reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Navarro-Compán reports serving on the speakers bureau for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; consulting for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, MoonLake, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; and receiving grant/research support from AbbVie and Novartis. Dr. Garrido-Cumbrera reports receiving grant or research support from Novartis.
 

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

MILAN – Most people with recent-onset chronic back pain who are referred to a rheumatologist and then diagnosed with definite axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) maintain that diagnosis over the next 2 years, but for those with residual diagnostic uncertainty for axSpA, particular characteristics may help to identify those who will or will not go on to receive a definite diagnosis, according to presentations given at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Although a rheumatologist’s early axSpA diagnosis is reliable, new research also presented at the meeting reveals that the axSpA clinical phenotype presentation has great heterogeneity around the world, adding to the challenge.

These findings also dovetail with the consensus of an expert panel from the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) that determined early axSpA should be defined by a duration of axial symptoms of less than 2 years, a move that should make research studies of early disease more consistent.
 

Diagnosis at first sight

To help in overcoming the long diagnostic delay typically encountered by patients with axSpA, researchers involved in the longitudinal Spondyloarthritis Caught Early (SPACE) cohort have sought to measure the prevalence of axSpA and the reliability of an early diagnosis in patients with chronic back pain (CBP). SPACE researcher Mary Lucy Marques, MD, a rheumatologist at Coimbra (Portugal) Hospital and University Center, and PhD student at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, presented the main results of the study, which included patients younger than 45 years with CBP of unknown origin lasting 3 months to 2 years.

Patients referred to rheumatologists were judged at each visit for the presence or absence of axSpA, and the baseline judgment was reviewed after 2 years to assess its reliability. Baseline diagnostic judgments remained rather stable, and definite axSpA was present in one-third of the patients referred to the rheumatologist (175 out of 555 patients; 32%). After 2 years, the number of patients with definite axSpA diagnosis changed to 165, due to 5% of the definite diagnoses being refuted and 8% gaining a definite axSpA diagnosis. Among the features related to axSpA, the presence (or absence) of imaging-detected sacroiliitis at baseline was the best discriminator for a definite diagnosis at 2 years.

In commenting on these findings, Alexandre Sepriano, MD, PhD, assistant professor of rheumatology, NOVA Medical School, Lisbon, Portugal, who was not involved in the study, said: “These data show that the key is likely the referral of the ‘right patients’ to tertiary care centers. The [ASAS] has developed referral criteria that can be used for this purpose. According to these, patients with chronic low back pain starting before 45 years of age should be referred to a rheumatologist if at least one additional SpA feature is present.

“It should be acknowledged that axSpA is not a disease of males only. In fact, there is a 1:1 ratio between males and females in the full spectrum of the disease. Also, although imaging findings are important, not all patients will have these. Similarly, not all patients with imaging abnormalities will have the disease, and their sole presence without other SpA features does not suffice for diagnosis.”
 

Repeated assessment: Is it worth it?

Despite the positive findings described above, residual diagnostic uncertainty remained for 15% of patients, representing an obstacle to initiating an appropriate treatment. Therefore, it is important to understand whether and how the repeated assessment of axSpA features is of value for a definite diagnosis.

This last question was addressed in a second abstract also presented by Dr. Marques that focused on the yield of repeated assessment in CBP patients with suspected axSpA from the SPACE cohort. The main outcome of the study was the clinical diagnosis of definite axSpA at 2 years. Compared with baseline, at the 2-year evaluation 32 patients changed their diagnosis and were classified as definite axSpA: Sixteen were previously described as uncertain axSpA at baseline, 11 as uncertain no axSpA, and 5 as definite no axSpA.

On average, three axSpA features were present at baseline with one or two adjunctive features found throughout the study that led to the final diagnosis of definite axSpA. These adjunctive features were most commonly response to NSAIDs and sacroiliitis on MRI. Dr. Marques and colleagues concluded that the yield of repeated assessment in this setting was modest for a new diagnosis of definite axSpA. “Usefulness of repeating MRI in terms of diagnostic yield is low but can be considered in HLA-B27+ patients, especially if male,” Dr. Marques said, commenting on the analysis of SpA features in patients who changed their diagnosis to definite axSpA at 2 years.

“The early diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis remains a challenge,” Dr. Sepriano said in commenting on the second SPACE study. “Probably one of the main reasons is the yet suboptimal awareness of the [full spectrum] of the disease in a primary care setting, in which most patients will first show up to get medical care. It is now well-known that patients do not always have changes in pelvic radiographs and that waiting for these to make a diagnosis of [radiographic] axSpA results in further delay and in missing many patients who will never develop these changes.

“Still, recognizing the clinical picture of early axSpA and differentiating it from other more common causes of chronic back pain (e.g., degenerative spinal disease) can sometimes be difficult. Continuous efforts in raising awareness and in education will likely result in further reducing the diagnostic delay gap and, as such, improve the prognosis of this often-debilitating rheumatic inflammatory disease.”

One epidemiologic size does not fit all

According to data from the International Map of Axial Spondyloarthritis (IMAS), axSpA clinical phenotype presentation shows great heterogeneity around the world. Marco Garrido-Cumbrera, PhD, of the University of Seville in Spain, presented the results of an analysis of an IMAS online survey (2017-2022).

The study, supported by Novartis, aimed at exploring differences in axSpA clinical phenotype presentation in a large sample of unselected patients: a total of 5,557 individuals from 27 countries across five regions. The results showed statistically significant differences among countries in almost all the analyzed characteristics, from age at onset of symptoms (the highest in Latin America) to HLA-B27 positivity frequency (lowest in Latin America and highest in Asia).

Differences also emerged in the presence of a positive family history of the disease (most common in Europe) and of physical and mental comorbidities (common in Africa). The authors also reported treatment data showing that most of the patients had used NSAIDs, and almost half of the patients had ever taken biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Data also showed a mean delay in diagnosis of 7 years, with the longest values observed in South Africa and the lowest in Asia.
 

A consensus definition of early AxSpA

Early axSpA for the first time has been defined based on ASAS expert consensus, and the definition was presented at the meeting by Victoria Navarro-Compán, MD, PhD, of La Paz University Hospital, Madrid. An international working group came to a definition based on the symptom duration and taking solely axial symptoms into account. At the end of a five-step process, the group successfully developed the first consensus definition of early axSpA: “patients with diagnosis of axSpA with axial symptoms duration of ≤ 2 years.” Also to be noted are axial symptoms as assessed by a rheumatologist, which should include spinal/buttock pain or morning stiffness.

As reported by the authors, this ASAS definition is based on expert consensus, with the limitation of a lack of scientific evidence to support it, especially with regard to the specific duration of symptoms from the time of disease onset. Nonetheless, ASAS recommends the use of this definition in studies referring to early axSpA.

Dr. Marques reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Navarro-Compán reports serving on the speakers bureau for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; consulting for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, MoonLake, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; and receiving grant/research support from AbbVie and Novartis. Dr. Garrido-Cumbrera reports receiving grant or research support from Novartis.
 

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

MILAN – Serum uric acid of less than 6 mg/dL was achieved and maintained for a substantial period of time with a once-monthly infusion of SEL-212 in patients with refractory gout, according to results of the two phase 3 DISSOLVE I and II trials.

Both trials met their primary endpoints. In DISSOLVE I – the U.S. study – 56% of patients on SEL-212 at 0.15 mg/kg (high dose) achieved a response, defined as achievement and maintenance of a reduction in serum urate to less than 6 mg/dL for at least 80% of the time during month 6 of treatment. In DISSOLVE II – the global study – 46% of patients on SEL-212 on the 0.15-mg/kg dose achieved response.

In participants aged 50 years or older, there was a statistically significant higher response rate at the high dose of SEL-212 in both DISSOLVE I and II of 65% and 47%, respectively, compared with placebo.

Herbert S.B. Baraf, MD, clinical professor of medicine at George Washington University, Washington, and principal investigator of the DISSOLVE program, presented results of the two phase 3 trials during a late-breaking session at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Arthritis Foundation

“The top-line data from the two SEL-212 phase 3 studies are encouraging. They show that induction of immunotolerance with an infusion of a rapamycin-containing nanoparticle (SEL-110), followed immediately by an infusion of pegadricase, a potent but immunogenic uricase, allows for a strong and sustained uric acid–lowering effect without the development of anti-drug antibodies,” Dr. Baraf said in an interview.

SEL-212 is a monthly two-part infusion therapy – a combination of Selecta Biosciences’s ImmTOR immune tolerance platform, and a therapeutic uricase enzyme (pegadricase), designed to treat refractory gout. SEL-110 (ImmTOR) is an immune-tolerizing, nanoencapsulated rapamycin administered 30 minutes before pegadricase and inhibits anti-pegadricase antibodies. SEL-37 is a pegylated uricase (pegadricase) that converts uric acid to excretable allantoin.

SEL-212 was originally developed by Selecta. Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (Sobi) licensed SEL-212 from Selecta in June 2020 and is responsible for development, regulatory, and commercial activities in all markets outside of China. Selecta is responsible for ImmTOR manufacturing. The phase 3 program for SEL-212 was run by Selecta and funded by Sobi.

It is understood that a biologic license application will be submitted to the Food and Drug Administration, most likely next year, and if approved, “the SEL-212 two-component infusion treatment would provide a monthly alternative to twice-monthly pegloticase, for patients with refractory gout,” Dr. Baraf added.
 

Details of the trials

The two DISSOLVE studies replicate double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in patients with chronic refractory gout. DISSOLVE I was carried out in 112 patients across 29 sites in the United States, and DISSOLVE II tested the two-part treatment in 153 patients across 37 sites in the United States, Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, and Serbia.

Both studies randomized patients 1:1:1 to a high dose (SEL-110 of 0.15 mg/kg plus SEL-037 of 0.2 mg/kg), low dose (SEL-110 of 0.1 mg/kg plus SEL-037 of 0.2 mg/kg), or placebo (saline) infused every 28 days for 6 months. Prophylaxis against infusion reactions and gout flares were given to all participants.

Adult patients had a 10- to 14-year history of symptomatic gout, with three or more flares over the 18 months prior to screening, or one or more tophus, or a diagnosis of gouty arthritis. They were also required to have chronic refractory gout with a failure to normalize serum uric acid with any xanthine oxidase inhibitor (for example, allopurinol) and to have not been previously exposed to uricase-based therapy. Serum uric acid had to be at least 7 mg/dL. Participants were balanced for age, body mass index, and sex across treatment groups. Gout severity was greater in DISSOLVE II, Dr. Baraf reported.

Both studies treated patients for 6 months, but DISSOLVE 1 continued with a 6-month, blinded safety extension. The primary endpoint in both studies was serum urate control during month 6, and secondary endpoints included tender and swollen joint counts, tophus burden, patient-reported outcomes of activity limitation, quality of life, and gout flare incidence.

In DISSOLVE I, patients on SEL-212 had a statistically significant higher response rate during month 6 of 56% with the high dose (P < .0001) and 48% with the low dose (P < .0001), compared with 4% of patients randomized to receive placebo. In DISSOLVE II, participants on SEL-212 had a statistically significant higher response rate during month 6 of 46% with the high dose (P = .0002) and 40% with the low dose (P = .0008), compared with 11% of patients randomized to receive placebo.

“We also saw significant reductions in serum uric acid for all treatment groups, compared with placebo,” Dr. Baraf reported. Mean percentage change was –62.3% and –58.3% in the high- and low-dose groups, respectively, in DISSOLVE I, and –58.1% and –52.2% in DISSOLVE II, respectively.

SEL-212 had a favorable safety profile with adverse events as expected across both doses, including mild to moderate stomatitis (3.4% in the low-dose group and 9.2% in the high-dose group versus 0% in the placebo group), and a greater number of infusion reactions at 24 hours and 1 hour after drug administration in both treatment groups versus placebo. Six patients had treatment-related serious adverse events, including two cases of anaphylaxis and one gout flare in both the high- and low-dose treatment groups. The 6-month extension period in the DISSOLVE I trial showed that the majority (75%) of patients who completed 6 months of SEL-212 treatment as a responder continued to be successfully treated through 12 months with no infusion reactions or safety signals.

“I expect more data will be forthcoming on the important clinical secondary endpoints targeted by SEL-212 therapy,” Dr. Baraf noted.
 

Need control arm taking allopurinol?

Roy Fleischmann, MD, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas, commented on the study methods after the presentation. “The major problem with this study is that they say the patients had had insufficient response to allopurinol, and my guess is most had received 100-200 mg of allopurinol but were not titrated up to the maximum tolerated dose,” he said, adding: “they should have had a control arm of patients on allopurinol and titrated to the maximum tolerated dose. So, I don’t know what this is really telling us with respect to allopurinol, which is a relatively cheap drug.”

Dr. Baraf reported consulting with Horizon, Sobi, and Selecta; serving on Horizon’s speakers bureau, and receiving grant/research support from Horizon and Sobi. Dr. Fleischmann reported no financial relationship of relevance to this study.

MILAN – Serum uric acid of less than 6 mg/dL was achieved and maintained for a substantial period of time with a once-monthly infusion of SEL-212 in patients with refractory gout, according to results of the two phase 3 DISSOLVE I and II trials.

Both trials met their primary endpoints. In DISSOLVE I – the U.S. study – 56% of patients on SEL-212 at 0.15 mg/kg (high dose) achieved a response, defined as achievement and maintenance of a reduction in serum urate to less than 6 mg/dL for at least 80% of the time during month 6 of treatment. In DISSOLVE II – the global study – 46% of patients on SEL-212 on the 0.15-mg/kg dose achieved response.

In participants aged 50 years or older, there was a statistically significant higher response rate at the high dose of SEL-212 in both DISSOLVE I and II of 65% and 47%, respectively, compared with placebo.

Herbert S.B. Baraf, MD, clinical professor of medicine at George Washington University, Washington, and principal investigator of the DISSOLVE program, presented results of the two phase 3 trials during a late-breaking session at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Arthritis Foundation

“The top-line data from the two SEL-212 phase 3 studies are encouraging. They show that induction of immunotolerance with an infusion of a rapamycin-containing nanoparticle (SEL-110), followed immediately by an infusion of pegadricase, a potent but immunogenic uricase, allows for a strong and sustained uric acid–lowering effect without the development of anti-drug antibodies,” Dr. Baraf said in an interview.

SEL-212 is a monthly two-part infusion therapy – a combination of Selecta Biosciences’s ImmTOR immune tolerance platform, and a therapeutic uricase enzyme (pegadricase), designed to treat refractory gout. SEL-110 (ImmTOR) is an immune-tolerizing, nanoencapsulated rapamycin administered 30 minutes before pegadricase and inhibits anti-pegadricase antibodies. SEL-37 is a pegylated uricase (pegadricase) that converts uric acid to excretable allantoin.

SEL-212 was originally developed by Selecta. Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (Sobi) licensed SEL-212 from Selecta in June 2020 and is responsible for development, regulatory, and commercial activities in all markets outside of China. Selecta is responsible for ImmTOR manufacturing. The phase 3 program for SEL-212 was run by Selecta and funded by Sobi.

It is understood that a biologic license application will be submitted to the Food and Drug Administration, most likely next year, and if approved, “the SEL-212 two-component infusion treatment would provide a monthly alternative to twice-monthly pegloticase, for patients with refractory gout,” Dr. Baraf added.
 

Details of the trials

The two DISSOLVE studies replicate double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in patients with chronic refractory gout. DISSOLVE I was carried out in 112 patients across 29 sites in the United States, and DISSOLVE II tested the two-part treatment in 153 patients across 37 sites in the United States, Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, and Serbia.

Both studies randomized patients 1:1:1 to a high dose (SEL-110 of 0.15 mg/kg plus SEL-037 of 0.2 mg/kg), low dose (SEL-110 of 0.1 mg/kg plus SEL-037 of 0.2 mg/kg), or placebo (saline) infused every 28 days for 6 months. Prophylaxis against infusion reactions and gout flares were given to all participants.

Adult patients had a 10- to 14-year history of symptomatic gout, with three or more flares over the 18 months prior to screening, or one or more tophus, or a diagnosis of gouty arthritis. They were also required to have chronic refractory gout with a failure to normalize serum uric acid with any xanthine oxidase inhibitor (for example, allopurinol) and to have not been previously exposed to uricase-based therapy. Serum uric acid had to be at least 7 mg/dL. Participants were balanced for age, body mass index, and sex across treatment groups. Gout severity was greater in DISSOLVE II, Dr. Baraf reported.

Both studies treated patients for 6 months, but DISSOLVE 1 continued with a 6-month, blinded safety extension. The primary endpoint in both studies was serum urate control during month 6, and secondary endpoints included tender and swollen joint counts, tophus burden, patient-reported outcomes of activity limitation, quality of life, and gout flare incidence.

In DISSOLVE I, patients on SEL-212 had a statistically significant higher response rate during month 6 of 56% with the high dose (P < .0001) and 48% with the low dose (P < .0001), compared with 4% of patients randomized to receive placebo. In DISSOLVE II, participants on SEL-212 had a statistically significant higher response rate during month 6 of 46% with the high dose (P = .0002) and 40% with the low dose (P = .0008), compared with 11% of patients randomized to receive placebo.

“We also saw significant reductions in serum uric acid for all treatment groups, compared with placebo,” Dr. Baraf reported. Mean percentage change was –62.3% and –58.3% in the high- and low-dose groups, respectively, in DISSOLVE I, and –58.1% and –52.2% in DISSOLVE II, respectively.

SEL-212 had a favorable safety profile with adverse events as expected across both doses, including mild to moderate stomatitis (3.4% in the low-dose group and 9.2% in the high-dose group versus 0% in the placebo group), and a greater number of infusion reactions at 24 hours and 1 hour after drug administration in both treatment groups versus placebo. Six patients had treatment-related serious adverse events, including two cases of anaphylaxis and one gout flare in both the high- and low-dose treatment groups. The 6-month extension period in the DISSOLVE I trial showed that the majority (75%) of patients who completed 6 months of SEL-212 treatment as a responder continued to be successfully treated through 12 months with no infusion reactions or safety signals.

“I expect more data will be forthcoming on the important clinical secondary endpoints targeted by SEL-212 therapy,” Dr. Baraf noted.
 

Need control arm taking allopurinol?

Roy Fleischmann, MD, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas, commented on the study methods after the presentation. “The major problem with this study is that they say the patients had had insufficient response to allopurinol, and my guess is most had received 100-200 mg of allopurinol but were not titrated up to the maximum tolerated dose,” he said, adding: “they should have had a control arm of patients on allopurinol and titrated to the maximum tolerated dose. So, I don’t know what this is really telling us with respect to allopurinol, which is a relatively cheap drug.”

Dr. Baraf reported consulting with Horizon, Sobi, and Selecta; serving on Horizon’s speakers bureau, and receiving grant/research support from Horizon and Sobi. Dr. Fleischmann reported no financial relationship of relevance to this study.

MILAN – Serum uric acid of less than 6 mg/dL was achieved and maintained for a substantial period of time with a once-monthly infusion of SEL-212 in patients with refractory gout, according to results of the two phase 3 DISSOLVE I and II trials.

Both trials met their primary endpoints. In DISSOLVE I – the U.S. study – 56% of patients on SEL-212 at 0.15 mg/kg (high dose) achieved a response, defined as achievement and maintenance of a reduction in serum urate to less than 6 mg/dL for at least 80% of the time during month 6 of treatment. In DISSOLVE II – the global study – 46% of patients on SEL-212 on the 0.15-mg/kg dose achieved response.

In participants aged 50 years or older, there was a statistically significant higher response rate at the high dose of SEL-212 in both DISSOLVE I and II of 65% and 47%, respectively, compared with placebo.

Herbert S.B. Baraf, MD, clinical professor of medicine at George Washington University, Washington, and principal investigator of the DISSOLVE program, presented results of the two phase 3 trials during a late-breaking session at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Arthritis Foundation

“The top-line data from the two SEL-212 phase 3 studies are encouraging. They show that induction of immunotolerance with an infusion of a rapamycin-containing nanoparticle (SEL-110), followed immediately by an infusion of pegadricase, a potent but immunogenic uricase, allows for a strong and sustained uric acid–lowering effect without the development of anti-drug antibodies,” Dr. Baraf said in an interview.

SEL-212 is a monthly two-part infusion therapy – a combination of Selecta Biosciences’s ImmTOR immune tolerance platform, and a therapeutic uricase enzyme (pegadricase), designed to treat refractory gout. SEL-110 (ImmTOR) is an immune-tolerizing, nanoencapsulated rapamycin administered 30 minutes before pegadricase and inhibits anti-pegadricase antibodies. SEL-37 is a pegylated uricase (pegadricase) that converts uric acid to excretable allantoin.

SEL-212 was originally developed by Selecta. Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (Sobi) licensed SEL-212 from Selecta in June 2020 and is responsible for development, regulatory, and commercial activities in all markets outside of China. Selecta is responsible for ImmTOR manufacturing. The phase 3 program for SEL-212 was run by Selecta and funded by Sobi.

It is understood that a biologic license application will be submitted to the Food and Drug Administration, most likely next year, and if approved, “the SEL-212 two-component infusion treatment would provide a monthly alternative to twice-monthly pegloticase, for patients with refractory gout,” Dr. Baraf added.
 

Details of the trials

The two DISSOLVE studies replicate double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in patients with chronic refractory gout. DISSOLVE I was carried out in 112 patients across 29 sites in the United States, and DISSOLVE II tested the two-part treatment in 153 patients across 37 sites in the United States, Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, and Serbia.

Both studies randomized patients 1:1:1 to a high dose (SEL-110 of 0.15 mg/kg plus SEL-037 of 0.2 mg/kg), low dose (SEL-110 of 0.1 mg/kg plus SEL-037 of 0.2 mg/kg), or placebo (saline) infused every 28 days for 6 months. Prophylaxis against infusion reactions and gout flares were given to all participants.

Adult patients had a 10- to 14-year history of symptomatic gout, with three or more flares over the 18 months prior to screening, or one or more tophus, or a diagnosis of gouty arthritis. They were also required to have chronic refractory gout with a failure to normalize serum uric acid with any xanthine oxidase inhibitor (for example, allopurinol) and to have not been previously exposed to uricase-based therapy. Serum uric acid had to be at least 7 mg/dL. Participants were balanced for age, body mass index, and sex across treatment groups. Gout severity was greater in DISSOLVE II, Dr. Baraf reported.

Both studies treated patients for 6 months, but DISSOLVE 1 continued with a 6-month, blinded safety extension. The primary endpoint in both studies was serum urate control during month 6, and secondary endpoints included tender and swollen joint counts, tophus burden, patient-reported outcomes of activity limitation, quality of life, and gout flare incidence.

In DISSOLVE I, patients on SEL-212 had a statistically significant higher response rate during month 6 of 56% with the high dose (P < .0001) and 48% with the low dose (P < .0001), compared with 4% of patients randomized to receive placebo. In DISSOLVE II, participants on SEL-212 had a statistically significant higher response rate during month 6 of 46% with the high dose (P = .0002) and 40% with the low dose (P = .0008), compared with 11% of patients randomized to receive placebo.

“We also saw significant reductions in serum uric acid for all treatment groups, compared with placebo,” Dr. Baraf reported. Mean percentage change was –62.3% and –58.3% in the high- and low-dose groups, respectively, in DISSOLVE I, and –58.1% and –52.2% in DISSOLVE II, respectively.

SEL-212 had a favorable safety profile with adverse events as expected across both doses, including mild to moderate stomatitis (3.4% in the low-dose group and 9.2% in the high-dose group versus 0% in the placebo group), and a greater number of infusion reactions at 24 hours and 1 hour after drug administration in both treatment groups versus placebo. Six patients had treatment-related serious adverse events, including two cases of anaphylaxis and one gout flare in both the high- and low-dose treatment groups. The 6-month extension period in the DISSOLVE I trial showed that the majority (75%) of patients who completed 6 months of SEL-212 treatment as a responder continued to be successfully treated through 12 months with no infusion reactions or safety signals.

“I expect more data will be forthcoming on the important clinical secondary endpoints targeted by SEL-212 therapy,” Dr. Baraf noted.
 

Need control arm taking allopurinol?

Roy Fleischmann, MD, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas, commented on the study methods after the presentation. “The major problem with this study is that they say the patients had had insufficient response to allopurinol, and my guess is most had received 100-200 mg of allopurinol but were not titrated up to the maximum tolerated dose,” he said, adding: “they should have had a control arm of patients on allopurinol and titrated to the maximum tolerated dose. So, I don’t know what this is really telling us with respect to allopurinol, which is a relatively cheap drug.”

Dr. Baraf reported consulting with Horizon, Sobi, and Selecta; serving on Horizon’s speakers bureau, and receiving grant/research support from Horizon and Sobi. Dr. Fleischmann reported no financial relationship of relevance to this study.