MDedge Rheumatology

Around half the people who wear face masks may develop acne, facial dermatitis, itch, or pressure injuries, and the risk increases with the length of time the mask is worn, according to a recently published systematic review and meta-analysis.

“This report finds the most statistically significant risk factor for developing a facial dermatosis under a face mask is how long one wears the mask. Specifically, wearing a mask for more than 4 to 6 hours correlated most strongly with the development of a facial skin problem,” Jami L. Miller, MD, associate professor of dermatology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization. Dr. Miller was not involved in the study.

“The type of mask and the environment were of less significance,” she added.

UerDomwet/PxHere

• The overall prevalence of facial dermatoses was 55%
• Individually, facial dermatitis, itch, acne, and pressure injuries were consistently reported as facial dermatoses, with pooled prevalence rates of 24%, 30%, 31%, and 31%, respectively
• The duration of mask wearing was the most significant risk factor for facial dermatoses (P < .001)
• Respirators, including N95 masks, were not more likely than surgical masks to be linked with facial dermatoses

“Understanding risk factors of mask wearing, including situation, duration, and type of mask, may allow for targeted interventions to mitigate problems,” Dr. Yew told this news organization.

He advised taking a break from mask wearing after 4 to 6 hours to improve outcomes.  

Dr. Yew acknowledged limitations, including that most of the reviewed studies relied on self-reported symptoms.

“Patient factors were not investigated in most studies; therefore, we were not able to ascertain their contributory role in the development of facial dermatoses from mask wearing,” he said. “We were also unable to prove causation between risk factors and outcome.” 

Four dermatologists welcome the findings

Dr. Miller called this an “interesting, and certainly relevant” study, now that mask wearing is common and facial skin problems are fairly common complaints in medical visits.

“As the authors say, irritants or contact allergens with longer exposures can be expected to cause a more severe dermatitis than short contact,” she said. “Longer duration also can cause occlusion of pores and hair follicles, which can be expected to worsen acne and folliculitis.”

“I was surprised that the type of mask did not seem to matter significantly,” she added. “Patients wearing N95 masks may be relieved to know N95s do not cause more skin problems than lighter masks.”

Still, Dr. Miller had several questions, including if the materials and chemical finishes that vary by manufacturer may affect skin conditions.

Olga Bunimovich, MD, assistant professor, department of dermatology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pennsylvania, called this study “an excellent step towards characterizing the role masks play in facial dermatoses.”

“The study provides a window into the prevalence of these conditions, as well as some understanding of the factors that may be contributing to it,” Dr. Bunimovich, who was not part of the study, added. But “we can also utilize this information to alter behavior in the work environment, allowing ‘mask-free’ breaks to decrease the risk of facial dermatoses.”

Elma Baron, MD, professor and director, Skin Study Center, department of dermatology, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, expected skin problems to be linked with mask wearing but didn’t expect the prevalence to be as high as 55%, which she called “very significant.”

“Mask wearing is an important means to prevent transmission of communicable infections, and the practice will most likely continue,” she said.

“Given the data, it is reasonable to advise patients who are already prone to these specific dermatoses to be proactive,” she added. “Early intervention with proper topical medications, preferably prescribed by a dermatologist or other health care provider, and changing masks frequently before they get soaked with moisture, will hopefully lessen the severity of skin rashes and minimize the negative impact on quality of life.”

Also commenting on the study, Susan Massick, MD, dermatologist and clinical associate professor of internal medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Westerville, said in an interview that she urges people to wear masks, despite these risks.

“The majority of concerns are straightforward, manageable, and overall benign,” she said. “We have a multitude of treatments that can help control, address, or improve symptoms.”

“Masks are an effective and easy way to protect yourself from infection, and they remain one of the most reliable preventions we have,” Dr. Massick noted. “The findings in this article should not preclude anyone from wearing a mask, nor should facial dermatoses be a cause for people to stop wearing their masks.”

The study received no funding. The authors, as well as Dr. Baron, Dr. Miller, Dr. Bunimovich, and Dr. Massick, who were not involved in the study, reported no relevant financial relationships. All experts commented by email.

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

Correction, 9/22/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of Dr. Yik Weng Yew.

Around half the people who wear face masks may develop acne, facial dermatitis, itch, or pressure injuries, and the risk increases with the length of time the mask is worn, according to a recently published systematic review and meta-analysis.

“This report finds the most statistically significant risk factor for developing a facial dermatosis under a face mask is how long one wears the mask. Specifically, wearing a mask for more than 4 to 6 hours correlated most strongly with the development of a facial skin problem,” Jami L. Miller, MD, associate professor of dermatology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization. Dr. Miller was not involved in the study.

“The type of mask and the environment were of less significance,” she added.

UerDomwet/PxHere

• The overall prevalence of facial dermatoses was 55%
• Individually, facial dermatitis, itch, acne, and pressure injuries were consistently reported as facial dermatoses, with pooled prevalence rates of 24%, 30%, 31%, and 31%, respectively
• The duration of mask wearing was the most significant risk factor for facial dermatoses (P < .001)
• Respirators, including N95 masks, were not more likely than surgical masks to be linked with facial dermatoses

“Understanding risk factors of mask wearing, including situation, duration, and type of mask, may allow for targeted interventions to mitigate problems,” Dr. Yew told this news organization.

He advised taking a break from mask wearing after 4 to 6 hours to improve outcomes.  

Dr. Yew acknowledged limitations, including that most of the reviewed studies relied on self-reported symptoms.

“Patient factors were not investigated in most studies; therefore, we were not able to ascertain their contributory role in the development of facial dermatoses from mask wearing,” he said. “We were also unable to prove causation between risk factors and outcome.” 

Four dermatologists welcome the findings

Dr. Miller called this an “interesting, and certainly relevant” study, now that mask wearing is common and facial skin problems are fairly common complaints in medical visits.

“As the authors say, irritants or contact allergens with longer exposures can be expected to cause a more severe dermatitis than short contact,” she said. “Longer duration also can cause occlusion of pores and hair follicles, which can be expected to worsen acne and folliculitis.”

“I was surprised that the type of mask did not seem to matter significantly,” she added. “Patients wearing N95 masks may be relieved to know N95s do not cause more skin problems than lighter masks.”

Still, Dr. Miller had several questions, including if the materials and chemical finishes that vary by manufacturer may affect skin conditions.

Olga Bunimovich, MD, assistant professor, department of dermatology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pennsylvania, called this study “an excellent step towards characterizing the role masks play in facial dermatoses.”

“The study provides a window into the prevalence of these conditions, as well as some understanding of the factors that may be contributing to it,” Dr. Bunimovich, who was not part of the study, added. But “we can also utilize this information to alter behavior in the work environment, allowing ‘mask-free’ breaks to decrease the risk of facial dermatoses.”

Elma Baron, MD, professor and director, Skin Study Center, department of dermatology, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, expected skin problems to be linked with mask wearing but didn’t expect the prevalence to be as high as 55%, which she called “very significant.”

“Mask wearing is an important means to prevent transmission of communicable infections, and the practice will most likely continue,” she said.

“Given the data, it is reasonable to advise patients who are already prone to these specific dermatoses to be proactive,” she added. “Early intervention with proper topical medications, preferably prescribed by a dermatologist or other health care provider, and changing masks frequently before they get soaked with moisture, will hopefully lessen the severity of skin rashes and minimize the negative impact on quality of life.”

Also commenting on the study, Susan Massick, MD, dermatologist and clinical associate professor of internal medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Westerville, said in an interview that she urges people to wear masks, despite these risks.

“The majority of concerns are straightforward, manageable, and overall benign,” she said. “We have a multitude of treatments that can help control, address, or improve symptoms.”

“Masks are an effective and easy way to protect yourself from infection, and they remain one of the most reliable preventions we have,” Dr. Massick noted. “The findings in this article should not preclude anyone from wearing a mask, nor should facial dermatoses be a cause for people to stop wearing their masks.”

The study received no funding. The authors, as well as Dr. Baron, Dr. Miller, Dr. Bunimovich, and Dr. Massick, who were not involved in the study, reported no relevant financial relationships. All experts commented by email.

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

Correction, 9/22/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of Dr. Yik Weng Yew.

Around half the people who wear face masks may develop acne, facial dermatitis, itch, or pressure injuries, and the risk increases with the length of time the mask is worn, according to a recently published systematic review and meta-analysis.

“This report finds the most statistically significant risk factor for developing a facial dermatosis under a face mask is how long one wears the mask. Specifically, wearing a mask for more than 4 to 6 hours correlated most strongly with the development of a facial skin problem,” Jami L. Miller, MD, associate professor of dermatology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization. Dr. Miller was not involved in the study.

“The type of mask and the environment were of less significance,” she added.

UerDomwet/PxHere

• The overall prevalence of facial dermatoses was 55%
• Individually, facial dermatitis, itch, acne, and pressure injuries were consistently reported as facial dermatoses, with pooled prevalence rates of 24%, 30%, 31%, and 31%, respectively
• The duration of mask wearing was the most significant risk factor for facial dermatoses (P < .001)
• Respirators, including N95 masks, were not more likely than surgical masks to be linked with facial dermatoses

“Understanding risk factors of mask wearing, including situation, duration, and type of mask, may allow for targeted interventions to mitigate problems,” Dr. Yew told this news organization.

He advised taking a break from mask wearing after 4 to 6 hours to improve outcomes.  

Dr. Yew acknowledged limitations, including that most of the reviewed studies relied on self-reported symptoms.

“Patient factors were not investigated in most studies; therefore, we were not able to ascertain their contributory role in the development of facial dermatoses from mask wearing,” he said. “We were also unable to prove causation between risk factors and outcome.” 

Four dermatologists welcome the findings

Dr. Miller called this an “interesting, and certainly relevant” study, now that mask wearing is common and facial skin problems are fairly common complaints in medical visits.

“As the authors say, irritants or contact allergens with longer exposures can be expected to cause a more severe dermatitis than short contact,” she said. “Longer duration also can cause occlusion of pores and hair follicles, which can be expected to worsen acne and folliculitis.”

“I was surprised that the type of mask did not seem to matter significantly,” she added. “Patients wearing N95 masks may be relieved to know N95s do not cause more skin problems than lighter masks.”

Still, Dr. Miller had several questions, including if the materials and chemical finishes that vary by manufacturer may affect skin conditions.

Olga Bunimovich, MD, assistant professor, department of dermatology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pennsylvania, called this study “an excellent step towards characterizing the role masks play in facial dermatoses.”

“The study provides a window into the prevalence of these conditions, as well as some understanding of the factors that may be contributing to it,” Dr. Bunimovich, who was not part of the study, added. But “we can also utilize this information to alter behavior in the work environment, allowing ‘mask-free’ breaks to decrease the risk of facial dermatoses.”

Elma Baron, MD, professor and director, Skin Study Center, department of dermatology, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, expected skin problems to be linked with mask wearing but didn’t expect the prevalence to be as high as 55%, which she called “very significant.”

“Mask wearing is an important means to prevent transmission of communicable infections, and the practice will most likely continue,” she said.

“Given the data, it is reasonable to advise patients who are already prone to these specific dermatoses to be proactive,” she added. “Early intervention with proper topical medications, preferably prescribed by a dermatologist or other health care provider, and changing masks frequently before they get soaked with moisture, will hopefully lessen the severity of skin rashes and minimize the negative impact on quality of life.”

Also commenting on the study, Susan Massick, MD, dermatologist and clinical associate professor of internal medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Westerville, said in an interview that she urges people to wear masks, despite these risks.

“The majority of concerns are straightforward, manageable, and overall benign,” she said. “We have a multitude of treatments that can help control, address, or improve symptoms.”

“Masks are an effective and easy way to protect yourself from infection, and they remain one of the most reliable preventions we have,” Dr. Massick noted. “The findings in this article should not preclude anyone from wearing a mask, nor should facial dermatoses be a cause for people to stop wearing their masks.”

The study received no funding. The authors, as well as Dr. Baron, Dr. Miller, Dr. Bunimovich, and Dr. Massick, who were not involved in the study, reported no relevant financial relationships. All experts commented by email.

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

Correction, 9/22/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of Dr. Yik Weng Yew.

Deucravacitinib, an oral, selective tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy, the manufacturer announced on Sept. 9.

Deucravacitinib targets TYK2, which inhibits signaling of interleukin-23, interleukin-12, and type 1 interferons, key cytokines involved in the pathogenesis of multiple immune-mediated diseases, according to Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS). This is the first approval for deucravacitinib, which will be marketed as Sotyktu, and the first drug in this class to be approved.

It is also currently under review for the same indication in Europe and Japan, and elsewhere, and for treating pustular psoriasis and erythrodermic psoriasis in Japan.

FDA approval was based on the results of POETYK PSO-1 and POETYK PSO-2, phase 3 trials of almost 1,700 adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. In these studies, treatment with once-daily deucravacitinib showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements in skin clearance and symptoms, compared with placebo and with apremilast (Otezla), according to the company.

In the two studies, patients were randomly assigned to receive 6 mg daily of deucravacitinib, placebo, or a 30-mg twice-daily dose of apremilast, the oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor approved for psoriasis. The primary endpoints were the percentage of patients who achieved a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 response and a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) at 16 weeks.

At 16 weeks, 58% and 53% of patients receiving deucravacitinib in the POETYK PSO-1 and POETYK PSO-2 studies, respectively, achieved PASI 75 response, compared with 13% and 9% of those receiving placebo (P < .0001 for both) and 35% and 40% receiving apremilast (P < .0001, P = .0004, respectively), according to the company’s announcement of the approval. PASI 75 responses were maintained through 52 weeks among the patients who remained on treatment, in both studies, according to BMS.

In the POETYK PSO-1 and PSO-2 studies, respectively, 54% and 50% of those on deucravacitinib achieved an sPGA of 0/1 at 16 weeks, compared with 7% and 9% of those receiving placebo (P < .0001 for both) and 32% and 34% of those receiving apremilast (P < .0001 for both).

Across the two studies, at 16 weeks, the most common adverse events that affected at least 1% of patients on deucravacitinib and that occurred at higher rates than in the placebo group were upper respiratory infections (19.2%), increases in serum creatine phosphokinase (2.7%), herpes simplex (2%), mouth ulcers (1.9%), folliculitis (1.7%), and acne (1.4%). Adverse events resulting in discontinuation of treatment were reported in 2.4% of persons receiving deucravacitinib and 5.2% of those receiving apremilast, compared with 3.8% of those receiving placebo.

Up to 16 weeks, according to the BMS statement, 28% of persons receiving deucravacitinib had infections, most of which were mild to moderate and not serious and did not result in stopping treatment, compared with 22% of those receiving placebo. In addition, five patients treated with deucravacitinib and five patients receiving placebo had serious infections, and three patients receiving deucravacitinib had cancer (not including nonmelanoma skin cancer).

Deucravacitinib is also being evaluated in clinical trials for psoriatic arthritis, lupus, and inflammatory bowel disease. It is not recommended for use in combination with other potent immunosuppressants, according to BMS.

The prescribing information and patient medication guide are available online.

The POETYK PSO-1 and POETYK PSO-2 studies were funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.

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

Deucravacitinib, an oral, selective tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy, the manufacturer announced on Sept. 9.

Deucravacitinib targets TYK2, which inhibits signaling of interleukin-23, interleukin-12, and type 1 interferons, key cytokines involved in the pathogenesis of multiple immune-mediated diseases, according to Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS). This is the first approval for deucravacitinib, which will be marketed as Sotyktu, and the first drug in this class to be approved.

It is also currently under review for the same indication in Europe and Japan, and elsewhere, and for treating pustular psoriasis and erythrodermic psoriasis in Japan.

FDA approval was based on the results of POETYK PSO-1 and POETYK PSO-2, phase 3 trials of almost 1,700 adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. In these studies, treatment with once-daily deucravacitinib showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements in skin clearance and symptoms, compared with placebo and with apremilast (Otezla), according to the company.

In the two studies, patients were randomly assigned to receive 6 mg daily of deucravacitinib, placebo, or a 30-mg twice-daily dose of apremilast, the oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor approved for psoriasis. The primary endpoints were the percentage of patients who achieved a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 response and a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) at 16 weeks.

At 16 weeks, 58% and 53% of patients receiving deucravacitinib in the POETYK PSO-1 and POETYK PSO-2 studies, respectively, achieved PASI 75 response, compared with 13% and 9% of those receiving placebo (P < .0001 for both) and 35% and 40% receiving apremilast (P < .0001, P = .0004, respectively), according to the company’s announcement of the approval. PASI 75 responses were maintained through 52 weeks among the patients who remained on treatment, in both studies, according to BMS.

In the POETYK PSO-1 and PSO-2 studies, respectively, 54% and 50% of those on deucravacitinib achieved an sPGA of 0/1 at 16 weeks, compared with 7% and 9% of those receiving placebo (P < .0001 for both) and 32% and 34% of those receiving apremilast (P < .0001 for both).

Across the two studies, at 16 weeks, the most common adverse events that affected at least 1% of patients on deucravacitinib and that occurred at higher rates than in the placebo group were upper respiratory infections (19.2%), increases in serum creatine phosphokinase (2.7%), herpes simplex (2%), mouth ulcers (1.9%), folliculitis (1.7%), and acne (1.4%). Adverse events resulting in discontinuation of treatment were reported in 2.4% of persons receiving deucravacitinib and 5.2% of those receiving apremilast, compared with 3.8% of those receiving placebo.

Up to 16 weeks, according to the BMS statement, 28% of persons receiving deucravacitinib had infections, most of which were mild to moderate and not serious and did not result in stopping treatment, compared with 22% of those receiving placebo. In addition, five patients treated with deucravacitinib and five patients receiving placebo had serious infections, and three patients receiving deucravacitinib had cancer (not including nonmelanoma skin cancer).

Deucravacitinib is also being evaluated in clinical trials for psoriatic arthritis, lupus, and inflammatory bowel disease. It is not recommended for use in combination with other potent immunosuppressants, according to BMS.

The prescribing information and patient medication guide are available online.

The POETYK PSO-1 and POETYK PSO-2 studies were funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.

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

Deucravacitinib, an oral, selective tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy, the manufacturer announced on Sept. 9.

Deucravacitinib targets TYK2, which inhibits signaling of interleukin-23, interleukin-12, and type 1 interferons, key cytokines involved in the pathogenesis of multiple immune-mediated diseases, according to Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS). This is the first approval for deucravacitinib, which will be marketed as Sotyktu, and the first drug in this class to be approved.

It is also currently under review for the same indication in Europe and Japan, and elsewhere, and for treating pustular psoriasis and erythrodermic psoriasis in Japan.

FDA approval was based on the results of POETYK PSO-1 and POETYK PSO-2, phase 3 trials of almost 1,700 adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. In these studies, treatment with once-daily deucravacitinib showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements in skin clearance and symptoms, compared with placebo and with apremilast (Otezla), according to the company.

In the two studies, patients were randomly assigned to receive 6 mg daily of deucravacitinib, placebo, or a 30-mg twice-daily dose of apremilast, the oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor approved for psoriasis. The primary endpoints were the percentage of patients who achieved a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 response and a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) at 16 weeks.

At 16 weeks, 58% and 53% of patients receiving deucravacitinib in the POETYK PSO-1 and POETYK PSO-2 studies, respectively, achieved PASI 75 response, compared with 13% and 9% of those receiving placebo (P < .0001 for both) and 35% and 40% receiving apremilast (P < .0001, P = .0004, respectively), according to the company’s announcement of the approval. PASI 75 responses were maintained through 52 weeks among the patients who remained on treatment, in both studies, according to BMS.

In the POETYK PSO-1 and PSO-2 studies, respectively, 54% and 50% of those on deucravacitinib achieved an sPGA of 0/1 at 16 weeks, compared with 7% and 9% of those receiving placebo (P < .0001 for both) and 32% and 34% of those receiving apremilast (P < .0001 for both).

Across the two studies, at 16 weeks, the most common adverse events that affected at least 1% of patients on deucravacitinib and that occurred at higher rates than in the placebo group were upper respiratory infections (19.2%), increases in serum creatine phosphokinase (2.7%), herpes simplex (2%), mouth ulcers (1.9%), folliculitis (1.7%), and acne (1.4%). Adverse events resulting in discontinuation of treatment were reported in 2.4% of persons receiving deucravacitinib and 5.2% of those receiving apremilast, compared with 3.8% of those receiving placebo.

Up to 16 weeks, according to the BMS statement, 28% of persons receiving deucravacitinib had infections, most of which were mild to moderate and not serious and did not result in stopping treatment, compared with 22% of those receiving placebo. In addition, five patients treated with deucravacitinib and five patients receiving placebo had serious infections, and three patients receiving deucravacitinib had cancer (not including nonmelanoma skin cancer).

Deucravacitinib is also being evaluated in clinical trials for psoriatic arthritis, lupus, and inflammatory bowel disease. It is not recommended for use in combination with other potent immunosuppressants, according to BMS.

The prescribing information and patient medication guide are available online.

The POETYK PSO-1 and POETYK PSO-2 studies were funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.

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

The Crystal Bone (Amgen) novel algorithm predicted 2-year risk of osteoporotic fractures in a large dataset with an accuracy that was consistent with FRAX 10-year risk predictions, researchers report.  

The algorithm was built using machine learning and artificial intelligence to predict fracture risk based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, as described in an article published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research.

The current validation study was presented September 9 as a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

The scientists validated the algorithm in more than 100,000 patients aged 50 and older (that is, at risk of fracture) who were part of the Reliant Medical Group dataset (a subset of Optum Care).

Importantly, the algorithm predicted increased fracture in many patients who did not have a diagnosis of osteoporosis.

The next steps are validation in other datasets to support the generalizability of Crystal Bone across U.S. health care systems, Elinor Mody, MD, Reliant Medical Group, and colleagues report.

“Implementation research, in which patients identified by Crystal Bone undergo a bone health assessment and receive ongoing management, will help inform the clinical utility of this novel algorithm,” they conclude.

At the poster session, Tina Kelley, Optum Life Sciences, explained: “It’s a screening tool that says: ‘These are your patients that maybe you should spend a little extra time with, ask a few extra questions.’ ”

However, further study is needed before it should be used in clinical practice, she emphasized to this news organization.

‘A very useful advance’ but needs further validation

Invited to comment, Peter R. Ebeling, MD, outgoing president of the ASBMR, noted that “many clinicians now use FRAX to calculate absolute fracture risk and select patients who should initiate anti-osteoporosis drugs.”

With FRAX, clinicians input a patient’s age, sex, weight, height, previous fracture, [history of] parent with fractured hip, current smoking status, glucocorticoids, rheumatoid arthritis, secondary osteoporosis, alcohol (3 units/day or more), and bone mineral density (by DXA at the femoral neck) into the tool, to obtain a 10-year probability of fracture.

“Crystal Bone takes a different approach,” Dr. Ebeling, from Monash University, Melbourne, who was not involved with the research but who disclosed receiving funding from Amgen, told this news organization in an email.

The algorithm uses electronic health records (EHRs) to identify patients who are likely to have a fracture within the next 2 years, he explained, based on diagnoses and medications associated with osteoporosis and fractures. These include ICD-10 codes for fractures at various sites and secondary causes of osteoporosis (such as rheumatoid and other inflammatory arthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, celiac disease, and inflammatory bowel disease).

“This is a very useful advance,” Dr. Ebeling summarized, “in that it would alert the clinician to patients in their practice who have a high fracture risk and need to be investigated for osteoporosis and initiated on treatment. Otherwise, the patients would be missed, as currently often occurs.”

“It would need to be adaptable to other [EMR] systems and to be validated in a large separate population to be ready to enter clinical practice,” he said, “but these data look very promising with a good [positive predictive value (PPV)].”

Similarly, Juliet Compston, MD, said: “It provides a novel, fully automated approach to population-based screening for osteoporosis using EHRs to identify people at high imminent risk of fracture.”

Dr. Compston, emeritus professor of bone medicine, University of Cambridge, England, who was not involved with the research but who also disclosed being a consultant for Amgen, selected the study as one of the top clinical science highlights abstracts at the meeting.

“The algorithm looks at ICD codes for previous history of fracture, medications that have adverse effects on bone – for example glucocorticoids, aromatase inhibitors, and anti-androgens – as well as chronic diseases that increase the risk of fracture,” she explained.

“FRAX is the most commonly used tool to estimate fracture probability in clinical practice and to guide treatment decisions,” she noted. However, “currently it requires human input of data into the FRAX website and is generally only performed on individuals who are selected on the basis of clinical risk factors.”

“The Crystal Bone algorithm offers the potential for fully automated population-based screening in older adults to identify those at high risk of fracture, for whom effective therapies are available to reduce fracture risk,” she summarized.

“It needs further validation,” she noted, “and implementation into clinical practice requires the availability of high-quality EHRs.”
 

Algorithm validated in 106,328 patients aged 50 and older

Despite guidelines that recommend screening for osteoporosis in women aged 65 and older, men older than 70, and adults aged 50-79 with risk factors, real-world data suggest such screening is low, the researchers note.

The current validation study identified 106,328 patients aged 50 and older who had at least 2 years of consecutive medical history with the Reliant Medical Group from December 2014 to November 2020 as well as at least two EHR codes.

The accuracy of predicting a fracture within 2 years, expressed as area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC), was 0.77, where 1 is perfect, 0.5 is no better than random selection, 0.7 to 0.8 is acceptable, and 0.8 to 0.9 indicates excellent predictive accuracy.

In the entire Optum Reliant population older than 50, the risk of fracture within 2 years was 1.95%.

The algorithm identified four groups with a greater risk: 19,100 patients had a threefold higher risk of fracture within 2 years, 9,246 patients had a fourfold higher risk, 3,533 patients had a sevenfold higher risk, and 1,735 patients had a ninefold higher risk.

Many of these patients had no prior diagnosis of osteoporosis

For example, in the 19,100 patients with a threefold greater risk of fracture in 2 years, 69% of patients had not been diagnosed with osteoporosis (49% of them had no history of fracture and 20% did have a history of fracture).

The algorithm had a positive predictive value of 6%-18%, a negative predictive value of 98%-99%, a specificity of 81%-98%, and a sensitivity of 18%-59%, for the four groups.

The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Mody and another author are Reliant Medical Group employees. Ms. Kelley and another author are Optum Life Sciences employees. One author is an employee at Landing AI. Two authors are Amgen employees and own Amgen stock. Dr. Ebeling has disclosed receiving research funding from Amgen, Sanofi, and Alexion, and his institution has received honoraria from Amgen and Kyowa Kirin. Dr. Compston has disclosed receiving speaking and consultancy fees from Amgen and UCB.

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

The Crystal Bone (Amgen) novel algorithm predicted 2-year risk of osteoporotic fractures in a large dataset with an accuracy that was consistent with FRAX 10-year risk predictions, researchers report.  

The algorithm was built using machine learning and artificial intelligence to predict fracture risk based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, as described in an article published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research.

The current validation study was presented September 9 as a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

The scientists validated the algorithm in more than 100,000 patients aged 50 and older (that is, at risk of fracture) who were part of the Reliant Medical Group dataset (a subset of Optum Care).

Importantly, the algorithm predicted increased fracture in many patients who did not have a diagnosis of osteoporosis.

The next steps are validation in other datasets to support the generalizability of Crystal Bone across U.S. health care systems, Elinor Mody, MD, Reliant Medical Group, and colleagues report.

“Implementation research, in which patients identified by Crystal Bone undergo a bone health assessment and receive ongoing management, will help inform the clinical utility of this novel algorithm,” they conclude.

At the poster session, Tina Kelley, Optum Life Sciences, explained: “It’s a screening tool that says: ‘These are your patients that maybe you should spend a little extra time with, ask a few extra questions.’ ”

However, further study is needed before it should be used in clinical practice, she emphasized to this news organization.

‘A very useful advance’ but needs further validation

Invited to comment, Peter R. Ebeling, MD, outgoing president of the ASBMR, noted that “many clinicians now use FRAX to calculate absolute fracture risk and select patients who should initiate anti-osteoporosis drugs.”

With FRAX, clinicians input a patient’s age, sex, weight, height, previous fracture, [history of] parent with fractured hip, current smoking status, glucocorticoids, rheumatoid arthritis, secondary osteoporosis, alcohol (3 units/day or more), and bone mineral density (by DXA at the femoral neck) into the tool, to obtain a 10-year probability of fracture.

“Crystal Bone takes a different approach,” Dr. Ebeling, from Monash University, Melbourne, who was not involved with the research but who disclosed receiving funding from Amgen, told this news organization in an email.

The algorithm uses electronic health records (EHRs) to identify patients who are likely to have a fracture within the next 2 years, he explained, based on diagnoses and medications associated with osteoporosis and fractures. These include ICD-10 codes for fractures at various sites and secondary causes of osteoporosis (such as rheumatoid and other inflammatory arthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, celiac disease, and inflammatory bowel disease).

“This is a very useful advance,” Dr. Ebeling summarized, “in that it would alert the clinician to patients in their practice who have a high fracture risk and need to be investigated for osteoporosis and initiated on treatment. Otherwise, the patients would be missed, as currently often occurs.”

“It would need to be adaptable to other [EMR] systems and to be validated in a large separate population to be ready to enter clinical practice,” he said, “but these data look very promising with a good [positive predictive value (PPV)].”

Similarly, Juliet Compston, MD, said: “It provides a novel, fully automated approach to population-based screening for osteoporosis using EHRs to identify people at high imminent risk of fracture.”

Dr. Compston, emeritus professor of bone medicine, University of Cambridge, England, who was not involved with the research but who also disclosed being a consultant for Amgen, selected the study as one of the top clinical science highlights abstracts at the meeting.

“The algorithm looks at ICD codes for previous history of fracture, medications that have adverse effects on bone – for example glucocorticoids, aromatase inhibitors, and anti-androgens – as well as chronic diseases that increase the risk of fracture,” she explained.

“FRAX is the most commonly used tool to estimate fracture probability in clinical practice and to guide treatment decisions,” she noted. However, “currently it requires human input of data into the FRAX website and is generally only performed on individuals who are selected on the basis of clinical risk factors.”

“The Crystal Bone algorithm offers the potential for fully automated population-based screening in older adults to identify those at high risk of fracture, for whom effective therapies are available to reduce fracture risk,” she summarized.

“It needs further validation,” she noted, “and implementation into clinical practice requires the availability of high-quality EHRs.”
 

Algorithm validated in 106,328 patients aged 50 and older

Despite guidelines that recommend screening for osteoporosis in women aged 65 and older, men older than 70, and adults aged 50-79 with risk factors, real-world data suggest such screening is low, the researchers note.

The current validation study identified 106,328 patients aged 50 and older who had at least 2 years of consecutive medical history with the Reliant Medical Group from December 2014 to November 2020 as well as at least two EHR codes.

The accuracy of predicting a fracture within 2 years, expressed as area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC), was 0.77, where 1 is perfect, 0.5 is no better than random selection, 0.7 to 0.8 is acceptable, and 0.8 to 0.9 indicates excellent predictive accuracy.

In the entire Optum Reliant population older than 50, the risk of fracture within 2 years was 1.95%.

The algorithm identified four groups with a greater risk: 19,100 patients had a threefold higher risk of fracture within 2 years, 9,246 patients had a fourfold higher risk, 3,533 patients had a sevenfold higher risk, and 1,735 patients had a ninefold higher risk.

Many of these patients had no prior diagnosis of osteoporosis

For example, in the 19,100 patients with a threefold greater risk of fracture in 2 years, 69% of patients had not been diagnosed with osteoporosis (49% of them had no history of fracture and 20% did have a history of fracture).

The algorithm had a positive predictive value of 6%-18%, a negative predictive value of 98%-99%, a specificity of 81%-98%, and a sensitivity of 18%-59%, for the four groups.

The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Mody and another author are Reliant Medical Group employees. Ms. Kelley and another author are Optum Life Sciences employees. One author is an employee at Landing AI. Two authors are Amgen employees and own Amgen stock. Dr. Ebeling has disclosed receiving research funding from Amgen, Sanofi, and Alexion, and his institution has received honoraria from Amgen and Kyowa Kirin. Dr. Compston has disclosed receiving speaking and consultancy fees from Amgen and UCB.

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

The Crystal Bone (Amgen) novel algorithm predicted 2-year risk of osteoporotic fractures in a large dataset with an accuracy that was consistent with FRAX 10-year risk predictions, researchers report.  

The algorithm was built using machine learning and artificial intelligence to predict fracture risk based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, as described in an article published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research.

The current validation study was presented September 9 as a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

The scientists validated the algorithm in more than 100,000 patients aged 50 and older (that is, at risk of fracture) who were part of the Reliant Medical Group dataset (a subset of Optum Care).

Importantly, the algorithm predicted increased fracture in many patients who did not have a diagnosis of osteoporosis.

The next steps are validation in other datasets to support the generalizability of Crystal Bone across U.S. health care systems, Elinor Mody, MD, Reliant Medical Group, and colleagues report.

“Implementation research, in which patients identified by Crystal Bone undergo a bone health assessment and receive ongoing management, will help inform the clinical utility of this novel algorithm,” they conclude.

At the poster session, Tina Kelley, Optum Life Sciences, explained: “It’s a screening tool that says: ‘These are your patients that maybe you should spend a little extra time with, ask a few extra questions.’ ”

However, further study is needed before it should be used in clinical practice, she emphasized to this news organization.

‘A very useful advance’ but needs further validation

Invited to comment, Peter R. Ebeling, MD, outgoing president of the ASBMR, noted that “many clinicians now use FRAX to calculate absolute fracture risk and select patients who should initiate anti-osteoporosis drugs.”

With FRAX, clinicians input a patient’s age, sex, weight, height, previous fracture, [history of] parent with fractured hip, current smoking status, glucocorticoids, rheumatoid arthritis, secondary osteoporosis, alcohol (3 units/day or more), and bone mineral density (by DXA at the femoral neck) into the tool, to obtain a 10-year probability of fracture.

“Crystal Bone takes a different approach,” Dr. Ebeling, from Monash University, Melbourne, who was not involved with the research but who disclosed receiving funding from Amgen, told this news organization in an email.

The algorithm uses electronic health records (EHRs) to identify patients who are likely to have a fracture within the next 2 years, he explained, based on diagnoses and medications associated with osteoporosis and fractures. These include ICD-10 codes for fractures at various sites and secondary causes of osteoporosis (such as rheumatoid and other inflammatory arthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, celiac disease, and inflammatory bowel disease).

“This is a very useful advance,” Dr. Ebeling summarized, “in that it would alert the clinician to patients in their practice who have a high fracture risk and need to be investigated for osteoporosis and initiated on treatment. Otherwise, the patients would be missed, as currently often occurs.”

“It would need to be adaptable to other [EMR] systems and to be validated in a large separate population to be ready to enter clinical practice,” he said, “but these data look very promising with a good [positive predictive value (PPV)].”

Similarly, Juliet Compston, MD, said: “It provides a novel, fully automated approach to population-based screening for osteoporosis using EHRs to identify people at high imminent risk of fracture.”

Dr. Compston, emeritus professor of bone medicine, University of Cambridge, England, who was not involved with the research but who also disclosed being a consultant for Amgen, selected the study as one of the top clinical science highlights abstracts at the meeting.

“The algorithm looks at ICD codes for previous history of fracture, medications that have adverse effects on bone – for example glucocorticoids, aromatase inhibitors, and anti-androgens – as well as chronic diseases that increase the risk of fracture,” she explained.

“FRAX is the most commonly used tool to estimate fracture probability in clinical practice and to guide treatment decisions,” she noted. However, “currently it requires human input of data into the FRAX website and is generally only performed on individuals who are selected on the basis of clinical risk factors.”

“The Crystal Bone algorithm offers the potential for fully automated population-based screening in older adults to identify those at high risk of fracture, for whom effective therapies are available to reduce fracture risk,” she summarized.

“It needs further validation,” she noted, “and implementation into clinical practice requires the availability of high-quality EHRs.”
 

Algorithm validated in 106,328 patients aged 50 and older

Despite guidelines that recommend screening for osteoporosis in women aged 65 and older, men older than 70, and adults aged 50-79 with risk factors, real-world data suggest such screening is low, the researchers note.

The current validation study identified 106,328 patients aged 50 and older who had at least 2 years of consecutive medical history with the Reliant Medical Group from December 2014 to November 2020 as well as at least two EHR codes.

The accuracy of predicting a fracture within 2 years, expressed as area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC), was 0.77, where 1 is perfect, 0.5 is no better than random selection, 0.7 to 0.8 is acceptable, and 0.8 to 0.9 indicates excellent predictive accuracy.

In the entire Optum Reliant population older than 50, the risk of fracture within 2 years was 1.95%.

The algorithm identified four groups with a greater risk: 19,100 patients had a threefold higher risk of fracture within 2 years, 9,246 patients had a fourfold higher risk, 3,533 patients had a sevenfold higher risk, and 1,735 patients had a ninefold higher risk.

Many of these patients had no prior diagnosis of osteoporosis

For example, in the 19,100 patients with a threefold greater risk of fracture in 2 years, 69% of patients had not been diagnosed with osteoporosis (49% of them had no history of fracture and 20% did have a history of fracture).

The algorithm had a positive predictive value of 6%-18%, a negative predictive value of 98%-99%, a specificity of 81%-98%, and a sensitivity of 18%-59%, for the four groups.

The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Mody and another author are Reliant Medical Group employees. Ms. Kelley and another author are Optum Life Sciences employees. One author is an employee at Landing AI. Two authors are Amgen employees and own Amgen stock. Dr. Ebeling has disclosed receiving research funding from Amgen, Sanofi, and Alexion, and his institution has received honoraria from Amgen and Kyowa Kirin. Dr. Compston has disclosed receiving speaking and consultancy fees from Amgen and UCB.

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

Comments from the White House this week suggesting a once-a-year COVID-19 shot for most Americans, “just like your annual flu shot,” were met with backlash from many who say COVID and influenza come from different viruses and need different schedules.

Remarks, from “capitulation” to too few data, hit the airwaves and social media.

Some, however, agree with the White House vision and say that asking people to get one shot in the fall instead of periodic pushes for boosters will raise public confidence and buy-in and reduce consumer confusion.  

Health leaders, including Bob Wachter, MD, chair of the department of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, say they like the framing of the concept – that people who are not high-risk should plan each year for a COVID shot and a flu shot.

“Doesn’t mean we KNOW shot will prevent transmission for a year. DOES mean it’ll likely lower odds of SEVERE case for a year & we need strategy to bump uptake,” Dr. Wachter tweeted this week.

But the numbers of Americans seeking boosters remain low. Only one-third of all eligible people 50 years and older have gotten a second COVID booster, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About half of those who got the original two shots got a first booster.

Meanwhile, the United States is still averaging about 70,000 new COVID cases and more than 300 deaths every day.

The suggested change in approach comes as Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna roll out their new boosters that target Omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA.5 after the CDC recommended their use and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved emergency use authorization. 

“As the virus continues to change, we will now be able to update our vaccines annually to target the dominant variant,” President Joe Biden said in a statement promoting the yearly approach.
 

Some say annual shot premature

Other experts say it’s too soon to tell whether an annual approach will work.

“We have no data to support that current vaccines, including the new BA.5 booster, will provide durable protection beyond 4-6 months. It would be good to aspire to this objective, and much longer duration or protection, but that will likely require next generation and nasal vaccines,” said Eric Topol, MD, Medscape’s editor-in-chief and founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute.

A report in Nature Reviews Immunology states, “Mucosal vaccines offer the potential to trigger robust protective immune responses at the predominant sites of pathogen infection” and potentially “can prevent an infection from becoming established in the first place, rather than only curtailing infection and protecting against the development of disease symptoms.”

Dr. Topol tweeted after the White House statements, “[An annual vaccine] has the ring of Covid capitulation.”

William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization that he cautions against interpreting the White House comments as official policy.

“This is the difficulty of having public health announcements come out of Washington,” he said. “They ought to come out of the CDC.”

He says there is a reasonable analogy between COVID and influenza, but warns, “don’t push the analogy.”

They are both serious respiratory viruses that can cause much illness and death in essentially the same populations, he notes. These are the older, frail people, people who have underlying illnesses or are immunocompromised.

Both viruses also mutate. But there the paths diverge.

“We’ve gotten into a pattern of annually updating the influenza vaccine because it is such a singularly seasonal virus,” Dr. Schaffner said. “Basically it disappears during the summer. We’ve had plenty of COVID during the summers.”

For COVID, he said, “We will need a periodic booster. Could this be annually? That would certainly make it easier.” But it’s too soon to tell, he said.

Dr. Schaffner noted that several manufacturers are working on a combined flu/COVID vaccine.
 

Just a ‘first step’ toward annual shot

The currently updated COVID vaccine may be the first step toward an annual vaccine, but it’s only the first step, Dr. Schaffner said. “We haven’t committed to further steps yet because we’re watching this virus.”

Syra Madad, DHSc, MSc, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Cambridge, Mass., and the New York City hospital system, told this news organization that arguments on both sides make sense.

Having a single message once a year can help eliminate the considerable confusion involving people on individual timelines with different levels of immunity and separate campaigns for COVID and flu shots coming at different times of the year.

“Communication around vaccines is very muddled and that shows in our overall vaccination rates, particularly booster rates,” she says. “The overall strategy is hopeful and makes sense if we’re going to progress that way based on data.”

However, she said that the data are just not there yet to show it’s time for an annual vaccine. First, scientists will need to see how long protection lasts with the Omicron-specific vaccine and how well and how long it protects against severe disease and death as well as infection.

COVID is less predictable than influenza and the influenza vaccine has been around for decades, Dr. Madad noted. With influenza, the patterns are more easily anticipated with their “ladder-like pattern,” she said. “COVID-19 is not like that.”

What is hopeful, she said, “is that we’ve been in the Omicron dynasty since November of 2021. I’m hopeful that we’ll stick with that particular variant.”

Dr. Topol, Dr. Schaffner, and Dr. Madad declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Comments from the White House this week suggesting a once-a-year COVID-19 shot for most Americans, “just like your annual flu shot,” were met with backlash from many who say COVID and influenza come from different viruses and need different schedules.

Remarks, from “capitulation” to too few data, hit the airwaves and social media.

Some, however, agree with the White House vision and say that asking people to get one shot in the fall instead of periodic pushes for boosters will raise public confidence and buy-in and reduce consumer confusion.  

Health leaders, including Bob Wachter, MD, chair of the department of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, say they like the framing of the concept – that people who are not high-risk should plan each year for a COVID shot and a flu shot.

“Doesn’t mean we KNOW shot will prevent transmission for a year. DOES mean it’ll likely lower odds of SEVERE case for a year & we need strategy to bump uptake,” Dr. Wachter tweeted this week.

But the numbers of Americans seeking boosters remain low. Only one-third of all eligible people 50 years and older have gotten a second COVID booster, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About half of those who got the original two shots got a first booster.

Meanwhile, the United States is still averaging about 70,000 new COVID cases and more than 300 deaths every day.

The suggested change in approach comes as Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna roll out their new boosters that target Omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA.5 after the CDC recommended their use and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved emergency use authorization. 

“As the virus continues to change, we will now be able to update our vaccines annually to target the dominant variant,” President Joe Biden said in a statement promoting the yearly approach.
 

Some say annual shot premature

Other experts say it’s too soon to tell whether an annual approach will work.

“We have no data to support that current vaccines, including the new BA.5 booster, will provide durable protection beyond 4-6 months. It would be good to aspire to this objective, and much longer duration or protection, but that will likely require next generation and nasal vaccines,” said Eric Topol, MD, Medscape’s editor-in-chief and founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute.

A report in Nature Reviews Immunology states, “Mucosal vaccines offer the potential to trigger robust protective immune responses at the predominant sites of pathogen infection” and potentially “can prevent an infection from becoming established in the first place, rather than only curtailing infection and protecting against the development of disease symptoms.”

Dr. Topol tweeted after the White House statements, “[An annual vaccine] has the ring of Covid capitulation.”

William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization that he cautions against interpreting the White House comments as official policy.

“This is the difficulty of having public health announcements come out of Washington,” he said. “They ought to come out of the CDC.”

He says there is a reasonable analogy between COVID and influenza, but warns, “don’t push the analogy.”

They are both serious respiratory viruses that can cause much illness and death in essentially the same populations, he notes. These are the older, frail people, people who have underlying illnesses or are immunocompromised.

Both viruses also mutate. But there the paths diverge.

“We’ve gotten into a pattern of annually updating the influenza vaccine because it is such a singularly seasonal virus,” Dr. Schaffner said. “Basically it disappears during the summer. We’ve had plenty of COVID during the summers.”

For COVID, he said, “We will need a periodic booster. Could this be annually? That would certainly make it easier.” But it’s too soon to tell, he said.

Dr. Schaffner noted that several manufacturers are working on a combined flu/COVID vaccine.
 

Just a ‘first step’ toward annual shot

The currently updated COVID vaccine may be the first step toward an annual vaccine, but it’s only the first step, Dr. Schaffner said. “We haven’t committed to further steps yet because we’re watching this virus.”

Syra Madad, DHSc, MSc, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Cambridge, Mass., and the New York City hospital system, told this news organization that arguments on both sides make sense.

Having a single message once a year can help eliminate the considerable confusion involving people on individual timelines with different levels of immunity and separate campaigns for COVID and flu shots coming at different times of the year.

“Communication around vaccines is very muddled and that shows in our overall vaccination rates, particularly booster rates,” she says. “The overall strategy is hopeful and makes sense if we’re going to progress that way based on data.”

However, she said that the data are just not there yet to show it’s time for an annual vaccine. First, scientists will need to see how long protection lasts with the Omicron-specific vaccine and how well and how long it protects against severe disease and death as well as infection.

COVID is less predictable than influenza and the influenza vaccine has been around for decades, Dr. Madad noted. With influenza, the patterns are more easily anticipated with their “ladder-like pattern,” she said. “COVID-19 is not like that.”

What is hopeful, she said, “is that we’ve been in the Omicron dynasty since November of 2021. I’m hopeful that we’ll stick with that particular variant.”

Dr. Topol, Dr. Schaffner, and Dr. Madad declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Comments from the White House this week suggesting a once-a-year COVID-19 shot for most Americans, “just like your annual flu shot,” were met with backlash from many who say COVID and influenza come from different viruses and need different schedules.

Remarks, from “capitulation” to too few data, hit the airwaves and social media.

Some, however, agree with the White House vision and say that asking people to get one shot in the fall instead of periodic pushes for boosters will raise public confidence and buy-in and reduce consumer confusion.  

Health leaders, including Bob Wachter, MD, chair of the department of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, say they like the framing of the concept – that people who are not high-risk should plan each year for a COVID shot and a flu shot.

“Doesn’t mean we KNOW shot will prevent transmission for a year. DOES mean it’ll likely lower odds of SEVERE case for a year & we need strategy to bump uptake,” Dr. Wachter tweeted this week.

But the numbers of Americans seeking boosters remain low. Only one-third of all eligible people 50 years and older have gotten a second COVID booster, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About half of those who got the original two shots got a first booster.

Meanwhile, the United States is still averaging about 70,000 new COVID cases and more than 300 deaths every day.

The suggested change in approach comes as Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna roll out their new boosters that target Omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA.5 after the CDC recommended their use and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved emergency use authorization. 

“As the virus continues to change, we will now be able to update our vaccines annually to target the dominant variant,” President Joe Biden said in a statement promoting the yearly approach.
 

Some say annual shot premature

Other experts say it’s too soon to tell whether an annual approach will work.

“We have no data to support that current vaccines, including the new BA.5 booster, will provide durable protection beyond 4-6 months. It would be good to aspire to this objective, and much longer duration or protection, but that will likely require next generation and nasal vaccines,” said Eric Topol, MD, Medscape’s editor-in-chief and founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute.

A report in Nature Reviews Immunology states, “Mucosal vaccines offer the potential to trigger robust protective immune responses at the predominant sites of pathogen infection” and potentially “can prevent an infection from becoming established in the first place, rather than only curtailing infection and protecting against the development of disease symptoms.”

Dr. Topol tweeted after the White House statements, “[An annual vaccine] has the ring of Covid capitulation.”

William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization that he cautions against interpreting the White House comments as official policy.

“This is the difficulty of having public health announcements come out of Washington,” he said. “They ought to come out of the CDC.”

He says there is a reasonable analogy between COVID and influenza, but warns, “don’t push the analogy.”

They are both serious respiratory viruses that can cause much illness and death in essentially the same populations, he notes. These are the older, frail people, people who have underlying illnesses or are immunocompromised.

Both viruses also mutate. But there the paths diverge.

“We’ve gotten into a pattern of annually updating the influenza vaccine because it is such a singularly seasonal virus,” Dr. Schaffner said. “Basically it disappears during the summer. We’ve had plenty of COVID during the summers.”

For COVID, he said, “We will need a periodic booster. Could this be annually? That would certainly make it easier.” But it’s too soon to tell, he said.

Dr. Schaffner noted that several manufacturers are working on a combined flu/COVID vaccine.
 

Just a ‘first step’ toward annual shot

The currently updated COVID vaccine may be the first step toward an annual vaccine, but it’s only the first step, Dr. Schaffner said. “We haven’t committed to further steps yet because we’re watching this virus.”

Syra Madad, DHSc, MSc, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Cambridge, Mass., and the New York City hospital system, told this news organization that arguments on both sides make sense.

Having a single message once a year can help eliminate the considerable confusion involving people on individual timelines with different levels of immunity and separate campaigns for COVID and flu shots coming at different times of the year.

“Communication around vaccines is very muddled and that shows in our overall vaccination rates, particularly booster rates,” she says. “The overall strategy is hopeful and makes sense if we’re going to progress that way based on data.”

However, she said that the data are just not there yet to show it’s time for an annual vaccine. First, scientists will need to see how long protection lasts with the Omicron-specific vaccine and how well and how long it protects against severe disease and death as well as infection.

COVID is less predictable than influenza and the influenza vaccine has been around for decades, Dr. Madad noted. With influenza, the patterns are more easily anticipated with their “ladder-like pattern,” she said. “COVID-19 is not like that.”

What is hopeful, she said, “is that we’ve been in the Omicron dynasty since November of 2021. I’m hopeful that we’ll stick with that particular variant.”

Dr. Topol, Dr. Schaffner, and Dr. Madad declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

During a medical malpractice trial in New Jersey, jurors waited nearly 4 hours for the physician defendant to show up. When he did arrive, the body-building surgeon was sporting two thick gold chains and a diamond pinky ring, and had the top buttons of his shirt open enough to reveal his chest hair.

“This trial was in a very rural, farming community,” recalls medical liability defense attorney Catherine Flynn, of Flynn Watts LLC, based in Parsippany, N.J. “Many of the jurors were wearing flannel shirts and jeans. The doctor’s wife walked in wearing a five-carat diamond ring and other jewelry.”

Ms. Flynn took the couple aside and asked them to remove the jewelry. She explained that the opulent accessories could damage the jury’s view of the physician. The surgeon and his wife, however, refused to remove their jewelry, she said. They didn’t think it was a big deal.

The case against the surgeon involved intraoperative damage to a patient when the physician inadvertently removed a portion of nerve in the area of the procedure. After repair of the nerve, the patient had a positive result. However, the patient alleged the surgeon’s negligence resulted in permanent damage despite the successful repair.

Jurors ultimately found the physician negligent in the case and awarded the plaintiff $1.2 million. Ms. Flynn believes that physician’s flamboyant attire and arrogant nature tainted the jury’s decision.

“In certain counties in New Jersey, his attire would not have been a problem,” she said. “In this rural, farming county, it was a huge problem. You have to know your audience. There are a lot of other things that come into play in a medical malpractice case, but when it comes to damages in a case, you don’t want to be sending the message that supports what somebody’s bias may already be telling them about a doctor.”

The surgeon appealed the verdict, and the case ultimately settled for a lesser amount, according to Ms. Flynn.

An over-the-top wardrobe is just one way that physicians can negatively influence jurors during legal trials. From subtle facial expressions to sudden outbursts to downright rudeness, attorneys have witnessed countless examples of physicians sabotaging their own trials. Legal experts say the cringeworthy experiences are good reminders that jurors are often judging more than just evidence.  

“The minute you enter the courthouse, jurors or potential jurors are sizing you up,” says health law attorney Michael Clark, of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, based in Houston. “The same phenomenon occurs in a deposition. Awareness of how you are being assessed at all times, and the image that is needed, is important since a negative impression by jurors can have a detrimental effect on a physician’s case.”
 

Juror: We didn’t like the doctor’s shoes

In another case, attorneys warned a physician defendant against dressing in his signature wardrobe during his trial. Against their advice, the doctor showed up daily to his trial in bright pastel, monochromatic suits with matching Gucci-brand shoes, said medical liability defense attorney Meredith C. Lander, of Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, based in Connecticut. On the witness stand, the doctor was long-winded and wasn’t “terribly likable,” Ms. Lander said.

However, the evidence weighed in the physician’s favor, and there was strong testimony by defense experts. The physician won the case, Ms. Lander said, but after the verdict, the jury foreperson approached the trial attorney and made some disparaging remarks about the defendant.

“The foreperson said the jury didn’t like the doctor or his ‘Gucci suits and shoes,’ but they believed the experts,” Ms. Lander said.

Disruptive behavior can also harm jurors’ perception of physicians, Ms. Flynn adds. During one instance, a surgeon insisted on sitting next to Ms. Flynn, although she generally requests clients sit in the first row so that jurors are not so focused on their reactions during testimony. The surgeon loudly peppered Ms. Flynn with questions as witnesses testified, prompting a reprimand from the judge.

“The judge admonished the doctor several times and said, ‘Doctor, you’re raising your voice. You’ll get a chance to speak with your attorney during the break,’ ” Ms. Flynn recalled. “The doctor refused to stop talking, and the judge told him in front of the jury to go sit in the back of the courtroom. His reaction was, ‘Why do I have to move?! I need to sit here!’ ”

The surgeon eventually moved to the back of the courtroom and a sheriff’s deputy stood next to him. Testimony continued until a note in the form of a paper airplane landed on the table in front of Ms. Flynn. She carefully crumpled the note and tossed it in the wastebasket. Luckily, this drew a laugh from jurors, she said. 

But things got worse when the surgeon testified. Rather than answer the questions, he interrupted and started telling jurors his own version of events.

“The judge finally said, ‘Doctor, if you don’t listen to your attorney and answer her questions, I’m going to make you get off the stand,’ ” Ms. Flynn said. “That was the most unbelievable, egregious self-sabotage trial moment I’ve ever experienced.”

Fortunately, the physician’s legal case was strong, and the experts who testified drove the defense’s side home, Ms. Flynn said. The surgeon won the case.
 

Attorney: Watch what you say in the elevator

Other, more subtle behaviors – while often unintentional – can also be damaging.

Physicians often let their guard down while outside the courtroom and can unknowingly wind up next to a juror in an elevator or standing in a hallway, said Laura Postilion, a partner at Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., based in Chicago.

“For instance, a doctor is in an elevator and feels that some witness on the stand was lying,” Ms. Postilion said. “They might be very upset about it and start ranting about a witness lying, not realizing there is a juror is in the elevator with you.”

Physicians should also be cautious when speaking on the phone to their family or friends during a trial break.

“At the Daley Center in downtown Chicago, there are these long corridors and long line of windows; a lot of people will stand there during breaks. A doctor may be talking to his or her spouse and saying, ‘Yeah, this juror is sleeping!’ Jurors are [often] looking for drama. They’re looking for somebody letting their guard down. Hearing a doctor speak badly about them would certainly give them a reason to dislike the physician.”

Ms. Postilion warns against talking about jurors in or outside of the courtroom. This includes parking structures, she said.

Physicians can take additional steps to save themselves from negative judgment from jurors, attorneys say. Even before the trial starts, Ms. Postilion advises clients to make their social media accounts private. Some curious jurors may look up a physician’s social media accounts to learn more about their personal life, political leanings, or social beliefs, which could prejudice them against the doctor, she said.

Once on the stand, the words and tone used are key. The last thing a physician defendant wants is to come across as arrogant or condescending to jurors, said medical liability defense attorney Michael Moroney, of Flynn Watts LLC.

“For instance, a defendant might say, ‘Well, let me make this simple for you,’ as if they’re talking to a bunch of schoolchildren,” he said. “You don’t know who’s on the jury. That type of language can be offensive.”

Ms. Lander counsels her clients to refrain from using the common phrase, “honestly,” before answering questions on the stand.

“Everything you’re saying on the stand is presumed to be honest,” she said. “When you start an answer with, ‘Honestly…’ out of habit, it really does undercut everything that follows and everything else that’s already been said. It suggests that you were not being honest in your other answers.”
 

Attitude, body language speak volumes

Keep in mind that plaintiffs’ attorneys will try their best to rattle physicians on the stand and get them to appear unlikeable, says Mr. Clark, the Houston-based health law attorney. Physicians who lose their cool and begin arguing with attorneys play into their strategy.

“Plaintiffs’ attorneys have been trained in ways to get under their skin,” he said. “Righteous indignation and annoyance are best left for a rare occasion. Think about how you feel in a social setting when people are bickering in front of you. It’s uncomfortable at best. That’s how a jury feels too.”

Body language is also important, Mr. Clark notes. Physicians should avoid crossed arms, leaning back and rocking, or putting a hand on their mouth while testifying, he said. Many attorneys have practice sessions with their clients and record the interaction so that doctors can watch it and see how they look.

“Know your strengths and weaknesses,” he said. “Get help from your lawyer and perhaps consultants about how to improve these skills. Practice and preparation are important.”

Ms. Postilion goes over courtroom clothing with physician clients before trial. Anything “too flashy, too high-end, or too dumpy” should be avoided, she said. Getting accustomed to the courtroom and practicing in an empty courtroom are good ways to ensure that a physician’s voice is loud enough and projecting far enough in the courtroom, she adds.

“The doctor should try to be the best version of him- or herself to jurors,” she said. “A jury can pick up someone who’s trying to be something they’re not. A good attorney can help the doctor find the best version of themselves and capitalize on it. What is it that you want the jury to know about your care of the patient? Take that overall feeling and make sure it’s clearly expressed to the jury.”

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

During a medical malpractice trial in New Jersey, jurors waited nearly 4 hours for the physician defendant to show up. When he did arrive, the body-building surgeon was sporting two thick gold chains and a diamond pinky ring, and had the top buttons of his shirt open enough to reveal his chest hair.

“This trial was in a very rural, farming community,” recalls medical liability defense attorney Catherine Flynn, of Flynn Watts LLC, based in Parsippany, N.J. “Many of the jurors were wearing flannel shirts and jeans. The doctor’s wife walked in wearing a five-carat diamond ring and other jewelry.”

Ms. Flynn took the couple aside and asked them to remove the jewelry. She explained that the opulent accessories could damage the jury’s view of the physician. The surgeon and his wife, however, refused to remove their jewelry, she said. They didn’t think it was a big deal.

The case against the surgeon involved intraoperative damage to a patient when the physician inadvertently removed a portion of nerve in the area of the procedure. After repair of the nerve, the patient had a positive result. However, the patient alleged the surgeon’s negligence resulted in permanent damage despite the successful repair.

Jurors ultimately found the physician negligent in the case and awarded the plaintiff $1.2 million. Ms. Flynn believes that physician’s flamboyant attire and arrogant nature tainted the jury’s decision.

“In certain counties in New Jersey, his attire would not have been a problem,” she said. “In this rural, farming county, it was a huge problem. You have to know your audience. There are a lot of other things that come into play in a medical malpractice case, but when it comes to damages in a case, you don’t want to be sending the message that supports what somebody’s bias may already be telling them about a doctor.”

The surgeon appealed the verdict, and the case ultimately settled for a lesser amount, according to Ms. Flynn.

An over-the-top wardrobe is just one way that physicians can negatively influence jurors during legal trials. From subtle facial expressions to sudden outbursts to downright rudeness, attorneys have witnessed countless examples of physicians sabotaging their own trials. Legal experts say the cringeworthy experiences are good reminders that jurors are often judging more than just evidence.  

“The minute you enter the courthouse, jurors or potential jurors are sizing you up,” says health law attorney Michael Clark, of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, based in Houston. “The same phenomenon occurs in a deposition. Awareness of how you are being assessed at all times, and the image that is needed, is important since a negative impression by jurors can have a detrimental effect on a physician’s case.”
 

Juror: We didn’t like the doctor’s shoes

In another case, attorneys warned a physician defendant against dressing in his signature wardrobe during his trial. Against their advice, the doctor showed up daily to his trial in bright pastel, monochromatic suits with matching Gucci-brand shoes, said medical liability defense attorney Meredith C. Lander, of Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, based in Connecticut. On the witness stand, the doctor was long-winded and wasn’t “terribly likable,” Ms. Lander said.

However, the evidence weighed in the physician’s favor, and there was strong testimony by defense experts. The physician won the case, Ms. Lander said, but after the verdict, the jury foreperson approached the trial attorney and made some disparaging remarks about the defendant.

“The foreperson said the jury didn’t like the doctor or his ‘Gucci suits and shoes,’ but they believed the experts,” Ms. Lander said.

Disruptive behavior can also harm jurors’ perception of physicians, Ms. Flynn adds. During one instance, a surgeon insisted on sitting next to Ms. Flynn, although she generally requests clients sit in the first row so that jurors are not so focused on their reactions during testimony. The surgeon loudly peppered Ms. Flynn with questions as witnesses testified, prompting a reprimand from the judge.

“The judge admonished the doctor several times and said, ‘Doctor, you’re raising your voice. You’ll get a chance to speak with your attorney during the break,’ ” Ms. Flynn recalled. “The doctor refused to stop talking, and the judge told him in front of the jury to go sit in the back of the courtroom. His reaction was, ‘Why do I have to move?! I need to sit here!’ ”

The surgeon eventually moved to the back of the courtroom and a sheriff’s deputy stood next to him. Testimony continued until a note in the form of a paper airplane landed on the table in front of Ms. Flynn. She carefully crumpled the note and tossed it in the wastebasket. Luckily, this drew a laugh from jurors, she said. 

But things got worse when the surgeon testified. Rather than answer the questions, he interrupted and started telling jurors his own version of events.

“The judge finally said, ‘Doctor, if you don’t listen to your attorney and answer her questions, I’m going to make you get off the stand,’ ” Ms. Flynn said. “That was the most unbelievable, egregious self-sabotage trial moment I’ve ever experienced.”

Fortunately, the physician’s legal case was strong, and the experts who testified drove the defense’s side home, Ms. Flynn said. The surgeon won the case.
 

Attorney: Watch what you say in the elevator

Other, more subtle behaviors – while often unintentional – can also be damaging.

Physicians often let their guard down while outside the courtroom and can unknowingly wind up next to a juror in an elevator or standing in a hallway, said Laura Postilion, a partner at Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., based in Chicago.

“For instance, a doctor is in an elevator and feels that some witness on the stand was lying,” Ms. Postilion said. “They might be very upset about it and start ranting about a witness lying, not realizing there is a juror is in the elevator with you.”

Physicians should also be cautious when speaking on the phone to their family or friends during a trial break.

“At the Daley Center in downtown Chicago, there are these long corridors and long line of windows; a lot of people will stand there during breaks. A doctor may be talking to his or her spouse and saying, ‘Yeah, this juror is sleeping!’ Jurors are [often] looking for drama. They’re looking for somebody letting their guard down. Hearing a doctor speak badly about them would certainly give them a reason to dislike the physician.”

Ms. Postilion warns against talking about jurors in or outside of the courtroom. This includes parking structures, she said.

Physicians can take additional steps to save themselves from negative judgment from jurors, attorneys say. Even before the trial starts, Ms. Postilion advises clients to make their social media accounts private. Some curious jurors may look up a physician’s social media accounts to learn more about their personal life, political leanings, or social beliefs, which could prejudice them against the doctor, she said.

Once on the stand, the words and tone used are key. The last thing a physician defendant wants is to come across as arrogant or condescending to jurors, said medical liability defense attorney Michael Moroney, of Flynn Watts LLC.

“For instance, a defendant might say, ‘Well, let me make this simple for you,’ as if they’re talking to a bunch of schoolchildren,” he said. “You don’t know who’s on the jury. That type of language can be offensive.”

Ms. Lander counsels her clients to refrain from using the common phrase, “honestly,” before answering questions on the stand.

“Everything you’re saying on the stand is presumed to be honest,” she said. “When you start an answer with, ‘Honestly…’ out of habit, it really does undercut everything that follows and everything else that’s already been said. It suggests that you were not being honest in your other answers.”
 

Attitude, body language speak volumes

Keep in mind that plaintiffs’ attorneys will try their best to rattle physicians on the stand and get them to appear unlikeable, says Mr. Clark, the Houston-based health law attorney. Physicians who lose their cool and begin arguing with attorneys play into their strategy.

“Plaintiffs’ attorneys have been trained in ways to get under their skin,” he said. “Righteous indignation and annoyance are best left for a rare occasion. Think about how you feel in a social setting when people are bickering in front of you. It’s uncomfortable at best. That’s how a jury feels too.”

Body language is also important, Mr. Clark notes. Physicians should avoid crossed arms, leaning back and rocking, or putting a hand on their mouth while testifying, he said. Many attorneys have practice sessions with their clients and record the interaction so that doctors can watch it and see how they look.

“Know your strengths and weaknesses,” he said. “Get help from your lawyer and perhaps consultants about how to improve these skills. Practice and preparation are important.”

Ms. Postilion goes over courtroom clothing with physician clients before trial. Anything “too flashy, too high-end, or too dumpy” should be avoided, she said. Getting accustomed to the courtroom and practicing in an empty courtroom are good ways to ensure that a physician’s voice is loud enough and projecting far enough in the courtroom, she adds.

“The doctor should try to be the best version of him- or herself to jurors,” she said. “A jury can pick up someone who’s trying to be something they’re not. A good attorney can help the doctor find the best version of themselves and capitalize on it. What is it that you want the jury to know about your care of the patient? Take that overall feeling and make sure it’s clearly expressed to the jury.”

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

During a medical malpractice trial in New Jersey, jurors waited nearly 4 hours for the physician defendant to show up. When he did arrive, the body-building surgeon was sporting two thick gold chains and a diamond pinky ring, and had the top buttons of his shirt open enough to reveal his chest hair.

“This trial was in a very rural, farming community,” recalls medical liability defense attorney Catherine Flynn, of Flynn Watts LLC, based in Parsippany, N.J. “Many of the jurors were wearing flannel shirts and jeans. The doctor’s wife walked in wearing a five-carat diamond ring and other jewelry.”

Ms. Flynn took the couple aside and asked them to remove the jewelry. She explained that the opulent accessories could damage the jury’s view of the physician. The surgeon and his wife, however, refused to remove their jewelry, she said. They didn’t think it was a big deal.

The case against the surgeon involved intraoperative damage to a patient when the physician inadvertently removed a portion of nerve in the area of the procedure. After repair of the nerve, the patient had a positive result. However, the patient alleged the surgeon’s negligence resulted in permanent damage despite the successful repair.

Jurors ultimately found the physician negligent in the case and awarded the plaintiff $1.2 million. Ms. Flynn believes that physician’s flamboyant attire and arrogant nature tainted the jury’s decision.

“In certain counties in New Jersey, his attire would not have been a problem,” she said. “In this rural, farming county, it was a huge problem. You have to know your audience. There are a lot of other things that come into play in a medical malpractice case, but when it comes to damages in a case, you don’t want to be sending the message that supports what somebody’s bias may already be telling them about a doctor.”

The surgeon appealed the verdict, and the case ultimately settled for a lesser amount, according to Ms. Flynn.

An over-the-top wardrobe is just one way that physicians can negatively influence jurors during legal trials. From subtle facial expressions to sudden outbursts to downright rudeness, attorneys have witnessed countless examples of physicians sabotaging their own trials. Legal experts say the cringeworthy experiences are good reminders that jurors are often judging more than just evidence.  

“The minute you enter the courthouse, jurors or potential jurors are sizing you up,” says health law attorney Michael Clark, of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, based in Houston. “The same phenomenon occurs in a deposition. Awareness of how you are being assessed at all times, and the image that is needed, is important since a negative impression by jurors can have a detrimental effect on a physician’s case.”
 

Juror: We didn’t like the doctor’s shoes

In another case, attorneys warned a physician defendant against dressing in his signature wardrobe during his trial. Against their advice, the doctor showed up daily to his trial in bright pastel, monochromatic suits with matching Gucci-brand shoes, said medical liability defense attorney Meredith C. Lander, of Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, based in Connecticut. On the witness stand, the doctor was long-winded and wasn’t “terribly likable,” Ms. Lander said.

However, the evidence weighed in the physician’s favor, and there was strong testimony by defense experts. The physician won the case, Ms. Lander said, but after the verdict, the jury foreperson approached the trial attorney and made some disparaging remarks about the defendant.

“The foreperson said the jury didn’t like the doctor or his ‘Gucci suits and shoes,’ but they believed the experts,” Ms. Lander said.

Disruptive behavior can also harm jurors’ perception of physicians, Ms. Flynn adds. During one instance, a surgeon insisted on sitting next to Ms. Flynn, although she generally requests clients sit in the first row so that jurors are not so focused on their reactions during testimony. The surgeon loudly peppered Ms. Flynn with questions as witnesses testified, prompting a reprimand from the judge.

“The judge admonished the doctor several times and said, ‘Doctor, you’re raising your voice. You’ll get a chance to speak with your attorney during the break,’ ” Ms. Flynn recalled. “The doctor refused to stop talking, and the judge told him in front of the jury to go sit in the back of the courtroom. His reaction was, ‘Why do I have to move?! I need to sit here!’ ”

The surgeon eventually moved to the back of the courtroom and a sheriff’s deputy stood next to him. Testimony continued until a note in the form of a paper airplane landed on the table in front of Ms. Flynn. She carefully crumpled the note and tossed it in the wastebasket. Luckily, this drew a laugh from jurors, she said. 

But things got worse when the surgeon testified. Rather than answer the questions, he interrupted and started telling jurors his own version of events.

“The judge finally said, ‘Doctor, if you don’t listen to your attorney and answer her questions, I’m going to make you get off the stand,’ ” Ms. Flynn said. “That was the most unbelievable, egregious self-sabotage trial moment I’ve ever experienced.”

Fortunately, the physician’s legal case was strong, and the experts who testified drove the defense’s side home, Ms. Flynn said. The surgeon won the case.
 

Attorney: Watch what you say in the elevator

Other, more subtle behaviors – while often unintentional – can also be damaging.

Physicians often let their guard down while outside the courtroom and can unknowingly wind up next to a juror in an elevator or standing in a hallway, said Laura Postilion, a partner at Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., based in Chicago.

“For instance, a doctor is in an elevator and feels that some witness on the stand was lying,” Ms. Postilion said. “They might be very upset about it and start ranting about a witness lying, not realizing there is a juror is in the elevator with you.”

Physicians should also be cautious when speaking on the phone to their family or friends during a trial break.

“At the Daley Center in downtown Chicago, there are these long corridors and long line of windows; a lot of people will stand there during breaks. A doctor may be talking to his or her spouse and saying, ‘Yeah, this juror is sleeping!’ Jurors are [often] looking for drama. They’re looking for somebody letting their guard down. Hearing a doctor speak badly about them would certainly give them a reason to dislike the physician.”

Ms. Postilion warns against talking about jurors in or outside of the courtroom. This includes parking structures, she said.

Physicians can take additional steps to save themselves from negative judgment from jurors, attorneys say. Even before the trial starts, Ms. Postilion advises clients to make their social media accounts private. Some curious jurors may look up a physician’s social media accounts to learn more about their personal life, political leanings, or social beliefs, which could prejudice them against the doctor, she said.

Once on the stand, the words and tone used are key. The last thing a physician defendant wants is to come across as arrogant or condescending to jurors, said medical liability defense attorney Michael Moroney, of Flynn Watts LLC.

“For instance, a defendant might say, ‘Well, let me make this simple for you,’ as if they’re talking to a bunch of schoolchildren,” he said. “You don’t know who’s on the jury. That type of language can be offensive.”

Ms. Lander counsels her clients to refrain from using the common phrase, “honestly,” before answering questions on the stand.

“Everything you’re saying on the stand is presumed to be honest,” she said. “When you start an answer with, ‘Honestly…’ out of habit, it really does undercut everything that follows and everything else that’s already been said. It suggests that you were not being honest in your other answers.”
 

Attitude, body language speak volumes

Keep in mind that plaintiffs’ attorneys will try their best to rattle physicians on the stand and get them to appear unlikeable, says Mr. Clark, the Houston-based health law attorney. Physicians who lose their cool and begin arguing with attorneys play into their strategy.

“Plaintiffs’ attorneys have been trained in ways to get under their skin,” he said. “Righteous indignation and annoyance are best left for a rare occasion. Think about how you feel in a social setting when people are bickering in front of you. It’s uncomfortable at best. That’s how a jury feels too.”

Body language is also important, Mr. Clark notes. Physicians should avoid crossed arms, leaning back and rocking, or putting a hand on their mouth while testifying, he said. Many attorneys have practice sessions with their clients and record the interaction so that doctors can watch it and see how they look.

“Know your strengths and weaknesses,” he said. “Get help from your lawyer and perhaps consultants about how to improve these skills. Practice and preparation are important.”

Ms. Postilion goes over courtroom clothing with physician clients before trial. Anything “too flashy, too high-end, or too dumpy” should be avoided, she said. Getting accustomed to the courtroom and practicing in an empty courtroom are good ways to ensure that a physician’s voice is loud enough and projecting far enough in the courtroom, she adds.

“The doctor should try to be the best version of him- or herself to jurors,” she said. “A jury can pick up someone who’s trying to be something they’re not. A good attorney can help the doctor find the best version of themselves and capitalize on it. What is it that you want the jury to know about your care of the patient? Take that overall feeling and make sure it’s clearly expressed to the jury.”

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

A panel of infectious disease experts shared their take recently on the importance of the newly approved bivalent COVID-19 vaccines, why authorization without human data is not for them a cause for alarm, and what they are most optimistic about at this stage of the pandemic.

“I’m very encouraged by this new development,” Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, said during a media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

It makes sense to develop a vaccine that targets both the original SARS-CoV-2 strain and Omicron BA.4 and BA.5, she said. “It does seem that if you have a circulating strain BA.4 and BA.5, hitting it with the appropriate vaccine targeted for that is most immunogenic, certainly. We will hopefully see that in terms of effectiveness.”

Changing the vaccines at this point is appropriate, Walter A. Orenstein, MD, said. “One of our challenges is that this virus mutates. Our immune response is focused on an area of the virus that can change and be evaded,” said Dr. Orenstein, professor and associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center at Emory University, Atlanta.

“This is different than measles or polio,” he said. “But for influenza and now with SARS-CoV-2 ... we have to update our vaccines, because the virus changes.”
 

Man versus mouse

Dr. Edwards addressed the controversy over a lack of human data specific to these next-generation Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. “I do not want people to be unhappy or worried that the bivalent vaccine will act in a different way than the ones that we have been administering for the past 2 years.”

The Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization may have relied primarily on animal studies, she said, but mice given a vaccine specific to BA.4 and BA.5 “have a much more robust immune response,” compared with those given a BA.1 vaccine.

Also, “over and over and over again we have seen with these SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that the mouse responses mirror the human responses,” said Dr. Edwards, scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and an IDSA fellow.

“Human data will be coming very soon to look at the immunogenicity,” she said.
 

A ‘glass half full’ perspective

When asked what they are most optimistic about at this point in the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Orenstein said, “I’m really positive in the sense that the vaccines we have are already very effective against severe disease, death, and hospitalization. I feel really good about that. And we have great tools.

“The bottom line for me is, I want to get it myself,” he said regarding the bivalent vaccine.

“There are a lot of things to be happy with,” Dr. Edwards said. “I’m kind of a glass-half-full kind of person.”

Dr. Edwards is confident that the surveillance systems now in place can accurately detect major changes in the virus, including new variants. She is also optimistic about the mRNA technology that allows rapid updates to COVID-19 vaccines.

Furthermore, “I’m happy that we’re beginning to open up – that we can go do different things that we have done in the past and feel much more comfortable,” she said.
 

More motivational messaging needed

Now is also a good time to renew efforts to get people vaccinated.

“We invested a lot into developing these vaccines, but I think we also need to invest in what I call ‘implementation science research,’ ” Dr. Orenstein said, the goal being to convince people to get vaccinated.

He pointed out that it’s vaccinations, not vaccines, that saves lives. “Vaccine doses that remain in the vial are 0% effective.

“When I was director of the United States’ immunization program at the CDC,” Dr. Orenstein said, “my director of communications used to say that you need the right message delivered by the right messenger through the right communications channel.”

Dr. Edwards agreed that listening to people’s concerns and respecting their questions are important. “We also need to make sure that we use the proper messenger, just as Walt said. Maybe the proper messenger isn’t an old gray-haired lady,” she said, referring to herself, “but it’s someone that lives in your community or is your primary care doctor who has taken care of you or your children for many years.”

Research on how to better motivate people to get vaccinated is warranted, Dr. Edwards said, as well as on “how to make sure that this is really a medical issue and not a political issue. That’s been a really big problem.”

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

A panel of infectious disease experts shared their take recently on the importance of the newly approved bivalent COVID-19 vaccines, why authorization without human data is not for them a cause for alarm, and what they are most optimistic about at this stage of the pandemic.

“I’m very encouraged by this new development,” Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, said during a media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

It makes sense to develop a vaccine that targets both the original SARS-CoV-2 strain and Omicron BA.4 and BA.5, she said. “It does seem that if you have a circulating strain BA.4 and BA.5, hitting it with the appropriate vaccine targeted for that is most immunogenic, certainly. We will hopefully see that in terms of effectiveness.”

Changing the vaccines at this point is appropriate, Walter A. Orenstein, MD, said. “One of our challenges is that this virus mutates. Our immune response is focused on an area of the virus that can change and be evaded,” said Dr. Orenstein, professor and associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center at Emory University, Atlanta.

“This is different than measles or polio,” he said. “But for influenza and now with SARS-CoV-2 ... we have to update our vaccines, because the virus changes.”
 

Man versus mouse

Dr. Edwards addressed the controversy over a lack of human data specific to these next-generation Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. “I do not want people to be unhappy or worried that the bivalent vaccine will act in a different way than the ones that we have been administering for the past 2 years.”

The Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization may have relied primarily on animal studies, she said, but mice given a vaccine specific to BA.4 and BA.5 “have a much more robust immune response,” compared with those given a BA.1 vaccine.

Also, “over and over and over again we have seen with these SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that the mouse responses mirror the human responses,” said Dr. Edwards, scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and an IDSA fellow.

“Human data will be coming very soon to look at the immunogenicity,” she said.
 

A ‘glass half full’ perspective

When asked what they are most optimistic about at this point in the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Orenstein said, “I’m really positive in the sense that the vaccines we have are already very effective against severe disease, death, and hospitalization. I feel really good about that. And we have great tools.

“The bottom line for me is, I want to get it myself,” he said regarding the bivalent vaccine.

“There are a lot of things to be happy with,” Dr. Edwards said. “I’m kind of a glass-half-full kind of person.”

Dr. Edwards is confident that the surveillance systems now in place can accurately detect major changes in the virus, including new variants. She is also optimistic about the mRNA technology that allows rapid updates to COVID-19 vaccines.

Furthermore, “I’m happy that we’re beginning to open up – that we can go do different things that we have done in the past and feel much more comfortable,” she said.
 

More motivational messaging needed

Now is also a good time to renew efforts to get people vaccinated.

“We invested a lot into developing these vaccines, but I think we also need to invest in what I call ‘implementation science research,’ ” Dr. Orenstein said, the goal being to convince people to get vaccinated.

He pointed out that it’s vaccinations, not vaccines, that saves lives. “Vaccine doses that remain in the vial are 0% effective.

“When I was director of the United States’ immunization program at the CDC,” Dr. Orenstein said, “my director of communications used to say that you need the right message delivered by the right messenger through the right communications channel.”

Dr. Edwards agreed that listening to people’s concerns and respecting their questions are important. “We also need to make sure that we use the proper messenger, just as Walt said. Maybe the proper messenger isn’t an old gray-haired lady,” she said, referring to herself, “but it’s someone that lives in your community or is your primary care doctor who has taken care of you or your children for many years.”

Research on how to better motivate people to get vaccinated is warranted, Dr. Edwards said, as well as on “how to make sure that this is really a medical issue and not a political issue. That’s been a really big problem.”

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

A panel of infectious disease experts shared their take recently on the importance of the newly approved bivalent COVID-19 vaccines, why authorization without human data is not for them a cause for alarm, and what they are most optimistic about at this stage of the pandemic.

“I’m very encouraged by this new development,” Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, said during a media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

It makes sense to develop a vaccine that targets both the original SARS-CoV-2 strain and Omicron BA.4 and BA.5, she said. “It does seem that if you have a circulating strain BA.4 and BA.5, hitting it with the appropriate vaccine targeted for that is most immunogenic, certainly. We will hopefully see that in terms of effectiveness.”

Changing the vaccines at this point is appropriate, Walter A. Orenstein, MD, said. “One of our challenges is that this virus mutates. Our immune response is focused on an area of the virus that can change and be evaded,” said Dr. Orenstein, professor and associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center at Emory University, Atlanta.

“This is different than measles or polio,” he said. “But for influenza and now with SARS-CoV-2 ... we have to update our vaccines, because the virus changes.”
 

Man versus mouse

Dr. Edwards addressed the controversy over a lack of human data specific to these next-generation Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. “I do not want people to be unhappy or worried that the bivalent vaccine will act in a different way than the ones that we have been administering for the past 2 years.”

The Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization may have relied primarily on animal studies, she said, but mice given a vaccine specific to BA.4 and BA.5 “have a much more robust immune response,” compared with those given a BA.1 vaccine.

Also, “over and over and over again we have seen with these SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that the mouse responses mirror the human responses,” said Dr. Edwards, scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and an IDSA fellow.

“Human data will be coming very soon to look at the immunogenicity,” she said.
 

A ‘glass half full’ perspective

When asked what they are most optimistic about at this point in the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Orenstein said, “I’m really positive in the sense that the vaccines we have are already very effective against severe disease, death, and hospitalization. I feel really good about that. And we have great tools.

“The bottom line for me is, I want to get it myself,” he said regarding the bivalent vaccine.

“There are a lot of things to be happy with,” Dr. Edwards said. “I’m kind of a glass-half-full kind of person.”

Dr. Edwards is confident that the surveillance systems now in place can accurately detect major changes in the virus, including new variants. She is also optimistic about the mRNA technology that allows rapid updates to COVID-19 vaccines.

Furthermore, “I’m happy that we’re beginning to open up – that we can go do different things that we have done in the past and feel much more comfortable,” she said.
 

More motivational messaging needed

Now is also a good time to renew efforts to get people vaccinated.

“We invested a lot into developing these vaccines, but I think we also need to invest in what I call ‘implementation science research,’ ” Dr. Orenstein said, the goal being to convince people to get vaccinated.

He pointed out that it’s vaccinations, not vaccines, that saves lives. “Vaccine doses that remain in the vial are 0% effective.

“When I was director of the United States’ immunization program at the CDC,” Dr. Orenstein said, “my director of communications used to say that you need the right message delivered by the right messenger through the right communications channel.”

Dr. Edwards agreed that listening to people’s concerns and respecting their questions are important. “We also need to make sure that we use the proper messenger, just as Walt said. Maybe the proper messenger isn’t an old gray-haired lady,” she said, referring to herself, “but it’s someone that lives in your community or is your primary care doctor who has taken care of you or your children for many years.”

Research on how to better motivate people to get vaccinated is warranted, Dr. Edwards said, as well as on “how to make sure that this is really a medical issue and not a political issue. That’s been a really big problem.”

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

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), or lupus, shows a marked sex bias, affecting about nine females for every one male, according to Susan Kovats, PhD, who studies sex differences in immunity at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation in Oklahoma City. This characteristic of lupus suggests that hormones are involved in the pathogenesis of the disease. It also suggests, Dr. Kovats said, that the X chromosome might play a role.

Though studies since the 1970s have indicated a significant role for hormones, the issue is still complex and not well understood, and relatively little research has been done on the molecular mechanisms that might be responsible. This may be because of difficulties with influencing the immune system in vitro, said George A. Robinson, PhD, of University College London’s Centre for Rheumatology.

But Dr. Robinson and his team found a unique way of investigating the role of sex chromosomes and hormones in the inflammatory profiles across subjects of different sex, gender, age, and disease status. In research published online in The Lancet Rheumatology, Dr. Robinson and his team looked at immune cells taken from both cisgender men and women and transgender men and women, and thus were able to “get a more physiological view of what sex hormones are doing to the immune system,” he said.

Dr. Kovats agreed that it was a useful approach. “The transgender people provided an opportunity to effectively separate sex hormone levels from chromosome content,” she said in an interview.
 

Methods and findings

Peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) samples were taken from cisgender individuals with and without juvenile-onset lupus and assessed for 28 immune-cell subsets, including different T-cell, B-cell, and monotype subsets. Subjects included 39 postpubertal cisgender men and women (17 men and 22 women) who did not have juvenile-onset lupus, and 35 postpubertal cisgender men and women (12 men and 23 women) who did have juvenile onset lupus. All were aged 16-25 years. The transgender group included five transgender men and five transgender women (aged 18-19) who were undergoing gender-affirming sex hormone treatment.

The analysis found that one of the key differences between young postpubertal cisgender men and age-matched cisgender women was that the men had significantly elevated frequencies of regulatory T cells (T-reg cells), and the T-reg cells from young cisgender men had greater suppressive capacity in vitro than did those from cisgender women. In addition, RNA sequencing data from isolated T-reg cells showed the transcriptomic signature of the cisgender men’s T-regs were significantly enriched for genes in the P13K-AKT signaling pathway. The frequency of T-reg cells was not influenced by sex hormones, but their transcriptomic profile was affected.

“These results are beginning to give us an indication of which genes might be differentially regulated by sex hormones and how these are associated with autoimmunity,” Dr. Robinson said. “We’ve also found that, depending on whether you’re a cisgender man or woman, you may have a different pathogenic process to developing lupus. It’s not necessarily that one mechanism drives the disease across both sexes.”
 

New approaches, better insights

Dr. Kovats was particularly impressed by the methods of this study. “It was a natural study, the kind of thing we can usually do only in mice,” she said.

Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation

“One problem with studies on the effects of hormones in disease is that historically researchers have not paid that much attention to the actual hormone levels in the humans they studied. They might look at 100 women and 100 men, roughly between the ages of 20 and 50. We’re starting to see more, but there aren’t a lot of studies correlating numbers of cells in blood with actual hormone levels in the person. And as we know, just because someone’s a certain age doesn’t mean that they have a textbook hormone level. Early menopause, birth-control pills, many things can affect those levels.”

The researchers hope that these findings will shed light on the mechanisms that create sexual bias in autoimmune diseases, particularly lupus, as well as help researchers to better understand the innate and adaptive immunological differences between men and women. It could also be useful in the clinical setting, Dr. Robinson said. Because of the extreme sex bias in lupus, doctors see far more women with the illness than men. When they do see men with lupus, they need to be able to consider how the patient’s sex affects the development and course of the disease. “I think that people need to start looking at patients as clinically different, depending on their sex and gender,” he said. Information like that analyzed in this study could help with that. This could be especially important because as Dr. Kovats pointed out, although men get lupus far less often than women, when they do have it, they tend to have more severe disease.
 

Help from machines

This study was groundbreaking in another area as well. The researchers used machine learning to analyze the data. “We’ve started working a lot more with these analysis methods to try to answer as much as we can with these smaller data sets,” Dr. Robinson said. “Rather than the conventional analysis that we would typically perform, we’re able to use machine learning and artificial intelligence to try and learn from the data and increase the numbers that we’re working with by using a training data set. This allows us to interrogate the data with a lot more precision.”

The authors declared no competing interests.

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), or lupus, shows a marked sex bias, affecting about nine females for every one male, according to Susan Kovats, PhD, who studies sex differences in immunity at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation in Oklahoma City. This characteristic of lupus suggests that hormones are involved in the pathogenesis of the disease. It also suggests, Dr. Kovats said, that the X chromosome might play a role.

Though studies since the 1970s have indicated a significant role for hormones, the issue is still complex and not well understood, and relatively little research has been done on the molecular mechanisms that might be responsible. This may be because of difficulties with influencing the immune system in vitro, said George A. Robinson, PhD, of University College London’s Centre for Rheumatology.

But Dr. Robinson and his team found a unique way of investigating the role of sex chromosomes and hormones in the inflammatory profiles across subjects of different sex, gender, age, and disease status. In research published online in The Lancet Rheumatology, Dr. Robinson and his team looked at immune cells taken from both cisgender men and women and transgender men and women, and thus were able to “get a more physiological view of what sex hormones are doing to the immune system,” he said.

Dr. Kovats agreed that it was a useful approach. “The transgender people provided an opportunity to effectively separate sex hormone levels from chromosome content,” she said in an interview.
 

Methods and findings

Peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) samples were taken from cisgender individuals with and without juvenile-onset lupus and assessed for 28 immune-cell subsets, including different T-cell, B-cell, and monotype subsets. Subjects included 39 postpubertal cisgender men and women (17 men and 22 women) who did not have juvenile-onset lupus, and 35 postpubertal cisgender men and women (12 men and 23 women) who did have juvenile onset lupus. All were aged 16-25 years. The transgender group included five transgender men and five transgender women (aged 18-19) who were undergoing gender-affirming sex hormone treatment.

The analysis found that one of the key differences between young postpubertal cisgender men and age-matched cisgender women was that the men had significantly elevated frequencies of regulatory T cells (T-reg cells), and the T-reg cells from young cisgender men had greater suppressive capacity in vitro than did those from cisgender women. In addition, RNA sequencing data from isolated T-reg cells showed the transcriptomic signature of the cisgender men’s T-regs were significantly enriched for genes in the P13K-AKT signaling pathway. The frequency of T-reg cells was not influenced by sex hormones, but their transcriptomic profile was affected.

“These results are beginning to give us an indication of which genes might be differentially regulated by sex hormones and how these are associated with autoimmunity,” Dr. Robinson said. “We’ve also found that, depending on whether you’re a cisgender man or woman, you may have a different pathogenic process to developing lupus. It’s not necessarily that one mechanism drives the disease across both sexes.”
 

New approaches, better insights

Dr. Kovats was particularly impressed by the methods of this study. “It was a natural study, the kind of thing we can usually do only in mice,” she said.

Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation

“One problem with studies on the effects of hormones in disease is that historically researchers have not paid that much attention to the actual hormone levels in the humans they studied. They might look at 100 women and 100 men, roughly between the ages of 20 and 50. We’re starting to see more, but there aren’t a lot of studies correlating numbers of cells in blood with actual hormone levels in the person. And as we know, just because someone’s a certain age doesn’t mean that they have a textbook hormone level. Early menopause, birth-control pills, many things can affect those levels.”

The researchers hope that these findings will shed light on the mechanisms that create sexual bias in autoimmune diseases, particularly lupus, as well as help researchers to better understand the innate and adaptive immunological differences between men and women. It could also be useful in the clinical setting, Dr. Robinson said. Because of the extreme sex bias in lupus, doctors see far more women with the illness than men. When they do see men with lupus, they need to be able to consider how the patient’s sex affects the development and course of the disease. “I think that people need to start looking at patients as clinically different, depending on their sex and gender,” he said. Information like that analyzed in this study could help with that. This could be especially important because as Dr. Kovats pointed out, although men get lupus far less often than women, when they do have it, they tend to have more severe disease.
 

Help from machines

This study was groundbreaking in another area as well. The researchers used machine learning to analyze the data. “We’ve started working a lot more with these analysis methods to try to answer as much as we can with these smaller data sets,” Dr. Robinson said. “Rather than the conventional analysis that we would typically perform, we’re able to use machine learning and artificial intelligence to try and learn from the data and increase the numbers that we’re working with by using a training data set. This allows us to interrogate the data with a lot more precision.”

The authors declared no competing interests.

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), or lupus, shows a marked sex bias, affecting about nine females for every one male, according to Susan Kovats, PhD, who studies sex differences in immunity at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation in Oklahoma City. This characteristic of lupus suggests that hormones are involved in the pathogenesis of the disease. It also suggests, Dr. Kovats said, that the X chromosome might play a role.

Though studies since the 1970s have indicated a significant role for hormones, the issue is still complex and not well understood, and relatively little research has been done on the molecular mechanisms that might be responsible. This may be because of difficulties with influencing the immune system in vitro, said George A. Robinson, PhD, of University College London’s Centre for Rheumatology.

But Dr. Robinson and his team found a unique way of investigating the role of sex chromosomes and hormones in the inflammatory profiles across subjects of different sex, gender, age, and disease status. In research published online in The Lancet Rheumatology, Dr. Robinson and his team looked at immune cells taken from both cisgender men and women and transgender men and women, and thus were able to “get a more physiological view of what sex hormones are doing to the immune system,” he said.

Dr. Kovats agreed that it was a useful approach. “The transgender people provided an opportunity to effectively separate sex hormone levels from chromosome content,” she said in an interview.
 

Methods and findings

Peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) samples were taken from cisgender individuals with and without juvenile-onset lupus and assessed for 28 immune-cell subsets, including different T-cell, B-cell, and monotype subsets. Subjects included 39 postpubertal cisgender men and women (17 men and 22 women) who did not have juvenile-onset lupus, and 35 postpubertal cisgender men and women (12 men and 23 women) who did have juvenile onset lupus. All were aged 16-25 years. The transgender group included five transgender men and five transgender women (aged 18-19) who were undergoing gender-affirming sex hormone treatment.

The analysis found that one of the key differences between young postpubertal cisgender men and age-matched cisgender women was that the men had significantly elevated frequencies of regulatory T cells (T-reg cells), and the T-reg cells from young cisgender men had greater suppressive capacity in vitro than did those from cisgender women. In addition, RNA sequencing data from isolated T-reg cells showed the transcriptomic signature of the cisgender men’s T-regs were significantly enriched for genes in the P13K-AKT signaling pathway. The frequency of T-reg cells was not influenced by sex hormones, but their transcriptomic profile was affected.

“These results are beginning to give us an indication of which genes might be differentially regulated by sex hormones and how these are associated with autoimmunity,” Dr. Robinson said. “We’ve also found that, depending on whether you’re a cisgender man or woman, you may have a different pathogenic process to developing lupus. It’s not necessarily that one mechanism drives the disease across both sexes.”
 

New approaches, better insights

Dr. Kovats was particularly impressed by the methods of this study. “It was a natural study, the kind of thing we can usually do only in mice,” she said.

Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation

“One problem with studies on the effects of hormones in disease is that historically researchers have not paid that much attention to the actual hormone levels in the humans they studied. They might look at 100 women and 100 men, roughly between the ages of 20 and 50. We’re starting to see more, but there aren’t a lot of studies correlating numbers of cells in blood with actual hormone levels in the person. And as we know, just because someone’s a certain age doesn’t mean that they have a textbook hormone level. Early menopause, birth-control pills, many things can affect those levels.”

The researchers hope that these findings will shed light on the mechanisms that create sexual bias in autoimmune diseases, particularly lupus, as well as help researchers to better understand the innate and adaptive immunological differences between men and women. It could also be useful in the clinical setting, Dr. Robinson said. Because of the extreme sex bias in lupus, doctors see far more women with the illness than men. When they do see men with lupus, they need to be able to consider how the patient’s sex affects the development and course of the disease. “I think that people need to start looking at patients as clinically different, depending on their sex and gender,” he said. Information like that analyzed in this study could help with that. This could be especially important because as Dr. Kovats pointed out, although men get lupus far less often than women, when they do have it, they tend to have more severe disease.
 

Help from machines

This study was groundbreaking in another area as well. The researchers used machine learning to analyze the data. “We’ve started working a lot more with these analysis methods to try to answer as much as we can with these smaller data sets,” Dr. Robinson said. “Rather than the conventional analysis that we would typically perform, we’re able to use machine learning and artificial intelligence to try and learn from the data and increase the numbers that we’re working with by using a training data set. This allows us to interrogate the data with a lot more precision.”

The authors declared no competing interests.

GHENT, BELGIUM – A strong numerical signal suggests the addition of a selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor to a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor can reduce spinal radiographic progression in patients with active radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) over 2 years, although results are not statistically significant.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

Lead researcher and rheumatologist, Fabian Proft, MD, based at Charité University Medicine, Berlin, presented the findings of the study at the 13th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

Only 97 patients completed the study, and its follow-up period lasted 2 years, which is a relatively short period of time in which to determine the effects of an intervention that might affect structural progression of the spine, Dr. Proft said.

“Based on these data, I won’t treat all my patients with celecoxib,” he told this news organization. However, he added that, “If I have a patient with residual symptoms under biological DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs], and I feel they are at high risk of radiographic spinal progression and they still have symptoms, then I would add in an NSAID – and for that I’d choose a selective COX-2 inhibitor based on radiographic spinal progression data.”

Walter P. Maksymowych, MD, rheumatologist from the University of Alberta, Calgary, commented on the study findings in an interview. “This is an important clinical question because we want to know whether we should be adding an anti-inflammatory in patients who are on biologic therapies. There’s been a long debate and investigation into whether anti-inflammatories might prevent new bone formation and thereby prevent disease progression.”

He went on by acknowledging that there was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint (change in modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score [mSASSS]) between the groups, but added that, “there was a sizable numerical difference, and I think this leaves the community somewhat hanging dry without a definitive answer. However, I do have concerns about whether there was an adequate sample size to address the study question.”
 

To add or not to add a selective COX-2 inhibitor to TNF inhibitor in axSpA treatment

The study aimed to investigate the effect of a selective COX-2 inhibitor when added to anti-TNF therapy with golimumab (Simponi), compared with golimumab therapy alone, on the progression of spinal structural damage over 2 years in patients with active radiographic axSpA.

“To date, we don’t have many treatments with evidence of reducing spinal radiographic progression in axSpA,” Dr. Proft said. “There was one study showing an effect of celecoxib, but another with diclofenac that failed to show any effect. As a result, there was a hypothesis that perhaps there was a selective COX-2 inhibitor effect.”

To investigate this further, Dr. Proft selected patients with high radiographic axSpA disease activity (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI] ≥ 4) and with existing structural changes – both recognized risk factors for further progression. Participants had to have either an elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) > 5 mg/L and/or ≥ 1 syndesmophyte at screening, as well as a history of inadequate response to at least two DMARDs. Other patient risk factors for radiographic spinal progression included male gender and smoking. Duration of axSpA was unlimited.

Three radiographic readers were blinded for all clinical data and chronology. The primary endpoint was the change in mSASSS, while secondary endpoints were the presence of new syndesmophytes and clinical outcomes including activity, function, mobility, and health-related quality of life, as well as safety assessments.

Patients were treated with only golimumab (50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks) for the first 12 weeks and then only those patients with a good clinical response (n = 109) went into phase two of the study, at which point they were randomized 1:1 to golimumab monotherapy (control, 50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks), or golimumab (50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks) plus celecoxib (400 mg once daily) for 2 years. Radiographs were taken at baseline (week 0) and after 2 years. A total of 45 patients completed the combination therapy and 52 completed the monotherapy.
 

No statistical significance but a numerical difference found

“The primary outcome, which was change in mSASSS score, clearly shows a numerical difference between the combination arm at 1.1 and the monotherapy arm at 1.7 points, showing more structural progression in the monotherapy arm, compared to the combination arm,” Dr. Proft reported. However, he stressed that this difference did not reach statistical significance.

New syndesmophytes occurred in 25% with monotherapy and 11.1% with combination treatment. Again, this difference did not reach statistical significance.

“This might be due to sample size but also to the length of follow-up because a longer follow-up [given structural changes occur relatively slowly] might have shown a greater difference,” Dr. Proft pointed out.

Clinical data, according to Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score with CRP and BASDAI, showed that both groups responded very well to therapy, and there were no differences seen between the two groups in terms of clinical parameters.

“It is important when we add a drug – and we know that NSAIDs can have safety concerns – that we do not see any statistically significant serious adverse events between patient groups,” Dr. Proft noted.

There were no significant differences in adverse events between monotherapy and combination therapy. There were 162 infections in the combination arm and 150 in the monotherapy arm. Combination therapy led to seven serious adverse events, and monotherapy occurred with five adverse events.

Dr. Proft added that four patients discontinued in the combination arm, compared with only one in the monotherapy arm, with a variety of different reasons for the discontinuations.

The study was supported by a grant from the German Ministry of Education and Research, and golimumab was provided free of charge by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Proft reported serving on speakers bureaus for Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB; serving as a consultant to Novartis; and receiving grant or research support from Novartis, UCB, and Lilly. Dr. Maksymowych declared having no relevant conflicts of interest.

GHENT, BELGIUM – A strong numerical signal suggests the addition of a selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor to a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor can reduce spinal radiographic progression in patients with active radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) over 2 years, although results are not statistically significant.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

Lead researcher and rheumatologist, Fabian Proft, MD, based at Charité University Medicine, Berlin, presented the findings of the study at the 13th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

Only 97 patients completed the study, and its follow-up period lasted 2 years, which is a relatively short period of time in which to determine the effects of an intervention that might affect structural progression of the spine, Dr. Proft said.

“Based on these data, I won’t treat all my patients with celecoxib,” he told this news organization. However, he added that, “If I have a patient with residual symptoms under biological DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs], and I feel they are at high risk of radiographic spinal progression and they still have symptoms, then I would add in an NSAID – and for that I’d choose a selective COX-2 inhibitor based on radiographic spinal progression data.”

Walter P. Maksymowych, MD, rheumatologist from the University of Alberta, Calgary, commented on the study findings in an interview. “This is an important clinical question because we want to know whether we should be adding an anti-inflammatory in patients who are on biologic therapies. There’s been a long debate and investigation into whether anti-inflammatories might prevent new bone formation and thereby prevent disease progression.”

He went on by acknowledging that there was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint (change in modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score [mSASSS]) between the groups, but added that, “there was a sizable numerical difference, and I think this leaves the community somewhat hanging dry without a definitive answer. However, I do have concerns about whether there was an adequate sample size to address the study question.”
 

To add or not to add a selective COX-2 inhibitor to TNF inhibitor in axSpA treatment

The study aimed to investigate the effect of a selective COX-2 inhibitor when added to anti-TNF therapy with golimumab (Simponi), compared with golimumab therapy alone, on the progression of spinal structural damage over 2 years in patients with active radiographic axSpA.

“To date, we don’t have many treatments with evidence of reducing spinal radiographic progression in axSpA,” Dr. Proft said. “There was one study showing an effect of celecoxib, but another with diclofenac that failed to show any effect. As a result, there was a hypothesis that perhaps there was a selective COX-2 inhibitor effect.”

To investigate this further, Dr. Proft selected patients with high radiographic axSpA disease activity (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI] ≥ 4) and with existing structural changes – both recognized risk factors for further progression. Participants had to have either an elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) > 5 mg/L and/or ≥ 1 syndesmophyte at screening, as well as a history of inadequate response to at least two DMARDs. Other patient risk factors for radiographic spinal progression included male gender and smoking. Duration of axSpA was unlimited.

Three radiographic readers were blinded for all clinical data and chronology. The primary endpoint was the change in mSASSS, while secondary endpoints were the presence of new syndesmophytes and clinical outcomes including activity, function, mobility, and health-related quality of life, as well as safety assessments.

Patients were treated with only golimumab (50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks) for the first 12 weeks and then only those patients with a good clinical response (n = 109) went into phase two of the study, at which point they were randomized 1:1 to golimumab monotherapy (control, 50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks), or golimumab (50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks) plus celecoxib (400 mg once daily) for 2 years. Radiographs were taken at baseline (week 0) and after 2 years. A total of 45 patients completed the combination therapy and 52 completed the monotherapy.
 

No statistical significance but a numerical difference found

“The primary outcome, which was change in mSASSS score, clearly shows a numerical difference between the combination arm at 1.1 and the monotherapy arm at 1.7 points, showing more structural progression in the monotherapy arm, compared to the combination arm,” Dr. Proft reported. However, he stressed that this difference did not reach statistical significance.

New syndesmophytes occurred in 25% with monotherapy and 11.1% with combination treatment. Again, this difference did not reach statistical significance.

“This might be due to sample size but also to the length of follow-up because a longer follow-up [given structural changes occur relatively slowly] might have shown a greater difference,” Dr. Proft pointed out.

Clinical data, according to Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score with CRP and BASDAI, showed that both groups responded very well to therapy, and there were no differences seen between the two groups in terms of clinical parameters.

“It is important when we add a drug – and we know that NSAIDs can have safety concerns – that we do not see any statistically significant serious adverse events between patient groups,” Dr. Proft noted.

There were no significant differences in adverse events between monotherapy and combination therapy. There were 162 infections in the combination arm and 150 in the monotherapy arm. Combination therapy led to seven serious adverse events, and monotherapy occurred with five adverse events.

Dr. Proft added that four patients discontinued in the combination arm, compared with only one in the monotherapy arm, with a variety of different reasons for the discontinuations.

The study was supported by a grant from the German Ministry of Education and Research, and golimumab was provided free of charge by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Proft reported serving on speakers bureaus for Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB; serving as a consultant to Novartis; and receiving grant or research support from Novartis, UCB, and Lilly. Dr. Maksymowych declared having no relevant conflicts of interest.

GHENT, BELGIUM – A strong numerical signal suggests the addition of a selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor to a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor can reduce spinal radiographic progression in patients with active radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) over 2 years, although results are not statistically significant.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

Lead researcher and rheumatologist, Fabian Proft, MD, based at Charité University Medicine, Berlin, presented the findings of the study at the 13th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

Only 97 patients completed the study, and its follow-up period lasted 2 years, which is a relatively short period of time in which to determine the effects of an intervention that might affect structural progression of the spine, Dr. Proft said.

“Based on these data, I won’t treat all my patients with celecoxib,” he told this news organization. However, he added that, “If I have a patient with residual symptoms under biological DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs], and I feel they are at high risk of radiographic spinal progression and they still have symptoms, then I would add in an NSAID – and for that I’d choose a selective COX-2 inhibitor based on radiographic spinal progression data.”

Walter P. Maksymowych, MD, rheumatologist from the University of Alberta, Calgary, commented on the study findings in an interview. “This is an important clinical question because we want to know whether we should be adding an anti-inflammatory in patients who are on biologic therapies. There’s been a long debate and investigation into whether anti-inflammatories might prevent new bone formation and thereby prevent disease progression.”

He went on by acknowledging that there was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint (change in modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score [mSASSS]) between the groups, but added that, “there was a sizable numerical difference, and I think this leaves the community somewhat hanging dry without a definitive answer. However, I do have concerns about whether there was an adequate sample size to address the study question.”
 

To add or not to add a selective COX-2 inhibitor to TNF inhibitor in axSpA treatment

The study aimed to investigate the effect of a selective COX-2 inhibitor when added to anti-TNF therapy with golimumab (Simponi), compared with golimumab therapy alone, on the progression of spinal structural damage over 2 years in patients with active radiographic axSpA.

“To date, we don’t have many treatments with evidence of reducing spinal radiographic progression in axSpA,” Dr. Proft said. “There was one study showing an effect of celecoxib, but another with diclofenac that failed to show any effect. As a result, there was a hypothesis that perhaps there was a selective COX-2 inhibitor effect.”

To investigate this further, Dr. Proft selected patients with high radiographic axSpA disease activity (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI] ≥ 4) and with existing structural changes – both recognized risk factors for further progression. Participants had to have either an elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) > 5 mg/L and/or ≥ 1 syndesmophyte at screening, as well as a history of inadequate response to at least two DMARDs. Other patient risk factors for radiographic spinal progression included male gender and smoking. Duration of axSpA was unlimited.

Three radiographic readers were blinded for all clinical data and chronology. The primary endpoint was the change in mSASSS, while secondary endpoints were the presence of new syndesmophytes and clinical outcomes including activity, function, mobility, and health-related quality of life, as well as safety assessments.

Patients were treated with only golimumab (50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks) for the first 12 weeks and then only those patients with a good clinical response (n = 109) went into phase two of the study, at which point they were randomized 1:1 to golimumab monotherapy (control, 50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks), or golimumab (50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks) plus celecoxib (400 mg once daily) for 2 years. Radiographs were taken at baseline (week 0) and after 2 years. A total of 45 patients completed the combination therapy and 52 completed the monotherapy.
 

No statistical significance but a numerical difference found

“The primary outcome, which was change in mSASSS score, clearly shows a numerical difference between the combination arm at 1.1 and the monotherapy arm at 1.7 points, showing more structural progression in the monotherapy arm, compared to the combination arm,” Dr. Proft reported. However, he stressed that this difference did not reach statistical significance.

New syndesmophytes occurred in 25% with monotherapy and 11.1% with combination treatment. Again, this difference did not reach statistical significance.

“This might be due to sample size but also to the length of follow-up because a longer follow-up [given structural changes occur relatively slowly] might have shown a greater difference,” Dr. Proft pointed out.

Clinical data, according to Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score with CRP and BASDAI, showed that both groups responded very well to therapy, and there were no differences seen between the two groups in terms of clinical parameters.

“It is important when we add a drug – and we know that NSAIDs can have safety concerns – that we do not see any statistically significant serious adverse events between patient groups,” Dr. Proft noted.

There were no significant differences in adverse events between monotherapy and combination therapy. There were 162 infections in the combination arm and 150 in the monotherapy arm. Combination therapy led to seven serious adverse events, and monotherapy occurred with five adverse events.

Dr. Proft added that four patients discontinued in the combination arm, compared with only one in the monotherapy arm, with a variety of different reasons for the discontinuations.

The study was supported by a grant from the German Ministry of Education and Research, and golimumab was provided free of charge by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Proft reported serving on speakers bureaus for Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB; serving as a consultant to Novartis; and receiving grant or research support from Novartis, UCB, and Lilly. Dr. Maksymowych declared having no relevant conflicts of interest.

GHENT, BELGIUM – Patients with nonradiographic or radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) experienced clinically relevant treatment responses to bimekizumab (Bimzelx) at similar rates that significantly exceeded placebo, regardless of prior experience with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, according to results from two phase 3 trials presented at the 13th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

In addition, around half of patients with either nonradiographic or radiographic disease achieved complete remission of enthesitis by week 16 of treatment with bimekizumab. The drug, a humanized, monoclonal antibody dually inhibiting interleukins (IL) 17A and 17F, is approved in the European Union for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

“Bimekizumab blockade works independently of axial spondyloarthritis pretreatment, which means this drug specifically blocks something that other drugs do not reach,” said Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Ruhr University Bochum (Germany). He presented 24-week data on the use of bimekizumab.

The BE MOBILE 1 trial involved 256 patients with nonradiographic axSpA, whereas BE MOBILE 2 involved 232 patients with radiographic axSpA. In both trials, bimekizumab 160 mg was administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks, and at week 16, all patients, including those who had received placebo, received open-label bimekizumab for another 8 weeks. This news organization previously reported results from BE MOBILE 2 that were presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2022 annual meeting.

In Ghent, referring to the nonradiographic patients, Dr. Baraliakos said in an interview, “We saw a very clear response to the active drug even after 2 weeks. The curves separated out from placebo. The week 16 primary analysis showed patients on bimekizumab did significantly better, [and there was] a similar response in those who switched to [open-label] bimekizumab after placebo” at week 16.

In patients with nonradiographic disease at week 24, 52.3% on bimekizumab achieved the trial’s primary outcome of 40% improvement in Assessment in Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40), compared with 46.8% of patients who were receiving placebo and then switched to open-label bimekizumab at week 16, the latter rising from 21.4% at week 16. For comparison, 47.7% on bimekizumab achieved ASAS 40 at week 16.

At week 24 in BE MOBILE 2, 53.8% of patients with radiographic disease on continuous bimekizumab met ASAS 40 criteria, as did 56.8% of patients who switched from placebo to open-label bimekizumab, rising from 22.5% with placebo and 44.8% with bimekizumab at week 16.

Audience member Fabian Proft, MD, of Charité Medical University, Berlin, commented on the latest results as well as wider bimekizumab findings, including those relating to psoriasis. “When we compare this to drugs that are already approved and available, we can assume that bimekizumab is equally effective to existing ones,” he said, noting that “there is the additional option in patients with psoriasis, where it seems to be the most effective drug for this indication. If I had a patient with radiographic or nonradiographic axial SpA and who also had significant psoriasis, then bimekizumab would be my choice of treatment.”


 

Targeting IL-17A and IL-17F in one drug

In the BE MOBILE 1 study, Dr. Baraliakos and coinvestigators looked at whether inhibiting IL-17F as well as IL-17A “makes sense” in terms of clinical benefits in patients with axSpA.

“Previous experience with IL-17A inhibitors shows they work well but still miss some patients,” Dr. Baraliakos said, adding that, “the hope is that by blocking both IL-17A and IL-17F, the response will be a bit better in terms of both greater response and longevity of response than [with an] IL-17A [inhibitor] alone.”

Patients in BE MOBILE 1 were typical adult patients with nonradiographic axSpA who fulfilled ASAS classification criteria and had elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) and/or sacroiliitis on MRI. All patients were older than 18 years and had a mean age of 39 years. In each arm, 51%-57% were men. Overall, patients had a mean of 9 years of symptoms and a mean Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score of 3.7 in both patient groups (placebo and bimekizumab).

All had active disease (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index ≥ 4 and spi­nal pain ≥ 4) at baseline and demonstrated failure to respond to two different NSAIDs or had a history of intolerance to or contraindication to NSAIDs. Patients had previously received up to one TNF inhibitor (13.5% in the placebo group and 7.8% in the bimekizumab group).

The primary outcome compared rate of response to ASAS 40 criteria, which comprises patient global assessment of disease, spinal pain, function (as assessed by the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index [BASFI]), and inflammation (stiffness).

Early response seen regardless of previous TNF inhibitor experience

“We saw response to bimekizumab very early in our patients at 16 weeks. The amount of response was higher than that observed with IL-17A alone,” Dr. Baraliakos said in an interview. “It’s understood that IL-17A and IL-17F do not work together on the inflammatory cascade, but work separately, and this might explain the findings whereby this drug captures more inflammation.”

Dr. Baraliakos highlighted the unique response rates seen with bimekizumab regardless of past TNF inhibitor use. “The TNF inhibitor-experienced patients responded as well as the TNF inhibitor–naive ones. This is unusual because nonresponders to other drugs are usually more severely affected and have a lower chance of showing response to any drug. Also, we did not see this response in patients treated with IL-17A only.”

At 16 weeks, patients with nonradiographic disease without a past history of using a TNF inhibitor had ASAS 40 responses at rates of 46.6% with bimekizumab and 22.9% with placebo. These rates in patients with past TNF inhibitor use were 60% with bimekizumab and 11.8% with placebo.

Statistically significant differences between bimekizumab and placebo occurred for all primary and secondary outcomes. “This includes the MRI inflammation findings in bimekizumab-treated patients,” Dr. Baraliakos reported.

Complete resolution of enthesitis was also observed. By week 24, enthesitis completely resolved in 47.9% of patients with nonradiographic disease on continuous bimekizumab and 43.5% of those patients who switched from placebo to bimekizumab. In patients with radiographic disease, complete resolution occurred in 53% of those on continuous bimekizumab and 49.3% of patients who switched at week 16. “This was an excellent outcome,” Dr. Baraliakos said.

The safety profile at 24 weeks confirmed prior findings at 16 weeks in which the most common treatment-emergent adverse events with bimekizumab were nasopharyngitis (9.4%), upper respiratory tract infection (7%), and oral candidiasis (3.1%); fungal infections overall occurred in 7% taking bimekizumab.

“We saw slightly higher fungal infections, but this is because we block IL-17A and IL-17F, and [the risk for these infections] is linked to the mechanism of action. But we can deal with this,” Dr. Baraliakos said.

The trials were sponsored by UCB. Dr. Baraliakos disclosed serving on the speakers bureau and as a paid instructor and consultant for Ab­bVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Proft disclosed serving on speakers bureaus for Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB; being a consultant to Novartis; and receiving grant or research support from Novartis, UCB, and Lilly.

GHENT, BELGIUM – Patients with nonradiographic or radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) experienced clinically relevant treatment responses to bimekizumab (Bimzelx) at similar rates that significantly exceeded placebo, regardless of prior experience with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, according to results from two phase 3 trials presented at the 13th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

In addition, around half of patients with either nonradiographic or radiographic disease achieved complete remission of enthesitis by week 16 of treatment with bimekizumab. The drug, a humanized, monoclonal antibody dually inhibiting interleukins (IL) 17A and 17F, is approved in the European Union for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

“Bimekizumab blockade works independently of axial spondyloarthritis pretreatment, which means this drug specifically blocks something that other drugs do not reach,” said Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Ruhr University Bochum (Germany). He presented 24-week data on the use of bimekizumab.

The BE MOBILE 1 trial involved 256 patients with nonradiographic axSpA, whereas BE MOBILE 2 involved 232 patients with radiographic axSpA. In both trials, bimekizumab 160 mg was administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks, and at week 16, all patients, including those who had received placebo, received open-label bimekizumab for another 8 weeks. This news organization previously reported results from BE MOBILE 2 that were presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2022 annual meeting.

In Ghent, referring to the nonradiographic patients, Dr. Baraliakos said in an interview, “We saw a very clear response to the active drug even after 2 weeks. The curves separated out from placebo. The week 16 primary analysis showed patients on bimekizumab did significantly better, [and there was] a similar response in those who switched to [open-label] bimekizumab after placebo” at week 16.

In patients with nonradiographic disease at week 24, 52.3% on bimekizumab achieved the trial’s primary outcome of 40% improvement in Assessment in Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40), compared with 46.8% of patients who were receiving placebo and then switched to open-label bimekizumab at week 16, the latter rising from 21.4% at week 16. For comparison, 47.7% on bimekizumab achieved ASAS 40 at week 16.

At week 24 in BE MOBILE 2, 53.8% of patients with radiographic disease on continuous bimekizumab met ASAS 40 criteria, as did 56.8% of patients who switched from placebo to open-label bimekizumab, rising from 22.5% with placebo and 44.8% with bimekizumab at week 16.

Audience member Fabian Proft, MD, of Charité Medical University, Berlin, commented on the latest results as well as wider bimekizumab findings, including those relating to psoriasis. “When we compare this to drugs that are already approved and available, we can assume that bimekizumab is equally effective to existing ones,” he said, noting that “there is the additional option in patients with psoriasis, where it seems to be the most effective drug for this indication. If I had a patient with radiographic or nonradiographic axial SpA and who also had significant psoriasis, then bimekizumab would be my choice of treatment.”


 

Targeting IL-17A and IL-17F in one drug

In the BE MOBILE 1 study, Dr. Baraliakos and coinvestigators looked at whether inhibiting IL-17F as well as IL-17A “makes sense” in terms of clinical benefits in patients with axSpA.

“Previous experience with IL-17A inhibitors shows they work well but still miss some patients,” Dr. Baraliakos said, adding that, “the hope is that by blocking both IL-17A and IL-17F, the response will be a bit better in terms of both greater response and longevity of response than [with an] IL-17A [inhibitor] alone.”

Patients in BE MOBILE 1 were typical adult patients with nonradiographic axSpA who fulfilled ASAS classification criteria and had elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) and/or sacroiliitis on MRI. All patients were older than 18 years and had a mean age of 39 years. In each arm, 51%-57% were men. Overall, patients had a mean of 9 years of symptoms and a mean Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score of 3.7 in both patient groups (placebo and bimekizumab).

All had active disease (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index ≥ 4 and spi­nal pain ≥ 4) at baseline and demonstrated failure to respond to two different NSAIDs or had a history of intolerance to or contraindication to NSAIDs. Patients had previously received up to one TNF inhibitor (13.5% in the placebo group and 7.8% in the bimekizumab group).

The primary outcome compared rate of response to ASAS 40 criteria, which comprises patient global assessment of disease, spinal pain, function (as assessed by the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index [BASFI]), and inflammation (stiffness).

Early response seen regardless of previous TNF inhibitor experience

“We saw response to bimekizumab very early in our patients at 16 weeks. The amount of response was higher than that observed with IL-17A alone,” Dr. Baraliakos said in an interview. “It’s understood that IL-17A and IL-17F do not work together on the inflammatory cascade, but work separately, and this might explain the findings whereby this drug captures more inflammation.”

Dr. Baraliakos highlighted the unique response rates seen with bimekizumab regardless of past TNF inhibitor use. “The TNF inhibitor-experienced patients responded as well as the TNF inhibitor–naive ones. This is unusual because nonresponders to other drugs are usually more severely affected and have a lower chance of showing response to any drug. Also, we did not see this response in patients treated with IL-17A only.”

At 16 weeks, patients with nonradiographic disease without a past history of using a TNF inhibitor had ASAS 40 responses at rates of 46.6% with bimekizumab and 22.9% with placebo. These rates in patients with past TNF inhibitor use were 60% with bimekizumab and 11.8% with placebo.

Statistically significant differences between bimekizumab and placebo occurred for all primary and secondary outcomes. “This includes the MRI inflammation findings in bimekizumab-treated patients,” Dr. Baraliakos reported.

Complete resolution of enthesitis was also observed. By week 24, enthesitis completely resolved in 47.9% of patients with nonradiographic disease on continuous bimekizumab and 43.5% of those patients who switched from placebo to bimekizumab. In patients with radiographic disease, complete resolution occurred in 53% of those on continuous bimekizumab and 49.3% of patients who switched at week 16. “This was an excellent outcome,” Dr. Baraliakos said.

The safety profile at 24 weeks confirmed prior findings at 16 weeks in which the most common treatment-emergent adverse events with bimekizumab were nasopharyngitis (9.4%), upper respiratory tract infection (7%), and oral candidiasis (3.1%); fungal infections overall occurred in 7% taking bimekizumab.

“We saw slightly higher fungal infections, but this is because we block IL-17A and IL-17F, and [the risk for these infections] is linked to the mechanism of action. But we can deal with this,” Dr. Baraliakos said.

The trials were sponsored by UCB. Dr. Baraliakos disclosed serving on the speakers bureau and as a paid instructor and consultant for Ab­bVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Proft disclosed serving on speakers bureaus for Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB; being a consultant to Novartis; and receiving grant or research support from Novartis, UCB, and Lilly.

GHENT, BELGIUM – Patients with nonradiographic or radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) experienced clinically relevant treatment responses to bimekizumab (Bimzelx) at similar rates that significantly exceeded placebo, regardless of prior experience with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, according to results from two phase 3 trials presented at the 13th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

In addition, around half of patients with either nonradiographic or radiographic disease achieved complete remission of enthesitis by week 16 of treatment with bimekizumab. The drug, a humanized, monoclonal antibody dually inhibiting interleukins (IL) 17A and 17F, is approved in the European Union for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

“Bimekizumab blockade works independently of axial spondyloarthritis pretreatment, which means this drug specifically blocks something that other drugs do not reach,” said Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Ruhr University Bochum (Germany). He presented 24-week data on the use of bimekizumab.

The BE MOBILE 1 trial involved 256 patients with nonradiographic axSpA, whereas BE MOBILE 2 involved 232 patients with radiographic axSpA. In both trials, bimekizumab 160 mg was administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks, and at week 16, all patients, including those who had received placebo, received open-label bimekizumab for another 8 weeks. This news organization previously reported results from BE MOBILE 2 that were presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2022 annual meeting.

In Ghent, referring to the nonradiographic patients, Dr. Baraliakos said in an interview, “We saw a very clear response to the active drug even after 2 weeks. The curves separated out from placebo. The week 16 primary analysis showed patients on bimekizumab did significantly better, [and there was] a similar response in those who switched to [open-label] bimekizumab after placebo” at week 16.

In patients with nonradiographic disease at week 24, 52.3% on bimekizumab achieved the trial’s primary outcome of 40% improvement in Assessment in Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40), compared with 46.8% of patients who were receiving placebo and then switched to open-label bimekizumab at week 16, the latter rising from 21.4% at week 16. For comparison, 47.7% on bimekizumab achieved ASAS 40 at week 16.

At week 24 in BE MOBILE 2, 53.8% of patients with radiographic disease on continuous bimekizumab met ASAS 40 criteria, as did 56.8% of patients who switched from placebo to open-label bimekizumab, rising from 22.5% with placebo and 44.8% with bimekizumab at week 16.

Audience member Fabian Proft, MD, of Charité Medical University, Berlin, commented on the latest results as well as wider bimekizumab findings, including those relating to psoriasis. “When we compare this to drugs that are already approved and available, we can assume that bimekizumab is equally effective to existing ones,” he said, noting that “there is the additional option in patients with psoriasis, where it seems to be the most effective drug for this indication. If I had a patient with radiographic or nonradiographic axial SpA and who also had significant psoriasis, then bimekizumab would be my choice of treatment.”


 

Targeting IL-17A and IL-17F in one drug

In the BE MOBILE 1 study, Dr. Baraliakos and coinvestigators looked at whether inhibiting IL-17F as well as IL-17A “makes sense” in terms of clinical benefits in patients with axSpA.

“Previous experience with IL-17A inhibitors shows they work well but still miss some patients,” Dr. Baraliakos said, adding that, “the hope is that by blocking both IL-17A and IL-17F, the response will be a bit better in terms of both greater response and longevity of response than [with an] IL-17A [inhibitor] alone.”

Patients in BE MOBILE 1 were typical adult patients with nonradiographic axSpA who fulfilled ASAS classification criteria and had elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) and/or sacroiliitis on MRI. All patients were older than 18 years and had a mean age of 39 years. In each arm, 51%-57% were men. Overall, patients had a mean of 9 years of symptoms and a mean Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score of 3.7 in both patient groups (placebo and bimekizumab).

All had active disease (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index ≥ 4 and spi­nal pain ≥ 4) at baseline and demonstrated failure to respond to two different NSAIDs or had a history of intolerance to or contraindication to NSAIDs. Patients had previously received up to one TNF inhibitor (13.5% in the placebo group and 7.8% in the bimekizumab group).

The primary outcome compared rate of response to ASAS 40 criteria, which comprises patient global assessment of disease, spinal pain, function (as assessed by the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index [BASFI]), and inflammation (stiffness).

Early response seen regardless of previous TNF inhibitor experience

“We saw response to bimekizumab very early in our patients at 16 weeks. The amount of response was higher than that observed with IL-17A alone,” Dr. Baraliakos said in an interview. “It’s understood that IL-17A and IL-17F do not work together on the inflammatory cascade, but work separately, and this might explain the findings whereby this drug captures more inflammation.”

Dr. Baraliakos highlighted the unique response rates seen with bimekizumab regardless of past TNF inhibitor use. “The TNF inhibitor-experienced patients responded as well as the TNF inhibitor–naive ones. This is unusual because nonresponders to other drugs are usually more severely affected and have a lower chance of showing response to any drug. Also, we did not see this response in patients treated with IL-17A only.”

At 16 weeks, patients with nonradiographic disease without a past history of using a TNF inhibitor had ASAS 40 responses at rates of 46.6% with bimekizumab and 22.9% with placebo. These rates in patients with past TNF inhibitor use were 60% with bimekizumab and 11.8% with placebo.

Statistically significant differences between bimekizumab and placebo occurred for all primary and secondary outcomes. “This includes the MRI inflammation findings in bimekizumab-treated patients,” Dr. Baraliakos reported.

Complete resolution of enthesitis was also observed. By week 24, enthesitis completely resolved in 47.9% of patients with nonradiographic disease on continuous bimekizumab and 43.5% of those patients who switched from placebo to bimekizumab. In patients with radiographic disease, complete resolution occurred in 53% of those on continuous bimekizumab and 49.3% of patients who switched at week 16. “This was an excellent outcome,” Dr. Baraliakos said.

The safety profile at 24 weeks confirmed prior findings at 16 weeks in which the most common treatment-emergent adverse events with bimekizumab were nasopharyngitis (9.4%), upper respiratory tract infection (7%), and oral candidiasis (3.1%); fungal infections overall occurred in 7% taking bimekizumab.

“We saw slightly higher fungal infections, but this is because we block IL-17A and IL-17F, and [the risk for these infections] is linked to the mechanism of action. But we can deal with this,” Dr. Baraliakos said.

The trials were sponsored by UCB. Dr. Baraliakos disclosed serving on the speakers bureau and as a paid instructor and consultant for Ab­bVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Proft disclosed serving on speakers bureaus for Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB; being a consultant to Novartis; and receiving grant or research support from Novartis, UCB, and Lilly.

Two large studies out of the United Kingdom and Norway show vitamin D supplementation has no benefit – as low dose, high dose, or in the form of cod liver oil supplementation – in preventing COVID-19 or acute respiratory tract infections, regardless of whether individuals are deficient or not.

copyright Joss/Fotolia.com

The studies, published in the BMJ, underscore that “vaccination is still the most effective way to protect people from COVID-19, and vitamin D and cod liver oil supplementation should not be offered to healthy people with normal vitamin D levels,” writes Peter Bergman, MD, of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, in an editorial published alongside the studies.

Suboptimal levels of vitamin D are known to be associated with an increased risk of acute respiratory infections, and some observational studies have linked low 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) with more severe COVID-19; however, data on a possible protective effect of vitamin D supplementation in preventing infection have been inconsistent.
 

U.K. study compares doses

To further investigate the relationship with infections, including COVID-19, in a large cohort, the authors of the first of the two BMJ studies, a phase 3 open-label trial, enrolled 6,200 people in the United Kingdom aged 16 and older between December 2020 and June 2021 who were not taking vitamin D supplements at baseline.

Half of participants were offered a finger-prick blood test, and of the 2,674 who accepted, 86.3% were found to have low concentrations of 25(OH)D (< 75 nmol/L). These participants were provided with vitamin D supplementation at a lower (800 IU/day; n = 1328) or higher dose (3,200 IU/day; n = 1,346) for 6 months. The other half of the group received no tests or supplements.

The results showed minimal differences between groups in terms of rates of developing at least one acute respiratory infection, which occurred in 5% of those in the lower-dose group, 5.7% in the higher-dose group, and 4.6% of participants not offered supplementation.

Similarly, there were no significant differences in the development of real-time PCR-confirmed COVID-19, with rates of 3.6% in the lower-dose group, 3.0% in the higher-dose group, and 2.6% in the group not offered supplementation.

The study is “the first phase 3 randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a test-and-treat approach for correction of suboptimal vitamin D status to prevent acute respiratory tract infections,” report the authors, led by Adrian R. Martineau, MD, PhD, of Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London.

While uptake and supplementation in the study were favorable, “no statistically significant effect of either dose was seen on the primary outcome of swab test, doctor-confirmed acute respiratory tract infection, or on the major secondary outcome of swab test-confirmed COVID-19,” they conclude.
 

Traditional use of cod liver oil of benefit?

In the second study, researchers in Norway, led by Arne Soraas, MD, PhD, of the department of microbiology, Oslo University Hospital, evaluated whether that country’s long-held tradition of consuming cod liver oil during the winter to prevent vitamin D deficiency could affect the development of COVID-19 or outcomes.

For the Cod Liver Oil for COVID-19 Prevention Study (CLOC), a large cohort of 34,601 adults with a mean age of 44.9 years who were not taking daily vitamin D supplements were randomized to receive 5 mL/day of cod liver oil, representing a surrogate dose of 400 IU/day of vitamin D (n = 17,278), or placebo (n = 17,323) for up to 6 months.

In contrast with the first study, the vast majority of patients in the CLOC study (86%) had adequate vitamin D levels, defined as greater than 50 nmol/L, at baseline.

Again, however, the results showed no association between increased vitamin D supplementation with cod liver oil and PCR-confirmed COVID-19 or acute respiratory infections, with approximately 1.3% in each group testing positive for COVID-19 over a median of 164 days.

Supplementation with cod liver oil was also not associated with a reduced risk of any of the coprimary endpoints, including other acute respiratory infections.

“Daily supplementation with cod liver oil, a low-dose vitamin D, eicosapentaenoic acid, and docosahexaenoic acid supplement, for 6 months during the SARS-CoV-2pandemic among Norwegian adults did not reduce the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, serious COVID-19, or other acute respiratory infections,” the authors report.
 

Key study limitations

In his editorial, Dr. Bergman underscores the limitations of two studies – also acknowledged by the authors – including the key confounding role of vaccines that emerged during the studies.

“The null findings of the studies should be interpreted in the context of a highly effective vaccine rolled out during both studies,” Dr. Bergman writes.

In the U.K. study, for instance, whereas only 1.2% of participants were vaccinated at baseline, the rate soared to 89.1% having received at least one dose by study end, potentially masking any effect of vitamin D, he says.

Additionally, for the Norway study, Dr. Bergman notes that cod liver oil also contains a substantial amount of vitamin A, which can be a potent immunomodulator.

“Excessive intake of vitamin A can cause adverse effects and may also interfere with vitamin D-mediated effects on the immune system,” he writes.

With two recent large meta-analyses showing benefits of vitamin D supplementation to be specifically among people who are vitamin D deficient, “a pragmatic approach for the clinician could be to focus on risk groups” for supplementation, Dr. Bergman writes.

“[These include] those who could be tested before supplementation, including people with dark skin, or skin that is rarely exposed to the sun, pregnant women, and elderly people with chronic diseases.”

The U.K. trial was supported by Barts Charity, Pharma Nord, the Fischer Family Foundation, DSM Nutritional Products, the Exilarch’s Foundation, the Karl R. Pfleger Foundation, the AIM Foundation, Synergy Biologics, Cytoplan, the Clinical Research Network of the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research, the HDR UK BREATHE Hub, the U.K. Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Thornton & Ross, Warburtons, Hyphens Pharma, and philanthropist Matthew Isaacs.

The CLOC trial was funded by Orkla Health, the manufacturer of the cod liver oil used in the trial. Dr. Bergman has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two large studies out of the United Kingdom and Norway show vitamin D supplementation has no benefit – as low dose, high dose, or in the form of cod liver oil supplementation – in preventing COVID-19 or acute respiratory tract infections, regardless of whether individuals are deficient or not.

copyright Joss/Fotolia.com

The studies, published in the BMJ, underscore that “vaccination is still the most effective way to protect people from COVID-19, and vitamin D and cod liver oil supplementation should not be offered to healthy people with normal vitamin D levels,” writes Peter Bergman, MD, of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, in an editorial published alongside the studies.

Suboptimal levels of vitamin D are known to be associated with an increased risk of acute respiratory infections, and some observational studies have linked low 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) with more severe COVID-19; however, data on a possible protective effect of vitamin D supplementation in preventing infection have been inconsistent.
 

U.K. study compares doses

To further investigate the relationship with infections, including COVID-19, in a large cohort, the authors of the first of the two BMJ studies, a phase 3 open-label trial, enrolled 6,200 people in the United Kingdom aged 16 and older between December 2020 and June 2021 who were not taking vitamin D supplements at baseline.

Half of participants were offered a finger-prick blood test, and of the 2,674 who accepted, 86.3% were found to have low concentrations of 25(OH)D (< 75 nmol/L). These participants were provided with vitamin D supplementation at a lower (800 IU/day; n = 1328) or higher dose (3,200 IU/day; n = 1,346) for 6 months. The other half of the group received no tests or supplements.

The results showed minimal differences between groups in terms of rates of developing at least one acute respiratory infection, which occurred in 5% of those in the lower-dose group, 5.7% in the higher-dose group, and 4.6% of participants not offered supplementation.

Similarly, there were no significant differences in the development of real-time PCR-confirmed COVID-19, with rates of 3.6% in the lower-dose group, 3.0% in the higher-dose group, and 2.6% in the group not offered supplementation.

The study is “the first phase 3 randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a test-and-treat approach for correction of suboptimal vitamin D status to prevent acute respiratory tract infections,” report the authors, led by Adrian R. Martineau, MD, PhD, of Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London.

While uptake and supplementation in the study were favorable, “no statistically significant effect of either dose was seen on the primary outcome of swab test, doctor-confirmed acute respiratory tract infection, or on the major secondary outcome of swab test-confirmed COVID-19,” they conclude.
 

Traditional use of cod liver oil of benefit?

In the second study, researchers in Norway, led by Arne Soraas, MD, PhD, of the department of microbiology, Oslo University Hospital, evaluated whether that country’s long-held tradition of consuming cod liver oil during the winter to prevent vitamin D deficiency could affect the development of COVID-19 or outcomes.

For the Cod Liver Oil for COVID-19 Prevention Study (CLOC), a large cohort of 34,601 adults with a mean age of 44.9 years who were not taking daily vitamin D supplements were randomized to receive 5 mL/day of cod liver oil, representing a surrogate dose of 400 IU/day of vitamin D (n = 17,278), or placebo (n = 17,323) for up to 6 months.

In contrast with the first study, the vast majority of patients in the CLOC study (86%) had adequate vitamin D levels, defined as greater than 50 nmol/L, at baseline.

Again, however, the results showed no association between increased vitamin D supplementation with cod liver oil and PCR-confirmed COVID-19 or acute respiratory infections, with approximately 1.3% in each group testing positive for COVID-19 over a median of 164 days.

Supplementation with cod liver oil was also not associated with a reduced risk of any of the coprimary endpoints, including other acute respiratory infections.

“Daily supplementation with cod liver oil, a low-dose vitamin D, eicosapentaenoic acid, and docosahexaenoic acid supplement, for 6 months during the SARS-CoV-2pandemic among Norwegian adults did not reduce the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, serious COVID-19, or other acute respiratory infections,” the authors report.
 

Key study limitations

In his editorial, Dr. Bergman underscores the limitations of two studies – also acknowledged by the authors – including the key confounding role of vaccines that emerged during the studies.

“The null findings of the studies should be interpreted in the context of a highly effective vaccine rolled out during both studies,” Dr. Bergman writes.

In the U.K. study, for instance, whereas only 1.2% of participants were vaccinated at baseline, the rate soared to 89.1% having received at least one dose by study end, potentially masking any effect of vitamin D, he says.

Additionally, for the Norway study, Dr. Bergman notes that cod liver oil also contains a substantial amount of vitamin A, which can be a potent immunomodulator.

“Excessive intake of vitamin A can cause adverse effects and may also interfere with vitamin D-mediated effects on the immune system,” he writes.

With two recent large meta-analyses showing benefits of vitamin D supplementation to be specifically among people who are vitamin D deficient, “a pragmatic approach for the clinician could be to focus on risk groups” for supplementation, Dr. Bergman writes.

“[These include] those who could be tested before supplementation, including people with dark skin, or skin that is rarely exposed to the sun, pregnant women, and elderly people with chronic diseases.”

The U.K. trial was supported by Barts Charity, Pharma Nord, the Fischer Family Foundation, DSM Nutritional Products, the Exilarch’s Foundation, the Karl R. Pfleger Foundation, the AIM Foundation, Synergy Biologics, Cytoplan, the Clinical Research Network of the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research, the HDR UK BREATHE Hub, the U.K. Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Thornton & Ross, Warburtons, Hyphens Pharma, and philanthropist Matthew Isaacs.

The CLOC trial was funded by Orkla Health, the manufacturer of the cod liver oil used in the trial. Dr. Bergman has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two large studies out of the United Kingdom and Norway show vitamin D supplementation has no benefit – as low dose, high dose, or in the form of cod liver oil supplementation – in preventing COVID-19 or acute respiratory tract infections, regardless of whether individuals are deficient or not.

copyright Joss/Fotolia.com

The studies, published in the BMJ, underscore that “vaccination is still the most effective way to protect people from COVID-19, and vitamin D and cod liver oil supplementation should not be offered to healthy people with normal vitamin D levels,” writes Peter Bergman, MD, of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, in an editorial published alongside the studies.

Suboptimal levels of vitamin D are known to be associated with an increased risk of acute respiratory infections, and some observational studies have linked low 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) with more severe COVID-19; however, data on a possible protective effect of vitamin D supplementation in preventing infection have been inconsistent.
 

U.K. study compares doses

To further investigate the relationship with infections, including COVID-19, in a large cohort, the authors of the first of the two BMJ studies, a phase 3 open-label trial, enrolled 6,200 people in the United Kingdom aged 16 and older between December 2020 and June 2021 who were not taking vitamin D supplements at baseline.

Half of participants were offered a finger-prick blood test, and of the 2,674 who accepted, 86.3% were found to have low concentrations of 25(OH)D (< 75 nmol/L). These participants were provided with vitamin D supplementation at a lower (800 IU/day; n = 1328) or higher dose (3,200 IU/day; n = 1,346) for 6 months. The other half of the group received no tests or supplements.

The results showed minimal differences between groups in terms of rates of developing at least one acute respiratory infection, which occurred in 5% of those in the lower-dose group, 5.7% in the higher-dose group, and 4.6% of participants not offered supplementation.

Similarly, there were no significant differences in the development of real-time PCR-confirmed COVID-19, with rates of 3.6% in the lower-dose group, 3.0% in the higher-dose group, and 2.6% in the group not offered supplementation.

The study is “the first phase 3 randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a test-and-treat approach for correction of suboptimal vitamin D status to prevent acute respiratory tract infections,” report the authors, led by Adrian R. Martineau, MD, PhD, of Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London.

While uptake and supplementation in the study were favorable, “no statistically significant effect of either dose was seen on the primary outcome of swab test, doctor-confirmed acute respiratory tract infection, or on the major secondary outcome of swab test-confirmed COVID-19,” they conclude.
 

Traditional use of cod liver oil of benefit?

In the second study, researchers in Norway, led by Arne Soraas, MD, PhD, of the department of microbiology, Oslo University Hospital, evaluated whether that country’s long-held tradition of consuming cod liver oil during the winter to prevent vitamin D deficiency could affect the development of COVID-19 or outcomes.

For the Cod Liver Oil for COVID-19 Prevention Study (CLOC), a large cohort of 34,601 adults with a mean age of 44.9 years who were not taking daily vitamin D supplements were randomized to receive 5 mL/day of cod liver oil, representing a surrogate dose of 400 IU/day of vitamin D (n = 17,278), or placebo (n = 17,323) for up to 6 months.

In contrast with the first study, the vast majority of patients in the CLOC study (86%) had adequate vitamin D levels, defined as greater than 50 nmol/L, at baseline.

Again, however, the results showed no association between increased vitamin D supplementation with cod liver oil and PCR-confirmed COVID-19 or acute respiratory infections, with approximately 1.3% in each group testing positive for COVID-19 over a median of 164 days.

Supplementation with cod liver oil was also not associated with a reduced risk of any of the coprimary endpoints, including other acute respiratory infections.

“Daily supplementation with cod liver oil, a low-dose vitamin D, eicosapentaenoic acid, and docosahexaenoic acid supplement, for 6 months during the SARS-CoV-2pandemic among Norwegian adults did not reduce the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, serious COVID-19, or other acute respiratory infections,” the authors report.
 

Key study limitations

In his editorial, Dr. Bergman underscores the limitations of two studies – also acknowledged by the authors – including the key confounding role of vaccines that emerged during the studies.

“The null findings of the studies should be interpreted in the context of a highly effective vaccine rolled out during both studies,” Dr. Bergman writes.

In the U.K. study, for instance, whereas only 1.2% of participants were vaccinated at baseline, the rate soared to 89.1% having received at least one dose by study end, potentially masking any effect of vitamin D, he says.

Additionally, for the Norway study, Dr. Bergman notes that cod liver oil also contains a substantial amount of vitamin A, which can be a potent immunomodulator.

“Excessive intake of vitamin A can cause adverse effects and may also interfere with vitamin D-mediated effects on the immune system,” he writes.

With two recent large meta-analyses showing benefits of vitamin D supplementation to be specifically among people who are vitamin D deficient, “a pragmatic approach for the clinician could be to focus on risk groups” for supplementation, Dr. Bergman writes.

“[These include] those who could be tested before supplementation, including people with dark skin, or skin that is rarely exposed to the sun, pregnant women, and elderly people with chronic diseases.”

The U.K. trial was supported by Barts Charity, Pharma Nord, the Fischer Family Foundation, DSM Nutritional Products, the Exilarch’s Foundation, the Karl R. Pfleger Foundation, the AIM Foundation, Synergy Biologics, Cytoplan, the Clinical Research Network of the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research, the HDR UK BREATHE Hub, the U.K. Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Thornton & Ross, Warburtons, Hyphens Pharma, and philanthropist Matthew Isaacs.

The CLOC trial was funded by Orkla Health, the manufacturer of the cod liver oil used in the trial. Dr. Bergman has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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