MDedge Rheumatology

I don’t recommend ice baths. Perhaps I should. On my podcast-filled commute, I am reminded for miles of the mental and physical benefits of this revolutionary wellness routine: Cold exposure causes a spike in adrenaline and raises your baseline dopamine, thereby giving you superhuman focus and energy. Goodbye procrastination! Eliminate your ADHD in one icy step! I’m trying to be the fashionable mustached-columnist here so maybe I should get on board.

In fact, a heavyset, similarly-mustached 32-year-old patient just asked if I do ice baths. It was meant as a compliment, I believe. Displaying poise wearing my Chief of Dermatology embroidered white coat in my toddler-art-adorned office, I could hear him thinking: “This doc is legit. On fleek.” (Note, this is an approximation and the patient’s actual thoughts may have varied). We were talking podcasts and he was curious about my daily routine.

Kaiser Permanente

Now, ice baths probably do have the benefits that Andrew Huberman, Joe Rogan, and the others have described, I don’t argue. And the experience is oft described as invigorating with a runner’s high-like euphoria that follows a good dunk. I’ve tried it. I would describe it as “very uncomfortable.” To boot, following icy-cold morning showers, I wasn’t any better able to stave off opening my New York Times app on a newsy day. No, cold water isn’t my jams. But then again, I don’t journal like Marcus Aurelius or sleep on a mattress that keeps my body a chill 97 degrees like an inverse sous vide. If I were asked by Huberman in an interview what I do to be mentally strong, I’d answer, “I clean the pool.”

“Here’s how I do it, Dr. Huberman,” I’d say. “First, open the pool cover. Then with a cup with pool water from about 12 inches down, fill these little beakers with water and add a few drops of chemical reagents. Then calculate the ounces of calcium hypochlorite, muriatic acid, and other chemicals to make your pools sparkle. After skimming, take your pool brush and brush the bottom and sides of your pool. Rack your equipment when done and close the cover back up. This exercise takes about 15 minutes.” It’s a mundane task, but ah, there’s the point. Like folding the laundry, weeding the garden, emptying the dishwasher, they can be oh, so gratifying. Each of these has a crisp beginning and end and offer a lovely spot to be present. Let the thoughts flow with each stroke of the brush. Watch the water ripple the surface as you slowly pull the long pole out, dripping 7.4 pH water as you glide it in for the next pass. This is the Benabio secret to success.

Dr. Benabio

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

I don’t recommend ice baths. Perhaps I should. On my podcast-filled commute, I am reminded for miles of the mental and physical benefits of this revolutionary wellness routine: Cold exposure causes a spike in adrenaline and raises your baseline dopamine, thereby giving you superhuman focus and energy. Goodbye procrastination! Eliminate your ADHD in one icy step! I’m trying to be the fashionable mustached-columnist here so maybe I should get on board.

In fact, a heavyset, similarly-mustached 32-year-old patient just asked if I do ice baths. It was meant as a compliment, I believe. Displaying poise wearing my Chief of Dermatology embroidered white coat in my toddler-art-adorned office, I could hear him thinking: “This doc is legit. On fleek.” (Note, this is an approximation and the patient’s actual thoughts may have varied). We were talking podcasts and he was curious about my daily routine.

Kaiser Permanente

Now, ice baths probably do have the benefits that Andrew Huberman, Joe Rogan, and the others have described, I don’t argue. And the experience is oft described as invigorating with a runner’s high-like euphoria that follows a good dunk. I’ve tried it. I would describe it as “very uncomfortable.” To boot, following icy-cold morning showers, I wasn’t any better able to stave off opening my New York Times app on a newsy day. No, cold water isn’t my jams. But then again, I don’t journal like Marcus Aurelius or sleep on a mattress that keeps my body a chill 97 degrees like an inverse sous vide. If I were asked by Huberman in an interview what I do to be mentally strong, I’d answer, “I clean the pool.”

“Here’s how I do it, Dr. Huberman,” I’d say. “First, open the pool cover. Then with a cup with pool water from about 12 inches down, fill these little beakers with water and add a few drops of chemical reagents. Then calculate the ounces of calcium hypochlorite, muriatic acid, and other chemicals to make your pools sparkle. After skimming, take your pool brush and brush the bottom and sides of your pool. Rack your equipment when done and close the cover back up. This exercise takes about 15 minutes.” It’s a mundane task, but ah, there’s the point. Like folding the laundry, weeding the garden, emptying the dishwasher, they can be oh, so gratifying. Each of these has a crisp beginning and end and offer a lovely spot to be present. Let the thoughts flow with each stroke of the brush. Watch the water ripple the surface as you slowly pull the long pole out, dripping 7.4 pH water as you glide it in for the next pass. This is the Benabio secret to success.

Dr. Benabio

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

I don’t recommend ice baths. Perhaps I should. On my podcast-filled commute, I am reminded for miles of the mental and physical benefits of this revolutionary wellness routine: Cold exposure causes a spike in adrenaline and raises your baseline dopamine, thereby giving you superhuman focus and energy. Goodbye procrastination! Eliminate your ADHD in one icy step! I’m trying to be the fashionable mustached-columnist here so maybe I should get on board.

In fact, a heavyset, similarly-mustached 32-year-old patient just asked if I do ice baths. It was meant as a compliment, I believe. Displaying poise wearing my Chief of Dermatology embroidered white coat in my toddler-art-adorned office, I could hear him thinking: “This doc is legit. On fleek.” (Note, this is an approximation and the patient’s actual thoughts may have varied). We were talking podcasts and he was curious about my daily routine.

Kaiser Permanente

Now, ice baths probably do have the benefits that Andrew Huberman, Joe Rogan, and the others have described, I don’t argue. And the experience is oft described as invigorating with a runner’s high-like euphoria that follows a good dunk. I’ve tried it. I would describe it as “very uncomfortable.” To boot, following icy-cold morning showers, I wasn’t any better able to stave off opening my New York Times app on a newsy day. No, cold water isn’t my jams. But then again, I don’t journal like Marcus Aurelius or sleep on a mattress that keeps my body a chill 97 degrees like an inverse sous vide. If I were asked by Huberman in an interview what I do to be mentally strong, I’d answer, “I clean the pool.”

“Here’s how I do it, Dr. Huberman,” I’d say. “First, open the pool cover. Then with a cup with pool water from about 12 inches down, fill these little beakers with water and add a few drops of chemical reagents. Then calculate the ounces of calcium hypochlorite, muriatic acid, and other chemicals to make your pools sparkle. After skimming, take your pool brush and brush the bottom and sides of your pool. Rack your equipment when done and close the cover back up. This exercise takes about 15 minutes.” It’s a mundane task, but ah, there’s the point. Like folding the laundry, weeding the garden, emptying the dishwasher, they can be oh, so gratifying. Each of these has a crisp beginning and end and offer a lovely spot to be present. Let the thoughts flow with each stroke of the brush. Watch the water ripple the surface as you slowly pull the long pole out, dripping 7.4 pH water as you glide it in for the next pass. This is the Benabio secret to success.

Dr. Benabio

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

Please note that this is a commentary, an opinion piece: my opinion. The statements here do not necessarily represent those of this news organization or any of the myriad people or institutions that comprise this corner of the human universe.

Some days, speaking as a long-time physician and editor, I wish that there were no such things as race or ethnicity or even geographic origin for that matter. We can’t get away from sex, gender, disability, age, or culture. I’m not sure about religion. I wish people were just people.

But race is deeply embedded in the American experience — an almost invisible but inevitable presence in all of our thoughts and expressions about human activities.

In medical education (for eons it seems) the student has been taught to mention race in the first sentence of a given patient presentation, along with age and sex. In human epidemiologic research, race is almost always a studied variable. In clinical and basic medical research, looking at the impact of race on this, that, or the other is commonplace. “Mixed race not otherwise specified” is ubiquitous in the United States yet blithely ignored by most who tally these statistics. Race is rarely gene-specific. It is more of a social and cultural construct but with plainly visible overt phenotypic markers — an almost infinite mix of daily reality.

Our country, and much of Western civilization in 2024, is based on the principle that all men are created equal, although the originators of that notion were unaware of their own “equity-challenged” situation.

Many organizations, in and out of government, are now understanding, developing, and implementing programs (and thought/language patterns) to socialize diversity, equity, and inclusion (known as DEI) into their culture. It should not be surprising that many who prefer the status quo are not happy with the pressure from this movement and are using whatever methods are available to them to prevent full DEI. Such it always is.

The trusty Copilot from Bing provides these definitions:

• Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce. This includes aspects such as gender, culture, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, and opinion.
• Equity encompasses concepts of fairness and justice. It involves fair compensation, substantive equality, and addressing societal disparities. Equity also considers unique circumstances and adjusts treatment to achieve equal outcomes.
• Inclusion focuses on creating an organizational culture where all employees feel heard, fostering a sense of belonging and integration.

I am more than proud that my old domain of peer-reviewed, primary source, medical (and science) journals is taking a leading role in this noble, necessary, and long overdue movement for medicine.

As the central repository and transmitter of new medical information, including scientific studies, clinical medicine reports, ethics measures, and education, medical journals (including those deemed prestigious) have historically been among the worst offenders in perpetuating non-DEI objectives in their leadership, staffing, focus, instructions for authors, style manuals, and published materials.

This issue came to a head in March 2021 when a JAMA podcast about racism in American medicine was followed by this promotional tweet: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?”

Reactions and actions were rapid, strong, and decisive. After an interregnum at JAMA, a new editor in chief, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, PhD, MD, MAS, was named. She and her large staff of editors and editorial board members from the multijournal JAMA Network joined a worldwide movement of (currently) 56 publishing organizations representing 15,000 journals called the Joint Commitment for Action on Inclusion and Diversity in Publishing.

A recent JAMA editorial with 29 authors describes the entire commitment initiative of publishers-editors. It reports JAMA Network data from 2023 and 2024 from surveys of 455 editors (a 91% response rate) about their own gender (five choices), ethnic origins or geographic ancestry (13 choices), and race (eight choices), demonstrating considerable progress toward DEI goals. The survey’s complex multinational classifications may not jibe with the categorizations used in some countries (too bad that “mixed” is not “mixed in” — a missed opportunity).

This encouraging movement will not fix it all. But when people of certain groups are represented at the table, that point of view is far more likely to make it into the lexicon, language, and omnipresent work products, potentially changing cultural norms. Even the measurement of movement related to disparity in healthcare is marred by frequent variations of data accuracy. More consistency in what to measure can help a lot, and the medical literature can be very influential.

A personal anecdote: When I was a professor at UC Davis in 1978, Allan Bakke, MD, was my student. Some of you will remember the saga of affirmative action on admissions, which was just revisited in the light of a recent decision by the US Supreme Court.

Back in 1978, the dean at UC Davis told me that he kept two file folders on the admission processes in different desk drawers. One categorized all applicants and enrollees by race, and the other did not. Depending on who came to visit and ask questions, he would choose one or the other file to share once he figured out what they were looking for (this is not a joke).

The strength of the current active political pushback against the entire DEI movement has deep roots and should not be underestimated. There will be a lot of to-ing and fro-ing.

French writer Victor Hugo is credited with stating, “There is nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has come.” A majority of Americans, physicians, and other healthcare professionals believe in basic fairness. The time for DEI in all aspects of medicine is now.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief of Cancer Commons, disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Please note that this is a commentary, an opinion piece: my opinion. The statements here do not necessarily represent those of this news organization or any of the myriad people or institutions that comprise this corner of the human universe.

Some days, speaking as a long-time physician and editor, I wish that there were no such things as race or ethnicity or even geographic origin for that matter. We can’t get away from sex, gender, disability, age, or culture. I’m not sure about religion. I wish people were just people.

But race is deeply embedded in the American experience — an almost invisible but inevitable presence in all of our thoughts and expressions about human activities.

In medical education (for eons it seems) the student has been taught to mention race in the first sentence of a given patient presentation, along with age and sex. In human epidemiologic research, race is almost always a studied variable. In clinical and basic medical research, looking at the impact of race on this, that, or the other is commonplace. “Mixed race not otherwise specified” is ubiquitous in the United States yet blithely ignored by most who tally these statistics. Race is rarely gene-specific. It is more of a social and cultural construct but with plainly visible overt phenotypic markers — an almost infinite mix of daily reality.

Our country, and much of Western civilization in 2024, is based on the principle that all men are created equal, although the originators of that notion were unaware of their own “equity-challenged” situation.

Many organizations, in and out of government, are now understanding, developing, and implementing programs (and thought/language patterns) to socialize diversity, equity, and inclusion (known as DEI) into their culture. It should not be surprising that many who prefer the status quo are not happy with the pressure from this movement and are using whatever methods are available to them to prevent full DEI. Such it always is.

The trusty Copilot from Bing provides these definitions:

• Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce. This includes aspects such as gender, culture, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, and opinion.
• Equity encompasses concepts of fairness and justice. It involves fair compensation, substantive equality, and addressing societal disparities. Equity also considers unique circumstances and adjusts treatment to achieve equal outcomes.
• Inclusion focuses on creating an organizational culture where all employees feel heard, fostering a sense of belonging and integration.

I am more than proud that my old domain of peer-reviewed, primary source, medical (and science) journals is taking a leading role in this noble, necessary, and long overdue movement for medicine.

As the central repository and transmitter of new medical information, including scientific studies, clinical medicine reports, ethics measures, and education, medical journals (including those deemed prestigious) have historically been among the worst offenders in perpetuating non-DEI objectives in their leadership, staffing, focus, instructions for authors, style manuals, and published materials.

This issue came to a head in March 2021 when a JAMA podcast about racism in American medicine was followed by this promotional tweet: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?”

Reactions and actions were rapid, strong, and decisive. After an interregnum at JAMA, a new editor in chief, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, PhD, MD, MAS, was named. She and her large staff of editors and editorial board members from the multijournal JAMA Network joined a worldwide movement of (currently) 56 publishing organizations representing 15,000 journals called the Joint Commitment for Action on Inclusion and Diversity in Publishing.

A recent JAMA editorial with 29 authors describes the entire commitment initiative of publishers-editors. It reports JAMA Network data from 2023 and 2024 from surveys of 455 editors (a 91% response rate) about their own gender (five choices), ethnic origins or geographic ancestry (13 choices), and race (eight choices), demonstrating considerable progress toward DEI goals. The survey’s complex multinational classifications may not jibe with the categorizations used in some countries (too bad that “mixed” is not “mixed in” — a missed opportunity).

This encouraging movement will not fix it all. But when people of certain groups are represented at the table, that point of view is far more likely to make it into the lexicon, language, and omnipresent work products, potentially changing cultural norms. Even the measurement of movement related to disparity in healthcare is marred by frequent variations of data accuracy. More consistency in what to measure can help a lot, and the medical literature can be very influential.

A personal anecdote: When I was a professor at UC Davis in 1978, Allan Bakke, MD, was my student. Some of you will remember the saga of affirmative action on admissions, which was just revisited in the light of a recent decision by the US Supreme Court.

Back in 1978, the dean at UC Davis told me that he kept two file folders on the admission processes in different desk drawers. One categorized all applicants and enrollees by race, and the other did not. Depending on who came to visit and ask questions, he would choose one or the other file to share once he figured out what they were looking for (this is not a joke).

The strength of the current active political pushback against the entire DEI movement has deep roots and should not be underestimated. There will be a lot of to-ing and fro-ing.

French writer Victor Hugo is credited with stating, “There is nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has come.” A majority of Americans, physicians, and other healthcare professionals believe in basic fairness. The time for DEI in all aspects of medicine is now.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief of Cancer Commons, disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Please note that this is a commentary, an opinion piece: my opinion. The statements here do not necessarily represent those of this news organization or any of the myriad people or institutions that comprise this corner of the human universe.

Some days, speaking as a long-time physician and editor, I wish that there were no such things as race or ethnicity or even geographic origin for that matter. We can’t get away from sex, gender, disability, age, or culture. I’m not sure about religion. I wish people were just people.

But race is deeply embedded in the American experience — an almost invisible but inevitable presence in all of our thoughts and expressions about human activities.

In medical education (for eons it seems) the student has been taught to mention race in the first sentence of a given patient presentation, along with age and sex. In human epidemiologic research, race is almost always a studied variable. In clinical and basic medical research, looking at the impact of race on this, that, or the other is commonplace. “Mixed race not otherwise specified” is ubiquitous in the United States yet blithely ignored by most who tally these statistics. Race is rarely gene-specific. It is more of a social and cultural construct but with plainly visible overt phenotypic markers — an almost infinite mix of daily reality.

Our country, and much of Western civilization in 2024, is based on the principle that all men are created equal, although the originators of that notion were unaware of their own “equity-challenged” situation.

Many organizations, in and out of government, are now understanding, developing, and implementing programs (and thought/language patterns) to socialize diversity, equity, and inclusion (known as DEI) into their culture. It should not be surprising that many who prefer the status quo are not happy with the pressure from this movement and are using whatever methods are available to them to prevent full DEI. Such it always is.

The trusty Copilot from Bing provides these definitions:

• Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce. This includes aspects such as gender, culture, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, and opinion.
• Equity encompasses concepts of fairness and justice. It involves fair compensation, substantive equality, and addressing societal disparities. Equity also considers unique circumstances and adjusts treatment to achieve equal outcomes.
• Inclusion focuses on creating an organizational culture where all employees feel heard, fostering a sense of belonging and integration.

I am more than proud that my old domain of peer-reviewed, primary source, medical (and science) journals is taking a leading role in this noble, necessary, and long overdue movement for medicine.

As the central repository and transmitter of new medical information, including scientific studies, clinical medicine reports, ethics measures, and education, medical journals (including those deemed prestigious) have historically been among the worst offenders in perpetuating non-DEI objectives in their leadership, staffing, focus, instructions for authors, style manuals, and published materials.

This issue came to a head in March 2021 when a JAMA podcast about racism in American medicine was followed by this promotional tweet: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?”

Reactions and actions were rapid, strong, and decisive. After an interregnum at JAMA, a new editor in chief, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, PhD, MD, MAS, was named. She and her large staff of editors and editorial board members from the multijournal JAMA Network joined a worldwide movement of (currently) 56 publishing organizations representing 15,000 journals called the Joint Commitment for Action on Inclusion and Diversity in Publishing.

A recent JAMA editorial with 29 authors describes the entire commitment initiative of publishers-editors. It reports JAMA Network data from 2023 and 2024 from surveys of 455 editors (a 91% response rate) about their own gender (five choices), ethnic origins or geographic ancestry (13 choices), and race (eight choices), demonstrating considerable progress toward DEI goals. The survey’s complex multinational classifications may not jibe with the categorizations used in some countries (too bad that “mixed” is not “mixed in” — a missed opportunity).

This encouraging movement will not fix it all. But when people of certain groups are represented at the table, that point of view is far more likely to make it into the lexicon, language, and omnipresent work products, potentially changing cultural norms. Even the measurement of movement related to disparity in healthcare is marred by frequent variations of data accuracy. More consistency in what to measure can help a lot, and the medical literature can be very influential.

A personal anecdote: When I was a professor at UC Davis in 1978, Allan Bakke, MD, was my student. Some of you will remember the saga of affirmative action on admissions, which was just revisited in the light of a recent decision by the US Supreme Court.

Back in 1978, the dean at UC Davis told me that he kept two file folders on the admission processes in different desk drawers. One categorized all applicants and enrollees by race, and the other did not. Depending on who came to visit and ask questions, he would choose one or the other file to share once he figured out what they were looking for (this is not a joke).

The strength of the current active political pushback against the entire DEI movement has deep roots and should not be underestimated. There will be a lot of to-ing and fro-ing.

French writer Victor Hugo is credited with stating, “There is nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has come.” A majority of Americans, physicians, and other healthcare professionals believe in basic fairness. The time for DEI in all aspects of medicine is now.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief of Cancer Commons, disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In most Western countries, professional standards dictate that physicians should practice medicine with compassion. Patients also expect compassionate care from physicians because it represents a model capable of providing greater patient satisfaction, fostering better doctor-patient relationships, and enabling better psychological states among patients.

The etymology of the term “compassion” derives from the Latin roots “com,” meaning “together with,” and “pati,” meaning “to endure or suffer.” When discussing compassion, it is necessary to distinguish it from empathy, a term generally used to refer to cognitive or emotional processes in which the perspective of the other (in this case, the patient) is taken. Compassion implies or requires empathy and includes the desire to help or alleviate the suffering of others. Compassion in the medical context is likely a specific instance of a more complex adaptive system that has evolved, not only among humans, to motivate recognition and assistance when others suffer.
 

Compassion Fatigue

Physicians’ compassion is expected by patients and the profession. It is fundamental for effective clinical practice. Although compassion is central to medical practice, most research related to the topic has focused on “compassion fatigue,” which is understood as a specific type of professional burnout, as if physicians had a limited reserve of compassion that dwindles or becomes exhausted with use or overuse. This is one aspect of a much more complex problem, in which compassion represents the endpoint of a dynamic process that encompasses the influences of the physician, the patient, the clinic, and the institution.

Compassion Capacity: Conditioning Factors

Chronic exposure of physicians to conflicting work demands may be associated with the depletion of their psychological resources and, consequently, emotional and cognitive fatigue that can contribute to poorer work outcomes, including the ability to express compassion.

Rates of professional burnout in medicine are increasing. The driving factors of this phenomenon are largely rooted in organizations and healthcare systems and include excessive workloads, inefficient work processes, administrative burdens, and lack of input or control by physicians regarding issues concerning their work life. The outcome often is early retirement of physicians, a current, increasingly widespread phenomenon and a critical issue not only for the Italian National Health Service but also for other healthcare systems worldwide.
 

Organizational and Personal Values

There is no clear empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that working in healthcare environments experienced as discrepant with one’s own values has negative effects on key professional outcomes. However, a study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine highlighted the overall negative effect of misalignment between system values and physicians’ personal values, including impaired ability to provide compassionate care, as well as reduced job satisfaction, burnout, absenteeism, and considering the possibility of early retirement. Results from 1000 surveyed professionals indicate that physicians’ subjective competence in providing compassionate care may remain high, but their ability to express it is compromised. From data analysis, the authors hypothesize that when working in environments with discrepant values, occupational contingencies may repeatedly require physicians to set aside their personal values, which can lead them to refrain from using available skills to keep their performance in line with organizational requirements.

These results and hypotheses are not consistent with the notion of compassion fatigue as a reflection of the cost of care resulting from exposure to repeated suffering. Previous evidence shows that expressing compassion in healthcare facilitates greater understanding, suggesting that providing compassion does not impoverish physicians but rather supports them in the effectiveness of interventions and in their satisfaction.

In summary, this study suggests that what prevents compassion is the inability to provide it when hindered by factors related to the situation in which the physician operates. Improving compassion does not simply depend on motivating individual professionals to be more compassionate or on promoting fundamental skills, but probably on the creation of organizational and clinical conditions in which physician compassion can thrive.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In most Western countries, professional standards dictate that physicians should practice medicine with compassion. Patients also expect compassionate care from physicians because it represents a model capable of providing greater patient satisfaction, fostering better doctor-patient relationships, and enabling better psychological states among patients.

The etymology of the term “compassion” derives from the Latin roots “com,” meaning “together with,” and “pati,” meaning “to endure or suffer.” When discussing compassion, it is necessary to distinguish it from empathy, a term generally used to refer to cognitive or emotional processes in which the perspective of the other (in this case, the patient) is taken. Compassion implies or requires empathy and includes the desire to help or alleviate the suffering of others. Compassion in the medical context is likely a specific instance of a more complex adaptive system that has evolved, not only among humans, to motivate recognition and assistance when others suffer.
 

Compassion Fatigue

Physicians’ compassion is expected by patients and the profession. It is fundamental for effective clinical practice. Although compassion is central to medical practice, most research related to the topic has focused on “compassion fatigue,” which is understood as a specific type of professional burnout, as if physicians had a limited reserve of compassion that dwindles or becomes exhausted with use or overuse. This is one aspect of a much more complex problem, in which compassion represents the endpoint of a dynamic process that encompasses the influences of the physician, the patient, the clinic, and the institution.

Compassion Capacity: Conditioning Factors

Chronic exposure of physicians to conflicting work demands may be associated with the depletion of their psychological resources and, consequently, emotional and cognitive fatigue that can contribute to poorer work outcomes, including the ability to express compassion.

Rates of professional burnout in medicine are increasing. The driving factors of this phenomenon are largely rooted in organizations and healthcare systems and include excessive workloads, inefficient work processes, administrative burdens, and lack of input or control by physicians regarding issues concerning their work life. The outcome often is early retirement of physicians, a current, increasingly widespread phenomenon and a critical issue not only for the Italian National Health Service but also for other healthcare systems worldwide.
 

Organizational and Personal Values

There is no clear empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that working in healthcare environments experienced as discrepant with one’s own values has negative effects on key professional outcomes. However, a study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine highlighted the overall negative effect of misalignment between system values and physicians’ personal values, including impaired ability to provide compassionate care, as well as reduced job satisfaction, burnout, absenteeism, and considering the possibility of early retirement. Results from 1000 surveyed professionals indicate that physicians’ subjective competence in providing compassionate care may remain high, but their ability to express it is compromised. From data analysis, the authors hypothesize that when working in environments with discrepant values, occupational contingencies may repeatedly require physicians to set aside their personal values, which can lead them to refrain from using available skills to keep their performance in line with organizational requirements.

These results and hypotheses are not consistent with the notion of compassion fatigue as a reflection of the cost of care resulting from exposure to repeated suffering. Previous evidence shows that expressing compassion in healthcare facilitates greater understanding, suggesting that providing compassion does not impoverish physicians but rather supports them in the effectiveness of interventions and in their satisfaction.

In summary, this study suggests that what prevents compassion is the inability to provide it when hindered by factors related to the situation in which the physician operates. Improving compassion does not simply depend on motivating individual professionals to be more compassionate or on promoting fundamental skills, but probably on the creation of organizational and clinical conditions in which physician compassion can thrive.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In most Western countries, professional standards dictate that physicians should practice medicine with compassion. Patients also expect compassionate care from physicians because it represents a model capable of providing greater patient satisfaction, fostering better doctor-patient relationships, and enabling better psychological states among patients.

The etymology of the term “compassion” derives from the Latin roots “com,” meaning “together with,” and “pati,” meaning “to endure or suffer.” When discussing compassion, it is necessary to distinguish it from empathy, a term generally used to refer to cognitive or emotional processes in which the perspective of the other (in this case, the patient) is taken. Compassion implies or requires empathy and includes the desire to help or alleviate the suffering of others. Compassion in the medical context is likely a specific instance of a more complex adaptive system that has evolved, not only among humans, to motivate recognition and assistance when others suffer.
 

Compassion Fatigue

Physicians’ compassion is expected by patients and the profession. It is fundamental for effective clinical practice. Although compassion is central to medical practice, most research related to the topic has focused on “compassion fatigue,” which is understood as a specific type of professional burnout, as if physicians had a limited reserve of compassion that dwindles or becomes exhausted with use or overuse. This is one aspect of a much more complex problem, in which compassion represents the endpoint of a dynamic process that encompasses the influences of the physician, the patient, the clinic, and the institution.

Compassion Capacity: Conditioning Factors

Chronic exposure of physicians to conflicting work demands may be associated with the depletion of their psychological resources and, consequently, emotional and cognitive fatigue that can contribute to poorer work outcomes, including the ability to express compassion.

Rates of professional burnout in medicine are increasing. The driving factors of this phenomenon are largely rooted in organizations and healthcare systems and include excessive workloads, inefficient work processes, administrative burdens, and lack of input or control by physicians regarding issues concerning their work life. The outcome often is early retirement of physicians, a current, increasingly widespread phenomenon and a critical issue not only for the Italian National Health Service but also for other healthcare systems worldwide.
 

Organizational and Personal Values

There is no clear empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that working in healthcare environments experienced as discrepant with one’s own values has negative effects on key professional outcomes. However, a study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine highlighted the overall negative effect of misalignment between system values and physicians’ personal values, including impaired ability to provide compassionate care, as well as reduced job satisfaction, burnout, absenteeism, and considering the possibility of early retirement. Results from 1000 surveyed professionals indicate that physicians’ subjective competence in providing compassionate care may remain high, but their ability to express it is compromised. From data analysis, the authors hypothesize that when working in environments with discrepant values, occupational contingencies may repeatedly require physicians to set aside their personal values, which can lead them to refrain from using available skills to keep their performance in line with organizational requirements.

These results and hypotheses are not consistent with the notion of compassion fatigue as a reflection of the cost of care resulting from exposure to repeated suffering. Previous evidence shows that expressing compassion in healthcare facilitates greater understanding, suggesting that providing compassion does not impoverish physicians but rather supports them in the effectiveness of interventions and in their satisfaction.

In summary, this study suggests that what prevents compassion is the inability to provide it when hindered by factors related to the situation in which the physician operates. Improving compassion does not simply depend on motivating individual professionals to be more compassionate or on promoting fundamental skills, but probably on the creation of organizational and clinical conditions in which physician compassion can thrive.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An estimated 3% of the world’s population have psoriasis, with approximately 6.4 million people across Europe affected. Almost one third of people with psoriasis will develop psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a disease that can be severe and debilitating and lead to irreversible degeneration of bone and tissue, typically affecting the joints of hands and feet. 

As inflammatory autoimmune diseases, psoriasis and PsA also increase the risk for further comorbidities, such as cardiovascular diseases and obesity, with higher rates of depression among those affected. 

Although notable advances have been made in the range of treatment options for PsA, it remains difficult to diagnose. No specific diagnostic criteria or laboratory tests are available, and the disease course and response to treatment can be unpredictable.

“Another key unmet need relates to whether we can reliably identify risk factors for which a person with psoriasis will develop PsA. We know that 30% will develop PsA, but we cannot identify which person with psoriasis is at risk,” said Professor Oliver FitzGerald of University College Dublin (UCD), Dublin, Ireland, an international opinion leader in rheumatology. A clearer understanding of PsA could lead to development of tools for its early diagnosis and identification of disease prevention strategies, he explained.

Thus, HIPPOCRATES (Health Initiatives in Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Consortium European States ) was created. This ambitious research consortium was conceived by Dr. FitzGerald and his colleague Stephen Pennington, professor of proteomics at UCD, together with a number of likeminded colleagues in the fields of rheumatology and dermatology and at organizations such as GRAPPA, HUPO, EULAR, and EUROPSO. 

The collaboration has brought together world-leading clinicians, researchers, and people living with psoriasis and PsA to address the main challenges in its early identification and management.

HIPPOCRATES received €23.5 million in funding from the EU Innovative Medicines Initiative public-private partnership in 2021 and is now half way through its 5-year plan. 

Key Goals 

HIPPOCRATES involves 27 partners, including from industry, in 11 countries. 

Its four key goals are:

• Identifying specific PsA disease markers to develop accurate diagnostic tools;
• Developing prediction strategies to identify which person with psoriasis will develop PsA;
• Monitoring and prevention of PsA disease progression to irreversible joint damage; and
• Identifying personalized treatment options, so that patients are treated with the right medicines for their specific disease.

“The pharmaceutical companies have come up with a veritable armory of potential treatments, but rheumatologists still don’t know which one to use for a particular patient at a particular time,” Dr. Pennington explained to this news organization. “So the reality is they tend to cycle through treatments until they find one that is effective.” This is not very efficient or desirable for patients, he added. 

Multidisciplinary Approach

A key advantage of HIPPOCRATES is that it brings several medical disciplines together. The current approach of clinicians working in silos is a key barrier to earlier diagnosis of PsA.

“The reality is that a patient with psoriasis will see a dermatologist, and dermatologists don’t necessarily have the skills or training to identify the very early stages of psoriatic arthritis, so they will only refer a patient of theirs to a rheumatologist at a very late stage,” said Dr. Pennington.

Dermatologists need better tools to be able to recognize when they should refer their psoriasis patients to rheumatologists, so that patients developing PsA are diagnosed and treated earlier, he explained. 

GPs will also be an important component of the project because they are the first point of healthcare contact for people with PsA or psoriasis.

“[I]t is about helping GPs diagnose earlier and raise awareness among patients. Historically, there has been a bit of a lag between people having their first symptoms and getting a diagnosis,” explained HIPPOCRATES collaborator Frances Mair, the Norie Miller Professor of General Practice and head of general practice and primary care at the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland. 

Dr. Mair said that diagnosis isn't always straightforward, and the hope is that the study will identify more specific risk factors that will help GPs flag PsA earlier. 

Patient Involvement and Data Sharing

The HIPPOCRATES consortium involves patients in all stages of the project.

“In HIPPOCRATES, patient and public involvement is really a central feature, which is quite unusual at the more experimental side of healthcare and research. In HIPPOCRATES, the patient research partners have a leading role, making a real difference…” said Dr. Mair.

To facilitate its goals, the consortium partners are sharing data and samples from previously conducted studies on psoriasis and PsA populations. This will facilitate extensive omics-based analyses to establish and validate robust biomarkers across datasets, using the latest cutting-edge techniques, including machine learning and artificial intelligence. 

In addition, the HIPPOCRATES Prospective Observational Study (HPOS) was launched last year. This web-based study aims to recruit 25,000 adults (≥ 18 years of age) with skin psoriasis across Europe. They will collect their clinical data every 6 months, including emerging musculoskeletal symptoms. Blood samples will also be collected remotely from a subset of 3000 participants using a finger-prick kit that will be posted to their homes. 

HPOS has already commenced recruitment in the UK, Ireland and, most recently, Greece and Portugal, with nearly 2300 participants enrolled to date. HPOS also plans to launch in France, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Sweden. 

“This ambitious study will give us the statistical power to identify clinical/molecular risk factors for progression from psoriasis to PsA. We anticipate that 675 participants per year will develop PsA in our studied population. Participants will receive regular feedback to help monitor their condition, and we will help them to get the medical care that they need,” said Dr. FitzGerald.

Dr. Pennington added that the consortium believes it is a “realistic goal” that the resulting molecular risk prediction tools could eventually enable clinicians to intervene to prevent PsA. 

From Research to Practice

The HIPPOCRATES projects are making good progress, with several early publications, and further publications being drafted. 

“One of the biggest achievements so far has been to assemble this massive resource of patient samples — tens of thousands in total in a single integrated database, which is the foundation of the project,” said Dr. Pennington. He explained that it took a significant amount of work to secure the necessary agreements from all 27 partners to share the patient data securely, appropriately, and anonymously within the consortium.

Creating successful biomarkers, algorithms, and other tools is one thing, but disseminating the knowledge learned and rolling out the final agreed guidelines will be just as important as the research work, said Dr. Pennington.

Dr. Mair, who is responsible for promoting communication, dissemination, and maximizing the impact of the research undertaken by the HIPPOCRATES consortium, said: “We see so often in healthcare that people come with great ideas or tools, yet they don’t become part of everyday practice. Hence, I am working on the implementation side of HIPPOCRATES, to make sure its findings will be embedded and routinely used in practice,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An estimated 3% of the world’s population have psoriasis, with approximately 6.4 million people across Europe affected. Almost one third of people with psoriasis will develop psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a disease that can be severe and debilitating and lead to irreversible degeneration of bone and tissue, typically affecting the joints of hands and feet. 

As inflammatory autoimmune diseases, psoriasis and PsA also increase the risk for further comorbidities, such as cardiovascular diseases and obesity, with higher rates of depression among those affected. 

Although notable advances have been made in the range of treatment options for PsA, it remains difficult to diagnose. No specific diagnostic criteria or laboratory tests are available, and the disease course and response to treatment can be unpredictable.

“Another key unmet need relates to whether we can reliably identify risk factors for which a person with psoriasis will develop PsA. We know that 30% will develop PsA, but we cannot identify which person with psoriasis is at risk,” said Professor Oliver FitzGerald of University College Dublin (UCD), Dublin, Ireland, an international opinion leader in rheumatology. A clearer understanding of PsA could lead to development of tools for its early diagnosis and identification of disease prevention strategies, he explained.

Thus, HIPPOCRATES (Health Initiatives in Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Consortium European States ) was created. This ambitious research consortium was conceived by Dr. FitzGerald and his colleague Stephen Pennington, professor of proteomics at UCD, together with a number of likeminded colleagues in the fields of rheumatology and dermatology and at organizations such as GRAPPA, HUPO, EULAR, and EUROPSO. 

The collaboration has brought together world-leading clinicians, researchers, and people living with psoriasis and PsA to address the main challenges in its early identification and management.

HIPPOCRATES received €23.5 million in funding from the EU Innovative Medicines Initiative public-private partnership in 2021 and is now half way through its 5-year plan. 

Key Goals 

HIPPOCRATES involves 27 partners, including from industry, in 11 countries. 

Its four key goals are:

• Identifying specific PsA disease markers to develop accurate diagnostic tools;
• Developing prediction strategies to identify which person with psoriasis will develop PsA;
• Monitoring and prevention of PsA disease progression to irreversible joint damage; and
• Identifying personalized treatment options, so that patients are treated with the right medicines for their specific disease.

“The pharmaceutical companies have come up with a veritable armory of potential treatments, but rheumatologists still don’t know which one to use for a particular patient at a particular time,” Dr. Pennington explained to this news organization. “So the reality is they tend to cycle through treatments until they find one that is effective.” This is not very efficient or desirable for patients, he added. 

Multidisciplinary Approach

A key advantage of HIPPOCRATES is that it brings several medical disciplines together. The current approach of clinicians working in silos is a key barrier to earlier diagnosis of PsA.

“The reality is that a patient with psoriasis will see a dermatologist, and dermatologists don’t necessarily have the skills or training to identify the very early stages of psoriatic arthritis, so they will only refer a patient of theirs to a rheumatologist at a very late stage,” said Dr. Pennington.

Dermatologists need better tools to be able to recognize when they should refer their psoriasis patients to rheumatologists, so that patients developing PsA are diagnosed and treated earlier, he explained. 

GPs will also be an important component of the project because they are the first point of healthcare contact for people with PsA or psoriasis.

“[I]t is about helping GPs diagnose earlier and raise awareness among patients. Historically, there has been a bit of a lag between people having their first symptoms and getting a diagnosis,” explained HIPPOCRATES collaborator Frances Mair, the Norie Miller Professor of General Practice and head of general practice and primary care at the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland. 

Dr. Mair said that diagnosis isn't always straightforward, and the hope is that the study will identify more specific risk factors that will help GPs flag PsA earlier. 

Patient Involvement and Data Sharing

The HIPPOCRATES consortium involves patients in all stages of the project.

“In HIPPOCRATES, patient and public involvement is really a central feature, which is quite unusual at the more experimental side of healthcare and research. In HIPPOCRATES, the patient research partners have a leading role, making a real difference…” said Dr. Mair.

To facilitate its goals, the consortium partners are sharing data and samples from previously conducted studies on psoriasis and PsA populations. This will facilitate extensive omics-based analyses to establish and validate robust biomarkers across datasets, using the latest cutting-edge techniques, including machine learning and artificial intelligence. 

In addition, the HIPPOCRATES Prospective Observational Study (HPOS) was launched last year. This web-based study aims to recruit 25,000 adults (≥ 18 years of age) with skin psoriasis across Europe. They will collect their clinical data every 6 months, including emerging musculoskeletal symptoms. Blood samples will also be collected remotely from a subset of 3000 participants using a finger-prick kit that will be posted to their homes. 

HPOS has already commenced recruitment in the UK, Ireland and, most recently, Greece and Portugal, with nearly 2300 participants enrolled to date. HPOS also plans to launch in France, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Sweden. 

“This ambitious study will give us the statistical power to identify clinical/molecular risk factors for progression from psoriasis to PsA. We anticipate that 675 participants per year will develop PsA in our studied population. Participants will receive regular feedback to help monitor their condition, and we will help them to get the medical care that they need,” said Dr. FitzGerald.

Dr. Pennington added that the consortium believes it is a “realistic goal” that the resulting molecular risk prediction tools could eventually enable clinicians to intervene to prevent PsA. 

From Research to Practice

The HIPPOCRATES projects are making good progress, with several early publications, and further publications being drafted. 

“One of the biggest achievements so far has been to assemble this massive resource of patient samples — tens of thousands in total in a single integrated database, which is the foundation of the project,” said Dr. Pennington. He explained that it took a significant amount of work to secure the necessary agreements from all 27 partners to share the patient data securely, appropriately, and anonymously within the consortium.

Creating successful biomarkers, algorithms, and other tools is one thing, but disseminating the knowledge learned and rolling out the final agreed guidelines will be just as important as the research work, said Dr. Pennington.

Dr. Mair, who is responsible for promoting communication, dissemination, and maximizing the impact of the research undertaken by the HIPPOCRATES consortium, said: “We see so often in healthcare that people come with great ideas or tools, yet they don’t become part of everyday practice. Hence, I am working on the implementation side of HIPPOCRATES, to make sure its findings will be embedded and routinely used in practice,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An estimated 3% of the world’s population have psoriasis, with approximately 6.4 million people across Europe affected. Almost one third of people with psoriasis will develop psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a disease that can be severe and debilitating and lead to irreversible degeneration of bone and tissue, typically affecting the joints of hands and feet. 

As inflammatory autoimmune diseases, psoriasis and PsA also increase the risk for further comorbidities, such as cardiovascular diseases and obesity, with higher rates of depression among those affected. 

Although notable advances have been made in the range of treatment options for PsA, it remains difficult to diagnose. No specific diagnostic criteria or laboratory tests are available, and the disease course and response to treatment can be unpredictable.

“Another key unmet need relates to whether we can reliably identify risk factors for which a person with psoriasis will develop PsA. We know that 30% will develop PsA, but we cannot identify which person with psoriasis is at risk,” said Professor Oliver FitzGerald of University College Dublin (UCD), Dublin, Ireland, an international opinion leader in rheumatology. A clearer understanding of PsA could lead to development of tools for its early diagnosis and identification of disease prevention strategies, he explained.

Thus, HIPPOCRATES (Health Initiatives in Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Consortium European States ) was created. This ambitious research consortium was conceived by Dr. FitzGerald and his colleague Stephen Pennington, professor of proteomics at UCD, together with a number of likeminded colleagues in the fields of rheumatology and dermatology and at organizations such as GRAPPA, HUPO, EULAR, and EUROPSO. 

The collaboration has brought together world-leading clinicians, researchers, and people living with psoriasis and PsA to address the main challenges in its early identification and management.

HIPPOCRATES received €23.5 million in funding from the EU Innovative Medicines Initiative public-private partnership in 2021 and is now half way through its 5-year plan. 

Key Goals 

HIPPOCRATES involves 27 partners, including from industry, in 11 countries. 

Its four key goals are:

• Identifying specific PsA disease markers to develop accurate diagnostic tools;
• Developing prediction strategies to identify which person with psoriasis will develop PsA;
• Monitoring and prevention of PsA disease progression to irreversible joint damage; and
• Identifying personalized treatment options, so that patients are treated with the right medicines for their specific disease.

“The pharmaceutical companies have come up with a veritable armory of potential treatments, but rheumatologists still don’t know which one to use for a particular patient at a particular time,” Dr. Pennington explained to this news organization. “So the reality is they tend to cycle through treatments until they find one that is effective.” This is not very efficient or desirable for patients, he added. 

Multidisciplinary Approach

A key advantage of HIPPOCRATES is that it brings several medical disciplines together. The current approach of clinicians working in silos is a key barrier to earlier diagnosis of PsA.

“The reality is that a patient with psoriasis will see a dermatologist, and dermatologists don’t necessarily have the skills or training to identify the very early stages of psoriatic arthritis, so they will only refer a patient of theirs to a rheumatologist at a very late stage,” said Dr. Pennington.

Dermatologists need better tools to be able to recognize when they should refer their psoriasis patients to rheumatologists, so that patients developing PsA are diagnosed and treated earlier, he explained. 

GPs will also be an important component of the project because they are the first point of healthcare contact for people with PsA or psoriasis.

“[I]t is about helping GPs diagnose earlier and raise awareness among patients. Historically, there has been a bit of a lag between people having their first symptoms and getting a diagnosis,” explained HIPPOCRATES collaborator Frances Mair, the Norie Miller Professor of General Practice and head of general practice and primary care at the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland. 

Dr. Mair said that diagnosis isn't always straightforward, and the hope is that the study will identify more specific risk factors that will help GPs flag PsA earlier. 

Patient Involvement and Data Sharing

The HIPPOCRATES consortium involves patients in all stages of the project.

“In HIPPOCRATES, patient and public involvement is really a central feature, which is quite unusual at the more experimental side of healthcare and research. In HIPPOCRATES, the patient research partners have a leading role, making a real difference…” said Dr. Mair.

To facilitate its goals, the consortium partners are sharing data and samples from previously conducted studies on psoriasis and PsA populations. This will facilitate extensive omics-based analyses to establish and validate robust biomarkers across datasets, using the latest cutting-edge techniques, including machine learning and artificial intelligence. 

In addition, the HIPPOCRATES Prospective Observational Study (HPOS) was launched last year. This web-based study aims to recruit 25,000 adults (≥ 18 years of age) with skin psoriasis across Europe. They will collect their clinical data every 6 months, including emerging musculoskeletal symptoms. Blood samples will also be collected remotely from a subset of 3000 participants using a finger-prick kit that will be posted to their homes. 

HPOS has already commenced recruitment in the UK, Ireland and, most recently, Greece and Portugal, with nearly 2300 participants enrolled to date. HPOS also plans to launch in France, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Sweden. 

“This ambitious study will give us the statistical power to identify clinical/molecular risk factors for progression from psoriasis to PsA. We anticipate that 675 participants per year will develop PsA in our studied population. Participants will receive regular feedback to help monitor their condition, and we will help them to get the medical care that they need,” said Dr. FitzGerald.

Dr. Pennington added that the consortium believes it is a “realistic goal” that the resulting molecular risk prediction tools could eventually enable clinicians to intervene to prevent PsA. 

From Research to Practice

The HIPPOCRATES projects are making good progress, with several early publications, and further publications being drafted. 

“One of the biggest achievements so far has been to assemble this massive resource of patient samples — tens of thousands in total in a single integrated database, which is the foundation of the project,” said Dr. Pennington. He explained that it took a significant amount of work to secure the necessary agreements from all 27 partners to share the patient data securely, appropriately, and anonymously within the consortium.

Creating successful biomarkers, algorithms, and other tools is one thing, but disseminating the knowledge learned and rolling out the final agreed guidelines will be just as important as the research work, said Dr. Pennington.

Dr. Mair, who is responsible for promoting communication, dissemination, and maximizing the impact of the research undertaken by the HIPPOCRATES consortium, said: “We see so often in healthcare that people come with great ideas or tools, yet they don’t become part of everyday practice. Hence, I am working on the implementation side of HIPPOCRATES, to make sure its findings will be embedded and routinely used in practice,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The accumulation of multiple adverse social determinants of health is linked to worse disease at initial presentation and worse disease activity over time in children with rheumatologic conditions, according to findings presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

One study revealed that cumulative factors conferring social disadvantage progressively increased the odds of active disease and functional disability in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Another study similarly found that children with lupus living in neighborhoods with comparatively fewer resources for childhood opportunity had worse disease at presentation and greater disease activity over follow-up.

The findings suggest that exposure to multiple disadvantaging social variables may be linked to worse outcomes than exposure to any single factor, William Daniel Soulsby, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, told attendees in his presentation of data from the JIA study.

“Most prior studies have analyzed such determinants as independent risk factors,” Dr. Soulsby said. “However, individuals experiencing social disadvantage often face multiple social hardships that rarely act in isolation; studying these factors independently may miss underlying disparities.”

Stacy P. Ardoin, MD, MSc, professor of pediatric and adult rheumatology at Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University in Columbus, and vice president of CARRA, did not find the results of Soulsby’s study surprising, but she said they do “provide important confirmation of our growing understanding of the impact of social determinants of health on the outcomes of children and adolescents with chronic disease like juvenile idiopathic arthritis.” She added: “In medicine, we often think about the bench, the bedside, and the clinic, but this study tells us that if we want to improve outcomes for our patients, we also need to think about the ‘backyard,’ too.”
 

Social Disadvantage With JIA

Dr. Soulsby’s team adopted an approach similar to that of a recent National Survey of Children’s Health analysis that used a combined scoring system to calculate cumulative social disadvantage. The researchers used income level, insurance status, and education level to capture individual factors related to disadvantage and then an area deprivation index (ADI) to capture community factors. While they were unable to use any variables specific to societal factors, they included race, which is relevant at all three levels.

The cohort included 9612 patients in the CARRA Registry from July 2015 to January 2022. They included all patients who had a JIA diagnosis with onset before age 16 and at least one visit with a complete clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (JADAS) score. Most of the patients (70%) were female, with an average age at enrollment of 11 and a mean time to diagnosis of 10.6 months.

Most of the patients had oligoarthritis (35.5%) or rheumatoid factor–negative polyarthritis (29.4%), followed by enthesitis-related arthritis (10.5%) and then other forms. A total of 4% of patients had a secondary rheumatologic condition. Most of the patients were White (74.9%), with 3.9% Black, 7.6% Hispanic, and 6.5% of more than one race. ADI data were missing for 17.2% of patients.

The researchers assigned a score to each patient that could add up to a maximum of 3. They received 1 point for an annual household income below $50,000, 1 point for having public insurance or no insurance, and 1 point for their guardian having no more than a high school education. Patients with a score of 0 comprised 60.9% of the patients, while 21.3% had a score of 1, 12.9% had a score of 2, and 4.9% had a score of 3.

Just over a quarter of the patients (26.3%) were underinsured, 19.1% were low income, and 16.4% had caregivers with a high school education or less. However, income level was unknown for 24.6% of patients, and guardians’ education level was unknown for 15.7% of patients.

The primary outcomes were the odds of active disease as based on clinical JADAS (at least a 1.1 score for oligoarticular JIA and more than 2.5 for all other subtypes) and odds of functional disability based on the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ). Adjustments were made for sex, race/ethnicity, age at enrollment, time to diagnosis, ADI, JIA category, presence of secondary rheumatologic disease, and medication (use of a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [DMARD], biologic DMARD, or small molecule drug).

Nearly half (48%) of patients had active disease during follow-up, with an average clinical JADAS score of 4 from the whole cohort. Compared with children with a cumulative disadvantage score of 0, each additional point on the clinical JADAS resulted in significantly increased odds of active disease. Those with the highest score of 3 were twice as likely to have active disease (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.05; P < .001) as those with a score of 0, but those with a score of 1 (aOR, 1.36; P < .001) or 2 (aOR, 1.86; P < .001) were also more likely to have active disease. Other significant independent predictors of active arthritis included being of Black race (aOR, 1.55) or more than one race (aOR, 1.31).

Each of the scored factors also independently increased the likelihood of active disease by similar amounts: 1.69 higher odds for low household income on its own, 1.6 higher odds for public or no insurance, and 1.45 higher odds for high school education or less (all P < .001).

Similarly, odds of functional disability based on CHAQ increased significantly with each additional point. The mean CHAQ score was 0.31, and 46% of patients had functional disability during follow-up. Those with a cumulative social disadvantage score of 3 were three times as likely to have functional disability (aOR, 3.09; P < .001) as those with a score of 0. Those with a score of 1 (aOR, 1.82) or 2 (aOR, 2.81) were also more likely to have functional disability (P < .001). Again, Black individuals (aOR, 2.09) or those of mixed race (aOR, 1.78) had greater odds of functional disability (P < .001).

The independent factor most associated with increased odds of functional disability was a household income below $50,000 a year (OR, 3.03; P < .001), followed by having public or no insurance (OR, 2.57) or a caregiver with no more than a high school education (OR, 1.98). Dr. Soulsby noted that their study was limited by the missing data and may oversimplify the relationships between social determinants of health.

Overall, however, the findings revealed both the importance of social risk screening in the pediatric rheumatology clinic and the coupling of that screening with individual level support for patients, Dr. Soulsby said.

“This study did a great job of harnessing the power of the CARRA Registry,” said Dr. Ardoin, who was not involved in the research. “These findings underscore how important it is for all clinicians, including pediatric rheumatologists, to evaluate every child for social risks of poor outcomes,” she said.

One take-home message from the findings is that once pediatric rheumatologists identify social risks for poor outcomes in their patients, they can “consult with social workers and connect families with community resources in an effort to ameliorate social deprivation.”
 

Childhood Lupus and Reduced Childhood Opportunity

In a similar study looking at children with childhood-onset lupus, researchers similarly identified the way that compounding social determinants of health were linked to greater disease activity.

“We know that structural racism segregates children from historically marginalized groups into different neighborhoods with lower childhood opportunity,” Joyce C. Chang, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, told attendees. “When we talk about child opportunity, we’re really describing all of the resources and conditions that helped to promote healthy childhood development,” including factors related to education, physical health, the built environment, and social and economic security, she said.

Dr. Chang and her colleagues therefore assessed the relationship between a 29-indicator Child Opportunity Index for patients with childhood-onset lupus and the severity of their disease presentation and activity over time. They determined the Child Opportunity Index for different neighborhoods and assessed the amount of racial residential segregation around the three institutions involved in the study. Severity of lupus presentation was based on the need for intensive care unit admission or dialysis or a Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) score of 10 or higher. Disease activity over time was based on the SLEDAI-2K score.

The patient population included 553 patients with childhood-onset lupus from three institutions: Boston Children’s Hospital, Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, and Children’s of Alabama in Birmingham, Alabama. Across the full population, 30% of the patients were Black and 30% were Hispanic, but the distribution of race and ethnicity varied by institution. Most of the Black patients, for example, were at Children’s of Alabama (59%), while 43% of the Hispanic patients were at Lurie. Across all the sites, 14% of the patients’ families preferred a non-English language as their first language, and just over half the patients (52%) had public insurance.

Dr. Chang did not have data yet from the Lurie and Alabama cohorts, so she presented preliminary data from the Boston Children’s cohort of 148 patients. In those results, children living in neighborhoods of low childhood opportunity had four times higher odds of presenting with severe disease than children living in neighborhoods of very high opportunity. Then the researchers factored in the location quotient that represented the magnitude of racial segregation in a residential area. In areas with high levels of Black vs White segregation, children were 2.5 times more likely to have a more severe initial disease presentation. However, there was not a significant difference in areas highly segregated between Hispanic and non-Hispanic residents.

After initial presentation, the data revealed a dose-dependent relationship between childhood opportunity and severity of disease activity based on SLEDAI-2K. After adjustment for insurance status, race, preferred language, age at disease onset, sex, major organ involvement, initial SLEDAI-2K score at presentation, and follow-up time, disease activity incrementally increased as childhood opportunity decreased (P < .001 for the trend).

The findings suggested that even in regions like Boston, where overall childhood opportunity is higher than the national average, “poor relative neighborhood opportunity is still associated with more severe lupus presentation, as well as higher lupus disease activity during follow-up,” Dr. Chang said. “Area-level conditions may drive inequitable outcomes at numerous points,” including initial access to subspecialty care and after establishing that care, she said.

Dr. Soulsby, Dr. Chang, and Dr. Ardoin reported having no disclosures. Dr. Soulsby’s research was funded by CARRA and the Arthritis Foundation, and Dr. Chang’s research was funded by CARRA.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The accumulation of multiple adverse social determinants of health is linked to worse disease at initial presentation and worse disease activity over time in children with rheumatologic conditions, according to findings presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

One study revealed that cumulative factors conferring social disadvantage progressively increased the odds of active disease and functional disability in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Another study similarly found that children with lupus living in neighborhoods with comparatively fewer resources for childhood opportunity had worse disease at presentation and greater disease activity over follow-up.

The findings suggest that exposure to multiple disadvantaging social variables may be linked to worse outcomes than exposure to any single factor, William Daniel Soulsby, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, told attendees in his presentation of data from the JIA study.

“Most prior studies have analyzed such determinants as independent risk factors,” Dr. Soulsby said. “However, individuals experiencing social disadvantage often face multiple social hardships that rarely act in isolation; studying these factors independently may miss underlying disparities.”

Stacy P. Ardoin, MD, MSc, professor of pediatric and adult rheumatology at Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University in Columbus, and vice president of CARRA, did not find the results of Soulsby’s study surprising, but she said they do “provide important confirmation of our growing understanding of the impact of social determinants of health on the outcomes of children and adolescents with chronic disease like juvenile idiopathic arthritis.” She added: “In medicine, we often think about the bench, the bedside, and the clinic, but this study tells us that if we want to improve outcomes for our patients, we also need to think about the ‘backyard,’ too.”
 

Social Disadvantage With JIA

Dr. Soulsby’s team adopted an approach similar to that of a recent National Survey of Children’s Health analysis that used a combined scoring system to calculate cumulative social disadvantage. The researchers used income level, insurance status, and education level to capture individual factors related to disadvantage and then an area deprivation index (ADI) to capture community factors. While they were unable to use any variables specific to societal factors, they included race, which is relevant at all three levels.

The cohort included 9612 patients in the CARRA Registry from July 2015 to January 2022. They included all patients who had a JIA diagnosis with onset before age 16 and at least one visit with a complete clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (JADAS) score. Most of the patients (70%) were female, with an average age at enrollment of 11 and a mean time to diagnosis of 10.6 months.

Most of the patients had oligoarthritis (35.5%) or rheumatoid factor–negative polyarthritis (29.4%), followed by enthesitis-related arthritis (10.5%) and then other forms. A total of 4% of patients had a secondary rheumatologic condition. Most of the patients were White (74.9%), with 3.9% Black, 7.6% Hispanic, and 6.5% of more than one race. ADI data were missing for 17.2% of patients.

The researchers assigned a score to each patient that could add up to a maximum of 3. They received 1 point for an annual household income below $50,000, 1 point for having public insurance or no insurance, and 1 point for their guardian having no more than a high school education. Patients with a score of 0 comprised 60.9% of the patients, while 21.3% had a score of 1, 12.9% had a score of 2, and 4.9% had a score of 3.

Just over a quarter of the patients (26.3%) were underinsured, 19.1% were low income, and 16.4% had caregivers with a high school education or less. However, income level was unknown for 24.6% of patients, and guardians’ education level was unknown for 15.7% of patients.

The primary outcomes were the odds of active disease as based on clinical JADAS (at least a 1.1 score for oligoarticular JIA and more than 2.5 for all other subtypes) and odds of functional disability based on the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ). Adjustments were made for sex, race/ethnicity, age at enrollment, time to diagnosis, ADI, JIA category, presence of secondary rheumatologic disease, and medication (use of a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [DMARD], biologic DMARD, or small molecule drug).

Nearly half (48%) of patients had active disease during follow-up, with an average clinical JADAS score of 4 from the whole cohort. Compared with children with a cumulative disadvantage score of 0, each additional point on the clinical JADAS resulted in significantly increased odds of active disease. Those with the highest score of 3 were twice as likely to have active disease (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.05; P < .001) as those with a score of 0, but those with a score of 1 (aOR, 1.36; P < .001) or 2 (aOR, 1.86; P < .001) were also more likely to have active disease. Other significant independent predictors of active arthritis included being of Black race (aOR, 1.55) or more than one race (aOR, 1.31).

Each of the scored factors also independently increased the likelihood of active disease by similar amounts: 1.69 higher odds for low household income on its own, 1.6 higher odds for public or no insurance, and 1.45 higher odds for high school education or less (all P < .001).

Similarly, odds of functional disability based on CHAQ increased significantly with each additional point. The mean CHAQ score was 0.31, and 46% of patients had functional disability during follow-up. Those with a cumulative social disadvantage score of 3 were three times as likely to have functional disability (aOR, 3.09; P < .001) as those with a score of 0. Those with a score of 1 (aOR, 1.82) or 2 (aOR, 2.81) were also more likely to have functional disability (P < .001). Again, Black individuals (aOR, 2.09) or those of mixed race (aOR, 1.78) had greater odds of functional disability (P < .001).

The independent factor most associated with increased odds of functional disability was a household income below $50,000 a year (OR, 3.03; P < .001), followed by having public or no insurance (OR, 2.57) or a caregiver with no more than a high school education (OR, 1.98). Dr. Soulsby noted that their study was limited by the missing data and may oversimplify the relationships between social determinants of health.

Overall, however, the findings revealed both the importance of social risk screening in the pediatric rheumatology clinic and the coupling of that screening with individual level support for patients, Dr. Soulsby said.

“This study did a great job of harnessing the power of the CARRA Registry,” said Dr. Ardoin, who was not involved in the research. “These findings underscore how important it is for all clinicians, including pediatric rheumatologists, to evaluate every child for social risks of poor outcomes,” she said.

One take-home message from the findings is that once pediatric rheumatologists identify social risks for poor outcomes in their patients, they can “consult with social workers and connect families with community resources in an effort to ameliorate social deprivation.”
 

Childhood Lupus and Reduced Childhood Opportunity

In a similar study looking at children with childhood-onset lupus, researchers similarly identified the way that compounding social determinants of health were linked to greater disease activity.

“We know that structural racism segregates children from historically marginalized groups into different neighborhoods with lower childhood opportunity,” Joyce C. Chang, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, told attendees. “When we talk about child opportunity, we’re really describing all of the resources and conditions that helped to promote healthy childhood development,” including factors related to education, physical health, the built environment, and social and economic security, she said.

Dr. Chang and her colleagues therefore assessed the relationship between a 29-indicator Child Opportunity Index for patients with childhood-onset lupus and the severity of their disease presentation and activity over time. They determined the Child Opportunity Index for different neighborhoods and assessed the amount of racial residential segregation around the three institutions involved in the study. Severity of lupus presentation was based on the need for intensive care unit admission or dialysis or a Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) score of 10 or higher. Disease activity over time was based on the SLEDAI-2K score.

The patient population included 553 patients with childhood-onset lupus from three institutions: Boston Children’s Hospital, Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, and Children’s of Alabama in Birmingham, Alabama. Across the full population, 30% of the patients were Black and 30% were Hispanic, but the distribution of race and ethnicity varied by institution. Most of the Black patients, for example, were at Children’s of Alabama (59%), while 43% of the Hispanic patients were at Lurie. Across all the sites, 14% of the patients’ families preferred a non-English language as their first language, and just over half the patients (52%) had public insurance.

Dr. Chang did not have data yet from the Lurie and Alabama cohorts, so she presented preliminary data from the Boston Children’s cohort of 148 patients. In those results, children living in neighborhoods of low childhood opportunity had four times higher odds of presenting with severe disease than children living in neighborhoods of very high opportunity. Then the researchers factored in the location quotient that represented the magnitude of racial segregation in a residential area. In areas with high levels of Black vs White segregation, children were 2.5 times more likely to have a more severe initial disease presentation. However, there was not a significant difference in areas highly segregated between Hispanic and non-Hispanic residents.

After initial presentation, the data revealed a dose-dependent relationship between childhood opportunity and severity of disease activity based on SLEDAI-2K. After adjustment for insurance status, race, preferred language, age at disease onset, sex, major organ involvement, initial SLEDAI-2K score at presentation, and follow-up time, disease activity incrementally increased as childhood opportunity decreased (P < .001 for the trend).

The findings suggested that even in regions like Boston, where overall childhood opportunity is higher than the national average, “poor relative neighborhood opportunity is still associated with more severe lupus presentation, as well as higher lupus disease activity during follow-up,” Dr. Chang said. “Area-level conditions may drive inequitable outcomes at numerous points,” including initial access to subspecialty care and after establishing that care, she said.

Dr. Soulsby, Dr. Chang, and Dr. Ardoin reported having no disclosures. Dr. Soulsby’s research was funded by CARRA and the Arthritis Foundation, and Dr. Chang’s research was funded by CARRA.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The accumulation of multiple adverse social determinants of health is linked to worse disease at initial presentation and worse disease activity over time in children with rheumatologic conditions, according to findings presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

One study revealed that cumulative factors conferring social disadvantage progressively increased the odds of active disease and functional disability in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Another study similarly found that children with lupus living in neighborhoods with comparatively fewer resources for childhood opportunity had worse disease at presentation and greater disease activity over follow-up.

The findings suggest that exposure to multiple disadvantaging social variables may be linked to worse outcomes than exposure to any single factor, William Daniel Soulsby, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, told attendees in his presentation of data from the JIA study.

“Most prior studies have analyzed such determinants as independent risk factors,” Dr. Soulsby said. “However, individuals experiencing social disadvantage often face multiple social hardships that rarely act in isolation; studying these factors independently may miss underlying disparities.”

Stacy P. Ardoin, MD, MSc, professor of pediatric and adult rheumatology at Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University in Columbus, and vice president of CARRA, did not find the results of Soulsby’s study surprising, but she said they do “provide important confirmation of our growing understanding of the impact of social determinants of health on the outcomes of children and adolescents with chronic disease like juvenile idiopathic arthritis.” She added: “In medicine, we often think about the bench, the bedside, and the clinic, but this study tells us that if we want to improve outcomes for our patients, we also need to think about the ‘backyard,’ too.”
 

Social Disadvantage With JIA

Dr. Soulsby’s team adopted an approach similar to that of a recent National Survey of Children’s Health analysis that used a combined scoring system to calculate cumulative social disadvantage. The researchers used income level, insurance status, and education level to capture individual factors related to disadvantage and then an area deprivation index (ADI) to capture community factors. While they were unable to use any variables specific to societal factors, they included race, which is relevant at all three levels.

The cohort included 9612 patients in the CARRA Registry from July 2015 to January 2022. They included all patients who had a JIA diagnosis with onset before age 16 and at least one visit with a complete clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (JADAS) score. Most of the patients (70%) were female, with an average age at enrollment of 11 and a mean time to diagnosis of 10.6 months.

Most of the patients had oligoarthritis (35.5%) or rheumatoid factor–negative polyarthritis (29.4%), followed by enthesitis-related arthritis (10.5%) and then other forms. A total of 4% of patients had a secondary rheumatologic condition. Most of the patients were White (74.9%), with 3.9% Black, 7.6% Hispanic, and 6.5% of more than one race. ADI data were missing for 17.2% of patients.

The researchers assigned a score to each patient that could add up to a maximum of 3. They received 1 point for an annual household income below $50,000, 1 point for having public insurance or no insurance, and 1 point for their guardian having no more than a high school education. Patients with a score of 0 comprised 60.9% of the patients, while 21.3% had a score of 1, 12.9% had a score of 2, and 4.9% had a score of 3.

Just over a quarter of the patients (26.3%) were underinsured, 19.1% were low income, and 16.4% had caregivers with a high school education or less. However, income level was unknown for 24.6% of patients, and guardians’ education level was unknown for 15.7% of patients.

The primary outcomes were the odds of active disease as based on clinical JADAS (at least a 1.1 score for oligoarticular JIA and more than 2.5 for all other subtypes) and odds of functional disability based on the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ). Adjustments were made for sex, race/ethnicity, age at enrollment, time to diagnosis, ADI, JIA category, presence of secondary rheumatologic disease, and medication (use of a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [DMARD], biologic DMARD, or small molecule drug).

Nearly half (48%) of patients had active disease during follow-up, with an average clinical JADAS score of 4 from the whole cohort. Compared with children with a cumulative disadvantage score of 0, each additional point on the clinical JADAS resulted in significantly increased odds of active disease. Those with the highest score of 3 were twice as likely to have active disease (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.05; P < .001) as those with a score of 0, but those with a score of 1 (aOR, 1.36; P < .001) or 2 (aOR, 1.86; P < .001) were also more likely to have active disease. Other significant independent predictors of active arthritis included being of Black race (aOR, 1.55) or more than one race (aOR, 1.31).

Each of the scored factors also independently increased the likelihood of active disease by similar amounts: 1.69 higher odds for low household income on its own, 1.6 higher odds for public or no insurance, and 1.45 higher odds for high school education or less (all P < .001).

Similarly, odds of functional disability based on CHAQ increased significantly with each additional point. The mean CHAQ score was 0.31, and 46% of patients had functional disability during follow-up. Those with a cumulative social disadvantage score of 3 were three times as likely to have functional disability (aOR, 3.09; P < .001) as those with a score of 0. Those with a score of 1 (aOR, 1.82) or 2 (aOR, 2.81) were also more likely to have functional disability (P < .001). Again, Black individuals (aOR, 2.09) or those of mixed race (aOR, 1.78) had greater odds of functional disability (P < .001).

The independent factor most associated with increased odds of functional disability was a household income below $50,000 a year (OR, 3.03; P < .001), followed by having public or no insurance (OR, 2.57) or a caregiver with no more than a high school education (OR, 1.98). Dr. Soulsby noted that their study was limited by the missing data and may oversimplify the relationships between social determinants of health.

Overall, however, the findings revealed both the importance of social risk screening in the pediatric rheumatology clinic and the coupling of that screening with individual level support for patients, Dr. Soulsby said.

“This study did a great job of harnessing the power of the CARRA Registry,” said Dr. Ardoin, who was not involved in the research. “These findings underscore how important it is for all clinicians, including pediatric rheumatologists, to evaluate every child for social risks of poor outcomes,” she said.

One take-home message from the findings is that once pediatric rheumatologists identify social risks for poor outcomes in their patients, they can “consult with social workers and connect families with community resources in an effort to ameliorate social deprivation.”
 

Childhood Lupus and Reduced Childhood Opportunity

In a similar study looking at children with childhood-onset lupus, researchers similarly identified the way that compounding social determinants of health were linked to greater disease activity.

“We know that structural racism segregates children from historically marginalized groups into different neighborhoods with lower childhood opportunity,” Joyce C. Chang, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, told attendees. “When we talk about child opportunity, we’re really describing all of the resources and conditions that helped to promote healthy childhood development,” including factors related to education, physical health, the built environment, and social and economic security, she said.

Dr. Chang and her colleagues therefore assessed the relationship between a 29-indicator Child Opportunity Index for patients with childhood-onset lupus and the severity of their disease presentation and activity over time. They determined the Child Opportunity Index for different neighborhoods and assessed the amount of racial residential segregation around the three institutions involved in the study. Severity of lupus presentation was based on the need for intensive care unit admission or dialysis or a Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) score of 10 or higher. Disease activity over time was based on the SLEDAI-2K score.

The patient population included 553 patients with childhood-onset lupus from three institutions: Boston Children’s Hospital, Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, and Children’s of Alabama in Birmingham, Alabama. Across the full population, 30% of the patients were Black and 30% were Hispanic, but the distribution of race and ethnicity varied by institution. Most of the Black patients, for example, were at Children’s of Alabama (59%), while 43% of the Hispanic patients were at Lurie. Across all the sites, 14% of the patients’ families preferred a non-English language as their first language, and just over half the patients (52%) had public insurance.

Dr. Chang did not have data yet from the Lurie and Alabama cohorts, so she presented preliminary data from the Boston Children’s cohort of 148 patients. In those results, children living in neighborhoods of low childhood opportunity had four times higher odds of presenting with severe disease than children living in neighborhoods of very high opportunity. Then the researchers factored in the location quotient that represented the magnitude of racial segregation in a residential area. In areas with high levels of Black vs White segregation, children were 2.5 times more likely to have a more severe initial disease presentation. However, there was not a significant difference in areas highly segregated between Hispanic and non-Hispanic residents.

After initial presentation, the data revealed a dose-dependent relationship between childhood opportunity and severity of disease activity based on SLEDAI-2K. After adjustment for insurance status, race, preferred language, age at disease onset, sex, major organ involvement, initial SLEDAI-2K score at presentation, and follow-up time, disease activity incrementally increased as childhood opportunity decreased (P < .001 for the trend).

The findings suggested that even in regions like Boston, where overall childhood opportunity is higher than the national average, “poor relative neighborhood opportunity is still associated with more severe lupus presentation, as well as higher lupus disease activity during follow-up,” Dr. Chang said. “Area-level conditions may drive inequitable outcomes at numerous points,” including initial access to subspecialty care and after establishing that care, she said.

Dr. Soulsby, Dr. Chang, and Dr. Ardoin reported having no disclosures. Dr. Soulsby’s research was funded by CARRA and the Arthritis Foundation, and Dr. Chang’s research was funded by CARRA.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Anti-osteoporosis medications reduce fracture risk similarly, regardless of whether patients are younger or older than 70 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators conducted the study as part of a  to assess bone mineral density as a surrogate marker for fracture risk.
• Analyses used individual patient data from 23 randomized placebo-controlled trials of anti-osteoporosis medications (11 of bisphosphonates, four of selective estrogen receptor modulators, three of anabolic medications, two of hormone replacement therapy, and one each of odanacatib, denosumab, and romosozumab).
• Overall, 43% of the included 123,164 patients were aged 70 years or older.
• The main outcomes were fractures and bone mineral density.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was a similar benefit regardless of age when it came to the reduction in risks for hip fracture (odds ratio, 0.65 vs 0.72; P for interaction = .50) and any fracture (odds ratio, 0.72 vs 0.70; P for interaction = .20).
• Findings were comparable in analyses restricted to bisphosphonate trials, except that the reduction in hip fracture risk was greater among the younger group (hazard ratio, 0.44 vs 0.79; P for interaction = .02).
• The benefit of anti-osteoporosis medication in increasing hip and spine bone mineral density at 24 months was significantly greater among the older patients.

IN PRACTICE:

Taken together, the study results “strongly support treatment in those over age 70,” the authors wrote. “These are important findings with potential impact in patient treatment since it goes against a common misconception that medications are less effective in older people,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Marian Schini, MD, PhD, FHEA, University of Sheffield, England, and was published online in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included a preponderance of female patients (99%), possible residual confounding, a lack of analysis of adverse effects, and potentially different findings using alternate age cutoffs.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the American Society for Bone Mineral Research. Some authors disclosed affiliations with companies that manufacture anti-osteoporosis drugs.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Anti-osteoporosis medications reduce fracture risk similarly, regardless of whether patients are younger or older than 70 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators conducted the study as part of a  to assess bone mineral density as a surrogate marker for fracture risk.
• Analyses used individual patient data from 23 randomized placebo-controlled trials of anti-osteoporosis medications (11 of bisphosphonates, four of selective estrogen receptor modulators, three of anabolic medications, two of hormone replacement therapy, and one each of odanacatib, denosumab, and romosozumab).
• Overall, 43% of the included 123,164 patients were aged 70 years or older.
• The main outcomes were fractures and bone mineral density.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was a similar benefit regardless of age when it came to the reduction in risks for hip fracture (odds ratio, 0.65 vs 0.72; P for interaction = .50) and any fracture (odds ratio, 0.72 vs 0.70; P for interaction = .20).
• Findings were comparable in analyses restricted to bisphosphonate trials, except that the reduction in hip fracture risk was greater among the younger group (hazard ratio, 0.44 vs 0.79; P for interaction = .02).
• The benefit of anti-osteoporosis medication in increasing hip and spine bone mineral density at 24 months was significantly greater among the older patients.

IN PRACTICE:

Taken together, the study results “strongly support treatment in those over age 70,” the authors wrote. “These are important findings with potential impact in patient treatment since it goes against a common misconception that medications are less effective in older people,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Marian Schini, MD, PhD, FHEA, University of Sheffield, England, and was published online in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included a preponderance of female patients (99%), possible residual confounding, a lack of analysis of adverse effects, and potentially different findings using alternate age cutoffs.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the American Society for Bone Mineral Research. Some authors disclosed affiliations with companies that manufacture anti-osteoporosis drugs.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Anti-osteoporosis medications reduce fracture risk similarly, regardless of whether patients are younger or older than 70 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators conducted the study as part of a  to assess bone mineral density as a surrogate marker for fracture risk.
• Analyses used individual patient data from 23 randomized placebo-controlled trials of anti-osteoporosis medications (11 of bisphosphonates, four of selective estrogen receptor modulators, three of anabolic medications, two of hormone replacement therapy, and one each of odanacatib, denosumab, and romosozumab).
• Overall, 43% of the included 123,164 patients were aged 70 years or older.
• The main outcomes were fractures and bone mineral density.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was a similar benefit regardless of age when it came to the reduction in risks for hip fracture (odds ratio, 0.65 vs 0.72; P for interaction = .50) and any fracture (odds ratio, 0.72 vs 0.70; P for interaction = .20).
• Findings were comparable in analyses restricted to bisphosphonate trials, except that the reduction in hip fracture risk was greater among the younger group (hazard ratio, 0.44 vs 0.79; P for interaction = .02).
• The benefit of anti-osteoporosis medication in increasing hip and spine bone mineral density at 24 months was significantly greater among the older patients.

IN PRACTICE:

Taken together, the study results “strongly support treatment in those over age 70,” the authors wrote. “These are important findings with potential impact in patient treatment since it goes against a common misconception that medications are less effective in older people,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Marian Schini, MD, PhD, FHEA, University of Sheffield, England, and was published online in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included a preponderance of female patients (99%), possible residual confounding, a lack of analysis of adverse effects, and potentially different findings using alternate age cutoffs.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the American Society for Bone Mineral Research. Some authors disclosed affiliations with companies that manufacture anti-osteoporosis drugs.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Over the past two decades, the therapeutic landscape for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) has been transformed by the introduction of more than a dozen targeted therapies.

For most patients with active PsA, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor is recommended as the first-line biologic therapy. But some patients do not achieve an adequate response to TNF inhibitors or are intolerant to these therapies.

Choosing the right treatment after failure of the first biologic requires that clinicians consider several factors. Dr Atul Deodhar, of Oregon Health & Science University, discusses guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Foundation and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) for appropriate treatment strategies.

He also discusses factors critical to the optimal choice of the next therapy, such as the domains of disease activity, patient comorbidities, and whether the biologic's failure was primary or secondary.

Aside from choosing a new biologic, Dr Deodhar notes that there are other options to intensify the effect of the initial biologic. He says the clinician and patient may consider increasing the dose and frequency of the initial biologic medication or moving to a combination therapy by adding another drug, such as methotrexate.

--

Atul A. Deodhar, MD, Professor of Medicine, Division of Arthritis and Rheumatic Diseases, School of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University; Medical Director, Rheumatology Clinics, OHSU Hospital, Portland, Oregon

Atul A. Deodhar, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a consultant, for: Bristol Myers Squibb; Eli Lilly; Janssen; MoonLake; Novartis; Pfizer; UCB

Serve(d) as a speaker for: Eli Lilly; Novartis; Pfizer; UCB

Received research grant from: AbbVie; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene; Janssen; MoonLake; Novartis; Pfizer; UCB

Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Bristol Myers Squibb; Eli Lilly; Janssen; Novartis; Pfizer; Samsung Bioepis; UCB

Over the past two decades, the therapeutic landscape for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) has been transformed by the introduction of more than a dozen targeted therapies.

For most patients with active PsA, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor is recommended as the first-line biologic therapy. But some patients do not achieve an adequate response to TNF inhibitors or are intolerant to these therapies.

Choosing the right treatment after failure of the first biologic requires that clinicians consider several factors. Dr Atul Deodhar, of Oregon Health & Science University, discusses guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Foundation and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) for appropriate treatment strategies.

He also discusses factors critical to the optimal choice of the next therapy, such as the domains of disease activity, patient comorbidities, and whether the biologic's failure was primary or secondary.

Aside from choosing a new biologic, Dr Deodhar notes that there are other options to intensify the effect of the initial biologic. He says the clinician and patient may consider increasing the dose and frequency of the initial biologic medication or moving to a combination therapy by adding another drug, such as methotrexate.

--

Atul A. Deodhar, MD, Professor of Medicine, Division of Arthritis and Rheumatic Diseases, School of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University; Medical Director, Rheumatology Clinics, OHSU Hospital, Portland, Oregon

Atul A. Deodhar, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a consultant, for: Bristol Myers Squibb; Eli Lilly; Janssen; MoonLake; Novartis; Pfizer; UCB

Serve(d) as a speaker for: Eli Lilly; Novartis; Pfizer; UCB

Received research grant from: AbbVie; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene; Janssen; MoonLake; Novartis; Pfizer; UCB

Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Bristol Myers Squibb; Eli Lilly; Janssen; Novartis; Pfizer; Samsung Bioepis; UCB

Over the past two decades, the therapeutic landscape for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) has been transformed by the introduction of more than a dozen targeted therapies.

For most patients with active PsA, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor is recommended as the first-line biologic therapy. But some patients do not achieve an adequate response to TNF inhibitors or are intolerant to these therapies.

Choosing the right treatment after failure of the first biologic requires that clinicians consider several factors. Dr Atul Deodhar, of Oregon Health & Science University, discusses guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Foundation and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) for appropriate treatment strategies.

He also discusses factors critical to the optimal choice of the next therapy, such as the domains of disease activity, patient comorbidities, and whether the biologic's failure was primary or secondary.

Aside from choosing a new biologic, Dr Deodhar notes that there are other options to intensify the effect of the initial biologic. He says the clinician and patient may consider increasing the dose and frequency of the initial biologic medication or moving to a combination therapy by adding another drug, such as methotrexate.

--

Atul A. Deodhar, MD, Professor of Medicine, Division of Arthritis and Rheumatic Diseases, School of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University; Medical Director, Rheumatology Clinics, OHSU Hospital, Portland, Oregon

Atul A. Deodhar, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a consultant, for: Bristol Myers Squibb; Eli Lilly; Janssen; MoonLake; Novartis; Pfizer; UCB

Serve(d) as a speaker for: Eli Lilly; Novartis; Pfizer; UCB

Received research grant from: AbbVie; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene; Janssen; MoonLake; Novartis; Pfizer; UCB

Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Bristol Myers Squibb; Eli Lilly; Janssen; Novartis; Pfizer; Samsung Bioepis; UCB

Preliminary findings from a small case-control study at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, suggest an association between diet and the development of spondyloarthritis (SpA), researchers reported in a poster at the Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

The small study involving 106 cases of incident spondyloarthritis matched 5:1 to individuals without SpA on the basis of age, sex, year, and geography found that risk was significantly higher with consumption of nondiet soda (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.76), and with use of certain supplements: folate (aOR, 2.56), B vitamins (1.98), and fish oil (1.83). Moderate alcohol use ranging from two servings per month up to five per week was associated with a significantly lower risk of SpA (aOR, 0.63).

“We have seen an association between diet and RA. There is also strong literature showing an association between the microbiome and spondyloarthritis. Putting these two together, we wanted to see if the same was true for spondyloarthritis,” Vanessa Kronzer, MD, a rheumatologist at Mayo Clinic and a coauthor of the poster, said in an email. “Our results … do suggest an association between diet and developing spondyloarthritis as we suspected, for example, with soda.”

The researchers enrolled patients through the Mayo Clinic Biobank, which aims to engage a population-based sample of primary care patients, and administered questionnaires that assessed dietary and supplement exposures. They identified incident SpA using two diagnosis codes for ankylosing spondylitis or PsA ≥ 30 days apart along with use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. To identify inflammatory bowel disease–associated SpAs, they used two diagnosis codes ≥ 30 days apart and age < 45 years. Follow-up questionnaires were administered 5 years later, Dr. Kronzer said.

Controls were matched on age, sex, year and geography. Logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, race and ethnicity, education, and smoking, the researchers reported in their poster.

Dr. Kronzer and coauthors reported finding no significant associations with high-fat food, red meat, fish, poultry, diet soda, coffee and tea, and high alcohol use. They reported finding “trends of reduced risk with fruits and vegetables but higher risk with milk/dairy” and said these trends “should be replicated in larger studies.”

The 106 patients with incident spondyloarthritis had a mean age of 51. Three-fourths were female.

The research was funded by the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Kronzer and coauthors did not report any disclosures.

Preliminary findings from a small case-control study at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, suggest an association between diet and the development of spondyloarthritis (SpA), researchers reported in a poster at the Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

The small study involving 106 cases of incident spondyloarthritis matched 5:1 to individuals without SpA on the basis of age, sex, year, and geography found that risk was significantly higher with consumption of nondiet soda (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.76), and with use of certain supplements: folate (aOR, 2.56), B vitamins (1.98), and fish oil (1.83). Moderate alcohol use ranging from two servings per month up to five per week was associated with a significantly lower risk of SpA (aOR, 0.63).

“We have seen an association between diet and RA. There is also strong literature showing an association between the microbiome and spondyloarthritis. Putting these two together, we wanted to see if the same was true for spondyloarthritis,” Vanessa Kronzer, MD, a rheumatologist at Mayo Clinic and a coauthor of the poster, said in an email. “Our results … do suggest an association between diet and developing spondyloarthritis as we suspected, for example, with soda.”

The researchers enrolled patients through the Mayo Clinic Biobank, which aims to engage a population-based sample of primary care patients, and administered questionnaires that assessed dietary and supplement exposures. They identified incident SpA using two diagnosis codes for ankylosing spondylitis or PsA ≥ 30 days apart along with use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. To identify inflammatory bowel disease–associated SpAs, they used two diagnosis codes ≥ 30 days apart and age < 45 years. Follow-up questionnaires were administered 5 years later, Dr. Kronzer said.

Controls were matched on age, sex, year and geography. Logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, race and ethnicity, education, and smoking, the researchers reported in their poster.

Dr. Kronzer and coauthors reported finding no significant associations with high-fat food, red meat, fish, poultry, diet soda, coffee and tea, and high alcohol use. They reported finding “trends of reduced risk with fruits and vegetables but higher risk with milk/dairy” and said these trends “should be replicated in larger studies.”

The 106 patients with incident spondyloarthritis had a mean age of 51. Three-fourths were female.

The research was funded by the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Kronzer and coauthors did not report any disclosures.

Preliminary findings from a small case-control study at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, suggest an association between diet and the development of spondyloarthritis (SpA), researchers reported in a poster at the Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

The small study involving 106 cases of incident spondyloarthritis matched 5:1 to individuals without SpA on the basis of age, sex, year, and geography found that risk was significantly higher with consumption of nondiet soda (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.76), and with use of certain supplements: folate (aOR, 2.56), B vitamins (1.98), and fish oil (1.83). Moderate alcohol use ranging from two servings per month up to five per week was associated with a significantly lower risk of SpA (aOR, 0.63).

“We have seen an association between diet and RA. There is also strong literature showing an association between the microbiome and spondyloarthritis. Putting these two together, we wanted to see if the same was true for spondyloarthritis,” Vanessa Kronzer, MD, a rheumatologist at Mayo Clinic and a coauthor of the poster, said in an email. “Our results … do suggest an association between diet and developing spondyloarthritis as we suspected, for example, with soda.”

The researchers enrolled patients through the Mayo Clinic Biobank, which aims to engage a population-based sample of primary care patients, and administered questionnaires that assessed dietary and supplement exposures. They identified incident SpA using two diagnosis codes for ankylosing spondylitis or PsA ≥ 30 days apart along with use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. To identify inflammatory bowel disease–associated SpAs, they used two diagnosis codes ≥ 30 days apart and age < 45 years. Follow-up questionnaires were administered 5 years later, Dr. Kronzer said.

Controls were matched on age, sex, year and geography. Logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, race and ethnicity, education, and smoking, the researchers reported in their poster.

Dr. Kronzer and coauthors reported finding no significant associations with high-fat food, red meat, fish, poultry, diet soda, coffee and tea, and high alcohol use. They reported finding “trends of reduced risk with fruits and vegetables but higher risk with milk/dairy” and said these trends “should be replicated in larger studies.”

The 106 patients with incident spondyloarthritis had a mean age of 51. Three-fourths were female.

The research was funded by the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Kronzer and coauthors did not report any disclosures.

Among the potential uses envisioned for artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is decreasing provider burden by using the technology to help respond to patients’ questions submitted through portals.

Easing the burden on providers of responding to each question is a target ripe for solutions as during the COVID pandemic, such messages increased 157% from prepandemic levels, say authors of a paper published online in JAMA Network Open. Each additional message added 2.3 minutes to time spent on the electronic health record (EHR) per day.

Researchers at Stanford Health Care, led by Patricia Garcia, MD, with the department of medicine, conducted a 5-week, prospective, single-group quality improvement study from July 10 through August 13, 2023, at Stanford to test an AI response system.
 

Large Language Model Used

All attending physicians, advanced practice providers, clinic nurses, and clinical pharmacists from the divisions of primary care and gastroenterology and hepatology were enrolled in a pilot program that offered the option to answer patients’ questions with drafts that were generated by a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant large language model integrated into EHRs. Drafts were then reviewed by the provider.

The study primarily tested whether providers (162 were included) would use the AI-generated drafts. Secondary outcomes included whether using such a system saved time or improved the clinician experience.

Participants received survey emails before and after the pilot period and answered questions on areas including task load, EHR burden, usability, work exhaustion, burnout, and satisfaction.

Researchers found that the overall average utilization rate per clinician was 20% but there were significant between-group differences. For example, in gastroenterology and hepatology, nurses used the AI tool the most at 29% and physicians/APPs had a 24% usage rate, whereas clinical pharmacists had the highest use rate for primary care at 44% compared with physician use at 15%.
 

Burden Improved, But Didn’t Save Time

AI did not appear to save time but did improve task load scores and work exhaustion scores. The report states that there was no change in reply action time, write time, or read time between the prepilot and pilot periods. However, there were significant reductions in the physician task load score derivative (mean [SD], 61.31 [17.23] pre survey vs 47.26 [17.11] post survey; paired difference, −13.87; 95% CI, −17.38 to −9.50; P < .001) and work exhaustion scores decreased by a third (mean [SD], 1.95 [0.79] pre survey vs 1.62 [0.68] post survey; paired difference, −0.33; 95% CI, −0.50 to −0.17; P < .001)

The authors wrote that improvements in task load and emotional exhaustion scores suggest that generated replies have the potential to lessen cognitive burden and burnout. Though the AI tool didn’t save time, editing responses may be less cognitively taxing than writing responses for providers, the authors suggest.
 

Quality of AI Responses

Comments about AI response message voice and/or tone were the most common and had the highest absolute number of negative comments (10 positive, 2 neutral, and 14 negative). The most negative comments were about length (too long or too short) of the draft message (1 positive, 2 neutral, and 8 negative).

Comments on accuracy of the draft response were fairly even ­— 4 positive and 5 negative — but there were no adverse safety signals, the authors report.

The providers had high expectations about use and quality of the tool that “were either met or exceeded at the end of the pilot,” Dr. Garcia and coauthors write. “Given the evidence that burnout is associated with turnover, reductions in clinical activity, and quality, even a modest improvement may have a substantial impact.”

One coauthor reported grants from Google, Omada Health, and PredictaMed outside the submitted work. Another coauthor reported having a patent for Well-being Index Instruments and Mayo Leadership Impact Index, with royalties paid from Mayo Clinic, and receiving honoraria for presenting grand rounds, keynote lectures, and advising health care organizations on clinician well-being. No other disclosures were reported. 

Among the potential uses envisioned for artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is decreasing provider burden by using the technology to help respond to patients’ questions submitted through portals.

Easing the burden on providers of responding to each question is a target ripe for solutions as during the COVID pandemic, such messages increased 157% from prepandemic levels, say authors of a paper published online in JAMA Network Open. Each additional message added 2.3 minutes to time spent on the electronic health record (EHR) per day.

Researchers at Stanford Health Care, led by Patricia Garcia, MD, with the department of medicine, conducted a 5-week, prospective, single-group quality improvement study from July 10 through August 13, 2023, at Stanford to test an AI response system.
 

Large Language Model Used

All attending physicians, advanced practice providers, clinic nurses, and clinical pharmacists from the divisions of primary care and gastroenterology and hepatology were enrolled in a pilot program that offered the option to answer patients’ questions with drafts that were generated by a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant large language model integrated into EHRs. Drafts were then reviewed by the provider.

The study primarily tested whether providers (162 were included) would use the AI-generated drafts. Secondary outcomes included whether using such a system saved time or improved the clinician experience.

Participants received survey emails before and after the pilot period and answered questions on areas including task load, EHR burden, usability, work exhaustion, burnout, and satisfaction.

Researchers found that the overall average utilization rate per clinician was 20% but there were significant between-group differences. For example, in gastroenterology and hepatology, nurses used the AI tool the most at 29% and physicians/APPs had a 24% usage rate, whereas clinical pharmacists had the highest use rate for primary care at 44% compared with physician use at 15%.
 

Burden Improved, But Didn’t Save Time

AI did not appear to save time but did improve task load scores and work exhaustion scores. The report states that there was no change in reply action time, write time, or read time between the prepilot and pilot periods. However, there were significant reductions in the physician task load score derivative (mean [SD], 61.31 [17.23] pre survey vs 47.26 [17.11] post survey; paired difference, −13.87; 95% CI, −17.38 to −9.50; P < .001) and work exhaustion scores decreased by a third (mean [SD], 1.95 [0.79] pre survey vs 1.62 [0.68] post survey; paired difference, −0.33; 95% CI, −0.50 to −0.17; P < .001)

The authors wrote that improvements in task load and emotional exhaustion scores suggest that generated replies have the potential to lessen cognitive burden and burnout. Though the AI tool didn’t save time, editing responses may be less cognitively taxing than writing responses for providers, the authors suggest.
 

Quality of AI Responses

Comments about AI response message voice and/or tone were the most common and had the highest absolute number of negative comments (10 positive, 2 neutral, and 14 negative). The most negative comments were about length (too long or too short) of the draft message (1 positive, 2 neutral, and 8 negative).

Comments on accuracy of the draft response were fairly even ­— 4 positive and 5 negative — but there were no adverse safety signals, the authors report.

The providers had high expectations about use and quality of the tool that “were either met or exceeded at the end of the pilot,” Dr. Garcia and coauthors write. “Given the evidence that burnout is associated with turnover, reductions in clinical activity, and quality, even a modest improvement may have a substantial impact.”

One coauthor reported grants from Google, Omada Health, and PredictaMed outside the submitted work. Another coauthor reported having a patent for Well-being Index Instruments and Mayo Leadership Impact Index, with royalties paid from Mayo Clinic, and receiving honoraria for presenting grand rounds, keynote lectures, and advising health care organizations on clinician well-being. No other disclosures were reported. 

Among the potential uses envisioned for artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is decreasing provider burden by using the technology to help respond to patients’ questions submitted through portals.

Easing the burden on providers of responding to each question is a target ripe for solutions as during the COVID pandemic, such messages increased 157% from prepandemic levels, say authors of a paper published online in JAMA Network Open. Each additional message added 2.3 minutes to time spent on the electronic health record (EHR) per day.

Researchers at Stanford Health Care, led by Patricia Garcia, MD, with the department of medicine, conducted a 5-week, prospective, single-group quality improvement study from July 10 through August 13, 2023, at Stanford to test an AI response system.
 

Large Language Model Used

All attending physicians, advanced practice providers, clinic nurses, and clinical pharmacists from the divisions of primary care and gastroenterology and hepatology were enrolled in a pilot program that offered the option to answer patients’ questions with drafts that were generated by a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant large language model integrated into EHRs. Drafts were then reviewed by the provider.

The study primarily tested whether providers (162 were included) would use the AI-generated drafts. Secondary outcomes included whether using such a system saved time or improved the clinician experience.

Participants received survey emails before and after the pilot period and answered questions on areas including task load, EHR burden, usability, work exhaustion, burnout, and satisfaction.

Researchers found that the overall average utilization rate per clinician was 20% but there were significant between-group differences. For example, in gastroenterology and hepatology, nurses used the AI tool the most at 29% and physicians/APPs had a 24% usage rate, whereas clinical pharmacists had the highest use rate for primary care at 44% compared with physician use at 15%.
 

Burden Improved, But Didn’t Save Time

AI did not appear to save time but did improve task load scores and work exhaustion scores. The report states that there was no change in reply action time, write time, or read time between the prepilot and pilot periods. However, there were significant reductions in the physician task load score derivative (mean [SD], 61.31 [17.23] pre survey vs 47.26 [17.11] post survey; paired difference, −13.87; 95% CI, −17.38 to −9.50; P < .001) and work exhaustion scores decreased by a third (mean [SD], 1.95 [0.79] pre survey vs 1.62 [0.68] post survey; paired difference, −0.33; 95% CI, −0.50 to −0.17; P < .001)

The authors wrote that improvements in task load and emotional exhaustion scores suggest that generated replies have the potential to lessen cognitive burden and burnout. Though the AI tool didn’t save time, editing responses may be less cognitively taxing than writing responses for providers, the authors suggest.
 

Quality of AI Responses

Comments about AI response message voice and/or tone were the most common and had the highest absolute number of negative comments (10 positive, 2 neutral, and 14 negative). The most negative comments were about length (too long or too short) of the draft message (1 positive, 2 neutral, and 8 negative).

Comments on accuracy of the draft response were fairly even ­— 4 positive and 5 negative — but there were no adverse safety signals, the authors report.

The providers had high expectations about use and quality of the tool that “were either met or exceeded at the end of the pilot,” Dr. Garcia and coauthors write. “Given the evidence that burnout is associated with turnover, reductions in clinical activity, and quality, even a modest improvement may have a substantial impact.”

One coauthor reported grants from Google, Omada Health, and PredictaMed outside the submitted work. Another coauthor reported having a patent for Well-being Index Instruments and Mayo Leadership Impact Index, with royalties paid from Mayo Clinic, and receiving honoraria for presenting grand rounds, keynote lectures, and advising health care organizations on clinician well-being. No other disclosures were reported. 

SAN DIEGO — Home-based phototherapy is non-inferior to office-based phototherapy for the treatment of plaque and guttate psoriasis across all skin types and was associated with improved Physician’s Global Assessment (PGA) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores, results from a pragmatic, multicenter study showed.

“In 2024, we have a lot of ways to treat moderate-to-severe psoriasis, and phototherapy remains relevant,” lead investigator Joel M. Gelfand, MD, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, told attendees of a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. 

Courtesy Dr. Gelfand

“Office phototherapy is 10 to 100 times less expensive than biologics for psoriasis, and in head-to-head trials, it’s about as effective as adalimumab and achieves better patient-reported outcomes. It may have some cardiovascular benefits by lowering IL-6 and improving HDL-P,” he said. “And, compared to secukinumab, it has no risk of infection.”

Although phototherapy is a preferred as a treatment by patients with psoriasis, he continued, inconvenience of traveling to a clinician’s office for the treatment and lack of coverage by health insurance plans remain major barriers to this option. According to Dr. Gelfand, office-based phototherapy is not available in 90% of counties in the United States, “and a lack of US data has resulted in many insurance companies not covering home phototherapy. As a result, many providers are uncertain about prescribing it.”
 

LITE Study Data

In 2019, Dr. Gelfand and colleagues Light Treatment Effectiveness (LITE) study, a patient-centered study that tested the hypothesis that narrowband UVB phototherapy of psoriasis at home is non-inferior to office treatment, based on outcomes that matter to patients, clinicians, and payers. The co-primary outcomes were a PGA score of 0/1 (clear, almost clear) and a DLQI score of 5 or less (small, no effect on health-related quality of life).

Dr. Gelfand and colleagues at 42 sites in the United States enrolled 783 patients aged 12 years and older who had plaque or guttate psoriasis and were candidates for phototherapy at home or in an office setting. New or established patients to the practices were accepted into the trial, while those treated with phototherapy within 14 days before the baseline visit were not. These entry criteria “are highly pragmatic and reflect routine clinical practice,” he said.

The researchers evenly stratified patients by skin types I and II, III and IV, and V and VI. They collected data from medical records or from an app on the patient’s cell phone, which captured the DLQI data. Study participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to office- or home-based phototherapy for 12 weeks at doses recommended in the 2019 AAD-National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines. This was followed by a 12-week observation period, which ended at 24 weeks. 

At baseline, the mean DLQI score of patients was 12.2, the mean PGA score was 3, and their mean body surface area affected was 12.5%. “These patients had pretty severe disease, long-standing disease, and about 12% were on biologics or nonbiologic systemic therapy during the study,” said Dr. Gelfand, also the director of the Psoriasis and Phototherapy Treatment Center at Penn. In addition, he said, “the average round-trip to receive phototherapy in the office was about 60 minutes.”
 

An Improvement in Health Equity

Following treatment at 12 weeks, 25.6% of patients in the office-based phototherapy group achieved a PGA of 0/1, compared with 32.8% of patients in the home-based phototherapy group (P >.0001 for non-inferiority). Similarly, 33.6% of patients in the office-based phototherapy group achieved a score of 5 or less on the DLQI, compared with 52.4% of patients in the home-based phototherapy group (P >.0001 for non-inferiority).

In subgroup analyses, patients with darkly pigmented skin did especially well on home phototherapy relative to office treatment. “This finding is an example of how the LITE study was specifically designed to improve health equity through an intentionally inclusive approach,” Dr. Gelfand said. Perhaps not surprisingly, patients in the home-based phototherapy arm were more adherent to treatment compared with those in the office-based arm (a mean of 26.8 sessions during the study period, compared with a mean of 17.9, respectively; P < .0001). “They also had higher cumulative doses of phototherapy and therefore higher episodes of treatments with erythema,” he noted.

Among patients who reported “itchy, sore, painful, or stinging” skin in the previous week, 63% characterized the degree of discomfort as “not at all or a little,” while 28% said “a lot,” and 9% said “very much.” No patients withdrew or stopped phototherapy during the trial because of treatment-related side effects, “so it’s very well tolerated,” Dr. Gelfand said.

“If a patient never had phototherapy before, they did just as well at home as they did in the office. This suggests that there’s no reason to insist that a patient use office-based phototherapy before using home phototherapy.”

The researchers studied the efficacy of narrow-band UVB in patients who had at least two treatments per week for 12 weeks. In this subgroup of patients, 60% achieved clear or almost clear skin and nearly 50% achieved the equivalent of a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 score.

“Home phototherapy is clearly non-inferior to office-based phototherapy across all skin types and both primary outcomes, PGA and DLQI, and both have excellent effectiveness and safety in real-world settings,” Dr. Gelfand concluded. “These data support the use of home phototherapy as a first-line treatment option for psoriasis, including those with no prior phototherapy experience.”

LITE Study Described as “Groundbreaking”

One of the session moderators, dermatologist Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, of the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, asked about the impact that lockdowns during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic had on the trial. “The study shut down for a couple weeks during the initial lockdown, but we got back up and running pretty quickly,” Dr. Gelfand responded. “We didn’t study that specific period of time, but the study was going on well before COVID and well after COVID restrictions were lifted. We’ll have to analyze that period of time you question but I suspect that it’s not driving the results we see.”

Asked to comment, Henry W. Lim, MD, a dermatologist with Henry Ford Health in Detroit, characterized the findings of the study as “groundbreaking, because it looked at a real-life situation in the use of phototherapy at home vs in the office, showing that the home phototherapy is not inferior to office-based phototherapy.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Home-based phototherapy is non-inferior to office-based phototherapy for the treatment of plaque and guttate psoriasis across all skin types and was associated with improved Physician’s Global Assessment (PGA) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores, results from a pragmatic, multicenter study showed.

“In 2024, we have a lot of ways to treat moderate-to-severe psoriasis, and phototherapy remains relevant,” lead investigator Joel M. Gelfand, MD, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, told attendees of a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. 

Courtesy Dr. Gelfand

“Office phototherapy is 10 to 100 times less expensive than biologics for psoriasis, and in head-to-head trials, it’s about as effective as adalimumab and achieves better patient-reported outcomes. It may have some cardiovascular benefits by lowering IL-6 and improving HDL-P,” he said. “And, compared to secukinumab, it has no risk of infection.”

Although phototherapy is a preferred as a treatment by patients with psoriasis, he continued, inconvenience of traveling to a clinician’s office for the treatment and lack of coverage by health insurance plans remain major barriers to this option. According to Dr. Gelfand, office-based phototherapy is not available in 90% of counties in the United States, “and a lack of US data has resulted in many insurance companies not covering home phototherapy. As a result, many providers are uncertain about prescribing it.”
 

LITE Study Data

In 2019, Dr. Gelfand and colleagues Light Treatment Effectiveness (LITE) study, a patient-centered study that tested the hypothesis that narrowband UVB phototherapy of psoriasis at home is non-inferior to office treatment, based on outcomes that matter to patients, clinicians, and payers. The co-primary outcomes were a PGA score of 0/1 (clear, almost clear) and a DLQI score of 5 or less (small, no effect on health-related quality of life).

Dr. Gelfand and colleagues at 42 sites in the United States enrolled 783 patients aged 12 years and older who had plaque or guttate psoriasis and were candidates for phototherapy at home or in an office setting. New or established patients to the practices were accepted into the trial, while those treated with phototherapy within 14 days before the baseline visit were not. These entry criteria “are highly pragmatic and reflect routine clinical practice,” he said.

The researchers evenly stratified patients by skin types I and II, III and IV, and V and VI. They collected data from medical records or from an app on the patient’s cell phone, which captured the DLQI data. Study participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to office- or home-based phototherapy for 12 weeks at doses recommended in the 2019 AAD-National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines. This was followed by a 12-week observation period, which ended at 24 weeks. 

At baseline, the mean DLQI score of patients was 12.2, the mean PGA score was 3, and their mean body surface area affected was 12.5%. “These patients had pretty severe disease, long-standing disease, and about 12% were on biologics or nonbiologic systemic therapy during the study,” said Dr. Gelfand, also the director of the Psoriasis and Phototherapy Treatment Center at Penn. In addition, he said, “the average round-trip to receive phototherapy in the office was about 60 minutes.”
 

An Improvement in Health Equity

Following treatment at 12 weeks, 25.6% of patients in the office-based phototherapy group achieved a PGA of 0/1, compared with 32.8% of patients in the home-based phototherapy group (P >.0001 for non-inferiority). Similarly, 33.6% of patients in the office-based phototherapy group achieved a score of 5 or less on the DLQI, compared with 52.4% of patients in the home-based phototherapy group (P >.0001 for non-inferiority).

In subgroup analyses, patients with darkly pigmented skin did especially well on home phototherapy relative to office treatment. “This finding is an example of how the LITE study was specifically designed to improve health equity through an intentionally inclusive approach,” Dr. Gelfand said. Perhaps not surprisingly, patients in the home-based phototherapy arm were more adherent to treatment compared with those in the office-based arm (a mean of 26.8 sessions during the study period, compared with a mean of 17.9, respectively; P < .0001). “They also had higher cumulative doses of phototherapy and therefore higher episodes of treatments with erythema,” he noted.

Among patients who reported “itchy, sore, painful, or stinging” skin in the previous week, 63% characterized the degree of discomfort as “not at all or a little,” while 28% said “a lot,” and 9% said “very much.” No patients withdrew or stopped phototherapy during the trial because of treatment-related side effects, “so it’s very well tolerated,” Dr. Gelfand said.

“If a patient never had phototherapy before, they did just as well at home as they did in the office. This suggests that there’s no reason to insist that a patient use office-based phototherapy before using home phototherapy.”

The researchers studied the efficacy of narrow-band UVB in patients who had at least two treatments per week for 12 weeks. In this subgroup of patients, 60% achieved clear or almost clear skin and nearly 50% achieved the equivalent of a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 score.

“Home phototherapy is clearly non-inferior to office-based phototherapy across all skin types and both primary outcomes, PGA and DLQI, and both have excellent effectiveness and safety in real-world settings,” Dr. Gelfand concluded. “These data support the use of home phototherapy as a first-line treatment option for psoriasis, including those with no prior phototherapy experience.”

LITE Study Described as “Groundbreaking”

One of the session moderators, dermatologist Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, of the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, asked about the impact that lockdowns during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic had on the trial. “The study shut down for a couple weeks during the initial lockdown, but we got back up and running pretty quickly,” Dr. Gelfand responded. “We didn’t study that specific period of time, but the study was going on well before COVID and well after COVID restrictions were lifted. We’ll have to analyze that period of time you question but I suspect that it’s not driving the results we see.”

Asked to comment, Henry W. Lim, MD, a dermatologist with Henry Ford Health in Detroit, characterized the findings of the study as “groundbreaking, because it looked at a real-life situation in the use of phototherapy at home vs in the office, showing that the home phototherapy is not inferior to office-based phototherapy.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Home-based phototherapy is non-inferior to office-based phototherapy for the treatment of plaque and guttate psoriasis across all skin types and was associated with improved Physician’s Global Assessment (PGA) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores, results from a pragmatic, multicenter study showed.

“In 2024, we have a lot of ways to treat moderate-to-severe psoriasis, and phototherapy remains relevant,” lead investigator Joel M. Gelfand, MD, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, told attendees of a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. 

Courtesy Dr. Gelfand

“Office phototherapy is 10 to 100 times less expensive than biologics for psoriasis, and in head-to-head trials, it’s about as effective as adalimumab and achieves better patient-reported outcomes. It may have some cardiovascular benefits by lowering IL-6 and improving HDL-P,” he said. “And, compared to secukinumab, it has no risk of infection.”

Although phototherapy is a preferred as a treatment by patients with psoriasis, he continued, inconvenience of traveling to a clinician’s office for the treatment and lack of coverage by health insurance plans remain major barriers to this option. According to Dr. Gelfand, office-based phototherapy is not available in 90% of counties in the United States, “and a lack of US data has resulted in many insurance companies not covering home phototherapy. As a result, many providers are uncertain about prescribing it.”
 

LITE Study Data

In 2019, Dr. Gelfand and colleagues Light Treatment Effectiveness (LITE) study, a patient-centered study that tested the hypothesis that narrowband UVB phototherapy of psoriasis at home is non-inferior to office treatment, based on outcomes that matter to patients, clinicians, and payers. The co-primary outcomes were a PGA score of 0/1 (clear, almost clear) and a DLQI score of 5 or less (small, no effect on health-related quality of life).

Dr. Gelfand and colleagues at 42 sites in the United States enrolled 783 patients aged 12 years and older who had plaque or guttate psoriasis and were candidates for phototherapy at home or in an office setting. New or established patients to the practices were accepted into the trial, while those treated with phototherapy within 14 days before the baseline visit were not. These entry criteria “are highly pragmatic and reflect routine clinical practice,” he said.

The researchers evenly stratified patients by skin types I and II, III and IV, and V and VI. They collected data from medical records or from an app on the patient’s cell phone, which captured the DLQI data. Study participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to office- or home-based phototherapy for 12 weeks at doses recommended in the 2019 AAD-National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines. This was followed by a 12-week observation period, which ended at 24 weeks. 

At baseline, the mean DLQI score of patients was 12.2, the mean PGA score was 3, and their mean body surface area affected was 12.5%. “These patients had pretty severe disease, long-standing disease, and about 12% were on biologics or nonbiologic systemic therapy during the study,” said Dr. Gelfand, also the director of the Psoriasis and Phototherapy Treatment Center at Penn. In addition, he said, “the average round-trip to receive phototherapy in the office was about 60 minutes.”
 

An Improvement in Health Equity

Following treatment at 12 weeks, 25.6% of patients in the office-based phototherapy group achieved a PGA of 0/1, compared with 32.8% of patients in the home-based phototherapy group (P >.0001 for non-inferiority). Similarly, 33.6% of patients in the office-based phototherapy group achieved a score of 5 or less on the DLQI, compared with 52.4% of patients in the home-based phototherapy group (P >.0001 for non-inferiority).

In subgroup analyses, patients with darkly pigmented skin did especially well on home phototherapy relative to office treatment. “This finding is an example of how the LITE study was specifically designed to improve health equity through an intentionally inclusive approach,” Dr. Gelfand said. Perhaps not surprisingly, patients in the home-based phototherapy arm were more adherent to treatment compared with those in the office-based arm (a mean of 26.8 sessions during the study period, compared with a mean of 17.9, respectively; P < .0001). “They also had higher cumulative doses of phototherapy and therefore higher episodes of treatments with erythema,” he noted.

Among patients who reported “itchy, sore, painful, or stinging” skin in the previous week, 63% characterized the degree of discomfort as “not at all or a little,” while 28% said “a lot,” and 9% said “very much.” No patients withdrew or stopped phototherapy during the trial because of treatment-related side effects, “so it’s very well tolerated,” Dr. Gelfand said.

“If a patient never had phototherapy before, they did just as well at home as they did in the office. This suggests that there’s no reason to insist that a patient use office-based phototherapy before using home phototherapy.”

The researchers studied the efficacy of narrow-band UVB in patients who had at least two treatments per week for 12 weeks. In this subgroup of patients, 60% achieved clear or almost clear skin and nearly 50% achieved the equivalent of a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 score.

“Home phototherapy is clearly non-inferior to office-based phototherapy across all skin types and both primary outcomes, PGA and DLQI, and both have excellent effectiveness and safety in real-world settings,” Dr. Gelfand concluded. “These data support the use of home phototherapy as a first-line treatment option for psoriasis, including those with no prior phototherapy experience.”

LITE Study Described as “Groundbreaking”

One of the session moderators, dermatologist Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, of the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, asked about the impact that lockdowns during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic had on the trial. “The study shut down for a couple weeks during the initial lockdown, but we got back up and running pretty quickly,” Dr. Gelfand responded. “We didn’t study that specific period of time, but the study was going on well before COVID and well after COVID restrictions were lifted. We’ll have to analyze that period of time you question but I suspect that it’s not driving the results we see.”

Asked to comment, Henry W. Lim, MD, a dermatologist with Henry Ford Health in Detroit, characterized the findings of the study as “groundbreaking, because it looked at a real-life situation in the use of phototherapy at home vs in the office, showing that the home phototherapy is not inferior to office-based phototherapy.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.