Key clinical point: Under maximum use conditions, ruxolitinib cream was well-tolerated and reduced the severity of atopic dermatitis (AD) in patients with ≥25% body surface area (BSA) involvement.

Major finding: Treatment-emergent adverse events (AE) of mostly mild and moderate intensity and treatment-related AE were reported by 31.7% and 9.8% of patients, respectively. At day 56, 94.6% of patients reported ≥75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 1 maximum-use trial including 41 patients with AD who had ≥25% BSA involvement and were administered 1.5% ruxolitinib cream twice daily for 28 days. Of these, 37 patients did not experience any safety concerns and continued treatment for an additional 28 days.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Incyte Corporation. Three authors declared being employees and shareholders of Incyte Corporation and other authors reported ties with several sources.

Source: Bissonnette R et al. A maximum-use trial of ruxolitinib cream in adolescents and adults with atopic dermatitis. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2022 (Apr 4). Doi: 10.1007/s40257-022-00690-3

Key clinical point: Under maximum use conditions, ruxolitinib cream was well-tolerated and reduced the severity of atopic dermatitis (AD) in patients with ≥25% body surface area (BSA) involvement.

Major finding: Treatment-emergent adverse events (AE) of mostly mild and moderate intensity and treatment-related AE were reported by 31.7% and 9.8% of patients, respectively. At day 56, 94.6% of patients reported ≥75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 1 maximum-use trial including 41 patients with AD who had ≥25% BSA involvement and were administered 1.5% ruxolitinib cream twice daily for 28 days. Of these, 37 patients did not experience any safety concerns and continued treatment for an additional 28 days.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Incyte Corporation. Three authors declared being employees and shareholders of Incyte Corporation and other authors reported ties with several sources.

Source: Bissonnette R et al. A maximum-use trial of ruxolitinib cream in adolescents and adults with atopic dermatitis. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2022 (Apr 4). Doi: 10.1007/s40257-022-00690-3

Key clinical point: Under maximum use conditions, ruxolitinib cream was well-tolerated and reduced the severity of atopic dermatitis (AD) in patients with ≥25% body surface area (BSA) involvement.

Major finding: Treatment-emergent adverse events (AE) of mostly mild and moderate intensity and treatment-related AE were reported by 31.7% and 9.8% of patients, respectively. At day 56, 94.6% of patients reported ≥75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 1 maximum-use trial including 41 patients with AD who had ≥25% BSA involvement and were administered 1.5% ruxolitinib cream twice daily for 28 days. Of these, 37 patients did not experience any safety concerns and continued treatment for an additional 28 days.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Incyte Corporation. Three authors declared being employees and shareholders of Incyte Corporation and other authors reported ties with several sources.

Source: Bissonnette R et al. A maximum-use trial of ruxolitinib cream in adolescents and adults with atopic dermatitis. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2022 (Apr 4). Doi: 10.1007/s40257-022-00690-3

Key clinical point: In patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD), baricitinib therapy resulted in rapid and sustained improvement in skin pain leading to an enhanced quality of life (QoL).

Major finding: Skin pain improved as early as by day 1 with 2 mg baricitinib (least square mean % change from baseline [Δ] −4.4%; P = .048) and by day 2 with 1 mg baricitinib (Δ −6.7%; P = .011) vs. placebo, with improvements maintained through week 16 for both baricitinib doses (P ≤ .05) and 70.9% vs. 10.4% of skin pain responders vs. nonresponders experiencing clinically meaningful improvement in QoL (P < .0001).

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 BREEZE-AD5 study including 440 adults with moderate-to-severe AD and inadequate response to topical therapy who were randomly assigned to receive once-daily 1 mg baricitinib, 2 mg baricitinib, or placebo for 16 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company. Three authors declared being employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly and other authors reported ties with several sources, including Eli Lilly.

Source: Rosmarin D et al. Rapid improvement in skin pain severity and its impact on quality of life in adult patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis from a double-blind, placebo-controlled baricitinib phase 3 study. J Cutan Med Surg. 2022 (Mar 31). Doi: 10.1177/12034754221088542

Key clinical point: In patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD), baricitinib therapy resulted in rapid and sustained improvement in skin pain leading to an enhanced quality of life (QoL).

Major finding: Skin pain improved as early as by day 1 with 2 mg baricitinib (least square mean % change from baseline [Δ] −4.4%; P = .048) and by day 2 with 1 mg baricitinib (Δ −6.7%; P = .011) vs. placebo, with improvements maintained through week 16 for both baricitinib doses (P ≤ .05) and 70.9% vs. 10.4% of skin pain responders vs. nonresponders experiencing clinically meaningful improvement in QoL (P < .0001).

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 BREEZE-AD5 study including 440 adults with moderate-to-severe AD and inadequate response to topical therapy who were randomly assigned to receive once-daily 1 mg baricitinib, 2 mg baricitinib, or placebo for 16 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company. Three authors declared being employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly and other authors reported ties with several sources, including Eli Lilly.

Source: Rosmarin D et al. Rapid improvement in skin pain severity and its impact on quality of life in adult patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis from a double-blind, placebo-controlled baricitinib phase 3 study. J Cutan Med Surg. 2022 (Mar 31). Doi: 10.1177/12034754221088542

Key clinical point: In patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD), baricitinib therapy resulted in rapid and sustained improvement in skin pain leading to an enhanced quality of life (QoL).

Major finding: Skin pain improved as early as by day 1 with 2 mg baricitinib (least square mean % change from baseline [Δ] −4.4%; P = .048) and by day 2 with 1 mg baricitinib (Δ −6.7%; P = .011) vs. placebo, with improvements maintained through week 16 for both baricitinib doses (P ≤ .05) and 70.9% vs. 10.4% of skin pain responders vs. nonresponders experiencing clinically meaningful improvement in QoL (P < .0001).

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 BREEZE-AD5 study including 440 adults with moderate-to-severe AD and inadequate response to topical therapy who were randomly assigned to receive once-daily 1 mg baricitinib, 2 mg baricitinib, or placebo for 16 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company. Three authors declared being employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly and other authors reported ties with several sources, including Eli Lilly.

Source: Rosmarin D et al. Rapid improvement in skin pain severity and its impact on quality of life in adult patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis from a double-blind, placebo-controlled baricitinib phase 3 study. J Cutan Med Surg. 2022 (Mar 31). Doi: 10.1177/12034754221088542

Key clinical point: Children born to mothers who had a cumulative exposure to psychological distress in the prenatal and postnatal periods were at an increased risk of developing atopic dermatitis (AD) at 1-2 years of age.

Major finding: Maternal psychological distress vs. no psychological distress in both prenatal and postnatal periods (adjusted relative risk [RR] 1.34; 95% CI 1.20-1.47) and only in the postnatal period (adjusted RR 1.23; 95% CI 1.07-1.39) was significantly associated with an increased risk of developing AD in children at 1-2 years of age.

Study details: This study analyzed maternal psychological distress during early pregnancy and 1 year after delivery in 8377 mother-child pairs, wherein the child had not developed AD by the age of 1 year.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology, Japan. K Murakami declared being an editorial board member of BMC Public Health.

Source: Kawaguchi C et al. Cumulative exposure to maternal psychological distress in the prenatal and postnatal periods and atopic dermatitis in children: Findings from the TMM BirThree Cohort Study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022;22:242 (Mar 24). Doi: 10.1186/s12884-022-04556-8

Key clinical point: Children born to mothers who had a cumulative exposure to psychological distress in the prenatal and postnatal periods were at an increased risk of developing atopic dermatitis (AD) at 1-2 years of age.

Major finding: Maternal psychological distress vs. no psychological distress in both prenatal and postnatal periods (adjusted relative risk [RR] 1.34; 95% CI 1.20-1.47) and only in the postnatal period (adjusted RR 1.23; 95% CI 1.07-1.39) was significantly associated with an increased risk of developing AD in children at 1-2 years of age.

Study details: This study analyzed maternal psychological distress during early pregnancy and 1 year after delivery in 8377 mother-child pairs, wherein the child had not developed AD by the age of 1 year.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology, Japan. K Murakami declared being an editorial board member of BMC Public Health.

Source: Kawaguchi C et al. Cumulative exposure to maternal psychological distress in the prenatal and postnatal periods and atopic dermatitis in children: Findings from the TMM BirThree Cohort Study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022;22:242 (Mar 24). Doi: 10.1186/s12884-022-04556-8

Key clinical point: Children born to mothers who had a cumulative exposure to psychological distress in the prenatal and postnatal periods were at an increased risk of developing atopic dermatitis (AD) at 1-2 years of age.

Major finding: Maternal psychological distress vs. no psychological distress in both prenatal and postnatal periods (adjusted relative risk [RR] 1.34; 95% CI 1.20-1.47) and only in the postnatal period (adjusted RR 1.23; 95% CI 1.07-1.39) was significantly associated with an increased risk of developing AD in children at 1-2 years of age.

Study details: This study analyzed maternal psychological distress during early pregnancy and 1 year after delivery in 8377 mother-child pairs, wherein the child had not developed AD by the age of 1 year.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology, Japan. K Murakami declared being an editorial board member of BMC Public Health.

Source: Kawaguchi C et al. Cumulative exposure to maternal psychological distress in the prenatal and postnatal periods and atopic dermatitis in children: Findings from the TMM BirThree Cohort Study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022;22:242 (Mar 24). Doi: 10.1186/s12884-022-04556-8

Key clinical point: Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) were more likely to develop atopic dermatitis (AD), particularly young (<45 years) and middle-aged (45-64 years) patients.

Major finding: The risk of developing AD was significantly higher in patients with vs. without CRS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.1952; 95% CI 1.1009-1.2976), especially among young (aHR 1.1491; 95% CI 1.0386-1.2713) and middle-aged (aHR 1.2944; 95% CI 1.1044-1.5171) patients.

Study details: This was a longitudinal cohort study that included 16,668 patients with CRS and 33,336 sociodemographically matched control individuals without CRS who were followed-up for 11 years.

Disclosures: This research was supported by Hallym University Research Fund and the National Research Foundation funded by the Korean government. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Son D-S et al. Chronic rhinosinusitis and the increased incidence of atopic dermatitis. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2022 (Mar 29). Doi: 10.1177/19458924221090050

Key clinical point: Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) were more likely to develop atopic dermatitis (AD), particularly young (<45 years) and middle-aged (45-64 years) patients.

Major finding: The risk of developing AD was significantly higher in patients with vs. without CRS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.1952; 95% CI 1.1009-1.2976), especially among young (aHR 1.1491; 95% CI 1.0386-1.2713) and middle-aged (aHR 1.2944; 95% CI 1.1044-1.5171) patients.

Study details: This was a longitudinal cohort study that included 16,668 patients with CRS and 33,336 sociodemographically matched control individuals without CRS who were followed-up for 11 years.

Disclosures: This research was supported by Hallym University Research Fund and the National Research Foundation funded by the Korean government. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Son D-S et al. Chronic rhinosinusitis and the increased incidence of atopic dermatitis. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2022 (Mar 29). Doi: 10.1177/19458924221090050

Key clinical point: Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) were more likely to develop atopic dermatitis (AD), particularly young (<45 years) and middle-aged (45-64 years) patients.

Major finding: The risk of developing AD was significantly higher in patients with vs. without CRS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.1952; 95% CI 1.1009-1.2976), especially among young (aHR 1.1491; 95% CI 1.0386-1.2713) and middle-aged (aHR 1.2944; 95% CI 1.1044-1.5171) patients.

Study details: This was a longitudinal cohort study that included 16,668 patients with CRS and 33,336 sociodemographically matched control individuals without CRS who were followed-up for 11 years.

Disclosures: This research was supported by Hallym University Research Fund and the National Research Foundation funded by the Korean government. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Son D-S et al. Chronic rhinosinusitis and the increased incidence of atopic dermatitis. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2022 (Mar 29). Doi: 10.1177/19458924221090050

Key clinical point: BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 mRNA (BioNTech Pfizer) vaccine is highly effective in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), with no indication for alternate vaccination strategies among patients receiving immunosuppressants.

Major finding: Patients with AD who received both doses of BNT162b2 vaccine vs. those who were not vaccinated had a significantly reduced risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.20), COVID-19-associated hospitalization (aHR 0.08), and COVID-19-associated mortality (aHR 0.04; all P < .001), with no impact of immunosuppressive drugs on vaccine efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 infection (P = .958).

Study details: This population-based cohort study evaluated 77,682 adults with AD, of which 58,582 patients had completed two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. AD Cohen declared serving as an advisor, investigator, or speaker for several pharmaceutical companies.

Source: Kridin K et al. Determinants and effectiveness of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination among patients with atopic dermatitis: A population-based study. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2022 (Mar 16). Doi: 10.1007/s40257-022-00672-5

Key clinical point: BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 mRNA (BioNTech Pfizer) vaccine is highly effective in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), with no indication for alternate vaccination strategies among patients receiving immunosuppressants.

Major finding: Patients with AD who received both doses of BNT162b2 vaccine vs. those who were not vaccinated had a significantly reduced risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.20), COVID-19-associated hospitalization (aHR 0.08), and COVID-19-associated mortality (aHR 0.04; all P < .001), with no impact of immunosuppressive drugs on vaccine efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 infection (P = .958).

Study details: This population-based cohort study evaluated 77,682 adults with AD, of which 58,582 patients had completed two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. AD Cohen declared serving as an advisor, investigator, or speaker for several pharmaceutical companies.

Source: Kridin K et al. Determinants and effectiveness of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination among patients with atopic dermatitis: A population-based study. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2022 (Mar 16). Doi: 10.1007/s40257-022-00672-5

Key clinical point: BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 mRNA (BioNTech Pfizer) vaccine is highly effective in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), with no indication for alternate vaccination strategies among patients receiving immunosuppressants.

Major finding: Patients with AD who received both doses of BNT162b2 vaccine vs. those who were not vaccinated had a significantly reduced risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.20), COVID-19-associated hospitalization (aHR 0.08), and COVID-19-associated mortality (aHR 0.04; all P < .001), with no impact of immunosuppressive drugs on vaccine efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 infection (P = .958).

Study details: This population-based cohort study evaluated 77,682 adults with AD, of which 58,582 patients had completed two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. AD Cohen declared serving as an advisor, investigator, or speaker for several pharmaceutical companies.

Source: Kridin K et al. Determinants and effectiveness of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination among patients with atopic dermatitis: A population-based study. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2022 (Mar 16). Doi: 10.1007/s40257-022-00672-5

Key clinical point: Both oral and topical Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) led to clinically meaningful improvement in the severity of atopic dermatitis (AD), with topical JAKi demonstrating an excellent safety profile and oral JAKi demonstrating an adverse effect (AE) profile that warrants monitoring.

Major finding: Patients receiving JAKi vs. placebo showed a significant improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (standardized mean difference [SMD] −0.79) and the pruritus numerical rating scale score (SMD −0.49; both P < .00001). Although patients in topical JAKi groups experienced no significant AE; however, those in oral JAKi groups were at an increased risk for ≥1 AE (odds ratio 1.23; P < .0001) with the most frequent AE being gastrointestinal disorders (P < .00001) and headache (P = .0003).

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 25 studies including 9931 patients with AD, of which 2383 and 7548 participants were involved in topical and oral JAKi studies, respectively.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. No conflicts of interest were reported.

Source: Chen J et al. the efficacy and safety of Janus kinase inhibitors in patients with atopic dermatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022 (Mar 28). Doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2022.03.039

Key clinical point: Both oral and topical Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) led to clinically meaningful improvement in the severity of atopic dermatitis (AD), with topical JAKi demonstrating an excellent safety profile and oral JAKi demonstrating an adverse effect (AE) profile that warrants monitoring.

Major finding: Patients receiving JAKi vs. placebo showed a significant improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (standardized mean difference [SMD] −0.79) and the pruritus numerical rating scale score (SMD −0.49; both P < .00001). Although patients in topical JAKi groups experienced no significant AE; however, those in oral JAKi groups were at an increased risk for ≥1 AE (odds ratio 1.23; P < .0001) with the most frequent AE being gastrointestinal disorders (P < .00001) and headache (P = .0003).

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 25 studies including 9931 patients with AD, of which 2383 and 7548 participants were involved in topical and oral JAKi studies, respectively.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. No conflicts of interest were reported.

Source: Chen J et al. the efficacy and safety of Janus kinase inhibitors in patients with atopic dermatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022 (Mar 28). Doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2022.03.039

Key clinical point: Both oral and topical Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) led to clinically meaningful improvement in the severity of atopic dermatitis (AD), with topical JAKi demonstrating an excellent safety profile and oral JAKi demonstrating an adverse effect (AE) profile that warrants monitoring.

Major finding: Patients receiving JAKi vs. placebo showed a significant improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (standardized mean difference [SMD] −0.79) and the pruritus numerical rating scale score (SMD −0.49; both P < .00001). Although patients in topical JAKi groups experienced no significant AE; however, those in oral JAKi groups were at an increased risk for ≥1 AE (odds ratio 1.23; P < .0001) with the most frequent AE being gastrointestinal disorders (P < .00001) and headache (P = .0003).

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 25 studies including 9931 patients with AD, of which 2383 and 7548 participants were involved in topical and oral JAKi studies, respectively.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. No conflicts of interest were reported.

Source: Chen J et al. the efficacy and safety of Janus kinase inhibitors in patients with atopic dermatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022 (Mar 28). Doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2022.03.039

Key clinical point: Dupilumab lowered SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody levels in unvaccinated patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) and COVID-19 infection; however, it did not impair antibody response in mRNA vaccinated patients with AD.

Major finding: SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody levels were significantly lower in unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 infection receiving dupilumab vs. systemic medications (P = .01) for AD, whereas they were similar in all vaccinated patients across the dupilumab, systemic medication, and topical therapy treatment groups (P > .18).

Study details: This study included patients with moderate-to-severe AD who were either infected with COVID-19 and were unvaccinated (n = 54) or had received a second mRNA vaccine dose ≥14 days before serum samples were collected (n = 180).

Disclosures: This work was supported by the Department of Dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, Regeneron, Sanofi, and the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. E Guttman-Yassky declared being an employee of Mount Sinai, receiving research funds, and serving as a consultant for several sources. AB Pavel declared having a research contract with Mount Sinai.

Source: Ungar B et al. The impact of dupilumab treatment on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-coronavirus disease 2019 antibody responses in patients with atopic dermatitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2022 (Mar 25). Doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2022.03.019

Key clinical point: Dupilumab lowered SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody levels in unvaccinated patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) and COVID-19 infection; however, it did not impair antibody response in mRNA vaccinated patients with AD.

Major finding: SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody levels were significantly lower in unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 infection receiving dupilumab vs. systemic medications (P = .01) for AD, whereas they were similar in all vaccinated patients across the dupilumab, systemic medication, and topical therapy treatment groups (P > .18).

Study details: This study included patients with moderate-to-severe AD who were either infected with COVID-19 and were unvaccinated (n = 54) or had received a second mRNA vaccine dose ≥14 days before serum samples were collected (n = 180).

Disclosures: This work was supported by the Department of Dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, Regeneron, Sanofi, and the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. E Guttman-Yassky declared being an employee of Mount Sinai, receiving research funds, and serving as a consultant for several sources. AB Pavel declared having a research contract with Mount Sinai.

Source: Ungar B et al. The impact of dupilumab treatment on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-coronavirus disease 2019 antibody responses in patients with atopic dermatitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2022 (Mar 25). Doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2022.03.019

Key clinical point: Dupilumab lowered SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody levels in unvaccinated patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) and COVID-19 infection; however, it did not impair antibody response in mRNA vaccinated patients with AD.

Major finding: SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody levels were significantly lower in unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 infection receiving dupilumab vs. systemic medications (P = .01) for AD, whereas they were similar in all vaccinated patients across the dupilumab, systemic medication, and topical therapy treatment groups (P > .18).

Study details: This study included patients with moderate-to-severe AD who were either infected with COVID-19 and were unvaccinated (n = 54) or had received a second mRNA vaccine dose ≥14 days before serum samples were collected (n = 180).

Disclosures: This work was supported by the Department of Dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, Regeneron, Sanofi, and the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. E Guttman-Yassky declared being an employee of Mount Sinai, receiving research funds, and serving as a consultant for several sources. AB Pavel declared having a research contract with Mount Sinai.

Source: Ungar B et al. The impact of dupilumab treatment on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-coronavirus disease 2019 antibody responses in patients with atopic dermatitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2022 (Mar 25). Doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2022.03.019

Key clinical point: In patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), once-daily 200 mg abrocitinib or 30 mg upadacitinib more effectively improved Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) scores than dupilumab, whereas improvement with baricitinib and tralokinumab were comparable to dupilumab.

Major finding: Compared with dupilumab, up to 16 weeks of treatment with 200 mg abrocitinib (mean difference [MD] 2.2; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.2-4.0) or 30 mg upadacitinib (MD 2.7; 95% CrI 0.6-4.7) led to greater reduction in EASI scores, whereas 600 mg tralokinumab followed by 300 mg every 2 weeks (MD −3.5; 95% CrI −5.8 to −1.3) and 2 mg baricitinib daily (MD −5.2; 95% CrI −7.5 to −2.9) and 4 mg baricitinib daily (MD −3.2; 95% CrI −5.7 to −0.8) were associated with a lesser reduction.

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 60 trials including 16,579 children and adults with moderate-to-severe AD.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research Career Development Fellowship. The authors declared serving as consultants, co-principal/chief investigators, or employees or receiving compensation, research grants, fees, and funding from several sources.

Source: Drucker AM et al. Systemic immunomodulatory treatments for atopic dermatitis: Update of a living systematic review and network meta-analysis. JAMA Dermatol. 2022 (Mar 16). Doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.0455

Key clinical point: In patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), once-daily 200 mg abrocitinib or 30 mg upadacitinib more effectively improved Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) scores than dupilumab, whereas improvement with baricitinib and tralokinumab were comparable to dupilumab.

Major finding: Compared with dupilumab, up to 16 weeks of treatment with 200 mg abrocitinib (mean difference [MD] 2.2; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.2-4.0) or 30 mg upadacitinib (MD 2.7; 95% CrI 0.6-4.7) led to greater reduction in EASI scores, whereas 600 mg tralokinumab followed by 300 mg every 2 weeks (MD −3.5; 95% CrI −5.8 to −1.3) and 2 mg baricitinib daily (MD −5.2; 95% CrI −7.5 to −2.9) and 4 mg baricitinib daily (MD −3.2; 95% CrI −5.7 to −0.8) were associated with a lesser reduction.

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 60 trials including 16,579 children and adults with moderate-to-severe AD.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research Career Development Fellowship. The authors declared serving as consultants, co-principal/chief investigators, or employees or receiving compensation, research grants, fees, and funding from several sources.

Source: Drucker AM et al. Systemic immunomodulatory treatments for atopic dermatitis: Update of a living systematic review and network meta-analysis. JAMA Dermatol. 2022 (Mar 16). Doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.0455

Key clinical point: In patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), once-daily 200 mg abrocitinib or 30 mg upadacitinib more effectively improved Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) scores than dupilumab, whereas improvement with baricitinib and tralokinumab were comparable to dupilumab.

Major finding: Compared with dupilumab, up to 16 weeks of treatment with 200 mg abrocitinib (mean difference [MD] 2.2; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.2-4.0) or 30 mg upadacitinib (MD 2.7; 95% CrI 0.6-4.7) led to greater reduction in EASI scores, whereas 600 mg tralokinumab followed by 300 mg every 2 weeks (MD −3.5; 95% CrI −5.8 to −1.3) and 2 mg baricitinib daily (MD −5.2; 95% CrI −7.5 to −2.9) and 4 mg baricitinib daily (MD −3.2; 95% CrI −5.7 to −0.8) were associated with a lesser reduction.

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 60 trials including 16,579 children and adults with moderate-to-severe AD.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research Career Development Fellowship. The authors declared serving as consultants, co-principal/chief investigators, or employees or receiving compensation, research grants, fees, and funding from several sources.

Source: Drucker AM et al. Systemic immunomodulatory treatments for atopic dermatitis: Update of a living systematic review and network meta-analysis. JAMA Dermatol. 2022 (Mar 16). Doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.0455

Most people believe that, if you want to conduct clinical research, the best path is going into academic medicine. However, for physicians who want both the benefits of practicing in the community setting and a career in research, there are many ways to both treat patients and have a rewarding experience making a difference in facilitating treatment options that can become available to patients.

Our practices, Capital Digestive Care in Silver Spring, Md., and the PACT-Gastroenterology Center in Hamden, Conn, have been conducting clinical trials for many years on serious diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease, gastroparesis, and most recently, recurrent infection of Clostridioides difficile. We both also worked on the National Institutes of Health–sponsored Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study.
 

Academic setting vs. private practice

Research in our practices is similar to the academic setting with regards to how studies are conducted and structured since everyone involved in the study follows the same protocol. The benefit of being in a community setting is that you have a wide range of patients that you are seeing every day.

Getting involved in research is not for everyone, but for those who do get involved, the decision is a rewarding one that can make a significant difference in patients’ lives. Offering new therapeutics for disease states is a powerful tool for a provider, and it is exciting and rewarding to engage in the research considering new mechanisms of action and new approaches to treating diseases.
 

Finding a better treatment for C. difficile

For example, C. difficile is common in older people who’ve received antibiotics for other infections, especially residents of long-term care facilities. These residents have frequent antibiotic exposure and are already vulnerable to infection because of advanced age, multiple comorbid conditions, and communal living conditions. Once a case of C. difficile is diagnosed in a nursing home, it can spread through contaminated equipment, environments, or hands.

The treatment for C. difficile is to control the bacteria with antibiotics, but spores remain, so after a few days in certain people the spores germinate, and the C. difficile returns: a recurrence. It used to be that, after a second reoccurrence, you would send the patient for a fecal transplant, which was a scarce resource and a challenging process.

To perform a fecal transplant, you would need a spouse or a family member to provide a stool sample. After their stool was tested, the family member would need to process their stool in a blender with saline and draw it up in syringes. Once you had the material, the patient would need to go through a full colonoscopy to infuse the material into the colon. Of course, increased restrictions and safety precautions from the COVID-19 pandemic have made fecal transplants even more complex.

Given all these challenges, conducting research considering microbiota-based live biotherapeutics, the term the Food and Drug Administration uses for pharmaceutically produced forms of fecal microbiota transplantation, is very appealing. There are several different formulations that have come through clinical trials recently including RBX-2660, SER-109, and CP101.

SER-109 is an orally taken treatment produced by Seres Therapeutics. Once patients with acute recurrence of C. difficile are treated with standard antibiotics, they are given a course of four SER-109 capsules for 3 days. The results of the SER-109 study were published recently in the New England Journal of Medicine. This is the first phase 3 clinical trial published on a microbiota-based live biotherapeutic treatment, and the results were exciting, showing a clear efficacy benefit for SER-109.

In the case of C. difficile, we understand the deficiency that SER-109 replaces. SER-109 changes the microbiome within the colon so that the environment becomes less hospitable to C. difficile, which helps to better resist recurrence. With this therapy, we are replenishing the good bacteria, which helps to keep C. difficile from regerminating.

The therapy showed excellent results through the significant difference in rates of recurrence seen in patients with recurrent C. difficile infection following 8 weeks of follow-up. This is exciting because we believe the future of therapeutics for many diseases might involve this type of manipulation of the microbiota, and this is the first to show such an impact with this class of therapeutic.


 

Joining a practice that conducts clinical research

Within private practice settings, the opportunity to participate in clinical trials usually involves somewhat less bureaucracy and a more patient-centric approach. Private practitioners can also be selective in their research, and we only participate in a handful of selected trials that fit with the expertise of the providers in our practice.

We find the people best suited for involvement in pharmaceutical trials are those providers who want to participate in the scientific process and who see specialized patient populations with the diseases treated by the therapies being studied. In our experience, the young practitioner who enjoyed conducting research in fellowship, who attends national conferences, who keeps track of cutting-edge therapeutics within gastroenterology, and who is highly motivated will be successful in providing this service to their patients.

If you’re an early-career physician who would like to explore clinical research in private practice, there are a several things to look for when considering joining a practice.

Make sure the group has a support infrastructure and a clear compensation model for physicians who want to conduct research. Another important consideration is the kind of support staff the practice provides to manage clinical trials. Does the practice have physician and physician assistant subinvestigators and certified clinical research coordinators? It would be smart to research what kind of capabilities the practice has and inquire about what kind of commitment they have in terms of supporting research efforts.

If the practice you’re thinking of joining has a well-supported research program, you’ll soon be on the way to studying innovative treatments for a wide range of diseases affecting our communities, such as Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, celiac disease, and many others. Many practices also participate in trials assessing new technologies in endoscopy, such as capsule endoscopy of the colon.

It’s incredibly important for community practices to engage in studies and actively recruit younger physicians to participate in their research programs. It changes the character of the practice by bringing a certain level of scholarly activity that benefits the patients we serve, the field of gastroenterology, and medicine as a whole.

Dr. Feuerstadt is a practicing gastroenterologist at the PACT-Gastroenterology Center and is affiliated with Yale New Haven Hospital. Dr. Korman is codirector of Chevy Chase Clinical Research at Capital Digestive Care and a principal investigator in the Seres Therapeutics phase 3 ECOSPOR III study evaluating SER-109. Dr. Feuerstadt disclosed relationships with SERES Therapeutics, Ferring Rebiotix, Finch Therapeutics, and Merck. Dr. Korman disclosed a relationship with SERES Therapeutics.

Most people believe that, if you want to conduct clinical research, the best path is going into academic medicine. However, for physicians who want both the benefits of practicing in the community setting and a career in research, there are many ways to both treat patients and have a rewarding experience making a difference in facilitating treatment options that can become available to patients.

Our practices, Capital Digestive Care in Silver Spring, Md., and the PACT-Gastroenterology Center in Hamden, Conn, have been conducting clinical trials for many years on serious diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease, gastroparesis, and most recently, recurrent infection of Clostridioides difficile. We both also worked on the National Institutes of Health–sponsored Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study.
 

Academic setting vs. private practice

Research in our practices is similar to the academic setting with regards to how studies are conducted and structured since everyone involved in the study follows the same protocol. The benefit of being in a community setting is that you have a wide range of patients that you are seeing every day.

Getting involved in research is not for everyone, but for those who do get involved, the decision is a rewarding one that can make a significant difference in patients’ lives. Offering new therapeutics for disease states is a powerful tool for a provider, and it is exciting and rewarding to engage in the research considering new mechanisms of action and new approaches to treating diseases.
 

Finding a better treatment for C. difficile

For example, C. difficile is common in older people who’ve received antibiotics for other infections, especially residents of long-term care facilities. These residents have frequent antibiotic exposure and are already vulnerable to infection because of advanced age, multiple comorbid conditions, and communal living conditions. Once a case of C. difficile is diagnosed in a nursing home, it can spread through contaminated equipment, environments, or hands.

The treatment for C. difficile is to control the bacteria with antibiotics, but spores remain, so after a few days in certain people the spores germinate, and the C. difficile returns: a recurrence. It used to be that, after a second reoccurrence, you would send the patient for a fecal transplant, which was a scarce resource and a challenging process.

To perform a fecal transplant, you would need a spouse or a family member to provide a stool sample. After their stool was tested, the family member would need to process their stool in a blender with saline and draw it up in syringes. Once you had the material, the patient would need to go through a full colonoscopy to infuse the material into the colon. Of course, increased restrictions and safety precautions from the COVID-19 pandemic have made fecal transplants even more complex.

Given all these challenges, conducting research considering microbiota-based live biotherapeutics, the term the Food and Drug Administration uses for pharmaceutically produced forms of fecal microbiota transplantation, is very appealing. There are several different formulations that have come through clinical trials recently including RBX-2660, SER-109, and CP101.

SER-109 is an orally taken treatment produced by Seres Therapeutics. Once patients with acute recurrence of C. difficile are treated with standard antibiotics, they are given a course of four SER-109 capsules for 3 days. The results of the SER-109 study were published recently in the New England Journal of Medicine. This is the first phase 3 clinical trial published on a microbiota-based live biotherapeutic treatment, and the results were exciting, showing a clear efficacy benefit for SER-109.

In the case of C. difficile, we understand the deficiency that SER-109 replaces. SER-109 changes the microbiome within the colon so that the environment becomes less hospitable to C. difficile, which helps to better resist recurrence. With this therapy, we are replenishing the good bacteria, which helps to keep C. difficile from regerminating.

The therapy showed excellent results through the significant difference in rates of recurrence seen in patients with recurrent C. difficile infection following 8 weeks of follow-up. This is exciting because we believe the future of therapeutics for many diseases might involve this type of manipulation of the microbiota, and this is the first to show such an impact with this class of therapeutic.


 

Joining a practice that conducts clinical research

Within private practice settings, the opportunity to participate in clinical trials usually involves somewhat less bureaucracy and a more patient-centric approach. Private practitioners can also be selective in their research, and we only participate in a handful of selected trials that fit with the expertise of the providers in our practice.

We find the people best suited for involvement in pharmaceutical trials are those providers who want to participate in the scientific process and who see specialized patient populations with the diseases treated by the therapies being studied. In our experience, the young practitioner who enjoyed conducting research in fellowship, who attends national conferences, who keeps track of cutting-edge therapeutics within gastroenterology, and who is highly motivated will be successful in providing this service to their patients.

If you’re an early-career physician who would like to explore clinical research in private practice, there are a several things to look for when considering joining a practice.

Make sure the group has a support infrastructure and a clear compensation model for physicians who want to conduct research. Another important consideration is the kind of support staff the practice provides to manage clinical trials. Does the practice have physician and physician assistant subinvestigators and certified clinical research coordinators? It would be smart to research what kind of capabilities the practice has and inquire about what kind of commitment they have in terms of supporting research efforts.

If the practice you’re thinking of joining has a well-supported research program, you’ll soon be on the way to studying innovative treatments for a wide range of diseases affecting our communities, such as Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, celiac disease, and many others. Many practices also participate in trials assessing new technologies in endoscopy, such as capsule endoscopy of the colon.

It’s incredibly important for community practices to engage in studies and actively recruit younger physicians to participate in their research programs. It changes the character of the practice by bringing a certain level of scholarly activity that benefits the patients we serve, the field of gastroenterology, and medicine as a whole.

Dr. Feuerstadt is a practicing gastroenterologist at the PACT-Gastroenterology Center and is affiliated with Yale New Haven Hospital. Dr. Korman is codirector of Chevy Chase Clinical Research at Capital Digestive Care and a principal investigator in the Seres Therapeutics phase 3 ECOSPOR III study evaluating SER-109. Dr. Feuerstadt disclosed relationships with SERES Therapeutics, Ferring Rebiotix, Finch Therapeutics, and Merck. Dr. Korman disclosed a relationship with SERES Therapeutics.

Most people believe that, if you want to conduct clinical research, the best path is going into academic medicine. However, for physicians who want both the benefits of practicing in the community setting and a career in research, there are many ways to both treat patients and have a rewarding experience making a difference in facilitating treatment options that can become available to patients.

Our practices, Capital Digestive Care in Silver Spring, Md., and the PACT-Gastroenterology Center in Hamden, Conn, have been conducting clinical trials for many years on serious diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease, gastroparesis, and most recently, recurrent infection of Clostridioides difficile. We both also worked on the National Institutes of Health–sponsored Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study.
 

Academic setting vs. private practice

Research in our practices is similar to the academic setting with regards to how studies are conducted and structured since everyone involved in the study follows the same protocol. The benefit of being in a community setting is that you have a wide range of patients that you are seeing every day.

Getting involved in research is not for everyone, but for those who do get involved, the decision is a rewarding one that can make a significant difference in patients’ lives. Offering new therapeutics for disease states is a powerful tool for a provider, and it is exciting and rewarding to engage in the research considering new mechanisms of action and new approaches to treating diseases.
 

Finding a better treatment for C. difficile

For example, C. difficile is common in older people who’ve received antibiotics for other infections, especially residents of long-term care facilities. These residents have frequent antibiotic exposure and are already vulnerable to infection because of advanced age, multiple comorbid conditions, and communal living conditions. Once a case of C. difficile is diagnosed in a nursing home, it can spread through contaminated equipment, environments, or hands.

The treatment for C. difficile is to control the bacteria with antibiotics, but spores remain, so after a few days in certain people the spores germinate, and the C. difficile returns: a recurrence. It used to be that, after a second reoccurrence, you would send the patient for a fecal transplant, which was a scarce resource and a challenging process.

To perform a fecal transplant, you would need a spouse or a family member to provide a stool sample. After their stool was tested, the family member would need to process their stool in a blender with saline and draw it up in syringes. Once you had the material, the patient would need to go through a full colonoscopy to infuse the material into the colon. Of course, increased restrictions and safety precautions from the COVID-19 pandemic have made fecal transplants even more complex.

Given all these challenges, conducting research considering microbiota-based live biotherapeutics, the term the Food and Drug Administration uses for pharmaceutically produced forms of fecal microbiota transplantation, is very appealing. There are several different formulations that have come through clinical trials recently including RBX-2660, SER-109, and CP101.

SER-109 is an orally taken treatment produced by Seres Therapeutics. Once patients with acute recurrence of C. difficile are treated with standard antibiotics, they are given a course of four SER-109 capsules for 3 days. The results of the SER-109 study were published recently in the New England Journal of Medicine. This is the first phase 3 clinical trial published on a microbiota-based live biotherapeutic treatment, and the results were exciting, showing a clear efficacy benefit for SER-109.

In the case of C. difficile, we understand the deficiency that SER-109 replaces. SER-109 changes the microbiome within the colon so that the environment becomes less hospitable to C. difficile, which helps to better resist recurrence. With this therapy, we are replenishing the good bacteria, which helps to keep C. difficile from regerminating.

The therapy showed excellent results through the significant difference in rates of recurrence seen in patients with recurrent C. difficile infection following 8 weeks of follow-up. This is exciting because we believe the future of therapeutics for many diseases might involve this type of manipulation of the microbiota, and this is the first to show such an impact with this class of therapeutic.


 

Joining a practice that conducts clinical research

Within private practice settings, the opportunity to participate in clinical trials usually involves somewhat less bureaucracy and a more patient-centric approach. Private practitioners can also be selective in their research, and we only participate in a handful of selected trials that fit with the expertise of the providers in our practice.

We find the people best suited for involvement in pharmaceutical trials are those providers who want to participate in the scientific process and who see specialized patient populations with the diseases treated by the therapies being studied. In our experience, the young practitioner who enjoyed conducting research in fellowship, who attends national conferences, who keeps track of cutting-edge therapeutics within gastroenterology, and who is highly motivated will be successful in providing this service to their patients.

If you’re an early-career physician who would like to explore clinical research in private practice, there are a several things to look for when considering joining a practice.

Make sure the group has a support infrastructure and a clear compensation model for physicians who want to conduct research. Another important consideration is the kind of support staff the practice provides to manage clinical trials. Does the practice have physician and physician assistant subinvestigators and certified clinical research coordinators? It would be smart to research what kind of capabilities the practice has and inquire about what kind of commitment they have in terms of supporting research efforts.

If the practice you’re thinking of joining has a well-supported research program, you’ll soon be on the way to studying innovative treatments for a wide range of diseases affecting our communities, such as Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, celiac disease, and many others. Many practices also participate in trials assessing new technologies in endoscopy, such as capsule endoscopy of the colon.

It’s incredibly important for community practices to engage in studies and actively recruit younger physicians to participate in their research programs. It changes the character of the practice by bringing a certain level of scholarly activity that benefits the patients we serve, the field of gastroenterology, and medicine as a whole.

Dr. Feuerstadt is a practicing gastroenterologist at the PACT-Gastroenterology Center and is affiliated with Yale New Haven Hospital. Dr. Korman is codirector of Chevy Chase Clinical Research at Capital Digestive Care and a principal investigator in the Seres Therapeutics phase 3 ECOSPOR III study evaluating SER-109. Dr. Feuerstadt disclosed relationships with SERES Therapeutics, Ferring Rebiotix, Finch Therapeutics, and Merck. Dr. Korman disclosed a relationship with SERES Therapeutics.

It took me a little while to get started on this assignment. What would be most useful to young gastroenterologists embarking on their careers? When I asked around, I heard that many of you wanted me to describe challenges and decision points. The following list is vaguely chronological, surely noncomprehensive, and meant to serve as a starting point.

1. To stay in basic science or return to patient care

My start in science was rocky. I had come to the United States for a post-doc after medical school in Germany. I had never pipetted before. It was the early days of array technologies, and the lab was very technical and basic. We made our own arrays and our own analytics, and none of my experiments worked. So, I spent 1 year feeling like I made no progress – but in hindsight I appreciate the tremendous growth in these formative years honing inquiry and persistence, as well as building resilience. I added a third year as some results were finally emerging; however, the bedside started to feel very far away. I could not ignore the tug back to the patient care, and after contemplating a PhD program, I decided to apply for residency in a physician-scientist pathway. Given the streamlined training that allowed for science and clinical education in an organized fashion, I also decided to stay in the U.S. This of course had vast personal consequences, which I did not fully appreciate at the time.

Residency was another time of immense growth, I was the only “foreign medical graduate” and had a lot to catch up on, but I enjoyed my amazing peers and the hands-on learning.

Pearl: Follow your passion. Not what makes most sense or what someone wants for you or what you could achieve given your past work. Do what will get you up in the morning and add a bounce to your step.
 

2. To go for big impact or climate

At UCSD at the time, there was a culture of impactful mega-labs, up 30 post-docs, often with many working on the same project with the ones finishing first garnering the publication. This created a “go big or go home” (literally) atmosphere. As part of the PSTP program, I was supported by the GI T32 and, being “free labor,” had a pretty wide array of labs to choose from. To the program director’s surprise, I settled on a fairly junior investigator, who was a fellow gastroenterologist and took a personal interest in my career. When making that decision, I prioritized climate over outcome. I remember thinking to myself that how I spent my time was just as important as the potential outcome of the time spent. Through my years in Dr. John Carethers’ lab, I gained insight into his administrative and leadership roles which added another dimension to our mentorship relationship. These years were fun and productive, and our mentorship grew into a friendship.

Pearl: Look for the right people to work with. Particularly who you work for. Everything else is secondary as the right people will set the tone and most influence your day-to-day experience, which is the foundation of your success.

3. To cultivate a life outside of academia

When I turned 30, I remember driving down Interstate 5 in San Diego and taking stock. Yes, I loved clinical work, I felt valued, and was in a stimulating supportive environment. Yet, I was so immersed that everything else seemed to take a back seat. I made the conscious decision on that drive to prioritize life outside of academia. It is not like I did not have one, I just decided to set an intention so it would not get away from me. I continue to make a conscious effort to be present for my husband, my kids, my family – to take time and spend it together without work bleeding into it. And since this is a goal in and of itself, there is no conflict! Through less travel and no more late nights or weekends, your nonacademic life will flourish.

Pearl: Deliberately prioritize your family and hobbies in the long run. Make key decisions with that in mind.
 

4. To grow your own program or lead others

When we moved to Chicago for my husband’s residency (he went to medical school as his third career at age 35), I was very excited to build my own comprehensive GI cancer genetics program at Northwestern. It was a little scary but also fun to now run my own lab and try to connect the clinical community around hereditary GI cancers. The program was moving along nicely when I received a generic letter asking for applications to become division chief at the neighboring University of Illinois. The letter concluded with an enticing “Chicago is a vibrant city,” so clearly it was meant for a broad audience. I was not sure what to do and again took stock. Did I want to continue to increase the impact of my own work – clearly there was a lot more ground to cover. Or, did I want to be part of making further-reaching decisions? I had been approached by fellows who wanted to be recruited, and I had ideas for programs and thoughts around processes. While my input was valued, I was not the ultimate decision maker. I decided that I either focus on one or the other and so applied for the position and then took the leap.

Pearl: There are many forks and they will present when you do not expect them. Assess and consider. Also know yourself – not everything that is attainable is desirable.
 

5. To have greater influence or stay with what you know

Becoming a division chief was transformative. Learning to integrate the needs of various and sometimes conflicting stakeholders, running an operation but also thinking strategically and mission-based – I was drinking from a firehose. How to measure success as a leader? I was fortunate to enter the division at a turbulent time where much rebuilding was needed and it was easy to implement and see change.

Pearl: Again know yourself – not everything that is attainable is desirable. But also – take risks. What is the worst that can happen? Growth may not be attained by waiting.
 

6. To be spread too thin or close doors

As you develop your focus and expertise while implementing No. 3, you will run out of hours in the day. This means you will need to become more and more efficient, as in delegating (and letting go) where you can and doing fewer nonessential tasks. However, you want to think hard about closing doors completely. I have been careful to hone and keep my endoscopy skills as well as my scientific output. To leave the doors ajar, I have tried to find ways to be very deliberate with my involvement and also understand that at some point it may make sense to close a door.

Pearl: Do not try to do everything well, you will risk doing everything poorly. Work on “good enough” for tasks that can be very involved. Think hard before permanently leaving something behind as you may lose flexibility down the road.
 

7. To enjoy fruits of labor or continue to grow

A question I get asked often is regarding the ideal time to move. In my mind, there is no perfect time. It depends on your satisfaction with your current position (see No. 2), your personal situation (see No. 3), and what you want at that juncture (see No. 5). At some point, one may want to stay awhile and enjoy. Or continue to change and grow – both have their merits and there is no right or wrong.

Pearl: When contemplating next steps, go back to your passion and priorities. Has anything shifted? Are your goals being met? Are you enjoying yourself? Advice can be helpful but also confusing. Remember, no one knows you like you do.
 

8. To show tangible results or build out relationships

Over time, as you become more and more efficient, you simultaneously need to spend more time fostering relationships. This feels strange at first as it is the opposite of a fast-paced to-do list and the “results” appear elusive. Build in time for relating – with peers, superiors, fellows, members of your lab.

Pearl: Form relationships early and often. Take care of them (No. 3) and include relationship building into your workstream – I promise it will make your path more successful and satisfying.


I hope this list shows that there are many forks and no one right way. Advice is helpful and subjective. No path is the same, and it truly is yours to shape. Be thoughtful and enjoy – your journey will be amazing and full of surprises.
 

Dr. Jung is professor and chair, and the Robert G. Petersdorf Endowed Chair in Medicine, in the department of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle. She is on Twitter @barbarahjung. She has no conflicts of interest.

It took me a little while to get started on this assignment. What would be most useful to young gastroenterologists embarking on their careers? When I asked around, I heard that many of you wanted me to describe challenges and decision points. The following list is vaguely chronological, surely noncomprehensive, and meant to serve as a starting point.

1. To stay in basic science or return to patient care

My start in science was rocky. I had come to the United States for a post-doc after medical school in Germany. I had never pipetted before. It was the early days of array technologies, and the lab was very technical and basic. We made our own arrays and our own analytics, and none of my experiments worked. So, I spent 1 year feeling like I made no progress – but in hindsight I appreciate the tremendous growth in these formative years honing inquiry and persistence, as well as building resilience. I added a third year as some results were finally emerging; however, the bedside started to feel very far away. I could not ignore the tug back to the patient care, and after contemplating a PhD program, I decided to apply for residency in a physician-scientist pathway. Given the streamlined training that allowed for science and clinical education in an organized fashion, I also decided to stay in the U.S. This of course had vast personal consequences, which I did not fully appreciate at the time.

Residency was another time of immense growth, I was the only “foreign medical graduate” and had a lot to catch up on, but I enjoyed my amazing peers and the hands-on learning.

Pearl: Follow your passion. Not what makes most sense or what someone wants for you or what you could achieve given your past work. Do what will get you up in the morning and add a bounce to your step.
 

2. To go for big impact or climate

At UCSD at the time, there was a culture of impactful mega-labs, up 30 post-docs, often with many working on the same project with the ones finishing first garnering the publication. This created a “go big or go home” (literally) atmosphere. As part of the PSTP program, I was supported by the GI T32 and, being “free labor,” had a pretty wide array of labs to choose from. To the program director’s surprise, I settled on a fairly junior investigator, who was a fellow gastroenterologist and took a personal interest in my career. When making that decision, I prioritized climate over outcome. I remember thinking to myself that how I spent my time was just as important as the potential outcome of the time spent. Through my years in Dr. John Carethers’ lab, I gained insight into his administrative and leadership roles which added another dimension to our mentorship relationship. These years were fun and productive, and our mentorship grew into a friendship.

Pearl: Look for the right people to work with. Particularly who you work for. Everything else is secondary as the right people will set the tone and most influence your day-to-day experience, which is the foundation of your success.

3. To cultivate a life outside of academia

When I turned 30, I remember driving down Interstate 5 in San Diego and taking stock. Yes, I loved clinical work, I felt valued, and was in a stimulating supportive environment. Yet, I was so immersed that everything else seemed to take a back seat. I made the conscious decision on that drive to prioritize life outside of academia. It is not like I did not have one, I just decided to set an intention so it would not get away from me. I continue to make a conscious effort to be present for my husband, my kids, my family – to take time and spend it together without work bleeding into it. And since this is a goal in and of itself, there is no conflict! Through less travel and no more late nights or weekends, your nonacademic life will flourish.

Pearl: Deliberately prioritize your family and hobbies in the long run. Make key decisions with that in mind.
 

4. To grow your own program or lead others

When we moved to Chicago for my husband’s residency (he went to medical school as his third career at age 35), I was very excited to build my own comprehensive GI cancer genetics program at Northwestern. It was a little scary but also fun to now run my own lab and try to connect the clinical community around hereditary GI cancers. The program was moving along nicely when I received a generic letter asking for applications to become division chief at the neighboring University of Illinois. The letter concluded with an enticing “Chicago is a vibrant city,” so clearly it was meant for a broad audience. I was not sure what to do and again took stock. Did I want to continue to increase the impact of my own work – clearly there was a lot more ground to cover. Or, did I want to be part of making further-reaching decisions? I had been approached by fellows who wanted to be recruited, and I had ideas for programs and thoughts around processes. While my input was valued, I was not the ultimate decision maker. I decided that I either focus on one or the other and so applied for the position and then took the leap.

Pearl: There are many forks and they will present when you do not expect them. Assess and consider. Also know yourself – not everything that is attainable is desirable.
 

5. To have greater influence or stay with what you know

Becoming a division chief was transformative. Learning to integrate the needs of various and sometimes conflicting stakeholders, running an operation but also thinking strategically and mission-based – I was drinking from a firehose. How to measure success as a leader? I was fortunate to enter the division at a turbulent time where much rebuilding was needed and it was easy to implement and see change.

Pearl: Again know yourself – not everything that is attainable is desirable. But also – take risks. What is the worst that can happen? Growth may not be attained by waiting.
 

6. To be spread too thin or close doors

As you develop your focus and expertise while implementing No. 3, you will run out of hours in the day. This means you will need to become more and more efficient, as in delegating (and letting go) where you can and doing fewer nonessential tasks. However, you want to think hard about closing doors completely. I have been careful to hone and keep my endoscopy skills as well as my scientific output. To leave the doors ajar, I have tried to find ways to be very deliberate with my involvement and also understand that at some point it may make sense to close a door.

Pearl: Do not try to do everything well, you will risk doing everything poorly. Work on “good enough” for tasks that can be very involved. Think hard before permanently leaving something behind as you may lose flexibility down the road.
 

7. To enjoy fruits of labor or continue to grow

A question I get asked often is regarding the ideal time to move. In my mind, there is no perfect time. It depends on your satisfaction with your current position (see No. 2), your personal situation (see No. 3), and what you want at that juncture (see No. 5). At some point, one may want to stay awhile and enjoy. Or continue to change and grow – both have their merits and there is no right or wrong.

Pearl: When contemplating next steps, go back to your passion and priorities. Has anything shifted? Are your goals being met? Are you enjoying yourself? Advice can be helpful but also confusing. Remember, no one knows you like you do.
 

8. To show tangible results or build out relationships

Over time, as you become more and more efficient, you simultaneously need to spend more time fostering relationships. This feels strange at first as it is the opposite of a fast-paced to-do list and the “results” appear elusive. Build in time for relating – with peers, superiors, fellows, members of your lab.

Pearl: Form relationships early and often. Take care of them (No. 3) and include relationship building into your workstream – I promise it will make your path more successful and satisfying.


I hope this list shows that there are many forks and no one right way. Advice is helpful and subjective. No path is the same, and it truly is yours to shape. Be thoughtful and enjoy – your journey will be amazing and full of surprises.
 

Dr. Jung is professor and chair, and the Robert G. Petersdorf Endowed Chair in Medicine, in the department of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle. She is on Twitter @barbarahjung. She has no conflicts of interest.

It took me a little while to get started on this assignment. What would be most useful to young gastroenterologists embarking on their careers? When I asked around, I heard that many of you wanted me to describe challenges and decision points. The following list is vaguely chronological, surely noncomprehensive, and meant to serve as a starting point.

1. To stay in basic science or return to patient care

My start in science was rocky. I had come to the United States for a post-doc after medical school in Germany. I had never pipetted before. It was the early days of array technologies, and the lab was very technical and basic. We made our own arrays and our own analytics, and none of my experiments worked. So, I spent 1 year feeling like I made no progress – but in hindsight I appreciate the tremendous growth in these formative years honing inquiry and persistence, as well as building resilience. I added a third year as some results were finally emerging; however, the bedside started to feel very far away. I could not ignore the tug back to the patient care, and after contemplating a PhD program, I decided to apply for residency in a physician-scientist pathway. Given the streamlined training that allowed for science and clinical education in an organized fashion, I also decided to stay in the U.S. This of course had vast personal consequences, which I did not fully appreciate at the time.

Residency was another time of immense growth, I was the only “foreign medical graduate” and had a lot to catch up on, but I enjoyed my amazing peers and the hands-on learning.

Pearl: Follow your passion. Not what makes most sense or what someone wants for you or what you could achieve given your past work. Do what will get you up in the morning and add a bounce to your step.
 

2. To go for big impact or climate

At UCSD at the time, there was a culture of impactful mega-labs, up 30 post-docs, often with many working on the same project with the ones finishing first garnering the publication. This created a “go big or go home” (literally) atmosphere. As part of the PSTP program, I was supported by the GI T32 and, being “free labor,” had a pretty wide array of labs to choose from. To the program director’s surprise, I settled on a fairly junior investigator, who was a fellow gastroenterologist and took a personal interest in my career. When making that decision, I prioritized climate over outcome. I remember thinking to myself that how I spent my time was just as important as the potential outcome of the time spent. Through my years in Dr. John Carethers’ lab, I gained insight into his administrative and leadership roles which added another dimension to our mentorship relationship. These years were fun and productive, and our mentorship grew into a friendship.

Pearl: Look for the right people to work with. Particularly who you work for. Everything else is secondary as the right people will set the tone and most influence your day-to-day experience, which is the foundation of your success.

3. To cultivate a life outside of academia

When I turned 30, I remember driving down Interstate 5 in San Diego and taking stock. Yes, I loved clinical work, I felt valued, and was in a stimulating supportive environment. Yet, I was so immersed that everything else seemed to take a back seat. I made the conscious decision on that drive to prioritize life outside of academia. It is not like I did not have one, I just decided to set an intention so it would not get away from me. I continue to make a conscious effort to be present for my husband, my kids, my family – to take time and spend it together without work bleeding into it. And since this is a goal in and of itself, there is no conflict! Through less travel and no more late nights or weekends, your nonacademic life will flourish.

Pearl: Deliberately prioritize your family and hobbies in the long run. Make key decisions with that in mind.
 

4. To grow your own program or lead others

When we moved to Chicago for my husband’s residency (he went to medical school as his third career at age 35), I was very excited to build my own comprehensive GI cancer genetics program at Northwestern. It was a little scary but also fun to now run my own lab and try to connect the clinical community around hereditary GI cancers. The program was moving along nicely when I received a generic letter asking for applications to become division chief at the neighboring University of Illinois. The letter concluded with an enticing “Chicago is a vibrant city,” so clearly it was meant for a broad audience. I was not sure what to do and again took stock. Did I want to continue to increase the impact of my own work – clearly there was a lot more ground to cover. Or, did I want to be part of making further-reaching decisions? I had been approached by fellows who wanted to be recruited, and I had ideas for programs and thoughts around processes. While my input was valued, I was not the ultimate decision maker. I decided that I either focus on one or the other and so applied for the position and then took the leap.

Pearl: There are many forks and they will present when you do not expect them. Assess and consider. Also know yourself – not everything that is attainable is desirable.
 

5. To have greater influence or stay with what you know

Becoming a division chief was transformative. Learning to integrate the needs of various and sometimes conflicting stakeholders, running an operation but also thinking strategically and mission-based – I was drinking from a firehose. How to measure success as a leader? I was fortunate to enter the division at a turbulent time where much rebuilding was needed and it was easy to implement and see change.

Pearl: Again know yourself – not everything that is attainable is desirable. But also – take risks. What is the worst that can happen? Growth may not be attained by waiting.
 

6. To be spread too thin or close doors

As you develop your focus and expertise while implementing No. 3, you will run out of hours in the day. This means you will need to become more and more efficient, as in delegating (and letting go) where you can and doing fewer nonessential tasks. However, you want to think hard about closing doors completely. I have been careful to hone and keep my endoscopy skills as well as my scientific output. To leave the doors ajar, I have tried to find ways to be very deliberate with my involvement and also understand that at some point it may make sense to close a door.

Pearl: Do not try to do everything well, you will risk doing everything poorly. Work on “good enough” for tasks that can be very involved. Think hard before permanently leaving something behind as you may lose flexibility down the road.
 

7. To enjoy fruits of labor or continue to grow

A question I get asked often is regarding the ideal time to move. In my mind, there is no perfect time. It depends on your satisfaction with your current position (see No. 2), your personal situation (see No. 3), and what you want at that juncture (see No. 5). At some point, one may want to stay awhile and enjoy. Or continue to change and grow – both have their merits and there is no right or wrong.

Pearl: When contemplating next steps, go back to your passion and priorities. Has anything shifted? Are your goals being met? Are you enjoying yourself? Advice can be helpful but also confusing. Remember, no one knows you like you do.
 

8. To show tangible results or build out relationships

Over time, as you become more and more efficient, you simultaneously need to spend more time fostering relationships. This feels strange at first as it is the opposite of a fast-paced to-do list and the “results” appear elusive. Build in time for relating – with peers, superiors, fellows, members of your lab.

Pearl: Form relationships early and often. Take care of them (No. 3) and include relationship building into your workstream – I promise it will make your path more successful and satisfying.


I hope this list shows that there are many forks and no one right way. Advice is helpful and subjective. No path is the same, and it truly is yours to shape. Be thoughtful and enjoy – your journey will be amazing and full of surprises.
 

Dr. Jung is professor and chair, and the Robert G. Petersdorf Endowed Chair in Medicine, in the department of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle. She is on Twitter @barbarahjung. She has no conflicts of interest.