Thank Goodness it’s Monday? Sincerely yours, #hustle. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has given us the opportunity to reevaluate what we believe is important and valuable in our life. For some, it’s the opportunity to perform meaningful work; for others, it’s increased financial compensation; and, for the remaining, it may be autonomy (e.g., control over their time). One example of where this mindset has manifested has been in the Great Resignation. 

The Great Resignation refers to the significant increase in resignations that was recorded in April 2021. Resignation rates tend to be higher in fields with high turnover rates (e.g., health care, tech) as a result of increased demand and burnout. Although hustle culture has been an ongoing trend for the last few years, the pandemic has given somewhat of a reality check of the future. 

Hustle culture refers to the embracing of work as a lifestyle such that it takes over other important aspects of your life – in other words, when work-life balance becomes work-work (im)balance. It has also been aptly referred to as burnout culture or grind culture. It’s a bit ironic or counterintuitive to think that stopping work means increased productivity – but it’s true. 

During my undergraduate years, I was always hustling – there wasn’t a moment where I wasn’t studying, doing research, training for my sport, or thinking about how I could do better and be better. It was all about working 24/7 – an illusion to think I was being productive. Now don’t get me wrong, I think the time and effort I invested during those years paid off. However, it also resulted in a sense of dissatisfaction; that is, dissatisfaction that I didn’t explore other potential paths, that I didn’t have the courage to try new things and to be okay with making mistakes. I had extremely narrow tunnel vision because my one and only goal was to go to medical school. 

However, after entering graduate school and actually taking the time to explore other options and career pathways in health, as well as realize that nontraditional pathways are becoming more and more conventional, there is a sense of relief that “failure” is not about changing paths or making mistakes. 

The part of hustle culture that has me hung up is being able to take the time to reflect whether this is what you truly want. I still believe in the value of hard work but I also believe in the value of meaningful and efficient work while also taking the time to reflect. 

The pandemic has shaped a lot of the way we think, what we value, and how we proceed forward. Who we are and what we value is a continuing and ever-growing process, and how we choose to live our lives will play a part. 

I’m curious to hear from you, do you believe in #hustle? Are you part of the #grind culture? Or do you believe we can achieve success, greatness, and satisfaction without the hustle culture?
 

Ms. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto, and is with the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, Toronto Western Hospital. She has received income from Braxia Scientific. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Thank Goodness it’s Monday? Sincerely yours, #hustle. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has given us the opportunity to reevaluate what we believe is important and valuable in our life. For some, it’s the opportunity to perform meaningful work; for others, it’s increased financial compensation; and, for the remaining, it may be autonomy (e.g., control over their time). One example of where this mindset has manifested has been in the Great Resignation. 

The Great Resignation refers to the significant increase in resignations that was recorded in April 2021. Resignation rates tend to be higher in fields with high turnover rates (e.g., health care, tech) as a result of increased demand and burnout. Although hustle culture has been an ongoing trend for the last few years, the pandemic has given somewhat of a reality check of the future. 

Hustle culture refers to the embracing of work as a lifestyle such that it takes over other important aspects of your life – in other words, when work-life balance becomes work-work (im)balance. It has also been aptly referred to as burnout culture or grind culture. It’s a bit ironic or counterintuitive to think that stopping work means increased productivity – but it’s true. 

During my undergraduate years, I was always hustling – there wasn’t a moment where I wasn’t studying, doing research, training for my sport, or thinking about how I could do better and be better. It was all about working 24/7 – an illusion to think I was being productive. Now don’t get me wrong, I think the time and effort I invested during those years paid off. However, it also resulted in a sense of dissatisfaction; that is, dissatisfaction that I didn’t explore other potential paths, that I didn’t have the courage to try new things and to be okay with making mistakes. I had extremely narrow tunnel vision because my one and only goal was to go to medical school. 

However, after entering graduate school and actually taking the time to explore other options and career pathways in health, as well as realize that nontraditional pathways are becoming more and more conventional, there is a sense of relief that “failure” is not about changing paths or making mistakes. 

The part of hustle culture that has me hung up is being able to take the time to reflect whether this is what you truly want. I still believe in the value of hard work but I also believe in the value of meaningful and efficient work while also taking the time to reflect. 

The pandemic has shaped a lot of the way we think, what we value, and how we proceed forward. Who we are and what we value is a continuing and ever-growing process, and how we choose to live our lives will play a part. 

I’m curious to hear from you, do you believe in #hustle? Are you part of the #grind culture? Or do you believe we can achieve success, greatness, and satisfaction without the hustle culture?
 

Ms. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto, and is with the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, Toronto Western Hospital. She has received income from Braxia Scientific. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Thank Goodness it’s Monday? Sincerely yours, #hustle. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has given us the opportunity to reevaluate what we believe is important and valuable in our life. For some, it’s the opportunity to perform meaningful work; for others, it’s increased financial compensation; and, for the remaining, it may be autonomy (e.g., control over their time). One example of where this mindset has manifested has been in the Great Resignation. 

The Great Resignation refers to the significant increase in resignations that was recorded in April 2021. Resignation rates tend to be higher in fields with high turnover rates (e.g., health care, tech) as a result of increased demand and burnout. Although hustle culture has been an ongoing trend for the last few years, the pandemic has given somewhat of a reality check of the future. 

Hustle culture refers to the embracing of work as a lifestyle such that it takes over other important aspects of your life – in other words, when work-life balance becomes work-work (im)balance. It has also been aptly referred to as burnout culture or grind culture. It’s a bit ironic or counterintuitive to think that stopping work means increased productivity – but it’s true. 

During my undergraduate years, I was always hustling – there wasn’t a moment where I wasn’t studying, doing research, training for my sport, or thinking about how I could do better and be better. It was all about working 24/7 – an illusion to think I was being productive. Now don’t get me wrong, I think the time and effort I invested during those years paid off. However, it also resulted in a sense of dissatisfaction; that is, dissatisfaction that I didn’t explore other potential paths, that I didn’t have the courage to try new things and to be okay with making mistakes. I had extremely narrow tunnel vision because my one and only goal was to go to medical school. 

However, after entering graduate school and actually taking the time to explore other options and career pathways in health, as well as realize that nontraditional pathways are becoming more and more conventional, there is a sense of relief that “failure” is not about changing paths or making mistakes. 

The part of hustle culture that has me hung up is being able to take the time to reflect whether this is what you truly want. I still believe in the value of hard work but I also believe in the value of meaningful and efficient work while also taking the time to reflect. 

The pandemic has shaped a lot of the way we think, what we value, and how we proceed forward. Who we are and what we value is a continuing and ever-growing process, and how we choose to live our lives will play a part. 

I’m curious to hear from you, do you believe in #hustle? Are you part of the #grind culture? Or do you believe we can achieve success, greatness, and satisfaction without the hustle culture?
 

Ms. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto, and is with the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, Toronto Western Hospital. She has received income from Braxia Scientific. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON – Nearly 40% of adults with alopecia areata taking baricitinib, an oral Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, see significant hair regrowth over 52 weeks, according to updated results from two phase 3 trials presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The results indicate improved response rates and hair growth among trial participants, said Brett King, MD, PhD, an associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He is the lead author of the analyses and presented the research.

Dr. King presented 36-week results from the clinical trials at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. The same results were also published March 26, 2022, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Every bit of data we’ve had is hugely important,” Dr. King said in an interview. “Every time we add 16 weeks of data across hundreds of patients, we are making a huge step forward toward the goal of [Food and Drug Administration approval for a medication for alopecia areata.”

All patients enrolled in the two trials, called BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2, had severe alopecia areata, defined as a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of at least 50, meaning 50% or less scalp coverage. The score ranges from 0 (no hair loss) to 100 (complete hair loss). The primary endpoint was a SALT score of 20 or less (80% scalp hair coverage).

The researchers pooled data from both clinical trials, with a combined enrollment of 1,200, for the 52-week results presented at the meeting. The placebo group stopped at 36 weeks, and these patients were randomly reassigned to either the 4-mg or 2-mg once-daily baricitinib treatment groups.

At baseline, patients enrolled in the trial had a mean SALT score of 85.5. After 52 weeks, 39.0% of patients who received 4 mg of baricitinib had at least 80% scalp coverage. Of this group, nearly three out of four (74.1%) had at least 90% scalp coverage, or a SALT score of 10 or less.

In patients who received 2 mg of baricitinib, 22.6% had a SALT score of 20 or less 20 (at least 80% scalp hair coverage) at 52 weeks, and two-thirds of that group (67.5%) had at least 90% scalp hair coverage at 52 weeks.

Comparatively, at 36 weeks, 35.2% of participants in BRAVE-AA1 and 32.5% of participants in BRAVE-AA2 receiving 4 mg of baricitinib had at least 80% scalp coverage. In the group taking the lower dose, 21.7% and 17.3% of patients in the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials, respectively, had achieved at least 80% scalp coverage at 36 weeks. (These percentages differ slightly from the NEJM article because of a different analysis of missing data, Dr. King said. For comparison of both 36- and 52-week results, the percentages from the EADV are used above.)

The results indicate that 5% more patients reached the primary endpoint in the additional 16 weeks of the trial, Dr. King said.

Alopecia areata is an autoimmune condition where immune cells attack hair follicles, causing the hair to fall out, and is associated with emotional and psychological distress. Any hair follicle can be attacked, but they are rarely destroyed, so hair can regrow.

"Many underestimate the impact of this autoimmune hair loss condition," Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, told this news organization. He was not involved with the trial. "The burden of the disease, which certainly is an emotional but also a physical one, definitely needs to be addressed with indicated FDA-approved drugs," he noted, which is the goal of these trials. 

The BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials focused on scalp hair regrowth.

Eyebrow and eyelash growth, secondary outcomes, also improved between 36 and 52 weeks in both groups, calculated using the proportion of participants who had achieved full regrowth or regrowth with minimal gaps. At 36 weeks, about 31%-35% of patients who received 4 mg of baricitinib regrew eyebrow and eyelash hair. By 52 weeks, more than two out of five patients regrew eyebrow (44.1%) and eyelash (45.3%) hair.

“It’s a fantastic achievement and a major step forward in alopecia areata, especially for patients with the most severe and refractory cases,” said Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPH, the director of inpatient dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Mostaghimi is on the advisory board for Eli Lilly, which manufactures baricitinib, and Brigham and Women’s was one of the clinical sites of the trial.

While dermatologists have been aware of how JAK inhibitors can affect hair regrowth in alopecia patients, they have been using these drugs off label, Dr. Friedman said. Therefore, these drugs are expensive and more difficult to access. These trials provide "data that proves the efficacy and safety of [baricitinib] under the umbrella of the FDA portal," he added, which will hopefully lead to an approved indication for alopecia areata, so it can be more accessible to patients.

Adverse events at 52 weeks were consistent with data from 36 weeks, which found that none of these adverse events occurred in more than 10% of participants. The most common adverse events were headache, acne, and increases in muscle-related blood markers. The most common infections reported were pneumonia, herpes zoster, and urinary tract infection. 

In February 2022, the FDA granted priority review for baricitinib for the treatment of severe alopecia areata. Lilly expects a regulatory decision by the end of 2022, they said in a press release. 

Lilly provided funding for the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials. Dr. King reported financial relationships with Aclaris, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Concert Pharmaceutics, Dermavant, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Viela Bio. Dr. Mostaghimi has reported serving on an advisory board for Lilly. Dr. Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.  

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

*This article was updated on 3/28/2022 to include Dr. Friedman's comments, and on 3/31/2022 to correct the statement regarding adverse events reported in the study 

BOSTON – Nearly 40% of adults with alopecia areata taking baricitinib, an oral Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, see significant hair regrowth over 52 weeks, according to updated results from two phase 3 trials presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The results indicate improved response rates and hair growth among trial participants, said Brett King, MD, PhD, an associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He is the lead author of the analyses and presented the research.

Dr. King presented 36-week results from the clinical trials at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. The same results were also published March 26, 2022, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Every bit of data we’ve had is hugely important,” Dr. King said in an interview. “Every time we add 16 weeks of data across hundreds of patients, we are making a huge step forward toward the goal of [Food and Drug Administration approval for a medication for alopecia areata.”

All patients enrolled in the two trials, called BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2, had severe alopecia areata, defined as a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of at least 50, meaning 50% or less scalp coverage. The score ranges from 0 (no hair loss) to 100 (complete hair loss). The primary endpoint was a SALT score of 20 or less (80% scalp hair coverage).

The researchers pooled data from both clinical trials, with a combined enrollment of 1,200, for the 52-week results presented at the meeting. The placebo group stopped at 36 weeks, and these patients were randomly reassigned to either the 4-mg or 2-mg once-daily baricitinib treatment groups.

At baseline, patients enrolled in the trial had a mean SALT score of 85.5. After 52 weeks, 39.0% of patients who received 4 mg of baricitinib had at least 80% scalp coverage. Of this group, nearly three out of four (74.1%) had at least 90% scalp coverage, or a SALT score of 10 or less.

In patients who received 2 mg of baricitinib, 22.6% had a SALT score of 20 or less 20 (at least 80% scalp hair coverage) at 52 weeks, and two-thirds of that group (67.5%) had at least 90% scalp hair coverage at 52 weeks.

Comparatively, at 36 weeks, 35.2% of participants in BRAVE-AA1 and 32.5% of participants in BRAVE-AA2 receiving 4 mg of baricitinib had at least 80% scalp coverage. In the group taking the lower dose, 21.7% and 17.3% of patients in the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials, respectively, had achieved at least 80% scalp coverage at 36 weeks. (These percentages differ slightly from the NEJM article because of a different analysis of missing data, Dr. King said. For comparison of both 36- and 52-week results, the percentages from the EADV are used above.)

The results indicate that 5% more patients reached the primary endpoint in the additional 16 weeks of the trial, Dr. King said.

Alopecia areata is an autoimmune condition where immune cells attack hair follicles, causing the hair to fall out, and is associated with emotional and psychological distress. Any hair follicle can be attacked, but they are rarely destroyed, so hair can regrow.

"Many underestimate the impact of this autoimmune hair loss condition," Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, told this news organization. He was not involved with the trial. "The burden of the disease, which certainly is an emotional but also a physical one, definitely needs to be addressed with indicated FDA-approved drugs," he noted, which is the goal of these trials. 

The BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials focused on scalp hair regrowth.

Eyebrow and eyelash growth, secondary outcomes, also improved between 36 and 52 weeks in both groups, calculated using the proportion of participants who had achieved full regrowth or regrowth with minimal gaps. At 36 weeks, about 31%-35% of patients who received 4 mg of baricitinib regrew eyebrow and eyelash hair. By 52 weeks, more than two out of five patients regrew eyebrow (44.1%) and eyelash (45.3%) hair.

“It’s a fantastic achievement and a major step forward in alopecia areata, especially for patients with the most severe and refractory cases,” said Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPH, the director of inpatient dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Mostaghimi is on the advisory board for Eli Lilly, which manufactures baricitinib, and Brigham and Women’s was one of the clinical sites of the trial.

While dermatologists have been aware of how JAK inhibitors can affect hair regrowth in alopecia patients, they have been using these drugs off label, Dr. Friedman said. Therefore, these drugs are expensive and more difficult to access. These trials provide "data that proves the efficacy and safety of [baricitinib] under the umbrella of the FDA portal," he added, which will hopefully lead to an approved indication for alopecia areata, so it can be more accessible to patients.

Adverse events at 52 weeks were consistent with data from 36 weeks, which found that none of these adverse events occurred in more than 10% of participants. The most common adverse events were headache, acne, and increases in muscle-related blood markers. The most common infections reported were pneumonia, herpes zoster, and urinary tract infection. 

In February 2022, the FDA granted priority review for baricitinib for the treatment of severe alopecia areata. Lilly expects a regulatory decision by the end of 2022, they said in a press release. 

Lilly provided funding for the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials. Dr. King reported financial relationships with Aclaris, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Concert Pharmaceutics, Dermavant, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Viela Bio. Dr. Mostaghimi has reported serving on an advisory board for Lilly. Dr. Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.  

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

*This article was updated on 3/28/2022 to include Dr. Friedman's comments, and on 3/31/2022 to correct the statement regarding adverse events reported in the study 

BOSTON – Nearly 40% of adults with alopecia areata taking baricitinib, an oral Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, see significant hair regrowth over 52 weeks, according to updated results from two phase 3 trials presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The results indicate improved response rates and hair growth among trial participants, said Brett King, MD, PhD, an associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He is the lead author of the analyses and presented the research.

Dr. King presented 36-week results from the clinical trials at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. The same results were also published March 26, 2022, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Every bit of data we’ve had is hugely important,” Dr. King said in an interview. “Every time we add 16 weeks of data across hundreds of patients, we are making a huge step forward toward the goal of [Food and Drug Administration approval for a medication for alopecia areata.”

All patients enrolled in the two trials, called BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2, had severe alopecia areata, defined as a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of at least 50, meaning 50% or less scalp coverage. The score ranges from 0 (no hair loss) to 100 (complete hair loss). The primary endpoint was a SALT score of 20 or less (80% scalp hair coverage).

The researchers pooled data from both clinical trials, with a combined enrollment of 1,200, for the 52-week results presented at the meeting. The placebo group stopped at 36 weeks, and these patients were randomly reassigned to either the 4-mg or 2-mg once-daily baricitinib treatment groups.

At baseline, patients enrolled in the trial had a mean SALT score of 85.5. After 52 weeks, 39.0% of patients who received 4 mg of baricitinib had at least 80% scalp coverage. Of this group, nearly three out of four (74.1%) had at least 90% scalp coverage, or a SALT score of 10 or less.

In patients who received 2 mg of baricitinib, 22.6% had a SALT score of 20 or less 20 (at least 80% scalp hair coverage) at 52 weeks, and two-thirds of that group (67.5%) had at least 90% scalp hair coverage at 52 weeks.

Comparatively, at 36 weeks, 35.2% of participants in BRAVE-AA1 and 32.5% of participants in BRAVE-AA2 receiving 4 mg of baricitinib had at least 80% scalp coverage. In the group taking the lower dose, 21.7% and 17.3% of patients in the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials, respectively, had achieved at least 80% scalp coverage at 36 weeks. (These percentages differ slightly from the NEJM article because of a different analysis of missing data, Dr. King said. For comparison of both 36- and 52-week results, the percentages from the EADV are used above.)

The results indicate that 5% more patients reached the primary endpoint in the additional 16 weeks of the trial, Dr. King said.

Alopecia areata is an autoimmune condition where immune cells attack hair follicles, causing the hair to fall out, and is associated with emotional and psychological distress. Any hair follicle can be attacked, but they are rarely destroyed, so hair can regrow.

"Many underestimate the impact of this autoimmune hair loss condition," Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, told this news organization. He was not involved with the trial. "The burden of the disease, which certainly is an emotional but also a physical one, definitely needs to be addressed with indicated FDA-approved drugs," he noted, which is the goal of these trials. 

The BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials focused on scalp hair regrowth.

Eyebrow and eyelash growth, secondary outcomes, also improved between 36 and 52 weeks in both groups, calculated using the proportion of participants who had achieved full regrowth or regrowth with minimal gaps. At 36 weeks, about 31%-35% of patients who received 4 mg of baricitinib regrew eyebrow and eyelash hair. By 52 weeks, more than two out of five patients regrew eyebrow (44.1%) and eyelash (45.3%) hair.

“It’s a fantastic achievement and a major step forward in alopecia areata, especially for patients with the most severe and refractory cases,” said Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPH, the director of inpatient dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Mostaghimi is on the advisory board for Eli Lilly, which manufactures baricitinib, and Brigham and Women’s was one of the clinical sites of the trial.

While dermatologists have been aware of how JAK inhibitors can affect hair regrowth in alopecia patients, they have been using these drugs off label, Dr. Friedman said. Therefore, these drugs are expensive and more difficult to access. These trials provide "data that proves the efficacy and safety of [baricitinib] under the umbrella of the FDA portal," he added, which will hopefully lead to an approved indication for alopecia areata, so it can be more accessible to patients.

Adverse events at 52 weeks were consistent with data from 36 weeks, which found that none of these adverse events occurred in more than 10% of participants. The most common adverse events were headache, acne, and increases in muscle-related blood markers. The most common infections reported were pneumonia, herpes zoster, and urinary tract infection. 

In February 2022, the FDA granted priority review for baricitinib for the treatment of severe alopecia areata. Lilly expects a regulatory decision by the end of 2022, they said in a press release. 

Lilly provided funding for the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials. Dr. King reported financial relationships with Aclaris, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Concert Pharmaceutics, Dermavant, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Viela Bio. Dr. Mostaghimi has reported serving on an advisory board for Lilly. Dr. Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.  

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

*This article was updated on 3/28/2022 to include Dr. Friedman's comments, and on 3/31/2022 to correct the statement regarding adverse events reported in the study 

Breast cancer screening modality has less effect on the probability of false-positive results than screening interval, patient age, and breast density according to a new study comparing digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with digital mammography.

Although DBT was associated with a modest improvement in recalls for false-positive results compared with mammography, about half of women in both groups received at least one false-positive result over a 10-year period of annual screening, reported senior author Diana L. Miglioretti, PhD, from the University of California, Davis, and colleagues.

By contrast, the authors reported “substantial reductions” in false-positive recalls with biennial screening. Specifically, while annual mammography and DBT resulted in cumulative 10-year false-positive recall rates of 56.3% and 49.6% respectively, biennial rates were 38.1% and 35.7%.

The comparative effectiveness study, published in JAMA Network Open, included 903,495 women who underwent 10 years of breast cancer screening at 126 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. The mean age of participants was 57.6 years, and 46% of them had dense breasts. A total of 2,969,055 screening exams were performed (15% DBT), with each woman receiving a mean of 3.3 exams over 10 years. Most participants (71.8%) had annual exams, while 16.8% had biennial, with the remainder being performed at intervals of 3 years or more.

Investigators looked at the cumulative rate of three kinds of false-positive results over 10 years: false-positive recalls for further imaging, false-positive short-interval follow-up recommendations, and false-positive biopsy recommendations. A result was considered false positive if there was no diagnosis of invasive carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ within 1 year of the screening examination and before the next screening examination.

Overall, across all screening intervals, and after adjusting for age and breast density, the percentage of false-positive results was slightly lower for DBT vs. mammography: 7.6% vs. 9.0%, respectively, for false-positive recalls; 1.8% vs. 2.1%, respectively, for false-positive short-interval follow-up recommendations; and 1.1% vs. 1.2% for false-positive biopsy recommendations. “We did not observe consistent clinically meaningful differences in the cumulative probabilities of false-positive short-interval follow-up or biopsy recommendation by screening modality,” they noted, adding that, although DBT provided “modest” reductions in false-positive recalls, compared with mammography (2.4% less for biennial screening and 6.7% less for annual screening), “nonetheless, this percentage equates to many thousands of individuals in absolute numbers, especially for annual screening, which is the dominant practice in the U.S.”

The authors also noted that, regardless of screening modality, all three types of false-positive results were substantially lower for biennial versus annual mammograph, and depended on age and breast density. The highest cumulative rates of false-positive results occurred in women aged 40-49 years (68.0% with annual digital mammography and 60.8% with annual DBT). Women with extremely dense breasts had the highest probability of all three types of false positive, which “may be due to the lack of interspersed fat within dense fibroglandular tissue, with the contrast between the fat and tissue being a requirement for more accurate detection of suspicious features by interpreting radiologists.”

The study findings “offer new information about the potential harms of repeated screening, which may be used to inform screening guidelines and decision-making between individuals and their physicians. However, it is important to weigh these and other potential harms with potential benefits of earlier diagnosis. … Women at high risk of an advanced cancer under biennial screening, including some women with dense breasts, may reduce their risk with annual screening,” they suggested.

Although DBT is now widely used in the United States, amid growing optimism about its superiority over digital mammography, this study reminds clinicians to counsel patients appropriately, according to Lydia E. Pace, MD, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “Unfortunately, the growing availability of DBT does not substantially change the likelihood that women will experience a false-positive result over years of regular mammograms,” she wrote in an invited commentary published with the study. She noted that, although many women tolerate false-positive results, “they are associated with at least transient anxiety as well as time, inconvenience, and expense. More information is needed to understand the association of DBT with overdiagnosis, which is the more clinically important harm of screening.”

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Miglioretti and Dr. Pace reported no conflicts of interest. One coauthor of the study is an unpaid consultant for Grail, for the STRIVE study, and another coauthor receives personal fees from Grail for work on a data safety monitoring board. No other disclosures were reported.

Breast cancer screening modality has less effect on the probability of false-positive results than screening interval, patient age, and breast density according to a new study comparing digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with digital mammography.

Although DBT was associated with a modest improvement in recalls for false-positive results compared with mammography, about half of women in both groups received at least one false-positive result over a 10-year period of annual screening, reported senior author Diana L. Miglioretti, PhD, from the University of California, Davis, and colleagues.

By contrast, the authors reported “substantial reductions” in false-positive recalls with biennial screening. Specifically, while annual mammography and DBT resulted in cumulative 10-year false-positive recall rates of 56.3% and 49.6% respectively, biennial rates were 38.1% and 35.7%.

The comparative effectiveness study, published in JAMA Network Open, included 903,495 women who underwent 10 years of breast cancer screening at 126 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. The mean age of participants was 57.6 years, and 46% of them had dense breasts. A total of 2,969,055 screening exams were performed (15% DBT), with each woman receiving a mean of 3.3 exams over 10 years. Most participants (71.8%) had annual exams, while 16.8% had biennial, with the remainder being performed at intervals of 3 years or more.

Investigators looked at the cumulative rate of three kinds of false-positive results over 10 years: false-positive recalls for further imaging, false-positive short-interval follow-up recommendations, and false-positive biopsy recommendations. A result was considered false positive if there was no diagnosis of invasive carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ within 1 year of the screening examination and before the next screening examination.

Overall, across all screening intervals, and after adjusting for age and breast density, the percentage of false-positive results was slightly lower for DBT vs. mammography: 7.6% vs. 9.0%, respectively, for false-positive recalls; 1.8% vs. 2.1%, respectively, for false-positive short-interval follow-up recommendations; and 1.1% vs. 1.2% for false-positive biopsy recommendations. “We did not observe consistent clinically meaningful differences in the cumulative probabilities of false-positive short-interval follow-up or biopsy recommendation by screening modality,” they noted, adding that, although DBT provided “modest” reductions in false-positive recalls, compared with mammography (2.4% less for biennial screening and 6.7% less for annual screening), “nonetheless, this percentage equates to many thousands of individuals in absolute numbers, especially for annual screening, which is the dominant practice in the U.S.”

The authors also noted that, regardless of screening modality, all three types of false-positive results were substantially lower for biennial versus annual mammograph, and depended on age and breast density. The highest cumulative rates of false-positive results occurred in women aged 40-49 years (68.0% with annual digital mammography and 60.8% with annual DBT). Women with extremely dense breasts had the highest probability of all three types of false positive, which “may be due to the lack of interspersed fat within dense fibroglandular tissue, with the contrast between the fat and tissue being a requirement for more accurate detection of suspicious features by interpreting radiologists.”

The study findings “offer new information about the potential harms of repeated screening, which may be used to inform screening guidelines and decision-making between individuals and their physicians. However, it is important to weigh these and other potential harms with potential benefits of earlier diagnosis. … Women at high risk of an advanced cancer under biennial screening, including some women with dense breasts, may reduce their risk with annual screening,” they suggested.

Although DBT is now widely used in the United States, amid growing optimism about its superiority over digital mammography, this study reminds clinicians to counsel patients appropriately, according to Lydia E. Pace, MD, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “Unfortunately, the growing availability of DBT does not substantially change the likelihood that women will experience a false-positive result over years of regular mammograms,” she wrote in an invited commentary published with the study. She noted that, although many women tolerate false-positive results, “they are associated with at least transient anxiety as well as time, inconvenience, and expense. More information is needed to understand the association of DBT with overdiagnosis, which is the more clinically important harm of screening.”

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Miglioretti and Dr. Pace reported no conflicts of interest. One coauthor of the study is an unpaid consultant for Grail, for the STRIVE study, and another coauthor receives personal fees from Grail for work on a data safety monitoring board. No other disclosures were reported.

Breast cancer screening modality has less effect on the probability of false-positive results than screening interval, patient age, and breast density according to a new study comparing digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with digital mammography.

Although DBT was associated with a modest improvement in recalls for false-positive results compared with mammography, about half of women in both groups received at least one false-positive result over a 10-year period of annual screening, reported senior author Diana L. Miglioretti, PhD, from the University of California, Davis, and colleagues.

By contrast, the authors reported “substantial reductions” in false-positive recalls with biennial screening. Specifically, while annual mammography and DBT resulted in cumulative 10-year false-positive recall rates of 56.3% and 49.6% respectively, biennial rates were 38.1% and 35.7%.

The comparative effectiveness study, published in JAMA Network Open, included 903,495 women who underwent 10 years of breast cancer screening at 126 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. The mean age of participants was 57.6 years, and 46% of them had dense breasts. A total of 2,969,055 screening exams were performed (15% DBT), with each woman receiving a mean of 3.3 exams over 10 years. Most participants (71.8%) had annual exams, while 16.8% had biennial, with the remainder being performed at intervals of 3 years or more.

Investigators looked at the cumulative rate of three kinds of false-positive results over 10 years: false-positive recalls for further imaging, false-positive short-interval follow-up recommendations, and false-positive biopsy recommendations. A result was considered false positive if there was no diagnosis of invasive carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ within 1 year of the screening examination and before the next screening examination.

Overall, across all screening intervals, and after adjusting for age and breast density, the percentage of false-positive results was slightly lower for DBT vs. mammography: 7.6% vs. 9.0%, respectively, for false-positive recalls; 1.8% vs. 2.1%, respectively, for false-positive short-interval follow-up recommendations; and 1.1% vs. 1.2% for false-positive biopsy recommendations. “We did not observe consistent clinically meaningful differences in the cumulative probabilities of false-positive short-interval follow-up or biopsy recommendation by screening modality,” they noted, adding that, although DBT provided “modest” reductions in false-positive recalls, compared with mammography (2.4% less for biennial screening and 6.7% less for annual screening), “nonetheless, this percentage equates to many thousands of individuals in absolute numbers, especially for annual screening, which is the dominant practice in the U.S.”

The authors also noted that, regardless of screening modality, all three types of false-positive results were substantially lower for biennial versus annual mammograph, and depended on age and breast density. The highest cumulative rates of false-positive results occurred in women aged 40-49 years (68.0% with annual digital mammography and 60.8% with annual DBT). Women with extremely dense breasts had the highest probability of all three types of false positive, which “may be due to the lack of interspersed fat within dense fibroglandular tissue, with the contrast between the fat and tissue being a requirement for more accurate detection of suspicious features by interpreting radiologists.”

The study findings “offer new information about the potential harms of repeated screening, which may be used to inform screening guidelines and decision-making between individuals and their physicians. However, it is important to weigh these and other potential harms with potential benefits of earlier diagnosis. … Women at high risk of an advanced cancer under biennial screening, including some women with dense breasts, may reduce their risk with annual screening,” they suggested.

Although DBT is now widely used in the United States, amid growing optimism about its superiority over digital mammography, this study reminds clinicians to counsel patients appropriately, according to Lydia E. Pace, MD, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “Unfortunately, the growing availability of DBT does not substantially change the likelihood that women will experience a false-positive result over years of regular mammograms,” she wrote in an invited commentary published with the study. She noted that, although many women tolerate false-positive results, “they are associated with at least transient anxiety as well as time, inconvenience, and expense. More information is needed to understand the association of DBT with overdiagnosis, which is the more clinically important harm of screening.”

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Miglioretti and Dr. Pace reported no conflicts of interest. One coauthor of the study is an unpaid consultant for Grail, for the STRIVE study, and another coauthor receives personal fees from Grail for work on a data safety monitoring board. No other disclosures were reported.

During a recent virtual medical malpractice trial, the judge called a break, and the participants left their screens. When the trial resumed a short time later, one juror was missing. The court called his phone, but there was no answer.

“Everyone had to keep waiting and waiting while the bailiff kept trying to call,” recalled Elizabeth Leedom, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Seattle. “The juror fell asleep.”

The sleeping juror caused a significant delay in the trial, Ms. Leedom said. Finally, he woke up, and the trial was able to continue.

In another instance, a potential juror showed up drunk to a virtual jury selection. The man was slurring his words as he answered questions, Ms. Leedom said, and when asked if he was okay, he admitted that he had a drinking problem. The judge asked whether he had consumed alcohol, and the man admitted that he’d been drinking that day. He was excused from jury selection.

These alarming incidents are among the mishaps that happen during virtual medical malpractice trials. Since the pandemic started, many courts have moved to virtual settings to slow the spread of COVID-19. Although some courts have now shifted back to in-person trials, some areas continue to mandate virtual malpractice trials, hearings, and depositions.

Such trials can save money and are convenient, but legal experts say virtual trials present serious challenges for physicians and raise concerns about fairness. Some jurors are not taking virtual cases seriously or do not stay focused on the subject matter, according to attorneys.

“Virtual trials are not as fair to physicians as in-person trials,” said Andrew DeSimone, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Lexington, Ky. “It’s too easy not to pay attention in a virtual setting. And when you are dealing with complex medical topics, juror attention is a paramount issue.”
 

Casual settings, constant interruptions during jury selections

Understanding and reaching the jury have been the greatest challenges with virtual and hybrid trials, said Laura Eschleman, a medical liability defense attorney based in Atlanta. Hybrid trials are part virtual and part in person.

Ms. Eschleman has participated in jury selections via Zoom in which jurors lounge in bed during the process and spouses and children waltz into the room as they please, she said.

“With over 36 Zoom boxes of potential jurors, assessing each potential juror was difficult to say the least,” she said. “[Jury selection] has always been an opportunity to introduce the defendant physicians to the jurors as humans; doing it virtually took that away. It is difficult to humanize a box on a screen.”

Regarding one virtual jury selection, Ms. Eschleman said the court had narrowed the pool to a final 12 jurors when one juror’s wife burst into his room and started yelling in front of his computer.

The judge allowed her to speak, and the crying woman begged the judge not to select her husband for the trial because it would disrupt the couple’s child care. After a lengthy exchange, they learned that the child was 16 years old and had his own car. The husband disagreed with his wife and wanted to remain a juror.

“This would have never happened had the twelfth juror been called to an in-person jury selection,” Ms. Eschleman said.

Keeping juries focused while the trial is underway can also be a problem, DeSimone said. He describes the courtroom during malpractice trials as a theater of sorts. Jurors watch intently as witnesses testify, evidence is presented, and the judge gives instructions. During virtual trials, however, watching through a screen doesn’t always yield the same captive audiences, he said.

“During Zoom, it’s much harder to connect with the jury because they won’t be as tuned into it,” he said. “If the jury believes the physician is empathetic, conscientious, caring, and compassionate, they will give the physician the benefit of the doubt, even if something went wrong or a bad outcome occurred. Developing that connection through good eye contact, being a teacher, and showing compassion is the most important thing a physician can do when testifying.”

A related challenge is that medical experts can’t connect as well with jurors, and some may have trouble conveying their message from a screen, said Evan Lyman, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in White Plains, N.Y.

“Some experts like to get out of the witness box and kind of take over the courtroom with a laser pointer or a white board,” he said. “For some, that’s what makes them effective experts. Some experts lose their touch when they can’t do that.”

Technical difficulties during virtual trials can cause further woes, said Kari Adams, vice president of claims for Physicians Insurance – A Mutual Company. She recalled a recent case in which technical problems arose during the defense attorney’s closing arguments.

“It’s hard to see our defense attorneys who are used to using all of their advocacy skills, all of their charisma trying to convey it in a virtual format,” she said. “When it’s disrupted, it can really throw things. A lot of their advocacy and personality can play through, but it’s just a little less in that forum.”
 

Doc fights against virtual trial

When Texas cardiologist Amin Al-Ahmad’s malpractice trial was changed to a virtual format because of COVID-19 concerns, Dr. Al-Ahmad and his attorneys fought the move.

They argued that the malpractice case was too complex for a virtual format and that a video trial would deprive Dr. Al-Ahmad of his rights to due process, including the right to trial by jury.

Dr. Al-Ahmad’s case involved allegations that he had failed to promptly diagnose and treat an atrial esophageal fistula, resulting in a patient’s stroke and ongoing neurologic problems. The trial was expected to last up to 10 days. Nine witnesses were expected to testify, and $1 million in damages were at stake, according to court documents.

“The length of trial anticipated, complexity of the medical issues, the confidential medical information at issue, and the number of anticipated medical records exhibits lead to a real risk of juror ‘Zoom fatigue,’ even if the trial is not interrupted with technology glitches, such as jurors dropping off the link or sound loss,” Dr. Al-Ahmad’s attorneys wrote in a petition to the Texas Supreme Court. “The risks of forcing [the defendants] to trial through the procedure of a remote or virtual jury trial are numerous. Not least of these is the risk that [defendants’] relators will be prevented from presenting an adequate defense or being able to fully preserve error during a virtual trial.”

Another concern regards the lack of uniformity from county to county in conducting a virtual trial, said David A. Wright, an attorney for Dr. Al-Ahmad. Some counties don’t permit them, while others permit parties to opt out of virtual trials, he noted.

“Even those that hold virtual trials seem to have different procedures and rules,” he said. “Travis County, where I have tried my virtual cases, has iPads that they provide to each juror so that they are limited to using just the county iPad for the trial. Others, I have heard, permit jurors to use their own devices. There are simply no uniform rules.”

Despite requests to the trial court and petitions to the appellate and Texas Supreme Court, Dr. Al-Ahmad lost his bid to have his trial delayed until in-person trials resumed. The Texas Supreme Court in late 2021 refused to halt the virtual trial.

Dr. Al-Ahmad, based in Austin, declined to comment through his attorney. Mr. Wright said the court’s denial “was not unexpected.”

Dr. Al-Ahmad’s virtual trial went forward in October 2021, and the jury ruled in his favor.

“We were very pleased with the jury’s verdict,” Mr. Wright said.
 

Are virtual trials ending in higher awards?

In addition to jurors’ not taking their roles as seriously, the casual vibe of virtual trials may also be diminishing how jurors view the verdict’s magnitude.

“Virtual trials don’t have the gravity or the seriousness of a real trial,” Ms. Leedom said. “I don’t think the importance of the jury’s decision weighs on them as much during a Zoom trial as it does an in-person trial.”

Alarmingly, Ms. Leedom said that, in her experience, damages in virtual trials have been higher in comparison with damages awarded during in-person trials.

Ms. Adams agreed with this observation.

“We’ll still win cases, but we’re concerned that, in the cases we lose, the damages can be slightly higher because there hasn’t been that interpersonal connection with the defendant,” she said. “It almost becomes like monopoly money to jurors.”
 

Remember these tips during virtual trials

Physicians undergoing virtual trials may have better experiences if they keep a few tips in mind.

Mr. DeSimone emphasized the importance of eye contact with jurors, which can be tricky during virtual settings. It helps if physicians look at the camera, rather than the screen, while talking.

Physicians should be cognizant of their facial expressions as they watch others speak.

“Don’t roll your eyes like: ‘Oh my gosh, he’s an idiot,’ ” Mr. DeSimone said. “Keep a poker face. Be respectful of what’s going on. Don’t be lulled into letting your guard down.”

Before the virtual trial, practice the cross examination and direct examination with your attorney and record it, Ms. Leedom said. That way, doctors can watch how they present on video and make necessary changes before the real trial. Lighting is also important, she noted. Her firm provides special lamps to clients and witnesses for virtual trials and proceedings.

“The lighting makes a huge difference,” she said.

Its also a good idea for physicians to have a paper copy of the records or exhibits that are going to be used so it’s easy for them to flip through them while on the screen. Physicians should also be mindful of how they come across during video depositions, which are sometimes played during virtual trials, Ms. Adams said.

“If you’re not looking professional during the video deposition – you’re eating, you’re not dressed well – the plaintiff’s attorney will take the most inopportune segment of the deposition and portray the physician as: ‘Look, here’s someone who was careless in the medical care, and look, they don’t even look professional when they’re testifying about this horrifying experience,’ ” she said. “They’ll use the clips to make a very careful provider appear distracted.”
 

Are virtual trials and hearings here to stay?

Whether virtual malpractice trials continue will largely depend on the location in which physicians practice. Some insurance carriers are opting to continue virtual trials, but in some areas, trials are being delayed until in-person proceedings can resume, Ms. Adams said. Some areas never adopted video trials and never ceased in-person trials.

“I think it’s going to be very regionally based,” she said. “Some of the smaller, rural counties just don’t have the capacity or the resources to continue, so they’ll probably just go back to in person.”

Not all virtual proceedings are problematic for physicians, say legal experts. Virtual depositions can be beneficial for doctors because they are less intimidating and confrontational than in-person depositions, Mr. Lyman said.

Additionally, virtual mediations can take much less time than in-person mediations, Ms. Adams said. Video depositions and mediations also save travel costs and reduce time missed from work for physicians.

“But I hope we all go back to in-person trials,” Ms. Leedom said. “Even here in King County, [Washington,] where we’ve done federal and state court trials by Zoom, I’m hopeful that it will go back to in-person trials.”

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

During a recent virtual medical malpractice trial, the judge called a break, and the participants left their screens. When the trial resumed a short time later, one juror was missing. The court called his phone, but there was no answer.

“Everyone had to keep waiting and waiting while the bailiff kept trying to call,” recalled Elizabeth Leedom, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Seattle. “The juror fell asleep.”

The sleeping juror caused a significant delay in the trial, Ms. Leedom said. Finally, he woke up, and the trial was able to continue.

In another instance, a potential juror showed up drunk to a virtual jury selection. The man was slurring his words as he answered questions, Ms. Leedom said, and when asked if he was okay, he admitted that he had a drinking problem. The judge asked whether he had consumed alcohol, and the man admitted that he’d been drinking that day. He was excused from jury selection.

These alarming incidents are among the mishaps that happen during virtual medical malpractice trials. Since the pandemic started, many courts have moved to virtual settings to slow the spread of COVID-19. Although some courts have now shifted back to in-person trials, some areas continue to mandate virtual malpractice trials, hearings, and depositions.

Such trials can save money and are convenient, but legal experts say virtual trials present serious challenges for physicians and raise concerns about fairness. Some jurors are not taking virtual cases seriously or do not stay focused on the subject matter, according to attorneys.

“Virtual trials are not as fair to physicians as in-person trials,” said Andrew DeSimone, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Lexington, Ky. “It’s too easy not to pay attention in a virtual setting. And when you are dealing with complex medical topics, juror attention is a paramount issue.”
 

Casual settings, constant interruptions during jury selections

Understanding and reaching the jury have been the greatest challenges with virtual and hybrid trials, said Laura Eschleman, a medical liability defense attorney based in Atlanta. Hybrid trials are part virtual and part in person.

Ms. Eschleman has participated in jury selections via Zoom in which jurors lounge in bed during the process and spouses and children waltz into the room as they please, she said.

“With over 36 Zoom boxes of potential jurors, assessing each potential juror was difficult to say the least,” she said. “[Jury selection] has always been an opportunity to introduce the defendant physicians to the jurors as humans; doing it virtually took that away. It is difficult to humanize a box on a screen.”

Regarding one virtual jury selection, Ms. Eschleman said the court had narrowed the pool to a final 12 jurors when one juror’s wife burst into his room and started yelling in front of his computer.

The judge allowed her to speak, and the crying woman begged the judge not to select her husband for the trial because it would disrupt the couple’s child care. After a lengthy exchange, they learned that the child was 16 years old and had his own car. The husband disagreed with his wife and wanted to remain a juror.

“This would have never happened had the twelfth juror been called to an in-person jury selection,” Ms. Eschleman said.

Keeping juries focused while the trial is underway can also be a problem, DeSimone said. He describes the courtroom during malpractice trials as a theater of sorts. Jurors watch intently as witnesses testify, evidence is presented, and the judge gives instructions. During virtual trials, however, watching through a screen doesn’t always yield the same captive audiences, he said.

“During Zoom, it’s much harder to connect with the jury because they won’t be as tuned into it,” he said. “If the jury believes the physician is empathetic, conscientious, caring, and compassionate, they will give the physician the benefit of the doubt, even if something went wrong or a bad outcome occurred. Developing that connection through good eye contact, being a teacher, and showing compassion is the most important thing a physician can do when testifying.”

A related challenge is that medical experts can’t connect as well with jurors, and some may have trouble conveying their message from a screen, said Evan Lyman, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in White Plains, N.Y.

“Some experts like to get out of the witness box and kind of take over the courtroom with a laser pointer or a white board,” he said. “For some, that’s what makes them effective experts. Some experts lose their touch when they can’t do that.”

Technical difficulties during virtual trials can cause further woes, said Kari Adams, vice president of claims for Physicians Insurance – A Mutual Company. She recalled a recent case in which technical problems arose during the defense attorney’s closing arguments.

“It’s hard to see our defense attorneys who are used to using all of their advocacy skills, all of their charisma trying to convey it in a virtual format,” she said. “When it’s disrupted, it can really throw things. A lot of their advocacy and personality can play through, but it’s just a little less in that forum.”
 

Doc fights against virtual trial

When Texas cardiologist Amin Al-Ahmad’s malpractice trial was changed to a virtual format because of COVID-19 concerns, Dr. Al-Ahmad and his attorneys fought the move.

They argued that the malpractice case was too complex for a virtual format and that a video trial would deprive Dr. Al-Ahmad of his rights to due process, including the right to trial by jury.

Dr. Al-Ahmad’s case involved allegations that he had failed to promptly diagnose and treat an atrial esophageal fistula, resulting in a patient’s stroke and ongoing neurologic problems. The trial was expected to last up to 10 days. Nine witnesses were expected to testify, and $1 million in damages were at stake, according to court documents.

“The length of trial anticipated, complexity of the medical issues, the confidential medical information at issue, and the number of anticipated medical records exhibits lead to a real risk of juror ‘Zoom fatigue,’ even if the trial is not interrupted with technology glitches, such as jurors dropping off the link or sound loss,” Dr. Al-Ahmad’s attorneys wrote in a petition to the Texas Supreme Court. “The risks of forcing [the defendants] to trial through the procedure of a remote or virtual jury trial are numerous. Not least of these is the risk that [defendants’] relators will be prevented from presenting an adequate defense or being able to fully preserve error during a virtual trial.”

Another concern regards the lack of uniformity from county to county in conducting a virtual trial, said David A. Wright, an attorney for Dr. Al-Ahmad. Some counties don’t permit them, while others permit parties to opt out of virtual trials, he noted.

“Even those that hold virtual trials seem to have different procedures and rules,” he said. “Travis County, where I have tried my virtual cases, has iPads that they provide to each juror so that they are limited to using just the county iPad for the trial. Others, I have heard, permit jurors to use their own devices. There are simply no uniform rules.”

Despite requests to the trial court and petitions to the appellate and Texas Supreme Court, Dr. Al-Ahmad lost his bid to have his trial delayed until in-person trials resumed. The Texas Supreme Court in late 2021 refused to halt the virtual trial.

Dr. Al-Ahmad, based in Austin, declined to comment through his attorney. Mr. Wright said the court’s denial “was not unexpected.”

Dr. Al-Ahmad’s virtual trial went forward in October 2021, and the jury ruled in his favor.

“We were very pleased with the jury’s verdict,” Mr. Wright said.
 

Are virtual trials ending in higher awards?

In addition to jurors’ not taking their roles as seriously, the casual vibe of virtual trials may also be diminishing how jurors view the verdict’s magnitude.

“Virtual trials don’t have the gravity or the seriousness of a real trial,” Ms. Leedom said. “I don’t think the importance of the jury’s decision weighs on them as much during a Zoom trial as it does an in-person trial.”

Alarmingly, Ms. Leedom said that, in her experience, damages in virtual trials have been higher in comparison with damages awarded during in-person trials.

Ms. Adams agreed with this observation.

“We’ll still win cases, but we’re concerned that, in the cases we lose, the damages can be slightly higher because there hasn’t been that interpersonal connection with the defendant,” she said. “It almost becomes like monopoly money to jurors.”
 

Remember these tips during virtual trials

Physicians undergoing virtual trials may have better experiences if they keep a few tips in mind.

Mr. DeSimone emphasized the importance of eye contact with jurors, which can be tricky during virtual settings. It helps if physicians look at the camera, rather than the screen, while talking.

Physicians should be cognizant of their facial expressions as they watch others speak.

“Don’t roll your eyes like: ‘Oh my gosh, he’s an idiot,’ ” Mr. DeSimone said. “Keep a poker face. Be respectful of what’s going on. Don’t be lulled into letting your guard down.”

Before the virtual trial, practice the cross examination and direct examination with your attorney and record it, Ms. Leedom said. That way, doctors can watch how they present on video and make necessary changes before the real trial. Lighting is also important, she noted. Her firm provides special lamps to clients and witnesses for virtual trials and proceedings.

“The lighting makes a huge difference,” she said.

Its also a good idea for physicians to have a paper copy of the records or exhibits that are going to be used so it’s easy for them to flip through them while on the screen. Physicians should also be mindful of how they come across during video depositions, which are sometimes played during virtual trials, Ms. Adams said.

“If you’re not looking professional during the video deposition – you’re eating, you’re not dressed well – the plaintiff’s attorney will take the most inopportune segment of the deposition and portray the physician as: ‘Look, here’s someone who was careless in the medical care, and look, they don’t even look professional when they’re testifying about this horrifying experience,’ ” she said. “They’ll use the clips to make a very careful provider appear distracted.”
 

Are virtual trials and hearings here to stay?

Whether virtual malpractice trials continue will largely depend on the location in which physicians practice. Some insurance carriers are opting to continue virtual trials, but in some areas, trials are being delayed until in-person proceedings can resume, Ms. Adams said. Some areas never adopted video trials and never ceased in-person trials.

“I think it’s going to be very regionally based,” she said. “Some of the smaller, rural counties just don’t have the capacity or the resources to continue, so they’ll probably just go back to in person.”

Not all virtual proceedings are problematic for physicians, say legal experts. Virtual depositions can be beneficial for doctors because they are less intimidating and confrontational than in-person depositions, Mr. Lyman said.

Additionally, virtual mediations can take much less time than in-person mediations, Ms. Adams said. Video depositions and mediations also save travel costs and reduce time missed from work for physicians.

“But I hope we all go back to in-person trials,” Ms. Leedom said. “Even here in King County, [Washington,] where we’ve done federal and state court trials by Zoom, I’m hopeful that it will go back to in-person trials.”

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

During a recent virtual medical malpractice trial, the judge called a break, and the participants left their screens. When the trial resumed a short time later, one juror was missing. The court called his phone, but there was no answer.

“Everyone had to keep waiting and waiting while the bailiff kept trying to call,” recalled Elizabeth Leedom, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Seattle. “The juror fell asleep.”

The sleeping juror caused a significant delay in the trial, Ms. Leedom said. Finally, he woke up, and the trial was able to continue.

In another instance, a potential juror showed up drunk to a virtual jury selection. The man was slurring his words as he answered questions, Ms. Leedom said, and when asked if he was okay, he admitted that he had a drinking problem. The judge asked whether he had consumed alcohol, and the man admitted that he’d been drinking that day. He was excused from jury selection.

These alarming incidents are among the mishaps that happen during virtual medical malpractice trials. Since the pandemic started, many courts have moved to virtual settings to slow the spread of COVID-19. Although some courts have now shifted back to in-person trials, some areas continue to mandate virtual malpractice trials, hearings, and depositions.

Such trials can save money and are convenient, but legal experts say virtual trials present serious challenges for physicians and raise concerns about fairness. Some jurors are not taking virtual cases seriously or do not stay focused on the subject matter, according to attorneys.

“Virtual trials are not as fair to physicians as in-person trials,” said Andrew DeSimone, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Lexington, Ky. “It’s too easy not to pay attention in a virtual setting. And when you are dealing with complex medical topics, juror attention is a paramount issue.”
 

Casual settings, constant interruptions during jury selections

Understanding and reaching the jury have been the greatest challenges with virtual and hybrid trials, said Laura Eschleman, a medical liability defense attorney based in Atlanta. Hybrid trials are part virtual and part in person.

Ms. Eschleman has participated in jury selections via Zoom in which jurors lounge in bed during the process and spouses and children waltz into the room as they please, she said.

“With over 36 Zoom boxes of potential jurors, assessing each potential juror was difficult to say the least,” she said. “[Jury selection] has always been an opportunity to introduce the defendant physicians to the jurors as humans; doing it virtually took that away. It is difficult to humanize a box on a screen.”

Regarding one virtual jury selection, Ms. Eschleman said the court had narrowed the pool to a final 12 jurors when one juror’s wife burst into his room and started yelling in front of his computer.

The judge allowed her to speak, and the crying woman begged the judge not to select her husband for the trial because it would disrupt the couple’s child care. After a lengthy exchange, they learned that the child was 16 years old and had his own car. The husband disagreed with his wife and wanted to remain a juror.

“This would have never happened had the twelfth juror been called to an in-person jury selection,” Ms. Eschleman said.

Keeping juries focused while the trial is underway can also be a problem, DeSimone said. He describes the courtroom during malpractice trials as a theater of sorts. Jurors watch intently as witnesses testify, evidence is presented, and the judge gives instructions. During virtual trials, however, watching through a screen doesn’t always yield the same captive audiences, he said.

“During Zoom, it’s much harder to connect with the jury because they won’t be as tuned into it,” he said. “If the jury believes the physician is empathetic, conscientious, caring, and compassionate, they will give the physician the benefit of the doubt, even if something went wrong or a bad outcome occurred. Developing that connection through good eye contact, being a teacher, and showing compassion is the most important thing a physician can do when testifying.”

A related challenge is that medical experts can’t connect as well with jurors, and some may have trouble conveying their message from a screen, said Evan Lyman, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in White Plains, N.Y.

“Some experts like to get out of the witness box and kind of take over the courtroom with a laser pointer or a white board,” he said. “For some, that’s what makes them effective experts. Some experts lose their touch when they can’t do that.”

Technical difficulties during virtual trials can cause further woes, said Kari Adams, vice president of claims for Physicians Insurance – A Mutual Company. She recalled a recent case in which technical problems arose during the defense attorney’s closing arguments.

“It’s hard to see our defense attorneys who are used to using all of their advocacy skills, all of their charisma trying to convey it in a virtual format,” she said. “When it’s disrupted, it can really throw things. A lot of their advocacy and personality can play through, but it’s just a little less in that forum.”
 

Doc fights against virtual trial

When Texas cardiologist Amin Al-Ahmad’s malpractice trial was changed to a virtual format because of COVID-19 concerns, Dr. Al-Ahmad and his attorneys fought the move.

They argued that the malpractice case was too complex for a virtual format and that a video trial would deprive Dr. Al-Ahmad of his rights to due process, including the right to trial by jury.

Dr. Al-Ahmad’s case involved allegations that he had failed to promptly diagnose and treat an atrial esophageal fistula, resulting in a patient’s stroke and ongoing neurologic problems. The trial was expected to last up to 10 days. Nine witnesses were expected to testify, and $1 million in damages were at stake, according to court documents.

“The length of trial anticipated, complexity of the medical issues, the confidential medical information at issue, and the number of anticipated medical records exhibits lead to a real risk of juror ‘Zoom fatigue,’ even if the trial is not interrupted with technology glitches, such as jurors dropping off the link or sound loss,” Dr. Al-Ahmad’s attorneys wrote in a petition to the Texas Supreme Court. “The risks of forcing [the defendants] to trial through the procedure of a remote or virtual jury trial are numerous. Not least of these is the risk that [defendants’] relators will be prevented from presenting an adequate defense or being able to fully preserve error during a virtual trial.”

Another concern regards the lack of uniformity from county to county in conducting a virtual trial, said David A. Wright, an attorney for Dr. Al-Ahmad. Some counties don’t permit them, while others permit parties to opt out of virtual trials, he noted.

“Even those that hold virtual trials seem to have different procedures and rules,” he said. “Travis County, where I have tried my virtual cases, has iPads that they provide to each juror so that they are limited to using just the county iPad for the trial. Others, I have heard, permit jurors to use their own devices. There are simply no uniform rules.”

Despite requests to the trial court and petitions to the appellate and Texas Supreme Court, Dr. Al-Ahmad lost his bid to have his trial delayed until in-person trials resumed. The Texas Supreme Court in late 2021 refused to halt the virtual trial.

Dr. Al-Ahmad, based in Austin, declined to comment through his attorney. Mr. Wright said the court’s denial “was not unexpected.”

Dr. Al-Ahmad’s virtual trial went forward in October 2021, and the jury ruled in his favor.

“We were very pleased with the jury’s verdict,” Mr. Wright said.
 

Are virtual trials ending in higher awards?

In addition to jurors’ not taking their roles as seriously, the casual vibe of virtual trials may also be diminishing how jurors view the verdict’s magnitude.

“Virtual trials don’t have the gravity or the seriousness of a real trial,” Ms. Leedom said. “I don’t think the importance of the jury’s decision weighs on them as much during a Zoom trial as it does an in-person trial.”

Alarmingly, Ms. Leedom said that, in her experience, damages in virtual trials have been higher in comparison with damages awarded during in-person trials.

Ms. Adams agreed with this observation.

“We’ll still win cases, but we’re concerned that, in the cases we lose, the damages can be slightly higher because there hasn’t been that interpersonal connection with the defendant,” she said. “It almost becomes like monopoly money to jurors.”
 

Remember these tips during virtual trials

Physicians undergoing virtual trials may have better experiences if they keep a few tips in mind.

Mr. DeSimone emphasized the importance of eye contact with jurors, which can be tricky during virtual settings. It helps if physicians look at the camera, rather than the screen, while talking.

Physicians should be cognizant of their facial expressions as they watch others speak.

“Don’t roll your eyes like: ‘Oh my gosh, he’s an idiot,’ ” Mr. DeSimone said. “Keep a poker face. Be respectful of what’s going on. Don’t be lulled into letting your guard down.”

Before the virtual trial, practice the cross examination and direct examination with your attorney and record it, Ms. Leedom said. That way, doctors can watch how they present on video and make necessary changes before the real trial. Lighting is also important, she noted. Her firm provides special lamps to clients and witnesses for virtual trials and proceedings.

“The lighting makes a huge difference,” she said.

Its also a good idea for physicians to have a paper copy of the records or exhibits that are going to be used so it’s easy for them to flip through them while on the screen. Physicians should also be mindful of how they come across during video depositions, which are sometimes played during virtual trials, Ms. Adams said.

“If you’re not looking professional during the video deposition – you’re eating, you’re not dressed well – the plaintiff’s attorney will take the most inopportune segment of the deposition and portray the physician as: ‘Look, here’s someone who was careless in the medical care, and look, they don’t even look professional when they’re testifying about this horrifying experience,’ ” she said. “They’ll use the clips to make a very careful provider appear distracted.”
 

Are virtual trials and hearings here to stay?

Whether virtual malpractice trials continue will largely depend on the location in which physicians practice. Some insurance carriers are opting to continue virtual trials, but in some areas, trials are being delayed until in-person proceedings can resume, Ms. Adams said. Some areas never adopted video trials and never ceased in-person trials.

“I think it’s going to be very regionally based,” she said. “Some of the smaller, rural counties just don’t have the capacity or the resources to continue, so they’ll probably just go back to in person.”

Not all virtual proceedings are problematic for physicians, say legal experts. Virtual depositions can be beneficial for doctors because they are less intimidating and confrontational than in-person depositions, Mr. Lyman said.

Additionally, virtual mediations can take much less time than in-person mediations, Ms. Adams said. Video depositions and mediations also save travel costs and reduce time missed from work for physicians.

“But I hope we all go back to in-person trials,” Ms. Leedom said. “Even here in King County, [Washington,] where we’ve done federal and state court trials by Zoom, I’m hopeful that it will go back to in-person trials.”

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

A trio of analyses based on the prospective UK Biobank cohort suggest that regular coffee drinking, especially a daily intake of two to three cups, is not only safe for the heart but may be cardioprotective.

People without cardiovascular disease with that level of coffee intake, compared with those who weren’t coffee drinkers, showed significantly reduced risks of death and a range of CVD endpoints, the reductions ranging from 8% to 15% over about 10 years.

S_Bachstroem/Getty Images

In a separate analysis, participants with CVD at baseline also showed significantly improved survival with coffee intake of two to three cups daily, and no increased risk of arrhythmias.

In a third cut of the UK Biobank data, the clinical benefits of the same level of coffee drinking were observed whether the coffee consumed was the “instant” kind for reconstitution with water or brewed from ground whole beans.

Some clinicians advise their patients that coffee drinking may trigger or worsen some types of heart disease, observed Peter M. Kistler, MD, the Alfred Hospital and Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne. But the current analyses suggest that “daily coffee intake should not be discouraged, but rather considered part of a healthy diet.”

Dr. Kistler and colleagues are slated to present the three UK Biobank cohort analyses separately at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. He presented some of the data and commented on them at a press conference held in advance of the meeting.

UK Biobank study participants, who were on average in their late 50s, reported their level of daily coffee intake and preferred type of coffee on questionnaires. The researchers observed generally U-shaped relationships between daily number of cups of coffee and incident CVD, heart failure, coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, atrial fibrillation, any arrhythmia, and death over 10 years.

“This is music to I think many of our patients’ ears, as well as many in the field of cardiology, as those of us that wake up early and stay up late in the hospital consume a fair amount of coffee,” observed Katie Berlacher, MD, associate chief of cardiology education at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

The analyses were based on a large cohort and saw a consistent pattern for several cardiovascular outcomes, observed Dr. Berlacher, incoming ACC scientific session vice chair.

The findings could have a “profound impact in daily clinical care, as many of us caution patients who have or are at risk for having CV[D] against coffee consumption,” she told this news organization by email.

“These studies suggest that we do not have objective evidence to caution nor ask patients to stop drinking coffee, including patients who have arrhythmias.”

But importantly, “these studies are not causal,” she added. “So we cannot go so far as to recommend coffee consumption, though one could posit that randomized prospective studies should be done to elucidate causation.”

Coffee, Dr. Kistler observed, “is the most common cognitive enhancer. It wakes you up, makes you mentally sharper, and it’s a very important component of many people’s daily lives. The take-home message is that clinicians should NOT advise patients to stop drinking coffee up to three cups per day.”

Also, “in non–coffee drinkers, we do not have the data to suggest they should start drinking coffee,” he said. Moreover, people shouldn’t necessarily increase their coffee intake, particularly if it makes them feel anxious or uncomfortable.
 

Benefits with or without known heart disease

The researchers identified 382,535 participants in the UK Biobank cohort who were free of CVD at baseline. Their median age was 57, and 52% were women.

Those who reported regular daily intake of two to three cups of coffee, compared with those who were not coffee drinkers, showed significantly reduced risks of CVD (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.94), CHD (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87-0.93), heart failure (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.81-0.90), arrhythmias (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.95), and death from any cause over 10 years (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.90) (P < .01 for all endpoints).

The risk of CVD death hit its lowest point at an intake of one cup per day (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.93). The risk of stroke was lowest at less than one cup per day (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96).

A separate analysis found similar outcomes among a different subset of UK Biobank participants with recognized CVD at baseline. Among 34,279 such persons, those who drank two to three cups of coffee per day, compared with non–coffee drinkers, showed a reduced risk of death over 10 years (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.99; P = .03).

Among the 24,111 persons diagnosed with arrhythmias at baseline, the lowest mortality risk was observed at one cup per day (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.94; P < .01). Among those with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, one cup per day was associated with a mortality HR of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.73-0.93; P < .01).

In still another analysis of UK Biobank cohort, incident CVD and mortality during the 10-year follow-up was similarly reduced among participants who reported consumption of brewed ground coffee and, separately, instant coffee, compared with non–coffee drinkers. Decaffeinated coffee showed a mostly neutral or inconsistent effect on the clinical endpoints.

The lowest CVD risk was observed at two to three cups per day among those regularly drinking ground coffee (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.79-0.87) and those predominantly taking instant coffee (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.95).

Potential mechanisms, study limitations

“Caffeine blocks adenosine receptors, which may explain its potential mild antiarrhythmic properties,” Dr. Kistler said. “Regular coffee drinkers with supraventricular tachycardia coming to the emergency department often need higher adenosine doses to revert.”

Caffeine has a role in weight loss through inhibition of gut fatty acid absorption and increase in basal metabolic rate, Dr. Kistler added, and coffee has been associated with a significantly reduced risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes.

However, coffee beans contain more than 100 biologically active compounds, he noted. They include antioxidant polyphenols that reduce oxidative stress and modulate metabolism. Better survival with habitual coffee consumption may be related to improved endothelial function, circulating antioxidants, improved insulin sensitivity, or reduced inflammation, the researchers noted.

They acknowledged some limitations to the analyses. Cause and effect can’t be determined from the observational data. Also, a cup of coffee in the United Kingdom means about 200-250 mL of brew, but its actual caffeine content can vary from 90 mg to 250 mg. Also, data regarding added sugar or milk was lacking. And UK Biobank participants are predominantly White, so the findings may not be generalizable to other populations.

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

A trio of analyses based on the prospective UK Biobank cohort suggest that regular coffee drinking, especially a daily intake of two to three cups, is not only safe for the heart but may be cardioprotective.

People without cardiovascular disease with that level of coffee intake, compared with those who weren’t coffee drinkers, showed significantly reduced risks of death and a range of CVD endpoints, the reductions ranging from 8% to 15% over about 10 years.

S_Bachstroem/Getty Images

In a separate analysis, participants with CVD at baseline also showed significantly improved survival with coffee intake of two to three cups daily, and no increased risk of arrhythmias.

In a third cut of the UK Biobank data, the clinical benefits of the same level of coffee drinking were observed whether the coffee consumed was the “instant” kind for reconstitution with water or brewed from ground whole beans.

Some clinicians advise their patients that coffee drinking may trigger or worsen some types of heart disease, observed Peter M. Kistler, MD, the Alfred Hospital and Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne. But the current analyses suggest that “daily coffee intake should not be discouraged, but rather considered part of a healthy diet.”

Dr. Kistler and colleagues are slated to present the three UK Biobank cohort analyses separately at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. He presented some of the data and commented on them at a press conference held in advance of the meeting.

UK Biobank study participants, who were on average in their late 50s, reported their level of daily coffee intake and preferred type of coffee on questionnaires. The researchers observed generally U-shaped relationships between daily number of cups of coffee and incident CVD, heart failure, coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, atrial fibrillation, any arrhythmia, and death over 10 years.

“This is music to I think many of our patients’ ears, as well as many in the field of cardiology, as those of us that wake up early and stay up late in the hospital consume a fair amount of coffee,” observed Katie Berlacher, MD, associate chief of cardiology education at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

The analyses were based on a large cohort and saw a consistent pattern for several cardiovascular outcomes, observed Dr. Berlacher, incoming ACC scientific session vice chair.

The findings could have a “profound impact in daily clinical care, as many of us caution patients who have or are at risk for having CV[D] against coffee consumption,” she told this news organization by email.

“These studies suggest that we do not have objective evidence to caution nor ask patients to stop drinking coffee, including patients who have arrhythmias.”

But importantly, “these studies are not causal,” she added. “So we cannot go so far as to recommend coffee consumption, though one could posit that randomized prospective studies should be done to elucidate causation.”

Coffee, Dr. Kistler observed, “is the most common cognitive enhancer. It wakes you up, makes you mentally sharper, and it’s a very important component of many people’s daily lives. The take-home message is that clinicians should NOT advise patients to stop drinking coffee up to three cups per day.”

Also, “in non–coffee drinkers, we do not have the data to suggest they should start drinking coffee,” he said. Moreover, people shouldn’t necessarily increase their coffee intake, particularly if it makes them feel anxious or uncomfortable.
 

Benefits with or without known heart disease

The researchers identified 382,535 participants in the UK Biobank cohort who were free of CVD at baseline. Their median age was 57, and 52% were women.

Those who reported regular daily intake of two to three cups of coffee, compared with those who were not coffee drinkers, showed significantly reduced risks of CVD (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.94), CHD (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87-0.93), heart failure (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.81-0.90), arrhythmias (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.95), and death from any cause over 10 years (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.90) (P < .01 for all endpoints).

The risk of CVD death hit its lowest point at an intake of one cup per day (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.93). The risk of stroke was lowest at less than one cup per day (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96).

A separate analysis found similar outcomes among a different subset of UK Biobank participants with recognized CVD at baseline. Among 34,279 such persons, those who drank two to three cups of coffee per day, compared with non–coffee drinkers, showed a reduced risk of death over 10 years (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.99; P = .03).

Among the 24,111 persons diagnosed with arrhythmias at baseline, the lowest mortality risk was observed at one cup per day (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.94; P < .01). Among those with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, one cup per day was associated with a mortality HR of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.73-0.93; P < .01).

In still another analysis of UK Biobank cohort, incident CVD and mortality during the 10-year follow-up was similarly reduced among participants who reported consumption of brewed ground coffee and, separately, instant coffee, compared with non–coffee drinkers. Decaffeinated coffee showed a mostly neutral or inconsistent effect on the clinical endpoints.

The lowest CVD risk was observed at two to three cups per day among those regularly drinking ground coffee (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.79-0.87) and those predominantly taking instant coffee (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.95).

Potential mechanisms, study limitations

“Caffeine blocks adenosine receptors, which may explain its potential mild antiarrhythmic properties,” Dr. Kistler said. “Regular coffee drinkers with supraventricular tachycardia coming to the emergency department often need higher adenosine doses to revert.”

Caffeine has a role in weight loss through inhibition of gut fatty acid absorption and increase in basal metabolic rate, Dr. Kistler added, and coffee has been associated with a significantly reduced risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes.

However, coffee beans contain more than 100 biologically active compounds, he noted. They include antioxidant polyphenols that reduce oxidative stress and modulate metabolism. Better survival with habitual coffee consumption may be related to improved endothelial function, circulating antioxidants, improved insulin sensitivity, or reduced inflammation, the researchers noted.

They acknowledged some limitations to the analyses. Cause and effect can’t be determined from the observational data. Also, a cup of coffee in the United Kingdom means about 200-250 mL of brew, but its actual caffeine content can vary from 90 mg to 250 mg. Also, data regarding added sugar or milk was lacking. And UK Biobank participants are predominantly White, so the findings may not be generalizable to other populations.

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

A trio of analyses based on the prospective UK Biobank cohort suggest that regular coffee drinking, especially a daily intake of two to three cups, is not only safe for the heart but may be cardioprotective.

People without cardiovascular disease with that level of coffee intake, compared with those who weren’t coffee drinkers, showed significantly reduced risks of death and a range of CVD endpoints, the reductions ranging from 8% to 15% over about 10 years.

S_Bachstroem/Getty Images

In a separate analysis, participants with CVD at baseline also showed significantly improved survival with coffee intake of two to three cups daily, and no increased risk of arrhythmias.

In a third cut of the UK Biobank data, the clinical benefits of the same level of coffee drinking were observed whether the coffee consumed was the “instant” kind for reconstitution with water or brewed from ground whole beans.

Some clinicians advise their patients that coffee drinking may trigger or worsen some types of heart disease, observed Peter M. Kistler, MD, the Alfred Hospital and Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne. But the current analyses suggest that “daily coffee intake should not be discouraged, but rather considered part of a healthy diet.”

Dr. Kistler and colleagues are slated to present the three UK Biobank cohort analyses separately at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. He presented some of the data and commented on them at a press conference held in advance of the meeting.

UK Biobank study participants, who were on average in their late 50s, reported their level of daily coffee intake and preferred type of coffee on questionnaires. The researchers observed generally U-shaped relationships between daily number of cups of coffee and incident CVD, heart failure, coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, atrial fibrillation, any arrhythmia, and death over 10 years.

“This is music to I think many of our patients’ ears, as well as many in the field of cardiology, as those of us that wake up early and stay up late in the hospital consume a fair amount of coffee,” observed Katie Berlacher, MD, associate chief of cardiology education at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

The analyses were based on a large cohort and saw a consistent pattern for several cardiovascular outcomes, observed Dr. Berlacher, incoming ACC scientific session vice chair.

The findings could have a “profound impact in daily clinical care, as many of us caution patients who have or are at risk for having CV[D] against coffee consumption,” she told this news organization by email.

“These studies suggest that we do not have objective evidence to caution nor ask patients to stop drinking coffee, including patients who have arrhythmias.”

But importantly, “these studies are not causal,” she added. “So we cannot go so far as to recommend coffee consumption, though one could posit that randomized prospective studies should be done to elucidate causation.”

Coffee, Dr. Kistler observed, “is the most common cognitive enhancer. It wakes you up, makes you mentally sharper, and it’s a very important component of many people’s daily lives. The take-home message is that clinicians should NOT advise patients to stop drinking coffee up to three cups per day.”

Also, “in non–coffee drinkers, we do not have the data to suggest they should start drinking coffee,” he said. Moreover, people shouldn’t necessarily increase their coffee intake, particularly if it makes them feel anxious or uncomfortable.
 

Benefits with or without known heart disease

The researchers identified 382,535 participants in the UK Biobank cohort who were free of CVD at baseline. Their median age was 57, and 52% were women.

Those who reported regular daily intake of two to three cups of coffee, compared with those who were not coffee drinkers, showed significantly reduced risks of CVD (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.94), CHD (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87-0.93), heart failure (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.81-0.90), arrhythmias (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.95), and death from any cause over 10 years (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.90) (P < .01 for all endpoints).

The risk of CVD death hit its lowest point at an intake of one cup per day (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.93). The risk of stroke was lowest at less than one cup per day (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96).

A separate analysis found similar outcomes among a different subset of UK Biobank participants with recognized CVD at baseline. Among 34,279 such persons, those who drank two to three cups of coffee per day, compared with non–coffee drinkers, showed a reduced risk of death over 10 years (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.99; P = .03).

Among the 24,111 persons diagnosed with arrhythmias at baseline, the lowest mortality risk was observed at one cup per day (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.94; P < .01). Among those with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, one cup per day was associated with a mortality HR of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.73-0.93; P < .01).

In still another analysis of UK Biobank cohort, incident CVD and mortality during the 10-year follow-up was similarly reduced among participants who reported consumption of brewed ground coffee and, separately, instant coffee, compared with non–coffee drinkers. Decaffeinated coffee showed a mostly neutral or inconsistent effect on the clinical endpoints.

The lowest CVD risk was observed at two to three cups per day among those regularly drinking ground coffee (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.79-0.87) and those predominantly taking instant coffee (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.95).

Potential mechanisms, study limitations

“Caffeine blocks adenosine receptors, which may explain its potential mild antiarrhythmic properties,” Dr. Kistler said. “Regular coffee drinkers with supraventricular tachycardia coming to the emergency department often need higher adenosine doses to revert.”

Caffeine has a role in weight loss through inhibition of gut fatty acid absorption and increase in basal metabolic rate, Dr. Kistler added, and coffee has been associated with a significantly reduced risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes.

However, coffee beans contain more than 100 biologically active compounds, he noted. They include antioxidant polyphenols that reduce oxidative stress and modulate metabolism. Better survival with habitual coffee consumption may be related to improved endothelial function, circulating antioxidants, improved insulin sensitivity, or reduced inflammation, the researchers noted.

They acknowledged some limitations to the analyses. Cause and effect can’t be determined from the observational data. Also, a cup of coffee in the United Kingdom means about 200-250 mL of brew, but its actual caffeine content can vary from 90 mg to 250 mg. Also, data regarding added sugar or milk was lacking. And UK Biobank participants are predominantly White, so the findings may not be generalizable to other populations.

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

Dr James de Lemos, professor of internal medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, presents a framework to address the most common questions that patients have about the reported muscular, cognitive, and hepatotoxic side effects of statin therapy.

To start, he presents clinical data to address areas of patient concern. Next, he discusses ways to develop — from the first visit — a partnership with patients and encourage their informed decision-making by guiding them to reliable medical sources.

Finally, Dr de Lemos presents strategies that clinicians can use to improve adherence to statin therapy to reach LDL-C treatment goals

--

James de Lemos, MD, PhD
Professor, Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas

James de Lemos, MD, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Amgen; Regeneron; AstraZeneca

Dr James de Lemos, professor of internal medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, presents a framework to address the most common questions that patients have about the reported muscular, cognitive, and hepatotoxic side effects of statin therapy.

To start, he presents clinical data to address areas of patient concern. Next, he discusses ways to develop — from the first visit — a partnership with patients and encourage their informed decision-making by guiding them to reliable medical sources.

Finally, Dr de Lemos presents strategies that clinicians can use to improve adherence to statin therapy to reach LDL-C treatment goals

--

James de Lemos, MD, PhD
Professor, Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas

James de Lemos, MD, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Amgen; Regeneron; AstraZeneca

Dr James de Lemos, professor of internal medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, presents a framework to address the most common questions that patients have about the reported muscular, cognitive, and hepatotoxic side effects of statin therapy.

To start, he presents clinical data to address areas of patient concern. Next, he discusses ways to develop — from the first visit — a partnership with patients and encourage their informed decision-making by guiding them to reliable medical sources.

Finally, Dr de Lemos presents strategies that clinicians can use to improve adherence to statin therapy to reach LDL-C treatment goals

--

James de Lemos, MD, PhD
Professor, Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas

James de Lemos, MD, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Amgen; Regeneron; AstraZeneca

BOSTON – Patients with recessive X-linked and autosomal recessive lamellar congenital ichthyosis (CI) achieved treatment success with a novel topical isotretinoin ointment known as TMB-001, results from a phase 2b study demonstrated.

“Patients with these deficiencies have generally had very limited treatment options, including lifelong use of emollients and keratolytics, and in severe cases, systemic retinoids,” Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said at a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “There is currently no [Food and Drug Administration]-approved drug for CI. So, imagine your patients and their parents, and the frustration they must feel.”

In a study known as CONTROL, he and his colleagues evaluated the effect of TMB-001 on two subtypes of congenital ichthyosis: X-linked recessive ichthyosis (XLRI) and autosomal recessive congenital ichthyosis–lamellar ichthyosis (ARCI-LI). Of the two, the most common is XLRI, which has an estimated incidence of 1:3,000 and is caused by a deficiency of steroid sulfatase, resulting in cholesterol sulfate accumulation in the stratum corneum, retained corneodesmosomes, and reduced corneocyte desquamation, Dr. Bunick said.

ARCI-LI is rarer, with a prevalence of 1:100,000, and has been linked to mutations in six genes, most commonly TGM1, resulting in enzyme inactivation and deficient cross-linking of cornified cell envelope proteins.

TMB-001 is a proprietary, novel, topical isotretinoin formulation to treat CI that is being developed by Timber Pharmaceuticals. It uses a patented “IPEG” technology isotretinoin delivery system designed specifically for patients with CI. In a prior phase 2a study, TMB-001 0.1% and 0.2% ointment twice a day demonstrated greater improvement in ≥ 1 and ≥ 2 Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) scores compared with vehicle. Scaling in all patients treated with TMB-001 was considered clear, almost clear, or mild at 8 weeks, and no concerning safety signals were observed.

For the current trial, 33 patients with genetically confirmed XLRI/ARCI-LI and ≥ 2 (out of 4) Visual Index for Ichthyosis Severity (VIIS) assessment areas with a ≥ 3 scaling score were randomized 1:1:1 to TMB-001 0.05%, TMB-001 0.1%, or vehicle twice daily for 12 weeks. Primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were reduction of ≥ 50% compared with baseline in VIIS-scaling (VIIS-50) and a ≥ 2-grade reduction in the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA)–scaling score compared with baseline. The patients ranged in age from 9 to 80 years, the majority were White, and their baseline body surface area (BSA) affected ranged from 28% to 38%.

Of the 33 patients, 11 patients received TMB-001 0.05%, 10 received TMB-001 0.1%, and 12 received the vehicle.

Among all patients, 55% had ARCI-LI and 45% had XLRI subtypes, and those with ARCI-LI had greater prior use of corticosteroid, emollient, and oral/topical retinoids. Overall, 100%, 50%, and 75% of patients with XLRI and 100%, 33%, and 17% of patients with ARCI-LI achieved VIIS-50 after receiving TMB-001 0.05%, TMB-001 0.1%, and vehicle, respectively.

An improvement of a ≥ 2-grade IGA score was observed in 100%, 50%, and 25% of patients with XLRI and 100%, 67%, and none of patients with ARCI-LI who received TMB-001 0.05%, TMB-001 0.1%, and vehicle, respectively.

Dr. Bunick reported that there were no serious adverse events, no hospitalizations, and no patient deaths. Six patients discontinued treatment, five because of participant withdrawal and one because of physician withdrawal. The four most common treatment-emergent adverse events were erythema (21%), pruritus (21%), pain (15%) and dermatitis (12%).

“These results support ongoing investigation of TMB-001 as a promising alternative to systemic retinoids for participants with CI,” Dr. Bunick concluded. He noted that while he is not privy to details of TMB-001’s IPEG delivery system, “the way they have used polyethylene glycol to encapsulate the isotretinoin allows for greater barrier penetration and reduces a lot of the tolerability issues that are seen with other topical retinoids.” In his view, “that is providing this retinoid a greater chance of success. The patented delivery system is not only designed to help the isotretinoin do its job, but also to provide that stability and the ability to compound it, which have been barriers to success in the past.”

Phase 3 trials of the agent are scheduled to begin in June of 2022.

Amy S. Paller, MD, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study, said that she was impressed that no significant changes from baseline laboratory clinical assessments were observed. “If that’s true, then we don’t have to be monitoring these patients in the same way as with systemic agents,” said Dr. Paller, who was involved in the phase 2a proof-of-concept trial of TMB-001. “I think that deserves more investigation. Hopefully that will be looked at in the phase 3 trial.”

Dr. Bunick reported having no disclosures related to his presentation. Dr. Paller disclosed that she is consultant to and/or an investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.

*A change correcting the age range of the patients in the study was made on 3/29/22. 

BOSTON – Patients with recessive X-linked and autosomal recessive lamellar congenital ichthyosis (CI) achieved treatment success with a novel topical isotretinoin ointment known as TMB-001, results from a phase 2b study demonstrated.

“Patients with these deficiencies have generally had very limited treatment options, including lifelong use of emollients and keratolytics, and in severe cases, systemic retinoids,” Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said at a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “There is currently no [Food and Drug Administration]-approved drug for CI. So, imagine your patients and their parents, and the frustration they must feel.”

In a study known as CONTROL, he and his colleagues evaluated the effect of TMB-001 on two subtypes of congenital ichthyosis: X-linked recessive ichthyosis (XLRI) and autosomal recessive congenital ichthyosis–lamellar ichthyosis (ARCI-LI). Of the two, the most common is XLRI, which has an estimated incidence of 1:3,000 and is caused by a deficiency of steroid sulfatase, resulting in cholesterol sulfate accumulation in the stratum corneum, retained corneodesmosomes, and reduced corneocyte desquamation, Dr. Bunick said.

ARCI-LI is rarer, with a prevalence of 1:100,000, and has been linked to mutations in six genes, most commonly TGM1, resulting in enzyme inactivation and deficient cross-linking of cornified cell envelope proteins.

TMB-001 is a proprietary, novel, topical isotretinoin formulation to treat CI that is being developed by Timber Pharmaceuticals. It uses a patented “IPEG” technology isotretinoin delivery system designed specifically for patients with CI. In a prior phase 2a study, TMB-001 0.1% and 0.2% ointment twice a day demonstrated greater improvement in ≥ 1 and ≥ 2 Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) scores compared with vehicle. Scaling in all patients treated with TMB-001 was considered clear, almost clear, or mild at 8 weeks, and no concerning safety signals were observed.

For the current trial, 33 patients with genetically confirmed XLRI/ARCI-LI and ≥ 2 (out of 4) Visual Index for Ichthyosis Severity (VIIS) assessment areas with a ≥ 3 scaling score were randomized 1:1:1 to TMB-001 0.05%, TMB-001 0.1%, or vehicle twice daily for 12 weeks. Primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were reduction of ≥ 50% compared with baseline in VIIS-scaling (VIIS-50) and a ≥ 2-grade reduction in the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA)–scaling score compared with baseline. The patients ranged in age from 9 to 80 years, the majority were White, and their baseline body surface area (BSA) affected ranged from 28% to 38%.

Of the 33 patients, 11 patients received TMB-001 0.05%, 10 received TMB-001 0.1%, and 12 received the vehicle.

Among all patients, 55% had ARCI-LI and 45% had XLRI subtypes, and those with ARCI-LI had greater prior use of corticosteroid, emollient, and oral/topical retinoids. Overall, 100%, 50%, and 75% of patients with XLRI and 100%, 33%, and 17% of patients with ARCI-LI achieved VIIS-50 after receiving TMB-001 0.05%, TMB-001 0.1%, and vehicle, respectively.

An improvement of a ≥ 2-grade IGA score was observed in 100%, 50%, and 25% of patients with XLRI and 100%, 67%, and none of patients with ARCI-LI who received TMB-001 0.05%, TMB-001 0.1%, and vehicle, respectively.

Dr. Bunick reported that there were no serious adverse events, no hospitalizations, and no patient deaths. Six patients discontinued treatment, five because of participant withdrawal and one because of physician withdrawal. The four most common treatment-emergent adverse events were erythema (21%), pruritus (21%), pain (15%) and dermatitis (12%).

“These results support ongoing investigation of TMB-001 as a promising alternative to systemic retinoids for participants with CI,” Dr. Bunick concluded. He noted that while he is not privy to details of TMB-001’s IPEG delivery system, “the way they have used polyethylene glycol to encapsulate the isotretinoin allows for greater barrier penetration and reduces a lot of the tolerability issues that are seen with other topical retinoids.” In his view, “that is providing this retinoid a greater chance of success. The patented delivery system is not only designed to help the isotretinoin do its job, but also to provide that stability and the ability to compound it, which have been barriers to success in the past.”

Phase 3 trials of the agent are scheduled to begin in June of 2022.

Amy S. Paller, MD, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study, said that she was impressed that no significant changes from baseline laboratory clinical assessments were observed. “If that’s true, then we don’t have to be monitoring these patients in the same way as with systemic agents,” said Dr. Paller, who was involved in the phase 2a proof-of-concept trial of TMB-001. “I think that deserves more investigation. Hopefully that will be looked at in the phase 3 trial.”

Dr. Bunick reported having no disclosures related to his presentation. Dr. Paller disclosed that she is consultant to and/or an investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.

*A change correcting the age range of the patients in the study was made on 3/29/22. 

BOSTON – Patients with recessive X-linked and autosomal recessive lamellar congenital ichthyosis (CI) achieved treatment success with a novel topical isotretinoin ointment known as TMB-001, results from a phase 2b study demonstrated.

“Patients with these deficiencies have generally had very limited treatment options, including lifelong use of emollients and keratolytics, and in severe cases, systemic retinoids,” Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said at a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “There is currently no [Food and Drug Administration]-approved drug for CI. So, imagine your patients and their parents, and the frustration they must feel.”

In a study known as CONTROL, he and his colleagues evaluated the effect of TMB-001 on two subtypes of congenital ichthyosis: X-linked recessive ichthyosis (XLRI) and autosomal recessive congenital ichthyosis–lamellar ichthyosis (ARCI-LI). Of the two, the most common is XLRI, which has an estimated incidence of 1:3,000 and is caused by a deficiency of steroid sulfatase, resulting in cholesterol sulfate accumulation in the stratum corneum, retained corneodesmosomes, and reduced corneocyte desquamation, Dr. Bunick said.

ARCI-LI is rarer, with a prevalence of 1:100,000, and has been linked to mutations in six genes, most commonly TGM1, resulting in enzyme inactivation and deficient cross-linking of cornified cell envelope proteins.

TMB-001 is a proprietary, novel, topical isotretinoin formulation to treat CI that is being developed by Timber Pharmaceuticals. It uses a patented “IPEG” technology isotretinoin delivery system designed specifically for patients with CI. In a prior phase 2a study, TMB-001 0.1% and 0.2% ointment twice a day demonstrated greater improvement in ≥ 1 and ≥ 2 Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) scores compared with vehicle. Scaling in all patients treated with TMB-001 was considered clear, almost clear, or mild at 8 weeks, and no concerning safety signals were observed.

For the current trial, 33 patients with genetically confirmed XLRI/ARCI-LI and ≥ 2 (out of 4) Visual Index for Ichthyosis Severity (VIIS) assessment areas with a ≥ 3 scaling score were randomized 1:1:1 to TMB-001 0.05%, TMB-001 0.1%, or vehicle twice daily for 12 weeks. Primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were reduction of ≥ 50% compared with baseline in VIIS-scaling (VIIS-50) and a ≥ 2-grade reduction in the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA)–scaling score compared with baseline. The patients ranged in age from 9 to 80 years, the majority were White, and their baseline body surface area (BSA) affected ranged from 28% to 38%.

Of the 33 patients, 11 patients received TMB-001 0.05%, 10 received TMB-001 0.1%, and 12 received the vehicle.

Among all patients, 55% had ARCI-LI and 45% had XLRI subtypes, and those with ARCI-LI had greater prior use of corticosteroid, emollient, and oral/topical retinoids. Overall, 100%, 50%, and 75% of patients with XLRI and 100%, 33%, and 17% of patients with ARCI-LI achieved VIIS-50 after receiving TMB-001 0.05%, TMB-001 0.1%, and vehicle, respectively.

An improvement of a ≥ 2-grade IGA score was observed in 100%, 50%, and 25% of patients with XLRI and 100%, 67%, and none of patients with ARCI-LI who received TMB-001 0.05%, TMB-001 0.1%, and vehicle, respectively.

Dr. Bunick reported that there were no serious adverse events, no hospitalizations, and no patient deaths. Six patients discontinued treatment, five because of participant withdrawal and one because of physician withdrawal. The four most common treatment-emergent adverse events were erythema (21%), pruritus (21%), pain (15%) and dermatitis (12%).

“These results support ongoing investigation of TMB-001 as a promising alternative to systemic retinoids for participants with CI,” Dr. Bunick concluded. He noted that while he is not privy to details of TMB-001’s IPEG delivery system, “the way they have used polyethylene glycol to encapsulate the isotretinoin allows for greater barrier penetration and reduces a lot of the tolerability issues that are seen with other topical retinoids.” In his view, “that is providing this retinoid a greater chance of success. The patented delivery system is not only designed to help the isotretinoin do its job, but also to provide that stability and the ability to compound it, which have been barriers to success in the past.”

Phase 3 trials of the agent are scheduled to begin in June of 2022.

Amy S. Paller, MD, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study, said that she was impressed that no significant changes from baseline laboratory clinical assessments were observed. “If that’s true, then we don’t have to be monitoring these patients in the same way as with systemic agents,” said Dr. Paller, who was involved in the phase 2a proof-of-concept trial of TMB-001. “I think that deserves more investigation. Hopefully that will be looked at in the phase 3 trial.”

Dr. Bunick reported having no disclosures related to his presentation. Dr. Paller disclosed that she is consultant to and/or an investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.

*A change correcting the age range of the patients in the study was made on 3/29/22. 

BOSTON – The American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) has selected aluminum as the Allergen of the Year for 2022. Aluminum salts, which are the major cause of allergic reactions, are “ubiquitous,” Donald Belsito, MD, professor of dermatology at Columbia University, New York, said at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society.

These salts can be found in sunscreen, cosmetics, dental restorations, and food, to name a few, though the most commonly identified reactions are from aluminum hydroxide, which can be found in some vaccines or preparations for allergen-specific immunotherapy. “It’s the aluminum hydroxide that seems to be more allergenic than other aluminum salts,” Dr. Belsito said in an interview.

“It’s not a dangerous allergy; It’s not a threat,” he said, “but it’s something that dermatologists need to be aware of.”

These reactions normally present as itchy nodules that can last for months and even years, like some reactions from patch testing. “We’re not talking about a vaccine allergy in such a way where people are getting anaphylaxis,” JiaDe Yu, MD, a pediatric dermatologist specializing in allergic contact dermatitis at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “An itchy rash is what we tend to see.”

There have also been occasional reports of atopic dermatitis from aluminum in antiperspirants, astringents, as well as from the metallic aluminum.

Dr. Yu noted that aluminum allergies are not thought to be very common, but the overall prevalence is not known. Studies do suggest, however, that the allergy may be more prevalent in children. In one recent study in Sweden, 5% of children and 0.9% of adults who underwent patch testing had an aluminum contact allergy.

Recommendations for testing

Aluminum is not included in baseline patch testing in the United States, though a recent report about the allergen in the journal Dermatitis argued for its inclusion for pediatric patch testing. Both Dr. Belsito and Dr. Yu agreed that the best approach is to do targeted testing. “If there is a suspicion for it, absolutely test for it,” Dr. Yu said, but if a patient comes in with something like eyelid dermatitis or a rash after a hair care appointment, an aluminum allergy is not very likely.

Because aluminum is also present in Finn Chambers for patch testing, Dr. Belsito advised using plastic chambers in people suspected of having an aluminum allergy. He now uses only plastic chambers in children, he said, as some patients have had reactions to the Finn Chambers even if they have no history of reactions to vaccines or other aluminum-containing products.

While aluminum chloride hexahydrate (ACH) 2% in petrolatum is the commercially available preparation in patch testing, a preparation with ACH 10% is more sensitive, Dr. Belsito said. If a physician strongly suspects an aluminum allergy in a patient but the test with the ACH 2% is negative, he or she should then try a 10% solution, he noted, adding that 7-day readings are also necessary to maximize accuracy.

Vaccine safety

One of the concerns about naming aluminum as the allergen of the year is the potential to cause anxiety around vaccines. “We want to make sure that we’re not giving more fuel to people who have an excuse not to get a vaccine,” Dr. Yu said. “We certainly want to reinforce that fact that it is safe.” Dr. Belsito noted that COVID-19 vaccines do not contain aluminum.

Even on the rare chance that a patient does have a reaction to an aluminum-containing vaccine, these subcutaneous nodules resolve over time, Dr. Belsito said. In his own clinical experience, “99.99% of the time they resolve and there is no residual.” He did add that overreacting to the rash by prescribing injectable steroids can lead to steroid atrophy. In these cases, a topical steroid may be more appropriate.

All unexpected or clinically significant vaccine reactions should be reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, cosponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration. The Clinical Immunization Project Safety Assessment Project, from the CDC, also can provide expertise and advice on aluminum-free alternatives for some vaccines.

Dr. Belsito and Dr. Yu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON – The American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) has selected aluminum as the Allergen of the Year for 2022. Aluminum salts, which are the major cause of allergic reactions, are “ubiquitous,” Donald Belsito, MD, professor of dermatology at Columbia University, New York, said at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society.

These salts can be found in sunscreen, cosmetics, dental restorations, and food, to name a few, though the most commonly identified reactions are from aluminum hydroxide, which can be found in some vaccines or preparations for allergen-specific immunotherapy. “It’s the aluminum hydroxide that seems to be more allergenic than other aluminum salts,” Dr. Belsito said in an interview.

“It’s not a dangerous allergy; It’s not a threat,” he said, “but it’s something that dermatologists need to be aware of.”

These reactions normally present as itchy nodules that can last for months and even years, like some reactions from patch testing. “We’re not talking about a vaccine allergy in such a way where people are getting anaphylaxis,” JiaDe Yu, MD, a pediatric dermatologist specializing in allergic contact dermatitis at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “An itchy rash is what we tend to see.”

There have also been occasional reports of atopic dermatitis from aluminum in antiperspirants, astringents, as well as from the metallic aluminum.

Dr. Yu noted that aluminum allergies are not thought to be very common, but the overall prevalence is not known. Studies do suggest, however, that the allergy may be more prevalent in children. In one recent study in Sweden, 5% of children and 0.9% of adults who underwent patch testing had an aluminum contact allergy.

Recommendations for testing

Aluminum is not included in baseline patch testing in the United States, though a recent report about the allergen in the journal Dermatitis argued for its inclusion for pediatric patch testing. Both Dr. Belsito and Dr. Yu agreed that the best approach is to do targeted testing. “If there is a suspicion for it, absolutely test for it,” Dr. Yu said, but if a patient comes in with something like eyelid dermatitis or a rash after a hair care appointment, an aluminum allergy is not very likely.

Because aluminum is also present in Finn Chambers for patch testing, Dr. Belsito advised using plastic chambers in people suspected of having an aluminum allergy. He now uses only plastic chambers in children, he said, as some patients have had reactions to the Finn Chambers even if they have no history of reactions to vaccines or other aluminum-containing products.

While aluminum chloride hexahydrate (ACH) 2% in petrolatum is the commercially available preparation in patch testing, a preparation with ACH 10% is more sensitive, Dr. Belsito said. If a physician strongly suspects an aluminum allergy in a patient but the test with the ACH 2% is negative, he or she should then try a 10% solution, he noted, adding that 7-day readings are also necessary to maximize accuracy.

Vaccine safety

One of the concerns about naming aluminum as the allergen of the year is the potential to cause anxiety around vaccines. “We want to make sure that we’re not giving more fuel to people who have an excuse not to get a vaccine,” Dr. Yu said. “We certainly want to reinforce that fact that it is safe.” Dr. Belsito noted that COVID-19 vaccines do not contain aluminum.

Even on the rare chance that a patient does have a reaction to an aluminum-containing vaccine, these subcutaneous nodules resolve over time, Dr. Belsito said. In his own clinical experience, “99.99% of the time they resolve and there is no residual.” He did add that overreacting to the rash by prescribing injectable steroids can lead to steroid atrophy. In these cases, a topical steroid may be more appropriate.

All unexpected or clinically significant vaccine reactions should be reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, cosponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration. The Clinical Immunization Project Safety Assessment Project, from the CDC, also can provide expertise and advice on aluminum-free alternatives for some vaccines.

Dr. Belsito and Dr. Yu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON – The American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) has selected aluminum as the Allergen of the Year for 2022. Aluminum salts, which are the major cause of allergic reactions, are “ubiquitous,” Donald Belsito, MD, professor of dermatology at Columbia University, New York, said at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society.

These salts can be found in sunscreen, cosmetics, dental restorations, and food, to name a few, though the most commonly identified reactions are from aluminum hydroxide, which can be found in some vaccines or preparations for allergen-specific immunotherapy. “It’s the aluminum hydroxide that seems to be more allergenic than other aluminum salts,” Dr. Belsito said in an interview.

“It’s not a dangerous allergy; It’s not a threat,” he said, “but it’s something that dermatologists need to be aware of.”

These reactions normally present as itchy nodules that can last for months and even years, like some reactions from patch testing. “We’re not talking about a vaccine allergy in such a way where people are getting anaphylaxis,” JiaDe Yu, MD, a pediatric dermatologist specializing in allergic contact dermatitis at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “An itchy rash is what we tend to see.”

There have also been occasional reports of atopic dermatitis from aluminum in antiperspirants, astringents, as well as from the metallic aluminum.

Dr. Yu noted that aluminum allergies are not thought to be very common, but the overall prevalence is not known. Studies do suggest, however, that the allergy may be more prevalent in children. In one recent study in Sweden, 5% of children and 0.9% of adults who underwent patch testing had an aluminum contact allergy.

Recommendations for testing

Aluminum is not included in baseline patch testing in the United States, though a recent report about the allergen in the journal Dermatitis argued for its inclusion for pediatric patch testing. Both Dr. Belsito and Dr. Yu agreed that the best approach is to do targeted testing. “If there is a suspicion for it, absolutely test for it,” Dr. Yu said, but if a patient comes in with something like eyelid dermatitis or a rash after a hair care appointment, an aluminum allergy is not very likely.

Because aluminum is also present in Finn Chambers for patch testing, Dr. Belsito advised using plastic chambers in people suspected of having an aluminum allergy. He now uses only plastic chambers in children, he said, as some patients have had reactions to the Finn Chambers even if they have no history of reactions to vaccines or other aluminum-containing products.

While aluminum chloride hexahydrate (ACH) 2% in petrolatum is the commercially available preparation in patch testing, a preparation with ACH 10% is more sensitive, Dr. Belsito said. If a physician strongly suspects an aluminum allergy in a patient but the test with the ACH 2% is negative, he or she should then try a 10% solution, he noted, adding that 7-day readings are also necessary to maximize accuracy.

Vaccine safety

One of the concerns about naming aluminum as the allergen of the year is the potential to cause anxiety around vaccines. “We want to make sure that we’re not giving more fuel to people who have an excuse not to get a vaccine,” Dr. Yu said. “We certainly want to reinforce that fact that it is safe.” Dr. Belsito noted that COVID-19 vaccines do not contain aluminum.

Even on the rare chance that a patient does have a reaction to an aluminum-containing vaccine, these subcutaneous nodules resolve over time, Dr. Belsito said. In his own clinical experience, “99.99% of the time they resolve and there is no residual.” He did add that overreacting to the rash by prescribing injectable steroids can lead to steroid atrophy. In these cases, a topical steroid may be more appropriate.

All unexpected or clinically significant vaccine reactions should be reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, cosponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration. The Clinical Immunization Project Safety Assessment Project, from the CDC, also can provide expertise and advice on aluminum-free alternatives for some vaccines.

Dr. Belsito and Dr. Yu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON – Following infection with SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients between the ages of 18 and 65 were at a significantly increased for developing certain cutaneous autoimmune and vascular diseases. This predominately favored systemic disease states with cutaneous involvement, rather than skin-limited processes.

The findings come from a large multicenter analysis that Zachary Holcomb, MD, presented during a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Doug Brunk, MDedge News

“Viral triggers have been implicated in the pathogenesis of rheumatologic disease, but information regarding development of autoimmune disease following SARS-CoV-2 infection is limited,” said Dr. Holcomb, chief resident in the Harvard Combined Internal Medicine–Dermatology Residency, Boston. “Given its proposed thromboinflammatory pathobiology, we hypothesized that SARS-CoV-2 infection increases the risk of development of autoimmune disease with cutaneous manifestations and sought to define incidence rates of newly-diagnosed autoimmune diseases following SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

The researchers drew from the TriNetX Dataworks platform, an online cloud-based system that contains aggregated and deidentified patient information from about 75 million patients across 48 health care organizations. The infected cohort was defined as having a positive lab test for severe SARS-CoV-2 within the study window using Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINCs). Healthy controls consisted of a documented health care contact (inpatient or outpatient visit) during the study window without a positive SARS-CoV-2 lab test. Each cohort included patients aged 18-65 at the time of the study, and patients with previously diagnosed cutaneous autoimmune or vascular diseases were excluded from the analysis.

After propensity matching, the COVID-19 infected cohort and the healthy cohort included 1,904,864 patients each, with no baseline differences in age at index event, ethnicity, race, or sex. The study window was between April 1, 2020, and Oct. 1, 2020. The index event was a COVID-19 infection for the infected group and first documented health care contact in the healthy control group. The researchers looked at a window of 60 days following this index event for new incidence of cutaneous or vascular disease.

In the realm of connective tissue and related diseases, they found the incidence was increased among the COVID-19 infected group compared with controls for dermatomyositis (risk ratio, 2.273; P = .0196), scleroderma (RR, 1.959; P = .0001), and systemic lupus erythematosus (RR, 1.401; P < .0001). They also noted a significant decrease in the new incidence of alopecia areata in the COVID-19 infected group compared with controls (RR, 0.527; P < .0001).

No significant differences in the incidence of bullous and papulosquamous diseases were observed between the two groups. However, sarcoidosis was significantly more common in the COVID-19–infected group compared with controls (RR, 2.086; P < .001). “When taking all of these autoinflammatory diseases as a whole, there was an increased incidence in the COVID-19 infected group overall with a RR of 1.168 (P < .0001),” Dr. Holcomb said.

In the realm of vascular skin diseases, there was an increased incidence in the COVID-19 infected group in acrocyanosis (RR, 2.825; P < .001), Raynaud’s phenomenon (RR, 1.462; P < .0001), cutaneous small vessel vasculitis (RR, 1.714; P < .0001), granulomatosis with polyangiitis (RR, 2.667; P = .0002), and temporal arteritis (RR, 1.900; P = .0038).

“Interestingly, despite the academic and lay press reports of COVID toes, we did not see that in our data related to the COVID-infected group,” he said.

Dr. Holcomb acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including a narrow study window with a relatively short follow-up. “We were able to propensity match based on baseline demographics but not necessarily so based on health status and prior autoimmune disease,” he said. In addition, since the study was limited to those aged 18-65, the results may not be generalizable to pediatric and elderly patients, he said.

He described the study findings as “somewhat hypothesis-generating.” For instance, “why would we have more of a systemic process [at play?]. Our theory is that the severe inflammatory nature of COVID-19 leads to a lot of internal organ damage and exposure of autoantigens in that process, with relative skin sparing.”

One of the session moderators, Robert Paul Dellavalle, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Colorado, Aurora, characterized the findings as “intriguing” but preliminary. “It would be interesting to look at more recent cohorts and see how vaccination for COVID-19 would impact the incidence rates of some of these diseases,” he said.

When asked for comment, Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said, "This is an interesting study that should be followed up. Viral triggers have been known to precede autoimmune diseases so it will be very important to understand whether COVID-19 also impacts systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases. I would be interested in differences in surveillance between the infection and control groups early in the pandemic. Many patients were avoiding interaction with the health care system at that point." 

Dr. Holcomb reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Dellavalle disclosed that he is a consultant for Altus Labs and ParaPRO LLC. He has received grants and research funding from Pfizer.

* This story was updated on 3/29/22.

BOSTON – Following infection with SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients between the ages of 18 and 65 were at a significantly increased for developing certain cutaneous autoimmune and vascular diseases. This predominately favored systemic disease states with cutaneous involvement, rather than skin-limited processes.

The findings come from a large multicenter analysis that Zachary Holcomb, MD, presented during a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Doug Brunk, MDedge News

“Viral triggers have been implicated in the pathogenesis of rheumatologic disease, but information regarding development of autoimmune disease following SARS-CoV-2 infection is limited,” said Dr. Holcomb, chief resident in the Harvard Combined Internal Medicine–Dermatology Residency, Boston. “Given its proposed thromboinflammatory pathobiology, we hypothesized that SARS-CoV-2 infection increases the risk of development of autoimmune disease with cutaneous manifestations and sought to define incidence rates of newly-diagnosed autoimmune diseases following SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

The researchers drew from the TriNetX Dataworks platform, an online cloud-based system that contains aggregated and deidentified patient information from about 75 million patients across 48 health care organizations. The infected cohort was defined as having a positive lab test for severe SARS-CoV-2 within the study window using Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINCs). Healthy controls consisted of a documented health care contact (inpatient or outpatient visit) during the study window without a positive SARS-CoV-2 lab test. Each cohort included patients aged 18-65 at the time of the study, and patients with previously diagnosed cutaneous autoimmune or vascular diseases were excluded from the analysis.

After propensity matching, the COVID-19 infected cohort and the healthy cohort included 1,904,864 patients each, with no baseline differences in age at index event, ethnicity, race, or sex. The study window was between April 1, 2020, and Oct. 1, 2020. The index event was a COVID-19 infection for the infected group and first documented health care contact in the healthy control group. The researchers looked at a window of 60 days following this index event for new incidence of cutaneous or vascular disease.

In the realm of connective tissue and related diseases, they found the incidence was increased among the COVID-19 infected group compared with controls for dermatomyositis (risk ratio, 2.273; P = .0196), scleroderma (RR, 1.959; P = .0001), and systemic lupus erythematosus (RR, 1.401; P < .0001). They also noted a significant decrease in the new incidence of alopecia areata in the COVID-19 infected group compared with controls (RR, 0.527; P < .0001).

No significant differences in the incidence of bullous and papulosquamous diseases were observed between the two groups. However, sarcoidosis was significantly more common in the COVID-19–infected group compared with controls (RR, 2.086; P < .001). “When taking all of these autoinflammatory diseases as a whole, there was an increased incidence in the COVID-19 infected group overall with a RR of 1.168 (P < .0001),” Dr. Holcomb said.

In the realm of vascular skin diseases, there was an increased incidence in the COVID-19 infected group in acrocyanosis (RR, 2.825; P < .001), Raynaud’s phenomenon (RR, 1.462; P < .0001), cutaneous small vessel vasculitis (RR, 1.714; P < .0001), granulomatosis with polyangiitis (RR, 2.667; P = .0002), and temporal arteritis (RR, 1.900; P = .0038).

“Interestingly, despite the academic and lay press reports of COVID toes, we did not see that in our data related to the COVID-infected group,” he said.

Dr. Holcomb acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including a narrow study window with a relatively short follow-up. “We were able to propensity match based on baseline demographics but not necessarily so based on health status and prior autoimmune disease,” he said. In addition, since the study was limited to those aged 18-65, the results may not be generalizable to pediatric and elderly patients, he said.

He described the study findings as “somewhat hypothesis-generating.” For instance, “why would we have more of a systemic process [at play?]. Our theory is that the severe inflammatory nature of COVID-19 leads to a lot of internal organ damage and exposure of autoantigens in that process, with relative skin sparing.”

One of the session moderators, Robert Paul Dellavalle, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Colorado, Aurora, characterized the findings as “intriguing” but preliminary. “It would be interesting to look at more recent cohorts and see how vaccination for COVID-19 would impact the incidence rates of some of these diseases,” he said.

When asked for comment, Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said, "This is an interesting study that should be followed up. Viral triggers have been known to precede autoimmune diseases so it will be very important to understand whether COVID-19 also impacts systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases. I would be interested in differences in surveillance between the infection and control groups early in the pandemic. Many patients were avoiding interaction with the health care system at that point." 

Dr. Holcomb reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Dellavalle disclosed that he is a consultant for Altus Labs and ParaPRO LLC. He has received grants and research funding from Pfizer.

* This story was updated on 3/29/22.

BOSTON – Following infection with SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients between the ages of 18 and 65 were at a significantly increased for developing certain cutaneous autoimmune and vascular diseases. This predominately favored systemic disease states with cutaneous involvement, rather than skin-limited processes.

The findings come from a large multicenter analysis that Zachary Holcomb, MD, presented during a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Doug Brunk, MDedge News

“Viral triggers have been implicated in the pathogenesis of rheumatologic disease, but information regarding development of autoimmune disease following SARS-CoV-2 infection is limited,” said Dr. Holcomb, chief resident in the Harvard Combined Internal Medicine–Dermatology Residency, Boston. “Given its proposed thromboinflammatory pathobiology, we hypothesized that SARS-CoV-2 infection increases the risk of development of autoimmune disease with cutaneous manifestations and sought to define incidence rates of newly-diagnosed autoimmune diseases following SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

The researchers drew from the TriNetX Dataworks platform, an online cloud-based system that contains aggregated and deidentified patient information from about 75 million patients across 48 health care organizations. The infected cohort was defined as having a positive lab test for severe SARS-CoV-2 within the study window using Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINCs). Healthy controls consisted of a documented health care contact (inpatient or outpatient visit) during the study window without a positive SARS-CoV-2 lab test. Each cohort included patients aged 18-65 at the time of the study, and patients with previously diagnosed cutaneous autoimmune or vascular diseases were excluded from the analysis.

After propensity matching, the COVID-19 infected cohort and the healthy cohort included 1,904,864 patients each, with no baseline differences in age at index event, ethnicity, race, or sex. The study window was between April 1, 2020, and Oct. 1, 2020. The index event was a COVID-19 infection for the infected group and first documented health care contact in the healthy control group. The researchers looked at a window of 60 days following this index event for new incidence of cutaneous or vascular disease.

In the realm of connective tissue and related diseases, they found the incidence was increased among the COVID-19 infected group compared with controls for dermatomyositis (risk ratio, 2.273; P = .0196), scleroderma (RR, 1.959; P = .0001), and systemic lupus erythematosus (RR, 1.401; P < .0001). They also noted a significant decrease in the new incidence of alopecia areata in the COVID-19 infected group compared with controls (RR, 0.527; P < .0001).

No significant differences in the incidence of bullous and papulosquamous diseases were observed between the two groups. However, sarcoidosis was significantly more common in the COVID-19–infected group compared with controls (RR, 2.086; P < .001). “When taking all of these autoinflammatory diseases as a whole, there was an increased incidence in the COVID-19 infected group overall with a RR of 1.168 (P < .0001),” Dr. Holcomb said.

In the realm of vascular skin diseases, there was an increased incidence in the COVID-19 infected group in acrocyanosis (RR, 2.825; P < .001), Raynaud’s phenomenon (RR, 1.462; P < .0001), cutaneous small vessel vasculitis (RR, 1.714; P < .0001), granulomatosis with polyangiitis (RR, 2.667; P = .0002), and temporal arteritis (RR, 1.900; P = .0038).

“Interestingly, despite the academic and lay press reports of COVID toes, we did not see that in our data related to the COVID-infected group,” he said.

Dr. Holcomb acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including a narrow study window with a relatively short follow-up. “We were able to propensity match based on baseline demographics but not necessarily so based on health status and prior autoimmune disease,” he said. In addition, since the study was limited to those aged 18-65, the results may not be generalizable to pediatric and elderly patients, he said.

He described the study findings as “somewhat hypothesis-generating.” For instance, “why would we have more of a systemic process [at play?]. Our theory is that the severe inflammatory nature of COVID-19 leads to a lot of internal organ damage and exposure of autoantigens in that process, with relative skin sparing.”

One of the session moderators, Robert Paul Dellavalle, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Colorado, Aurora, characterized the findings as “intriguing” but preliminary. “It would be interesting to look at more recent cohorts and see how vaccination for COVID-19 would impact the incidence rates of some of these diseases,” he said.

When asked for comment, Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said, "This is an interesting study that should be followed up. Viral triggers have been known to precede autoimmune diseases so it will be very important to understand whether COVID-19 also impacts systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases. I would be interested in differences in surveillance between the infection and control groups early in the pandemic. Many patients were avoiding interaction with the health care system at that point." 

Dr. Holcomb reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Dellavalle disclosed that he is a consultant for Altus Labs and ParaPRO LLC. He has received grants and research funding from Pfizer.

* This story was updated on 3/29/22.

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has become a hot commodity in the multibillion-dollar hair-loss treatment industry, but there is no gold standard for how to prepare or administer the highly technique-dependent treatment, which creates plenty of room for suboptimal results, according to several experts at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“The process is the product,” emphasized Terrence Keaney, MD, clinical associate professor at George Washington University, Washington, as well as cofounder of SkinDC, a private practice in Arlington, Va. He characterized PRP as a “growth factor cytokine cocktail,” for which relative benefits are fully dependent on the ingredients.

In other words, the efficacy of PRP is mostly dependent on the multiple steps in which blood drawn from a patient is separated into its components, processed to create a platelet-rich product, and then administered to the patient by injection or in conjunction with microneedles. While the goal is a platelet concentration two- to fivefold greater than that found in whole blood, this is not as straightforward as it sounds.
 

Many PRP device kits available

“There are a ton of [centrifuge] devices on the market and a lot of differences in the methodology in optimizing the platelet concentration,” Dr. Keaney explained. In addition, there are numerous proprietary collection tubes using different types of anticoagulants and different separator gels that also play a role in the goal of optimizing a platelet-rich and readily activated product.

“Recognize that each step in the preparation of PRP introduces a source of variation that affects the composition and efficacy of the final product,” said Steven Krueger, MD, who is completing his residency in dermatology at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, but who has become an expert in the field. He contributed a chapter on this topic in the recently published book, Aesthetic Clinician’s Guide to Platelet Rich Plasma.

The importance of technique is reflected in inconsistent results from published controlled trials. Unfortunately, the authors of many studies have failed to provide details of their protocol. Ultimately, Dr. Krueger said this lack of clarity among available protocols has created a serious obstacle for establishing which steps are important and how to move the field forward.

Dr. Keaney agreed. Because of the frequent lack of details about how PRP was processed in available studies, the effort to draw conclusions about the experiences at different centers is like “comparing apples to oranges.”

“What is the ideal dose and concentrate? We don’t know,” Dr. Keaney said.

The first centrifuge device to receive regulatory approval was developed for orthopedic indications more than 20 years ago. There are now at least 20 centrifuge devices with 510K Food and Drug Administration clearance for separating blood components to produce PRP. The 510K designation means that they are “substantially equivalent” to an already approved device, but Dr. Krueger cautioned that their use in preparing PRP for treatment of hair loss remains off label.

Substandard devices are marketed

In the rapidly expanding world of PRP, there is also a growing array of PRP kits. Some of these kits have been cleared by the FDA but others have not. Dr. Krueger warned that collection tubes are being marketed that are substandard imitations of better-established products. He specifically cautioned against do-it-yourself PRP kits, which are likely to be less effective for isolating platelets and can also be contaminated with pyogenes that cause infection.

“Please use an FDA-cleared kit,” he said, warning that the risk of failing to do so is not just associated with lack of efficacy but also a significant risk of serious adverse events.

Of the centrifuge devices, both Dr. Krueger and Dr. Keaney generally recommend single-spin over double-spin devices, particularly at centers with a limited volume of PRP-based hair loss interventions. These are generally simpler.

Once the PRP has been properly prepared, the efficacy of PRP upon application can also be influenced by strategies for activation. Although the exact mechanism of PRP in stimulating hair growth is incompletely defined, the role of platelets in releasing growth factors is believed to be critical. There are a number of methods to stimulate platelets upon administration, such as exposure to endogenous collagen or thrombin or exogenous chemicals, such as calcium chloride, but again, techniques differ and the optimal approach is unknown.

One concern is the recent and largely unregulated growth of regenerative cell and tissue products for treating a large array of clinical disorders or cosmetic issues, according to Dr. Keaney. He warned of a “wild, wild west mentality” that has attracted providers with inadequate training and experience. In turn, this is now attracting the attention of the FDA as well as those involved in enforcing FDA directives.

“There is definitely more scrutiny of regenerative products,” he said, noting that he is careful about how he markets PRP. While it is reasonable to offer this off-label treatment as an in-office procedure, he noted that it is illegal to advertise off-label products. He reported that he has become more prudent when including this option among hair regrowth services provided in his practice.

Omer E. Ibrahim, MD, a dermatologist affiliated with Chicago Cosmetic Surgery and Dermatology, agreed. While he also feels there is good evidence to support PRP as a hair loss treatment option, particularly for androgenic alopecia, he also expressed caution about promoting this approach in exclusion of other options.

“Patients ask me for a PRP consultation, but there is no such thing as a PRP consultation in my practice,” Dr. Ibrahim said. He incorporates PRP into other strategies. “I stress that it is one part of a multipronged approach,” he added.

Dr. Ibrahim has reported financial relationships with Alastin Skincare, Allergan, Eclipse Medical, Galderma USA, and Revision Skincare. Dr. Keaney has reported financial relationships with Allergan, DermTech, Evolus, Galderma USA, Merz Aesthetics, Revance Therapeutics, and Syneron Candela. Dr. Krueger has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has become a hot commodity in the multibillion-dollar hair-loss treatment industry, but there is no gold standard for how to prepare or administer the highly technique-dependent treatment, which creates plenty of room for suboptimal results, according to several experts at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“The process is the product,” emphasized Terrence Keaney, MD, clinical associate professor at George Washington University, Washington, as well as cofounder of SkinDC, a private practice in Arlington, Va. He characterized PRP as a “growth factor cytokine cocktail,” for which relative benefits are fully dependent on the ingredients.

In other words, the efficacy of PRP is mostly dependent on the multiple steps in which blood drawn from a patient is separated into its components, processed to create a platelet-rich product, and then administered to the patient by injection or in conjunction with microneedles. While the goal is a platelet concentration two- to fivefold greater than that found in whole blood, this is not as straightforward as it sounds.
 

Many PRP device kits available

“There are a ton of [centrifuge] devices on the market and a lot of differences in the methodology in optimizing the platelet concentration,” Dr. Keaney explained. In addition, there are numerous proprietary collection tubes using different types of anticoagulants and different separator gels that also play a role in the goal of optimizing a platelet-rich and readily activated product.

“Recognize that each step in the preparation of PRP introduces a source of variation that affects the composition and efficacy of the final product,” said Steven Krueger, MD, who is completing his residency in dermatology at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, but who has become an expert in the field. He contributed a chapter on this topic in the recently published book, Aesthetic Clinician’s Guide to Platelet Rich Plasma.

The importance of technique is reflected in inconsistent results from published controlled trials. Unfortunately, the authors of many studies have failed to provide details of their protocol. Ultimately, Dr. Krueger said this lack of clarity among available protocols has created a serious obstacle for establishing which steps are important and how to move the field forward.

Dr. Keaney agreed. Because of the frequent lack of details about how PRP was processed in available studies, the effort to draw conclusions about the experiences at different centers is like “comparing apples to oranges.”

“What is the ideal dose and concentrate? We don’t know,” Dr. Keaney said.

The first centrifuge device to receive regulatory approval was developed for orthopedic indications more than 20 years ago. There are now at least 20 centrifuge devices with 510K Food and Drug Administration clearance for separating blood components to produce PRP. The 510K designation means that they are “substantially equivalent” to an already approved device, but Dr. Krueger cautioned that their use in preparing PRP for treatment of hair loss remains off label.

Substandard devices are marketed

In the rapidly expanding world of PRP, there is also a growing array of PRP kits. Some of these kits have been cleared by the FDA but others have not. Dr. Krueger warned that collection tubes are being marketed that are substandard imitations of better-established products. He specifically cautioned against do-it-yourself PRP kits, which are likely to be less effective for isolating platelets and can also be contaminated with pyogenes that cause infection.

“Please use an FDA-cleared kit,” he said, warning that the risk of failing to do so is not just associated with lack of efficacy but also a significant risk of serious adverse events.

Of the centrifuge devices, both Dr. Krueger and Dr. Keaney generally recommend single-spin over double-spin devices, particularly at centers with a limited volume of PRP-based hair loss interventions. These are generally simpler.

Once the PRP has been properly prepared, the efficacy of PRP upon application can also be influenced by strategies for activation. Although the exact mechanism of PRP in stimulating hair growth is incompletely defined, the role of platelets in releasing growth factors is believed to be critical. There are a number of methods to stimulate platelets upon administration, such as exposure to endogenous collagen or thrombin or exogenous chemicals, such as calcium chloride, but again, techniques differ and the optimal approach is unknown.

One concern is the recent and largely unregulated growth of regenerative cell and tissue products for treating a large array of clinical disorders or cosmetic issues, according to Dr. Keaney. He warned of a “wild, wild west mentality” that has attracted providers with inadequate training and experience. In turn, this is now attracting the attention of the FDA as well as those involved in enforcing FDA directives.

“There is definitely more scrutiny of regenerative products,” he said, noting that he is careful about how he markets PRP. While it is reasonable to offer this off-label treatment as an in-office procedure, he noted that it is illegal to advertise off-label products. He reported that he has become more prudent when including this option among hair regrowth services provided in his practice.

Omer E. Ibrahim, MD, a dermatologist affiliated with Chicago Cosmetic Surgery and Dermatology, agreed. While he also feels there is good evidence to support PRP as a hair loss treatment option, particularly for androgenic alopecia, he also expressed caution about promoting this approach in exclusion of other options.

“Patients ask me for a PRP consultation, but there is no such thing as a PRP consultation in my practice,” Dr. Ibrahim said. He incorporates PRP into other strategies. “I stress that it is one part of a multipronged approach,” he added.

Dr. Ibrahim has reported financial relationships with Alastin Skincare, Allergan, Eclipse Medical, Galderma USA, and Revision Skincare. Dr. Keaney has reported financial relationships with Allergan, DermTech, Evolus, Galderma USA, Merz Aesthetics, Revance Therapeutics, and Syneron Candela. Dr. Krueger has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has become a hot commodity in the multibillion-dollar hair-loss treatment industry, but there is no gold standard for how to prepare or administer the highly technique-dependent treatment, which creates plenty of room for suboptimal results, according to several experts at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“The process is the product,” emphasized Terrence Keaney, MD, clinical associate professor at George Washington University, Washington, as well as cofounder of SkinDC, a private practice in Arlington, Va. He characterized PRP as a “growth factor cytokine cocktail,” for which relative benefits are fully dependent on the ingredients.

In other words, the efficacy of PRP is mostly dependent on the multiple steps in which blood drawn from a patient is separated into its components, processed to create a platelet-rich product, and then administered to the patient by injection or in conjunction with microneedles. While the goal is a platelet concentration two- to fivefold greater than that found in whole blood, this is not as straightforward as it sounds.
 

Many PRP device kits available

“There are a ton of [centrifuge] devices on the market and a lot of differences in the methodology in optimizing the platelet concentration,” Dr. Keaney explained. In addition, there are numerous proprietary collection tubes using different types of anticoagulants and different separator gels that also play a role in the goal of optimizing a platelet-rich and readily activated product.

“Recognize that each step in the preparation of PRP introduces a source of variation that affects the composition and efficacy of the final product,” said Steven Krueger, MD, who is completing his residency in dermatology at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, but who has become an expert in the field. He contributed a chapter on this topic in the recently published book, Aesthetic Clinician’s Guide to Platelet Rich Plasma.

The importance of technique is reflected in inconsistent results from published controlled trials. Unfortunately, the authors of many studies have failed to provide details of their protocol. Ultimately, Dr. Krueger said this lack of clarity among available protocols has created a serious obstacle for establishing which steps are important and how to move the field forward.

Dr. Keaney agreed. Because of the frequent lack of details about how PRP was processed in available studies, the effort to draw conclusions about the experiences at different centers is like “comparing apples to oranges.”

“What is the ideal dose and concentrate? We don’t know,” Dr. Keaney said.

The first centrifuge device to receive regulatory approval was developed for orthopedic indications more than 20 years ago. There are now at least 20 centrifuge devices with 510K Food and Drug Administration clearance for separating blood components to produce PRP. The 510K designation means that they are “substantially equivalent” to an already approved device, but Dr. Krueger cautioned that their use in preparing PRP for treatment of hair loss remains off label.

Substandard devices are marketed

In the rapidly expanding world of PRP, there is also a growing array of PRP kits. Some of these kits have been cleared by the FDA but others have not. Dr. Krueger warned that collection tubes are being marketed that are substandard imitations of better-established products. He specifically cautioned against do-it-yourself PRP kits, which are likely to be less effective for isolating platelets and can also be contaminated with pyogenes that cause infection.

“Please use an FDA-cleared kit,” he said, warning that the risk of failing to do so is not just associated with lack of efficacy but also a significant risk of serious adverse events.

Of the centrifuge devices, both Dr. Krueger and Dr. Keaney generally recommend single-spin over double-spin devices, particularly at centers with a limited volume of PRP-based hair loss interventions. These are generally simpler.

Once the PRP has been properly prepared, the efficacy of PRP upon application can also be influenced by strategies for activation. Although the exact mechanism of PRP in stimulating hair growth is incompletely defined, the role of platelets in releasing growth factors is believed to be critical. There are a number of methods to stimulate platelets upon administration, such as exposure to endogenous collagen or thrombin or exogenous chemicals, such as calcium chloride, but again, techniques differ and the optimal approach is unknown.

One concern is the recent and largely unregulated growth of regenerative cell and tissue products for treating a large array of clinical disorders or cosmetic issues, according to Dr. Keaney. He warned of a “wild, wild west mentality” that has attracted providers with inadequate training and experience. In turn, this is now attracting the attention of the FDA as well as those involved in enforcing FDA directives.

“There is definitely more scrutiny of regenerative products,” he said, noting that he is careful about how he markets PRP. While it is reasonable to offer this off-label treatment as an in-office procedure, he noted that it is illegal to advertise off-label products. He reported that he has become more prudent when including this option among hair regrowth services provided in his practice.

Omer E. Ibrahim, MD, a dermatologist affiliated with Chicago Cosmetic Surgery and Dermatology, agreed. While he also feels there is good evidence to support PRP as a hair loss treatment option, particularly for androgenic alopecia, he also expressed caution about promoting this approach in exclusion of other options.

“Patients ask me for a PRP consultation, but there is no such thing as a PRP consultation in my practice,” Dr. Ibrahim said. He incorporates PRP into other strategies. “I stress that it is one part of a multipronged approach,” he added.

Dr. Ibrahim has reported financial relationships with Alastin Skincare, Allergan, Eclipse Medical, Galderma USA, and Revision Skincare. Dr. Keaney has reported financial relationships with Allergan, DermTech, Evolus, Galderma USA, Merz Aesthetics, Revance Therapeutics, and Syneron Candela. Dr. Krueger has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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