A new way of using artificial intelligence (AI) can predict breast cancer 5 years in advance with impressive accuracy — and unlike previous AI models, we know how this one works.

The new AI system, called AsymMirai, simplifies previous models by solely comparing differences between right and left breasts to predict risk. It could potentially save lives, prevent unnecessary testing, and save the healthcare system money, its creators say.

“With traditional AI, you ask it a question and it spits out an answer, but no one really knows how it makes its decisions. It’s a black box,” said Jon Donnelly, a PhD student in the department of computer science at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, and first author on a new paper in Radiology describing the model.

“With our approach, people know how the algorithm comes up with its output so they can fact-check it and trust it,” he said.

One in eight women will develop invasive breast cancer, and 1 in 39 will die from it. Mammograms miss about 20% of breast cancers. (The shortcomings of genetic screening and mammograms received extra attention recently when actress Olivia Munn disclosed that she’d been treated for an aggressive form of breast cancer despite a normal mammogram and a negative genetic test.)

The model could help doctors bring the often-abstract idea of AI to the bedside in a meaningful way, said radiologist Vivianne Freitas, MD, assistant professor of medical imaging at the University of Toronto.

“This marks a new chapter in the field of AI,” said Dr. Freitas, who authored an editorial lauding the new paper. “It makes AI more tangible and understandable, thereby improving its potential for acceptance.”
 

AI as a Second Set of Eyes

Mr. Donnelly described AsymMirai as a simpler, more transparent, and easier-to-use version of Mirai, a breakthrough AI model which made headlines in 2021 with its promise to determine with unprecedented accuracy whether a patient is likely to get breast cancer within the next 5 years.

Mirai identified up to twice as many future cancer diagnoses as the conventional risk calculator Tyrer-Cuzick. It also maintained accuracy across a diverse set of patients — a notable plus for two fields (AI and healthcare) notorious for delivering poorer results for minorities.

Tyrer-Cuzick and other lower-tech risk calculators use personal and family history to statistically calculate risk. Mirai, on the other hand, analyzes countless bits of raw data embedded in a mammogram to decipher patterns a radiologist’s eyes may not catch. Four images, including two angles from each breast, are fed into the model, which produces a score between 0 and 1 to indicate the person’s risk of getting breast cancer in 1, 3, or 5 years.

But even Mirai’s creators have conceded they didn’t know exactly how it arrives at that score — a fact that has fueled hesitancy among clinicians.

Study coauthor Fides Schwartz, MD, a radiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said researchers were able to crack the code on Mirai’s “black box,” finding that its scores were largely determined by assessing subtle differences between right breast tissue and left breast tissue.

Knowing this, the research team simplified the model to predict risk based solely on “local bilateral dissimilarity.” AsymMirai was born.

The team then used AsymMirai to look back at > 200,000 mammograms from nearly 82,000 patients. They found it worked nearly as well as its predecessor, assigning a higher risk to those who would go on to develop cancer 66% of the time (vs Mirai’s 71%). In patients where it noticed the same asymmetry multiple years in a row it worked even better, with an 88% chance of giving people who would develop cancer later a higher score than those who would not.

“We found that we can, with surprisingly high accuracy, predict whether a woman will develop cancer in the next 1-5 years based solely on localized differences between her left and right breast tissue,” said Mr. Donnelly.

Dr. Schwartz imagines a day when radiologists could use the model to help develop personalized screening strategies for patients. Doctors might advise those with higher scores to get screened more often than guidelines suggest, supplement mammograms with an MRI , and keep a close watch on trouble spots identified by AI.

“For people with really low risk, on the other hand, maybe we can save them an annual exam that’s not super pleasant and might not be necessary,” said Dr. Schwartz.
 

Cautious Optimism

Robert Smith, PhD, senior vice president of early cancer detection science at the American Cancer Society, noted that AI has been used for decades to try to reduce radiologists’ workload and improve diagnoses.

“But AI just never really lived up to its fullest potential,” Dr. Smith said, “quite often because it was being used as a crutch by inexperienced radiologists who, instead of interpreting the mammogram and then seeing what AI had to say ended up letting AI do most of the work which, frankly, just wasn’t that accurate.”

He’s hopeful that newer, more sophisticated iterations of AI medical imaging platforms (roughly 18-20 models are in development) can ultimately save women’s lives, particularly in areas where radiologists are in short supply.

But he believes it will be a long time before doctors, or their patients, are willing to risk postponing a mammogram based on an algorithm.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new way of using artificial intelligence (AI) can predict breast cancer 5 years in advance with impressive accuracy — and unlike previous AI models, we know how this one works.

The new AI system, called AsymMirai, simplifies previous models by solely comparing differences between right and left breasts to predict risk. It could potentially save lives, prevent unnecessary testing, and save the healthcare system money, its creators say.

“With traditional AI, you ask it a question and it spits out an answer, but no one really knows how it makes its decisions. It’s a black box,” said Jon Donnelly, a PhD student in the department of computer science at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, and first author on a new paper in Radiology describing the model.

“With our approach, people know how the algorithm comes up with its output so they can fact-check it and trust it,” he said.

One in eight women will develop invasive breast cancer, and 1 in 39 will die from it. Mammograms miss about 20% of breast cancers. (The shortcomings of genetic screening and mammograms received extra attention recently when actress Olivia Munn disclosed that she’d been treated for an aggressive form of breast cancer despite a normal mammogram and a negative genetic test.)

The model could help doctors bring the often-abstract idea of AI to the bedside in a meaningful way, said radiologist Vivianne Freitas, MD, assistant professor of medical imaging at the University of Toronto.

“This marks a new chapter in the field of AI,” said Dr. Freitas, who authored an editorial lauding the new paper. “It makes AI more tangible and understandable, thereby improving its potential for acceptance.”
 

AI as a Second Set of Eyes

Mr. Donnelly described AsymMirai as a simpler, more transparent, and easier-to-use version of Mirai, a breakthrough AI model which made headlines in 2021 with its promise to determine with unprecedented accuracy whether a patient is likely to get breast cancer within the next 5 years.

Mirai identified up to twice as many future cancer diagnoses as the conventional risk calculator Tyrer-Cuzick. It also maintained accuracy across a diverse set of patients — a notable plus for two fields (AI and healthcare) notorious for delivering poorer results for minorities.

Tyrer-Cuzick and other lower-tech risk calculators use personal and family history to statistically calculate risk. Mirai, on the other hand, analyzes countless bits of raw data embedded in a mammogram to decipher patterns a radiologist’s eyes may not catch. Four images, including two angles from each breast, are fed into the model, which produces a score between 0 and 1 to indicate the person’s risk of getting breast cancer in 1, 3, or 5 years.

But even Mirai’s creators have conceded they didn’t know exactly how it arrives at that score — a fact that has fueled hesitancy among clinicians.

Study coauthor Fides Schwartz, MD, a radiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said researchers were able to crack the code on Mirai’s “black box,” finding that its scores were largely determined by assessing subtle differences between right breast tissue and left breast tissue.

Knowing this, the research team simplified the model to predict risk based solely on “local bilateral dissimilarity.” AsymMirai was born.

The team then used AsymMirai to look back at > 200,000 mammograms from nearly 82,000 patients. They found it worked nearly as well as its predecessor, assigning a higher risk to those who would go on to develop cancer 66% of the time (vs Mirai’s 71%). In patients where it noticed the same asymmetry multiple years in a row it worked even better, with an 88% chance of giving people who would develop cancer later a higher score than those who would not.

“We found that we can, with surprisingly high accuracy, predict whether a woman will develop cancer in the next 1-5 years based solely on localized differences between her left and right breast tissue,” said Mr. Donnelly.

Dr. Schwartz imagines a day when radiologists could use the model to help develop personalized screening strategies for patients. Doctors might advise those with higher scores to get screened more often than guidelines suggest, supplement mammograms with an MRI , and keep a close watch on trouble spots identified by AI.

“For people with really low risk, on the other hand, maybe we can save them an annual exam that’s not super pleasant and might not be necessary,” said Dr. Schwartz.
 

Cautious Optimism

Robert Smith, PhD, senior vice president of early cancer detection science at the American Cancer Society, noted that AI has been used for decades to try to reduce radiologists’ workload and improve diagnoses.

“But AI just never really lived up to its fullest potential,” Dr. Smith said, “quite often because it was being used as a crutch by inexperienced radiologists who, instead of interpreting the mammogram and then seeing what AI had to say ended up letting AI do most of the work which, frankly, just wasn’t that accurate.”

He’s hopeful that newer, more sophisticated iterations of AI medical imaging platforms (roughly 18-20 models are in development) can ultimately save women’s lives, particularly in areas where radiologists are in short supply.

But he believes it will be a long time before doctors, or their patients, are willing to risk postponing a mammogram based on an algorithm.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new way of using artificial intelligence (AI) can predict breast cancer 5 years in advance with impressive accuracy — and unlike previous AI models, we know how this one works.

The new AI system, called AsymMirai, simplifies previous models by solely comparing differences between right and left breasts to predict risk. It could potentially save lives, prevent unnecessary testing, and save the healthcare system money, its creators say.

“With traditional AI, you ask it a question and it spits out an answer, but no one really knows how it makes its decisions. It’s a black box,” said Jon Donnelly, a PhD student in the department of computer science at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, and first author on a new paper in Radiology describing the model.

“With our approach, people know how the algorithm comes up with its output so they can fact-check it and trust it,” he said.

One in eight women will develop invasive breast cancer, and 1 in 39 will die from it. Mammograms miss about 20% of breast cancers. (The shortcomings of genetic screening and mammograms received extra attention recently when actress Olivia Munn disclosed that she’d been treated for an aggressive form of breast cancer despite a normal mammogram and a negative genetic test.)

The model could help doctors bring the often-abstract idea of AI to the bedside in a meaningful way, said radiologist Vivianne Freitas, MD, assistant professor of medical imaging at the University of Toronto.

“This marks a new chapter in the field of AI,” said Dr. Freitas, who authored an editorial lauding the new paper. “It makes AI more tangible and understandable, thereby improving its potential for acceptance.”
 

AI as a Second Set of Eyes

Mr. Donnelly described AsymMirai as a simpler, more transparent, and easier-to-use version of Mirai, a breakthrough AI model which made headlines in 2021 with its promise to determine with unprecedented accuracy whether a patient is likely to get breast cancer within the next 5 years.

Mirai identified up to twice as many future cancer diagnoses as the conventional risk calculator Tyrer-Cuzick. It also maintained accuracy across a diverse set of patients — a notable plus for two fields (AI and healthcare) notorious for delivering poorer results for minorities.

Tyrer-Cuzick and other lower-tech risk calculators use personal and family history to statistically calculate risk. Mirai, on the other hand, analyzes countless bits of raw data embedded in a mammogram to decipher patterns a radiologist’s eyes may not catch. Four images, including two angles from each breast, are fed into the model, which produces a score between 0 and 1 to indicate the person’s risk of getting breast cancer in 1, 3, or 5 years.

But even Mirai’s creators have conceded they didn’t know exactly how it arrives at that score — a fact that has fueled hesitancy among clinicians.

Study coauthor Fides Schwartz, MD, a radiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said researchers were able to crack the code on Mirai’s “black box,” finding that its scores were largely determined by assessing subtle differences between right breast tissue and left breast tissue.

Knowing this, the research team simplified the model to predict risk based solely on “local bilateral dissimilarity.” AsymMirai was born.

The team then used AsymMirai to look back at > 200,000 mammograms from nearly 82,000 patients. They found it worked nearly as well as its predecessor, assigning a higher risk to those who would go on to develop cancer 66% of the time (vs Mirai’s 71%). In patients where it noticed the same asymmetry multiple years in a row it worked even better, with an 88% chance of giving people who would develop cancer later a higher score than those who would not.

“We found that we can, with surprisingly high accuracy, predict whether a woman will develop cancer in the next 1-5 years based solely on localized differences between her left and right breast tissue,” said Mr. Donnelly.

Dr. Schwartz imagines a day when radiologists could use the model to help develop personalized screening strategies for patients. Doctors might advise those with higher scores to get screened more often than guidelines suggest, supplement mammograms with an MRI , and keep a close watch on trouble spots identified by AI.

“For people with really low risk, on the other hand, maybe we can save them an annual exam that’s not super pleasant and might not be necessary,” said Dr. Schwartz.
 

Cautious Optimism

Robert Smith, PhD, senior vice president of early cancer detection science at the American Cancer Society, noted that AI has been used for decades to try to reduce radiologists’ workload and improve diagnoses.

“But AI just never really lived up to its fullest potential,” Dr. Smith said, “quite often because it was being used as a crutch by inexperienced radiologists who, instead of interpreting the mammogram and then seeing what AI had to say ended up letting AI do most of the work which, frankly, just wasn’t that accurate.”

He’s hopeful that newer, more sophisticated iterations of AI medical imaging platforms (roughly 18-20 models are in development) can ultimately save women’s lives, particularly in areas where radiologists are in short supply.

But he believes it will be a long time before doctors, or their patients, are willing to risk postponing a mammogram based on an algorithm.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A comprehensive model considering patient age, diabetes, colonoscopy indications, and polyp findings can predict colorectal cancer (CRC) risk more accurately than the solely polyp-based model in patients with a first diagnosis of adenoma on colonoscopy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Because colonoscopy surveillance guidelines relying solely on previous polyp findings to assess CRC risk are imprecise, researchers developed and tested a comprehensive risk prediction model from a list of CRC-related predictors that included patient characteristics and clinical factors in addition to polyp findings.
• The comprehensive model included baseline colonoscopy indication, age group, diabetes diagnosis, and polyp findings (adenoma with advanced histology, polyp size ≥ 10 mm, and sessile serrated or traditional serrated adenoma).
• They randomly assigned 95,001 patients (mean age, 61.9 years; 45.5% women) who underwent colonoscopy with polypectomy to remove a conventional adenoma into two cohorts: Model development (66,500) and internal validation (28,501).
• In both cohorts, researchers compared the performance of the polyp findings-only method against the comprehensive model in predicting CRC, defined as an adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum diagnosed a year after the baseline colonoscopy.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the follow-up period starting 1 year after colonoscopy, 495 patients were diagnosed with CRC; 354 were in the development cohort and 141 were in the validation cohort.
• The comprehensive model demonstrated better predictive performance than the traditional polyp-based model in the development cohort (area under the curve [AUC], 0.71 vs 0.61) and in the validation cohort (AUC, 0.7 vs 0.62).
• The difference in the Akaike Information Criterion values between the comprehensive and polyp models was 45.7, much above the threshold of 10, strongly indicating the superior performance of the comprehensive model.

IN PRACTICE:

“Improving the ability to accurately predict the patients at highest risk for CRC after polypectomy is critically important, given the considerable costs and resources associated with treating CRC and the better prognosis associated with early cancer detection. The current findings provide proof of concept that inclusion of CRC risk factors beyond prior polyp findings has the potential to improve post-colonoscopy risk stratification,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Jeffrey K. Lee, MD, MPH, Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

External validation of the model’s performance is needed in different practice settings. The generalizability of the findings is limited because the study population did not include individuals without a prior adenoma or those with an isolated serrated polyp. Moreover, the examination of polyp size > 20 mm as a potential predictor of CRC was precluded due to incomplete data.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was conducted within the National Cancer Institute–funded Population-Based Research to Optimize the Screening Process II consortium and funded by a career development grant from the National Cancer Institute to Lee. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A comprehensive model considering patient age, diabetes, colonoscopy indications, and polyp findings can predict colorectal cancer (CRC) risk more accurately than the solely polyp-based model in patients with a first diagnosis of adenoma on colonoscopy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Because colonoscopy surveillance guidelines relying solely on previous polyp findings to assess CRC risk are imprecise, researchers developed and tested a comprehensive risk prediction model from a list of CRC-related predictors that included patient characteristics and clinical factors in addition to polyp findings.
• The comprehensive model included baseline colonoscopy indication, age group, diabetes diagnosis, and polyp findings (adenoma with advanced histology, polyp size ≥ 10 mm, and sessile serrated or traditional serrated adenoma).
• They randomly assigned 95,001 patients (mean age, 61.9 years; 45.5% women) who underwent colonoscopy with polypectomy to remove a conventional adenoma into two cohorts: Model development (66,500) and internal validation (28,501).
• In both cohorts, researchers compared the performance of the polyp findings-only method against the comprehensive model in predicting CRC, defined as an adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum diagnosed a year after the baseline colonoscopy.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the follow-up period starting 1 year after colonoscopy, 495 patients were diagnosed with CRC; 354 were in the development cohort and 141 were in the validation cohort.
• The comprehensive model demonstrated better predictive performance than the traditional polyp-based model in the development cohort (area under the curve [AUC], 0.71 vs 0.61) and in the validation cohort (AUC, 0.7 vs 0.62).
• The difference in the Akaike Information Criterion values between the comprehensive and polyp models was 45.7, much above the threshold of 10, strongly indicating the superior performance of the comprehensive model.

IN PRACTICE:

“Improving the ability to accurately predict the patients at highest risk for CRC after polypectomy is critically important, given the considerable costs and resources associated with treating CRC and the better prognosis associated with early cancer detection. The current findings provide proof of concept that inclusion of CRC risk factors beyond prior polyp findings has the potential to improve post-colonoscopy risk stratification,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Jeffrey K. Lee, MD, MPH, Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

External validation of the model’s performance is needed in different practice settings. The generalizability of the findings is limited because the study population did not include individuals without a prior adenoma or those with an isolated serrated polyp. Moreover, the examination of polyp size > 20 mm as a potential predictor of CRC was precluded due to incomplete data.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was conducted within the National Cancer Institute–funded Population-Based Research to Optimize the Screening Process II consortium and funded by a career development grant from the National Cancer Institute to Lee. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A comprehensive model considering patient age, diabetes, colonoscopy indications, and polyp findings can predict colorectal cancer (CRC) risk more accurately than the solely polyp-based model in patients with a first diagnosis of adenoma on colonoscopy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Because colonoscopy surveillance guidelines relying solely on previous polyp findings to assess CRC risk are imprecise, researchers developed and tested a comprehensive risk prediction model from a list of CRC-related predictors that included patient characteristics and clinical factors in addition to polyp findings.
• The comprehensive model included baseline colonoscopy indication, age group, diabetes diagnosis, and polyp findings (adenoma with advanced histology, polyp size ≥ 10 mm, and sessile serrated or traditional serrated adenoma).
• They randomly assigned 95,001 patients (mean age, 61.9 years; 45.5% women) who underwent colonoscopy with polypectomy to remove a conventional adenoma into two cohorts: Model development (66,500) and internal validation (28,501).
• In both cohorts, researchers compared the performance of the polyp findings-only method against the comprehensive model in predicting CRC, defined as an adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum diagnosed a year after the baseline colonoscopy.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the follow-up period starting 1 year after colonoscopy, 495 patients were diagnosed with CRC; 354 were in the development cohort and 141 were in the validation cohort.
• The comprehensive model demonstrated better predictive performance than the traditional polyp-based model in the development cohort (area under the curve [AUC], 0.71 vs 0.61) and in the validation cohort (AUC, 0.7 vs 0.62).
• The difference in the Akaike Information Criterion values between the comprehensive and polyp models was 45.7, much above the threshold of 10, strongly indicating the superior performance of the comprehensive model.

IN PRACTICE:

“Improving the ability to accurately predict the patients at highest risk for CRC after polypectomy is critically important, given the considerable costs and resources associated with treating CRC and the better prognosis associated with early cancer detection. The current findings provide proof of concept that inclusion of CRC risk factors beyond prior polyp findings has the potential to improve post-colonoscopy risk stratification,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Jeffrey K. Lee, MD, MPH, Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

External validation of the model’s performance is needed in different practice settings. The generalizability of the findings is limited because the study population did not include individuals without a prior adenoma or those with an isolated serrated polyp. Moreover, the examination of polyp size > 20 mm as a potential predictor of CRC was precluded due to incomplete data.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was conducted within the National Cancer Institute–funded Population-Based Research to Optimize the Screening Process II consortium and funded by a career development grant from the National Cancer Institute to Lee. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved spesolimab-sbzo, an interleukin (IL)-36 receptor antagonist, for the treatment of generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) in adults and in pediatric patients aged ≥ 12 years who weigh ≥ 40 kg, according to an announcement from the manufacturer. 

This is an expanded indication for spesolimab-sbzo, first approved in September 2022 for treating GPP flares. Developed by Boehringer Ingelheim and marketed under the name Spevigo, the product is an injectable antibody that blocks the IL-36 receptor, a key part of the pathway shown to be involved in the cause of GPP, which is rare and is a potentially-life-threatening disease.

According to a press release from the company, the FDA’s approval of the expanded indication was based on the results of a 48-week clinical trial of 123 patients (Effisayil 2), which showed that individuals who received spesolimab experienced a significant 84% reduction in GPP flares compared with those who received placebo. Among 30 study participants who received a high treatment dose, no flares were observed after week 4. Among all patients who received spesolimab-sbzo, treatment was associated with an increased incidence (defined as ≥ 9 cases per 100 patient-years) of injection site reactions, urinary tract infections, arthralgia, and pruritus compared with placebo. 

Spesolimab-sbzo is currently available in 48 countries, according to the Boehringer Ingelheim release, which states that the approval makes it the first targeted therapy that is available for the acute and chronic treatment of patients with GPP.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved spesolimab-sbzo, an interleukin (IL)-36 receptor antagonist, for the treatment of generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) in adults and in pediatric patients aged ≥ 12 years who weigh ≥ 40 kg, according to an announcement from the manufacturer. 

This is an expanded indication for spesolimab-sbzo, first approved in September 2022 for treating GPP flares. Developed by Boehringer Ingelheim and marketed under the name Spevigo, the product is an injectable antibody that blocks the IL-36 receptor, a key part of the pathway shown to be involved in the cause of GPP, which is rare and is a potentially-life-threatening disease.

According to a press release from the company, the FDA’s approval of the expanded indication was based on the results of a 48-week clinical trial of 123 patients (Effisayil 2), which showed that individuals who received spesolimab experienced a significant 84% reduction in GPP flares compared with those who received placebo. Among 30 study participants who received a high treatment dose, no flares were observed after week 4. Among all patients who received spesolimab-sbzo, treatment was associated with an increased incidence (defined as ≥ 9 cases per 100 patient-years) of injection site reactions, urinary tract infections, arthralgia, and pruritus compared with placebo. 

Spesolimab-sbzo is currently available in 48 countries, according to the Boehringer Ingelheim release, which states that the approval makes it the first targeted therapy that is available for the acute and chronic treatment of patients with GPP.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved spesolimab-sbzo, an interleukin (IL)-36 receptor antagonist, for the treatment of generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) in adults and in pediatric patients aged ≥ 12 years who weigh ≥ 40 kg, according to an announcement from the manufacturer. 

This is an expanded indication for spesolimab-sbzo, first approved in September 2022 for treating GPP flares. Developed by Boehringer Ingelheim and marketed under the name Spevigo, the product is an injectable antibody that blocks the IL-36 receptor, a key part of the pathway shown to be involved in the cause of GPP, which is rare and is a potentially-life-threatening disease.

According to a press release from the company, the FDA’s approval of the expanded indication was based on the results of a 48-week clinical trial of 123 patients (Effisayil 2), which showed that individuals who received spesolimab experienced a significant 84% reduction in GPP flares compared with those who received placebo. Among 30 study participants who received a high treatment dose, no flares were observed after week 4. Among all patients who received spesolimab-sbzo, treatment was associated with an increased incidence (defined as ≥ 9 cases per 100 patient-years) of injection site reactions, urinary tract infections, arthralgia, and pruritus compared with placebo. 

Spesolimab-sbzo is currently available in 48 countries, according to the Boehringer Ingelheim release, which states that the approval makes it the first targeted therapy that is available for the acute and chronic treatment of patients with GPP.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A next-generation stool DNA test for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening had higher sensitivity for all screening-relevant lesions but lower specificity than a currently available fecal immunochemical test (FIT), according to the large prospective BLUE-C study.

The multi-target assay by Exact Sciences Corporation, the makers of Cologuard, includes new biomarkers designed to increase specificity without decreasing sensitivity. It showed a sensitivity for CRC of almost 94%, with more than 43% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions and nearly 91% specificity for advanced neoplasia, according to the study results, which were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Indiana University School of Medicine

Adherence to CRC screening in the United States is well below the 80% national target, and the quest continues for noninvasive screening assays that might improve screening adherence, noted lead author Thomas F. Imperiale, MD, AGAF, a professor of medicine at Indiana University School of medicine in Indianapolis, and colleagues.

“The test’s manufacturer developed a new version of its existing Cologuard FIT/DNA test because it took to heart the feedback from primary care providers and gastroenterologists about the test’s low specificity,” Dr. Imperiale said in an interview. “The goal of the new test was to improve specificity without losing, and perhaps even gaining, some sensitivity — a goal that is not easily accomplished when you’re trying to improve on a sensitivity for colorectal cancer that was already 92.3% in the current version of Cologuard.”

Compared with the earlier version of Cologuard, he added, the new generation retained sensitivity for CRC and advanced precancerous lesions or polyps while improving specificity by 30% (90.6% vs 86.6%) for advanced neoplasia — a combination of CRC and advanced precancerous lesions, he said. “This with the caveat, however, that the two versions were not compared head-to-head in this new study,” Dr. Imperiale said.

The higher specificity for advanced lesions is expected to translate to a lower false positive rate. Lowering false positive rates is crucial because that reduces the need for costly, invasive, and unnecessary colonoscopies, said Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, AGAF, director of outcomes research in NYU Langone Health’s division of gastroenterology and hepatology in New York City.

New York University

“Many physicians felt there were too many false positives with the existing version, and that is anxiety-provoking in patients and providers,” said Dr. Shaukat, who was not involved in the study.

In her view, however, the test’s moderate improvements in detecting certain lesions does not make it demonstrably superior to its predecessor, and there is always the possibility of higher cost to consider.

While acknowledging that a higher sensitivity for all advanced precancerous lesions would have been welcome, Dr. Imperiale said the test detected 75% of the most worrisome of such lesions — “the ones containing high-grade dysplastic cells and suggesting near-term conversion to cancer. And its ability to detect other advanced lesions improved as the size of the lesions increased.”
 

Testing details

Almost 21,000 asymptomatic participants age 40 years and older undergoing screening colonoscopy were evaluated at 186 US sites during the period 2019 to 2023. Of the cohort, 98 had CRC, 2144 had advanced precancerous lesions, 6973 had nonadvanced adenomas, and 10,961 had nonneoplastic findings or negative colonoscopy.

Advanced precancerous lesions included one or more adenomas or sessile serrated lesions measuring at least 1 cm in the longest dimension, lesions with villous histologic features, and high-grade dysplasia. The new DNA test identified 92 of 98 participants with CRC and 76 of 82 participants with screening-relevant cancers. Among the findings for the new assay:

• Sensitivity for any-stage CRC was 93.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.1- 97.7)
• Sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions was 43.4% (95% CI, 41.3-45.6)
• Sensitivity for high-grade dysplasia was 74.6% (95% CI, 65.6-82.3)
• Specificity for advanced neoplasia was 90.6% (95% CI, 90.1- 91.0).
• Specificity for nonneoplastic findings or negative colonoscopy was 92.7% (95% CI, 92.2-93.1)
• Specificity for negative colonoscopy was 93.3 (95% CI, 92.8-93.9)
• No adverse events occurred.

In the comparator assay, OC-AUTO FIT by Polymedco, sensitivity was 67.3% (95% CI, 57.1-76.5) for CRC, 23.3% (95% CI, 21.5-25.2) for advanced precancerous lesions, and 47.4% (95% CI, 37.9-56.9) for high-grade dysplasia. In the comparator FIT, however, specificity was better across all age groups — at 94.8% (95% CI, 94.4-95.1) for advanced neoplasia, 95.7% (95% CI, 95.3- 96.1) for nonneoplastic findings, and 96.0% (95% CI, 95.5-96.4) for negative colonoscopy.

In another article in the same issue of NEJM, Guardant Health’s cell-free DNA blood-based test had 83% sensitivity for CRC, 90% specificity for advanced neoplasia, and 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions in an average-risk population.

An age-related decrease in specificity was observed with the new Cologuard test, but that did not concern Dr. Imperiale because the same observation was made with the current version. “In fact, the next-gen version appears to have less of an age-related decrease in specificity than the current version, although, again, the two versions were not tested head-to-head,” he noted.

The effect of age-related background methylation of DNA is well known, he explained. “Clinicians and older patients in the screening age range do need to be aware of this effect on specificity before ordering or agreeing to do the test. I do not see this as a stumbling block to implementation, but it does require discussion between patient and ordering provider.”

The new version of the DNA test is expected to be available in about a year.

According to Dr. Imperiale, further research is needed to ascertain the test’s acceptability and adherence rates and to quantify its yield in population-based screening. Determining its cost-effectiveness and making it easier to use are other goals. “And most importantly, the degree of reduction in the incidence and mortality from colorectal cancer,” he said.

Cost-effectiveness and the selection of the testing interval may play roles in adherence, particularly in populations with lower rates of screening adherence than the general population, John M. Carethers, MD, AGAF, of the University of California, San Diego, noted in a related editorial.

“Adherence to screening varies according to age group, including persons in the 45- to 49-year age group who are now eligible for average-risk screening,” he wrote. “It is hoped that these newer tests will increase use and adherence and elevate the percentage of the population undergoing screening in order to reduce deaths from colorectal cancer.”

This study was sponsored by Exact Sciences Corporation, which conducted the stool testing at its laboratories.

Dr. Imperiale had no competing interests to disclose. Several study co-authors reported employment with Exact Sciences, or stock and intellectual property ownership. Dr. Shaukat disclosed consulting for Freenome. Dr. Carethers reported ties to Avantor Inc. and Geneoscopy.

A next-generation stool DNA test for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening had higher sensitivity for all screening-relevant lesions but lower specificity than a currently available fecal immunochemical test (FIT), according to the large prospective BLUE-C study.

The multi-target assay by Exact Sciences Corporation, the makers of Cologuard, includes new biomarkers designed to increase specificity without decreasing sensitivity. It showed a sensitivity for CRC of almost 94%, with more than 43% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions and nearly 91% specificity for advanced neoplasia, according to the study results, which were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Indiana University School of Medicine

Adherence to CRC screening in the United States is well below the 80% national target, and the quest continues for noninvasive screening assays that might improve screening adherence, noted lead author Thomas F. Imperiale, MD, AGAF, a professor of medicine at Indiana University School of medicine in Indianapolis, and colleagues.

“The test’s manufacturer developed a new version of its existing Cologuard FIT/DNA test because it took to heart the feedback from primary care providers and gastroenterologists about the test’s low specificity,” Dr. Imperiale said in an interview. “The goal of the new test was to improve specificity without losing, and perhaps even gaining, some sensitivity — a goal that is not easily accomplished when you’re trying to improve on a sensitivity for colorectal cancer that was already 92.3% in the current version of Cologuard.”

Compared with the earlier version of Cologuard, he added, the new generation retained sensitivity for CRC and advanced precancerous lesions or polyps while improving specificity by 30% (90.6% vs 86.6%) for advanced neoplasia — a combination of CRC and advanced precancerous lesions, he said. “This with the caveat, however, that the two versions were not compared head-to-head in this new study,” Dr. Imperiale said.

The higher specificity for advanced lesions is expected to translate to a lower false positive rate. Lowering false positive rates is crucial because that reduces the need for costly, invasive, and unnecessary colonoscopies, said Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, AGAF, director of outcomes research in NYU Langone Health’s division of gastroenterology and hepatology in New York City.

New York University

“Many physicians felt there were too many false positives with the existing version, and that is anxiety-provoking in patients and providers,” said Dr. Shaukat, who was not involved in the study.

In her view, however, the test’s moderate improvements in detecting certain lesions does not make it demonstrably superior to its predecessor, and there is always the possibility of higher cost to consider.

While acknowledging that a higher sensitivity for all advanced precancerous lesions would have been welcome, Dr. Imperiale said the test detected 75% of the most worrisome of such lesions — “the ones containing high-grade dysplastic cells and suggesting near-term conversion to cancer. And its ability to detect other advanced lesions improved as the size of the lesions increased.”
 

Testing details

Almost 21,000 asymptomatic participants age 40 years and older undergoing screening colonoscopy were evaluated at 186 US sites during the period 2019 to 2023. Of the cohort, 98 had CRC, 2144 had advanced precancerous lesions, 6973 had nonadvanced adenomas, and 10,961 had nonneoplastic findings or negative colonoscopy.

Advanced precancerous lesions included one or more adenomas or sessile serrated lesions measuring at least 1 cm in the longest dimension, lesions with villous histologic features, and high-grade dysplasia. The new DNA test identified 92 of 98 participants with CRC and 76 of 82 participants with screening-relevant cancers. Among the findings for the new assay:

• Sensitivity for any-stage CRC was 93.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.1- 97.7)
• Sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions was 43.4% (95% CI, 41.3-45.6)
• Sensitivity for high-grade dysplasia was 74.6% (95% CI, 65.6-82.3)
• Specificity for advanced neoplasia was 90.6% (95% CI, 90.1- 91.0).
• Specificity for nonneoplastic findings or negative colonoscopy was 92.7% (95% CI, 92.2-93.1)
• Specificity for negative colonoscopy was 93.3 (95% CI, 92.8-93.9)
• No adverse events occurred.

In the comparator assay, OC-AUTO FIT by Polymedco, sensitivity was 67.3% (95% CI, 57.1-76.5) for CRC, 23.3% (95% CI, 21.5-25.2) for advanced precancerous lesions, and 47.4% (95% CI, 37.9-56.9) for high-grade dysplasia. In the comparator FIT, however, specificity was better across all age groups — at 94.8% (95% CI, 94.4-95.1) for advanced neoplasia, 95.7% (95% CI, 95.3- 96.1) for nonneoplastic findings, and 96.0% (95% CI, 95.5-96.4) for negative colonoscopy.

In another article in the same issue of NEJM, Guardant Health’s cell-free DNA blood-based test had 83% sensitivity for CRC, 90% specificity for advanced neoplasia, and 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions in an average-risk population.

An age-related decrease in specificity was observed with the new Cologuard test, but that did not concern Dr. Imperiale because the same observation was made with the current version. “In fact, the next-gen version appears to have less of an age-related decrease in specificity than the current version, although, again, the two versions were not tested head-to-head,” he noted.

The effect of age-related background methylation of DNA is well known, he explained. “Clinicians and older patients in the screening age range do need to be aware of this effect on specificity before ordering or agreeing to do the test. I do not see this as a stumbling block to implementation, but it does require discussion between patient and ordering provider.”

The new version of the DNA test is expected to be available in about a year.

According to Dr. Imperiale, further research is needed to ascertain the test’s acceptability and adherence rates and to quantify its yield in population-based screening. Determining its cost-effectiveness and making it easier to use are other goals. “And most importantly, the degree of reduction in the incidence and mortality from colorectal cancer,” he said.

Cost-effectiveness and the selection of the testing interval may play roles in adherence, particularly in populations with lower rates of screening adherence than the general population, John M. Carethers, MD, AGAF, of the University of California, San Diego, noted in a related editorial.

“Adherence to screening varies according to age group, including persons in the 45- to 49-year age group who are now eligible for average-risk screening,” he wrote. “It is hoped that these newer tests will increase use and adherence and elevate the percentage of the population undergoing screening in order to reduce deaths from colorectal cancer.”

This study was sponsored by Exact Sciences Corporation, which conducted the stool testing at its laboratories.

Dr. Imperiale had no competing interests to disclose. Several study co-authors reported employment with Exact Sciences, or stock and intellectual property ownership. Dr. Shaukat disclosed consulting for Freenome. Dr. Carethers reported ties to Avantor Inc. and Geneoscopy.

A next-generation stool DNA test for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening had higher sensitivity for all screening-relevant lesions but lower specificity than a currently available fecal immunochemical test (FIT), according to the large prospective BLUE-C study.

The multi-target assay by Exact Sciences Corporation, the makers of Cologuard, includes new biomarkers designed to increase specificity without decreasing sensitivity. It showed a sensitivity for CRC of almost 94%, with more than 43% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions and nearly 91% specificity for advanced neoplasia, according to the study results, which were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Indiana University School of Medicine

Adherence to CRC screening in the United States is well below the 80% national target, and the quest continues for noninvasive screening assays that might improve screening adherence, noted lead author Thomas F. Imperiale, MD, AGAF, a professor of medicine at Indiana University School of medicine in Indianapolis, and colleagues.

“The test’s manufacturer developed a new version of its existing Cologuard FIT/DNA test because it took to heart the feedback from primary care providers and gastroenterologists about the test’s low specificity,” Dr. Imperiale said in an interview. “The goal of the new test was to improve specificity without losing, and perhaps even gaining, some sensitivity — a goal that is not easily accomplished when you’re trying to improve on a sensitivity for colorectal cancer that was already 92.3% in the current version of Cologuard.”

Compared with the earlier version of Cologuard, he added, the new generation retained sensitivity for CRC and advanced precancerous lesions or polyps while improving specificity by 30% (90.6% vs 86.6%) for advanced neoplasia — a combination of CRC and advanced precancerous lesions, he said. “This with the caveat, however, that the two versions were not compared head-to-head in this new study,” Dr. Imperiale said.

The higher specificity for advanced lesions is expected to translate to a lower false positive rate. Lowering false positive rates is crucial because that reduces the need for costly, invasive, and unnecessary colonoscopies, said Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, AGAF, director of outcomes research in NYU Langone Health’s division of gastroenterology and hepatology in New York City.

New York University

“Many physicians felt there were too many false positives with the existing version, and that is anxiety-provoking in patients and providers,” said Dr. Shaukat, who was not involved in the study.

In her view, however, the test’s moderate improvements in detecting certain lesions does not make it demonstrably superior to its predecessor, and there is always the possibility of higher cost to consider.

While acknowledging that a higher sensitivity for all advanced precancerous lesions would have been welcome, Dr. Imperiale said the test detected 75% of the most worrisome of such lesions — “the ones containing high-grade dysplastic cells and suggesting near-term conversion to cancer. And its ability to detect other advanced lesions improved as the size of the lesions increased.”
 

Testing details

Almost 21,000 asymptomatic participants age 40 years and older undergoing screening colonoscopy were evaluated at 186 US sites during the period 2019 to 2023. Of the cohort, 98 had CRC, 2144 had advanced precancerous lesions, 6973 had nonadvanced adenomas, and 10,961 had nonneoplastic findings or negative colonoscopy.

Advanced precancerous lesions included one or more adenomas or sessile serrated lesions measuring at least 1 cm in the longest dimension, lesions with villous histologic features, and high-grade dysplasia. The new DNA test identified 92 of 98 participants with CRC and 76 of 82 participants with screening-relevant cancers. Among the findings for the new assay:

• Sensitivity for any-stage CRC was 93.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.1- 97.7)
• Sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions was 43.4% (95% CI, 41.3-45.6)
• Sensitivity for high-grade dysplasia was 74.6% (95% CI, 65.6-82.3)
• Specificity for advanced neoplasia was 90.6% (95% CI, 90.1- 91.0).
• Specificity for nonneoplastic findings or negative colonoscopy was 92.7% (95% CI, 92.2-93.1)
• Specificity for negative colonoscopy was 93.3 (95% CI, 92.8-93.9)
• No adverse events occurred.

In the comparator assay, OC-AUTO FIT by Polymedco, sensitivity was 67.3% (95% CI, 57.1-76.5) for CRC, 23.3% (95% CI, 21.5-25.2) for advanced precancerous lesions, and 47.4% (95% CI, 37.9-56.9) for high-grade dysplasia. In the comparator FIT, however, specificity was better across all age groups — at 94.8% (95% CI, 94.4-95.1) for advanced neoplasia, 95.7% (95% CI, 95.3- 96.1) for nonneoplastic findings, and 96.0% (95% CI, 95.5-96.4) for negative colonoscopy.

In another article in the same issue of NEJM, Guardant Health’s cell-free DNA blood-based test had 83% sensitivity for CRC, 90% specificity for advanced neoplasia, and 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions in an average-risk population.

An age-related decrease in specificity was observed with the new Cologuard test, but that did not concern Dr. Imperiale because the same observation was made with the current version. “In fact, the next-gen version appears to have less of an age-related decrease in specificity than the current version, although, again, the two versions were not tested head-to-head,” he noted.

The effect of age-related background methylation of DNA is well known, he explained. “Clinicians and older patients in the screening age range do need to be aware of this effect on specificity before ordering or agreeing to do the test. I do not see this as a stumbling block to implementation, but it does require discussion between patient and ordering provider.”

The new version of the DNA test is expected to be available in about a year.

According to Dr. Imperiale, further research is needed to ascertain the test’s acceptability and adherence rates and to quantify its yield in population-based screening. Determining its cost-effectiveness and making it easier to use are other goals. “And most importantly, the degree of reduction in the incidence and mortality from colorectal cancer,” he said.

Cost-effectiveness and the selection of the testing interval may play roles in adherence, particularly in populations with lower rates of screening adherence than the general population, John M. Carethers, MD, AGAF, of the University of California, San Diego, noted in a related editorial.

“Adherence to screening varies according to age group, including persons in the 45- to 49-year age group who are now eligible for average-risk screening,” he wrote. “It is hoped that these newer tests will increase use and adherence and elevate the percentage of the population undergoing screening in order to reduce deaths from colorectal cancer.”

This study was sponsored by Exact Sciences Corporation, which conducted the stool testing at its laboratories.

Dr. Imperiale had no competing interests to disclose. Several study co-authors reported employment with Exact Sciences, or stock and intellectual property ownership. Dr. Shaukat disclosed consulting for Freenome. Dr. Carethers reported ties to Avantor Inc. and Geneoscopy.

Routine use of rapid respiratory virus testing in the emergency department (ED) appears to show limited benefit among patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection (ARI), according to a new study.

Rapid viral testing wasn’t associated with reduced antibiotic use, ED length of stay, or rates of ED return visits or hospitalization. However, testing was associated with a small increase in antiviral prescriptions and a small reduction in blood tests and chest x-rays.

“Our interest in studying the benefits of rapid viral testing in emergency departments comes from a commitment to diagnostic stewardship — ensuring that the right tests are administered to the right patients at the right time while also curbing overuse,” said lead author Tilmann Schober, MD, a resident in pediatric infectious disease at McGill University and Montreal Children’s Hospital.

“Following the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we have seen a surge in the availability of rapid viral testing, including molecular multiplex panels,” he said. “However, the actual impact of these advancements on patient care in the ED remains uncertain.”

The study was published online on March 4, 2024, in JAMA Internal Medicine).
 

Rapid Viral Testing

Dr. Schober and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized clinical trials to understand whether rapid testing for respiratory viruses was associated with patient treatment in the ED.

In particular, the research team looked at whether testing in patients with suspected ARI was associated with decreased antibiotic use, ancillary tests, ED length of stay, ED return visits, hospitalization, and increased influenza antiviral treatment.

Among the trials, seven studies included molecular testing, and eight used multiplex panels, including influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza/RSV/adenovirus/parainfluenza, or a panel of 15 or more respiratory viruses. No study evaluated testing for SARS-CoV-2. The research team reported risk ratios (RRs) and risk difference estimates.

In general, routine rapid viral testing was associated with higher use of influenza antivirals (RR, 1.33) and lower use of chest radiography (RR, 0.88) and blood tests (RR, 0.81). However, the magnitude of these effects was small. For instance, to achieve one additional viral prescription, 70 patients would need to be tested, and to save one x-ray, 30 patients would need to be tested.

“This suggests that, while statistically significant, the practical impact of these secondary outcomes may not justify the extensive effort and resources involved in widespread testing,” Dr. Schober said.

In addition, there was no association between rapid testing and antibiotic use (RR, 0.99), urine testing (RR, 0.95), ED length of stay (0 h), return visits (RR, 0.93), or hospitalization (RR, 1.01).

Notably, there was no association between rapid viral testing and antibiotic use in any prespecified subgroup based on age, test method, publication date, number of viral targets, risk of bias, or industry funding, the authors said. They concluded that rapid virus testing should be reserved for patients for whom the testing will change treatment, such as high-risk patients or those with severe disease.

“It’s crucial to note that our study specifically evaluated the impact of systematic testing of patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection. Our findings do not advocate against rapid respiratory virus testing in general,” Dr. Schober said. “There is well-established evidence supporting the benefits of viral testing in certain contexts, such as hospitalized patients, to guide infection control practices or in specific high-risk populations.”
 

Future Research

Additional studies should look at testing among subgroups, particularly those with high-risk conditions, the study authors wrote. In addition, the research team would like to study the implementation of novel diagnostic stewardship programs as compared with well-established antibiotic stewardship programs.

“Acute respiratory tract illnesses represent one of the most common reasons for being evaluated in an acute care setting, especially in pediatrics, and these visits have traditionally resulted in excessive antibiotic prescribing, despite the etiology of the infection mostly being viral,” said Suchitra Rao, MBBS, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and associate medical director of infection prevention and control at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

Dr. Rao, who wasn’t involved with this study, has surveyed ED providers about respiratory viral testing and changes in clinical decision-making. She and colleagues found that providers most commonly changed clinical decision-making while prescribing an antiviral if influenza was detected or withholding antivirals if influenza wasn’t detected.

“Multiplex testing for respiratory viruses and atypical bacteria is becoming more widespread, with newer-generation platforms having shorter turnaround times, and offers the potential to impact point-of-care decision-making,” she said. “However, these tests are expensive, and more studies are needed to explore whether respiratory pathogen panel testing in the acute care setting has an impact in terms of reduced antibiotic use as well as other outcomes, including ED visits, health-seeking behaviors, and hospitalization.”

For instance, more recent studies around SARS-CoV-2 with newer-generation panels may make a difference, as well as multiplex panels that include numerous viral targets, she said.

“Further RCTs are required to evaluate the impact of influenza/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 panels, as well as respiratory pathogen panel testing in conjunction with antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship efforts, which have been associated with improved outcomes for other rapid molecular platforms, such as blood culture identification panels,” Rao said.

The study was funded by the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center. Dr. Schober reported no disclosures, and several study authors reported grants or personal fees from companies outside of this research. Dr. Rao disclosed no relevant relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Routine use of rapid respiratory virus testing in the emergency department (ED) appears to show limited benefit among patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection (ARI), according to a new study.

Rapid viral testing wasn’t associated with reduced antibiotic use, ED length of stay, or rates of ED return visits or hospitalization. However, testing was associated with a small increase in antiviral prescriptions and a small reduction in blood tests and chest x-rays.

“Our interest in studying the benefits of rapid viral testing in emergency departments comes from a commitment to diagnostic stewardship — ensuring that the right tests are administered to the right patients at the right time while also curbing overuse,” said lead author Tilmann Schober, MD, a resident in pediatric infectious disease at McGill University and Montreal Children’s Hospital.

“Following the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we have seen a surge in the availability of rapid viral testing, including molecular multiplex panels,” he said. “However, the actual impact of these advancements on patient care in the ED remains uncertain.”

The study was published online on March 4, 2024, in JAMA Internal Medicine).
 

Rapid Viral Testing

Dr. Schober and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized clinical trials to understand whether rapid testing for respiratory viruses was associated with patient treatment in the ED.

In particular, the research team looked at whether testing in patients with suspected ARI was associated with decreased antibiotic use, ancillary tests, ED length of stay, ED return visits, hospitalization, and increased influenza antiviral treatment.

Among the trials, seven studies included molecular testing, and eight used multiplex panels, including influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza/RSV/adenovirus/parainfluenza, or a panel of 15 or more respiratory viruses. No study evaluated testing for SARS-CoV-2. The research team reported risk ratios (RRs) and risk difference estimates.

In general, routine rapid viral testing was associated with higher use of influenza antivirals (RR, 1.33) and lower use of chest radiography (RR, 0.88) and blood tests (RR, 0.81). However, the magnitude of these effects was small. For instance, to achieve one additional viral prescription, 70 patients would need to be tested, and to save one x-ray, 30 patients would need to be tested.

“This suggests that, while statistically significant, the practical impact of these secondary outcomes may not justify the extensive effort and resources involved in widespread testing,” Dr. Schober said.

In addition, there was no association between rapid testing and antibiotic use (RR, 0.99), urine testing (RR, 0.95), ED length of stay (0 h), return visits (RR, 0.93), or hospitalization (RR, 1.01).

Notably, there was no association between rapid viral testing and antibiotic use in any prespecified subgroup based on age, test method, publication date, number of viral targets, risk of bias, or industry funding, the authors said. They concluded that rapid virus testing should be reserved for patients for whom the testing will change treatment, such as high-risk patients or those with severe disease.

“It’s crucial to note that our study specifically evaluated the impact of systematic testing of patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection. Our findings do not advocate against rapid respiratory virus testing in general,” Dr. Schober said. “There is well-established evidence supporting the benefits of viral testing in certain contexts, such as hospitalized patients, to guide infection control practices or in specific high-risk populations.”
 

Future Research

Additional studies should look at testing among subgroups, particularly those with high-risk conditions, the study authors wrote. In addition, the research team would like to study the implementation of novel diagnostic stewardship programs as compared with well-established antibiotic stewardship programs.

“Acute respiratory tract illnesses represent one of the most common reasons for being evaluated in an acute care setting, especially in pediatrics, and these visits have traditionally resulted in excessive antibiotic prescribing, despite the etiology of the infection mostly being viral,” said Suchitra Rao, MBBS, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and associate medical director of infection prevention and control at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

Dr. Rao, who wasn’t involved with this study, has surveyed ED providers about respiratory viral testing and changes in clinical decision-making. She and colleagues found that providers most commonly changed clinical decision-making while prescribing an antiviral if influenza was detected or withholding antivirals if influenza wasn’t detected.

“Multiplex testing for respiratory viruses and atypical bacteria is becoming more widespread, with newer-generation platforms having shorter turnaround times, and offers the potential to impact point-of-care decision-making,” she said. “However, these tests are expensive, and more studies are needed to explore whether respiratory pathogen panel testing in the acute care setting has an impact in terms of reduced antibiotic use as well as other outcomes, including ED visits, health-seeking behaviors, and hospitalization.”

For instance, more recent studies around SARS-CoV-2 with newer-generation panels may make a difference, as well as multiplex panels that include numerous viral targets, she said.

“Further RCTs are required to evaluate the impact of influenza/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 panels, as well as respiratory pathogen panel testing in conjunction with antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship efforts, which have been associated with improved outcomes for other rapid molecular platforms, such as blood culture identification panels,” Rao said.

The study was funded by the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center. Dr. Schober reported no disclosures, and several study authors reported grants or personal fees from companies outside of this research. Dr. Rao disclosed no relevant relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Routine use of rapid respiratory virus testing in the emergency department (ED) appears to show limited benefit among patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection (ARI), according to a new study.

Rapid viral testing wasn’t associated with reduced antibiotic use, ED length of stay, or rates of ED return visits or hospitalization. However, testing was associated with a small increase in antiviral prescriptions and a small reduction in blood tests and chest x-rays.

“Our interest in studying the benefits of rapid viral testing in emergency departments comes from a commitment to diagnostic stewardship — ensuring that the right tests are administered to the right patients at the right time while also curbing overuse,” said lead author Tilmann Schober, MD, a resident in pediatric infectious disease at McGill University and Montreal Children’s Hospital.

“Following the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we have seen a surge in the availability of rapid viral testing, including molecular multiplex panels,” he said. “However, the actual impact of these advancements on patient care in the ED remains uncertain.”

The study was published online on March 4, 2024, in JAMA Internal Medicine).
 

Rapid Viral Testing

Dr. Schober and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized clinical trials to understand whether rapid testing for respiratory viruses was associated with patient treatment in the ED.

In particular, the research team looked at whether testing in patients with suspected ARI was associated with decreased antibiotic use, ancillary tests, ED length of stay, ED return visits, hospitalization, and increased influenza antiviral treatment.

Among the trials, seven studies included molecular testing, and eight used multiplex panels, including influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza/RSV/adenovirus/parainfluenza, or a panel of 15 or more respiratory viruses. No study evaluated testing for SARS-CoV-2. The research team reported risk ratios (RRs) and risk difference estimates.

In general, routine rapid viral testing was associated with higher use of influenza antivirals (RR, 1.33) and lower use of chest radiography (RR, 0.88) and blood tests (RR, 0.81). However, the magnitude of these effects was small. For instance, to achieve one additional viral prescription, 70 patients would need to be tested, and to save one x-ray, 30 patients would need to be tested.

“This suggests that, while statistically significant, the practical impact of these secondary outcomes may not justify the extensive effort and resources involved in widespread testing,” Dr. Schober said.

In addition, there was no association between rapid testing and antibiotic use (RR, 0.99), urine testing (RR, 0.95), ED length of stay (0 h), return visits (RR, 0.93), or hospitalization (RR, 1.01).

Notably, there was no association between rapid viral testing and antibiotic use in any prespecified subgroup based on age, test method, publication date, number of viral targets, risk of bias, or industry funding, the authors said. They concluded that rapid virus testing should be reserved for patients for whom the testing will change treatment, such as high-risk patients or those with severe disease.

“It’s crucial to note that our study specifically evaluated the impact of systematic testing of patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection. Our findings do not advocate against rapid respiratory virus testing in general,” Dr. Schober said. “There is well-established evidence supporting the benefits of viral testing in certain contexts, such as hospitalized patients, to guide infection control practices or in specific high-risk populations.”
 

Future Research

Additional studies should look at testing among subgroups, particularly those with high-risk conditions, the study authors wrote. In addition, the research team would like to study the implementation of novel diagnostic stewardship programs as compared with well-established antibiotic stewardship programs.

“Acute respiratory tract illnesses represent one of the most common reasons for being evaluated in an acute care setting, especially in pediatrics, and these visits have traditionally resulted in excessive antibiotic prescribing, despite the etiology of the infection mostly being viral,” said Suchitra Rao, MBBS, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and associate medical director of infection prevention and control at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

Dr. Rao, who wasn’t involved with this study, has surveyed ED providers about respiratory viral testing and changes in clinical decision-making. She and colleagues found that providers most commonly changed clinical decision-making while prescribing an antiviral if influenza was detected or withholding antivirals if influenza wasn’t detected.

“Multiplex testing for respiratory viruses and atypical bacteria is becoming more widespread, with newer-generation platforms having shorter turnaround times, and offers the potential to impact point-of-care decision-making,” she said. “However, these tests are expensive, and more studies are needed to explore whether respiratory pathogen panel testing in the acute care setting has an impact in terms of reduced antibiotic use as well as other outcomes, including ED visits, health-seeking behaviors, and hospitalization.”

For instance, more recent studies around SARS-CoV-2 with newer-generation panels may make a difference, as well as multiplex panels that include numerous viral targets, she said.

“Further RCTs are required to evaluate the impact of influenza/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 panels, as well as respiratory pathogen panel testing in conjunction with antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship efforts, which have been associated with improved outcomes for other rapid molecular platforms, such as blood culture identification panels,” Rao said.

The study was funded by the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center. Dr. Schober reported no disclosures, and several study authors reported grants or personal fees from companies outside of this research. Dr. Rao disclosed no relevant relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A novel vibrating capsule that signals a postprandial feeling of fullness reduced both food and energy intake and lowered weight gain in animal studies, said researchers who are developing it as a more affordable treatment for obesity.

The capsule, called the Vibrating Ingestible BioElectronic Stimulator (VIBES), is the size of a large adult multivitamin pill and is meant to be swallowed before a meal. The VIBES capsule works by stimulating gastric stretch receptors that signal the brain through the vagal nerve and stimulate a sense of satiety.

“Application of mechanoreceptor biology could transform our capacity to help patients suffering from nutritional disorders,” wrote Shriya S. Srinivasan, PhD, at Harvard University, Boston, and her coauthors. Srinivasan, founder and director of the Biohybrid Organs and Neuroprosthetics (BIONIC) Lab, led the team that designed and prototyped the VIBES capsule.

In a pig model, the VIBES activated mechanoreceptors and triggered gastric mucosal receptors, the researchers reported. Across 108 meals, swine treated with VIBES had nearly 40% reduced food intake compared to controls given a sham pill, with no apparent neural adaptation observed.

The research was published online in Science Advances.
 

Satiety Signaling in Obesity Treatment

Caroline M. Apovian, MD, codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the study, said the concept of creating the illusion of satiety is not a new one.

She was part of team that showed medically meaningful weight loss at 2 years with a surgically implanted device that intermittently blocked the vagus nerves near the junction of the stomach and esophagus. “So we’ve been aware of the potential of things like this to produce a sense of satiety and weight loss,” she said.

However, Dr. Apovian believed that a capsule such as VIBES faces a number of hurdles before it is widely used in the clinic, even if it is successfully tested on humans.

She pointed to a superabsorbent hydrogel device, Plenity (Gelesis), delivered as three oral capsules that expand with water in the stomach to create a feeling of satiety. While approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), it is not widely used, she said, as there are “hurdles” for patients to overcome, particularly in obtaining it from the pharmacy.

The VIBES capsule would in theory be acceptable to patients, Apovian said, but they are “overwhelmed by the media attention” on medications such as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, which promise dramatic weight loss, far higher than the sorts of figures VIBES could achieve.

Nevertheless, the capsule could form a part of the obesity treatment armamentarium, with the idea that it could be combined with “an agent that would act more centrally to change the body weight setpoint,” she said.

Allan Geliebter, PhD, professor, department of psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said that the thinking behind the capsule is a “clever, original approach,” but he is personally skeptical that people will take them.

“It’s the largest possible capsule that’s on the market today that is approved by the FDA for swallowing,” he said, and people “have to assume it’s going to come out the other end.”

“I think it will,” Dr. Geliebter added, “but if you’re taking at least two of these a day, what’s the guarantee one won’t get stuck along the ride?”

And when it does come out, “maybe it will be visible, maybe not,” but either way, “I can see people being anxious.”

He agreed with Dr. Apovian that the arrival of GLP-1 agonists has made obesity “a tough market to compete in right now,” although he noted that the drugs “do have side effects, and not everybody tolerates them.”

The VIBES Approach

The authors noted that another approved satiety device, intragastic balloons, also were designed to induce early satiety through distension of the stomach, but they do not lead to sustained changes in hunger or eating behavior due to neural adaptation to the continuing distension.

Moreover, some balloons have been withdrawn due to safety concerns, including several deaths.

The team reasoned a mechanism or device “capable of selective mechanoreceptor activation would pose great clinical value.”

Dr. Srinivasan explained: “While vibration has been known to create proprioceptive illusions in muscles, to our knowledge, no one has tried this in the stomach.”

“Given my penchant for mechanoreceptor physiology, I was curious to see if stretch receptors in the smooth muscle could be manipulated by mechanostimulation.”

The team designed an orally ingestible 3D-printed capsule in three sections, one of which allows entry of gastric fluid to dissolve a glucose layer. This causes the release of a spring-loaded pogo pin that completes a circuit to activate the vibrating motor.

Initial testing demonstrated that the capsule, which is the size of a triple zero pill, vibrated for an average of 38.3 minutes, which was deemed acceptable as “meals are generally consumed in a 20- to 30-min window and gastric contents undergo primary mixing in approximately an hour,” the authors wrote.

Immersing the capsule in simulated gastric fluid for 24 hours and simulated intestinal fluid for 10 days at 37 °C didn’t lead to changes in the capsule; thus, it “would not damage the gastrointestinal tract even if it were to reside in the stomach for a full day or in the intestines for over a week,” the authors wrote.

Testing VIBES Satiety in Swine

To test the capsule’s performance as a potential obesity treatment, the researchers turned to a model of Yorkshire pigs ages 4-6 months. Their “gastric anatomy is similar to that of humans,” the authors wrote, and they have been widely used to evaluate biomedical devices.

The researchers found that the vibration from the capsule not only induced the afferent neural activation of gastric mechanoreceptors sensitive to stomach distention but also triggered gastric secretory activity via by what the authors call “stroking” of the gastric mucosa.

To examine the impact of the capsule on hunger and feeding behavior, they monitored the food intake of four pigs in each of three conditions:

• No treatment (control)
• Treated with a sham capsule tethered via a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube (PEG-control)
• Treated with a VIBES capsule tethered via a PEG tube

After 2 weeks, VIBES-treated pigs consumed an average of 58.1% of their meals (n = 108 meals), PEG-control pigs consumed 84.1% (n = 100 meals), and the control group consumed 78.4% (n = 96) meals among PEG-only swine.

Per animal on average, the capsule reduced intake by 31% (P < .001), and the energy consumed per meal for each treated animal was significantly lower than that in the control period (P < .001), with no significant difference between the control and PEG-only groups (P < .1).

In a cross-over experiment, treating the swine for three meals, leaving them untreated for three meals, then treating them for another three revealed that intake increased by 38% during the untreated window.

The crossover results suggest the capsule “functions through temporal vagal activation, with little neural adaptation or long-term effect,” the team wrote.

Weight gain in VIBES-treated pigs was also significantly lower than that in the control and in the PEG-control groups (P < .05).

“Together, these data suggest that the VIBES pill significantly decreases food intake and slows the rate of weight gain in a large animal model,” the team wrote.

The VIBES capsule passed out of the treated pigs after an average of 4.4 days vs 8.3 days for a sham pill. As the “pigs generally take 7-9 days to excrete a given meal,” Dr. Srinivasan noted, “4 days is actually quite fast.”

“In humans, we expect this to pass on the same timescale as a regular meal,” she said, or approximately 24 hours. With no safety concerns identified in the study, Dr. Srinivasan did not expect there to be any significant concern over having multiple devices in the intestines from ingesting one with every meal.

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, Novo Nordisk, and MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering, alongside support to individual authors via a Schmidt Science Fellowship and a National Science Foundation grant to the Computing Research Association for the CIFellows Project.

Dr. Srinivasan and two coauthors were coinventors on a patent application (application filed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology describing the developments discussed here). Another author declared a consulting relationship with Novo Nordisk.

No other relevant financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A novel vibrating capsule that signals a postprandial feeling of fullness reduced both food and energy intake and lowered weight gain in animal studies, said researchers who are developing it as a more affordable treatment for obesity.

The capsule, called the Vibrating Ingestible BioElectronic Stimulator (VIBES), is the size of a large adult multivitamin pill and is meant to be swallowed before a meal. The VIBES capsule works by stimulating gastric stretch receptors that signal the brain through the vagal nerve and stimulate a sense of satiety.

“Application of mechanoreceptor biology could transform our capacity to help patients suffering from nutritional disorders,” wrote Shriya S. Srinivasan, PhD, at Harvard University, Boston, and her coauthors. Srinivasan, founder and director of the Biohybrid Organs and Neuroprosthetics (BIONIC) Lab, led the team that designed and prototyped the VIBES capsule.

In a pig model, the VIBES activated mechanoreceptors and triggered gastric mucosal receptors, the researchers reported. Across 108 meals, swine treated with VIBES had nearly 40% reduced food intake compared to controls given a sham pill, with no apparent neural adaptation observed.

The research was published online in Science Advances.
 

Satiety Signaling in Obesity Treatment

Caroline M. Apovian, MD, codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the study, said the concept of creating the illusion of satiety is not a new one.

She was part of team that showed medically meaningful weight loss at 2 years with a surgically implanted device that intermittently blocked the vagus nerves near the junction of the stomach and esophagus. “So we’ve been aware of the potential of things like this to produce a sense of satiety and weight loss,” she said.

However, Dr. Apovian believed that a capsule such as VIBES faces a number of hurdles before it is widely used in the clinic, even if it is successfully tested on humans.

She pointed to a superabsorbent hydrogel device, Plenity (Gelesis), delivered as three oral capsules that expand with water in the stomach to create a feeling of satiety. While approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), it is not widely used, she said, as there are “hurdles” for patients to overcome, particularly in obtaining it from the pharmacy.

The VIBES capsule would in theory be acceptable to patients, Apovian said, but they are “overwhelmed by the media attention” on medications such as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, which promise dramatic weight loss, far higher than the sorts of figures VIBES could achieve.

Nevertheless, the capsule could form a part of the obesity treatment armamentarium, with the idea that it could be combined with “an agent that would act more centrally to change the body weight setpoint,” she said.

Allan Geliebter, PhD, professor, department of psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said that the thinking behind the capsule is a “clever, original approach,” but he is personally skeptical that people will take them.

“It’s the largest possible capsule that’s on the market today that is approved by the FDA for swallowing,” he said, and people “have to assume it’s going to come out the other end.”

“I think it will,” Dr. Geliebter added, “but if you’re taking at least two of these a day, what’s the guarantee one won’t get stuck along the ride?”

And when it does come out, “maybe it will be visible, maybe not,” but either way, “I can see people being anxious.”

He agreed with Dr. Apovian that the arrival of GLP-1 agonists has made obesity “a tough market to compete in right now,” although he noted that the drugs “do have side effects, and not everybody tolerates them.”

The VIBES Approach

The authors noted that another approved satiety device, intragastic balloons, also were designed to induce early satiety through distension of the stomach, but they do not lead to sustained changes in hunger or eating behavior due to neural adaptation to the continuing distension.

Moreover, some balloons have been withdrawn due to safety concerns, including several deaths.

The team reasoned a mechanism or device “capable of selective mechanoreceptor activation would pose great clinical value.”

Dr. Srinivasan explained: “While vibration has been known to create proprioceptive illusions in muscles, to our knowledge, no one has tried this in the stomach.”

“Given my penchant for mechanoreceptor physiology, I was curious to see if stretch receptors in the smooth muscle could be manipulated by mechanostimulation.”

The team designed an orally ingestible 3D-printed capsule in three sections, one of which allows entry of gastric fluid to dissolve a glucose layer. This causes the release of a spring-loaded pogo pin that completes a circuit to activate the vibrating motor.

Initial testing demonstrated that the capsule, which is the size of a triple zero pill, vibrated for an average of 38.3 minutes, which was deemed acceptable as “meals are generally consumed in a 20- to 30-min window and gastric contents undergo primary mixing in approximately an hour,” the authors wrote.

Immersing the capsule in simulated gastric fluid for 24 hours and simulated intestinal fluid for 10 days at 37 °C didn’t lead to changes in the capsule; thus, it “would not damage the gastrointestinal tract even if it were to reside in the stomach for a full day or in the intestines for over a week,” the authors wrote.

Testing VIBES Satiety in Swine

To test the capsule’s performance as a potential obesity treatment, the researchers turned to a model of Yorkshire pigs ages 4-6 months. Their “gastric anatomy is similar to that of humans,” the authors wrote, and they have been widely used to evaluate biomedical devices.

The researchers found that the vibration from the capsule not only induced the afferent neural activation of gastric mechanoreceptors sensitive to stomach distention but also triggered gastric secretory activity via by what the authors call “stroking” of the gastric mucosa.

To examine the impact of the capsule on hunger and feeding behavior, they monitored the food intake of four pigs in each of three conditions:

• No treatment (control)
• Treated with a sham capsule tethered via a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube (PEG-control)
• Treated with a VIBES capsule tethered via a PEG tube

After 2 weeks, VIBES-treated pigs consumed an average of 58.1% of their meals (n = 108 meals), PEG-control pigs consumed 84.1% (n = 100 meals), and the control group consumed 78.4% (n = 96) meals among PEG-only swine.

Per animal on average, the capsule reduced intake by 31% (P < .001), and the energy consumed per meal for each treated animal was significantly lower than that in the control period (P < .001), with no significant difference between the control and PEG-only groups (P < .1).

In a cross-over experiment, treating the swine for three meals, leaving them untreated for three meals, then treating them for another three revealed that intake increased by 38% during the untreated window.

The crossover results suggest the capsule “functions through temporal vagal activation, with little neural adaptation or long-term effect,” the team wrote.

Weight gain in VIBES-treated pigs was also significantly lower than that in the control and in the PEG-control groups (P < .05).

“Together, these data suggest that the VIBES pill significantly decreases food intake and slows the rate of weight gain in a large animal model,” the team wrote.

The VIBES capsule passed out of the treated pigs after an average of 4.4 days vs 8.3 days for a sham pill. As the “pigs generally take 7-9 days to excrete a given meal,” Dr. Srinivasan noted, “4 days is actually quite fast.”

“In humans, we expect this to pass on the same timescale as a regular meal,” she said, or approximately 24 hours. With no safety concerns identified in the study, Dr. Srinivasan did not expect there to be any significant concern over having multiple devices in the intestines from ingesting one with every meal.

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, Novo Nordisk, and MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering, alongside support to individual authors via a Schmidt Science Fellowship and a National Science Foundation grant to the Computing Research Association for the CIFellows Project.

Dr. Srinivasan and two coauthors were coinventors on a patent application (application filed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology describing the developments discussed here). Another author declared a consulting relationship with Novo Nordisk.

No other relevant financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A novel vibrating capsule that signals a postprandial feeling of fullness reduced both food and energy intake and lowered weight gain in animal studies, said researchers who are developing it as a more affordable treatment for obesity.

The capsule, called the Vibrating Ingestible BioElectronic Stimulator (VIBES), is the size of a large adult multivitamin pill and is meant to be swallowed before a meal. The VIBES capsule works by stimulating gastric stretch receptors that signal the brain through the vagal nerve and stimulate a sense of satiety.

“Application of mechanoreceptor biology could transform our capacity to help patients suffering from nutritional disorders,” wrote Shriya S. Srinivasan, PhD, at Harvard University, Boston, and her coauthors. Srinivasan, founder and director of the Biohybrid Organs and Neuroprosthetics (BIONIC) Lab, led the team that designed and prototyped the VIBES capsule.

In a pig model, the VIBES activated mechanoreceptors and triggered gastric mucosal receptors, the researchers reported. Across 108 meals, swine treated with VIBES had nearly 40% reduced food intake compared to controls given a sham pill, with no apparent neural adaptation observed.

The research was published online in Science Advances.
 

Satiety Signaling in Obesity Treatment

Caroline M. Apovian, MD, codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the study, said the concept of creating the illusion of satiety is not a new one.

She was part of team that showed medically meaningful weight loss at 2 years with a surgically implanted device that intermittently blocked the vagus nerves near the junction of the stomach and esophagus. “So we’ve been aware of the potential of things like this to produce a sense of satiety and weight loss,” she said.

However, Dr. Apovian believed that a capsule such as VIBES faces a number of hurdles before it is widely used in the clinic, even if it is successfully tested on humans.

She pointed to a superabsorbent hydrogel device, Plenity (Gelesis), delivered as three oral capsules that expand with water in the stomach to create a feeling of satiety. While approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), it is not widely used, she said, as there are “hurdles” for patients to overcome, particularly in obtaining it from the pharmacy.

The VIBES capsule would in theory be acceptable to patients, Apovian said, but they are “overwhelmed by the media attention” on medications such as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, which promise dramatic weight loss, far higher than the sorts of figures VIBES could achieve.

Nevertheless, the capsule could form a part of the obesity treatment armamentarium, with the idea that it could be combined with “an agent that would act more centrally to change the body weight setpoint,” she said.

Allan Geliebter, PhD, professor, department of psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said that the thinking behind the capsule is a “clever, original approach,” but he is personally skeptical that people will take them.

“It’s the largest possible capsule that’s on the market today that is approved by the FDA for swallowing,” he said, and people “have to assume it’s going to come out the other end.”

“I think it will,” Dr. Geliebter added, “but if you’re taking at least two of these a day, what’s the guarantee one won’t get stuck along the ride?”

And when it does come out, “maybe it will be visible, maybe not,” but either way, “I can see people being anxious.”

He agreed with Dr. Apovian that the arrival of GLP-1 agonists has made obesity “a tough market to compete in right now,” although he noted that the drugs “do have side effects, and not everybody tolerates them.”

The VIBES Approach

The authors noted that another approved satiety device, intragastic balloons, also were designed to induce early satiety through distension of the stomach, but they do not lead to sustained changes in hunger or eating behavior due to neural adaptation to the continuing distension.

Moreover, some balloons have been withdrawn due to safety concerns, including several deaths.

The team reasoned a mechanism or device “capable of selective mechanoreceptor activation would pose great clinical value.”

Dr. Srinivasan explained: “While vibration has been known to create proprioceptive illusions in muscles, to our knowledge, no one has tried this in the stomach.”

“Given my penchant for mechanoreceptor physiology, I was curious to see if stretch receptors in the smooth muscle could be manipulated by mechanostimulation.”

The team designed an orally ingestible 3D-printed capsule in three sections, one of which allows entry of gastric fluid to dissolve a glucose layer. This causes the release of a spring-loaded pogo pin that completes a circuit to activate the vibrating motor.

Initial testing demonstrated that the capsule, which is the size of a triple zero pill, vibrated for an average of 38.3 minutes, which was deemed acceptable as “meals are generally consumed in a 20- to 30-min window and gastric contents undergo primary mixing in approximately an hour,” the authors wrote.

Immersing the capsule in simulated gastric fluid for 24 hours and simulated intestinal fluid for 10 days at 37 °C didn’t lead to changes in the capsule; thus, it “would not damage the gastrointestinal tract even if it were to reside in the stomach for a full day or in the intestines for over a week,” the authors wrote.

Testing VIBES Satiety in Swine

To test the capsule’s performance as a potential obesity treatment, the researchers turned to a model of Yorkshire pigs ages 4-6 months. Their “gastric anatomy is similar to that of humans,” the authors wrote, and they have been widely used to evaluate biomedical devices.

The researchers found that the vibration from the capsule not only induced the afferent neural activation of gastric mechanoreceptors sensitive to stomach distention but also triggered gastric secretory activity via by what the authors call “stroking” of the gastric mucosa.

To examine the impact of the capsule on hunger and feeding behavior, they monitored the food intake of four pigs in each of three conditions:

• No treatment (control)
• Treated with a sham capsule tethered via a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube (PEG-control)
• Treated with a VIBES capsule tethered via a PEG tube

After 2 weeks, VIBES-treated pigs consumed an average of 58.1% of their meals (n = 108 meals), PEG-control pigs consumed 84.1% (n = 100 meals), and the control group consumed 78.4% (n = 96) meals among PEG-only swine.

Per animal on average, the capsule reduced intake by 31% (P < .001), and the energy consumed per meal for each treated animal was significantly lower than that in the control period (P < .001), with no significant difference between the control and PEG-only groups (P < .1).

In a cross-over experiment, treating the swine for three meals, leaving them untreated for three meals, then treating them for another three revealed that intake increased by 38% during the untreated window.

The crossover results suggest the capsule “functions through temporal vagal activation, with little neural adaptation or long-term effect,” the team wrote.

Weight gain in VIBES-treated pigs was also significantly lower than that in the control and in the PEG-control groups (P < .05).

“Together, these data suggest that the VIBES pill significantly decreases food intake and slows the rate of weight gain in a large animal model,” the team wrote.

The VIBES capsule passed out of the treated pigs after an average of 4.4 days vs 8.3 days for a sham pill. As the “pigs generally take 7-9 days to excrete a given meal,” Dr. Srinivasan noted, “4 days is actually quite fast.”

“In humans, we expect this to pass on the same timescale as a regular meal,” she said, or approximately 24 hours. With no safety concerns identified in the study, Dr. Srinivasan did not expect there to be any significant concern over having multiple devices in the intestines from ingesting one with every meal.

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, Novo Nordisk, and MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering, alongside support to individual authors via a Schmidt Science Fellowship and a National Science Foundation grant to the Computing Research Association for the CIFellows Project.

Dr. Srinivasan and two coauthors were coinventors on a patent application (application filed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology describing the developments discussed here). Another author declared a consulting relationship with Novo Nordisk.

No other relevant financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

Large Language Model Used

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

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

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

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

Burden Improved, But Didn’t Save Time

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

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

Quality of AI Responses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Large Language Model Used

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

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

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

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

Burden Improved, But Didn’t Save Time

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

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

Quality of AI Responses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Large Language Model Used

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

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

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

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

Burden Improved, But Didn’t Save Time

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

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

Quality of AI Responses

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

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

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

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

SAN DIEGO — Among patients with skin of color and moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who underwent 16 weeks of treatment with lebrikizumab, 68% achieved a 75% reduction in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75), interim results from a novel phase 3b trial showed.

Lebrikizumab, a novel monoclonal antibody being developed by Eli Lilly and Co, binds with high affinity to interleukin (IL)–13, thereby blocking the downstream effects of IL-13 with high potency, one of the study investigators, Jill S. Waibel, MD, a dermatologist in Miami, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. Though the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab to treat moderate to severe AD have been established in phase 3 studies, including subset analyses by race and ethnicity, “there is a paucity of data to guide the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD in populations traditionally under-represented in clinical trials, including patients with skin of color,” she said.

During a late-breaking abstract session, Dr. Waibel presented interim 16-week results from ADmirable, a phase 3b, open-label, 24-week study, was the first study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of lebrikizumab in adult and adolescents with skin of color and moderate to severe AD. At baseline and at 2 weeks, patients received a 500-mg loading dose of lebrikizumab. Through week 16, they received a 250-mg dose every 2 weeks. The study’s primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved a 75% reduction in EASI-75 at week 16. “If they achieved the primary endpoint at week 16, they went to a 250-mg dose every 4 weeks,” Dr. Waibel said. “If they did not achieve that [primary endpoint] they stayed on the 250-mg dose every 2 weeks.”

The analysis included 50 patients with skin types IV, V, and VI who self-reported their race as Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. They had chronic AD for at least 1 year, moderate to severe disease at baseline, a history of an inadequate response to topical medications, and were naive to biologics indicated for the treatment of AD.

Week 16 outcomes of interest were the EASI, the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) of 0 or 1, the Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), and PDCA-Derm, a scale developed by Eli Lilly and Co that was used to compare postinflammatory lesions to unaffected adjacent normal skin. All data for statistical analyses were summarized as observed.

At baseline, the mean age of the 50 patients was 42 years, 46% were women, their mean body mass index was 30.2, and the mean age at AD onset was 23 years. Most study participants (80%) were Black or African American, 14% were Asian, and 6% were American Indian or Alaska Native; 78% were not Hispanic or Latino and 22% were Hispanic or Latino. The mean EASI score was 28.1, the mean body surface area affected was 41.7%, and the mean Pruritus NRS score was 7.2 out of 11. According to the PDCA-Derm scale, 18% of patients had hypopigmented lesions, and 54% had hyperpigmented lesions.

After 16 weeks of treatment, 68% of patients achieved an EASI-75 response, whereas 46% achieved an EASI-90 response, Dr. Waibel reported at the meeting. In addition, 39% of patients achieved an IGA score of 0 or 1, 56% achieved a ≥ 4-point improvement on the Pruritus NRS, and 66% achieved a ≥ 3-point improvement on the Pruritus NRS. The PDCA-Derm score identified improvement in postinflammatory hyperpigmented lesions in 12 of 21 patients and improvement to normal skin tone in six of 21 patients.

“I have a large population [with skin of color in my practice],” Dr. Waibel said. “I usually tell my [patients with postinflammatory hyperpigmentation] that it takes 6 months to see improvement. In this study, we saw patients achieve improvement in skin tone in a 4-month time frame. PIH is sometimes more distressing than a primary condition, whether it’s acne or atopic dermatitis. In this case, it was surprisingly improved with lebrikizumab.”

No new safety signals or serious adverse events were observed. “This is very exciting because it’s the first time there has been a trial focusing on [patients with skin of color] with moderate to severe eczema in skin types IV-VI,” Dr. Waibel said.

In an interview, the study’s lead investigator, Andrew Alexis, MD, MPH, vice chair for diversity and inclusion in the department of dermatology and professor of clinical dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, said that the interim results from this study “ add valuable, clinically relevant data on the treatment of moderate to severe AD in patient populations with skin of color.”

“An interesting finding,” he continued, “was that improvement in postinflammatory hyperpigmented lesions was seen in 12 of 21 patients and improvement to normal skin tone was observed in six of 21 patients at week 16. This is particularly relevant to patients with skin of color who frequently suffer from pigmentary changes in association with their AD.”

Lebrikizumab was approved in November 2023 in Europe for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in people aged 12 years or older and is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of AD. 

Both Dr. Waibel and Dr. Alexis disclosed numerous conflicts of interest from various pharmaceutical companies, including serving as a consultant and/or advisor to Eli Lilly and Co.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
 

SAN DIEGO — Among patients with skin of color and moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who underwent 16 weeks of treatment with lebrikizumab, 68% achieved a 75% reduction in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75), interim results from a novel phase 3b trial showed.

Lebrikizumab, a novel monoclonal antibody being developed by Eli Lilly and Co, binds with high affinity to interleukin (IL)–13, thereby blocking the downstream effects of IL-13 with high potency, one of the study investigators, Jill S. Waibel, MD, a dermatologist in Miami, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. Though the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab to treat moderate to severe AD have been established in phase 3 studies, including subset analyses by race and ethnicity, “there is a paucity of data to guide the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD in populations traditionally under-represented in clinical trials, including patients with skin of color,” she said.

During a late-breaking abstract session, Dr. Waibel presented interim 16-week results from ADmirable, a phase 3b, open-label, 24-week study, was the first study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of lebrikizumab in adult and adolescents with skin of color and moderate to severe AD. At baseline and at 2 weeks, patients received a 500-mg loading dose of lebrikizumab. Through week 16, they received a 250-mg dose every 2 weeks. The study’s primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved a 75% reduction in EASI-75 at week 16. “If they achieved the primary endpoint at week 16, they went to a 250-mg dose every 4 weeks,” Dr. Waibel said. “If they did not achieve that [primary endpoint] they stayed on the 250-mg dose every 2 weeks.”

The analysis included 50 patients with skin types IV, V, and VI who self-reported their race as Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. They had chronic AD for at least 1 year, moderate to severe disease at baseline, a history of an inadequate response to topical medications, and were naive to biologics indicated for the treatment of AD.

Week 16 outcomes of interest were the EASI, the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) of 0 or 1, the Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), and PDCA-Derm, a scale developed by Eli Lilly and Co that was used to compare postinflammatory lesions to unaffected adjacent normal skin. All data for statistical analyses were summarized as observed.

At baseline, the mean age of the 50 patients was 42 years, 46% were women, their mean body mass index was 30.2, and the mean age at AD onset was 23 years. Most study participants (80%) were Black or African American, 14% were Asian, and 6% were American Indian or Alaska Native; 78% were not Hispanic or Latino and 22% were Hispanic or Latino. The mean EASI score was 28.1, the mean body surface area affected was 41.7%, and the mean Pruritus NRS score was 7.2 out of 11. According to the PDCA-Derm scale, 18% of patients had hypopigmented lesions, and 54% had hyperpigmented lesions.

After 16 weeks of treatment, 68% of patients achieved an EASI-75 response, whereas 46% achieved an EASI-90 response, Dr. Waibel reported at the meeting. In addition, 39% of patients achieved an IGA score of 0 or 1, 56% achieved a ≥ 4-point improvement on the Pruritus NRS, and 66% achieved a ≥ 3-point improvement on the Pruritus NRS. The PDCA-Derm score identified improvement in postinflammatory hyperpigmented lesions in 12 of 21 patients and improvement to normal skin tone in six of 21 patients.

“I have a large population [with skin of color in my practice],” Dr. Waibel said. “I usually tell my [patients with postinflammatory hyperpigmentation] that it takes 6 months to see improvement. In this study, we saw patients achieve improvement in skin tone in a 4-month time frame. PIH is sometimes more distressing than a primary condition, whether it’s acne or atopic dermatitis. In this case, it was surprisingly improved with lebrikizumab.”

No new safety signals or serious adverse events were observed. “This is very exciting because it’s the first time there has been a trial focusing on [patients with skin of color] with moderate to severe eczema in skin types IV-VI,” Dr. Waibel said.

In an interview, the study’s lead investigator, Andrew Alexis, MD, MPH, vice chair for diversity and inclusion in the department of dermatology and professor of clinical dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, said that the interim results from this study “ add valuable, clinically relevant data on the treatment of moderate to severe AD in patient populations with skin of color.”

“An interesting finding,” he continued, “was that improvement in postinflammatory hyperpigmented lesions was seen in 12 of 21 patients and improvement to normal skin tone was observed in six of 21 patients at week 16. This is particularly relevant to patients with skin of color who frequently suffer from pigmentary changes in association with their AD.”

Lebrikizumab was approved in November 2023 in Europe for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in people aged 12 years or older and is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of AD. 

Both Dr. Waibel and Dr. Alexis disclosed numerous conflicts of interest from various pharmaceutical companies, including serving as a consultant and/or advisor to Eli Lilly and Co.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
 

SAN DIEGO — Among patients with skin of color and moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who underwent 16 weeks of treatment with lebrikizumab, 68% achieved a 75% reduction in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75), interim results from a novel phase 3b trial showed.

Lebrikizumab, a novel monoclonal antibody being developed by Eli Lilly and Co, binds with high affinity to interleukin (IL)–13, thereby blocking the downstream effects of IL-13 with high potency, one of the study investigators, Jill S. Waibel, MD, a dermatologist in Miami, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. Though the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab to treat moderate to severe AD have been established in phase 3 studies, including subset analyses by race and ethnicity, “there is a paucity of data to guide the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD in populations traditionally under-represented in clinical trials, including patients with skin of color,” she said.

During a late-breaking abstract session, Dr. Waibel presented interim 16-week results from ADmirable, a phase 3b, open-label, 24-week study, was the first study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of lebrikizumab in adult and adolescents with skin of color and moderate to severe AD. At baseline and at 2 weeks, patients received a 500-mg loading dose of lebrikizumab. Through week 16, they received a 250-mg dose every 2 weeks. The study’s primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved a 75% reduction in EASI-75 at week 16. “If they achieved the primary endpoint at week 16, they went to a 250-mg dose every 4 weeks,” Dr. Waibel said. “If they did not achieve that [primary endpoint] they stayed on the 250-mg dose every 2 weeks.”

The analysis included 50 patients with skin types IV, V, and VI who self-reported their race as Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. They had chronic AD for at least 1 year, moderate to severe disease at baseline, a history of an inadequate response to topical medications, and were naive to biologics indicated for the treatment of AD.

Week 16 outcomes of interest were the EASI, the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) of 0 or 1, the Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), and PDCA-Derm, a scale developed by Eli Lilly and Co that was used to compare postinflammatory lesions to unaffected adjacent normal skin. All data for statistical analyses were summarized as observed.

At baseline, the mean age of the 50 patients was 42 years, 46% were women, their mean body mass index was 30.2, and the mean age at AD onset was 23 years. Most study participants (80%) were Black or African American, 14% were Asian, and 6% were American Indian or Alaska Native; 78% were not Hispanic or Latino and 22% were Hispanic or Latino. The mean EASI score was 28.1, the mean body surface area affected was 41.7%, and the mean Pruritus NRS score was 7.2 out of 11. According to the PDCA-Derm scale, 18% of patients had hypopigmented lesions, and 54% had hyperpigmented lesions.

After 16 weeks of treatment, 68% of patients achieved an EASI-75 response, whereas 46% achieved an EASI-90 response, Dr. Waibel reported at the meeting. In addition, 39% of patients achieved an IGA score of 0 or 1, 56% achieved a ≥ 4-point improvement on the Pruritus NRS, and 66% achieved a ≥ 3-point improvement on the Pruritus NRS. The PDCA-Derm score identified improvement in postinflammatory hyperpigmented lesions in 12 of 21 patients and improvement to normal skin tone in six of 21 patients.

“I have a large population [with skin of color in my practice],” Dr. Waibel said. “I usually tell my [patients with postinflammatory hyperpigmentation] that it takes 6 months to see improvement. In this study, we saw patients achieve improvement in skin tone in a 4-month time frame. PIH is sometimes more distressing than a primary condition, whether it’s acne or atopic dermatitis. In this case, it was surprisingly improved with lebrikizumab.”

No new safety signals or serious adverse events were observed. “This is very exciting because it’s the first time there has been a trial focusing on [patients with skin of color] with moderate to severe eczema in skin types IV-VI,” Dr. Waibel said.

In an interview, the study’s lead investigator, Andrew Alexis, MD, MPH, vice chair for diversity and inclusion in the department of dermatology and professor of clinical dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, said that the interim results from this study “ add valuable, clinically relevant data on the treatment of moderate to severe AD in patient populations with skin of color.”

“An interesting finding,” he continued, “was that improvement in postinflammatory hyperpigmented lesions was seen in 12 of 21 patients and improvement to normal skin tone was observed in six of 21 patients at week 16. This is particularly relevant to patients with skin of color who frequently suffer from pigmentary changes in association with their AD.”

Lebrikizumab was approved in November 2023 in Europe for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in people aged 12 years or older and is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of AD. 

Both Dr. Waibel and Dr. Alexis disclosed numerous conflicts of interest from various pharmaceutical companies, including serving as a consultant and/or advisor to Eli Lilly and Co.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
 

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

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

Courtesy Dr. Gelfand

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

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

LITE Study Data

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

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

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

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

An Improvement in Health Equity

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

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

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

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

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

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

LITE Study Described as “Groundbreaking”

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

Courtesy Dr. Gelfand

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

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

LITE Study Data

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

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

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

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

An Improvement in Health Equity

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

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

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

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

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

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

LITE Study Described as “Groundbreaking”

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

Courtesy Dr. Gelfand

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

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

LITE Study Data

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

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

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

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

An Improvement in Health Equity

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

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

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

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

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

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

LITE Study Described as “Groundbreaking”

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.