TOPLINE:

Mental health comorbidities are prevalent among youth with overweight or obesity, with the strongest risk factors being male sex, older age, and extreme obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers compared clinical characteristics and outcomes among children, adolescents, and young adults with overweight or obesity with or without a comorbid mental disorder who participated in a lifestyle intervention program.
• Overall, data from 114,248 individuals (age, 6-30 years; 53% females) from 226 centers in Germany and Austria participating in the Adiposity Patient Registry were evaluated.
• Individuals were excluded if they had bariatric surgery or used weight-modifying drugs (metformin, orlistat, or glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues).
• Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as a standard deviation score (SDS) from a German youth population reference and was used to define overweight (90th to < 97th percentile), obesity (97th percentile), and severe obesity (≥ 99.5th percentile), which at age 18 correspond to adult cutoffs for overweight and obesity (25 kg/m² and 30 kg/m², respectively).
• Regression analysis identified the factors associated with mental disorders in those with overweight or obesity.

TAKEAWAY:

• A comorbid mental disorder was reported in 3969 individuals, with attention-deficit disorder (ADHD, 42.5%), anxiety (31.3%), depression (24.3%), and eating disorders (12.9%) being the most common.
• The factors most strongly associated with mental health comorbidity were male sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% CI, 1.27-1.52), older age (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.25-1.62), and severe obesity (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.30-1.63).
• Mean BMI-SDS was higher in individuals with depression and eating disorders and lower in individuals with ADHD (both P < .001) than in those without mental disorders.
• Individuals with and without mental disorders benefited from similar BMI changes from lifestyle intervention programs.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “Healthcare professionals caring for youth with overweight or obesity should be aware of comorbid mental disorders, and regular mental health screening should be considered.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Angela Galler from the Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany, was published online on January 9, 2024, in the International Journal of Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s findings are based on data from a group of children, adolescents, and young adults with overweight or obesity treated in specialized obesity centers and may not be generalizable to all youth with obesity. Moreover, the study could not establish any conclusions regarding the cause or effect between obesity and mental disorders. Individuals were not tested psychologically for mental disorders and might have been underreported.

DISCLOSURES:

The manuscript is part of the Stratification of Obesity Phenotypes to Optimize Future Obesity Therapy project, which was funded by the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mental health comorbidities are prevalent among youth with overweight or obesity, with the strongest risk factors being male sex, older age, and extreme obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers compared clinical characteristics and outcomes among children, adolescents, and young adults with overweight or obesity with or without a comorbid mental disorder who participated in a lifestyle intervention program.
• Overall, data from 114,248 individuals (age, 6-30 years; 53% females) from 226 centers in Germany and Austria participating in the Adiposity Patient Registry were evaluated.
• Individuals were excluded if they had bariatric surgery or used weight-modifying drugs (metformin, orlistat, or glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues).
• Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as a standard deviation score (SDS) from a German youth population reference and was used to define overweight (90th to < 97th percentile), obesity (97th percentile), and severe obesity (≥ 99.5th percentile), which at age 18 correspond to adult cutoffs for overweight and obesity (25 kg/m² and 30 kg/m², respectively).
• Regression analysis identified the factors associated with mental disorders in those with overweight or obesity.

TAKEAWAY:

• A comorbid mental disorder was reported in 3969 individuals, with attention-deficit disorder (ADHD, 42.5%), anxiety (31.3%), depression (24.3%), and eating disorders (12.9%) being the most common.
• The factors most strongly associated with mental health comorbidity were male sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% CI, 1.27-1.52), older age (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.25-1.62), and severe obesity (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.30-1.63).
• Mean BMI-SDS was higher in individuals with depression and eating disorders and lower in individuals with ADHD (both P < .001) than in those without mental disorders.
• Individuals with and without mental disorders benefited from similar BMI changes from lifestyle intervention programs.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “Healthcare professionals caring for youth with overweight or obesity should be aware of comorbid mental disorders, and regular mental health screening should be considered.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Angela Galler from the Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany, was published online on January 9, 2024, in the International Journal of Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s findings are based on data from a group of children, adolescents, and young adults with overweight or obesity treated in specialized obesity centers and may not be generalizable to all youth with obesity. Moreover, the study could not establish any conclusions regarding the cause or effect between obesity and mental disorders. Individuals were not tested psychologically for mental disorders and might have been underreported.

DISCLOSURES:

The manuscript is part of the Stratification of Obesity Phenotypes to Optimize Future Obesity Therapy project, which was funded by the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mental health comorbidities are prevalent among youth with overweight or obesity, with the strongest risk factors being male sex, older age, and extreme obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers compared clinical characteristics and outcomes among children, adolescents, and young adults with overweight or obesity with or without a comorbid mental disorder who participated in a lifestyle intervention program.
• Overall, data from 114,248 individuals (age, 6-30 years; 53% females) from 226 centers in Germany and Austria participating in the Adiposity Patient Registry were evaluated.
• Individuals were excluded if they had bariatric surgery or used weight-modifying drugs (metformin, orlistat, or glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues).
• Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as a standard deviation score (SDS) from a German youth population reference and was used to define overweight (90th to < 97th percentile), obesity (97th percentile), and severe obesity (≥ 99.5th percentile), which at age 18 correspond to adult cutoffs for overweight and obesity (25 kg/m² and 30 kg/m², respectively).
• Regression analysis identified the factors associated with mental disorders in those with overweight or obesity.

TAKEAWAY:

• A comorbid mental disorder was reported in 3969 individuals, with attention-deficit disorder (ADHD, 42.5%), anxiety (31.3%), depression (24.3%), and eating disorders (12.9%) being the most common.
• The factors most strongly associated with mental health comorbidity were male sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% CI, 1.27-1.52), older age (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.25-1.62), and severe obesity (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.30-1.63).
• Mean BMI-SDS was higher in individuals with depression and eating disorders and lower in individuals with ADHD (both P < .001) than in those without mental disorders.
• Individuals with and without mental disorders benefited from similar BMI changes from lifestyle intervention programs.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “Healthcare professionals caring for youth with overweight or obesity should be aware of comorbid mental disorders, and regular mental health screening should be considered.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Angela Galler from the Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany, was published online on January 9, 2024, in the International Journal of Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s findings are based on data from a group of children, adolescents, and young adults with overweight or obesity treated in specialized obesity centers and may not be generalizable to all youth with obesity. Moreover, the study could not establish any conclusions regarding the cause or effect between obesity and mental disorders. Individuals were not tested psychologically for mental disorders and might have been underreported.

DISCLOSURES:

The manuscript is part of the Stratification of Obesity Phenotypes to Optimize Future Obesity Therapy project, which was funded by the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Melanoma in situ drives most cases of melanoma overdiagnoses, according to an analysis by Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER).

METHODOLOGY:

• The increase in melanoma diagnoses in the United States, while mortality has remained flat, has raised concerns about overdiagnosis of melanoma, cases that may not result in harm if left untreated. How much of the overdiagnoses can be attributed to melanoma in situ vs invasive melanoma is unknown.
• To address this question, researchers collected data from the SEER 9 registries database.
• They used DevCan software to calculate the cumulative lifetime risk of White American men and women being diagnosed with melanoma between 1975 and 2018, adjusting for changes in longevity and risk factors over the study period.
• The primary outcome was excess lifetime risk for melanoma diagnosis between 1976 and 2018, adjusted for year 2018 competing mortality and changes in risk factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers found that between 1975 and 2018, the adjusted lifetime risk of being diagnosed with melanoma in situ increased from 0.17% to 2.7% in White men and 0.08% to 2% in White women.
• An estimated 49.7% and 64.6% of melanomas diagnosed in White men and White women, respectively, were overdiagnosed in 2018.
• Among individuals diagnosed with melanoma in situ, 89.4% of White men and 85.4% of White women were likely overdiagnosed in 2018.

IN PRACTICE:

“A large proportion of overdiagnosed melanomas are in situ cancers, pointing to a potential area to focus for an intervention de-escalation of the intensity of treatment and survivorship care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Adewole S. Adamson, MD, of the Division of Dermatology at The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, led the research. The study was published in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine on January 19, 2024.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis only involved White individuals. Other limitations include a high risk for selection bias and that the researchers assumed no melanoma diagnosis in 1975, which may not be the case.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Adamson disclosed that he is supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation through The Harold Amos Medical Faculty Development Program. Coauthor Katy J.L. Bell, MBchB, PhD, of the University of Sydney, is supported by an Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant.

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

TOPLINE:

Melanoma in situ drives most cases of melanoma overdiagnoses, according to an analysis by Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER).

METHODOLOGY:

• The increase in melanoma diagnoses in the United States, while mortality has remained flat, has raised concerns about overdiagnosis of melanoma, cases that may not result in harm if left untreated. How much of the overdiagnoses can be attributed to melanoma in situ vs invasive melanoma is unknown.
• To address this question, researchers collected data from the SEER 9 registries database.
• They used DevCan software to calculate the cumulative lifetime risk of White American men and women being diagnosed with melanoma between 1975 and 2018, adjusting for changes in longevity and risk factors over the study period.
• The primary outcome was excess lifetime risk for melanoma diagnosis between 1976 and 2018, adjusted for year 2018 competing mortality and changes in risk factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers found that between 1975 and 2018, the adjusted lifetime risk of being diagnosed with melanoma in situ increased from 0.17% to 2.7% in White men and 0.08% to 2% in White women.
• An estimated 49.7% and 64.6% of melanomas diagnosed in White men and White women, respectively, were overdiagnosed in 2018.
• Among individuals diagnosed with melanoma in situ, 89.4% of White men and 85.4% of White women were likely overdiagnosed in 2018.

IN PRACTICE:

“A large proportion of overdiagnosed melanomas are in situ cancers, pointing to a potential area to focus for an intervention de-escalation of the intensity of treatment and survivorship care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Adewole S. Adamson, MD, of the Division of Dermatology at The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, led the research. The study was published in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine on January 19, 2024.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis only involved White individuals. Other limitations include a high risk for selection bias and that the researchers assumed no melanoma diagnosis in 1975, which may not be the case.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Adamson disclosed that he is supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation through The Harold Amos Medical Faculty Development Program. Coauthor Katy J.L. Bell, MBchB, PhD, of the University of Sydney, is supported by an Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant.

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

TOPLINE:

Melanoma in situ drives most cases of melanoma overdiagnoses, according to an analysis by Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER).

METHODOLOGY:

• The increase in melanoma diagnoses in the United States, while mortality has remained flat, has raised concerns about overdiagnosis of melanoma, cases that may not result in harm if left untreated. How much of the overdiagnoses can be attributed to melanoma in situ vs invasive melanoma is unknown.
• To address this question, researchers collected data from the SEER 9 registries database.
• They used DevCan software to calculate the cumulative lifetime risk of White American men and women being diagnosed with melanoma between 1975 and 2018, adjusting for changes in longevity and risk factors over the study period.
• The primary outcome was excess lifetime risk for melanoma diagnosis between 1976 and 2018, adjusted for year 2018 competing mortality and changes in risk factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers found that between 1975 and 2018, the adjusted lifetime risk of being diagnosed with melanoma in situ increased from 0.17% to 2.7% in White men and 0.08% to 2% in White women.
• An estimated 49.7% and 64.6% of melanomas diagnosed in White men and White women, respectively, were overdiagnosed in 2018.
• Among individuals diagnosed with melanoma in situ, 89.4% of White men and 85.4% of White women were likely overdiagnosed in 2018.

IN PRACTICE:

“A large proportion of overdiagnosed melanomas are in situ cancers, pointing to a potential area to focus for an intervention de-escalation of the intensity of treatment and survivorship care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Adewole S. Adamson, MD, of the Division of Dermatology at The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, led the research. The study was published in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine on January 19, 2024.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis only involved White individuals. Other limitations include a high risk for selection bias and that the researchers assumed no melanoma diagnosis in 1975, which may not be the case.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Adamson disclosed that he is supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation through The Harold Amos Medical Faculty Development Program. Coauthor Katy J.L. Bell, MBchB, PhD, of the University of Sydney, is supported by an Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with pemphigus who received rituximab as first-line therapy experienced sustained remission without corticosteroids or additional rituximab infusions, an analysis showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The short-term efficacy and safety of first-line treatment with rituximab for pemphigus were demonstrated in the Ritux 3 trial, but the rates of long-term remission are unknown.
• French investigators from 25 dermatology departments evaluated 83 patients from the Ritux 3 trial between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2015.
• They used Kaplan-Meir curves to determine the 5- and 7-year rates of disease-free survival (DFS) without corticosteroids.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 83 patients, 44 were in the rituximab-plus-prednisone group and 39 were in the prednisone-only group, with a median follow-up of 87.3 months (7.3 years).
• Among patients in the rituximab plus prednisone group, 43 (93.5%) achieved complete remission without corticosteroids at any time during follow-up, compared with 17 patients (39%) in the prednisone-only group.
• DFS (without corticosteroid therapy) statistically favored patients in the rituximab plus prednisone group compared with patients in the prednisone-only group at follow-up times of 5 years (76.7% vs 35.3%, respectively) and 7 years (72.1% vs 35.3%; P < .001 for both associations).
• In another finding, 31 patients in the rituximab plus prednisone group reported fewer serious adverse events (SAEs) than 58 patients in the prednisone-only group, which corresponds to 0.67 and 1.32 SAEs per patient, respectively (P = .003).

IN PRACTICE:

The study findings demonstrated “the superiority of rituximab over a standard corticosteroids regimen, both in the short term and the long term,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Billal Tedbirt, MD, of the Department of Dermatology at CHU Rouen in France, led the study, which was published online on January 24, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Nearly 8% of patients did not attend the end of follow-up visit. Also, serum samples used to predict relapse were drawn at month 36, but the researchers said that a window of every 4-6 months might provide higher accuracy of relapses.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Tedbirt reported having no disclosures. Four of the study authors reported being investigators for and/or receiving personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies. The study was supported by a grant from the French Society of Dermatology.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with pemphigus who received rituximab as first-line therapy experienced sustained remission without corticosteroids or additional rituximab infusions, an analysis showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The short-term efficacy and safety of first-line treatment with rituximab for pemphigus were demonstrated in the Ritux 3 trial, but the rates of long-term remission are unknown.
• French investigators from 25 dermatology departments evaluated 83 patients from the Ritux 3 trial between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2015.
• They used Kaplan-Meir curves to determine the 5- and 7-year rates of disease-free survival (DFS) without corticosteroids.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 83 patients, 44 were in the rituximab-plus-prednisone group and 39 were in the prednisone-only group, with a median follow-up of 87.3 months (7.3 years).
• Among patients in the rituximab plus prednisone group, 43 (93.5%) achieved complete remission without corticosteroids at any time during follow-up, compared with 17 patients (39%) in the prednisone-only group.
• DFS (without corticosteroid therapy) statistically favored patients in the rituximab plus prednisone group compared with patients in the prednisone-only group at follow-up times of 5 years (76.7% vs 35.3%, respectively) and 7 years (72.1% vs 35.3%; P < .001 for both associations).
• In another finding, 31 patients in the rituximab plus prednisone group reported fewer serious adverse events (SAEs) than 58 patients in the prednisone-only group, which corresponds to 0.67 and 1.32 SAEs per patient, respectively (P = .003).

IN PRACTICE:

The study findings demonstrated “the superiority of rituximab over a standard corticosteroids regimen, both in the short term and the long term,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Billal Tedbirt, MD, of the Department of Dermatology at CHU Rouen in France, led the study, which was published online on January 24, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Nearly 8% of patients did not attend the end of follow-up visit. Also, serum samples used to predict relapse were drawn at month 36, but the researchers said that a window of every 4-6 months might provide higher accuracy of relapses.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Tedbirt reported having no disclosures. Four of the study authors reported being investigators for and/or receiving personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies. The study was supported by a grant from the French Society of Dermatology.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with pemphigus who received rituximab as first-line therapy experienced sustained remission without corticosteroids or additional rituximab infusions, an analysis showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The short-term efficacy and safety of first-line treatment with rituximab for pemphigus were demonstrated in the Ritux 3 trial, but the rates of long-term remission are unknown.
• French investigators from 25 dermatology departments evaluated 83 patients from the Ritux 3 trial between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2015.
• They used Kaplan-Meir curves to determine the 5- and 7-year rates of disease-free survival (DFS) without corticosteroids.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 83 patients, 44 were in the rituximab-plus-prednisone group and 39 were in the prednisone-only group, with a median follow-up of 87.3 months (7.3 years).
• Among patients in the rituximab plus prednisone group, 43 (93.5%) achieved complete remission without corticosteroids at any time during follow-up, compared with 17 patients (39%) in the prednisone-only group.
• DFS (without corticosteroid therapy) statistically favored patients in the rituximab plus prednisone group compared with patients in the prednisone-only group at follow-up times of 5 years (76.7% vs 35.3%, respectively) and 7 years (72.1% vs 35.3%; P < .001 for both associations).
• In another finding, 31 patients in the rituximab plus prednisone group reported fewer serious adverse events (SAEs) than 58 patients in the prednisone-only group, which corresponds to 0.67 and 1.32 SAEs per patient, respectively (P = .003).

IN PRACTICE:

The study findings demonstrated “the superiority of rituximab over a standard corticosteroids regimen, both in the short term and the long term,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Billal Tedbirt, MD, of the Department of Dermatology at CHU Rouen in France, led the study, which was published online on January 24, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Nearly 8% of patients did not attend the end of follow-up visit. Also, serum samples used to predict relapse were drawn at month 36, but the researchers said that a window of every 4-6 months might provide higher accuracy of relapses.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Tedbirt reported having no disclosures. Four of the study authors reported being investigators for and/or receiving personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies. The study was supported by a grant from the French Society of Dermatology.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When infants are born, they have nearly a clean slate with regard to their immune systems. Virtually all their immune cells are naive. They have no immunity memory. Vaccines at birth, and in the first 2 years of life, elicit variable antibody levels and cellular immune responses. Sometimes, this leaves fully vaccinated children unprotected against vaccine-preventable infectious diseases.

Newborns are bombarded at birth with microbes and other antigenic stimuli from the environment; food in the form of breast milk, formula, water; and vaccines, such as hepatitis B and, in other countries, with BCG. At birth, to avoid immunologically-induced injury, immune responses favor immunologic tolerance. However, adaptation must be rapid to avoid life-threatening infections. To navigate the gauntlet of microbe and environmental exposures and vaccines, the neonatal immune system moves through a gradual maturation process toward immune responsivity. The maturation occurs at different rates in different children. A major factor affecting immune development is the microbiome of the newborn and the first 100 days of life.
 

Reassessing Vaccine Responsiveness

Vaccine responsiveness is usually assessed by measuring antibody levels in blood. Until recently, it was thought to be “bad luck” when a child failed to develop protective immunity following vaccination. The bad luck was suggested to involve illness at the time of vaccination, especially illness occurring with fever, and especially common viral infections. But studies proved that notion incorrect. About 10 years ago I became more interested in variability in vaccine responses in the first 2 years of life. In 2016, my laboratory described a specific population of children with specific cellular immune deficiencies that we classified as low vaccine responders (LVRs).¹ To preclude the suggestion that low vaccine responses were to be considered normal biological variation, we chose an a priori definition of LVR as those with sub-protective IgG antibody levels to four (≥ 66 %) of six tested vaccines in DTaP-Hib (diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, pertussis toxoid, pertactin, and filamentous hemagglutinin [DTaP] and Haemophilus influenzae type b polysaccharide capsule [Hib]). Antibody levels were measured at 1 year of age following primary vaccinations at child age 2, 4, and 6 months old. The remaining 89% of children we termed normal vaccine responders (NVRs). We additionally tested antibody responses to viral protein and pneumococcal polysaccharide conjugated antigens (polio serotypes 1, 2, and 3, hepatitis B, and Streptococcus pneumoniae capsular polysaccharides serotypes 6B, 14, and 23F). Responses to these vaccine antigens were similar to the six vaccines (DTaP/Hib) used to define LVR. We and other groups have used alternative definitions of low vaccine responses that rely on statistics.

I recently reviewed the topic of the determinants of vaccine responses in early life, with a focus on the infant microbiome and metabolome: a.) cesarean section versus vaginal delivery, b.) breast versus formula feeding and c.) antibiotic exposure, that impact the immune response² (Figure). In the review I also discussed how microbiome may serve as natural adjuvants for vaccine responses, how microbiota-derived metabolites influence vaccine responses, and how low vaccine responses in early life may be linked to increased infection susceptibility (Figure).

Courtesy Dr. Pichichero

Multiple studies strongly support the notion that breastfeeding has a favorable impact on immune development in early life associated with better vaccine responses, mediated by the microbiome. The mechanism of favorable immune responses to vaccines largely relates to the presence of a specific bacteria species, Bifidobacterium infantis. Breast milk contains human milk oligosaccharides that are not digestible by newborns. B. infantis is a strain of bacteria that utilizes these non-digestible oligosaccharides. Thereby, infants fed breast milk provides B. infantis the essential source of nutrition for its growth and predominance in the newborn gut. Studies have shown that Bifidobacterium spp. abundance in early life is correlated with better immune responses to multiple vaccines. Bifidobacterium spp. abundance has been positively correlated with antibody responses measured after 2 years, linking the microbiome composition to the durability of vaccine-induced immune responses.

Antibiotic exposure in early life may disproportionately damage the newborn and infant microbiome compared with later childhood. The average child receives about three antibiotic courses by the age of 2 years. My lab was among the first to describe the adverse effects of antibiotics on vaccine responses in early life.³ We found that broader spectrum antibiotics had a greater adverse effect on vaccine-induced antibody levels than narrower spectrum antibiotics. Ten-day versus five-day treatment courses had a greater negative effect. Multiple antibiotic courses over time (cumulative antibiotic exposure) was negatively associated with vaccine-induced antibody levels.

Over 11 % of live births worldwide occur preterm. Because bacterial infections are frequent complications of preterm birth, 79 % of very low birthweight and 87 % of extremely low birthweight infants in US NICUs receive antibiotics within 3 days of birth. Recently, my group studied full-term infants at birth and found that exposure to parenteral antibiotics at birth or during the first days of life had an adverse effect on vaccine responses.⁴
 

Microbiome Impacts Immunity

How does the microbiome affect immunity, and specifically vaccine responses? Microbial-derived metabolites affect host immunity. Gut bacteria produce short chain fatty acids (SCFAs: acetate, propionate, butyrate) [115]. SCFAs positively influence immunity cells. Vitamin D metabolites are generated by intestinal bacteria and those metabolites positively influence immunity. Secondary bile acids produced by Clostridium spp. are involved in favorable immune responses. Increased levels of phenylpyruvic acid produced by gut and/or nasopharyngeal microbiota correlate with reduced vaccine responses and upregulated metabolome genes that encode for oxidative phosphorylation correlate with increased vaccine responses.

In summary, immune development commences at birth. Impairment in responses to vaccination in children have been linked to disturbance in the microbiome. Cesarean section and absence of breastfeeding are associated with adverse microbiota composition. Antibiotics perturb healthy microbiota development. The microbiota affect immunity in several ways, among them are effects by metabolites generated by the commensals that inhabit the child host. A child who responds poorly to vaccines and has specific immune cell dysfunction caused by problems with the microbiome also displays increased infection proneness. But that is a story for another column, later.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute, at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

1. Pichichero ME et al. J Infect Dis. 2016 Jun 15;213(12):2014-2019. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiw053.

2. Pichichero ME. Cell Immunol. 2023 Nov-Dec:393-394:104777. doi: 10.1016/j.cellimm.2023.104777.

3. Chapman TJ et al. Pediatrics. 2022 May 1;149(5):e2021052061. doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-052061.

4. Shaffer M et al. mSystems. 2023 Oct 26;8(5):e0066123. doi: 10.1128/msystems.00661-23.

When infants are born, they have nearly a clean slate with regard to their immune systems. Virtually all their immune cells are naive. They have no immunity memory. Vaccines at birth, and in the first 2 years of life, elicit variable antibody levels and cellular immune responses. Sometimes, this leaves fully vaccinated children unprotected against vaccine-preventable infectious diseases.

Newborns are bombarded at birth with microbes and other antigenic stimuli from the environment; food in the form of breast milk, formula, water; and vaccines, such as hepatitis B and, in other countries, with BCG. At birth, to avoid immunologically-induced injury, immune responses favor immunologic tolerance. However, adaptation must be rapid to avoid life-threatening infections. To navigate the gauntlet of microbe and environmental exposures and vaccines, the neonatal immune system moves through a gradual maturation process toward immune responsivity. The maturation occurs at different rates in different children. A major factor affecting immune development is the microbiome of the newborn and the first 100 days of life.
 

Reassessing Vaccine Responsiveness

Vaccine responsiveness is usually assessed by measuring antibody levels in blood. Until recently, it was thought to be “bad luck” when a child failed to develop protective immunity following vaccination. The bad luck was suggested to involve illness at the time of vaccination, especially illness occurring with fever, and especially common viral infections. But studies proved that notion incorrect. About 10 years ago I became more interested in variability in vaccine responses in the first 2 years of life. In 2016, my laboratory described a specific population of children with specific cellular immune deficiencies that we classified as low vaccine responders (LVRs).¹ To preclude the suggestion that low vaccine responses were to be considered normal biological variation, we chose an a priori definition of LVR as those with sub-protective IgG antibody levels to four (≥ 66 %) of six tested vaccines in DTaP-Hib (diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, pertussis toxoid, pertactin, and filamentous hemagglutinin [DTaP] and Haemophilus influenzae type b polysaccharide capsule [Hib]). Antibody levels were measured at 1 year of age following primary vaccinations at child age 2, 4, and 6 months old. The remaining 89% of children we termed normal vaccine responders (NVRs). We additionally tested antibody responses to viral protein and pneumococcal polysaccharide conjugated antigens (polio serotypes 1, 2, and 3, hepatitis B, and Streptococcus pneumoniae capsular polysaccharides serotypes 6B, 14, and 23F). Responses to these vaccine antigens were similar to the six vaccines (DTaP/Hib) used to define LVR. We and other groups have used alternative definitions of low vaccine responses that rely on statistics.

I recently reviewed the topic of the determinants of vaccine responses in early life, with a focus on the infant microbiome and metabolome: a.) cesarean section versus vaginal delivery, b.) breast versus formula feeding and c.) antibiotic exposure, that impact the immune response² (Figure). In the review I also discussed how microbiome may serve as natural adjuvants for vaccine responses, how microbiota-derived metabolites influence vaccine responses, and how low vaccine responses in early life may be linked to increased infection susceptibility (Figure).

Courtesy Dr. Pichichero

Multiple studies strongly support the notion that breastfeeding has a favorable impact on immune development in early life associated with better vaccine responses, mediated by the microbiome. The mechanism of favorable immune responses to vaccines largely relates to the presence of a specific bacteria species, Bifidobacterium infantis. Breast milk contains human milk oligosaccharides that are not digestible by newborns. B. infantis is a strain of bacteria that utilizes these non-digestible oligosaccharides. Thereby, infants fed breast milk provides B. infantis the essential source of nutrition for its growth and predominance in the newborn gut. Studies have shown that Bifidobacterium spp. abundance in early life is correlated with better immune responses to multiple vaccines. Bifidobacterium spp. abundance has been positively correlated with antibody responses measured after 2 years, linking the microbiome composition to the durability of vaccine-induced immune responses.

Antibiotic exposure in early life may disproportionately damage the newborn and infant microbiome compared with later childhood. The average child receives about three antibiotic courses by the age of 2 years. My lab was among the first to describe the adverse effects of antibiotics on vaccine responses in early life.³ We found that broader spectrum antibiotics had a greater adverse effect on vaccine-induced antibody levels than narrower spectrum antibiotics. Ten-day versus five-day treatment courses had a greater negative effect. Multiple antibiotic courses over time (cumulative antibiotic exposure) was negatively associated with vaccine-induced antibody levels.

Over 11 % of live births worldwide occur preterm. Because bacterial infections are frequent complications of preterm birth, 79 % of very low birthweight and 87 % of extremely low birthweight infants in US NICUs receive antibiotics within 3 days of birth. Recently, my group studied full-term infants at birth and found that exposure to parenteral antibiotics at birth or during the first days of life had an adverse effect on vaccine responses.⁴
 

Microbiome Impacts Immunity

How does the microbiome affect immunity, and specifically vaccine responses? Microbial-derived metabolites affect host immunity. Gut bacteria produce short chain fatty acids (SCFAs: acetate, propionate, butyrate) [115]. SCFAs positively influence immunity cells. Vitamin D metabolites are generated by intestinal bacteria and those metabolites positively influence immunity. Secondary bile acids produced by Clostridium spp. are involved in favorable immune responses. Increased levels of phenylpyruvic acid produced by gut and/or nasopharyngeal microbiota correlate with reduced vaccine responses and upregulated metabolome genes that encode for oxidative phosphorylation correlate with increased vaccine responses.

In summary, immune development commences at birth. Impairment in responses to vaccination in children have been linked to disturbance in the microbiome. Cesarean section and absence of breastfeeding are associated with adverse microbiota composition. Antibiotics perturb healthy microbiota development. The microbiota affect immunity in several ways, among them are effects by metabolites generated by the commensals that inhabit the child host. A child who responds poorly to vaccines and has specific immune cell dysfunction caused by problems with the microbiome also displays increased infection proneness. But that is a story for another column, later.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute, at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

1. Pichichero ME et al. J Infect Dis. 2016 Jun 15;213(12):2014-2019. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiw053.

2. Pichichero ME. Cell Immunol. 2023 Nov-Dec:393-394:104777. doi: 10.1016/j.cellimm.2023.104777.

3. Chapman TJ et al. Pediatrics. 2022 May 1;149(5):e2021052061. doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-052061.

4. Shaffer M et al. mSystems. 2023 Oct 26;8(5):e0066123. doi: 10.1128/msystems.00661-23.

When infants are born, they have nearly a clean slate with regard to their immune systems. Virtually all their immune cells are naive. They have no immunity memory. Vaccines at birth, and in the first 2 years of life, elicit variable antibody levels and cellular immune responses. Sometimes, this leaves fully vaccinated children unprotected against vaccine-preventable infectious diseases.

Newborns are bombarded at birth with microbes and other antigenic stimuli from the environment; food in the form of breast milk, formula, water; and vaccines, such as hepatitis B and, in other countries, with BCG. At birth, to avoid immunologically-induced injury, immune responses favor immunologic tolerance. However, adaptation must be rapid to avoid life-threatening infections. To navigate the gauntlet of microbe and environmental exposures and vaccines, the neonatal immune system moves through a gradual maturation process toward immune responsivity. The maturation occurs at different rates in different children. A major factor affecting immune development is the microbiome of the newborn and the first 100 days of life.
 

Reassessing Vaccine Responsiveness

Vaccine responsiveness is usually assessed by measuring antibody levels in blood. Until recently, it was thought to be “bad luck” when a child failed to develop protective immunity following vaccination. The bad luck was suggested to involve illness at the time of vaccination, especially illness occurring with fever, and especially common viral infections. But studies proved that notion incorrect. About 10 years ago I became more interested in variability in vaccine responses in the first 2 years of life. In 2016, my laboratory described a specific population of children with specific cellular immune deficiencies that we classified as low vaccine responders (LVRs).¹ To preclude the suggestion that low vaccine responses were to be considered normal biological variation, we chose an a priori definition of LVR as those with sub-protective IgG antibody levels to four (≥ 66 %) of six tested vaccines in DTaP-Hib (diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, pertussis toxoid, pertactin, and filamentous hemagglutinin [DTaP] and Haemophilus influenzae type b polysaccharide capsule [Hib]). Antibody levels were measured at 1 year of age following primary vaccinations at child age 2, 4, and 6 months old. The remaining 89% of children we termed normal vaccine responders (NVRs). We additionally tested antibody responses to viral protein and pneumococcal polysaccharide conjugated antigens (polio serotypes 1, 2, and 3, hepatitis B, and Streptococcus pneumoniae capsular polysaccharides serotypes 6B, 14, and 23F). Responses to these vaccine antigens were similar to the six vaccines (DTaP/Hib) used to define LVR. We and other groups have used alternative definitions of low vaccine responses that rely on statistics.

I recently reviewed the topic of the determinants of vaccine responses in early life, with a focus on the infant microbiome and metabolome: a.) cesarean section versus vaginal delivery, b.) breast versus formula feeding and c.) antibiotic exposure, that impact the immune response² (Figure). In the review I also discussed how microbiome may serve as natural adjuvants for vaccine responses, how microbiota-derived metabolites influence vaccine responses, and how low vaccine responses in early life may be linked to increased infection susceptibility (Figure).

Courtesy Dr. Pichichero

Multiple studies strongly support the notion that breastfeeding has a favorable impact on immune development in early life associated with better vaccine responses, mediated by the microbiome. The mechanism of favorable immune responses to vaccines largely relates to the presence of a specific bacteria species, Bifidobacterium infantis. Breast milk contains human milk oligosaccharides that are not digestible by newborns. B. infantis is a strain of bacteria that utilizes these non-digestible oligosaccharides. Thereby, infants fed breast milk provides B. infantis the essential source of nutrition for its growth and predominance in the newborn gut. Studies have shown that Bifidobacterium spp. abundance in early life is correlated with better immune responses to multiple vaccines. Bifidobacterium spp. abundance has been positively correlated with antibody responses measured after 2 years, linking the microbiome composition to the durability of vaccine-induced immune responses.

Antibiotic exposure in early life may disproportionately damage the newborn and infant microbiome compared with later childhood. The average child receives about three antibiotic courses by the age of 2 years. My lab was among the first to describe the adverse effects of antibiotics on vaccine responses in early life.³ We found that broader spectrum antibiotics had a greater adverse effect on vaccine-induced antibody levels than narrower spectrum antibiotics. Ten-day versus five-day treatment courses had a greater negative effect. Multiple antibiotic courses over time (cumulative antibiotic exposure) was negatively associated with vaccine-induced antibody levels.

Over 11 % of live births worldwide occur preterm. Because bacterial infections are frequent complications of preterm birth, 79 % of very low birthweight and 87 % of extremely low birthweight infants in US NICUs receive antibiotics within 3 days of birth. Recently, my group studied full-term infants at birth and found that exposure to parenteral antibiotics at birth or during the first days of life had an adverse effect on vaccine responses.⁴
 

Microbiome Impacts Immunity

How does the microbiome affect immunity, and specifically vaccine responses? Microbial-derived metabolites affect host immunity. Gut bacteria produce short chain fatty acids (SCFAs: acetate, propionate, butyrate) [115]. SCFAs positively influence immunity cells. Vitamin D metabolites are generated by intestinal bacteria and those metabolites positively influence immunity. Secondary bile acids produced by Clostridium spp. are involved in favorable immune responses. Increased levels of phenylpyruvic acid produced by gut and/or nasopharyngeal microbiota correlate with reduced vaccine responses and upregulated metabolome genes that encode for oxidative phosphorylation correlate with increased vaccine responses.

In summary, immune development commences at birth. Impairment in responses to vaccination in children have been linked to disturbance in the microbiome. Cesarean section and absence of breastfeeding are associated with adverse microbiota composition. Antibiotics perturb healthy microbiota development. The microbiota affect immunity in several ways, among them are effects by metabolites generated by the commensals that inhabit the child host. A child who responds poorly to vaccines and has specific immune cell dysfunction caused by problems with the microbiome also displays increased infection proneness. But that is a story for another column, later.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute, at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

1. Pichichero ME et al. J Infect Dis. 2016 Jun 15;213(12):2014-2019. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiw053.

2. Pichichero ME. Cell Immunol. 2023 Nov-Dec:393-394:104777. doi: 10.1016/j.cellimm.2023.104777.

3. Chapman TJ et al. Pediatrics. 2022 May 1;149(5):e2021052061. doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-052061.

4. Shaffer M et al. mSystems. 2023 Oct 26;8(5):e0066123. doi: 10.1128/msystems.00661-23.

Early treatment with ibuprofen had no significant impact on the risk of death or adverse outcomes in preterm infants with patent ductus arteriosus vs. placebo.

The study population included infants born between 23 weeks 0 days’ and 28 weeks 6 days’ gestation. The researchers randomized 326 extremely preterm infants with patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) at 72 hours or less after birth to ibuprofen at a loading dose of 10 mg/kg followed by two doses of 5 mg/kg at least 24 hours apart, and 327 to placebo.

The PDAs in the infants had a diameter of at least 1.5 mm with pulsatile flow.

Severe dysplasia outcome

The study’s primary outcome was a composite of death or moderate to severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia at 36 weeks’ postmenstrual age. Overall, a primary outcome occurred in 69.2% of infants who received ibuprofen and 63.5% of those who received a placebo.

Risk of death or bronchopulmonary dysplasia at 36 weeks’ postmenstrual age was not reduced by early ibuprofen vs. placebo for preterm infants, the researchers concluded. Moderate or severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia occurred in 64.2% of the infants in the ibuprofen group and 59.3% of the placebo group who survived to 36 weeks’ postmenstrual age.

‘Unforeseeable’ serious adverse events

Forty-four deaths occurred in the ibuprofen group and 33 in the placebo group (adjusted risk ratio 1.09). Two “unforeseeable” serious adverse events occurred during the study that were potentially related to ibuprofen.

The lead author was Samir Gupta, MD, of Sidra Medicine, Doha, Qatar. The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Study limitations include incomplete data for some patients.

The study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Early treatment with ibuprofen had no significant impact on the risk of death or adverse outcomes in preterm infants with patent ductus arteriosus vs. placebo.

The study population included infants born between 23 weeks 0 days’ and 28 weeks 6 days’ gestation. The researchers randomized 326 extremely preterm infants with patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) at 72 hours or less after birth to ibuprofen at a loading dose of 10 mg/kg followed by two doses of 5 mg/kg at least 24 hours apart, and 327 to placebo.

The PDAs in the infants had a diameter of at least 1.5 mm with pulsatile flow.

Severe dysplasia outcome

The study’s primary outcome was a composite of death or moderate to severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia at 36 weeks’ postmenstrual age. Overall, a primary outcome occurred in 69.2% of infants who received ibuprofen and 63.5% of those who received a placebo.

Risk of death or bronchopulmonary dysplasia at 36 weeks’ postmenstrual age was not reduced by early ibuprofen vs. placebo for preterm infants, the researchers concluded. Moderate or severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia occurred in 64.2% of the infants in the ibuprofen group and 59.3% of the placebo group who survived to 36 weeks’ postmenstrual age.

‘Unforeseeable’ serious adverse events

Forty-four deaths occurred in the ibuprofen group and 33 in the placebo group (adjusted risk ratio 1.09). Two “unforeseeable” serious adverse events occurred during the study that were potentially related to ibuprofen.

The lead author was Samir Gupta, MD, of Sidra Medicine, Doha, Qatar. The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Study limitations include incomplete data for some patients.

The study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Early treatment with ibuprofen had no significant impact on the risk of death or adverse outcomes in preterm infants with patent ductus arteriosus vs. placebo.

The study population included infants born between 23 weeks 0 days’ and 28 weeks 6 days’ gestation. The researchers randomized 326 extremely preterm infants with patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) at 72 hours or less after birth to ibuprofen at a loading dose of 10 mg/kg followed by two doses of 5 mg/kg at least 24 hours apart, and 327 to placebo.

The PDAs in the infants had a diameter of at least 1.5 mm with pulsatile flow.

Severe dysplasia outcome

The study’s primary outcome was a composite of death or moderate to severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia at 36 weeks’ postmenstrual age. Overall, a primary outcome occurred in 69.2% of infants who received ibuprofen and 63.5% of those who received a placebo.

Risk of death or bronchopulmonary dysplasia at 36 weeks’ postmenstrual age was not reduced by early ibuprofen vs. placebo for preterm infants, the researchers concluded. Moderate or severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia occurred in 64.2% of the infants in the ibuprofen group and 59.3% of the placebo group who survived to 36 weeks’ postmenstrual age.

‘Unforeseeable’ serious adverse events

Forty-four deaths occurred in the ibuprofen group and 33 in the placebo group (adjusted risk ratio 1.09). Two “unforeseeable” serious adverse events occurred during the study that were potentially related to ibuprofen.

The lead author was Samir Gupta, MD, of Sidra Medicine, Doha, Qatar. The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Study limitations include incomplete data for some patients.

The study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The Stockholm3 (A3P Biomedical) multiparametic blood test has shown accuracy in assessing the risk of prostate cancer, exceeding that of the standard prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based test, in Swedish patients. That improved accuracy was observed across diverse racial and ethnic groups, in a new study.

“The Stockholm3 outperformed the PSA test overall and in every subcohort, with an impressive reduction of unnecessary biopsies of 40% to 50%, while maintaining relative sensitivity,” first author Scott E. Eggener, MD, said in presenting the findings at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium. The test “has attractive characteristics in a diverse cohort, including within various racial and ethnic subgroups,” added Dr. Eggener, professor of surgery and radiology at the University of Chicago.

While the PSA test, the standard-of-care in prostate cancer risk assessment, reduces mortality, the test is known to have a risk for false positive results, leading to unnecessary prostate biopsies, as well as overdiagnosis of low-risk prostate cancers, Dr. Eggener explained in his talk.

Randomized trials do show “fewer men die from prostate cancer with screening [with PSA testing], however, the likelihood of unnecessarily finding out about a cancer, undergoing treatment, and exposure to potential treatment-related side effects is significantly higher,” Dr. Eggener said in a interview.

The Stockholm3 clinical diagnostic prostate cancer test, which has been used in Sweden and Norway since 2017, was validated in a sample of nearly 60,000 men in the STHLM3 study (doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[15]00361-7), which was published in The Lancet Oncology in December 2015. That study showed significant improvement over PSA alone detection of prostate cancers with a Gleason score of at least 7 (P < .0001), Dr. Eggener explained.

The test combines five plasma protein markers, including total and free PSA, PSP94, GDF-15 and KLK2, along with 101 genetic markers and clinical patient data, including age, previous biopsy results and family history.

Because the Stockholm3 test was validated in a Swedish population cohort, evidence on the accuracy of the test in other racial and ethnic populations is lacking, the authors noted in the abstract.

Study Methods and Results

To further investigate, Dr. Eggener and his colleagues conducted the prospective SEPTA trial, involving 2,129 men with no known prostate cancer but clinical indications for prostate biopsy, who were referred for prostate biopsy at 17 North American sites between 2019 and 2023.

Among the men, 24% were self-identified as African American/Black; 46% were White/Caucasian; 14% were Hispanic/Latina; and 16% were Asian. The men’s median age was 63; their median PSA value was 6.1 ng/mL, according to the abstract.

Of the patients, 16% received magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsies and 20% had prior benign biopsies, the abstract notes.

Biopsy results showed that clinically significant prostate cancer, defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Gleason Grade group ≥ 2, was detected in 29% of patients, with 14% having ISUP 1 cancer and 57% of cases having been benign, according to the abstract.

Overall detection rates of grade 2 or higher were 37% for African American/Black, 28% for White/Caucasian, 29% for Hispanic/Latino, and 21% Asian.

In terms of sensitivity of the two tests, the Stockholm3 (cut-point of ≥ 15) was noninferior compared with the traditional PSA cut-point of ≥ 4 ng/mL (relative sensitivity 0.95).

Results were consistent across ethnic subgroups: noninferior sensitivity (0.91-0.98) and superior specificity (2.51-4.70), the abstract authors reported.

Compared with the use of the PSA test’s cut-point of ≥ 4 ng/mL, the use of Stockholm3’s cut-point of ≥ 15 or higher would have reduced unnecessary biopsies by 45% overall, including by 46% among Asian and Black/African American patients, by 53% in Hispanic patients and 42% in White patients, according to the abstract.

Overall, “utilization of Stockholm3 improves the net benefit:harm ratio of PSA screening by identifying nearly all men with Gleason Grade 2 or higher, while minimizing the number of men undergoing biopsy who show no cancer or an indolent cancer (Gleason Grade 1),” Dr. Eggener said in an interview.
 

Stockholm3 Expected to be Available in U.S. This Year

The test, which has been available in Sweden since 2018, is expected to become commercially available in the United States in early 2024. Dr. Eggener noted that “cost of the test hasn’t been finalized, but will be considerably more expensive than PSA, which is very cheap.”

Commenting on the findings, Bradley McGregor, MD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute and an ASCO oncology expert, noted that “ultimately, the goal [of prostate screening] is to be able to better decide when a biopsy is going to yield a clinically relevant prostate cancer, [and] this study gives us some insight of the use of the Stockholm3 tool in a more diverse population.

“How the tool will be utilized in the clinic and in guidelines is something that is a work in progress,” he added. “But I think this provides some reassurances that this will have implications beyond just the homogeneous populations in the original studies.”

Dr. McGregor noted that considerations of the issue of cost should be weighed against the potential costs involved in unnecessary biopsies and a host of other costs that can arise with an inaccurate risk assessment.

“If there is a way to avoid those costs and help us have more confidence in the prostate test results and intervene at an earlier stage, I think that’s exciting,” he said.

Dr. Eggener has consulted for A3P Biomedical but had no financial relationship with the company to disclose.

The Stockholm3 (A3P Biomedical) multiparametic blood test has shown accuracy in assessing the risk of prostate cancer, exceeding that of the standard prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based test, in Swedish patients. That improved accuracy was observed across diverse racial and ethnic groups, in a new study.

“The Stockholm3 outperformed the PSA test overall and in every subcohort, with an impressive reduction of unnecessary biopsies of 40% to 50%, while maintaining relative sensitivity,” first author Scott E. Eggener, MD, said in presenting the findings at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium. The test “has attractive characteristics in a diverse cohort, including within various racial and ethnic subgroups,” added Dr. Eggener, professor of surgery and radiology at the University of Chicago.

While the PSA test, the standard-of-care in prostate cancer risk assessment, reduces mortality, the test is known to have a risk for false positive results, leading to unnecessary prostate biopsies, as well as overdiagnosis of low-risk prostate cancers, Dr. Eggener explained in his talk.

Randomized trials do show “fewer men die from prostate cancer with screening [with PSA testing], however, the likelihood of unnecessarily finding out about a cancer, undergoing treatment, and exposure to potential treatment-related side effects is significantly higher,” Dr. Eggener said in a interview.

The Stockholm3 clinical diagnostic prostate cancer test, which has been used in Sweden and Norway since 2017, was validated in a sample of nearly 60,000 men in the STHLM3 study (doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[15]00361-7), which was published in The Lancet Oncology in December 2015. That study showed significant improvement over PSA alone detection of prostate cancers with a Gleason score of at least 7 (P < .0001), Dr. Eggener explained.

The test combines five plasma protein markers, including total and free PSA, PSP94, GDF-15 and KLK2, along with 101 genetic markers and clinical patient data, including age, previous biopsy results and family history.

Because the Stockholm3 test was validated in a Swedish population cohort, evidence on the accuracy of the test in other racial and ethnic populations is lacking, the authors noted in the abstract.

Study Methods and Results

To further investigate, Dr. Eggener and his colleagues conducted the prospective SEPTA trial, involving 2,129 men with no known prostate cancer but clinical indications for prostate biopsy, who were referred for prostate biopsy at 17 North American sites between 2019 and 2023.

Among the men, 24% were self-identified as African American/Black; 46% were White/Caucasian; 14% were Hispanic/Latina; and 16% were Asian. The men’s median age was 63; their median PSA value was 6.1 ng/mL, according to the abstract.

Of the patients, 16% received magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsies and 20% had prior benign biopsies, the abstract notes.

Biopsy results showed that clinically significant prostate cancer, defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Gleason Grade group ≥ 2, was detected in 29% of patients, with 14% having ISUP 1 cancer and 57% of cases having been benign, according to the abstract.

Overall detection rates of grade 2 or higher were 37% for African American/Black, 28% for White/Caucasian, 29% for Hispanic/Latino, and 21% Asian.

In terms of sensitivity of the two tests, the Stockholm3 (cut-point of ≥ 15) was noninferior compared with the traditional PSA cut-point of ≥ 4 ng/mL (relative sensitivity 0.95).

Results were consistent across ethnic subgroups: noninferior sensitivity (0.91-0.98) and superior specificity (2.51-4.70), the abstract authors reported.

Compared with the use of the PSA test’s cut-point of ≥ 4 ng/mL, the use of Stockholm3’s cut-point of ≥ 15 or higher would have reduced unnecessary biopsies by 45% overall, including by 46% among Asian and Black/African American patients, by 53% in Hispanic patients and 42% in White patients, according to the abstract.

Overall, “utilization of Stockholm3 improves the net benefit:harm ratio of PSA screening by identifying nearly all men with Gleason Grade 2 or higher, while minimizing the number of men undergoing biopsy who show no cancer or an indolent cancer (Gleason Grade 1),” Dr. Eggener said in an interview.
 

Stockholm3 Expected to be Available in U.S. This Year

The test, which has been available in Sweden since 2018, is expected to become commercially available in the United States in early 2024. Dr. Eggener noted that “cost of the test hasn’t been finalized, but will be considerably more expensive than PSA, which is very cheap.”

Commenting on the findings, Bradley McGregor, MD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute and an ASCO oncology expert, noted that “ultimately, the goal [of prostate screening] is to be able to better decide when a biopsy is going to yield a clinically relevant prostate cancer, [and] this study gives us some insight of the use of the Stockholm3 tool in a more diverse population.

“How the tool will be utilized in the clinic and in guidelines is something that is a work in progress,” he added. “But I think this provides some reassurances that this will have implications beyond just the homogeneous populations in the original studies.”

Dr. McGregor noted that considerations of the issue of cost should be weighed against the potential costs involved in unnecessary biopsies and a host of other costs that can arise with an inaccurate risk assessment.

“If there is a way to avoid those costs and help us have more confidence in the prostate test results and intervene at an earlier stage, I think that’s exciting,” he said.

Dr. Eggener has consulted for A3P Biomedical but had no financial relationship with the company to disclose.

The Stockholm3 (A3P Biomedical) multiparametic blood test has shown accuracy in assessing the risk of prostate cancer, exceeding that of the standard prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based test, in Swedish patients. That improved accuracy was observed across diverse racial and ethnic groups, in a new study.

“The Stockholm3 outperformed the PSA test overall and in every subcohort, with an impressive reduction of unnecessary biopsies of 40% to 50%, while maintaining relative sensitivity,” first author Scott E. Eggener, MD, said in presenting the findings at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium. The test “has attractive characteristics in a diverse cohort, including within various racial and ethnic subgroups,” added Dr. Eggener, professor of surgery and radiology at the University of Chicago.

While the PSA test, the standard-of-care in prostate cancer risk assessment, reduces mortality, the test is known to have a risk for false positive results, leading to unnecessary prostate biopsies, as well as overdiagnosis of low-risk prostate cancers, Dr. Eggener explained in his talk.

Randomized trials do show “fewer men die from prostate cancer with screening [with PSA testing], however, the likelihood of unnecessarily finding out about a cancer, undergoing treatment, and exposure to potential treatment-related side effects is significantly higher,” Dr. Eggener said in a interview.

The Stockholm3 clinical diagnostic prostate cancer test, which has been used in Sweden and Norway since 2017, was validated in a sample of nearly 60,000 men in the STHLM3 study (doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[15]00361-7), which was published in The Lancet Oncology in December 2015. That study showed significant improvement over PSA alone detection of prostate cancers with a Gleason score of at least 7 (P < .0001), Dr. Eggener explained.

The test combines five plasma protein markers, including total and free PSA, PSP94, GDF-15 and KLK2, along with 101 genetic markers and clinical patient data, including age, previous biopsy results and family history.

Because the Stockholm3 test was validated in a Swedish population cohort, evidence on the accuracy of the test in other racial and ethnic populations is lacking, the authors noted in the abstract.

Study Methods and Results

To further investigate, Dr. Eggener and his colleagues conducted the prospective SEPTA trial, involving 2,129 men with no known prostate cancer but clinical indications for prostate biopsy, who were referred for prostate biopsy at 17 North American sites between 2019 and 2023.

Among the men, 24% were self-identified as African American/Black; 46% were White/Caucasian; 14% were Hispanic/Latina; and 16% were Asian. The men’s median age was 63; their median PSA value was 6.1 ng/mL, according to the abstract.

Of the patients, 16% received magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsies and 20% had prior benign biopsies, the abstract notes.

Biopsy results showed that clinically significant prostate cancer, defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Gleason Grade group ≥ 2, was detected in 29% of patients, with 14% having ISUP 1 cancer and 57% of cases having been benign, according to the abstract.

Overall detection rates of grade 2 or higher were 37% for African American/Black, 28% for White/Caucasian, 29% for Hispanic/Latino, and 21% Asian.

In terms of sensitivity of the two tests, the Stockholm3 (cut-point of ≥ 15) was noninferior compared with the traditional PSA cut-point of ≥ 4 ng/mL (relative sensitivity 0.95).

Results were consistent across ethnic subgroups: noninferior sensitivity (0.91-0.98) and superior specificity (2.51-4.70), the abstract authors reported.

Compared with the use of the PSA test’s cut-point of ≥ 4 ng/mL, the use of Stockholm3’s cut-point of ≥ 15 or higher would have reduced unnecessary biopsies by 45% overall, including by 46% among Asian and Black/African American patients, by 53% in Hispanic patients and 42% in White patients, according to the abstract.

Overall, “utilization of Stockholm3 improves the net benefit:harm ratio of PSA screening by identifying nearly all men with Gleason Grade 2 or higher, while minimizing the number of men undergoing biopsy who show no cancer or an indolent cancer (Gleason Grade 1),” Dr. Eggener said in an interview.
 

Stockholm3 Expected to be Available in U.S. This Year

The test, which has been available in Sweden since 2018, is expected to become commercially available in the United States in early 2024. Dr. Eggener noted that “cost of the test hasn’t been finalized, but will be considerably more expensive than PSA, which is very cheap.”

Commenting on the findings, Bradley McGregor, MD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute and an ASCO oncology expert, noted that “ultimately, the goal [of prostate screening] is to be able to better decide when a biopsy is going to yield a clinically relevant prostate cancer, [and] this study gives us some insight of the use of the Stockholm3 tool in a more diverse population.

“How the tool will be utilized in the clinic and in guidelines is something that is a work in progress,” he added. “But I think this provides some reassurances that this will have implications beyond just the homogeneous populations in the original studies.”

Dr. McGregor noted that considerations of the issue of cost should be weighed against the potential costs involved in unnecessary biopsies and a host of other costs that can arise with an inaccurate risk assessment.

“If there is a way to avoid those costs and help us have more confidence in the prostate test results and intervene at an earlier stage, I think that’s exciting,” he said.

Dr. Eggener has consulted for A3P Biomedical but had no financial relationship with the company to disclose.

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease for which several lifestyle factors—smoking, alcohol use, and psychological stress—are associated with higher incidence and more severe disease.^1-3 Diet also has been implicated as a factor that can affect psoriasis,⁴ and many patients have shown interest in possible dietary interventions to help their disease.⁵

In 2018, the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) presented dietary recommendations for patients based on results from a systematic review. From the available literature, only dietary weight reduction with hypocaloric diets in overweight or obese patients could be strongly recommended, and it has been proven that obesity is associated with worse psoriasis severity.⁶ Other more recent studies have shown that dietary modifications such as intermittent fasting and the ketogenic diet also led to weight loss and improved psoriasis severity in overweight patients; however, it is difficult to discern if the improvement was due to weight loss alone or if the dietary patterns themselves played a role.^7,8 The paucity of well-designed studies evaluating the effects of other dietary changes has prevented further guidelines from being written. We propose that dietary patterns such as the Mediterranean diet (MeD) and vegan/vegetarian diets—even without strong data showing benefits in skin disease—may help to decrease systemic inflammation, improve gut dysbiosis, and help decrease the risk for cardiometabolic comorbidities that are associated with psoriasis.

Mediterranean Diet

The MeD is based on the dietary tendencies of inhabitants from the regions surrounding the Mediterranean Sea and is centered around nutrient-rich foods such as vegetables, olive oil, and legumes while limiting meat and dairy.⁹ The NPF recommended considering a trial of the MeD based on low-quality evidence.⁶ Observational studies have indicated that psoriasis patients are less likely to adhere to the MeD, but those who do have less severe disease.⁸ However, a search of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms Mediterranean diet and psoriasis yielded no prospective interventional studies. Given the association of the MeD with less severe disease, it is important to understand which specific foods in the MeD could be beneficial. Intake of omega-3 fatty acids, such as those found in fatty fish, are important for modulation of systemic inflammation.⁷ High intake of polyphenols—found in fruits and vegetables, extra-virgin olive oil, and wine—also have been implicated in improving inflammatory diseases due to potent antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. Individually, fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and sea fish have been associated with lowering C-reactive protein levels, which also is indicative of the benefits of these foods on systemic inflammation.⁷

Vegan/Vegetarian Diets

Although fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains are a substantial component of the MeD, there are limited data on vegetarian or purely vegan plant-based diets. An observational study from the NPF found that only 48.4% (15/31) of patients on the MeD vs 69.0% (20/29) on a vegan diet reported a favorable skin response.⁵ Two case reports also have shown beneficial results of a strict vegan diet for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, where whole-food plant-based diets also improved joint symptoms.^10-12 As with any diet, those who pursue a plant-based diet should strive to consume a variety of foods to avoid nutrient deficiencies. A recent systematic meta-analysis of 141 studies evaluated nutrient status of vegan and vegetarian diets compared to pescovegetarians and those who consume meat. All dietary patterns showed varying degrees of low levels of different nutrients.¹³ Of note, the researchers found that vitamin B₁₂, vitamin D, iron, zinc, iodine, calcium, and docosahexaenoic acid were lower in plant-based diets. In contrast, folate; vitamins B₁, B₆, C, and E; polyunsaturated fatty acids; α-linolenic acid; and magnesium intake were higher. Those who consumed meat were at risk for inadequate intake of fiber, polyunsaturated fatty acids, α-linolenic acid, folate, vitamin E, calcium, magnesium, and vitamin D, though vitamin D intake was higher than in vegans/vegetarians.¹³ The results of this meta-analysis indicated the importance of educating patients on what constitutes a well-rounded, micronutrient-rich diet or appropriate supplementation for any diet.

Effects on Gut Microbiome

Any changes in diet can lead to alterations in the gut microbiome, which may impact skin disease, as evidence indicates a bidirectional relationship between gut and skin health.¹⁰ A metagenomic analysis of the gut microbiota in patients with untreated plaque psoriasis revealed a signature dysbiosis for which the researchers developed a psoriasis microbiota index, suggesting the gut microbiota may play a role in psoriasis pathophysiology.¹⁴ Research shows that both the MeD and vegan/vegetarian diets, which are relatively rich in fiber and omega-3 fatty acids and low in saturated fat and animal protein compared to many diets, cause increases in dietary fiber–metabolizing bacteria that produce short-chain fatty acids. These short-chain fatty acids improve gut epithelial integrity and alleviate both gut and systemic inflammation.¹⁰

The changes to the gut microbiome induced by a high-fat diet also are concerning. In contrast to the MeD or vegan/vegetarian diets, consumption of a high-fat diet induces alterations in the composition of the gut microbiota that in turn increase the release of proinflammatory cytokines and promote higher intestinal permeability.¹⁰ Similarly, high sugar consumption promotes increased intestinal permeability and shifts the gut microbiota to organisms that can rapidly utilize simple carbohydrates at the expense of other beneficial organisms, reducing bacterial diversity.¹⁵ The Western diet, which is notable for both high fat and high sugar content, is sometimes referred to as a proinflammatory diet and has been shown to worsen psoriasiformlike lesions in mice.¹⁶ Importantly, most research indicates that high fat and high sugar consumption appear to be more prevalent in psoriasis patients,⁸ but the type of fat consumed in the diet matters. The Western diet includes abundant saturated fat found in meat, dairy products, palm and coconut oils, and processed foods, as well as omega-6 fatty acids that are found in meat, poultry, and eggs. Saturated fat has been shown to promote helper T cell (T_H17) accumulation in the skin, and omega-6 fatty acids serve as precursors to various inflammatory lipid mediators.⁴ This distinction of sources of fat between the Western diet and MeD is important in understanding the diets’ different effects on psoriasis and overall health. As previously discussed, the high intake of omega-3 acids in the MeD is one of the ways it may exert its anti-inflammatory benefits.⁷

Next Steps in Advising Psoriasis Patients

A major limitation of the data for MeD and vegan/vegetarian diets is limited randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of these diets on psoriasis. Thus, dietary recommendations for psoriasis are not as strong as for other diseases for which more conclusive data exist.⁸ Although the data on diet and psoriasis are not definitive, perhaps dermatologists should shift the question from “Does this diet definitely improve psoriasis?” to “Does this diet definitely improve my patient’s health as a whole and maybe also their psoriasis?” For instance, the MeD has been shown to reduce the risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease as well as to slow cognitive decline.¹⁷ Vegan/vegetarian diets focusing on whole vs processed foods have been shown to be highly effective in combatting obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease including severe atherosclerosis, and hypertension.¹⁸ Psoriasis patients are at increased risk for many of the ailments that the MeD and plant-based diets protect against, making these diets potentially even more impactful than for someone without psoriasis.¹⁹ Dietary recommendations should still be made in conjunction with continuing traditional therapies for psoriasis and in consultation with the patient’s primary care physician and/or dietitian; however, rather than waiting for more randomized controlled trials before making health-promoting recommendations, what would be the downside of starting now? At worst, the dietary change decreases their risk for several metabolic conditions, and at best they may even see an improvement in their psoriasis.

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease for which several lifestyle factors—smoking, alcohol use, and psychological stress—are associated with higher incidence and more severe disease.^1-3 Diet also has been implicated as a factor that can affect psoriasis,⁴ and many patients have shown interest in possible dietary interventions to help their disease.⁵

In 2018, the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) presented dietary recommendations for patients based on results from a systematic review. From the available literature, only dietary weight reduction with hypocaloric diets in overweight or obese patients could be strongly recommended, and it has been proven that obesity is associated with worse psoriasis severity.⁶ Other more recent studies have shown that dietary modifications such as intermittent fasting and the ketogenic diet also led to weight loss and improved psoriasis severity in overweight patients; however, it is difficult to discern if the improvement was due to weight loss alone or if the dietary patterns themselves played a role.^7,8 The paucity of well-designed studies evaluating the effects of other dietary changes has prevented further guidelines from being written. We propose that dietary patterns such as the Mediterranean diet (MeD) and vegan/vegetarian diets—even without strong data showing benefits in skin disease—may help to decrease systemic inflammation, improve gut dysbiosis, and help decrease the risk for cardiometabolic comorbidities that are associated with psoriasis.

Mediterranean Diet

The MeD is based on the dietary tendencies of inhabitants from the regions surrounding the Mediterranean Sea and is centered around nutrient-rich foods such as vegetables, olive oil, and legumes while limiting meat and dairy.⁹ The NPF recommended considering a trial of the MeD based on low-quality evidence.⁶ Observational studies have indicated that psoriasis patients are less likely to adhere to the MeD, but those who do have less severe disease.⁸ However, a search of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms Mediterranean diet and psoriasis yielded no prospective interventional studies. Given the association of the MeD with less severe disease, it is important to understand which specific foods in the MeD could be beneficial. Intake of omega-3 fatty acids, such as those found in fatty fish, are important for modulation of systemic inflammation.⁷ High intake of polyphenols—found in fruits and vegetables, extra-virgin olive oil, and wine—also have been implicated in improving inflammatory diseases due to potent antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. Individually, fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and sea fish have been associated with lowering C-reactive protein levels, which also is indicative of the benefits of these foods on systemic inflammation.⁷

Vegan/Vegetarian Diets

Although fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains are a substantial component of the MeD, there are limited data on vegetarian or purely vegan plant-based diets. An observational study from the NPF found that only 48.4% (15/31) of patients on the MeD vs 69.0% (20/29) on a vegan diet reported a favorable skin response.⁵ Two case reports also have shown beneficial results of a strict vegan diet for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, where whole-food plant-based diets also improved joint symptoms.^10-12 As with any diet, those who pursue a plant-based diet should strive to consume a variety of foods to avoid nutrient deficiencies. A recent systematic meta-analysis of 141 studies evaluated nutrient status of vegan and vegetarian diets compared to pescovegetarians and those who consume meat. All dietary patterns showed varying degrees of low levels of different nutrients.¹³ Of note, the researchers found that vitamin B₁₂, vitamin D, iron, zinc, iodine, calcium, and docosahexaenoic acid were lower in plant-based diets. In contrast, folate; vitamins B₁, B₆, C, and E; polyunsaturated fatty acids; α-linolenic acid; and magnesium intake were higher. Those who consumed meat were at risk for inadequate intake of fiber, polyunsaturated fatty acids, α-linolenic acid, folate, vitamin E, calcium, magnesium, and vitamin D, though vitamin D intake was higher than in vegans/vegetarians.¹³ The results of this meta-analysis indicated the importance of educating patients on what constitutes a well-rounded, micronutrient-rich diet or appropriate supplementation for any diet.

Effects on Gut Microbiome

Any changes in diet can lead to alterations in the gut microbiome, which may impact skin disease, as evidence indicates a bidirectional relationship between gut and skin health.¹⁰ A metagenomic analysis of the gut microbiota in patients with untreated plaque psoriasis revealed a signature dysbiosis for which the researchers developed a psoriasis microbiota index, suggesting the gut microbiota may play a role in psoriasis pathophysiology.¹⁴ Research shows that both the MeD and vegan/vegetarian diets, which are relatively rich in fiber and omega-3 fatty acids and low in saturated fat and animal protein compared to many diets, cause increases in dietary fiber–metabolizing bacteria that produce short-chain fatty acids. These short-chain fatty acids improve gut epithelial integrity and alleviate both gut and systemic inflammation.¹⁰

The changes to the gut microbiome induced by a high-fat diet also are concerning. In contrast to the MeD or vegan/vegetarian diets, consumption of a high-fat diet induces alterations in the composition of the gut microbiota that in turn increase the release of proinflammatory cytokines and promote higher intestinal permeability.¹⁰ Similarly, high sugar consumption promotes increased intestinal permeability and shifts the gut microbiota to organisms that can rapidly utilize simple carbohydrates at the expense of other beneficial organisms, reducing bacterial diversity.¹⁵ The Western diet, which is notable for both high fat and high sugar content, is sometimes referred to as a proinflammatory diet and has been shown to worsen psoriasiformlike lesions in mice.¹⁶ Importantly, most research indicates that high fat and high sugar consumption appear to be more prevalent in psoriasis patients,⁸ but the type of fat consumed in the diet matters. The Western diet includes abundant saturated fat found in meat, dairy products, palm and coconut oils, and processed foods, as well as omega-6 fatty acids that are found in meat, poultry, and eggs. Saturated fat has been shown to promote helper T cell (T_H17) accumulation in the skin, and omega-6 fatty acids serve as precursors to various inflammatory lipid mediators.⁴ This distinction of sources of fat between the Western diet and MeD is important in understanding the diets’ different effects on psoriasis and overall health. As previously discussed, the high intake of omega-3 acids in the MeD is one of the ways it may exert its anti-inflammatory benefits.⁷

Next Steps in Advising Psoriasis Patients

A major limitation of the data for MeD and vegan/vegetarian diets is limited randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of these diets on psoriasis. Thus, dietary recommendations for psoriasis are not as strong as for other diseases for which more conclusive data exist.⁸ Although the data on diet and psoriasis are not definitive, perhaps dermatologists should shift the question from “Does this diet definitely improve psoriasis?” to “Does this diet definitely improve my patient’s health as a whole and maybe also their psoriasis?” For instance, the MeD has been shown to reduce the risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease as well as to slow cognitive decline.¹⁷ Vegan/vegetarian diets focusing on whole vs processed foods have been shown to be highly effective in combatting obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease including severe atherosclerosis, and hypertension.¹⁸ Psoriasis patients are at increased risk for many of the ailments that the MeD and plant-based diets protect against, making these diets potentially even more impactful than for someone without psoriasis.¹⁹ Dietary recommendations should still be made in conjunction with continuing traditional therapies for psoriasis and in consultation with the patient’s primary care physician and/or dietitian; however, rather than waiting for more randomized controlled trials before making health-promoting recommendations, what would be the downside of starting now? At worst, the dietary change decreases their risk for several metabolic conditions, and at best they may even see an improvement in their psoriasis.

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease for which several lifestyle factors—smoking, alcohol use, and psychological stress—are associated with higher incidence and more severe disease.^1-3 Diet also has been implicated as a factor that can affect psoriasis,⁴ and many patients have shown interest in possible dietary interventions to help their disease.⁵

In 2018, the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) presented dietary recommendations for patients based on results from a systematic review. From the available literature, only dietary weight reduction with hypocaloric diets in overweight or obese patients could be strongly recommended, and it has been proven that obesity is associated with worse psoriasis severity.⁶ Other more recent studies have shown that dietary modifications such as intermittent fasting and the ketogenic diet also led to weight loss and improved psoriasis severity in overweight patients; however, it is difficult to discern if the improvement was due to weight loss alone or if the dietary patterns themselves played a role.^7,8 The paucity of well-designed studies evaluating the effects of other dietary changes has prevented further guidelines from being written. We propose that dietary patterns such as the Mediterranean diet (MeD) and vegan/vegetarian diets—even without strong data showing benefits in skin disease—may help to decrease systemic inflammation, improve gut dysbiosis, and help decrease the risk for cardiometabolic comorbidities that are associated with psoriasis.

Mediterranean Diet

The MeD is based on the dietary tendencies of inhabitants from the regions surrounding the Mediterranean Sea and is centered around nutrient-rich foods such as vegetables, olive oil, and legumes while limiting meat and dairy.⁹ The NPF recommended considering a trial of the MeD based on low-quality evidence.⁶ Observational studies have indicated that psoriasis patients are less likely to adhere to the MeD, but those who do have less severe disease.⁸ However, a search of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms Mediterranean diet and psoriasis yielded no prospective interventional studies. Given the association of the MeD with less severe disease, it is important to understand which specific foods in the MeD could be beneficial. Intake of omega-3 fatty acids, such as those found in fatty fish, are important for modulation of systemic inflammation.⁷ High intake of polyphenols—found in fruits and vegetables, extra-virgin olive oil, and wine—also have been implicated in improving inflammatory diseases due to potent antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. Individually, fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and sea fish have been associated with lowering C-reactive protein levels, which also is indicative of the benefits of these foods on systemic inflammation.⁷

Vegan/Vegetarian Diets

Although fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains are a substantial component of the MeD, there are limited data on vegetarian or purely vegan plant-based diets. An observational study from the NPF found that only 48.4% (15/31) of patients on the MeD vs 69.0% (20/29) on a vegan diet reported a favorable skin response.⁵ Two case reports also have shown beneficial results of a strict vegan diet for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, where whole-food plant-based diets also improved joint symptoms.^10-12 As with any diet, those who pursue a plant-based diet should strive to consume a variety of foods to avoid nutrient deficiencies. A recent systematic meta-analysis of 141 studies evaluated nutrient status of vegan and vegetarian diets compared to pescovegetarians and those who consume meat. All dietary patterns showed varying degrees of low levels of different nutrients.¹³ Of note, the researchers found that vitamin B₁₂, vitamin D, iron, zinc, iodine, calcium, and docosahexaenoic acid were lower in plant-based diets. In contrast, folate; vitamins B₁, B₆, C, and E; polyunsaturated fatty acids; α-linolenic acid; and magnesium intake were higher. Those who consumed meat were at risk for inadequate intake of fiber, polyunsaturated fatty acids, α-linolenic acid, folate, vitamin E, calcium, magnesium, and vitamin D, though vitamin D intake was higher than in vegans/vegetarians.¹³ The results of this meta-analysis indicated the importance of educating patients on what constitutes a well-rounded, micronutrient-rich diet or appropriate supplementation for any diet.

Effects on Gut Microbiome

Any changes in diet can lead to alterations in the gut microbiome, which may impact skin disease, as evidence indicates a bidirectional relationship between gut and skin health.¹⁰ A metagenomic analysis of the gut microbiota in patients with untreated plaque psoriasis revealed a signature dysbiosis for which the researchers developed a psoriasis microbiota index, suggesting the gut microbiota may play a role in psoriasis pathophysiology.¹⁴ Research shows that both the MeD and vegan/vegetarian diets, which are relatively rich in fiber and omega-3 fatty acids and low in saturated fat and animal protein compared to many diets, cause increases in dietary fiber–metabolizing bacteria that produce short-chain fatty acids. These short-chain fatty acids improve gut epithelial integrity and alleviate both gut and systemic inflammation.¹⁰

The changes to the gut microbiome induced by a high-fat diet also are concerning. In contrast to the MeD or vegan/vegetarian diets, consumption of a high-fat diet induces alterations in the composition of the gut microbiota that in turn increase the release of proinflammatory cytokines and promote higher intestinal permeability.¹⁰ Similarly, high sugar consumption promotes increased intestinal permeability and shifts the gut microbiota to organisms that can rapidly utilize simple carbohydrates at the expense of other beneficial organisms, reducing bacterial diversity.¹⁵ The Western diet, which is notable for both high fat and high sugar content, is sometimes referred to as a proinflammatory diet and has been shown to worsen psoriasiformlike lesions in mice.¹⁶ Importantly, most research indicates that high fat and high sugar consumption appear to be more prevalent in psoriasis patients,⁸ but the type of fat consumed in the diet matters. The Western diet includes abundant saturated fat found in meat, dairy products, palm and coconut oils, and processed foods, as well as omega-6 fatty acids that are found in meat, poultry, and eggs. Saturated fat has been shown to promote helper T cell (T_H17) accumulation in the skin, and omega-6 fatty acids serve as precursors to various inflammatory lipid mediators.⁴ This distinction of sources of fat between the Western diet and MeD is important in understanding the diets’ different effects on psoriasis and overall health. As previously discussed, the high intake of omega-3 acids in the MeD is one of the ways it may exert its anti-inflammatory benefits.⁷

Next Steps in Advising Psoriasis Patients

A major limitation of the data for MeD and vegan/vegetarian diets is limited randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of these diets on psoriasis. Thus, dietary recommendations for psoriasis are not as strong as for other diseases for which more conclusive data exist.⁸ Although the data on diet and psoriasis are not definitive, perhaps dermatologists should shift the question from “Does this diet definitely improve psoriasis?” to “Does this diet definitely improve my patient’s health as a whole and maybe also their psoriasis?” For instance, the MeD has been shown to reduce the risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease as well as to slow cognitive decline.¹⁷ Vegan/vegetarian diets focusing on whole vs processed foods have been shown to be highly effective in combatting obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease including severe atherosclerosis, and hypertension.¹⁸ Psoriasis patients are at increased risk for many of the ailments that the MeD and plant-based diets protect against, making these diets potentially even more impactful than for someone without psoriasis.¹⁹ Dietary recommendations should still be made in conjunction with continuing traditional therapies for psoriasis and in consultation with the patient’s primary care physician and/or dietitian; however, rather than waiting for more randomized controlled trials before making health-promoting recommendations, what would be the downside of starting now? At worst, the dietary change decreases their risk for several metabolic conditions, and at best they may even see an improvement in their psoriasis.

According to Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) statistics, there were more than 1400 dermatology applicants in 2022, with an average of almost 560 applications received per program.^1,2 With the goal to expand the diversity of board-certified dermatologists, there is increasing emphasis on the holistic review of applications, forgoing filtering by discrete metrics such as AOA (American Osteopathic Association) membership and US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores.³ According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, holistic review focuses on an individual applicant’s experience and unique attributes in addition to their academic achievements.⁴ Recent strategies to enhance the residency recruitment process have included the introduction of standardized letters of recommendation, preference signaling, and supplemental applications.^5,6

Because it has become increasingly important to include applicant factors and achievements that extend beyond academics, the number of data points that are required for holistic review has expanded. If each application required 20 minutes to review, this would result in 166 total hours for complete holistic review of 500 applications. Tools that can facilitate holistic review of candidates and select applicants whose interests and career goals align with individual residency programs have the potential to optimize review. Artificial intelligence (AI) may aid in this process. This column highlights some of the published research on novel AI strategies that have the potential to impact dermatology residency recruitment.

Machine Learning to Screen Applicants

Artificial intelligence involves a machine-based system that can make decisions, predictions, and recommendations when provided a given set of human-defined objectives.⁷ Autonomous systems, machine learning (ML), and generative AI are examples of AI models.⁸ Machine learning has been explored to shorten and streamline the application review process and decrease bias. Because ML is a model in which the computer learns patterns based on large amounts of input data,⁹ it is possible that models could be developed and used in future cycles. Some studies found that applicants were discovered who traditionally would not have made it to the next stage of consideration based primarily on academic metrics.^10,11 Burk-Rafel et al¹⁰ developed and validated an ML-based decision support tool for residency program directors to use for interview invitation decisions. The tool utilized 61 variables from ERAS data from more than 8000 applications in 3 prior application cycles at a single internal medicine residency program. An interview invitation was designated as the target outcome. Ultimately, the model would output a probability score for an interview invitation. The authors were able to tune the model to a 91% sensitivity and 85% specificity; for a pool of 2000 applicants and an invite rate of 15%, 1475 applicants would be screened out with a negative predictive value of 98% with maintenance of performance, even with removal of USMLE Step 1 examination scores. Their ML model was prospectively validated during an ongoing resident selection cycle, and when compared with human review, the AI model found an additional 20 applicants to invite for interviews. They concluded that this tool could potentially augment the human review process and reveal applicants who may have otherwise been overlooked.¹⁰

Rees and Ryder¹¹ utilized another ML screening approach with the target outcome of ranked and matriculated compared with ranked applicants based on ERAS data using 72 unique variables for more than 5000 applicants. Their model was able to identify ranked candidates from the overall applicant pool with high accuracy; identification of ranked applicants that matriculated at the program was more modest but better than random probability.¹¹Both the Burk-Rafel et al¹⁰ and Rees and Ryder¹¹ models excluded some unstructured data components of the residency application, such as personal statements, medical student performance evaluation letters, transcripts, and letters of reference, that some may consider strongly in the holistic review process. Drum et al¹² explored the value of extraction of this type of data. They created a program to extract “snippets” of text that pertained to values of successful residents for their internal medicine–pediatrics residency program that they previously validated via a modified Delphi method, which then were annotated by expert reviewers. Natural language processing was used to train an ML algorithm (MLA) to classify snippets into 11 value categories. Four values had more than 66% agreement with human annotation: academic strength; leadership; communication; and justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. Although this MLA has not reached high enough levels of agreement for all the predetermined success values, the authors hope to generate a model that could produce a quantitative score to use as an initial screening tool to select applicants for interview.¹² This type of analysis also could be incorporated into other MLAs for further refinement of the mentoring and application process.

Knapke et al¹³ evaluated the use of a natural language modeling platform to look for semantic patterns in medical school applications that could predict which students would be more likely to pursue family medicine residency, thus beginning the recruitment process even before residency application. This strategy could be particularly valuable for specialties for which there may be greater need in the workforce.

AI for Administrative Purposes

Artificial intelligence also has been used for nonapplication aspects of the residency recruitment process, such as interview scheduling. In the absence of coordinated interview release dates (as was implemented in dermatology starting in the 2020-2021 application cycle), a deluge of responses to schedule an interview comes flooding in as soon as invitations for interviewees are sent out, which can produce anxiety both for applicants and residency program staff as the schedule is sorted out and can create delays at both ends. Stephens et al¹⁴ utilized a computerized scheduling program for pediatric surgery fellowship applicants. It was used in 2016 to schedule 26 interviews, and it was found to reduce the average time to schedule an interview from 14.4 hours to 1.7 hours. It also reduced the number of email exchanges needed to finalize scheduling.¹⁴

Another aspect of residency recruitment that is amenable to AI is information gathering. Many would-be applicants turn to the internet and social media to learn about residency programs—their unique qualities, assets, and potential alignment of career goals.¹⁵ This exchange often is unidirectional, as the applicant clicks through the website searching for information. Yi et al¹⁶ explored the use of a chatbot, which mimics human conversation and exchange, on their institution’s pain fellowship website. Fellowship applicants could create specific prompts, such as “Show me faculty that trained at <applicant’s home program>,” and the chatbot would reply with the answer. The researchers sent a survey to all 258 applicants to the pain fellowship program that was completed by 48 applicants. Of these respondents, more than 70% (35/48) utilized the chatbot, and 84% (40/48) stated that they had found the information that was requested. The respondents overall found the chatbot to be a useful and positive experience.¹⁶

Specific Tools to Consider

There are some tools that are publicly available for programs and applicants to use that rely on AI.

In collaboration with ERAS and the Association of American Medical Colleges, Cortex powered by Thalamus (SJ MedConnect Inc)(https://thalamusgme.com/cortex-application-screening/) offers technology-assisted holistic review of residency and fellowship applications by utilizing natural language processing and optical character recognition to aggregate data from ERAS.

Tools also are being leveraged by applicants to help them find residency programs that fit their criteria, prepare for interviews, and complete portions of the application. Match A Resident (https://www.matcharesident.com/) is a resource for the international medical graduate community. As part of the service, the “Learn More with MARai” feature uses AI to generate information on residency programs to increase applicants’ confidence going into the interview process.¹⁷ Big Interview Medical (https://www.biginterviewmedical.com/ai-feedback), a paid interview preparation system developed by interview experts, utilizes AI to provide feedback to residents practicing for the interview process by measuring the amount of natural eye contact, language used, and pace of speech. A “Power Word” score is provided that incorporates aspects such as using filler words (“umm,” “uhh”). A Pace of Speech Tool provides rate of speaking feedback presuming that there is an ideal pace to decrease the impression that the applicant is nervous. Johnstone et al¹⁸ used ChatGPT (https://chat.openai.com/auth/login) to generate 2 personal statements for anesthesia residency applicants. Based on survey responses from 31 program directors, 22 rated the statements as good or excellent.¹⁸

Ethnical Concerns and Limitations of AI

The potential use of AI tools by residency applicants inevitably brings forth consideration of biases, ethics, and current limitations. These tools are highly dependent on the quality and quantity of data used for training and validation. Information considered valuable in the holistic review of applications includes unstructured data such as personal statements and letters of recommendation, and incorporating this information can be challenging in ML models, in contrast to discrete structured data such as grades, test scores, and awards. In addition, MLAs depend on large quantities of data to optimize performance.¹⁹ Depending on the size of the applicant pool and the amount of data available, this can present a limitation for smaller programs in developing ML tools for residency recruitment. Studies evaluating the use of AI in the residency application process often are from single institutions, and therefore generalizability is uncertain. The risk for latent bias—whereby a historical or pre-existing stereotype gets perpetuated through the system—must be considered, with the development of tools to detect and address this if found. Choosing which data to use to train the model can be tricky as well as choosing the outcome of interest. For these interventions to become more resilient, programs need to self-examine what defines their criteria for a successful match to their program to incorporate this data into their ML studies. The previously described models in this overview focused on outcomes such as whether an applicant was invited to interview, whether the applicant was ranked, and whether the applicant matriculated to their program.^10,11 For supervised ML models that rely on outcomes to develop a prediction, continued research as to what outcomes represent resident success (eg, passing board certification examinations, correlation with clinical performance) would be important. There also is the possibility of applicants restructuring their applications to align with goals of an AI-assisted search and using AI to generate part or all of their application. The use of ChatGPT and other AI tools in the preparation of personal statements and curriculum vitae may provide benefits such as improved efficiency and grammar support.²⁰ However, as use becomes more widespread, there is the potential increased similarity of personal statements and likely varied opinions on the use of such tools as writing aids.^21,22 Continued efforts to develop guidance on generative AI use cases is ongoing; an example is the launch of VALID AI (https://validai.health/), a collaboration among health systems, health plans, and AI research organizations and nonprofits.²³

Final Thoughts

Artificial intelligence tools may be a promising resource for residency and fellowship programs seeking to find meaningful ways to select applicants who are good matches for their training environment. Prioritizing the holistic review of applications has been promoted as a method to evaluate the applicant beyond their test scores and grades. The use of MLAs may streamline this review process, aid in scheduling interviews, and help discover trends in successful matriculants.

According to Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) statistics, there were more than 1400 dermatology applicants in 2022, with an average of almost 560 applications received per program.^1,2 With the goal to expand the diversity of board-certified dermatologists, there is increasing emphasis on the holistic review of applications, forgoing filtering by discrete metrics such as AOA (American Osteopathic Association) membership and US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores.³ According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, holistic review focuses on an individual applicant’s experience and unique attributes in addition to their academic achievements.⁴ Recent strategies to enhance the residency recruitment process have included the introduction of standardized letters of recommendation, preference signaling, and supplemental applications.^5,6

Because it has become increasingly important to include applicant factors and achievements that extend beyond academics, the number of data points that are required for holistic review has expanded. If each application required 20 minutes to review, this would result in 166 total hours for complete holistic review of 500 applications. Tools that can facilitate holistic review of candidates and select applicants whose interests and career goals align with individual residency programs have the potential to optimize review. Artificial intelligence (AI) may aid in this process. This column highlights some of the published research on novel AI strategies that have the potential to impact dermatology residency recruitment.

Machine Learning to Screen Applicants

Artificial intelligence involves a machine-based system that can make decisions, predictions, and recommendations when provided a given set of human-defined objectives.⁷ Autonomous systems, machine learning (ML), and generative AI are examples of AI models.⁸ Machine learning has been explored to shorten and streamline the application review process and decrease bias. Because ML is a model in which the computer learns patterns based on large amounts of input data,⁹ it is possible that models could be developed and used in future cycles. Some studies found that applicants were discovered who traditionally would not have made it to the next stage of consideration based primarily on academic metrics.^10,11 Burk-Rafel et al¹⁰ developed and validated an ML-based decision support tool for residency program directors to use for interview invitation decisions. The tool utilized 61 variables from ERAS data from more than 8000 applications in 3 prior application cycles at a single internal medicine residency program. An interview invitation was designated as the target outcome. Ultimately, the model would output a probability score for an interview invitation. The authors were able to tune the model to a 91% sensitivity and 85% specificity; for a pool of 2000 applicants and an invite rate of 15%, 1475 applicants would be screened out with a negative predictive value of 98% with maintenance of performance, even with removal of USMLE Step 1 examination scores. Their ML model was prospectively validated during an ongoing resident selection cycle, and when compared with human review, the AI model found an additional 20 applicants to invite for interviews. They concluded that this tool could potentially augment the human review process and reveal applicants who may have otherwise been overlooked.¹⁰

Rees and Ryder¹¹ utilized another ML screening approach with the target outcome of ranked and matriculated compared with ranked applicants based on ERAS data using 72 unique variables for more than 5000 applicants. Their model was able to identify ranked candidates from the overall applicant pool with high accuracy; identification of ranked applicants that matriculated at the program was more modest but better than random probability.¹¹Both the Burk-Rafel et al¹⁰ and Rees and Ryder¹¹ models excluded some unstructured data components of the residency application, such as personal statements, medical student performance evaluation letters, transcripts, and letters of reference, that some may consider strongly in the holistic review process. Drum et al¹² explored the value of extraction of this type of data. They created a program to extract “snippets” of text that pertained to values of successful residents for their internal medicine–pediatrics residency program that they previously validated via a modified Delphi method, which then were annotated by expert reviewers. Natural language processing was used to train an ML algorithm (MLA) to classify snippets into 11 value categories. Four values had more than 66% agreement with human annotation: academic strength; leadership; communication; and justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. Although this MLA has not reached high enough levels of agreement for all the predetermined success values, the authors hope to generate a model that could produce a quantitative score to use as an initial screening tool to select applicants for interview.¹² This type of analysis also could be incorporated into other MLAs for further refinement of the mentoring and application process.

Knapke et al¹³ evaluated the use of a natural language modeling platform to look for semantic patterns in medical school applications that could predict which students would be more likely to pursue family medicine residency, thus beginning the recruitment process even before residency application. This strategy could be particularly valuable for specialties for which there may be greater need in the workforce.

AI for Administrative Purposes

Artificial intelligence also has been used for nonapplication aspects of the residency recruitment process, such as interview scheduling. In the absence of coordinated interview release dates (as was implemented in dermatology starting in the 2020-2021 application cycle), a deluge of responses to schedule an interview comes flooding in as soon as invitations for interviewees are sent out, which can produce anxiety both for applicants and residency program staff as the schedule is sorted out and can create delays at both ends. Stephens et al¹⁴ utilized a computerized scheduling program for pediatric surgery fellowship applicants. It was used in 2016 to schedule 26 interviews, and it was found to reduce the average time to schedule an interview from 14.4 hours to 1.7 hours. It also reduced the number of email exchanges needed to finalize scheduling.¹⁴

Another aspect of residency recruitment that is amenable to AI is information gathering. Many would-be applicants turn to the internet and social media to learn about residency programs—their unique qualities, assets, and potential alignment of career goals.¹⁵ This exchange often is unidirectional, as the applicant clicks through the website searching for information. Yi et al¹⁶ explored the use of a chatbot, which mimics human conversation and exchange, on their institution’s pain fellowship website. Fellowship applicants could create specific prompts, such as “Show me faculty that trained at <applicant’s home program>,” and the chatbot would reply with the answer. The researchers sent a survey to all 258 applicants to the pain fellowship program that was completed by 48 applicants. Of these respondents, more than 70% (35/48) utilized the chatbot, and 84% (40/48) stated that they had found the information that was requested. The respondents overall found the chatbot to be a useful and positive experience.¹⁶

Specific Tools to Consider

There are some tools that are publicly available for programs and applicants to use that rely on AI.

In collaboration with ERAS and the Association of American Medical Colleges, Cortex powered by Thalamus (SJ MedConnect Inc)(https://thalamusgme.com/cortex-application-screening/) offers technology-assisted holistic review of residency and fellowship applications by utilizing natural language processing and optical character recognition to aggregate data from ERAS.

Tools also are being leveraged by applicants to help them find residency programs that fit their criteria, prepare for interviews, and complete portions of the application. Match A Resident (https://www.matcharesident.com/) is a resource for the international medical graduate community. As part of the service, the “Learn More with MARai” feature uses AI to generate information on residency programs to increase applicants’ confidence going into the interview process.¹⁷ Big Interview Medical (https://www.biginterviewmedical.com/ai-feedback), a paid interview preparation system developed by interview experts, utilizes AI to provide feedback to residents practicing for the interview process by measuring the amount of natural eye contact, language used, and pace of speech. A “Power Word” score is provided that incorporates aspects such as using filler words (“umm,” “uhh”). A Pace of Speech Tool provides rate of speaking feedback presuming that there is an ideal pace to decrease the impression that the applicant is nervous. Johnstone et al¹⁸ used ChatGPT (https://chat.openai.com/auth/login) to generate 2 personal statements for anesthesia residency applicants. Based on survey responses from 31 program directors, 22 rated the statements as good or excellent.¹⁸

Ethnical Concerns and Limitations of AI

The potential use of AI tools by residency applicants inevitably brings forth consideration of biases, ethics, and current limitations. These tools are highly dependent on the quality and quantity of data used for training and validation. Information considered valuable in the holistic review of applications includes unstructured data such as personal statements and letters of recommendation, and incorporating this information can be challenging in ML models, in contrast to discrete structured data such as grades, test scores, and awards. In addition, MLAs depend on large quantities of data to optimize performance.¹⁹ Depending on the size of the applicant pool and the amount of data available, this can present a limitation for smaller programs in developing ML tools for residency recruitment. Studies evaluating the use of AI in the residency application process often are from single institutions, and therefore generalizability is uncertain. The risk for latent bias—whereby a historical or pre-existing stereotype gets perpetuated through the system—must be considered, with the development of tools to detect and address this if found. Choosing which data to use to train the model can be tricky as well as choosing the outcome of interest. For these interventions to become more resilient, programs need to self-examine what defines their criteria for a successful match to their program to incorporate this data into their ML studies. The previously described models in this overview focused on outcomes such as whether an applicant was invited to interview, whether the applicant was ranked, and whether the applicant matriculated to their program.^10,11 For supervised ML models that rely on outcomes to develop a prediction, continued research as to what outcomes represent resident success (eg, passing board certification examinations, correlation with clinical performance) would be important. There also is the possibility of applicants restructuring their applications to align with goals of an AI-assisted search and using AI to generate part or all of their application. The use of ChatGPT and other AI tools in the preparation of personal statements and curriculum vitae may provide benefits such as improved efficiency and grammar support.²⁰ However, as use becomes more widespread, there is the potential increased similarity of personal statements and likely varied opinions on the use of such tools as writing aids.^21,22 Continued efforts to develop guidance on generative AI use cases is ongoing; an example is the launch of VALID AI (https://validai.health/), a collaboration among health systems, health plans, and AI research organizations and nonprofits.²³

Final Thoughts

Artificial intelligence tools may be a promising resource for residency and fellowship programs seeking to find meaningful ways to select applicants who are good matches for their training environment. Prioritizing the holistic review of applications has been promoted as a method to evaluate the applicant beyond their test scores and grades. The use of MLAs may streamline this review process, aid in scheduling interviews, and help discover trends in successful matriculants.

According to Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) statistics, there were more than 1400 dermatology applicants in 2022, with an average of almost 560 applications received per program.^1,2 With the goal to expand the diversity of board-certified dermatologists, there is increasing emphasis on the holistic review of applications, forgoing filtering by discrete metrics such as AOA (American Osteopathic Association) membership and US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores.³ According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, holistic review focuses on an individual applicant’s experience and unique attributes in addition to their academic achievements.⁴ Recent strategies to enhance the residency recruitment process have included the introduction of standardized letters of recommendation, preference signaling, and supplemental applications.^5,6

Because it has become increasingly important to include applicant factors and achievements that extend beyond academics, the number of data points that are required for holistic review has expanded. If each application required 20 minutes to review, this would result in 166 total hours for complete holistic review of 500 applications. Tools that can facilitate holistic review of candidates and select applicants whose interests and career goals align with individual residency programs have the potential to optimize review. Artificial intelligence (AI) may aid in this process. This column highlights some of the published research on novel AI strategies that have the potential to impact dermatology residency recruitment.

Machine Learning to Screen Applicants

Artificial intelligence involves a machine-based system that can make decisions, predictions, and recommendations when provided a given set of human-defined objectives.⁷ Autonomous systems, machine learning (ML), and generative AI are examples of AI models.⁸ Machine learning has been explored to shorten and streamline the application review process and decrease bias. Because ML is a model in which the computer learns patterns based on large amounts of input data,⁹ it is possible that models could be developed and used in future cycles. Some studies found that applicants were discovered who traditionally would not have made it to the next stage of consideration based primarily on academic metrics.^10,11 Burk-Rafel et al¹⁰ developed and validated an ML-based decision support tool for residency program directors to use for interview invitation decisions. The tool utilized 61 variables from ERAS data from more than 8000 applications in 3 prior application cycles at a single internal medicine residency program. An interview invitation was designated as the target outcome. Ultimately, the model would output a probability score for an interview invitation. The authors were able to tune the model to a 91% sensitivity and 85% specificity; for a pool of 2000 applicants and an invite rate of 15%, 1475 applicants would be screened out with a negative predictive value of 98% with maintenance of performance, even with removal of USMLE Step 1 examination scores. Their ML model was prospectively validated during an ongoing resident selection cycle, and when compared with human review, the AI model found an additional 20 applicants to invite for interviews. They concluded that this tool could potentially augment the human review process and reveal applicants who may have otherwise been overlooked.¹⁰

Rees and Ryder¹¹ utilized another ML screening approach with the target outcome of ranked and matriculated compared with ranked applicants based on ERAS data using 72 unique variables for more than 5000 applicants. Their model was able to identify ranked candidates from the overall applicant pool with high accuracy; identification of ranked applicants that matriculated at the program was more modest but better than random probability.¹¹Both the Burk-Rafel et al¹⁰ and Rees and Ryder¹¹ models excluded some unstructured data components of the residency application, such as personal statements, medical student performance evaluation letters, transcripts, and letters of reference, that some may consider strongly in the holistic review process. Drum et al¹² explored the value of extraction of this type of data. They created a program to extract “snippets” of text that pertained to values of successful residents for their internal medicine–pediatrics residency program that they previously validated via a modified Delphi method, which then were annotated by expert reviewers. Natural language processing was used to train an ML algorithm (MLA) to classify snippets into 11 value categories. Four values had more than 66% agreement with human annotation: academic strength; leadership; communication; and justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. Although this MLA has not reached high enough levels of agreement for all the predetermined success values, the authors hope to generate a model that could produce a quantitative score to use as an initial screening tool to select applicants for interview.¹² This type of analysis also could be incorporated into other MLAs for further refinement of the mentoring and application process.

Knapke et al¹³ evaluated the use of a natural language modeling platform to look for semantic patterns in medical school applications that could predict which students would be more likely to pursue family medicine residency, thus beginning the recruitment process even before residency application. This strategy could be particularly valuable for specialties for which there may be greater need in the workforce.

AI for Administrative Purposes

Artificial intelligence also has been used for nonapplication aspects of the residency recruitment process, such as interview scheduling. In the absence of coordinated interview release dates (as was implemented in dermatology starting in the 2020-2021 application cycle), a deluge of responses to schedule an interview comes flooding in as soon as invitations for interviewees are sent out, which can produce anxiety both for applicants and residency program staff as the schedule is sorted out and can create delays at both ends. Stephens et al¹⁴ utilized a computerized scheduling program for pediatric surgery fellowship applicants. It was used in 2016 to schedule 26 interviews, and it was found to reduce the average time to schedule an interview from 14.4 hours to 1.7 hours. It also reduced the number of email exchanges needed to finalize scheduling.¹⁴

Another aspect of residency recruitment that is amenable to AI is information gathering. Many would-be applicants turn to the internet and social media to learn about residency programs—their unique qualities, assets, and potential alignment of career goals.¹⁵ This exchange often is unidirectional, as the applicant clicks through the website searching for information. Yi et al¹⁶ explored the use of a chatbot, which mimics human conversation and exchange, on their institution’s pain fellowship website. Fellowship applicants could create specific prompts, such as “Show me faculty that trained at <applicant’s home program>,” and the chatbot would reply with the answer. The researchers sent a survey to all 258 applicants to the pain fellowship program that was completed by 48 applicants. Of these respondents, more than 70% (35/48) utilized the chatbot, and 84% (40/48) stated that they had found the information that was requested. The respondents overall found the chatbot to be a useful and positive experience.¹⁶

Specific Tools to Consider

There are some tools that are publicly available for programs and applicants to use that rely on AI.

In collaboration with ERAS and the Association of American Medical Colleges, Cortex powered by Thalamus (SJ MedConnect Inc)(https://thalamusgme.com/cortex-application-screening/) offers technology-assisted holistic review of residency and fellowship applications by utilizing natural language processing and optical character recognition to aggregate data from ERAS.

Tools also are being leveraged by applicants to help them find residency programs that fit their criteria, prepare for interviews, and complete portions of the application. Match A Resident (https://www.matcharesident.com/) is a resource for the international medical graduate community. As part of the service, the “Learn More with MARai” feature uses AI to generate information on residency programs to increase applicants’ confidence going into the interview process.¹⁷ Big Interview Medical (https://www.biginterviewmedical.com/ai-feedback), a paid interview preparation system developed by interview experts, utilizes AI to provide feedback to residents practicing for the interview process by measuring the amount of natural eye contact, language used, and pace of speech. A “Power Word” score is provided that incorporates aspects such as using filler words (“umm,” “uhh”). A Pace of Speech Tool provides rate of speaking feedback presuming that there is an ideal pace to decrease the impression that the applicant is nervous. Johnstone et al¹⁸ used ChatGPT (https://chat.openai.com/auth/login) to generate 2 personal statements for anesthesia residency applicants. Based on survey responses from 31 program directors, 22 rated the statements as good or excellent.¹⁸

Ethnical Concerns and Limitations of AI

The potential use of AI tools by residency applicants inevitably brings forth consideration of biases, ethics, and current limitations. These tools are highly dependent on the quality and quantity of data used for training and validation. Information considered valuable in the holistic review of applications includes unstructured data such as personal statements and letters of recommendation, and incorporating this information can be challenging in ML models, in contrast to discrete structured data such as grades, test scores, and awards. In addition, MLAs depend on large quantities of data to optimize performance.¹⁹ Depending on the size of the applicant pool and the amount of data available, this can present a limitation for smaller programs in developing ML tools for residency recruitment. Studies evaluating the use of AI in the residency application process often are from single institutions, and therefore generalizability is uncertain. The risk for latent bias—whereby a historical or pre-existing stereotype gets perpetuated through the system—must be considered, with the development of tools to detect and address this if found. Choosing which data to use to train the model can be tricky as well as choosing the outcome of interest. For these interventions to become more resilient, programs need to self-examine what defines their criteria for a successful match to their program to incorporate this data into their ML studies. The previously described models in this overview focused on outcomes such as whether an applicant was invited to interview, whether the applicant was ranked, and whether the applicant matriculated to their program.^10,11 For supervised ML models that rely on outcomes to develop a prediction, continued research as to what outcomes represent resident success (eg, passing board certification examinations, correlation with clinical performance) would be important. There also is the possibility of applicants restructuring their applications to align with goals of an AI-assisted search and using AI to generate part or all of their application. The use of ChatGPT and other AI tools in the preparation of personal statements and curriculum vitae may provide benefits such as improved efficiency and grammar support.²⁰ However, as use becomes more widespread, there is the potential increased similarity of personal statements and likely varied opinions on the use of such tools as writing aids.^21,22 Continued efforts to develop guidance on generative AI use cases is ongoing; an example is the launch of VALID AI (https://validai.health/), a collaboration among health systems, health plans, and AI research organizations and nonprofits.²³

Final Thoughts

Artificial intelligence tools may be a promising resource for residency and fellowship programs seeking to find meaningful ways to select applicants who are good matches for their training environment. Prioritizing the holistic review of applications has been promoted as a method to evaluate the applicant beyond their test scores and grades. The use of MLAs may streamline this review process, aid in scheduling interviews, and help discover trends in successful matriculants.

Psoriasis is a chronic autoimmune skin condition that affects approximately 2% to 4% of the US population and notably impacts overall quality of life.^1,2 There is no cure for this long-lasting condition. Fortunately, recent developments in research have led to more targeted therapies, paving the way for a more promising transformative landscape of psoriasis management. Herein, we explore the most up-to-date advancements and developments in the realm of psoriasis care.

Emerging Systemic Therapies

Biologics are cutting-edge treatments available for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, as IL-17A, IL-23, and tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) have been recognized as key targets.³

IL-17—Bimekizumab is a unique monoclonal antibody that inhibits the activity of both IL-17A and IL-17F cytokines.³ This treatment was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in October 2023 for patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.⁴

Bimekizumab outperformed ustekinumab in the BE VIVID phase 3 trial, with 273 of 321 patients (85%) receiving bimekizumab vs 81 of 163 patients (50%) receiving ustekinumab experiencing at least 90% improvement in psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) score at week 16.⁴ In a 2020 observational study (PSO-BIO-REAL), the efficacy rate of skin clearance after 6 months of treatment with biologics was only 25% (1/4).⁵ Aside from moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, bimekizumab demonstrated notable improvement in patients with psoriatic arthritis who had inadequate response or intolerance to TNF-α inhibitors compared to a placebo group in the BE COMPLETE phase 3 trial.⁶

IL-23—Guselkumab, risankizumab, and tildrakizumab are injectable therapies approved by the FDA in 2017 for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.³ They inhibit IL-23 signaling by targeting the p19 subunit in addition to sparing IL-12.^3,7

A novel oral therapeutic peptide, JNJ-2113—the first oral IL-23 receptor antagonist peptide that blocks IL-23 signaling—has been developed, offering a new way to treat moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Trial results from a phase 2 study (FRONTIER1) have supported JNJ-2113’s advancement into phase 3.^7,8 Patients who received JNJ-2113 successfully achieved PASI75 in addition to surpassing PASI90 and PASI100 at greater proportions compared to placebo at week 16.⁷

The promising early results of JNJ-2113 provide patients with greater flexibility and convenience for treatment options to address the manifestations of psoriasis. Although a considerable number of patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis qualify for advanced therapies, a substantial proportion remain untreated. Introducing an oral route of medication administration may help overcome barriers to therapy access due to a greater preference for pills over injections.⁹

TNF-α Inhibitors—Adalimumab is a TNF-α inhibitor that is used to treat moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis in adults who are candidates for systemic phototherapy.^1,10 However, one of the main barriers to initiating treatment has been cost. Biosimilars contribute to market competition, thus allowing the possibility of lower drug prices.¹⁰

There are 9 FDA-approved biosimilar products for adalimumab, with 2 having interchangeable designation. The first interchangeable biosimilar to enter the US market, adalimumab-adbm, became available in July 2023. In October 2023, adalimumab-afzb was granted interchangeable designation,¹¹ which enables pharmacists to swiftly substitute brand products for lower-cost biosimilars, providing patients with equally safe and effective alternatives without the delay of involving the prescribing clinician.¹² Pricing information indicates an initial 5% discount, which may later increase to 60%, from brand name adalimumab. Hopefully, reduced drug costs due to market competition will allow more patients to overcome barriers to therapy access.

IL-12/IL-23—Ustekinumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets IL-12 and IL-23. The FDA recently approved ustekinumab-auub as the first interchangeable ustekinumab biosimilar for the treatment of various inflammatory diseases, including moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.^12,13 The approval of ustekinumab-auub expands therapeutic options for the treatment of diverse inflammatory diseases. As the first interchangeable biosimilar in its category, this development underscores the importance of biosimilars in providing effective and accessible treatment.^12,14

Topical Innovations

In October 2023, the FDA approved an expanded indication for roflumilast cream 0.3% to treat children as young as 6 years for plaque psoriasis, even for use in intertriginous areas,¹⁵ which is a milestone given the lack of treatment options for the pediatric population because topical steroids, the most common treatment option for plaque psoriasis, can have safety concerns related to long-term use. With the advent of this steroid-free topical agent, pediatric patients have a safe and well-tolerated option for managing plaque psoriasis.¹⁶ This promising effort will now expand to trials in children as young as 2 years to test efficacy.¹⁶

Engel et al¹⁷ proposed a new algorithmic approach to the topical management of psoriasis with roflumilast cream and tapinarof cream as first-line treatments for mild disease due to their novelty in treating intertriginous areas, whereas traditional topical steroids in these areas would be inapt.¹⁷ The latest indication for roflumilast cream suggests that this proposed recommendation could be a promising and convenient enhancement to psoriasis management, potentially outperforming traditional topical corticosteroids.^15,17

Final Thoughts

Innovative targeted therapies ranging from new biologic agents to broader applications of topical treatments hold the potential to transform conventional psoriasis management with greater efficacy and safety, which can help create a more effective and personalized approach with greater patient satisfaction, ultimately enhancing overall quality of life. The choice of treatment is dependent not only on the severity of the disease but also on accessibility considerations such as cost. Overall, these innovative therapies add substantial value to the treatment armamentarium for psoriasis.

Psoriasis is a chronic autoimmune skin condition that affects approximately 2% to 4% of the US population and notably impacts overall quality of life.^1,2 There is no cure for this long-lasting condition. Fortunately, recent developments in research have led to more targeted therapies, paving the way for a more promising transformative landscape of psoriasis management. Herein, we explore the most up-to-date advancements and developments in the realm of psoriasis care.

Emerging Systemic Therapies

Biologics are cutting-edge treatments available for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, as IL-17A, IL-23, and tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) have been recognized as key targets.³

IL-17—Bimekizumab is a unique monoclonal antibody that inhibits the activity of both IL-17A and IL-17F cytokines.³ This treatment was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in October 2023 for patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.⁴

Bimekizumab outperformed ustekinumab in the BE VIVID phase 3 trial, with 273 of 321 patients (85%) receiving bimekizumab vs 81 of 163 patients (50%) receiving ustekinumab experiencing at least 90% improvement in psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) score at week 16.⁴ In a 2020 observational study (PSO-BIO-REAL), the efficacy rate of skin clearance after 6 months of treatment with biologics was only 25% (1/4).⁵ Aside from moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, bimekizumab demonstrated notable improvement in patients with psoriatic arthritis who had inadequate response or intolerance to TNF-α inhibitors compared to a placebo group in the BE COMPLETE phase 3 trial.⁶

IL-23—Guselkumab, risankizumab, and tildrakizumab are injectable therapies approved by the FDA in 2017 for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.³ They inhibit IL-23 signaling by targeting the p19 subunit in addition to sparing IL-12.^3,7

A novel oral therapeutic peptide, JNJ-2113—the first oral IL-23 receptor antagonist peptide that blocks IL-23 signaling—has been developed, offering a new way to treat moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Trial results from a phase 2 study (FRONTIER1) have supported JNJ-2113’s advancement into phase 3.^7,8 Patients who received JNJ-2113 successfully achieved PASI75 in addition to surpassing PASI90 and PASI100 at greater proportions compared to placebo at week 16.⁷

The promising early results of JNJ-2113 provide patients with greater flexibility and convenience for treatment options to address the manifestations of psoriasis. Although a considerable number of patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis qualify for advanced therapies, a substantial proportion remain untreated. Introducing an oral route of medication administration may help overcome barriers to therapy access due to a greater preference for pills over injections.⁹

TNF-α Inhibitors—Adalimumab is a TNF-α inhibitor that is used to treat moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis in adults who are candidates for systemic phototherapy.^1,10 However, one of the main barriers to initiating treatment has been cost. Biosimilars contribute to market competition, thus allowing the possibility of lower drug prices.¹⁰

There are 9 FDA-approved biosimilar products for adalimumab, with 2 having interchangeable designation. The first interchangeable biosimilar to enter the US market, adalimumab-adbm, became available in July 2023. In October 2023, adalimumab-afzb was granted interchangeable designation,¹¹ which enables pharmacists to swiftly substitute brand products for lower-cost biosimilars, providing patients with equally safe and effective alternatives without the delay of involving the prescribing clinician.¹² Pricing information indicates an initial 5% discount, which may later increase to 60%, from brand name adalimumab. Hopefully, reduced drug costs due to market competition will allow more patients to overcome barriers to therapy access.

IL-12/IL-23—Ustekinumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets IL-12 and IL-23. The FDA recently approved ustekinumab-auub as the first interchangeable ustekinumab biosimilar for the treatment of various inflammatory diseases, including moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.^12,13 The approval of ustekinumab-auub expands therapeutic options for the treatment of diverse inflammatory diseases. As the first interchangeable biosimilar in its category, this development underscores the importance of biosimilars in providing effective and accessible treatment.^12,14

Topical Innovations

In October 2023, the FDA approved an expanded indication for roflumilast cream 0.3% to treat children as young as 6 years for plaque psoriasis, even for use in intertriginous areas,¹⁵ which is a milestone given the lack of treatment options for the pediatric population because topical steroids, the most common treatment option for plaque psoriasis, can have safety concerns related to long-term use. With the advent of this steroid-free topical agent, pediatric patients have a safe and well-tolerated option for managing plaque psoriasis.¹⁶ This promising effort will now expand to trials in children as young as 2 years to test efficacy.¹⁶

Engel et al¹⁷ proposed a new algorithmic approach to the topical management of psoriasis with roflumilast cream and tapinarof cream as first-line treatments for mild disease due to their novelty in treating intertriginous areas, whereas traditional topical steroids in these areas would be inapt.¹⁷ The latest indication for roflumilast cream suggests that this proposed recommendation could be a promising and convenient enhancement to psoriasis management, potentially outperforming traditional topical corticosteroids.^15,17

Final Thoughts

Innovative targeted therapies ranging from new biologic agents to broader applications of topical treatments hold the potential to transform conventional psoriasis management with greater efficacy and safety, which can help create a more effective and personalized approach with greater patient satisfaction, ultimately enhancing overall quality of life. The choice of treatment is dependent not only on the severity of the disease but also on accessibility considerations such as cost. Overall, these innovative therapies add substantial value to the treatment armamentarium for psoriasis.

Psoriasis is a chronic autoimmune skin condition that affects approximately 2% to 4% of the US population and notably impacts overall quality of life.^1,2 There is no cure for this long-lasting condition. Fortunately, recent developments in research have led to more targeted therapies, paving the way for a more promising transformative landscape of psoriasis management. Herein, we explore the most up-to-date advancements and developments in the realm of psoriasis care.

Emerging Systemic Therapies

Biologics are cutting-edge treatments available for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, as IL-17A, IL-23, and tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) have been recognized as key targets.³

IL-17—Bimekizumab is a unique monoclonal antibody that inhibits the activity of both IL-17A and IL-17F cytokines.³ This treatment was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in October 2023 for patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.⁴

Bimekizumab outperformed ustekinumab in the BE VIVID phase 3 trial, with 273 of 321 patients (85%) receiving bimekizumab vs 81 of 163 patients (50%) receiving ustekinumab experiencing at least 90% improvement in psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) score at week 16.⁴ In a 2020 observational study (PSO-BIO-REAL), the efficacy rate of skin clearance after 6 months of treatment with biologics was only 25% (1/4).⁵ Aside from moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, bimekizumab demonstrated notable improvement in patients with psoriatic arthritis who had inadequate response or intolerance to TNF-α inhibitors compared to a placebo group in the BE COMPLETE phase 3 trial.⁶

IL-23—Guselkumab, risankizumab, and tildrakizumab are injectable therapies approved by the FDA in 2017 for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.³ They inhibit IL-23 signaling by targeting the p19 subunit in addition to sparing IL-12.^3,7

A novel oral therapeutic peptide, JNJ-2113—the first oral IL-23 receptor antagonist peptide that blocks IL-23 signaling—has been developed, offering a new way to treat moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Trial results from a phase 2 study (FRONTIER1) have supported JNJ-2113’s advancement into phase 3.^7,8 Patients who received JNJ-2113 successfully achieved PASI75 in addition to surpassing PASI90 and PASI100 at greater proportions compared to placebo at week 16.⁷

The promising early results of JNJ-2113 provide patients with greater flexibility and convenience for treatment options to address the manifestations of psoriasis. Although a considerable number of patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis qualify for advanced therapies, a substantial proportion remain untreated. Introducing an oral route of medication administration may help overcome barriers to therapy access due to a greater preference for pills over injections.⁹

TNF-α Inhibitors—Adalimumab is a TNF-α inhibitor that is used to treat moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis in adults who are candidates for systemic phototherapy.^1,10 However, one of the main barriers to initiating treatment has been cost. Biosimilars contribute to market competition, thus allowing the possibility of lower drug prices.¹⁰

There are 9 FDA-approved biosimilar products for adalimumab, with 2 having interchangeable designation. The first interchangeable biosimilar to enter the US market, adalimumab-adbm, became available in July 2023. In October 2023, adalimumab-afzb was granted interchangeable designation,¹¹ which enables pharmacists to swiftly substitute brand products for lower-cost biosimilars, providing patients with equally safe and effective alternatives without the delay of involving the prescribing clinician.¹² Pricing information indicates an initial 5% discount, which may later increase to 60%, from brand name adalimumab. Hopefully, reduced drug costs due to market competition will allow more patients to overcome barriers to therapy access.

IL-12/IL-23—Ustekinumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets IL-12 and IL-23. The FDA recently approved ustekinumab-auub as the first interchangeable ustekinumab biosimilar for the treatment of various inflammatory diseases, including moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.^12,13 The approval of ustekinumab-auub expands therapeutic options for the treatment of diverse inflammatory diseases. As the first interchangeable biosimilar in its category, this development underscores the importance of biosimilars in providing effective and accessible treatment.^12,14

Topical Innovations

In October 2023, the FDA approved an expanded indication for roflumilast cream 0.3% to treat children as young as 6 years for plaque psoriasis, even for use in intertriginous areas,¹⁵ which is a milestone given the lack of treatment options for the pediatric population because topical steroids, the most common treatment option for plaque psoriasis, can have safety concerns related to long-term use. With the advent of this steroid-free topical agent, pediatric patients have a safe and well-tolerated option for managing plaque psoriasis.¹⁶ This promising effort will now expand to trials in children as young as 2 years to test efficacy.¹⁶

Engel et al¹⁷ proposed a new algorithmic approach to the topical management of psoriasis with roflumilast cream and tapinarof cream as first-line treatments for mild disease due to their novelty in treating intertriginous areas, whereas traditional topical steroids in these areas would be inapt.¹⁷ The latest indication for roflumilast cream suggests that this proposed recommendation could be a promising and convenient enhancement to psoriasis management, potentially outperforming traditional topical corticosteroids.^15,17

Final Thoughts

Innovative targeted therapies ranging from new biologic agents to broader applications of topical treatments hold the potential to transform conventional psoriasis management with greater efficacy and safety, which can help create a more effective and personalized approach with greater patient satisfaction, ultimately enhancing overall quality of life. The choice of treatment is dependent not only on the severity of the disease but also on accessibility considerations such as cost. Overall, these innovative therapies add substantial value to the treatment armamentarium for psoriasis.

In April 2023, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued a controversial recommendation that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the benefits vs harms of visual skin examination by clinicians for skin cancer screening in adolescents and adults who do not have signs or symptoms of skin cancer.^1,2 This recommendation by the USPSTF has not changed in a quarter century,³ but a recent study described an interesting paradox that should trigger wide evaluation and debate.

Patel et al⁴ analyzed data from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program from January 2000 to December 2018 to identify adults with a diagnosis of first primary melanoma in situ (MIS). Overall mortality was then determined through the National Vital Statistics System, which provides cause-of-death information for all deaths in the United States. The authors found 137,872 patients who had 1—and only 1—MIS discovered over the observation period. These patients predominantly were White (96.7%), and the mean (SD) age at diagnosis was 61.9 (16.5) years. During 910,308 total person-years of follow-up (mean [SD], 6.6 [5.1] years), 893 (0.6%) patients died of melanoma and 17,327 (12.6%) died of any cause. The 15-year melanoma-specific standardized mortality rate (SMR) was 1.89 (95% CI, 1.77-2.02), yet the 15-year overall survival relative to matched population controls was 112.4% (95% CI, 112.0%-112.8%), thus all-cause SMR was significantly lower at 0.68 (95% CI, 0.67-0.7). Although MIS was associated with a small increase in cohort melanoma mortality, overall mortality was actually lower than in the general population.⁴

Patel et al⁴ did a further broader search that included an additional 18,379 patients who also experienced a second primary melanoma, of which 6751 (36.7%) were invasive and 11,628 (63.3%) were in situ, with a melanoma-specific survival of 98.2% (95% CI, 97.6%-98.5%). Yet relative all-cause survival was significantly higher at 126.7% (95% CI, 125.5%-128.0%). Even among patients in whom a second primary melanoma was invasive, melanoma-specific survival was reduced to 91.1% (95% CI, 90.0%-92.1%), but relative all-cause survival was 116.7% (95% CI, 115%-118.4%). These data in the overall cohort of 155,251 patients showed a discordance between melanoma mortality, which was 4.27-times higher than in the general population (SMR, 4.27; 95% CI, 4.07-4.48), and a lower risk for death from all causes that was approximately 27% lower than in the general population (SMR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.72-0.74). The authors showed that their findings were not associated with socioeconomic status.⁴

The analysis by Patel et al⁴ is now the second study in the literature to show this discordant melanoma survival pattern. In an earlier Australian study of 2452 melanoma patients, Watts et al⁵ reported that melanoma detection during routine skin checks was associated with a 25% lower all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63-0.90) but not melanoma-specific mortality after multivariable adjustment for a variety of factors including socioeconomic status.These analyses by 2 different groups of investigators have broad implications. Both groups suggested that the improved life span in melanoma patients may be due to health-seeking behavior, which has been defined as “any action undertaken by individuals who perceive themselves to have a health problem or to be ill for the purpose of finding an appropriate remedy.”⁶

Once treated for melanoma, it is clear that patients are likely to return at regular intervals for thorough full-body skin examinations, but this activity alone could not be responsible for improved all-cause mortality in the face of increased melanoma-specific mortality. It seems the authors are implying a broader concept of good health behavior, originally defined by MacKian⁷ as encompassing “activities undertaken to maintain good health, to prevent ill health, as well as dealing with any departure from a good state of health,” such as overt behavioral patterns, actions, and habits with the goal of maintenance, restoration, and improvement of one’s health. A variety of behaviors fall within such a definition including smoking cessation, decreased alcohol use, good diet, more physical activity, safe sexual behavior, scheduling physician visits, medication adherence, vaccination, and yes—screening examinations for health problems.⁸

The concept that individuals who are diagnosed with melanoma fall into a pattern of good health behavior is an interesting hypothesis that must remain speculative until the multiple aspects of good health behavior are rigorously studied. This concept coexists with the hypothesis of melanoma “overdiagnosis”—the idea that many melanomas are detected that will never lead to death.⁹ Both concepts deserve further analysis. Unquestionably, a randomized controlled trial could never recruit patients willing to undergo long-term untreated observation of their melanomas to test the hypothesis that their melanoma diagnosis would eventually lead to death. Furthermore, Patel et al⁴ do suggest that even MIS carries a small but measurable increased risk for death from the disease, which is not particularly supportive of the overdiagnosis hypothesis; however, analysis of the concept that improved individual health behavior is at least in part responsible for the first discovery of melanomas is certainly approachable. Here is the key question: Did the melanoma diagnosis trigger a sudden change in multiple aspects of health behavior that led to significant all-cause mortality benefits? The average age of the population studied by Patel et al⁴ was approximately 62 years. One wonders whether the consequences of a lifetime of established health behavior patterns can be rapidly ­modified—certainly possible but again remains to be proven by further studies.

Conversely, the alternative hypothesis is that discovery of MIS was the result of active pursuit of self-examination and screening procedures as part of individually ingrained good health behavior over a lifetime. Goodwin et al¹⁰ carried out a study in a sample of the Medicare population aged 69 to 90 years looking at men who had prostate cancer screening via prostate-specific antigen measurement and women who had undergone mammography in older age, compared to the contrast population who had not had these screening procedures. They tracked date of death in Medicare enrollment files. They identified 543,970 women and 362,753 men who were aged 69 to 90 years as of January 1, 2003. Patients were stratified by life expectancy based on age and comorbidity. Within each stratum, the patients with cancer screening had higher actual median survival than those who were not screened, with differences ranging from 1.7 to 2.1 years for women and 0.9 to 1.1 years for men.¹⁰ These results were not the result of lower prostate or breast cancer mortality. Rather, one surmises that other health factors yielded lower mortality in the screened cohorts.

A full-body skin examination is a time-consuming process. Patients who come to their physician for a routine annual physical don’t expect a skin examination and very few physicians have the time for a long detailed full-body skin examination. When the patient presents to a dermatologist for an examination, it often is because they have real concerns; for example, they may have had a family member who died of skin cancer, or the patient themself may have noticed a worrisome lesion. Patients, not physicians, are the drivers of skin cancer screening, a fact that often is dismissed by those who are not necessarily supportive of the practice.

In light of the findings of Patel et al,⁴ it is essential that the USPSTF reviews be reanalyzed to compare skin cancer–specific mortality, all-cause mortality, and lifespan in individuals who pursue skin cancer screening; the reanalysis also should not be exclusively limited to survival. With the advent of the immune checkpoint inhibitors, patients with metastatic melanoma are living much longer.¹¹ The burden of living with metastatic cancer must be characterized and measured to have a complete picture and a valid analysis.

After the release of the USPSTF recommendation, there have been calls for large-scale studies to prove the benefits of skin cancer screening.¹² Such studies may be valuable; however, if the hypothesis that overall healthy behavior as the major outcome determinant is substantiated, it may prove quite challenging to perform tests of association with specific interventions. It has been shown that skin cancer screening does lead to discovery of more melanomas,¹³ yet in light of the paradox described by Patel et al,⁴ it also is likely that causes of death other than melanoma impact overall mortality. Patients who pursue skin examinations may engage in multiple different health activities that are beneficial in the long term, making it difficult to analyze the specific benefit of skin cancer screening in isolation. It may prove difficult to ask patients to omit selected aspects of healthy behavior to try to prove the point. At this time, there is much more work to be done prior to offering opinions on the importance of skin cancer examination in isolation to improve overall health care. In the meantime, dermatologists owe it to our patients to continue to diligently pursue thorough and detailed skin examinations.

In April 2023, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued a controversial recommendation that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the benefits vs harms of visual skin examination by clinicians for skin cancer screening in adolescents and adults who do not have signs or symptoms of skin cancer.^1,2 This recommendation by the USPSTF has not changed in a quarter century,³ but a recent study described an interesting paradox that should trigger wide evaluation and debate.

Patel et al⁴ analyzed data from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program from January 2000 to December 2018 to identify adults with a diagnosis of first primary melanoma in situ (MIS). Overall mortality was then determined through the National Vital Statistics System, which provides cause-of-death information for all deaths in the United States. The authors found 137,872 patients who had 1—and only 1—MIS discovered over the observation period. These patients predominantly were White (96.7%), and the mean (SD) age at diagnosis was 61.9 (16.5) years. During 910,308 total person-years of follow-up (mean [SD], 6.6 [5.1] years), 893 (0.6%) patients died of melanoma and 17,327 (12.6%) died of any cause. The 15-year melanoma-specific standardized mortality rate (SMR) was 1.89 (95% CI, 1.77-2.02), yet the 15-year overall survival relative to matched population controls was 112.4% (95% CI, 112.0%-112.8%), thus all-cause SMR was significantly lower at 0.68 (95% CI, 0.67-0.7). Although MIS was associated with a small increase in cohort melanoma mortality, overall mortality was actually lower than in the general population.⁴

Patel et al⁴ did a further broader search that included an additional 18,379 patients who also experienced a second primary melanoma, of which 6751 (36.7%) were invasive and 11,628 (63.3%) were in situ, with a melanoma-specific survival of 98.2% (95% CI, 97.6%-98.5%). Yet relative all-cause survival was significantly higher at 126.7% (95% CI, 125.5%-128.0%). Even among patients in whom a second primary melanoma was invasive, melanoma-specific survival was reduced to 91.1% (95% CI, 90.0%-92.1%), but relative all-cause survival was 116.7% (95% CI, 115%-118.4%). These data in the overall cohort of 155,251 patients showed a discordance between melanoma mortality, which was 4.27-times higher than in the general population (SMR, 4.27; 95% CI, 4.07-4.48), and a lower risk for death from all causes that was approximately 27% lower than in the general population (SMR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.72-0.74). The authors showed that their findings were not associated with socioeconomic status.⁴

The analysis by Patel et al⁴ is now the second study in the literature to show this discordant melanoma survival pattern. In an earlier Australian study of 2452 melanoma patients, Watts et al⁵ reported that melanoma detection during routine skin checks was associated with a 25% lower all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63-0.90) but not melanoma-specific mortality after multivariable adjustment for a variety of factors including socioeconomic status.These analyses by 2 different groups of investigators have broad implications. Both groups suggested that the improved life span in melanoma patients may be due to health-seeking behavior, which has been defined as “any action undertaken by individuals who perceive themselves to have a health problem or to be ill for the purpose of finding an appropriate remedy.”⁶

Once treated for melanoma, it is clear that patients are likely to return at regular intervals for thorough full-body skin examinations, but this activity alone could not be responsible for improved all-cause mortality in the face of increased melanoma-specific mortality. It seems the authors are implying a broader concept of good health behavior, originally defined by MacKian⁷ as encompassing “activities undertaken to maintain good health, to prevent ill health, as well as dealing with any departure from a good state of health,” such as overt behavioral patterns, actions, and habits with the goal of maintenance, restoration, and improvement of one’s health. A variety of behaviors fall within such a definition including smoking cessation, decreased alcohol use, good diet, more physical activity, safe sexual behavior, scheduling physician visits, medication adherence, vaccination, and yes—screening examinations for health problems.⁸

The concept that individuals who are diagnosed with melanoma fall into a pattern of good health behavior is an interesting hypothesis that must remain speculative until the multiple aspects of good health behavior are rigorously studied. This concept coexists with the hypothesis of melanoma “overdiagnosis”—the idea that many melanomas are detected that will never lead to death.⁹ Both concepts deserve further analysis. Unquestionably, a randomized controlled trial could never recruit patients willing to undergo long-term untreated observation of their melanomas to test the hypothesis that their melanoma diagnosis would eventually lead to death. Furthermore, Patel et al⁴ do suggest that even MIS carries a small but measurable increased risk for death from the disease, which is not particularly supportive of the overdiagnosis hypothesis; however, analysis of the concept that improved individual health behavior is at least in part responsible for the first discovery of melanomas is certainly approachable. Here is the key question: Did the melanoma diagnosis trigger a sudden change in multiple aspects of health behavior that led to significant all-cause mortality benefits? The average age of the population studied by Patel et al⁴ was approximately 62 years. One wonders whether the consequences of a lifetime of established health behavior patterns can be rapidly ­modified—certainly possible but again remains to be proven by further studies.

Conversely, the alternative hypothesis is that discovery of MIS was the result of active pursuit of self-examination and screening procedures as part of individually ingrained good health behavior over a lifetime. Goodwin et al¹⁰ carried out a study in a sample of the Medicare population aged 69 to 90 years looking at men who had prostate cancer screening via prostate-specific antigen measurement and women who had undergone mammography in older age, compared to the contrast population who had not had these screening procedures. They tracked date of death in Medicare enrollment files. They identified 543,970 women and 362,753 men who were aged 69 to 90 years as of January 1, 2003. Patients were stratified by life expectancy based on age and comorbidity. Within each stratum, the patients with cancer screening had higher actual median survival than those who were not screened, with differences ranging from 1.7 to 2.1 years for women and 0.9 to 1.1 years for men.¹⁰ These results were not the result of lower prostate or breast cancer mortality. Rather, one surmises that other health factors yielded lower mortality in the screened cohorts.

A full-body skin examination is a time-consuming process. Patients who come to their physician for a routine annual physical don’t expect a skin examination and very few physicians have the time for a long detailed full-body skin examination. When the patient presents to a dermatologist for an examination, it often is because they have real concerns; for example, they may have had a family member who died of skin cancer, or the patient themself may have noticed a worrisome lesion. Patients, not physicians, are the drivers of skin cancer screening, a fact that often is dismissed by those who are not necessarily supportive of the practice.

In light of the findings of Patel et al,⁴ it is essential that the USPSTF reviews be reanalyzed to compare skin cancer–specific mortality, all-cause mortality, and lifespan in individuals who pursue skin cancer screening; the reanalysis also should not be exclusively limited to survival. With the advent of the immune checkpoint inhibitors, patients with metastatic melanoma are living much longer.¹¹ The burden of living with metastatic cancer must be characterized and measured to have a complete picture and a valid analysis.

After the release of the USPSTF recommendation, there have been calls for large-scale studies to prove the benefits of skin cancer screening.¹² Such studies may be valuable; however, if the hypothesis that overall healthy behavior as the major outcome determinant is substantiated, it may prove quite challenging to perform tests of association with specific interventions. It has been shown that skin cancer screening does lead to discovery of more melanomas,¹³ yet in light of the paradox described by Patel et al,⁴ it also is likely that causes of death other than melanoma impact overall mortality. Patients who pursue skin examinations may engage in multiple different health activities that are beneficial in the long term, making it difficult to analyze the specific benefit of skin cancer screening in isolation. It may prove difficult to ask patients to omit selected aspects of healthy behavior to try to prove the point. At this time, there is much more work to be done prior to offering opinions on the importance of skin cancer examination in isolation to improve overall health care. In the meantime, dermatologists owe it to our patients to continue to diligently pursue thorough and detailed skin examinations.

In April 2023, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued a controversial recommendation that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the benefits vs harms of visual skin examination by clinicians for skin cancer screening in adolescents and adults who do not have signs or symptoms of skin cancer.^1,2 This recommendation by the USPSTF has not changed in a quarter century,³ but a recent study described an interesting paradox that should trigger wide evaluation and debate.

Patel et al⁴ analyzed data from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program from January 2000 to December 2018 to identify adults with a diagnosis of first primary melanoma in situ (MIS). Overall mortality was then determined through the National Vital Statistics System, which provides cause-of-death information for all deaths in the United States. The authors found 137,872 patients who had 1—and only 1—MIS discovered over the observation period. These patients predominantly were White (96.7%), and the mean (SD) age at diagnosis was 61.9 (16.5) years. During 910,308 total person-years of follow-up (mean [SD], 6.6 [5.1] years), 893 (0.6%) patients died of melanoma and 17,327 (12.6%) died of any cause. The 15-year melanoma-specific standardized mortality rate (SMR) was 1.89 (95% CI, 1.77-2.02), yet the 15-year overall survival relative to matched population controls was 112.4% (95% CI, 112.0%-112.8%), thus all-cause SMR was significantly lower at 0.68 (95% CI, 0.67-0.7). Although MIS was associated with a small increase in cohort melanoma mortality, overall mortality was actually lower than in the general population.⁴

Patel et al⁴ did a further broader search that included an additional 18,379 patients who also experienced a second primary melanoma, of which 6751 (36.7%) were invasive and 11,628 (63.3%) were in situ, with a melanoma-specific survival of 98.2% (95% CI, 97.6%-98.5%). Yet relative all-cause survival was significantly higher at 126.7% (95% CI, 125.5%-128.0%). Even among patients in whom a second primary melanoma was invasive, melanoma-specific survival was reduced to 91.1% (95% CI, 90.0%-92.1%), but relative all-cause survival was 116.7% (95% CI, 115%-118.4%). These data in the overall cohort of 155,251 patients showed a discordance between melanoma mortality, which was 4.27-times higher than in the general population (SMR, 4.27; 95% CI, 4.07-4.48), and a lower risk for death from all causes that was approximately 27% lower than in the general population (SMR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.72-0.74). The authors showed that their findings were not associated with socioeconomic status.⁴

The analysis by Patel et al⁴ is now the second study in the literature to show this discordant melanoma survival pattern. In an earlier Australian study of 2452 melanoma patients, Watts et al⁵ reported that melanoma detection during routine skin checks was associated with a 25% lower all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63-0.90) but not melanoma-specific mortality after multivariable adjustment for a variety of factors including socioeconomic status.These analyses by 2 different groups of investigators have broad implications. Both groups suggested that the improved life span in melanoma patients may be due to health-seeking behavior, which has been defined as “any action undertaken by individuals who perceive themselves to have a health problem or to be ill for the purpose of finding an appropriate remedy.”⁶

Once treated for melanoma, it is clear that patients are likely to return at regular intervals for thorough full-body skin examinations, but this activity alone could not be responsible for improved all-cause mortality in the face of increased melanoma-specific mortality. It seems the authors are implying a broader concept of good health behavior, originally defined by MacKian⁷ as encompassing “activities undertaken to maintain good health, to prevent ill health, as well as dealing with any departure from a good state of health,” such as overt behavioral patterns, actions, and habits with the goal of maintenance, restoration, and improvement of one’s health. A variety of behaviors fall within such a definition including smoking cessation, decreased alcohol use, good diet, more physical activity, safe sexual behavior, scheduling physician visits, medication adherence, vaccination, and yes—screening examinations for health problems.⁸

The concept that individuals who are diagnosed with melanoma fall into a pattern of good health behavior is an interesting hypothesis that must remain speculative until the multiple aspects of good health behavior are rigorously studied. This concept coexists with the hypothesis of melanoma “overdiagnosis”—the idea that many melanomas are detected that will never lead to death.⁹ Both concepts deserve further analysis. Unquestionably, a randomized controlled trial could never recruit patients willing to undergo long-term untreated observation of their melanomas to test the hypothesis that their melanoma diagnosis would eventually lead to death. Furthermore, Patel et al⁴ do suggest that even MIS carries a small but measurable increased risk for death from the disease, which is not particularly supportive of the overdiagnosis hypothesis; however, analysis of the concept that improved individual health behavior is at least in part responsible for the first discovery of melanomas is certainly approachable. Here is the key question: Did the melanoma diagnosis trigger a sudden change in multiple aspects of health behavior that led to significant all-cause mortality benefits? The average age of the population studied by Patel et al⁴ was approximately 62 years. One wonders whether the consequences of a lifetime of established health behavior patterns can be rapidly ­modified—certainly possible but again remains to be proven by further studies.

Conversely, the alternative hypothesis is that discovery of MIS was the result of active pursuit of self-examination and screening procedures as part of individually ingrained good health behavior over a lifetime. Goodwin et al¹⁰ carried out a study in a sample of the Medicare population aged 69 to 90 years looking at men who had prostate cancer screening via prostate-specific antigen measurement and women who had undergone mammography in older age, compared to the contrast population who had not had these screening procedures. They tracked date of death in Medicare enrollment files. They identified 543,970 women and 362,753 men who were aged 69 to 90 years as of January 1, 2003. Patients were stratified by life expectancy based on age and comorbidity. Within each stratum, the patients with cancer screening had higher actual median survival than those who were not screened, with differences ranging from 1.7 to 2.1 years for women and 0.9 to 1.1 years for men.¹⁰ These results were not the result of lower prostate or breast cancer mortality. Rather, one surmises that other health factors yielded lower mortality in the screened cohorts.

A full-body skin examination is a time-consuming process. Patients who come to their physician for a routine annual physical don’t expect a skin examination and very few physicians have the time for a long detailed full-body skin examination. When the patient presents to a dermatologist for an examination, it often is because they have real concerns; for example, they may have had a family member who died of skin cancer, or the patient themself may have noticed a worrisome lesion. Patients, not physicians, are the drivers of skin cancer screening, a fact that often is dismissed by those who are not necessarily supportive of the practice.

In light of the findings of Patel et al,⁴ it is essential that the USPSTF reviews be reanalyzed to compare skin cancer–specific mortality, all-cause mortality, and lifespan in individuals who pursue skin cancer screening; the reanalysis also should not be exclusively limited to survival. With the advent of the immune checkpoint inhibitors, patients with metastatic melanoma are living much longer.¹¹ The burden of living with metastatic cancer must be characterized and measured to have a complete picture and a valid analysis.

After the release of the USPSTF recommendation, there have been calls for large-scale studies to prove the benefits of skin cancer screening.¹² Such studies may be valuable; however, if the hypothesis that overall healthy behavior as the major outcome determinant is substantiated, it may prove quite challenging to perform tests of association with specific interventions. It has been shown that skin cancer screening does lead to discovery of more melanomas,¹³ yet in light of the paradox described by Patel et al,⁴ it also is likely that causes of death other than melanoma impact overall mortality. Patients who pursue skin examinations may engage in multiple different health activities that are beneficial in the long term, making it difficult to analyze the specific benefit of skin cancer screening in isolation. It may prove difficult to ask patients to omit selected aspects of healthy behavior to try to prove the point. At this time, there is much more work to be done prior to offering opinions on the importance of skin cancer examination in isolation to improve overall health care. In the meantime, dermatologists owe it to our patients to continue to diligently pursue thorough and detailed skin examinations.