Artificial intelligence (AI) models are typically a year out of date and have this “charming problem of hallucinating made-up data and saying it with all the certainty of an attending on rounds,” Isaac Kohane, MD, PhD, Harvard Medical School, Boston, told a packed audience at plenary at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

Dr. Kohane, chair of the department of biomedical informatics, says the future intersection between AI and health care is “muddy.”

Echoing questions about the accuracy of new AI tools, researchers at the meeting presented the results of their new test of ChatGPT.

The AI chatbot is designed for language processing – not scientific accuracy – and does not guarantee that responses to medical queries are fully factual.

To test the accuracy of ChatGPT’s version 3.5, the researchers asked it if there are any boxed warnings on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s label for common antibiotics, and if so, what they are.

ChatGPT provided correct answers about FDA boxed warnings for only 12 of the 41 antibiotics queried – a matching rate of just 29%.

For the other 29 antibiotics, ChatGPT either “incorrectly reported that there was an FDA boxed warning when there was not, or inaccurately or incorrectly reported the boxed warning,” Rebecca Linfield, MD, infectious diseases fellow, Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview.
 

Uncritical AI use risky

Nine of the 41 antibiotics included in the query have boxed warnings. And ChatGPT correctly identified all nine, but only three were the matching adverse event (33%). For the 32 antibiotics without an FDA boxed warning, ChatGPT correctly reported that 28% (9 of 32) do not have a boxed warning.

For example, ChatGPT stated that the antibiotic fidaxomicin has a boxed warning for increased risk for Clostridioides difficile, “but it is the first-line antibiotic used to treat C. difficile,” Dr. Linfield pointed out.

ChatGPT also reported that cefepime increased the risk for death in those with pneumonia and fabricated a study supporting that assertion. “However, cefepime is a first-line drug for those with hospital-acquired pneumonia,” Dr. Linfield explained.

“I can imagine a worried family member finding this through ChatGPT, and needing to have extensive reassurances from the patient’s physicians about why this antibiotic was chosen,” she said.

ChatGPT also incorrectly stated that aztreonam has a boxed warning for increased mortality.

“The risk is that both physicians and the public uncritically use ChatGPT as an easily accessible, readable source of clinically validated information, when these large language models are meant to generate fluid text, and not necessarily accurate information,” Dr. Linfield told this news organization.

Dr. Linfield said that the next step is to compare the ChatGPT 3.5 used in this analysis with ChatGPT 4, as well as with Google’s Med-PaLM 2 after it is released to the public.
 

Advancing fast

At plenary, Dr. Kohane pointed out that AI is a quick learner and improvements in tools are coming fast.

As an example, just 3 years ago, the best AI tool could score about as well as the worst student taking the medical boards, he told the audience. “Three years later, the leading large language models are scoring better than 90% of all the candidates. What’s it going to be doing next year?” he asked.

“I don’t know,” Dr. Kohane said, “but it will be better than this year.” AI will “transform health care.”

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

Artificial intelligence (AI) models are typically a year out of date and have this “charming problem of hallucinating made-up data and saying it with all the certainty of an attending on rounds,” Isaac Kohane, MD, PhD, Harvard Medical School, Boston, told a packed audience at plenary at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

Dr. Kohane, chair of the department of biomedical informatics, says the future intersection between AI and health care is “muddy.”

Echoing questions about the accuracy of new AI tools, researchers at the meeting presented the results of their new test of ChatGPT.

The AI chatbot is designed for language processing – not scientific accuracy – and does not guarantee that responses to medical queries are fully factual.

To test the accuracy of ChatGPT’s version 3.5, the researchers asked it if there are any boxed warnings on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s label for common antibiotics, and if so, what they are.

ChatGPT provided correct answers about FDA boxed warnings for only 12 of the 41 antibiotics queried – a matching rate of just 29%.

For the other 29 antibiotics, ChatGPT either “incorrectly reported that there was an FDA boxed warning when there was not, or inaccurately or incorrectly reported the boxed warning,” Rebecca Linfield, MD, infectious diseases fellow, Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview.
 

Uncritical AI use risky

Nine of the 41 antibiotics included in the query have boxed warnings. And ChatGPT correctly identified all nine, but only three were the matching adverse event (33%). For the 32 antibiotics without an FDA boxed warning, ChatGPT correctly reported that 28% (9 of 32) do not have a boxed warning.

For example, ChatGPT stated that the antibiotic fidaxomicin has a boxed warning for increased risk for Clostridioides difficile, “but it is the first-line antibiotic used to treat C. difficile,” Dr. Linfield pointed out.

ChatGPT also reported that cefepime increased the risk for death in those with pneumonia and fabricated a study supporting that assertion. “However, cefepime is a first-line drug for those with hospital-acquired pneumonia,” Dr. Linfield explained.

“I can imagine a worried family member finding this through ChatGPT, and needing to have extensive reassurances from the patient’s physicians about why this antibiotic was chosen,” she said.

ChatGPT also incorrectly stated that aztreonam has a boxed warning for increased mortality.

“The risk is that both physicians and the public uncritically use ChatGPT as an easily accessible, readable source of clinically validated information, when these large language models are meant to generate fluid text, and not necessarily accurate information,” Dr. Linfield told this news organization.

Dr. Linfield said that the next step is to compare the ChatGPT 3.5 used in this analysis with ChatGPT 4, as well as with Google’s Med-PaLM 2 after it is released to the public.
 

Advancing fast

At plenary, Dr. Kohane pointed out that AI is a quick learner and improvements in tools are coming fast.

As an example, just 3 years ago, the best AI tool could score about as well as the worst student taking the medical boards, he told the audience. “Three years later, the leading large language models are scoring better than 90% of all the candidates. What’s it going to be doing next year?” he asked.

“I don’t know,” Dr. Kohane said, “but it will be better than this year.” AI will “transform health care.”

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

Artificial intelligence (AI) models are typically a year out of date and have this “charming problem of hallucinating made-up data and saying it with all the certainty of an attending on rounds,” Isaac Kohane, MD, PhD, Harvard Medical School, Boston, told a packed audience at plenary at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

Dr. Kohane, chair of the department of biomedical informatics, says the future intersection between AI and health care is “muddy.”

Echoing questions about the accuracy of new AI tools, researchers at the meeting presented the results of their new test of ChatGPT.

The AI chatbot is designed for language processing – not scientific accuracy – and does not guarantee that responses to medical queries are fully factual.

To test the accuracy of ChatGPT’s version 3.5, the researchers asked it if there are any boxed warnings on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s label for common antibiotics, and if so, what they are.

ChatGPT provided correct answers about FDA boxed warnings for only 12 of the 41 antibiotics queried – a matching rate of just 29%.

For the other 29 antibiotics, ChatGPT either “incorrectly reported that there was an FDA boxed warning when there was not, or inaccurately or incorrectly reported the boxed warning,” Rebecca Linfield, MD, infectious diseases fellow, Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview.
 

Uncritical AI use risky

Nine of the 41 antibiotics included in the query have boxed warnings. And ChatGPT correctly identified all nine, but only three were the matching adverse event (33%). For the 32 antibiotics without an FDA boxed warning, ChatGPT correctly reported that 28% (9 of 32) do not have a boxed warning.

For example, ChatGPT stated that the antibiotic fidaxomicin has a boxed warning for increased risk for Clostridioides difficile, “but it is the first-line antibiotic used to treat C. difficile,” Dr. Linfield pointed out.

ChatGPT also reported that cefepime increased the risk for death in those with pneumonia and fabricated a study supporting that assertion. “However, cefepime is a first-line drug for those with hospital-acquired pneumonia,” Dr. Linfield explained.

“I can imagine a worried family member finding this through ChatGPT, and needing to have extensive reassurances from the patient’s physicians about why this antibiotic was chosen,” she said.

ChatGPT also incorrectly stated that aztreonam has a boxed warning for increased mortality.

“The risk is that both physicians and the public uncritically use ChatGPT as an easily accessible, readable source of clinically validated information, when these large language models are meant to generate fluid text, and not necessarily accurate information,” Dr. Linfield told this news organization.

Dr. Linfield said that the next step is to compare the ChatGPT 3.5 used in this analysis with ChatGPT 4, as well as with Google’s Med-PaLM 2 after it is released to the public.
 

Advancing fast

At plenary, Dr. Kohane pointed out that AI is a quick learner and improvements in tools are coming fast.

As an example, just 3 years ago, the best AI tool could score about as well as the worst student taking the medical boards, he told the audience. “Three years later, the leading large language models are scoring better than 90% of all the candidates. What’s it going to be doing next year?” he asked.

“I don’t know,” Dr. Kohane said, “but it will be better than this year.” AI will “transform health care.”

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

WASHINGTON – A series of three higher-than-approved induction doses of the interleukin-23 inhibitor risankizumab in patients with psoriasis – and no further subsequent dosing – led to an “unprecedented” level of complete skin clearance at week 52 in a small study investigating whether high-dose IL-23 inhibition can target resident memory T cells and thereby induce long-term remission, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, reported at the annual research symposium of the National Psoriasis Foundation.

Understanding and trying to target resident memory T (Trm) cells has become a hot topic in psoriasis research, with possible importance for psoriatic arthritis as well. The cells, which normally develop within tissues in a pathogen-specific manner and persist after infections resolve, have been found in healed psoriatic skin and are believed to be responsible for recurrences of psoriasis at the same sites previously affected by the disease. Research suggests, moreover, that Trm cells are dependent on IL-23 for their survival, said Dr. Blauvelt, an investigator with the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.

Using an approach he has coined “knockout” therapy, 20 adult patients at the center were randomized 1:1 in double-blinded dosing to receive 300 mg or 600 mg of risankizumab (two and four times the standard initial doses, respectively) at 0, 4, and 16 weeks, and were seen every 4-6 weeks in a double-blinded follow-up period. Skin biopsies of lesional and nonlesional skin were collected at weeks 0 and 52 for RNA sequence analysis to evaluate changes in Trm cell number and effector function.

At week 28, almost all patients – 94% – achieved a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 90 score, and 83% achieved PASI 100. At week 52, of the 18 still-enrolled patients, 69% had PASI 90 scores and 43% maintained PASI 100 scores. “We’re not curing psoriasis, but that is incredible to have 43% still clear 9 months after the last dose,” Dr. Blauvelt said.

The findings are interim results that pool the two doses of risankizumab (Skyrizi). An evaluation of maintenance of efficacy with the 300-mg versus 600-mg doses and results of the skin biopsies will be presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, he said. Patients who have not had recurrences are being followed up to week 100 (unblinded).

Skin biopsy findings together with levels of clearance will “add insight as to whether high-dose IL-23 inhibition is associated with higher levels of complete clearance (i.e., PASI 100) over long periods of time, and whether remissions are associated with more profound knock-down of Trm cells,” Dr. Blauvelt wrote in an editorial on Trm cells in psoriasis published in the Journal of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

Risankizumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in 2019, and for active psoriatic arthritis in 2022.
 

Impact of IL-23 inhibition

A 2021 study, Dr. Blauvelt noted in his presentation, showed that the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya) reduced the number of Trm cells in healed psoriatic skin, while the IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) did not affect Trm cells.

Other researchers have concluded that local IL-23 is required for the proliferation and retention of Trm cells in the skin, he said, noting also that, as a class, IL-23 blockers “are associated with the longest disease-free intervals” in patients with psoriasis.

Research showing loss of Trm cells in biopsies of cleared skin is “incredibly important,” as is data showing that IL-23 may be “a critical survival factor” for Trm cells, said Christopher Ritchlin, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist and director of the clinical immunology research unit at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, who attended the NPF meeting and was asked to comment on the growing interest in Trm cells. He did not hear Dr. Blauvelt’s presentation but has followed Trm research in psoriasis.

Measuring Trm cells in synovial tissue of patients with psoriatic disease is, in fact, on the agenda of a new research team coled by Dr. Ritchlin that is part of the Autoimmune and Immune-Mediated Diseases Program of the Accelerating Medicine Partnership – a public-private partnership that aims to collect and analyze troves of biological data in order to illuminate the cellular and molecular interactions leading to autoimmune diseases.

“Resident memory T cells have been thought to be cells that are constrained to being resident in the tissue, and while that’s largely true, there’s more recent data showing that they actually can dedifferentiate and go back to the lymph node and then go back to the joint again,” Dr. Ritchlin noted in an interview. “So it’s a more complicated story,” but nonetheless targeting the cells is a concept worth exploring therapeutically.
 

Moving toward a cure?

The high induction doses of risankizumab in Dr. Blauvelt’s phase 2 “knockout” study were well tolerated through week 40, with safety profiles similar overall to those reported in previous studies of risankizumab and “no new safety signals,” Dr. Blauvelt said at the meeting.

(At baseline, patients had a mean disease duration of 21 years, a mean affected BSA of 21, and a mean PASI of 18.5. Seven had prior treatment with biologic medications, though not in the prior 4 months and not with risankizumab.)

In lieu of a cure, which is still possible in the next 10 years, he said, patients are eager for longer-term remission and the ability to break away from established regular dosing. After publication of a phase 1 study of risankizumab, in which a notable number of patients experienced complete skin clearance up to 1 year following a single high dose, “we started getting numerous calls in our [clinical trials] office from patients who said ‘I want to be on that drug that you give once a year,’ ” Dr. Blauvelt said. (The high dosing was not investigated any further in phase 2 and 3 research, he added.)

While the “knockout” study adopts a “hit hard” approach, it is also possible that a strategy to hit both hard and early after disease onset may induce long-term remission and/or cure of the disease. “I’m talking about using the best things first. There are hints that if we treat early, maybe we can keep [psoriasis] from becoming a chronic disease, keep it from ‘setting up shop’ if you will,” he said, noting that the “hit hard, hit early” concept is not unique to dermatology.

During a discussion period, Dr. Blauvelt said that in a future iteration of the “knockout” study, he would like to evaluate risankizumab in patients with disease duration under 12 months. It may also be valuable to look not only at Trm cells, but more broadly at other elements of the tissue architecture before and after treatment.

Among other strategies for achieving long-term remission and/or cure is the expansion of regulatory T cells, which work to “control inappropriate immune responses” and calm inflammation. Defects in the number and function of regulatory T cells are associated with psoriasis and other autoimmune diseases, and it appears in early research from other investigators that low-dose IL-2 can induce the expansion of regulatory T cells and improve psoriasis. “Keep tuned,” Dr. Blauvelt said.

Dr. Blauvelt disclosed ties with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ritchlin had no disclosures.

WASHINGTON – A series of three higher-than-approved induction doses of the interleukin-23 inhibitor risankizumab in patients with psoriasis – and no further subsequent dosing – led to an “unprecedented” level of complete skin clearance at week 52 in a small study investigating whether high-dose IL-23 inhibition can target resident memory T cells and thereby induce long-term remission, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, reported at the annual research symposium of the National Psoriasis Foundation.

Understanding and trying to target resident memory T (Trm) cells has become a hot topic in psoriasis research, with possible importance for psoriatic arthritis as well. The cells, which normally develop within tissues in a pathogen-specific manner and persist after infections resolve, have been found in healed psoriatic skin and are believed to be responsible for recurrences of psoriasis at the same sites previously affected by the disease. Research suggests, moreover, that Trm cells are dependent on IL-23 for their survival, said Dr. Blauvelt, an investigator with the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.

Using an approach he has coined “knockout” therapy, 20 adult patients at the center were randomized 1:1 in double-blinded dosing to receive 300 mg or 600 mg of risankizumab (two and four times the standard initial doses, respectively) at 0, 4, and 16 weeks, and were seen every 4-6 weeks in a double-blinded follow-up period. Skin biopsies of lesional and nonlesional skin were collected at weeks 0 and 52 for RNA sequence analysis to evaluate changes in Trm cell number and effector function.

At week 28, almost all patients – 94% – achieved a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 90 score, and 83% achieved PASI 100. At week 52, of the 18 still-enrolled patients, 69% had PASI 90 scores and 43% maintained PASI 100 scores. “We’re not curing psoriasis, but that is incredible to have 43% still clear 9 months after the last dose,” Dr. Blauvelt said.

The findings are interim results that pool the two doses of risankizumab (Skyrizi). An evaluation of maintenance of efficacy with the 300-mg versus 600-mg doses and results of the skin biopsies will be presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, he said. Patients who have not had recurrences are being followed up to week 100 (unblinded).

Skin biopsy findings together with levels of clearance will “add insight as to whether high-dose IL-23 inhibition is associated with higher levels of complete clearance (i.e., PASI 100) over long periods of time, and whether remissions are associated with more profound knock-down of Trm cells,” Dr. Blauvelt wrote in an editorial on Trm cells in psoriasis published in the Journal of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

Risankizumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in 2019, and for active psoriatic arthritis in 2022.
 

Impact of IL-23 inhibition

A 2021 study, Dr. Blauvelt noted in his presentation, showed that the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya) reduced the number of Trm cells in healed psoriatic skin, while the IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) did not affect Trm cells.

Other researchers have concluded that local IL-23 is required for the proliferation and retention of Trm cells in the skin, he said, noting also that, as a class, IL-23 blockers “are associated with the longest disease-free intervals” in patients with psoriasis.

Research showing loss of Trm cells in biopsies of cleared skin is “incredibly important,” as is data showing that IL-23 may be “a critical survival factor” for Trm cells, said Christopher Ritchlin, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist and director of the clinical immunology research unit at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, who attended the NPF meeting and was asked to comment on the growing interest in Trm cells. He did not hear Dr. Blauvelt’s presentation but has followed Trm research in psoriasis.

Measuring Trm cells in synovial tissue of patients with psoriatic disease is, in fact, on the agenda of a new research team coled by Dr. Ritchlin that is part of the Autoimmune and Immune-Mediated Diseases Program of the Accelerating Medicine Partnership – a public-private partnership that aims to collect and analyze troves of biological data in order to illuminate the cellular and molecular interactions leading to autoimmune diseases.

“Resident memory T cells have been thought to be cells that are constrained to being resident in the tissue, and while that’s largely true, there’s more recent data showing that they actually can dedifferentiate and go back to the lymph node and then go back to the joint again,” Dr. Ritchlin noted in an interview. “So it’s a more complicated story,” but nonetheless targeting the cells is a concept worth exploring therapeutically.
 

Moving toward a cure?

The high induction doses of risankizumab in Dr. Blauvelt’s phase 2 “knockout” study were well tolerated through week 40, with safety profiles similar overall to those reported in previous studies of risankizumab and “no new safety signals,” Dr. Blauvelt said at the meeting.

(At baseline, patients had a mean disease duration of 21 years, a mean affected BSA of 21, and a mean PASI of 18.5. Seven had prior treatment with biologic medications, though not in the prior 4 months and not with risankizumab.)

In lieu of a cure, which is still possible in the next 10 years, he said, patients are eager for longer-term remission and the ability to break away from established regular dosing. After publication of a phase 1 study of risankizumab, in which a notable number of patients experienced complete skin clearance up to 1 year following a single high dose, “we started getting numerous calls in our [clinical trials] office from patients who said ‘I want to be on that drug that you give once a year,’ ” Dr. Blauvelt said. (The high dosing was not investigated any further in phase 2 and 3 research, he added.)

While the “knockout” study adopts a “hit hard” approach, it is also possible that a strategy to hit both hard and early after disease onset may induce long-term remission and/or cure of the disease. “I’m talking about using the best things first. There are hints that if we treat early, maybe we can keep [psoriasis] from becoming a chronic disease, keep it from ‘setting up shop’ if you will,” he said, noting that the “hit hard, hit early” concept is not unique to dermatology.

During a discussion period, Dr. Blauvelt said that in a future iteration of the “knockout” study, he would like to evaluate risankizumab in patients with disease duration under 12 months. It may also be valuable to look not only at Trm cells, but more broadly at other elements of the tissue architecture before and after treatment.

Among other strategies for achieving long-term remission and/or cure is the expansion of regulatory T cells, which work to “control inappropriate immune responses” and calm inflammation. Defects in the number and function of regulatory T cells are associated with psoriasis and other autoimmune diseases, and it appears in early research from other investigators that low-dose IL-2 can induce the expansion of regulatory T cells and improve psoriasis. “Keep tuned,” Dr. Blauvelt said.

Dr. Blauvelt disclosed ties with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ritchlin had no disclosures.

WASHINGTON – A series of three higher-than-approved induction doses of the interleukin-23 inhibitor risankizumab in patients with psoriasis – and no further subsequent dosing – led to an “unprecedented” level of complete skin clearance at week 52 in a small study investigating whether high-dose IL-23 inhibition can target resident memory T cells and thereby induce long-term remission, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, reported at the annual research symposium of the National Psoriasis Foundation.

Understanding and trying to target resident memory T (Trm) cells has become a hot topic in psoriasis research, with possible importance for psoriatic arthritis as well. The cells, which normally develop within tissues in a pathogen-specific manner and persist after infections resolve, have been found in healed psoriatic skin and are believed to be responsible for recurrences of psoriasis at the same sites previously affected by the disease. Research suggests, moreover, that Trm cells are dependent on IL-23 for their survival, said Dr. Blauvelt, an investigator with the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.

Using an approach he has coined “knockout” therapy, 20 adult patients at the center were randomized 1:1 in double-blinded dosing to receive 300 mg or 600 mg of risankizumab (two and four times the standard initial doses, respectively) at 0, 4, and 16 weeks, and were seen every 4-6 weeks in a double-blinded follow-up period. Skin biopsies of lesional and nonlesional skin were collected at weeks 0 and 52 for RNA sequence analysis to evaluate changes in Trm cell number and effector function.

At week 28, almost all patients – 94% – achieved a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 90 score, and 83% achieved PASI 100. At week 52, of the 18 still-enrolled patients, 69% had PASI 90 scores and 43% maintained PASI 100 scores. “We’re not curing psoriasis, but that is incredible to have 43% still clear 9 months after the last dose,” Dr. Blauvelt said.

The findings are interim results that pool the two doses of risankizumab (Skyrizi). An evaluation of maintenance of efficacy with the 300-mg versus 600-mg doses and results of the skin biopsies will be presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, he said. Patients who have not had recurrences are being followed up to week 100 (unblinded).

Skin biopsy findings together with levels of clearance will “add insight as to whether high-dose IL-23 inhibition is associated with higher levels of complete clearance (i.e., PASI 100) over long periods of time, and whether remissions are associated with more profound knock-down of Trm cells,” Dr. Blauvelt wrote in an editorial on Trm cells in psoriasis published in the Journal of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

Risankizumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in 2019, and for active psoriatic arthritis in 2022.
 

Impact of IL-23 inhibition

A 2021 study, Dr. Blauvelt noted in his presentation, showed that the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya) reduced the number of Trm cells in healed psoriatic skin, while the IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) did not affect Trm cells.

Other researchers have concluded that local IL-23 is required for the proliferation and retention of Trm cells in the skin, he said, noting also that, as a class, IL-23 blockers “are associated with the longest disease-free intervals” in patients with psoriasis.

Research showing loss of Trm cells in biopsies of cleared skin is “incredibly important,” as is data showing that IL-23 may be “a critical survival factor” for Trm cells, said Christopher Ritchlin, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist and director of the clinical immunology research unit at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, who attended the NPF meeting and was asked to comment on the growing interest in Trm cells. He did not hear Dr. Blauvelt’s presentation but has followed Trm research in psoriasis.

Measuring Trm cells in synovial tissue of patients with psoriatic disease is, in fact, on the agenda of a new research team coled by Dr. Ritchlin that is part of the Autoimmune and Immune-Mediated Diseases Program of the Accelerating Medicine Partnership – a public-private partnership that aims to collect and analyze troves of biological data in order to illuminate the cellular and molecular interactions leading to autoimmune diseases.

“Resident memory T cells have been thought to be cells that are constrained to being resident in the tissue, and while that’s largely true, there’s more recent data showing that they actually can dedifferentiate and go back to the lymph node and then go back to the joint again,” Dr. Ritchlin noted in an interview. “So it’s a more complicated story,” but nonetheless targeting the cells is a concept worth exploring therapeutically.
 

Moving toward a cure?

The high induction doses of risankizumab in Dr. Blauvelt’s phase 2 “knockout” study were well tolerated through week 40, with safety profiles similar overall to those reported in previous studies of risankizumab and “no new safety signals,” Dr. Blauvelt said at the meeting.

(At baseline, patients had a mean disease duration of 21 years, a mean affected BSA of 21, and a mean PASI of 18.5. Seven had prior treatment with biologic medications, though not in the prior 4 months and not with risankizumab.)

In lieu of a cure, which is still possible in the next 10 years, he said, patients are eager for longer-term remission and the ability to break away from established regular dosing. After publication of a phase 1 study of risankizumab, in which a notable number of patients experienced complete skin clearance up to 1 year following a single high dose, “we started getting numerous calls in our [clinical trials] office from patients who said ‘I want to be on that drug that you give once a year,’ ” Dr. Blauvelt said. (The high dosing was not investigated any further in phase 2 and 3 research, he added.)

While the “knockout” study adopts a “hit hard” approach, it is also possible that a strategy to hit both hard and early after disease onset may induce long-term remission and/or cure of the disease. “I’m talking about using the best things first. There are hints that if we treat early, maybe we can keep [psoriasis] from becoming a chronic disease, keep it from ‘setting up shop’ if you will,” he said, noting that the “hit hard, hit early” concept is not unique to dermatology.

During a discussion period, Dr. Blauvelt said that in a future iteration of the “knockout” study, he would like to evaluate risankizumab in patients with disease duration under 12 months. It may also be valuable to look not only at Trm cells, but more broadly at other elements of the tissue architecture before and after treatment.

Among other strategies for achieving long-term remission and/or cure is the expansion of regulatory T cells, which work to “control inappropriate immune responses” and calm inflammation. Defects in the number and function of regulatory T cells are associated with psoriasis and other autoimmune diseases, and it appears in early research from other investigators that low-dose IL-2 can induce the expansion of regulatory T cells and improve psoriasis. “Keep tuned,” Dr. Blauvelt said.

Dr. Blauvelt disclosed ties with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ritchlin had no disclosures.

New England Baptist Hospital has been grappling with a serious problem facing health care today: insurers demanding prior authorizations for services ordered by physicians. Meeting payers’ requirements eats up time, delays treatment, and can be a costly drain on doctors’ practices. 

To deal with this problem, the Boston orthopedic hospital has opted to automate submission of prior authorization requests on behalf of more than 100 mostly orthopedic surgeons on staff. 

After 5 years using this system, “we can say that automation definitely works,” said Lidiya Hadzhieva, director of patient access at the hospital. The software has reduced write-offs by 30% and staff costs by 25%. Prior authorization gets approved 3 days after scheduling, compared with 11 days previously, she said.

“This software not only saves staff time, but it can also more accurately predict when prior authorization is needed,” she added.

For practices deluged with required prior authorizations by insurers, automation is emerging as a way for practices to make the process less time-consuming and save money. However, the software can be costly and may not be adoptable to many practices, and many physicians are not even aware it exists.

So far, the software is mainly used at large organizations like hospital systems. But as word gets out and the software becomes easier to use, private practices and other smaller entities may join the automation trend.

There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization. The American Medical Association reports that physicians spend 16 hours per week on prior authorizations. In a recent AMA survey, more than 60% of physicians indicated that it’s difficult to know when prior authorization is needed. And 93% of physicians reported care delays while waiting for authorization, the AMA said.  

Experts estimate that 80% of prior authorization work could be automated, but most practices still use the phone or fax, even as numbers of prior authorizations continue to increase.
 

How it works

Automation software connects directly to the practice’s electronic health record (EHR). “When the doctor places an order in the EHR, the process starts automatically,” Ms. Hadzhieva said. “The doctor may not even notice it.” 

In addition to using an EHR connection, many software products can communicate with the payer through its portal or by fax or phone, while still automating other parts of the process.

The software’s first step is to decide whether prior authorization is needed. This requires having an updated list of the rules that each payer uses for prior authorization. Manually keeping track of payer rules is very time-consuming, but automation uses bots to visit each payer site to look for rules changes. One vendor, Infinitus, uses a voice-based bot called Eva that calls up each payer and speaks with a representative.

“Automatically updating payer rules is not a new technology,” said YiDing Yu, MD, chief product officer at Olive, the automation vendor for New England Baptist. “What is new in the last 5 years is extracting the information needed for the prior authorization out of the clinical notes.”

This is challenging because each doctor has different ways to describe each step of clinical work. To identify this shorthand, Dr. Yu said Olive uses natural language processing, which is a form of artificial intelligence that learns how each doctor describes things.

Dr. Yu asserts that Olive is actually better than a practice’s staff at digging out clinical information. She said staff without much clinical training may miss terms that the software can catch, and they don’t have the time to go back many months into the record to find valuable information. But automation can do that.

In some instances, however, the software may not be able to find the information, in which case it alerts staff through a prompt in the EHR and the information is retrieved manually, Dr. Yu said.

Next, the Olive software puts the information it found into the request form and sends it to the payer. After submission, the software constantly checks on the status of each request, again visiting payer sites with a bot.

At New England Baptist, the software is used mainly by physicians in fairly small private practices who are on staff. They are using the software on the hospital’s dime, but it only works inside the hospital, Ms. Hadzhieva said. For their work outside of the hospital, they would have to purchase the Olive software on their own, she said.
 

Automation hasn’t spread to practices yet

Despite the promising outcomes for products like Olive, automation software is still primarily used by large organizations. Vendors say very few private practices have bought it yet. “The technology works, but it is still in the early-adopter phase,” Dr. Yu said.

For one thing, the software can be expensive. Very few vendors reveal their prices, but Dr. Yu did so. She said Olive normally costs about $50,000 a year for even a small organization. She insisted, however, that the savings from avoiding just one denial each month for a hip surgery would justify the expense.

On the other hand, some automation software is free, such as the Surescripts product for prior authorization of prescriptions. But it is unclear whether Surescripts does as much as Olive. Vendors’ descriptions of their products tend to be vague.

Also, Surescripts and Olive have entirely separate functions. Dr. Yu said Olive is limited to procedures, so it benefits specialties like oncology, neurosurgery, colorectal surgery, vascular surgery, and cardiology. Olive does not cover prescriptions, because they operate on a different technology.

Dr. Yu said another hurdle for adopting the software is the kind of EHR systems that doctors use. At this point, only a few EHR systems – such as Epic, Cerner, and Athena – are compatible with Olive. Large organizations tend to use Epic and Cerner, while many practices often use Athena or a variety of other systems, she said.

Despite stunted demand, there is no shortage of companies offering automation software for medical (that is, non-prescription) prior authorization. One compilation lists 25 such vendors, including companies like Myndshft, Rhyme, Infinitus, Infinx, and Waystar. As with any start-up technology, companies occasionally buy each other out.

In addition to issues like cost, specialty, and EHR compatibility, another hurdle is that few doctors even know the technology exists. Vendors say marketing focuses on larger provider organizations, not smaller practices.

Even many tech-savvy doctors, like Adam Bruggeman, MD, an orthopedist and CEO of Texas Spine Care Center in San Antonio, say they know little about the technology. “There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization,” he said. “But I don’t know of any colleagues who use it.” He has only just begun to explore vendors, he said.

Many medical practice consultants also have not yet explored the technology. “Automation makes a lot of sense, because there are a lot of repetitive tasks in prior authorization,” said Jill Arena, CEO of Portland, Ore.–based Health e Practices. “But I haven’t looked into it yet, and none of my clients has even asked about it.”

“I could see how it could be an easier sell for large organizations,” she added. “They have an IT person and a CFO who can explore the issue. Smaller practices usually don’t have that kind of expertise.”
 

Where does automation go from here?

Until now, clinicians who want to fully automate prior authorizations would have to buy two products – one for medical procedures and one for prescriptions. This has to do with incompatible electronic transmission standards, which are used to digitize information, said Susan Lawson-Dawson, content marketing strategist for the vendor Myndshft Health.

Myndshft has long been selling automation software for medical prior authorizations, but now it is introducing a product for prescriptions, Ms. Lawson-Dawson said. She said Myndshft will then be the only vendor to automate both kinds of prior authorizations.

Ms. Lawson-Dawson said Myndshft has 685 customers to date and is looking for more business. Recently the company entered the Google Cloud Marketplace. Google Cloud customers can now direct their committed spend with Google to purchasing Myndshft, meaning they could get it at a discount.

Software like Olive and Myndshft can operate independently of payers, but a vendor called Rhyme depends on payers for its software to function, said Rhyme CEO Joe Anstine. He said more than 300 payers have agreed to install the Rhyme system, and Rhyme has signed up a number of large health systems to use the product. Initially, he said, clinicians paid for the service, but now Rhyme is beginning to find payers to foot the costs and to let clinicians use it for free, which would open Rhyme up to smaller practices.

EHR companies themselves are beginning to offer automation, too. Epic, for example, has created a tool for prior authorization as part of its Epic Payer Platform. Like Rhyme, it requires payer cooperation, because information goes back and forth between clinician and payer in what is called bi-directional exchange.

The Epic product is still in its pilot phase. Epic reported that several large health systems were using its product in conjunction with a specific payer – for instance, Mayo Clinic with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and Ochsner Health with Humana. According to Epic, the arrangement reduced Mayo’s denials due to additional documentation requests by 63% for professional billing.

Automating with just one payer still means the clinician has to deal with manual processes at other payers, but a large clinician could have sufficient volume with that one payer to make the arrangement useful.
 

Will payers automate prior authorization?

Ultimately, payers may take the automation business away from vendors, offering a free product to all clinicians. But don’t hold your breath. Payers first have to rebuild their electronic systems to accommodate an electronic connection with providers. Even then, some payers might hold back from automating, forcing practices to continue manually processing some prior authorizations.

Efforts are underway, however, to mandate payers to support prior authorization automation. For this to happen, payers would have to revamp their data so that it could be easily read by practices’ EHRs. This would mean adopting a specific interoperability standard called Health Level 7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR).

Toward this goal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to require payers to adopt FHIR by January 2026. (CMS still has to finalize the rule.) Experts say the two-year ramp-up time is needed because it takes extensive work for payers to translate their data into FHIR.

The only payer so far to switch to FHIR for prior authorization is Regence in Washington state. In a pilot project, it has automated prior authorization with just one provider, MultiCare Connected Care, an accountable care organization (ACO), also in Washington state.

Anna Taylor, associate vice president of population health and value-based care at MultiCare, explained how the arrangement works. “Two separate entities are sharing one operational process,” she told this news organization. “That means they can have a digital conversation back and forth, so it is much easier to resolve prior authorization issues.” 

Unlike many vendor products, the Regence service is free. And while the vendors market only to large organizations, most doctors in the MultiCare arrangement are in independent practices. Ms. Taylor said these doctors have been “enthusiastic” about the arrangement.

The results of the pilot are impressive. Ms. Taylor said automation has resulted in a 233% productivity gain for MultiCare clinicians, and 89% of submissions to Regence get an immediate response.

There is a potential downside, however, to working directly with payers. A direct connection to clinicians allows payers to access the doctor’s clinical notes, which could make many doctors uneasy. But Ms. Taylor said Regence only has access to the “discrete data fields” on MultiCare’s EHR dashboard, not to the notes themselves.

The ultimate goal of the Regence-Multicare project is to include more payers and clinicians. Ms. Taylor said two of the 27 other payers that MultiCare works with are “highly interested,” but it would take a lot of work for them to get connected with practices and other clinicians. 

Ultimately, payers could offer automation and third-party vendors might then fade away. However, physicians may resist working directly with payers if the arrangement requires full access to their medical records.

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

New England Baptist Hospital has been grappling with a serious problem facing health care today: insurers demanding prior authorizations for services ordered by physicians. Meeting payers’ requirements eats up time, delays treatment, and can be a costly drain on doctors’ practices. 

To deal with this problem, the Boston orthopedic hospital has opted to automate submission of prior authorization requests on behalf of more than 100 mostly orthopedic surgeons on staff. 

After 5 years using this system, “we can say that automation definitely works,” said Lidiya Hadzhieva, director of patient access at the hospital. The software has reduced write-offs by 30% and staff costs by 25%. Prior authorization gets approved 3 days after scheduling, compared with 11 days previously, she said.

“This software not only saves staff time, but it can also more accurately predict when prior authorization is needed,” she added.

For practices deluged with required prior authorizations by insurers, automation is emerging as a way for practices to make the process less time-consuming and save money. However, the software can be costly and may not be adoptable to many practices, and many physicians are not even aware it exists.

So far, the software is mainly used at large organizations like hospital systems. But as word gets out and the software becomes easier to use, private practices and other smaller entities may join the automation trend.

There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization. The American Medical Association reports that physicians spend 16 hours per week on prior authorizations. In a recent AMA survey, more than 60% of physicians indicated that it’s difficult to know when prior authorization is needed. And 93% of physicians reported care delays while waiting for authorization, the AMA said.  

Experts estimate that 80% of prior authorization work could be automated, but most practices still use the phone or fax, even as numbers of prior authorizations continue to increase.
 

How it works

Automation software connects directly to the practice’s electronic health record (EHR). “When the doctor places an order in the EHR, the process starts automatically,” Ms. Hadzhieva said. “The doctor may not even notice it.” 

In addition to using an EHR connection, many software products can communicate with the payer through its portal or by fax or phone, while still automating other parts of the process.

The software’s first step is to decide whether prior authorization is needed. This requires having an updated list of the rules that each payer uses for prior authorization. Manually keeping track of payer rules is very time-consuming, but automation uses bots to visit each payer site to look for rules changes. One vendor, Infinitus, uses a voice-based bot called Eva that calls up each payer and speaks with a representative.

“Automatically updating payer rules is not a new technology,” said YiDing Yu, MD, chief product officer at Olive, the automation vendor for New England Baptist. “What is new in the last 5 years is extracting the information needed for the prior authorization out of the clinical notes.”

This is challenging because each doctor has different ways to describe each step of clinical work. To identify this shorthand, Dr. Yu said Olive uses natural language processing, which is a form of artificial intelligence that learns how each doctor describes things.

Dr. Yu asserts that Olive is actually better than a practice’s staff at digging out clinical information. She said staff without much clinical training may miss terms that the software can catch, and they don’t have the time to go back many months into the record to find valuable information. But automation can do that.

In some instances, however, the software may not be able to find the information, in which case it alerts staff through a prompt in the EHR and the information is retrieved manually, Dr. Yu said.

Next, the Olive software puts the information it found into the request form and sends it to the payer. After submission, the software constantly checks on the status of each request, again visiting payer sites with a bot.

At New England Baptist, the software is used mainly by physicians in fairly small private practices who are on staff. They are using the software on the hospital’s dime, but it only works inside the hospital, Ms. Hadzhieva said. For their work outside of the hospital, they would have to purchase the Olive software on their own, she said.
 

Automation hasn’t spread to practices yet

Despite the promising outcomes for products like Olive, automation software is still primarily used by large organizations. Vendors say very few private practices have bought it yet. “The technology works, but it is still in the early-adopter phase,” Dr. Yu said.

For one thing, the software can be expensive. Very few vendors reveal their prices, but Dr. Yu did so. She said Olive normally costs about $50,000 a year for even a small organization. She insisted, however, that the savings from avoiding just one denial each month for a hip surgery would justify the expense.

On the other hand, some automation software is free, such as the Surescripts product for prior authorization of prescriptions. But it is unclear whether Surescripts does as much as Olive. Vendors’ descriptions of their products tend to be vague.

Also, Surescripts and Olive have entirely separate functions. Dr. Yu said Olive is limited to procedures, so it benefits specialties like oncology, neurosurgery, colorectal surgery, vascular surgery, and cardiology. Olive does not cover prescriptions, because they operate on a different technology.

Dr. Yu said another hurdle for adopting the software is the kind of EHR systems that doctors use. At this point, only a few EHR systems – such as Epic, Cerner, and Athena – are compatible with Olive. Large organizations tend to use Epic and Cerner, while many practices often use Athena or a variety of other systems, she said.

Despite stunted demand, there is no shortage of companies offering automation software for medical (that is, non-prescription) prior authorization. One compilation lists 25 such vendors, including companies like Myndshft, Rhyme, Infinitus, Infinx, and Waystar. As with any start-up technology, companies occasionally buy each other out.

In addition to issues like cost, specialty, and EHR compatibility, another hurdle is that few doctors even know the technology exists. Vendors say marketing focuses on larger provider organizations, not smaller practices.

Even many tech-savvy doctors, like Adam Bruggeman, MD, an orthopedist and CEO of Texas Spine Care Center in San Antonio, say they know little about the technology. “There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization,” he said. “But I don’t know of any colleagues who use it.” He has only just begun to explore vendors, he said.

Many medical practice consultants also have not yet explored the technology. “Automation makes a lot of sense, because there are a lot of repetitive tasks in prior authorization,” said Jill Arena, CEO of Portland, Ore.–based Health e Practices. “But I haven’t looked into it yet, and none of my clients has even asked about it.”

“I could see how it could be an easier sell for large organizations,” she added. “They have an IT person and a CFO who can explore the issue. Smaller practices usually don’t have that kind of expertise.”
 

Where does automation go from here?

Until now, clinicians who want to fully automate prior authorizations would have to buy two products – one for medical procedures and one for prescriptions. This has to do with incompatible electronic transmission standards, which are used to digitize information, said Susan Lawson-Dawson, content marketing strategist for the vendor Myndshft Health.

Myndshft has long been selling automation software for medical prior authorizations, but now it is introducing a product for prescriptions, Ms. Lawson-Dawson said. She said Myndshft will then be the only vendor to automate both kinds of prior authorizations.

Ms. Lawson-Dawson said Myndshft has 685 customers to date and is looking for more business. Recently the company entered the Google Cloud Marketplace. Google Cloud customers can now direct their committed spend with Google to purchasing Myndshft, meaning they could get it at a discount.

Software like Olive and Myndshft can operate independently of payers, but a vendor called Rhyme depends on payers for its software to function, said Rhyme CEO Joe Anstine. He said more than 300 payers have agreed to install the Rhyme system, and Rhyme has signed up a number of large health systems to use the product. Initially, he said, clinicians paid for the service, but now Rhyme is beginning to find payers to foot the costs and to let clinicians use it for free, which would open Rhyme up to smaller practices.

EHR companies themselves are beginning to offer automation, too. Epic, for example, has created a tool for prior authorization as part of its Epic Payer Platform. Like Rhyme, it requires payer cooperation, because information goes back and forth between clinician and payer in what is called bi-directional exchange.

The Epic product is still in its pilot phase. Epic reported that several large health systems were using its product in conjunction with a specific payer – for instance, Mayo Clinic with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and Ochsner Health with Humana. According to Epic, the arrangement reduced Mayo’s denials due to additional documentation requests by 63% for professional billing.

Automating with just one payer still means the clinician has to deal with manual processes at other payers, but a large clinician could have sufficient volume with that one payer to make the arrangement useful.
 

Will payers automate prior authorization?

Ultimately, payers may take the automation business away from vendors, offering a free product to all clinicians. But don’t hold your breath. Payers first have to rebuild their electronic systems to accommodate an electronic connection with providers. Even then, some payers might hold back from automating, forcing practices to continue manually processing some prior authorizations.

Efforts are underway, however, to mandate payers to support prior authorization automation. For this to happen, payers would have to revamp their data so that it could be easily read by practices’ EHRs. This would mean adopting a specific interoperability standard called Health Level 7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR).

Toward this goal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to require payers to adopt FHIR by January 2026. (CMS still has to finalize the rule.) Experts say the two-year ramp-up time is needed because it takes extensive work for payers to translate their data into FHIR.

The only payer so far to switch to FHIR for prior authorization is Regence in Washington state. In a pilot project, it has automated prior authorization with just one provider, MultiCare Connected Care, an accountable care organization (ACO), also in Washington state.

Anna Taylor, associate vice president of population health and value-based care at MultiCare, explained how the arrangement works. “Two separate entities are sharing one operational process,” she told this news organization. “That means they can have a digital conversation back and forth, so it is much easier to resolve prior authorization issues.” 

Unlike many vendor products, the Regence service is free. And while the vendors market only to large organizations, most doctors in the MultiCare arrangement are in independent practices. Ms. Taylor said these doctors have been “enthusiastic” about the arrangement.

The results of the pilot are impressive. Ms. Taylor said automation has resulted in a 233% productivity gain for MultiCare clinicians, and 89% of submissions to Regence get an immediate response.

There is a potential downside, however, to working directly with payers. A direct connection to clinicians allows payers to access the doctor’s clinical notes, which could make many doctors uneasy. But Ms. Taylor said Regence only has access to the “discrete data fields” on MultiCare’s EHR dashboard, not to the notes themselves.

The ultimate goal of the Regence-Multicare project is to include more payers and clinicians. Ms. Taylor said two of the 27 other payers that MultiCare works with are “highly interested,” but it would take a lot of work for them to get connected with practices and other clinicians. 

Ultimately, payers could offer automation and third-party vendors might then fade away. However, physicians may resist working directly with payers if the arrangement requires full access to their medical records.

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

New England Baptist Hospital has been grappling with a serious problem facing health care today: insurers demanding prior authorizations for services ordered by physicians. Meeting payers’ requirements eats up time, delays treatment, and can be a costly drain on doctors’ practices. 

To deal with this problem, the Boston orthopedic hospital has opted to automate submission of prior authorization requests on behalf of more than 100 mostly orthopedic surgeons on staff. 

After 5 years using this system, “we can say that automation definitely works,” said Lidiya Hadzhieva, director of patient access at the hospital. The software has reduced write-offs by 30% and staff costs by 25%. Prior authorization gets approved 3 days after scheduling, compared with 11 days previously, she said.

“This software not only saves staff time, but it can also more accurately predict when prior authorization is needed,” she added.

For practices deluged with required prior authorizations by insurers, automation is emerging as a way for practices to make the process less time-consuming and save money. However, the software can be costly and may not be adoptable to many practices, and many physicians are not even aware it exists.

So far, the software is mainly used at large organizations like hospital systems. But as word gets out and the software becomes easier to use, private practices and other smaller entities may join the automation trend.

There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization. The American Medical Association reports that physicians spend 16 hours per week on prior authorizations. In a recent AMA survey, more than 60% of physicians indicated that it’s difficult to know when prior authorization is needed. And 93% of physicians reported care delays while waiting for authorization, the AMA said.  

Experts estimate that 80% of prior authorization work could be automated, but most practices still use the phone or fax, even as numbers of prior authorizations continue to increase.
 

How it works

Automation software connects directly to the practice’s electronic health record (EHR). “When the doctor places an order in the EHR, the process starts automatically,” Ms. Hadzhieva said. “The doctor may not even notice it.” 

In addition to using an EHR connection, many software products can communicate with the payer through its portal or by fax or phone, while still automating other parts of the process.

The software’s first step is to decide whether prior authorization is needed. This requires having an updated list of the rules that each payer uses for prior authorization. Manually keeping track of payer rules is very time-consuming, but automation uses bots to visit each payer site to look for rules changes. One vendor, Infinitus, uses a voice-based bot called Eva that calls up each payer and speaks with a representative.

“Automatically updating payer rules is not a new technology,” said YiDing Yu, MD, chief product officer at Olive, the automation vendor for New England Baptist. “What is new in the last 5 years is extracting the information needed for the prior authorization out of the clinical notes.”

This is challenging because each doctor has different ways to describe each step of clinical work. To identify this shorthand, Dr. Yu said Olive uses natural language processing, which is a form of artificial intelligence that learns how each doctor describes things.

Dr. Yu asserts that Olive is actually better than a practice’s staff at digging out clinical information. She said staff without much clinical training may miss terms that the software can catch, and they don’t have the time to go back many months into the record to find valuable information. But automation can do that.

In some instances, however, the software may not be able to find the information, in which case it alerts staff through a prompt in the EHR and the information is retrieved manually, Dr. Yu said.

Next, the Olive software puts the information it found into the request form and sends it to the payer. After submission, the software constantly checks on the status of each request, again visiting payer sites with a bot.

At New England Baptist, the software is used mainly by physicians in fairly small private practices who are on staff. They are using the software on the hospital’s dime, but it only works inside the hospital, Ms. Hadzhieva said. For their work outside of the hospital, they would have to purchase the Olive software on their own, she said.
 

Automation hasn’t spread to practices yet

Despite the promising outcomes for products like Olive, automation software is still primarily used by large organizations. Vendors say very few private practices have bought it yet. “The technology works, but it is still in the early-adopter phase,” Dr. Yu said.

For one thing, the software can be expensive. Very few vendors reveal their prices, but Dr. Yu did so. She said Olive normally costs about $50,000 a year for even a small organization. She insisted, however, that the savings from avoiding just one denial each month for a hip surgery would justify the expense.

On the other hand, some automation software is free, such as the Surescripts product for prior authorization of prescriptions. But it is unclear whether Surescripts does as much as Olive. Vendors’ descriptions of their products tend to be vague.

Also, Surescripts and Olive have entirely separate functions. Dr. Yu said Olive is limited to procedures, so it benefits specialties like oncology, neurosurgery, colorectal surgery, vascular surgery, and cardiology. Olive does not cover prescriptions, because they operate on a different technology.

Dr. Yu said another hurdle for adopting the software is the kind of EHR systems that doctors use. At this point, only a few EHR systems – such as Epic, Cerner, and Athena – are compatible with Olive. Large organizations tend to use Epic and Cerner, while many practices often use Athena or a variety of other systems, she said.

Despite stunted demand, there is no shortage of companies offering automation software for medical (that is, non-prescription) prior authorization. One compilation lists 25 such vendors, including companies like Myndshft, Rhyme, Infinitus, Infinx, and Waystar. As with any start-up technology, companies occasionally buy each other out.

In addition to issues like cost, specialty, and EHR compatibility, another hurdle is that few doctors even know the technology exists. Vendors say marketing focuses on larger provider organizations, not smaller practices.

Even many tech-savvy doctors, like Adam Bruggeman, MD, an orthopedist and CEO of Texas Spine Care Center in San Antonio, say they know little about the technology. “There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization,” he said. “But I don’t know of any colleagues who use it.” He has only just begun to explore vendors, he said.

Many medical practice consultants also have not yet explored the technology. “Automation makes a lot of sense, because there are a lot of repetitive tasks in prior authorization,” said Jill Arena, CEO of Portland, Ore.–based Health e Practices. “But I haven’t looked into it yet, and none of my clients has even asked about it.”

“I could see how it could be an easier sell for large organizations,” she added. “They have an IT person and a CFO who can explore the issue. Smaller practices usually don’t have that kind of expertise.”
 

Where does automation go from here?

Until now, clinicians who want to fully automate prior authorizations would have to buy two products – one for medical procedures and one for prescriptions. This has to do with incompatible electronic transmission standards, which are used to digitize information, said Susan Lawson-Dawson, content marketing strategist for the vendor Myndshft Health.

Myndshft has long been selling automation software for medical prior authorizations, but now it is introducing a product for prescriptions, Ms. Lawson-Dawson said. She said Myndshft will then be the only vendor to automate both kinds of prior authorizations.

Ms. Lawson-Dawson said Myndshft has 685 customers to date and is looking for more business. Recently the company entered the Google Cloud Marketplace. Google Cloud customers can now direct their committed spend with Google to purchasing Myndshft, meaning they could get it at a discount.

Software like Olive and Myndshft can operate independently of payers, but a vendor called Rhyme depends on payers for its software to function, said Rhyme CEO Joe Anstine. He said more than 300 payers have agreed to install the Rhyme system, and Rhyme has signed up a number of large health systems to use the product. Initially, he said, clinicians paid for the service, but now Rhyme is beginning to find payers to foot the costs and to let clinicians use it for free, which would open Rhyme up to smaller practices.

EHR companies themselves are beginning to offer automation, too. Epic, for example, has created a tool for prior authorization as part of its Epic Payer Platform. Like Rhyme, it requires payer cooperation, because information goes back and forth between clinician and payer in what is called bi-directional exchange.

The Epic product is still in its pilot phase. Epic reported that several large health systems were using its product in conjunction with a specific payer – for instance, Mayo Clinic with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and Ochsner Health with Humana. According to Epic, the arrangement reduced Mayo’s denials due to additional documentation requests by 63% for professional billing.

Automating with just one payer still means the clinician has to deal with manual processes at other payers, but a large clinician could have sufficient volume with that one payer to make the arrangement useful.
 

Will payers automate prior authorization?

Ultimately, payers may take the automation business away from vendors, offering a free product to all clinicians. But don’t hold your breath. Payers first have to rebuild their electronic systems to accommodate an electronic connection with providers. Even then, some payers might hold back from automating, forcing practices to continue manually processing some prior authorizations.

Efforts are underway, however, to mandate payers to support prior authorization automation. For this to happen, payers would have to revamp their data so that it could be easily read by practices’ EHRs. This would mean adopting a specific interoperability standard called Health Level 7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR).

Toward this goal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to require payers to adopt FHIR by January 2026. (CMS still has to finalize the rule.) Experts say the two-year ramp-up time is needed because it takes extensive work for payers to translate their data into FHIR.

The only payer so far to switch to FHIR for prior authorization is Regence in Washington state. In a pilot project, it has automated prior authorization with just one provider, MultiCare Connected Care, an accountable care organization (ACO), also in Washington state.

Anna Taylor, associate vice president of population health and value-based care at MultiCare, explained how the arrangement works. “Two separate entities are sharing one operational process,” she told this news organization. “That means they can have a digital conversation back and forth, so it is much easier to resolve prior authorization issues.” 

Unlike many vendor products, the Regence service is free. And while the vendors market only to large organizations, most doctors in the MultiCare arrangement are in independent practices. Ms. Taylor said these doctors have been “enthusiastic” about the arrangement.

The results of the pilot are impressive. Ms. Taylor said automation has resulted in a 233% productivity gain for MultiCare clinicians, and 89% of submissions to Regence get an immediate response.

There is a potential downside, however, to working directly with payers. A direct connection to clinicians allows payers to access the doctor’s clinical notes, which could make many doctors uneasy. But Ms. Taylor said Regence only has access to the “discrete data fields” on MultiCare’s EHR dashboard, not to the notes themselves.

The ultimate goal of the Regence-Multicare project is to include more payers and clinicians. Ms. Taylor said two of the 27 other payers that MultiCare works with are “highly interested,” but it would take a lot of work for them to get connected with practices and other clinicians. 

Ultimately, payers could offer automation and third-party vendors might then fade away. However, physicians may resist working directly with payers if the arrangement requires full access to their medical records.

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

I’m speaking today about the ever-rising prominence of neoadjuvant therapy for patients with locally advanced lung cancers. There are more and more data emerging suggesting that the neoadjuvant strategy is a better one.

Many of you saw the press release from Merck announcing that their randomized trial comparing chemo with chemo plus pembrolizumab in the neoadjuvant setting led to improved event-free survival and also improved pathologic complete response rate.

This comes in addition to the data from the AstraZeneca trial with durvalumab saying they’ve already achieved their endpoint of higher pathologic complete response rate vs. chemotherapy alone and also the data with nivolumab from Bristol-Myers Squibb saying that nivolumab plus chemotherapy leads to a better event-free survival and a better pathologic complete response rate. That information has led to Food and Drug Administration approval for their regimen.

We’re running the table with these very positive data, and I think it’s just a sign that the approach is safe and effective.

A huge question has come up. I just came from a meeting of lung cancer experts asking what to do if you have a patient with a small tumor, for example, a 3-cm tumor. Do you recommend immediate surgery followed by adjuvant therapy, chemotherapy, and then a checkpoint inhibitor if appropriate? Or do you proceed with neoadjuvant therapy if appropriate? The truth is that it’s a very difficult decision.

We have overwhelming data that the neoadjuvant approach works for that patient. Please remember that this is a clinically staged patient. This is not the patient after their surgery, where I think we have a very clear path. We have adjuvant data and adjuvant trials for those patients.

For the patient who’s in your office with a small tumor or a small tumor and only hilar lymphadenopathy, the decision there isn’t data driven, but rather it is experience driven. The data that are out there right now suggest that neoadjuvant therapy is a better way to go. Why is that?

Well, I think that the first reason is that it is probably a better regimen. I think many of you saw the recent clinical trial by Patel and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine with melanoma. It was an interesting trial. They gave a checkpoint inhibitor for 18 doses after surgery for melanoma versus three doses of checkpoint inhibitor, surgery, and then 15 doses of the checkpoint inhibitor.

It was 18 doses versus 18 doses, with the only difference being the three doses before surgery. Lo and behold, the three doses before surgery led to a better event-free survival.

There are preclinical data in lung cancer demonstrating that the same thing is true. Tina Cascone published on that years ago. We could talk about why, but it appears that neoadjuvant is just better.

There are other advantages to it as well. I think a big one is that all the information shows that it’s better tolerated, so you’re more likely to give all the drug. You can see if the drug isn’t working, and you can stop the drug. Also, if the drug is causing a side effect, you can see whether it’s working or not and use that decision to stop. It’s different than when you’re giving a drug in the adjuvant setting where you don’t really know whether it is working or not.

I think that it’s time to change some of our standards. When patients appear with lung cancers other than tiny ones that might be detected through screening, you need to convene your multidisciplinary group. You need to weigh the pros and cons I think that it’s time to change some of our standards. When patients appear with lung cancers other than tiny ones that might be detected through screening, you need to convene your multidisciplinary group coming in. It’s already an FDA-approved regimen with nivolumab and chemotherapy, and I think we’re moving to making that our standard of care now.

The way to handle it today, though, is to convene your multidisciplinary panel about every patient other than those with the tiniest of lung cancers and put your heads together to see what the best treatment is for that patient.

Dr. Kris is professor of medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, both in New York. He disclosed ties with Ariad Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, PUMA, and Roche/Genentech.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’m speaking today about the ever-rising prominence of neoadjuvant therapy for patients with locally advanced lung cancers. There are more and more data emerging suggesting that the neoadjuvant strategy is a better one.

Many of you saw the press release from Merck announcing that their randomized trial comparing chemo with chemo plus pembrolizumab in the neoadjuvant setting led to improved event-free survival and also improved pathologic complete response rate.

This comes in addition to the data from the AstraZeneca trial with durvalumab saying they’ve already achieved their endpoint of higher pathologic complete response rate vs. chemotherapy alone and also the data with nivolumab from Bristol-Myers Squibb saying that nivolumab plus chemotherapy leads to a better event-free survival and a better pathologic complete response rate. That information has led to Food and Drug Administration approval for their regimen.

We’re running the table with these very positive data, and I think it’s just a sign that the approach is safe and effective.

A huge question has come up. I just came from a meeting of lung cancer experts asking what to do if you have a patient with a small tumor, for example, a 3-cm tumor. Do you recommend immediate surgery followed by adjuvant therapy, chemotherapy, and then a checkpoint inhibitor if appropriate? Or do you proceed with neoadjuvant therapy if appropriate? The truth is that it’s a very difficult decision.

We have overwhelming data that the neoadjuvant approach works for that patient. Please remember that this is a clinically staged patient. This is not the patient after their surgery, where I think we have a very clear path. We have adjuvant data and adjuvant trials for those patients.

For the patient who’s in your office with a small tumor or a small tumor and only hilar lymphadenopathy, the decision there isn’t data driven, but rather it is experience driven. The data that are out there right now suggest that neoadjuvant therapy is a better way to go. Why is that?

Well, I think that the first reason is that it is probably a better regimen. I think many of you saw the recent clinical trial by Patel and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine with melanoma. It was an interesting trial. They gave a checkpoint inhibitor for 18 doses after surgery for melanoma versus three doses of checkpoint inhibitor, surgery, and then 15 doses of the checkpoint inhibitor.

It was 18 doses versus 18 doses, with the only difference being the three doses before surgery. Lo and behold, the three doses before surgery led to a better event-free survival.

There are preclinical data in lung cancer demonstrating that the same thing is true. Tina Cascone published on that years ago. We could talk about why, but it appears that neoadjuvant is just better.

There are other advantages to it as well. I think a big one is that all the information shows that it’s better tolerated, so you’re more likely to give all the drug. You can see if the drug isn’t working, and you can stop the drug. Also, if the drug is causing a side effect, you can see whether it’s working or not and use that decision to stop. It’s different than when you’re giving a drug in the adjuvant setting where you don’t really know whether it is working or not.

I think that it’s time to change some of our standards. When patients appear with lung cancers other than tiny ones that might be detected through screening, you need to convene your multidisciplinary group. You need to weigh the pros and cons I think that it’s time to change some of our standards. When patients appear with lung cancers other than tiny ones that might be detected through screening, you need to convene your multidisciplinary group coming in. It’s already an FDA-approved regimen with nivolumab and chemotherapy, and I think we’re moving to making that our standard of care now.

The way to handle it today, though, is to convene your multidisciplinary panel about every patient other than those with the tiniest of lung cancers and put your heads together to see what the best treatment is for that patient.

Dr. Kris is professor of medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, both in New York. He disclosed ties with Ariad Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, PUMA, and Roche/Genentech.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’m speaking today about the ever-rising prominence of neoadjuvant therapy for patients with locally advanced lung cancers. There are more and more data emerging suggesting that the neoadjuvant strategy is a better one.

Many of you saw the press release from Merck announcing that their randomized trial comparing chemo with chemo plus pembrolizumab in the neoadjuvant setting led to improved event-free survival and also improved pathologic complete response rate.

This comes in addition to the data from the AstraZeneca trial with durvalumab saying they’ve already achieved their endpoint of higher pathologic complete response rate vs. chemotherapy alone and also the data with nivolumab from Bristol-Myers Squibb saying that nivolumab plus chemotherapy leads to a better event-free survival and a better pathologic complete response rate. That information has led to Food and Drug Administration approval for their regimen.

We’re running the table with these very positive data, and I think it’s just a sign that the approach is safe and effective.

A huge question has come up. I just came from a meeting of lung cancer experts asking what to do if you have a patient with a small tumor, for example, a 3-cm tumor. Do you recommend immediate surgery followed by adjuvant therapy, chemotherapy, and then a checkpoint inhibitor if appropriate? Or do you proceed with neoadjuvant therapy if appropriate? The truth is that it’s a very difficult decision.

We have overwhelming data that the neoadjuvant approach works for that patient. Please remember that this is a clinically staged patient. This is not the patient after their surgery, where I think we have a very clear path. We have adjuvant data and adjuvant trials for those patients.

For the patient who’s in your office with a small tumor or a small tumor and only hilar lymphadenopathy, the decision there isn’t data driven, but rather it is experience driven. The data that are out there right now suggest that neoadjuvant therapy is a better way to go. Why is that?

Well, I think that the first reason is that it is probably a better regimen. I think many of you saw the recent clinical trial by Patel and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine with melanoma. It was an interesting trial. They gave a checkpoint inhibitor for 18 doses after surgery for melanoma versus three doses of checkpoint inhibitor, surgery, and then 15 doses of the checkpoint inhibitor.

It was 18 doses versus 18 doses, with the only difference being the three doses before surgery. Lo and behold, the three doses before surgery led to a better event-free survival.

There are preclinical data in lung cancer demonstrating that the same thing is true. Tina Cascone published on that years ago. We could talk about why, but it appears that neoadjuvant is just better.

There are other advantages to it as well. I think a big one is that all the information shows that it’s better tolerated, so you’re more likely to give all the drug. You can see if the drug isn’t working, and you can stop the drug. Also, if the drug is causing a side effect, you can see whether it’s working or not and use that decision to stop. It’s different than when you’re giving a drug in the adjuvant setting where you don’t really know whether it is working or not.

I think that it’s time to change some of our standards. When patients appear with lung cancers other than tiny ones that might be detected through screening, you need to convene your multidisciplinary group. You need to weigh the pros and cons I think that it’s time to change some of our standards. When patients appear with lung cancers other than tiny ones that might be detected through screening, you need to convene your multidisciplinary group coming in. It’s already an FDA-approved regimen with nivolumab and chemotherapy, and I think we’re moving to making that our standard of care now.

The way to handle it today, though, is to convene your multidisciplinary panel about every patient other than those with the tiniest of lung cancers and put your heads together to see what the best treatment is for that patient.

Dr. Kris is professor of medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, both in New York. He disclosed ties with Ariad Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, PUMA, and Roche/Genentech.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of reported diagnosed arthritis in the United States is highest overall in older adults with comorbid chronic conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 2019 to 2021 to update the prevalence of self-reported arthritis in the United States.
• The sample sizes for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 NHIS were 31,997, 21,153, and 29,482, with survey response rates of 59.1%, 48.9%, and 50.9%, respectively.
• The unadjusted and age-standardized prevalence estimates were calculated for adults aged 18 years and older and based on self-reported health and demographic data.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, arthritis was diagnosed in 53.2 million adults aged 18 years and older in the United States; of these, 88.3% were aged 45 years and older and 48.3% were 65 years and older.
• Age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher in women vs men and among veterans vs nonveterans (20.9% vs 16.3% and 24.2% vs 18.5%, respectively).
• When categorized by race, age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher among non-Hispanic White individuals, compared with Hispanic or Latino individuals or non-Hispanic Asian individuals (20.1%, 14.7%, and 10.3%, respectively).
• The prevalence of arthritis also was higher among individuals with self-reported diagnosis of chronic conditions including dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer than in those without these conditions; approximately half of adults aged 65 years and older with arthritis reported at least one of these conditions.

IN PRACTICE:

“These prevalence estimates can be used to guide public health policies and activities to increase equitable access to physical activity opportunities within the built environment and other community-based, arthritis-appropriate, evidence-based interventions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Elizabeth A. Fallon, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. The data were published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.  

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design prevented conclusions of causality between individual characteristics and arthritis diagnosis; other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, possible response bias, and the inability to calculate prevalence of arthritis subtypes. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of reported diagnosed arthritis in the United States is highest overall in older adults with comorbid chronic conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 2019 to 2021 to update the prevalence of self-reported arthritis in the United States.
• The sample sizes for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 NHIS were 31,997, 21,153, and 29,482, with survey response rates of 59.1%, 48.9%, and 50.9%, respectively.
• The unadjusted and age-standardized prevalence estimates were calculated for adults aged 18 years and older and based on self-reported health and demographic data.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, arthritis was diagnosed in 53.2 million adults aged 18 years and older in the United States; of these, 88.3% were aged 45 years and older and 48.3% were 65 years and older.
• Age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher in women vs men and among veterans vs nonveterans (20.9% vs 16.3% and 24.2% vs 18.5%, respectively).
• When categorized by race, age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher among non-Hispanic White individuals, compared with Hispanic or Latino individuals or non-Hispanic Asian individuals (20.1%, 14.7%, and 10.3%, respectively).
• The prevalence of arthritis also was higher among individuals with self-reported diagnosis of chronic conditions including dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer than in those without these conditions; approximately half of adults aged 65 years and older with arthritis reported at least one of these conditions.

IN PRACTICE:

“These prevalence estimates can be used to guide public health policies and activities to increase equitable access to physical activity opportunities within the built environment and other community-based, arthritis-appropriate, evidence-based interventions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Elizabeth A. Fallon, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. The data were published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.  

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design prevented conclusions of causality between individual characteristics and arthritis diagnosis; other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, possible response bias, and the inability to calculate prevalence of arthritis subtypes. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of reported diagnosed arthritis in the United States is highest overall in older adults with comorbid chronic conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 2019 to 2021 to update the prevalence of self-reported arthritis in the United States.
• The sample sizes for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 NHIS were 31,997, 21,153, and 29,482, with survey response rates of 59.1%, 48.9%, and 50.9%, respectively.
• The unadjusted and age-standardized prevalence estimates were calculated for adults aged 18 years and older and based on self-reported health and demographic data.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, arthritis was diagnosed in 53.2 million adults aged 18 years and older in the United States; of these, 88.3% were aged 45 years and older and 48.3% were 65 years and older.
• Age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher in women vs men and among veterans vs nonveterans (20.9% vs 16.3% and 24.2% vs 18.5%, respectively).
• When categorized by race, age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher among non-Hispanic White individuals, compared with Hispanic or Latino individuals or non-Hispanic Asian individuals (20.1%, 14.7%, and 10.3%, respectively).
• The prevalence of arthritis also was higher among individuals with self-reported diagnosis of chronic conditions including dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer than in those without these conditions; approximately half of adults aged 65 years and older with arthritis reported at least one of these conditions.

IN PRACTICE:

“These prevalence estimates can be used to guide public health policies and activities to increase equitable access to physical activity opportunities within the built environment and other community-based, arthritis-appropriate, evidence-based interventions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Elizabeth A. Fallon, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. The data were published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.  

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design prevented conclusions of causality between individual characteristics and arthritis diagnosis; other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, possible response bias, and the inability to calculate prevalence of arthritis subtypes. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Key clinical point: Comparable prevalence rates of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) and those with in situ melanoma suggest that AD is not a risk factor for NAFLD.

Major finding: The prevalence rate of NAFLD was similar in patients with AD (24.1%) and those with in situ melanoma (23.2%), but it was significantly higher in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis (49.8%) compared with the other two groups (both P < .01). AD was not independently associated with NAFLD (adjusted odds ratio 1.02; 95% CI 0.78-1.26).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cross-sectional study including adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD (n = 144), moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis (n = 466), or in situ melanoma (n = 99).

Disclosures: This study was funded by European Union-Next Generation EU-NRRP M6C2-Investment 2.1 Enhancement and Strengthening of Biomedical Research in the National Health Service. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Maurelli M et al. Prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in adult individuals with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. J Clin Med. 2023;12(18):6057 (Sep 19). doi: 10.3390/jcm12186057

Key clinical point: Comparable prevalence rates of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) and those with in situ melanoma suggest that AD is not a risk factor for NAFLD.

Major finding: The prevalence rate of NAFLD was similar in patients with AD (24.1%) and those with in situ melanoma (23.2%), but it was significantly higher in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis (49.8%) compared with the other two groups (both P < .01). AD was not independently associated with NAFLD (adjusted odds ratio 1.02; 95% CI 0.78-1.26).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cross-sectional study including adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD (n = 144), moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis (n = 466), or in situ melanoma (n = 99).

Disclosures: This study was funded by European Union-Next Generation EU-NRRP M6C2-Investment 2.1 Enhancement and Strengthening of Biomedical Research in the National Health Service. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Maurelli M et al. Prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in adult individuals with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. J Clin Med. 2023;12(18):6057 (Sep 19). doi: 10.3390/jcm12186057

Key clinical point: Comparable prevalence rates of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) and those with in situ melanoma suggest that AD is not a risk factor for NAFLD.

Major finding: The prevalence rate of NAFLD was similar in patients with AD (24.1%) and those with in situ melanoma (23.2%), but it was significantly higher in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis (49.8%) compared with the other two groups (both P < .01). AD was not independently associated with NAFLD (adjusted odds ratio 1.02; 95% CI 0.78-1.26).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cross-sectional study including adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD (n = 144), moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis (n = 466), or in situ melanoma (n = 99).

Disclosures: This study was funded by European Union-Next Generation EU-NRRP M6C2-Investment 2.1 Enhancement and Strengthening of Biomedical Research in the National Health Service. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Maurelli M et al. Prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in adult individuals with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. J Clin Med. 2023;12(18):6057 (Sep 19). doi: 10.3390/jcm12186057

Key clinical point: Long-term dupilumab treatment provides sustained clinical benefits and acceptable safety in children age 6-11 years with uncontrolled severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: By week 52, 41% of patients achieved an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1, and 82% of patients achieved ≥75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index scores compared with the LIBERTY AD PEDS baseline. Treatment-emergent adverse events were mostly of mild or moderate severity.

Study details: This analysis of data from the LIBERTY AD PED-OLE study included 321 children (age 6-11 years) with severe AD who previously participated in LIBERTY AD PEDS and received 300 mg dupilumab every 4 weeks or an up-titrated weight-tiered dose of 200 or 300 mg dupilumab every 2 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Seven authors declared being employees of or holding stocks or stock options in Sanofi or Regeneron. The other authors declared ties with various sources, including Sanofi and Regeneron.

Source: Cork MJ et al. Dupilumab safety and efficacy in a phase III open-label extension trial in children 6-11 years of age with severe atopic dermatitis. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2023 (Sep 26). doi: 10.1007/s13555-023-01016-9

Key clinical point: Long-term dupilumab treatment provides sustained clinical benefits and acceptable safety in children age 6-11 years with uncontrolled severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: By week 52, 41% of patients achieved an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1, and 82% of patients achieved ≥75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index scores compared with the LIBERTY AD PEDS baseline. Treatment-emergent adverse events were mostly of mild or moderate severity.

Study details: This analysis of data from the LIBERTY AD PED-OLE study included 321 children (age 6-11 years) with severe AD who previously participated in LIBERTY AD PEDS and received 300 mg dupilumab every 4 weeks or an up-titrated weight-tiered dose of 200 or 300 mg dupilumab every 2 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Seven authors declared being employees of or holding stocks or stock options in Sanofi or Regeneron. The other authors declared ties with various sources, including Sanofi and Regeneron.

Source: Cork MJ et al. Dupilumab safety and efficacy in a phase III open-label extension trial in children 6-11 years of age with severe atopic dermatitis. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2023 (Sep 26). doi: 10.1007/s13555-023-01016-9

Key clinical point: Long-term dupilumab treatment provides sustained clinical benefits and acceptable safety in children age 6-11 years with uncontrolled severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: By week 52, 41% of patients achieved an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1, and 82% of patients achieved ≥75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index scores compared with the LIBERTY AD PEDS baseline. Treatment-emergent adverse events were mostly of mild or moderate severity.

Study details: This analysis of data from the LIBERTY AD PED-OLE study included 321 children (age 6-11 years) with severe AD who previously participated in LIBERTY AD PEDS and received 300 mg dupilumab every 4 weeks or an up-titrated weight-tiered dose of 200 or 300 mg dupilumab every 2 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Seven authors declared being employees of or holding stocks or stock options in Sanofi or Regeneron. The other authors declared ties with various sources, including Sanofi and Regeneron.

Source: Cork MJ et al. Dupilumab safety and efficacy in a phase III open-label extension trial in children 6-11 years of age with severe atopic dermatitis. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2023 (Sep 26). doi: 10.1007/s13555-023-01016-9

Key clinical point: Tralokinumab led to clinically meaningful responses in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who failed to achieve an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 at 16 weeks without rescue medication.

Major finding: At week 16, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving tralokinumab vs placebo achieved ≥ 50% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index scores (33.0% vs 13.0%; P < .0001) and ≥ 3-point improvement in the itch Numerical Rating Scale scores (22.6% vs 9.4%; P < .0001).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of data from ECZTRA 1 and 2 trials included adults with moderate-to-severe AD who were randomized to receive tralokinumab (n = 966) or placebo (n = 362) and failed to achieve an IGA score of 0 or 1 at week 16 without rescue medication.

Disclosures: ECZTRA 1 and 2 were sponsored by LEO Pharma A/S, Denmark. Several authors declared ties with LEO Pharma, among others. T Mark declared being an employee and stockholder of LEO Pharma A/S.

Source: Simpson EL et al. Tralokinumab provides clinically meaningful responses at week 16 in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis who do not achieve IGA 0/1. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2023 (Oct 7). doi: 10.1007/s40257-023-00817-0

Key clinical point: Tralokinumab led to clinically meaningful responses in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who failed to achieve an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 at 16 weeks without rescue medication.

Major finding: At week 16, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving tralokinumab vs placebo achieved ≥ 50% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index scores (33.0% vs 13.0%; P < .0001) and ≥ 3-point improvement in the itch Numerical Rating Scale scores (22.6% vs 9.4%; P < .0001).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of data from ECZTRA 1 and 2 trials included adults with moderate-to-severe AD who were randomized to receive tralokinumab (n = 966) or placebo (n = 362) and failed to achieve an IGA score of 0 or 1 at week 16 without rescue medication.

Disclosures: ECZTRA 1 and 2 were sponsored by LEO Pharma A/S, Denmark. Several authors declared ties with LEO Pharma, among others. T Mark declared being an employee and stockholder of LEO Pharma A/S.

Source: Simpson EL et al. Tralokinumab provides clinically meaningful responses at week 16 in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis who do not achieve IGA 0/1. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2023 (Oct 7). doi: 10.1007/s40257-023-00817-0

Key clinical point: Tralokinumab led to clinically meaningful responses in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who failed to achieve an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 at 16 weeks without rescue medication.

Major finding: At week 16, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving tralokinumab vs placebo achieved ≥ 50% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index scores (33.0% vs 13.0%; P < .0001) and ≥ 3-point improvement in the itch Numerical Rating Scale scores (22.6% vs 9.4%; P < .0001).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of data from ECZTRA 1 and 2 trials included adults with moderate-to-severe AD who were randomized to receive tralokinumab (n = 966) or placebo (n = 362) and failed to achieve an IGA score of 0 or 1 at week 16 without rescue medication.

Disclosures: ECZTRA 1 and 2 were sponsored by LEO Pharma A/S, Denmark. Several authors declared ties with LEO Pharma, among others. T Mark declared being an employee and stockholder of LEO Pharma A/S.

Source: Simpson EL et al. Tralokinumab provides clinically meaningful responses at week 16 in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis who do not achieve IGA 0/1. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2023 (Oct 7). doi: 10.1007/s40257-023-00817-0

Key clinical point: Methotrexate treatment decreased epidermal hyperplasia and altered the cutaneous expression of pruritus-related inflammatory cytokines and receptors, including interleukin-31 (IL-31) and IL-31 alpha receptor subunits (RA), in adults with moderate-to-severe refractory atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At 24 weeks of treatment, methotrexate led to a significant increase in IL-31RA expression in the epidermis (P = .016), decrease in IL-31 gene expression in lesional skin (P = .019), and reduction in the mean epidermal thickness (P = .021).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective cohort study including 12 adults with moderate-to-severe refractory AD who orally received 15 mg methotrexate per week and were matched with 10 control individuals without AD.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Fundo de Apoio à Dermatologia de São Paulo, Brazil. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Samorano LP et al. Methotrexate for refractory adult atopic dermatitis leads to alterations in cutaneous IL-31 and IL-31RA expression. An Bras Dermatol. 2023 (Sep 18). doi: 10.1016/j.abd.2023.01.002

Key clinical point: Methotrexate treatment decreased epidermal hyperplasia and altered the cutaneous expression of pruritus-related inflammatory cytokines and receptors, including interleukin-31 (IL-31) and IL-31 alpha receptor subunits (RA), in adults with moderate-to-severe refractory atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At 24 weeks of treatment, methotrexate led to a significant increase in IL-31RA expression in the epidermis (P = .016), decrease in IL-31 gene expression in lesional skin (P = .019), and reduction in the mean epidermal thickness (P = .021).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective cohort study including 12 adults with moderate-to-severe refractory AD who orally received 15 mg methotrexate per week and were matched with 10 control individuals without AD.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Fundo de Apoio à Dermatologia de São Paulo, Brazil. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Samorano LP et al. Methotrexate for refractory adult atopic dermatitis leads to alterations in cutaneous IL-31 and IL-31RA expression. An Bras Dermatol. 2023 (Sep 18). doi: 10.1016/j.abd.2023.01.002

Key clinical point: Methotrexate treatment decreased epidermal hyperplasia and altered the cutaneous expression of pruritus-related inflammatory cytokines and receptors, including interleukin-31 (IL-31) and IL-31 alpha receptor subunits (RA), in adults with moderate-to-severe refractory atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At 24 weeks of treatment, methotrexate led to a significant increase in IL-31RA expression in the epidermis (P = .016), decrease in IL-31 gene expression in lesional skin (P = .019), and reduction in the mean epidermal thickness (P = .021).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective cohort study including 12 adults with moderate-to-severe refractory AD who orally received 15 mg methotrexate per week and were matched with 10 control individuals without AD.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Fundo de Apoio à Dermatologia de São Paulo, Brazil. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Samorano LP et al. Methotrexate for refractory adult atopic dermatitis leads to alterations in cutaneous IL-31 and IL-31RA expression. An Bras Dermatol. 2023 (Sep 18). doi: 10.1016/j.abd.2023.01.002

Key clinical point: Topical treatment with tacrolimus vs hydrocortisone was more efficacious in reducing inflammatory marker levels and had a better safety profile in children with atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: After 3 weeks, patients receiving tacrolimus vs hydrocortisone showed a significantly greater decrease in the mean serum levels of IL-10 (P = .05), IL-17 (P = .021), and IL-23 (P = .03), lower rates of skin atrophy (P < .05), and higher but manageable incidences of mild-to-moderate transient stinging and erythema (P < .05).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective randomized clinical trial including 200 children with AD (age 2-16 years) who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 0.03% topical tacrolimus ointment or 1% hydrocortisone cream twice daily.

Disclosures: This study did not disclose any funding source. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Mohamed AA et al. A comparative randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus versus hydrocortisone as a topical treatment of atopic dermatitis in children. Front Pharmacol. 2023;14:1202325 (Sep 20). doi: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1202325

Key clinical point: Topical treatment with tacrolimus vs hydrocortisone was more efficacious in reducing inflammatory marker levels and had a better safety profile in children with atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: After 3 weeks, patients receiving tacrolimus vs hydrocortisone showed a significantly greater decrease in the mean serum levels of IL-10 (P = .05), IL-17 (P = .021), and IL-23 (P = .03), lower rates of skin atrophy (P < .05), and higher but manageable incidences of mild-to-moderate transient stinging and erythema (P < .05).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective randomized clinical trial including 200 children with AD (age 2-16 years) who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 0.03% topical tacrolimus ointment or 1% hydrocortisone cream twice daily.

Disclosures: This study did not disclose any funding source. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Mohamed AA et al. A comparative randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus versus hydrocortisone as a topical treatment of atopic dermatitis in children. Front Pharmacol. 2023;14:1202325 (Sep 20). doi: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1202325

Key clinical point: Topical treatment with tacrolimus vs hydrocortisone was more efficacious in reducing inflammatory marker levels and had a better safety profile in children with atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: After 3 weeks, patients receiving tacrolimus vs hydrocortisone showed a significantly greater decrease in the mean serum levels of IL-10 (P = .05), IL-17 (P = .021), and IL-23 (P = .03), lower rates of skin atrophy (P < .05), and higher but manageable incidences of mild-to-moderate transient stinging and erythema (P < .05).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective randomized clinical trial including 200 children with AD (age 2-16 years) who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 0.03% topical tacrolimus ointment or 1% hydrocortisone cream twice daily.

Disclosures: This study did not disclose any funding source. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Mohamed AA et al. A comparative randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus versus hydrocortisone as a topical treatment of atopic dermatitis in children. Front Pharmacol. 2023;14:1202325 (Sep 20). doi: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1202325