MDedge Rheumatology

A new study has found that physical therapy may lead to a reduced risk of long-term opioid use in patients who have undergone total knee replacement (TKR).

ChooChin/Getty Images

“Greater number of PT intervention sessions and earlier initiation of outpatient PT care after TKR were associated with lower odds of long-term opioid use,” authors from Boston University wrote in their report on the study, which was published online Oct. 27 in JAMA Network Open.

“In previous large studies, we’ve seen that physical therapy can reduce pain in people with knee osteoarthritis, which is usually the primary indication for TKR,” study coauthor Deepak Kumar, PT, PhD, said in an interview. “But the association of physical therapy with opioid use in people with knee replacement has not yet been explored.

“The reason we focused on opioid use in these patients is because the number of knee replacement surgeries is going up exponentially,” Dr. Kumar said. “And, depending on which data you look at, from one-third to up to half of people who undergo knee replacement and have used opioids before end up becoming long-term users. Even in people who have not used them before, 5%-8% become long-term users after the surgery.

“Given how many surgeries are happening – and that number is expected to keep going up – the number of people who are becoming long-term opioid users is not trivial,” he said.
 

Study details

To assess the value of PT in reducing opioid use in this subset of patients, the authors reviewed records from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse insurance claims database to identify 67,322 eligible participants aged 40 or older who underwent TKR from Jan. 1, 2001, to Dec. 31, 2016. Of those patients, 38,408 were opioid naive and 28,914 had taken opioids before. The authors evaluated long-term opioid use – defined as 90 days or more of filled prescriptions – during a 12-month outcome assessment period that varied depending on differences in post-TKR PT start date and duration.

The researchers found a significantly lower likelihood of long-term opioid use associated with receipt of any PT before TKR among patients who had not taken opioids before (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.95) and those who had taken opioids in the past (aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70-0.80).

Investigators found that 2.2% of participants in the opioid-naive group and 32.5% of those in the opioid-experienced group used opioids long-term after TKR. Approximately 76% of participants overall received outpatient PT within the 90 days after surgery, and the receipt of post-TKR PT at any point was associated with lower odds of long-term opioid use in the opioid-experienced group (aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70-0.79).

Among the opioid-experienced group, receiving between 6 and 12 PT sessions (aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.75-0.90) or ≥ 13 sessions (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.77) were both associated with lower odds of long-term opioid use, compared with those who received 1-5 sessions. Beginning PT 31-60 days or 61-90 days after surgery was associated with greater odds of long-term opioid use across both cohorts, compared with those who initiated therapy within 30 days of TKR.
 

Physical therapy: Underexplored option for pain in knee replacement

One finding caught the researchers slightly off guard: There was no association between active physical therapy and reduced odds of long-term opioid use. “From prior studies, at least in people with knee osteoarthritis, we know that active interventions were more useful than passive interventions,” Dr. Kumar said.

That said, he added that there is still some professional uncertainty regarding “the right type or the right components of physical therapy for managing pain in this population.” Regardless, he believes their study emphasizes the benefits of PT as a pain alleviator in these patients, especially those who have previously used opioids.

“Pharmaceuticals have side effects. Injections are not super effective,” he said. “The idea behind focusing on physical therapy interventions is that it’s widely available, it does you no harm, and it could potentially be lower cost to both the payers and the providers.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including not adjusting for opioid use within the 90 days after surgery as well as the different outcome assessment periods for pre-TKR and post-TKR PT exposures. In addition, they admitted that some of the patients who received PT could have been among those less likely to be treated with opioids, and vice versa. “A randomized clinical trial,” they wrote, “would be required to disentangle these issues.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Kumar reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study and grants from Pfizer for unrelated projects outside the submitted work. The full list of author disclosures can be found with the original article.

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

A new study has found that physical therapy may lead to a reduced risk of long-term opioid use in patients who have undergone total knee replacement (TKR).

ChooChin/Getty Images

“Greater number of PT intervention sessions and earlier initiation of outpatient PT care after TKR were associated with lower odds of long-term opioid use,” authors from Boston University wrote in their report on the study, which was published online Oct. 27 in JAMA Network Open.

“In previous large studies, we’ve seen that physical therapy can reduce pain in people with knee osteoarthritis, which is usually the primary indication for TKR,” study coauthor Deepak Kumar, PT, PhD, said in an interview. “But the association of physical therapy with opioid use in people with knee replacement has not yet been explored.

“The reason we focused on opioid use in these patients is because the number of knee replacement surgeries is going up exponentially,” Dr. Kumar said. “And, depending on which data you look at, from one-third to up to half of people who undergo knee replacement and have used opioids before end up becoming long-term users. Even in people who have not used them before, 5%-8% become long-term users after the surgery.

“Given how many surgeries are happening – and that number is expected to keep going up – the number of people who are becoming long-term opioid users is not trivial,” he said.
 

Study details

To assess the value of PT in reducing opioid use in this subset of patients, the authors reviewed records from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse insurance claims database to identify 67,322 eligible participants aged 40 or older who underwent TKR from Jan. 1, 2001, to Dec. 31, 2016. Of those patients, 38,408 were opioid naive and 28,914 had taken opioids before. The authors evaluated long-term opioid use – defined as 90 days or more of filled prescriptions – during a 12-month outcome assessment period that varied depending on differences in post-TKR PT start date and duration.

The researchers found a significantly lower likelihood of long-term opioid use associated with receipt of any PT before TKR among patients who had not taken opioids before (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.95) and those who had taken opioids in the past (aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70-0.80).

Investigators found that 2.2% of participants in the opioid-naive group and 32.5% of those in the opioid-experienced group used opioids long-term after TKR. Approximately 76% of participants overall received outpatient PT within the 90 days after surgery, and the receipt of post-TKR PT at any point was associated with lower odds of long-term opioid use in the opioid-experienced group (aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70-0.79).

Among the opioid-experienced group, receiving between 6 and 12 PT sessions (aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.75-0.90) or ≥ 13 sessions (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.77) were both associated with lower odds of long-term opioid use, compared with those who received 1-5 sessions. Beginning PT 31-60 days or 61-90 days after surgery was associated with greater odds of long-term opioid use across both cohorts, compared with those who initiated therapy within 30 days of TKR.
 

Physical therapy: Underexplored option for pain in knee replacement

One finding caught the researchers slightly off guard: There was no association between active physical therapy and reduced odds of long-term opioid use. “From prior studies, at least in people with knee osteoarthritis, we know that active interventions were more useful than passive interventions,” Dr. Kumar said.

That said, he added that there is still some professional uncertainty regarding “the right type or the right components of physical therapy for managing pain in this population.” Regardless, he believes their study emphasizes the benefits of PT as a pain alleviator in these patients, especially those who have previously used opioids.

“Pharmaceuticals have side effects. Injections are not super effective,” he said. “The idea behind focusing on physical therapy interventions is that it’s widely available, it does you no harm, and it could potentially be lower cost to both the payers and the providers.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including not adjusting for opioid use within the 90 days after surgery as well as the different outcome assessment periods for pre-TKR and post-TKR PT exposures. In addition, they admitted that some of the patients who received PT could have been among those less likely to be treated with opioids, and vice versa. “A randomized clinical trial,” they wrote, “would be required to disentangle these issues.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Kumar reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study and grants from Pfizer for unrelated projects outside the submitted work. The full list of author disclosures can be found with the original article.

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

A new study has found that physical therapy may lead to a reduced risk of long-term opioid use in patients who have undergone total knee replacement (TKR).

ChooChin/Getty Images

“Greater number of PT intervention sessions and earlier initiation of outpatient PT care after TKR were associated with lower odds of long-term opioid use,” authors from Boston University wrote in their report on the study, which was published online Oct. 27 in JAMA Network Open.

“In previous large studies, we’ve seen that physical therapy can reduce pain in people with knee osteoarthritis, which is usually the primary indication for TKR,” study coauthor Deepak Kumar, PT, PhD, said in an interview. “But the association of physical therapy with opioid use in people with knee replacement has not yet been explored.

“The reason we focused on opioid use in these patients is because the number of knee replacement surgeries is going up exponentially,” Dr. Kumar said. “And, depending on which data you look at, from one-third to up to half of people who undergo knee replacement and have used opioids before end up becoming long-term users. Even in people who have not used them before, 5%-8% become long-term users after the surgery.

“Given how many surgeries are happening – and that number is expected to keep going up – the number of people who are becoming long-term opioid users is not trivial,” he said.
 

Study details

To assess the value of PT in reducing opioid use in this subset of patients, the authors reviewed records from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse insurance claims database to identify 67,322 eligible participants aged 40 or older who underwent TKR from Jan. 1, 2001, to Dec. 31, 2016. Of those patients, 38,408 were opioid naive and 28,914 had taken opioids before. The authors evaluated long-term opioid use – defined as 90 days or more of filled prescriptions – during a 12-month outcome assessment period that varied depending on differences in post-TKR PT start date and duration.

The researchers found a significantly lower likelihood of long-term opioid use associated with receipt of any PT before TKR among patients who had not taken opioids before (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.95) and those who had taken opioids in the past (aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70-0.80).

Investigators found that 2.2% of participants in the opioid-naive group and 32.5% of those in the opioid-experienced group used opioids long-term after TKR. Approximately 76% of participants overall received outpatient PT within the 90 days after surgery, and the receipt of post-TKR PT at any point was associated with lower odds of long-term opioid use in the opioid-experienced group (aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70-0.79).

Among the opioid-experienced group, receiving between 6 and 12 PT sessions (aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.75-0.90) or ≥ 13 sessions (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.77) were both associated with lower odds of long-term opioid use, compared with those who received 1-5 sessions. Beginning PT 31-60 days or 61-90 days after surgery was associated with greater odds of long-term opioid use across both cohorts, compared with those who initiated therapy within 30 days of TKR.
 

Physical therapy: Underexplored option for pain in knee replacement

One finding caught the researchers slightly off guard: There was no association between active physical therapy and reduced odds of long-term opioid use. “From prior studies, at least in people with knee osteoarthritis, we know that active interventions were more useful than passive interventions,” Dr. Kumar said.

That said, he added that there is still some professional uncertainty regarding “the right type or the right components of physical therapy for managing pain in this population.” Regardless, he believes their study emphasizes the benefits of PT as a pain alleviator in these patients, especially those who have previously used opioids.

“Pharmaceuticals have side effects. Injections are not super effective,” he said. “The idea behind focusing on physical therapy interventions is that it’s widely available, it does you no harm, and it could potentially be lower cost to both the payers and the providers.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including not adjusting for opioid use within the 90 days after surgery as well as the different outcome assessment periods for pre-TKR and post-TKR PT exposures. In addition, they admitted that some of the patients who received PT could have been among those less likely to be treated with opioids, and vice versa. “A randomized clinical trial,” they wrote, “would be required to disentangle these issues.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Kumar reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study and grants from Pfizer for unrelated projects outside the submitted work. The full list of author disclosures can be found with the original article.

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

Almost all physicians write prescriptions, and each prescription requires a physician to assess the risks and benefits of the drug. If an adverse drug reaction occurs, physicians may be called on to defend their risk-benefit assessment in court.

The assessment of risk is complicated when there is a boxed warning that describes potentially serious and life-threatening adverse reactions associated with a drug. Some of our most commonly prescribed drugs have boxed warnings, and drugs that were initially approved by the Food and Drug Administration without boxed warnings may have them added years later.

One serious problem with boxed warnings is that there are no reliable mechanisms for making sure that physicians are aware of them. The warnings are typically not seen by physicians as printed product labels, just as physicians often don’t see the pills and capsules that they prescribe. Pharmacists who receive packaged drugs from manufacturers may be the only ones to see an actual printed boxed warning, but even those pharmacists have little reason to read each label and note changes when handling many bulk packages.

This problem is aggravated by misperceptions that many physicians have about boxed warnings and the increasingly intense scrutiny given to them by mass media and the courts. Lawyers can use boxed warnings to make a drug look dangerous, even when it’s not, and to make physicians look reckless when prescribing it. Therefore, it is important for physicians to understand what boxed warnings are, what they are not, the problems they cause, and how to minimize these problems.
 

What is a ‘boxed warning’?

The marketing and sale of drugs in the United States requires approval by the FDA. Approval requires manufacturers to prepare a document containing “Full Prescribing Information” for the drug and to include a printed copy in every package of the drug that is sold. This document is commonly called a “package insert,” but the FDA designates this document as the manufacturer’s product “label.”

In 1979, the FDA began requiring some labels to appear within thick, black rectangular borders; these have come to be known as boxed warnings. Boxed warnings are usually placed at the beginning of a label. They may be added to the label of a previously approved drug already on the market or included in the product label when first approved and marketed.

The requirement for a boxed warning most often arises when a signal appears during review of postmarketing surveillance data suggesting a possible and plausible association between a drug and an adverse reaction. Warnings may also be initiated in response to petitions from public interest groups, or upon the discovery of serious toxicity in animals. Regardless of their origin, the intent of a boxed warning is to highlight information that may have important therapeutic consequences and warrants heightened awareness among physicians.
 

What a boxed warning is not

A boxed warning is not “issued” by the FDA; it is merely required by the FDA. Specific wording or a template may be suggested by the FDA, but product labels and boxed warnings are written and issued by the manufacturer. This distinction may seem minor, but extensive litigation has occurred over whether manufacturers have met their duty to warn consumers about possible risks when using their products, and this duty cannot be shifted to the FDA.

A boxed warning may not be added to a product label at the option of a manufacturer. The FDA allows a boxed warning only if it requires the warning, to preserve its impact. It should be noted that some medical information sources (e.g., PDR.net) may include a “BOXED WARNING” in their drug monographs, but monographs not written by a manufacturer are not regulated by the FDA, and the text of their boxed warnings do not always correspond to the boxed warning that was approved by the FDA.

A boxed warning is not an indication that revocation of FDA approval is being considered or that it is likely to be revoked. FDA approval is subject to ongoing review and may be revoked at any time, without a prior boxed warning.

A boxed warning is not the highest level of warning. The FDA may require a manufacturer to send out a “Dear Health Care Provider” (DHCP) letter when an even higher or more urgent level of warning is deemed necessary. DHCP letters are usually accompanied by revisions of the product label, but most label revisions – and even most boxed warnings – are not accompanied by DHCP letters.

A boxed warning is not a statement about causation. Most warnings describe an “association” between a drug and an adverse effect, or “increased risk,” or instances of a particular adverse effect that “have been reported” in persons taking a drug. The words in a boxed warning are carefully chosen and require careful reading; in most cases they refrain from stating that a drug actually causes an adverse effect. The postmarketing surveillance data on which most warnings are based generally cannot provide the kind of evidence required to establish causation, and an association may be nothing more than an uncommon manifestation of the disorder for which the drug has been prescribed.

A boxed warning is not a statement about the probability of an adverse reaction occurring. The requirement for a boxed warning correlates better to the new recognition of a possible association than to the probability of an association. For example, penicillin has long been known to cause fatal anaphylaxis in 1/100,000 first-time administrations, but it does not have a boxed warning. The adverse consequences described in boxed warnings are often far less frequent – so much so that most physicians will never see them.

A boxed warning does not define the standard of care. The warning is a requirement imposed on the manufacturer, not on the practice of medicine. For legal purposes, the “standard of care” for the practice of medicine is defined state by state and is typically cast in terms such as “what most physicians would do in similar circumstances.” Physicians often prescribe drugs in spite of boxed warnings, just as they often prescribe drugs for “off label” indications, always balancing risk versus benefit.

A boxed warning does not constitute a contraindication to the use of a medication. Some warnings state that a drug is contraindicated in some situations, but product labels have another mandated section for listing contraindications, and most boxed warnings have no corresponding entry in that section.

A boxed warning does not necessarily constitute current information, nor is it always updated when new or contrary information becomes available. Revisions to boxed warnings, and to product labels in general, are made only after detailed review at the FDA, and the process of deciding whether an existing boxed warning continues to be appropriate may divert limited regulatory resources from more urgent priorities. Consequently, revisions to a boxed warning may lag behind the data that justify a revision by months or years. Revisions may never occur if softening or eliminating a boxed warning is deemed to be not worth the cost by a manufacturer.
 

Boxed warning problems for physicians

There is no reliable mechanism for manufacturers or the FDA to communicate boxed warnings directly to physicians, so it’s not clear how physicians are expected to stay informed about the issuance or revision of boxed warnings. They may first learn about new or revised warnings in the mass media, which is paying ever-increasing attention to press releases from the FDA. However, it can be difficult for the media to accurately convey the subtle and complex nature of a boxed warning in nontechnical terms.

Many physicians subscribe to various medical news alerts and attend continuing medical education (CME) programs, which often do an excellent job of highlighting new warnings, while hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies may broadcast news about boxed warnings in newsletters or other notices. But these notifications are ephemeral and may be missed by physicians who are overwhelmed by email, notices, newsletters, and CME programs.

The warnings that pop up in electronic medical records systems are often so numerous that physicians become trained to ignore them. Printed advertisements in professional journals must include mandated boxed warnings, but their visibility is waning as physicians increasingly read journals online.

Another conundrum is how to inform the public about boxed warnings.

Manufacturers are prohibited from direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs with boxed warnings, although the warnings are easily found on the Internet. Some patients expect and welcome detailed information from their physicians, so it’s a good policy to always and repeatedly review this information with them, especially if they are members of an identified risk group. However, that policy may be counterproductive if it dissuades anxious patients from needed therapy despite risk-benefit considerations that strongly favor it. Boxed warnings are well known to have “spillover effects” in which the aspersions cast by a boxed warning for a relatively small subgroup of patients causes use of a drug to decline among all patients.

Compounding this conundrum is that physicians rarely have sufficient information to gauge the magnitude of a risk, given that boxed warnings are often based on information from surveillance systems that cannot accurately quantify the risk or even establish a causal relationship. The text of a boxed warning generally does not provide the information needed for evidence-based clinical practice such as a quantitative estimate of effect, information about source and trustworthiness of the evidence, and guidance on implementation. For these and other reasons, FDA policies about various boxed warnings have been the target of significant criticism.

Medication guides are one mechanism to address the challenge of informing patients about the risks of drugs they are taking. FDA-approved medication guides are available for most drugs dispensed as outpatient prescriptions, they’re written in plain language for the consumer, and they include paraphrased versions of any boxed warning. Ideally, patients review these guides with their physicians or pharmacists, but the guides may be lengthy and raise questions that may not be answerable (e.g., about incidence rates). Patients may decline to review this information when a drug is prescribed or dispensed, and they may discard printed copies given to them without reading.
 

What can physicians do to minimize boxed warning problems?

Physicians should periodically review the product labels for drugs they commonly prescribe, including drugs they’ve prescribed for a long time. Prescription renewal requests can be used as a prompt to check for changes in a patient’s condition or other medications that might place a patient in the target population of a boxed warning. Physicians can subscribe to newsletters that announce and discuss significant product label changes, including alerts directly from the FDA. Physicians may also enlist their office staff to find and review boxed warnings for drugs being prescribed, noting which ones should require a conversation with any patient who has been or will be receiving this drug. They may want to make explicit mention in their encounter record that a boxed warning, medication guide, or overall risk-benefit assessment has been discussed.

Summary

The nature of boxed warnings, the means by which they are disseminated, and their role in clinical practice are all in great need of improvement. Until that occurs, boxed warnings offer some, but only very limited, help to patients and physicians who struggle to understand the risks of medications.

Dr. Axelsen is professor in the departments of pharmacology, biochemistry, and biophysics, and of medicine, infectious diseases section, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Almost all physicians write prescriptions, and each prescription requires a physician to assess the risks and benefits of the drug. If an adverse drug reaction occurs, physicians may be called on to defend their risk-benefit assessment in court.

The assessment of risk is complicated when there is a boxed warning that describes potentially serious and life-threatening adverse reactions associated with a drug. Some of our most commonly prescribed drugs have boxed warnings, and drugs that were initially approved by the Food and Drug Administration without boxed warnings may have them added years later.

One serious problem with boxed warnings is that there are no reliable mechanisms for making sure that physicians are aware of them. The warnings are typically not seen by physicians as printed product labels, just as physicians often don’t see the pills and capsules that they prescribe. Pharmacists who receive packaged drugs from manufacturers may be the only ones to see an actual printed boxed warning, but even those pharmacists have little reason to read each label and note changes when handling many bulk packages.

This problem is aggravated by misperceptions that many physicians have about boxed warnings and the increasingly intense scrutiny given to them by mass media and the courts. Lawyers can use boxed warnings to make a drug look dangerous, even when it’s not, and to make physicians look reckless when prescribing it. Therefore, it is important for physicians to understand what boxed warnings are, what they are not, the problems they cause, and how to minimize these problems.
 

What is a ‘boxed warning’?

The marketing and sale of drugs in the United States requires approval by the FDA. Approval requires manufacturers to prepare a document containing “Full Prescribing Information” for the drug and to include a printed copy in every package of the drug that is sold. This document is commonly called a “package insert,” but the FDA designates this document as the manufacturer’s product “label.”

In 1979, the FDA began requiring some labels to appear within thick, black rectangular borders; these have come to be known as boxed warnings. Boxed warnings are usually placed at the beginning of a label. They may be added to the label of a previously approved drug already on the market or included in the product label when first approved and marketed.

The requirement for a boxed warning most often arises when a signal appears during review of postmarketing surveillance data suggesting a possible and plausible association between a drug and an adverse reaction. Warnings may also be initiated in response to petitions from public interest groups, or upon the discovery of serious toxicity in animals. Regardless of their origin, the intent of a boxed warning is to highlight information that may have important therapeutic consequences and warrants heightened awareness among physicians.
 

What a boxed warning is not

A boxed warning is not “issued” by the FDA; it is merely required by the FDA. Specific wording or a template may be suggested by the FDA, but product labels and boxed warnings are written and issued by the manufacturer. This distinction may seem minor, but extensive litigation has occurred over whether manufacturers have met their duty to warn consumers about possible risks when using their products, and this duty cannot be shifted to the FDA.

A boxed warning may not be added to a product label at the option of a manufacturer. The FDA allows a boxed warning only if it requires the warning, to preserve its impact. It should be noted that some medical information sources (e.g., PDR.net) may include a “BOXED WARNING” in their drug monographs, but monographs not written by a manufacturer are not regulated by the FDA, and the text of their boxed warnings do not always correspond to the boxed warning that was approved by the FDA.

A boxed warning is not an indication that revocation of FDA approval is being considered or that it is likely to be revoked. FDA approval is subject to ongoing review and may be revoked at any time, without a prior boxed warning.

A boxed warning is not the highest level of warning. The FDA may require a manufacturer to send out a “Dear Health Care Provider” (DHCP) letter when an even higher or more urgent level of warning is deemed necessary. DHCP letters are usually accompanied by revisions of the product label, but most label revisions – and even most boxed warnings – are not accompanied by DHCP letters.

A boxed warning is not a statement about causation. Most warnings describe an “association” between a drug and an adverse effect, or “increased risk,” or instances of a particular adverse effect that “have been reported” in persons taking a drug. The words in a boxed warning are carefully chosen and require careful reading; in most cases they refrain from stating that a drug actually causes an adverse effect. The postmarketing surveillance data on which most warnings are based generally cannot provide the kind of evidence required to establish causation, and an association may be nothing more than an uncommon manifestation of the disorder for which the drug has been prescribed.

A boxed warning is not a statement about the probability of an adverse reaction occurring. The requirement for a boxed warning correlates better to the new recognition of a possible association than to the probability of an association. For example, penicillin has long been known to cause fatal anaphylaxis in 1/100,000 first-time administrations, but it does not have a boxed warning. The adverse consequences described in boxed warnings are often far less frequent – so much so that most physicians will never see them.

A boxed warning does not define the standard of care. The warning is a requirement imposed on the manufacturer, not on the practice of medicine. For legal purposes, the “standard of care” for the practice of medicine is defined state by state and is typically cast in terms such as “what most physicians would do in similar circumstances.” Physicians often prescribe drugs in spite of boxed warnings, just as they often prescribe drugs for “off label” indications, always balancing risk versus benefit.

A boxed warning does not constitute a contraindication to the use of a medication. Some warnings state that a drug is contraindicated in some situations, but product labels have another mandated section for listing contraindications, and most boxed warnings have no corresponding entry in that section.

A boxed warning does not necessarily constitute current information, nor is it always updated when new or contrary information becomes available. Revisions to boxed warnings, and to product labels in general, are made only after detailed review at the FDA, and the process of deciding whether an existing boxed warning continues to be appropriate may divert limited regulatory resources from more urgent priorities. Consequently, revisions to a boxed warning may lag behind the data that justify a revision by months or years. Revisions may never occur if softening or eliminating a boxed warning is deemed to be not worth the cost by a manufacturer.
 

Boxed warning problems for physicians

There is no reliable mechanism for manufacturers or the FDA to communicate boxed warnings directly to physicians, so it’s not clear how physicians are expected to stay informed about the issuance or revision of boxed warnings. They may first learn about new or revised warnings in the mass media, which is paying ever-increasing attention to press releases from the FDA. However, it can be difficult for the media to accurately convey the subtle and complex nature of a boxed warning in nontechnical terms.

Many physicians subscribe to various medical news alerts and attend continuing medical education (CME) programs, which often do an excellent job of highlighting new warnings, while hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies may broadcast news about boxed warnings in newsletters or other notices. But these notifications are ephemeral and may be missed by physicians who are overwhelmed by email, notices, newsletters, and CME programs.

The warnings that pop up in electronic medical records systems are often so numerous that physicians become trained to ignore them. Printed advertisements in professional journals must include mandated boxed warnings, but their visibility is waning as physicians increasingly read journals online.

Another conundrum is how to inform the public about boxed warnings.

Manufacturers are prohibited from direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs with boxed warnings, although the warnings are easily found on the Internet. Some patients expect and welcome detailed information from their physicians, so it’s a good policy to always and repeatedly review this information with them, especially if they are members of an identified risk group. However, that policy may be counterproductive if it dissuades anxious patients from needed therapy despite risk-benefit considerations that strongly favor it. Boxed warnings are well known to have “spillover effects” in which the aspersions cast by a boxed warning for a relatively small subgroup of patients causes use of a drug to decline among all patients.

Compounding this conundrum is that physicians rarely have sufficient information to gauge the magnitude of a risk, given that boxed warnings are often based on information from surveillance systems that cannot accurately quantify the risk or even establish a causal relationship. The text of a boxed warning generally does not provide the information needed for evidence-based clinical practice such as a quantitative estimate of effect, information about source and trustworthiness of the evidence, and guidance on implementation. For these and other reasons, FDA policies about various boxed warnings have been the target of significant criticism.

Medication guides are one mechanism to address the challenge of informing patients about the risks of drugs they are taking. FDA-approved medication guides are available for most drugs dispensed as outpatient prescriptions, they’re written in plain language for the consumer, and they include paraphrased versions of any boxed warning. Ideally, patients review these guides with their physicians or pharmacists, but the guides may be lengthy and raise questions that may not be answerable (e.g., about incidence rates). Patients may decline to review this information when a drug is prescribed or dispensed, and they may discard printed copies given to them without reading.
 

What can physicians do to minimize boxed warning problems?

Physicians should periodically review the product labels for drugs they commonly prescribe, including drugs they’ve prescribed for a long time. Prescription renewal requests can be used as a prompt to check for changes in a patient’s condition or other medications that might place a patient in the target population of a boxed warning. Physicians can subscribe to newsletters that announce and discuss significant product label changes, including alerts directly from the FDA. Physicians may also enlist their office staff to find and review boxed warnings for drugs being prescribed, noting which ones should require a conversation with any patient who has been or will be receiving this drug. They may want to make explicit mention in their encounter record that a boxed warning, medication guide, or overall risk-benefit assessment has been discussed.

Summary

The nature of boxed warnings, the means by which they are disseminated, and their role in clinical practice are all in great need of improvement. Until that occurs, boxed warnings offer some, but only very limited, help to patients and physicians who struggle to understand the risks of medications.

Dr. Axelsen is professor in the departments of pharmacology, biochemistry, and biophysics, and of medicine, infectious diseases section, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Almost all physicians write prescriptions, and each prescription requires a physician to assess the risks and benefits of the drug. If an adverse drug reaction occurs, physicians may be called on to defend their risk-benefit assessment in court.

The assessment of risk is complicated when there is a boxed warning that describes potentially serious and life-threatening adverse reactions associated with a drug. Some of our most commonly prescribed drugs have boxed warnings, and drugs that were initially approved by the Food and Drug Administration without boxed warnings may have them added years later.

One serious problem with boxed warnings is that there are no reliable mechanisms for making sure that physicians are aware of them. The warnings are typically not seen by physicians as printed product labels, just as physicians often don’t see the pills and capsules that they prescribe. Pharmacists who receive packaged drugs from manufacturers may be the only ones to see an actual printed boxed warning, but even those pharmacists have little reason to read each label and note changes when handling many bulk packages.

This problem is aggravated by misperceptions that many physicians have about boxed warnings and the increasingly intense scrutiny given to them by mass media and the courts. Lawyers can use boxed warnings to make a drug look dangerous, even when it’s not, and to make physicians look reckless when prescribing it. Therefore, it is important for physicians to understand what boxed warnings are, what they are not, the problems they cause, and how to minimize these problems.
 

What is a ‘boxed warning’?

The marketing and sale of drugs in the United States requires approval by the FDA. Approval requires manufacturers to prepare a document containing “Full Prescribing Information” for the drug and to include a printed copy in every package of the drug that is sold. This document is commonly called a “package insert,” but the FDA designates this document as the manufacturer’s product “label.”

In 1979, the FDA began requiring some labels to appear within thick, black rectangular borders; these have come to be known as boxed warnings. Boxed warnings are usually placed at the beginning of a label. They may be added to the label of a previously approved drug already on the market or included in the product label when first approved and marketed.

The requirement for a boxed warning most often arises when a signal appears during review of postmarketing surveillance data suggesting a possible and plausible association between a drug and an adverse reaction. Warnings may also be initiated in response to petitions from public interest groups, or upon the discovery of serious toxicity in animals. Regardless of their origin, the intent of a boxed warning is to highlight information that may have important therapeutic consequences and warrants heightened awareness among physicians.
 

What a boxed warning is not

A boxed warning is not “issued” by the FDA; it is merely required by the FDA. Specific wording or a template may be suggested by the FDA, but product labels and boxed warnings are written and issued by the manufacturer. This distinction may seem minor, but extensive litigation has occurred over whether manufacturers have met their duty to warn consumers about possible risks when using their products, and this duty cannot be shifted to the FDA.

A boxed warning may not be added to a product label at the option of a manufacturer. The FDA allows a boxed warning only if it requires the warning, to preserve its impact. It should be noted that some medical information sources (e.g., PDR.net) may include a “BOXED WARNING” in their drug monographs, but monographs not written by a manufacturer are not regulated by the FDA, and the text of their boxed warnings do not always correspond to the boxed warning that was approved by the FDA.

A boxed warning is not an indication that revocation of FDA approval is being considered or that it is likely to be revoked. FDA approval is subject to ongoing review and may be revoked at any time, without a prior boxed warning.

A boxed warning is not the highest level of warning. The FDA may require a manufacturer to send out a “Dear Health Care Provider” (DHCP) letter when an even higher or more urgent level of warning is deemed necessary. DHCP letters are usually accompanied by revisions of the product label, but most label revisions – and even most boxed warnings – are not accompanied by DHCP letters.

A boxed warning is not a statement about causation. Most warnings describe an “association” between a drug and an adverse effect, or “increased risk,” or instances of a particular adverse effect that “have been reported” in persons taking a drug. The words in a boxed warning are carefully chosen and require careful reading; in most cases they refrain from stating that a drug actually causes an adverse effect. The postmarketing surveillance data on which most warnings are based generally cannot provide the kind of evidence required to establish causation, and an association may be nothing more than an uncommon manifestation of the disorder for which the drug has been prescribed.

A boxed warning is not a statement about the probability of an adverse reaction occurring. The requirement for a boxed warning correlates better to the new recognition of a possible association than to the probability of an association. For example, penicillin has long been known to cause fatal anaphylaxis in 1/100,000 first-time administrations, but it does not have a boxed warning. The adverse consequences described in boxed warnings are often far less frequent – so much so that most physicians will never see them.

A boxed warning does not define the standard of care. The warning is a requirement imposed on the manufacturer, not on the practice of medicine. For legal purposes, the “standard of care” for the practice of medicine is defined state by state and is typically cast in terms such as “what most physicians would do in similar circumstances.” Physicians often prescribe drugs in spite of boxed warnings, just as they often prescribe drugs for “off label” indications, always balancing risk versus benefit.

A boxed warning does not constitute a contraindication to the use of a medication. Some warnings state that a drug is contraindicated in some situations, but product labels have another mandated section for listing contraindications, and most boxed warnings have no corresponding entry in that section.

A boxed warning does not necessarily constitute current information, nor is it always updated when new or contrary information becomes available. Revisions to boxed warnings, and to product labels in general, are made only after detailed review at the FDA, and the process of deciding whether an existing boxed warning continues to be appropriate may divert limited regulatory resources from more urgent priorities. Consequently, revisions to a boxed warning may lag behind the data that justify a revision by months or years. Revisions may never occur if softening or eliminating a boxed warning is deemed to be not worth the cost by a manufacturer.
 

Boxed warning problems for physicians

There is no reliable mechanism for manufacturers or the FDA to communicate boxed warnings directly to physicians, so it’s not clear how physicians are expected to stay informed about the issuance or revision of boxed warnings. They may first learn about new or revised warnings in the mass media, which is paying ever-increasing attention to press releases from the FDA. However, it can be difficult for the media to accurately convey the subtle and complex nature of a boxed warning in nontechnical terms.

Many physicians subscribe to various medical news alerts and attend continuing medical education (CME) programs, which often do an excellent job of highlighting new warnings, while hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies may broadcast news about boxed warnings in newsletters or other notices. But these notifications are ephemeral and may be missed by physicians who are overwhelmed by email, notices, newsletters, and CME programs.

The warnings that pop up in electronic medical records systems are often so numerous that physicians become trained to ignore them. Printed advertisements in professional journals must include mandated boxed warnings, but their visibility is waning as physicians increasingly read journals online.

Another conundrum is how to inform the public about boxed warnings.

Manufacturers are prohibited from direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs with boxed warnings, although the warnings are easily found on the Internet. Some patients expect and welcome detailed information from their physicians, so it’s a good policy to always and repeatedly review this information with them, especially if they are members of an identified risk group. However, that policy may be counterproductive if it dissuades anxious patients from needed therapy despite risk-benefit considerations that strongly favor it. Boxed warnings are well known to have “spillover effects” in which the aspersions cast by a boxed warning for a relatively small subgroup of patients causes use of a drug to decline among all patients.

Compounding this conundrum is that physicians rarely have sufficient information to gauge the magnitude of a risk, given that boxed warnings are often based on information from surveillance systems that cannot accurately quantify the risk or even establish a causal relationship. The text of a boxed warning generally does not provide the information needed for evidence-based clinical practice such as a quantitative estimate of effect, information about source and trustworthiness of the evidence, and guidance on implementation. For these and other reasons, FDA policies about various boxed warnings have been the target of significant criticism.

Medication guides are one mechanism to address the challenge of informing patients about the risks of drugs they are taking. FDA-approved medication guides are available for most drugs dispensed as outpatient prescriptions, they’re written in plain language for the consumer, and they include paraphrased versions of any boxed warning. Ideally, patients review these guides with their physicians or pharmacists, but the guides may be lengthy and raise questions that may not be answerable (e.g., about incidence rates). Patients may decline to review this information when a drug is prescribed or dispensed, and they may discard printed copies given to them without reading.
 

What can physicians do to minimize boxed warning problems?

Physicians should periodically review the product labels for drugs they commonly prescribe, including drugs they’ve prescribed for a long time. Prescription renewal requests can be used as a prompt to check for changes in a patient’s condition or other medications that might place a patient in the target population of a boxed warning. Physicians can subscribe to newsletters that announce and discuss significant product label changes, including alerts directly from the FDA. Physicians may also enlist their office staff to find and review boxed warnings for drugs being prescribed, noting which ones should require a conversation with any patient who has been or will be receiving this drug. They may want to make explicit mention in their encounter record that a boxed warning, medication guide, or overall risk-benefit assessment has been discussed.

Summary

The nature of boxed warnings, the means by which they are disseminated, and their role in clinical practice are all in great need of improvement. Until that occurs, boxed warnings offer some, but only very limited, help to patients and physicians who struggle to understand the risks of medications.

Dr. Axelsen is professor in the departments of pharmacology, biochemistry, and biophysics, and of medicine, infectious diseases section, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Biosimilar medications have received significant attention recently in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), though the effects of switching from the reference drug to a biosimilar is not known. The study by Fleischmann et al¹ looks at the safety and efficacy, as well as immunogenicity, of biosimilar adalimumab (ADL-PF) compared to the reference ADL-EU (European Union sourced adalimumab) in a randomized double-blind study. Patients were randomized to start and continue ADL-PF or start ADL-EU and switch to ADL-PF at week 26 or 52. Immunogenicity was measured using anti-drug antibodies (ADA). American College of Rheumatology (ACR20) response rates were similar among all groups, while ACR50 and ACR70 response rates were numerically lower in the week 52 switch group. ADA development was comparable between groups. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, but overall, safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity were similar between patients maintained on ADL-PF and those switched from ADL-EU at week 26 or 52.

Statins have long been associated with musculoskeletal symptoms in patients, but have also been postulated to have anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects. Complicating the relationship is the knowledge that inflammation increases cardiovascular risk in RA patients. In a case-control study, Peterson et al² used an administrative database to examine the influence of statin use on development of RA. Cases were identified based on ICD-9 coding as well as a prescription for methotrexate after diagnosis. They were matched 1:1 with controls based on demographics and year of diagnosis. Statin use was evaluated. Statin use was associated with a small increase in risk of RA, which was diminished after adjusting for hyperlipidemia; a trend towards increase in risk with higher dose and duration of statin use was not statistically significant. Beyond this, the reduced risk after adjustment for hyperlipidemia is hard to interpret as an explanation of cause or effect of autoimmunity, and, given the small magnitude of increases and decreases in risk, may not be clinically meaningful.

In addition to patients with RA having a higher burden of cardiovascular disease necessitating use of statins, they also have a high risk of progressive secondary osteoarthritis requiring joint replacement surgery. Chang et al³ used a national claims-based dataset from China to examine risk of total knee or hip replacement (TKR and THR, respectively) in patients with RA. From 2000-2013 (ie, the onset of the biologic era), TKR and THR rates were examined in a cohort of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) users compared to conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) users. Adjusted hazard ratios (HR) were lower for both TKD and THR in bDMARD users. Though RA activity was not examined, combined with the knowledge of the association of disease severity with bDMARD use, this study lends evidence to the benefits of more aggressive treatment.

Finally, much is made of the link between bDMARD and targeted synthetic DMARD use and malignancy due to reduced immunosurveillance, but concrete evidence is conflicting. Wetzman et al⁴ performed a systematic review of studies of patients with inflammatory arthritis (RA, psoriatic arthritis, and Ankylosing spondylitis) looking at cancer relapse or occurrence of new cancer. An increase in skin cancers (HR 1.32) was noted, but reassuringly no other increase in risk of recurrent or new cancer was seen.

References

1. Fleischmann R et al. Long-term efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the adalimumab biosimilar, PF-06410293, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis after switching from reference adalimumab (Humira®) or continuing biosimilar therapy: week 52–92 data from a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trialArthritis Res Ther. 2021(Sep 25);23:248.
2. Peterson MN et al. Risk of rheumatoid arthritis diagnosis in statin users in a large nationwide US study. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021(Sep 18):23:244.
3. Chang YS et al. Effects of biologics on reducing the risks of total knee replacement and total hip replacement in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021(Sep 17):keab671.
4. Wetzman A et al. Risk of cancer after initiation of targeted therapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and a prior cancer: systematic review with meta-analysis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2021(Sep 21): acr.24784.

Biosimilar medications have received significant attention recently in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), though the effects of switching from the reference drug to a biosimilar is not known. The study by Fleischmann et al¹ looks at the safety and efficacy, as well as immunogenicity, of biosimilar adalimumab (ADL-PF) compared to the reference ADL-EU (European Union sourced adalimumab) in a randomized double-blind study. Patients were randomized to start and continue ADL-PF or start ADL-EU and switch to ADL-PF at week 26 or 52. Immunogenicity was measured using anti-drug antibodies (ADA). American College of Rheumatology (ACR20) response rates were similar among all groups, while ACR50 and ACR70 response rates were numerically lower in the week 52 switch group. ADA development was comparable between groups. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, but overall, safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity were similar between patients maintained on ADL-PF and those switched from ADL-EU at week 26 or 52.

Statins have long been associated with musculoskeletal symptoms in patients, but have also been postulated to have anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects. Complicating the relationship is the knowledge that inflammation increases cardiovascular risk in RA patients. In a case-control study, Peterson et al² used an administrative database to examine the influence of statin use on development of RA. Cases were identified based on ICD-9 coding as well as a prescription for methotrexate after diagnosis. They were matched 1:1 with controls based on demographics and year of diagnosis. Statin use was evaluated. Statin use was associated with a small increase in risk of RA, which was diminished after adjusting for hyperlipidemia; a trend towards increase in risk with higher dose and duration of statin use was not statistically significant. Beyond this, the reduced risk after adjustment for hyperlipidemia is hard to interpret as an explanation of cause or effect of autoimmunity, and, given the small magnitude of increases and decreases in risk, may not be clinically meaningful.

In addition to patients with RA having a higher burden of cardiovascular disease necessitating use of statins, they also have a high risk of progressive secondary osteoarthritis requiring joint replacement surgery. Chang et al³ used a national claims-based dataset from China to examine risk of total knee or hip replacement (TKR and THR, respectively) in patients with RA. From 2000-2013 (ie, the onset of the biologic era), TKR and THR rates were examined in a cohort of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) users compared to conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) users. Adjusted hazard ratios (HR) were lower for both TKD and THR in bDMARD users. Though RA activity was not examined, combined with the knowledge of the association of disease severity with bDMARD use, this study lends evidence to the benefits of more aggressive treatment.

Finally, much is made of the link between bDMARD and targeted synthetic DMARD use and malignancy due to reduced immunosurveillance, but concrete evidence is conflicting. Wetzman et al⁴ performed a systematic review of studies of patients with inflammatory arthritis (RA, psoriatic arthritis, and Ankylosing spondylitis) looking at cancer relapse or occurrence of new cancer. An increase in skin cancers (HR 1.32) was noted, but reassuringly no other increase in risk of recurrent or new cancer was seen.

References

1. Fleischmann R et al. Long-term efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the adalimumab biosimilar, PF-06410293, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis after switching from reference adalimumab (Humira®) or continuing biosimilar therapy: week 52–92 data from a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trialArthritis Res Ther. 2021(Sep 25);23:248.
2. Peterson MN et al. Risk of rheumatoid arthritis diagnosis in statin users in a large nationwide US study. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021(Sep 18):23:244.
3. Chang YS et al. Effects of biologics on reducing the risks of total knee replacement and total hip replacement in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021(Sep 17):keab671.
4. Wetzman A et al. Risk of cancer after initiation of targeted therapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and a prior cancer: systematic review with meta-analysis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2021(Sep 21): acr.24784.

Biosimilar medications have received significant attention recently in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), though the effects of switching from the reference drug to a biosimilar is not known. The study by Fleischmann et al¹ looks at the safety and efficacy, as well as immunogenicity, of biosimilar adalimumab (ADL-PF) compared to the reference ADL-EU (European Union sourced adalimumab) in a randomized double-blind study. Patients were randomized to start and continue ADL-PF or start ADL-EU and switch to ADL-PF at week 26 or 52. Immunogenicity was measured using anti-drug antibodies (ADA). American College of Rheumatology (ACR20) response rates were similar among all groups, while ACR50 and ACR70 response rates were numerically lower in the week 52 switch group. ADA development was comparable between groups. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, but overall, safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity were similar between patients maintained on ADL-PF and those switched from ADL-EU at week 26 or 52.

Statins have long been associated with musculoskeletal symptoms in patients, but have also been postulated to have anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects. Complicating the relationship is the knowledge that inflammation increases cardiovascular risk in RA patients. In a case-control study, Peterson et al² used an administrative database to examine the influence of statin use on development of RA. Cases were identified based on ICD-9 coding as well as a prescription for methotrexate after diagnosis. They were matched 1:1 with controls based on demographics and year of diagnosis. Statin use was evaluated. Statin use was associated with a small increase in risk of RA, which was diminished after adjusting for hyperlipidemia; a trend towards increase in risk with higher dose and duration of statin use was not statistically significant. Beyond this, the reduced risk after adjustment for hyperlipidemia is hard to interpret as an explanation of cause or effect of autoimmunity, and, given the small magnitude of increases and decreases in risk, may not be clinically meaningful.

In addition to patients with RA having a higher burden of cardiovascular disease necessitating use of statins, they also have a high risk of progressive secondary osteoarthritis requiring joint replacement surgery. Chang et al³ used a national claims-based dataset from China to examine risk of total knee or hip replacement (TKR and THR, respectively) in patients with RA. From 2000-2013 (ie, the onset of the biologic era), TKR and THR rates were examined in a cohort of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) users compared to conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) users. Adjusted hazard ratios (HR) were lower for both TKD and THR in bDMARD users. Though RA activity was not examined, combined with the knowledge of the association of disease severity with bDMARD use, this study lends evidence to the benefits of more aggressive treatment.

Finally, much is made of the link between bDMARD and targeted synthetic DMARD use and malignancy due to reduced immunosurveillance, but concrete evidence is conflicting. Wetzman et al⁴ performed a systematic review of studies of patients with inflammatory arthritis (RA, psoriatic arthritis, and Ankylosing spondylitis) looking at cancer relapse or occurrence of new cancer. An increase in skin cancers (HR 1.32) was noted, but reassuringly no other increase in risk of recurrent or new cancer was seen.

References

1. Fleischmann R et al. Long-term efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the adalimumab biosimilar, PF-06410293, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis after switching from reference adalimumab (Humira®) or continuing biosimilar therapy: week 52–92 data from a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trialArthritis Res Ther. 2021(Sep 25);23:248.
2. Peterson MN et al. Risk of rheumatoid arthritis diagnosis in statin users in a large nationwide US study. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021(Sep 18):23:244.
3. Chang YS et al. Effects of biologics on reducing the risks of total knee replacement and total hip replacement in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021(Sep 17):keab671.
4. Wetzman A et al. Risk of cancer after initiation of targeted therapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and a prior cancer: systematic review with meta-analysis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2021(Sep 21): acr.24784.

There have been quite a few papers published in October that have provided further insights into psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Understanding risk factors for developing PsA in patients with psoriasis is of ongoing interest, but there is limited data on the relationship between the severity of psoriasis and the risk of developing PsA especially in the USA population. Using the Optum electronic health records (EHR) database, Merola et al¹ assessed the incidence, prevalence, and predictors of PsA among 114,868 patients with psoriasis between January 1, 2009, and March 31, 2019. The severity of psoriasis was determined by treatment received during the 1 year after psoriasis diagnosis as follows: mild (89.3%) topicals and phototherapy only; moderate (5.5%) nonbiologic systemic therapies (acitretin, apremilast, cyclosporine, methotrexate), and severe (5.2%) biologic therapies (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, guselkumab, infliximab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, ustekinumab). They found that the overall incidence of PsA was 2.9 (95% CI 2.9-3.0) events per 100 patient-years of follow up (PY). The incidence (100 PY, 95% CI) by severity was lowest (2.1 [95% CI 2.1-2.1]) in the mild, higher in the moderate (9.9 [95% CI 9.5-10.4]), and highest (17.6 [95% CI 16.9-18.3]) in the severe psoriasis category. The study thus confirms that patients with more severe psoriasis have higher risk of developing PsA.

The effect of treatment of psoriasis on the development of PsA is also have great interest. Recent studies² have indicated that biologic treatment of psoriasis may reduce the incidence of PsA. However, Meer et al³ in a retrospective cohort study using of 1,93,709 patients with psoriasis without PsA in the Optum Insights EHR database report that biologic use was associated with the development of PsA among patients with psoriasis. After propensity score matching, the hazard ratio was 2.14 (95% CI 2.00-2.28) for patients on biologics compared to those on oral therapy or phototherapy. Such studies are influenced by confounding factors ,by indication, and protopathic bias and hence prospective studies are warranted.

Better treatment outcomes are likely if patient priorities are taken into account when choosing a therapy. However, there are few studies addressing this issue. Sumpton et al⁴ conducted a discrete choice experiment in patients with PsA in Sydney, Australia, to assess preferences for different attributes of biologics. They identified the following attributes in order of preference: oral route (compared to subcutaneous and intravenous routes), avoiding severe side effects, increasing ability to attend to normal activities, avoiding infections, improvement in enthesitis pain, improvement in psoriasis, increasing chance of remission and improvement in joint pain. Thus, patients valued ease of administration, avoiding side effects, and physical function more when choosing a therapy. With increased availability of treatment choices, developing decision support systems that facilitate shared decision making between patients and clinicians is required to improve care of PsA patients.

Ultrasound is increasingly being used at the point of care in rheumatology, but until now ultrasound was not used as a primary outcome in a clinical trial. In the first randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III study using power Doppler ultrasound (PDUS) D’Agostino et al⁵ demonstrated that treatment with secukinumab (dosed according to psoriasis severity) led to statistically significant improvement in synovitis measured using the Global European League Against Rheumatism and Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials Synovitis Score (GLOESS) compared to placebo. Thus, secukinumab, an IL-17A inhibitor, reduces synovitis as detected by ultrasound as well as symptoms and clinical signs of PsA.

References

1. Merola JF et al. Incidence and Prevalence of Psoriatic Arthritis in Patients With Psoriasis Stratified by Psoriasis Disease Severity: Retrospective Analysis of a US Electronic Health Records Database. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021(Sep 18):S0190-9622(21)02494-4.
2. Acosta Felquer ML et al. Treating the skin with biologics in patients with psoriasis decreases the incidence of psoriatic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 (Jul 19):annrheumdis-2021-220865.
3. Meer E et al. Does biologic therapy impact the development of PsA among patients with psoriasis? Ann Rheum Dis. 2021(Oct 6):annrheumdis-2021-220761.
4. Sumpton D et al. Preferences for biologic treatment in patients with psoriatic arthritis: a discrete choice experiment. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2021(Sep 13):acr.24782
5. D'Agostino MA et al. Response to secukinumab on synovitis using power Doppler ultrasound in psoriatic arthritis: 12-week results from a phase III study, ULTIMATE. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021(Sep 16):keab628.

There have been quite a few papers published in October that have provided further insights into psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Understanding risk factors for developing PsA in patients with psoriasis is of ongoing interest, but there is limited data on the relationship between the severity of psoriasis and the risk of developing PsA especially in the USA population. Using the Optum electronic health records (EHR) database, Merola et al¹ assessed the incidence, prevalence, and predictors of PsA among 114,868 patients with psoriasis between January 1, 2009, and March 31, 2019. The severity of psoriasis was determined by treatment received during the 1 year after psoriasis diagnosis as follows: mild (89.3%) topicals and phototherapy only; moderate (5.5%) nonbiologic systemic therapies (acitretin, apremilast, cyclosporine, methotrexate), and severe (5.2%) biologic therapies (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, guselkumab, infliximab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, ustekinumab). They found that the overall incidence of PsA was 2.9 (95% CI 2.9-3.0) events per 100 patient-years of follow up (PY). The incidence (100 PY, 95% CI) by severity was lowest (2.1 [95% CI 2.1-2.1]) in the mild, higher in the moderate (9.9 [95% CI 9.5-10.4]), and highest (17.6 [95% CI 16.9-18.3]) in the severe psoriasis category. The study thus confirms that patients with more severe psoriasis have higher risk of developing PsA.

The effect of treatment of psoriasis on the development of PsA is also have great interest. Recent studies² have indicated that biologic treatment of psoriasis may reduce the incidence of PsA. However, Meer et al³ in a retrospective cohort study using of 1,93,709 patients with psoriasis without PsA in the Optum Insights EHR database report that biologic use was associated with the development of PsA among patients with psoriasis. After propensity score matching, the hazard ratio was 2.14 (95% CI 2.00-2.28) for patients on biologics compared to those on oral therapy or phototherapy. Such studies are influenced by confounding factors ,by indication, and protopathic bias and hence prospective studies are warranted.

Better treatment outcomes are likely if patient priorities are taken into account when choosing a therapy. However, there are few studies addressing this issue. Sumpton et al⁴ conducted a discrete choice experiment in patients with PsA in Sydney, Australia, to assess preferences for different attributes of biologics. They identified the following attributes in order of preference: oral route (compared to subcutaneous and intravenous routes), avoiding severe side effects, increasing ability to attend to normal activities, avoiding infections, improvement in enthesitis pain, improvement in psoriasis, increasing chance of remission and improvement in joint pain. Thus, patients valued ease of administration, avoiding side effects, and physical function more when choosing a therapy. With increased availability of treatment choices, developing decision support systems that facilitate shared decision making between patients and clinicians is required to improve care of PsA patients.

Ultrasound is increasingly being used at the point of care in rheumatology, but until now ultrasound was not used as a primary outcome in a clinical trial. In the first randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III study using power Doppler ultrasound (PDUS) D’Agostino et al⁵ demonstrated that treatment with secukinumab (dosed according to psoriasis severity) led to statistically significant improvement in synovitis measured using the Global European League Against Rheumatism and Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials Synovitis Score (GLOESS) compared to placebo. Thus, secukinumab, an IL-17A inhibitor, reduces synovitis as detected by ultrasound as well as symptoms and clinical signs of PsA.

References

1. Merola JF et al. Incidence and Prevalence of Psoriatic Arthritis in Patients With Psoriasis Stratified by Psoriasis Disease Severity: Retrospective Analysis of a US Electronic Health Records Database. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021(Sep 18):S0190-9622(21)02494-4.
2. Acosta Felquer ML et al. Treating the skin with biologics in patients with psoriasis decreases the incidence of psoriatic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 (Jul 19):annrheumdis-2021-220865.
3. Meer E et al. Does biologic therapy impact the development of PsA among patients with psoriasis? Ann Rheum Dis. 2021(Oct 6):annrheumdis-2021-220761.
4. Sumpton D et al. Preferences for biologic treatment in patients with psoriatic arthritis: a discrete choice experiment. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2021(Sep 13):acr.24782
5. D'Agostino MA et al. Response to secukinumab on synovitis using power Doppler ultrasound in psoriatic arthritis: 12-week results from a phase III study, ULTIMATE. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021(Sep 16):keab628.

There have been quite a few papers published in October that have provided further insights into psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Understanding risk factors for developing PsA in patients with psoriasis is of ongoing interest, but there is limited data on the relationship between the severity of psoriasis and the risk of developing PsA especially in the USA population. Using the Optum electronic health records (EHR) database, Merola et al¹ assessed the incidence, prevalence, and predictors of PsA among 114,868 patients with psoriasis between January 1, 2009, and March 31, 2019. The severity of psoriasis was determined by treatment received during the 1 year after psoriasis diagnosis as follows: mild (89.3%) topicals and phototherapy only; moderate (5.5%) nonbiologic systemic therapies (acitretin, apremilast, cyclosporine, methotrexate), and severe (5.2%) biologic therapies (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, guselkumab, infliximab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, ustekinumab). They found that the overall incidence of PsA was 2.9 (95% CI 2.9-3.0) events per 100 patient-years of follow up (PY). The incidence (100 PY, 95% CI) by severity was lowest (2.1 [95% CI 2.1-2.1]) in the mild, higher in the moderate (9.9 [95% CI 9.5-10.4]), and highest (17.6 [95% CI 16.9-18.3]) in the severe psoriasis category. The study thus confirms that patients with more severe psoriasis have higher risk of developing PsA.

The effect of treatment of psoriasis on the development of PsA is also have great interest. Recent studies² have indicated that biologic treatment of psoriasis may reduce the incidence of PsA. However, Meer et al³ in a retrospective cohort study using of 1,93,709 patients with psoriasis without PsA in the Optum Insights EHR database report that biologic use was associated with the development of PsA among patients with psoriasis. After propensity score matching, the hazard ratio was 2.14 (95% CI 2.00-2.28) for patients on biologics compared to those on oral therapy or phototherapy. Such studies are influenced by confounding factors ,by indication, and protopathic bias and hence prospective studies are warranted.

Better treatment outcomes are likely if patient priorities are taken into account when choosing a therapy. However, there are few studies addressing this issue. Sumpton et al⁴ conducted a discrete choice experiment in patients with PsA in Sydney, Australia, to assess preferences for different attributes of biologics. They identified the following attributes in order of preference: oral route (compared to subcutaneous and intravenous routes), avoiding severe side effects, increasing ability to attend to normal activities, avoiding infections, improvement in enthesitis pain, improvement in psoriasis, increasing chance of remission and improvement in joint pain. Thus, patients valued ease of administration, avoiding side effects, and physical function more when choosing a therapy. With increased availability of treatment choices, developing decision support systems that facilitate shared decision making between patients and clinicians is required to improve care of PsA patients.

Ultrasound is increasingly being used at the point of care in rheumatology, but until now ultrasound was not used as a primary outcome in a clinical trial. In the first randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III study using power Doppler ultrasound (PDUS) D’Agostino et al⁵ demonstrated that treatment with secukinumab (dosed according to psoriasis severity) led to statistically significant improvement in synovitis measured using the Global European League Against Rheumatism and Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials Synovitis Score (GLOESS) compared to placebo. Thus, secukinumab, an IL-17A inhibitor, reduces synovitis as detected by ultrasound as well as symptoms and clinical signs of PsA.

References

1. Merola JF et al. Incidence and Prevalence of Psoriatic Arthritis in Patients With Psoriasis Stratified by Psoriasis Disease Severity: Retrospective Analysis of a US Electronic Health Records Database. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021(Sep 18):S0190-9622(21)02494-4.
2. Acosta Felquer ML et al. Treating the skin with biologics in patients with psoriasis decreases the incidence of psoriatic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 (Jul 19):annrheumdis-2021-220865.
3. Meer E et al. Does biologic therapy impact the development of PsA among patients with psoriasis? Ann Rheum Dis. 2021(Oct 6):annrheumdis-2021-220761.
4. Sumpton D et al. Preferences for biologic treatment in patients with psoriatic arthritis: a discrete choice experiment. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2021(Sep 13):acr.24782
5. D'Agostino MA et al. Response to secukinumab on synovitis using power Doppler ultrasound in psoriatic arthritis: 12-week results from a phase III study, ULTIMATE. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021(Sep 16):keab628.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans are not confident that they understood their doctor’s recommendations and the health information they discussed with their doctor after a visit, according to a new survey.

Confusion over health information and doctor advice is even higher among people who care for patients than among those who don’t provide care to their loved ones, the nationally representative survey from the AHIMA Foundation found.

The survey also shows that 80% of Americans – and an even higher portion of caregivers – are likely to research medical recommendations online after a doctor’s visit. But 1 in 4 people don’t know how to access their own medical records or find it difficult to do so.

The findings reflect the same low level of health literacy in the U.S. population that earlier surveys did. The results also indicate that little has changed since the Department of Health and Human Services released a National Action Plan to Improve Health Literacy in 2010.

That plan emphasized the need to develop and share accurate health information that helps people make decisions; to promote changes in the health care system that improve health information, communication, informed decision-making, and access to health services; and to increase the sharing and use of evidence-based health literacy practices.

According to the AHIMA Foundation report, 62% of Americans are not sure they understand their doctor’s advice and the health information discussed during a visit. Twenty-four percent say they don’t comprehend any of it, and 31% can’t remember what was said during the visit. Fifteen percent of those surveyed said they were more confused about their health than they were before the encounter with their doctor.
 

Caregivers have special issues

Forty-three percent of Americans are caregivers, the report notes, and 91% of those play an active role in managing someone else’s health. Millennials (65%) and Gen Xers (50%) are significantly more likely than Gen Zers (39%) and Boomers (20%) to be a caregiver.

Most caregivers have concerns about their loved ones’ ability to manage their own health. Most of them believe that doctors provide enough information, but 38% don’t believe a doctor can communicate effectively with the patient if the caregiver is not present.

Forty-three percent of caretakers don’t think their loved ones can understand medical information on their own. On the other hand, caregivers are more likely than people who don’t provide care to say the doctor confused them and to research the doctor’s advice after an appointment.

For many patients and caregivers, communications break down when they are with their health care provider. Twenty-two percent of Americans say they do not feel comfortable asking their doctor certain health questions. This inability to have a satisfactory dialogue with their doctor means that many patients leave their appointments without getting clear answers to their questions (24%) or without having an opportunity to ask any questions at all (17%).

This is not surprising, considering that a 2018 study found that doctors spend only 11 seconds, on average, listening to patients before interrupting them.
 

Depending on the internet

Overall, the AHIMA survey found, 42% of Americans research their doctor’s recommendations after an appointment. A higher percentage of caregivers than noncaregiver peers do so (47% vs. 38%). Eighty percent of respondents say they are “likely” to research their doctor’s advice online after a visit.

When they have a medical problem or a question about their condition, just as many Americans (59%) turn to the internet for an answer as contact their doctor directly, the survey found. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents consult friends, family, or colleagues; 23% look up medical records if they’re easily accessible; 19% ask pharmacists for advice; and 6% call an unspecified 800 number.

Americans feel secure in the health information they find on the internet. Among those who go online to look up information, 86% are confident that it is credible. And 42% report feeling relieved that they can find a lot of information about their health concerns. Respondents also say that the information they gather allows them to feel more confident in their doctor’s recommendations (35%) and that they feel better after having learned more on the internet than their doctor had told them (39%). Men are more likely than women to say that their confidence in their doctor’s recommendations increased after doing online research (40% vs. 30%).
 

Access to health records

Access to medical records would help people better understand their condition or diagnosis. But nearly half of Americans (48%) admit they don’t usually review their medical records until long after an appointment, and 52% say they rarely access their records at all.

One in four Americans say that they don’t know where to go to access their health information or that they didn’t find the process easy. More than half of those who have never had to find their records think the process would be difficult if they had to try.

Eighty-one percent of Americans use an online platform or portal to access their medical records or health information. Two-thirds of Americans who use an online portal trust that their medical information is kept safe and not shared with other people or organizations.

Four in five respondents agree that if they had access to all of their health information, including medical records, recommendations, conditions, and test results, they’d see an improvement in their health management. Fifty-nine percent of them believe they’d also be more confident about understanding their health, and 47% say they’d have greater trust in their doctor’s recommendations. Higher percentages of caregivers than noncaregivers say the same.

Younger people, those with a high school degree or less, and those who earn less than $50,000 are less likely than older, better educated, and more affluent people to understand their doctor’s health information and to ask questions of their providers.

People of color struggle with their relationships with doctors, are less satisfied than white people with the information they receive during visits, and are more likely than white peers to feel that if they had access to all their health information, they’d manage their health better and be more confident in their doctors’ recommendations, the survey found.

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

Nearly two-thirds of Americans are not confident that they understood their doctor’s recommendations and the health information they discussed with their doctor after a visit, according to a new survey.

Confusion over health information and doctor advice is even higher among people who care for patients than among those who don’t provide care to their loved ones, the nationally representative survey from the AHIMA Foundation found.

The survey also shows that 80% of Americans – and an even higher portion of caregivers – are likely to research medical recommendations online after a doctor’s visit. But 1 in 4 people don’t know how to access their own medical records or find it difficult to do so.

The findings reflect the same low level of health literacy in the U.S. population that earlier surveys did. The results also indicate that little has changed since the Department of Health and Human Services released a National Action Plan to Improve Health Literacy in 2010.

That plan emphasized the need to develop and share accurate health information that helps people make decisions; to promote changes in the health care system that improve health information, communication, informed decision-making, and access to health services; and to increase the sharing and use of evidence-based health literacy practices.

According to the AHIMA Foundation report, 62% of Americans are not sure they understand their doctor’s advice and the health information discussed during a visit. Twenty-four percent say they don’t comprehend any of it, and 31% can’t remember what was said during the visit. Fifteen percent of those surveyed said they were more confused about their health than they were before the encounter with their doctor.
 

Caregivers have special issues

Forty-three percent of Americans are caregivers, the report notes, and 91% of those play an active role in managing someone else’s health. Millennials (65%) and Gen Xers (50%) are significantly more likely than Gen Zers (39%) and Boomers (20%) to be a caregiver.

Most caregivers have concerns about their loved ones’ ability to manage their own health. Most of them believe that doctors provide enough information, but 38% don’t believe a doctor can communicate effectively with the patient if the caregiver is not present.

Forty-three percent of caretakers don’t think their loved ones can understand medical information on their own. On the other hand, caregivers are more likely than people who don’t provide care to say the doctor confused them and to research the doctor’s advice after an appointment.

For many patients and caregivers, communications break down when they are with their health care provider. Twenty-two percent of Americans say they do not feel comfortable asking their doctor certain health questions. This inability to have a satisfactory dialogue with their doctor means that many patients leave their appointments without getting clear answers to their questions (24%) or without having an opportunity to ask any questions at all (17%).

This is not surprising, considering that a 2018 study found that doctors spend only 11 seconds, on average, listening to patients before interrupting them.
 

Depending on the internet

Overall, the AHIMA survey found, 42% of Americans research their doctor’s recommendations after an appointment. A higher percentage of caregivers than noncaregiver peers do so (47% vs. 38%). Eighty percent of respondents say they are “likely” to research their doctor’s advice online after a visit.

When they have a medical problem or a question about their condition, just as many Americans (59%) turn to the internet for an answer as contact their doctor directly, the survey found. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents consult friends, family, or colleagues; 23% look up medical records if they’re easily accessible; 19% ask pharmacists for advice; and 6% call an unspecified 800 number.

Americans feel secure in the health information they find on the internet. Among those who go online to look up information, 86% are confident that it is credible. And 42% report feeling relieved that they can find a lot of information about their health concerns. Respondents also say that the information they gather allows them to feel more confident in their doctor’s recommendations (35%) and that they feel better after having learned more on the internet than their doctor had told them (39%). Men are more likely than women to say that their confidence in their doctor’s recommendations increased after doing online research (40% vs. 30%).
 

Access to health records

Access to medical records would help people better understand their condition or diagnosis. But nearly half of Americans (48%) admit they don’t usually review their medical records until long after an appointment, and 52% say they rarely access their records at all.

One in four Americans say that they don’t know where to go to access their health information or that they didn’t find the process easy. More than half of those who have never had to find their records think the process would be difficult if they had to try.

Eighty-one percent of Americans use an online platform or portal to access their medical records or health information. Two-thirds of Americans who use an online portal trust that their medical information is kept safe and not shared with other people or organizations.

Four in five respondents agree that if they had access to all of their health information, including medical records, recommendations, conditions, and test results, they’d see an improvement in their health management. Fifty-nine percent of them believe they’d also be more confident about understanding their health, and 47% say they’d have greater trust in their doctor’s recommendations. Higher percentages of caregivers than noncaregivers say the same.

Younger people, those with a high school degree or less, and those who earn less than $50,000 are less likely than older, better educated, and more affluent people to understand their doctor’s health information and to ask questions of their providers.

People of color struggle with their relationships with doctors, are less satisfied than white people with the information they receive during visits, and are more likely than white peers to feel that if they had access to all their health information, they’d manage their health better and be more confident in their doctors’ recommendations, the survey found.

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

Nearly two-thirds of Americans are not confident that they understood their doctor’s recommendations and the health information they discussed with their doctor after a visit, according to a new survey.

Confusion over health information and doctor advice is even higher among people who care for patients than among those who don’t provide care to their loved ones, the nationally representative survey from the AHIMA Foundation found.

The survey also shows that 80% of Americans – and an even higher portion of caregivers – are likely to research medical recommendations online after a doctor’s visit. But 1 in 4 people don’t know how to access their own medical records or find it difficult to do so.

The findings reflect the same low level of health literacy in the U.S. population that earlier surveys did. The results also indicate that little has changed since the Department of Health and Human Services released a National Action Plan to Improve Health Literacy in 2010.

That plan emphasized the need to develop and share accurate health information that helps people make decisions; to promote changes in the health care system that improve health information, communication, informed decision-making, and access to health services; and to increase the sharing and use of evidence-based health literacy practices.

According to the AHIMA Foundation report, 62% of Americans are not sure they understand their doctor’s advice and the health information discussed during a visit. Twenty-four percent say they don’t comprehend any of it, and 31% can’t remember what was said during the visit. Fifteen percent of those surveyed said they were more confused about their health than they were before the encounter with their doctor.
 

Caregivers have special issues

Forty-three percent of Americans are caregivers, the report notes, and 91% of those play an active role in managing someone else’s health. Millennials (65%) and Gen Xers (50%) are significantly more likely than Gen Zers (39%) and Boomers (20%) to be a caregiver.

Most caregivers have concerns about their loved ones’ ability to manage their own health. Most of them believe that doctors provide enough information, but 38% don’t believe a doctor can communicate effectively with the patient if the caregiver is not present.

Forty-three percent of caretakers don’t think their loved ones can understand medical information on their own. On the other hand, caregivers are more likely than people who don’t provide care to say the doctor confused them and to research the doctor’s advice after an appointment.

For many patients and caregivers, communications break down when they are with their health care provider. Twenty-two percent of Americans say they do not feel comfortable asking their doctor certain health questions. This inability to have a satisfactory dialogue with their doctor means that many patients leave their appointments without getting clear answers to their questions (24%) or without having an opportunity to ask any questions at all (17%).

This is not surprising, considering that a 2018 study found that doctors spend only 11 seconds, on average, listening to patients before interrupting them.
 

Depending on the internet

Overall, the AHIMA survey found, 42% of Americans research their doctor’s recommendations after an appointment. A higher percentage of caregivers than noncaregiver peers do so (47% vs. 38%). Eighty percent of respondents say they are “likely” to research their doctor’s advice online after a visit.

When they have a medical problem or a question about their condition, just as many Americans (59%) turn to the internet for an answer as contact their doctor directly, the survey found. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents consult friends, family, or colleagues; 23% look up medical records if they’re easily accessible; 19% ask pharmacists for advice; and 6% call an unspecified 800 number.

Americans feel secure in the health information they find on the internet. Among those who go online to look up information, 86% are confident that it is credible. And 42% report feeling relieved that they can find a lot of information about their health concerns. Respondents also say that the information they gather allows them to feel more confident in their doctor’s recommendations (35%) and that they feel better after having learned more on the internet than their doctor had told them (39%). Men are more likely than women to say that their confidence in their doctor’s recommendations increased after doing online research (40% vs. 30%).
 

Access to health records

Access to medical records would help people better understand their condition or diagnosis. But nearly half of Americans (48%) admit they don’t usually review their medical records until long after an appointment, and 52% say they rarely access their records at all.

One in four Americans say that they don’t know where to go to access their health information or that they didn’t find the process easy. More than half of those who have never had to find their records think the process would be difficult if they had to try.

Eighty-one percent of Americans use an online platform or portal to access their medical records or health information. Two-thirds of Americans who use an online portal trust that their medical information is kept safe and not shared with other people or organizations.

Four in five respondents agree that if they had access to all of their health information, including medical records, recommendations, conditions, and test results, they’d see an improvement in their health management. Fifty-nine percent of them believe they’d also be more confident about understanding their health, and 47% say they’d have greater trust in their doctor’s recommendations. Higher percentages of caregivers than noncaregivers say the same.

Younger people, those with a high school degree or less, and those who earn less than $50,000 are less likely than older, better educated, and more affluent people to understand their doctor’s health information and to ask questions of their providers.

People of color struggle with their relationships with doctors, are less satisfied than white people with the information they receive during visits, and are more likely than white peers to feel that if they had access to all their health information, they’d manage their health better and be more confident in their doctors’ recommendations, the survey found.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5 to 11, which means vaccines could be available to school-aged children starting next week.

The move brings families with young children a step closer to resuming their normal activities, and it should help further slow transmission of the coronavirus virus in the United States.

States have already placed their orders for initial doses of the vaccines. The Oct. 29 FDA authorization triggers the shipment of millions of doses to pediatricians, family practice doctors, children’s hospitals, community health centers, and pharmacies.

Next, a panel of experts known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, will meet Nov. 2 to vote on recommendations for use of the vaccine.

As soon as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director signs off on those recommendations, children can get the shots, perhaps as early as Nov. 3.

Pfizer’s vaccine for children is 10 micrograms, or one-third of the dose given to teens and adults. Kids get two doses of the vaccine 3 weeks apart. In clinical trials, the most common side effects were pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. These side effects were mild and disappeared quickly. There were no serious adverse events detected in the studies, which included about 3,100 children. In one study, the vaccine was 90% effective at preventing COVID-19 infections with symptoms in younger children.

There are about 28 million children in the United States between the ages of 5 and 12.

“As a mother and a physician, I know that parents, caregivers, school staff, and children have been waiting for today’s authorization. Vaccinating younger children against COVID-19 will bring us closer to returning to a sense of normalcy,” Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said in an FDA news release.

“Our comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of the data pertaining to the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness should help assure parents and guardians that this vaccine meets our high standards,” she said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5 to 11, which means vaccines could be available to school-aged children starting next week.

The move brings families with young children a step closer to resuming their normal activities, and it should help further slow transmission of the coronavirus virus in the United States.

States have already placed their orders for initial doses of the vaccines. The Oct. 29 FDA authorization triggers the shipment of millions of doses to pediatricians, family practice doctors, children’s hospitals, community health centers, and pharmacies.

Next, a panel of experts known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, will meet Nov. 2 to vote on recommendations for use of the vaccine.

As soon as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director signs off on those recommendations, children can get the shots, perhaps as early as Nov. 3.

Pfizer’s vaccine for children is 10 micrograms, or one-third of the dose given to teens and adults. Kids get two doses of the vaccine 3 weeks apart. In clinical trials, the most common side effects were pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. These side effects were mild and disappeared quickly. There were no serious adverse events detected in the studies, which included about 3,100 children. In one study, the vaccine was 90% effective at preventing COVID-19 infections with symptoms in younger children.

There are about 28 million children in the United States between the ages of 5 and 12.

“As a mother and a physician, I know that parents, caregivers, school staff, and children have been waiting for today’s authorization. Vaccinating younger children against COVID-19 will bring us closer to returning to a sense of normalcy,” Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said in an FDA news release.

“Our comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of the data pertaining to the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness should help assure parents and guardians that this vaccine meets our high standards,” she said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5 to 11, which means vaccines could be available to school-aged children starting next week.

The move brings families with young children a step closer to resuming their normal activities, and it should help further slow transmission of the coronavirus virus in the United States.

States have already placed their orders for initial doses of the vaccines. The Oct. 29 FDA authorization triggers the shipment of millions of doses to pediatricians, family practice doctors, children’s hospitals, community health centers, and pharmacies.

Next, a panel of experts known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, will meet Nov. 2 to vote on recommendations for use of the vaccine.

As soon as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director signs off on those recommendations, children can get the shots, perhaps as early as Nov. 3.

Pfizer’s vaccine for children is 10 micrograms, or one-third of the dose given to teens and adults. Kids get two doses of the vaccine 3 weeks apart. In clinical trials, the most common side effects were pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. These side effects were mild and disappeared quickly. There were no serious adverse events detected in the studies, which included about 3,100 children. In one study, the vaccine was 90% effective at preventing COVID-19 infections with symptoms in younger children.

There are about 28 million children in the United States between the ages of 5 and 12.

“As a mother and a physician, I know that parents, caregivers, school staff, and children have been waiting for today’s authorization. Vaccinating younger children against COVID-19 will bring us closer to returning to a sense of normalcy,” Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said in an FDA news release.

“Our comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of the data pertaining to the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness should help assure parents and guardians that this vaccine meets our high standards,” she said.

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

Using sunscreen and following other sun-protective behaviors such as wearing long sleeves or staying in the shade do not decrease bone mineral density overall or increase the risk of osteoporotic fracture, according to a new study that included more than 3,000 men and women.

Aja Koska/Getty Images

“We have objective data for the first time, and in a large-scale representative population of the U.S. adults, to indicate sun protection is not associated with negative bone-related outcomes,” said study lead author Mohsen Afarideh, MD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the autoimmune skin diseases unit at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The study, published online in JAMA Dermatology, goes a step further than previous research by others that has found sunscreen use does not compromise vitamin D synthesis and has little effect on circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.

In the new study, researchers looked at three sun-protective behaviors – sunscreen use, staying in the shade, wearing long sleeves – and their effects on bone mineral density and the risk of fractures.

While the effects of sun-protective habits on blood levels of vitamin D and BMD scores are important, ‘’what we are more interested to know is if the sun-protective behaviors actually cause or increase the risk of fracture,” Dr. Afarideh said in an interview. “The answer to that is a firm ‘No.’ These data are very reassuring and will help clinicians to keep recommending sun protection to the public.”

Study details

Dr. Afarideh and his colleagues from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., looked at data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2017 to 2018, obtaining final information on 3,403 men and women, ages 20-59, who completed a dermatology questionnaire The men and women reported on the three sun-protective habits, and noted whether they followed these practices always or most of the time, sometimes, or never or rarely.

The frequency of the three behaviors was not widespread. Frequent staying in the shade was reported by 31.6% of the sample, wearing long sleeves by 11.8%, and sunscreen use by 26.1%.

The researchers also had data on the participants’ bone mineral density (BMD) scores along with dietary information such as milk consumption, vitamin D supplement use, taking steroid drugs, and exercise activity.

“Moderate sunscreen use was linked with a slightly lower lumbar BMD score,” Dr. Afarideh said, which was “the only significant association that could be interpreted as concerning.” And this was more likely to be seen in older respondents, he said.

However, otherwise they found the practice of the three behaviors was not associated with lower total or site-specific BMD z scores, nor was it linked with an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures. (The BMD z score compares an individual’s bone density to the average bone density of someone their same age and gender.)

The focus on fracture risk is the more important outcome, Dr. Afarideh said. And they found no increased risk overall of osteoporotic fractures in those who practiced sun-protective behaviors.

Moderate to frequent staying in the shade was actually linked with a reduced prevalence of spine fractures in the multivariate model (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.86, P = .02). The researchers say that may be attributable to these respondents also being careful in other areas of life, such as avoiding falls and not participating in high-risk activities that would increase the chance of fractures. “However, this is just an assumption,” Dr. Afarideh said.

Expert perspectives

Other dermatologists not involved in the new research said the study results provide some “real-world” information that’s valuable for clinicians to share with patients.

“I think this is an important study on multiple levels,” said Henry W. Lim, MD, a former president of the American Academy of Dermatology who is a member of the department of dermatology and senior vice president of academic affairs at Henry Ford Health System, Detroit. “It is a well-done study, involving a large number. It is a real-life situation, asking people their photo protective behaviors and then looking at their bone mineral density.” The bottom line, he said: “Bone health is not affected by photo protection habits in real life.”

The findings are important but not surprising, said Antony R. Young, PhD, emeritus professor of experimental photobiology at St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, King’s College, London, who has researched sunscreens and vitamin D status. “My study showed that correct sunscreen use, albeit with a relatively low SPF of 15, did prevent sunburn in a high UVR [ultraviolet radiation] environment but did allow very good vitamin D synthesis. I think this is because the necessary dose of UVB is very low.”

Michele Green, MD, a New York dermatologist and clinical staff member at Lenox Hill Hospital there, said she often hears concerns about bone health from patients. “Every week, patients ask, ‘Why would I wear sunblock? Don’t I need sun for bone health? Don’t I need it for vitamin D?’’’

Now, she said, ‘’Dermatologists can point to the study and say ‘Don’t worry.’ It clarifies that using sunscreen won’t cause you to have osteoporosis.’’

Dr. Afarideh, who was a postdoctoral research fellow at the Mayo Clinic, and his coauthors, Megha M. Tollefson, MD, and Julio C. Sartori-Valinotti, of the Mayo Clinic, and Dr. Green had no disclosures. Dr. Lim and Dr. Young consult for the sunscreen industry.

Using sunscreen and following other sun-protective behaviors such as wearing long sleeves or staying in the shade do not decrease bone mineral density overall or increase the risk of osteoporotic fracture, according to a new study that included more than 3,000 men and women.

Aja Koska/Getty Images

“We have objective data for the first time, and in a large-scale representative population of the U.S. adults, to indicate sun protection is not associated with negative bone-related outcomes,” said study lead author Mohsen Afarideh, MD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the autoimmune skin diseases unit at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The study, published online in JAMA Dermatology, goes a step further than previous research by others that has found sunscreen use does not compromise vitamin D synthesis and has little effect on circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.

In the new study, researchers looked at three sun-protective behaviors – sunscreen use, staying in the shade, wearing long sleeves – and their effects on bone mineral density and the risk of fractures.

While the effects of sun-protective habits on blood levels of vitamin D and BMD scores are important, ‘’what we are more interested to know is if the sun-protective behaviors actually cause or increase the risk of fracture,” Dr. Afarideh said in an interview. “The answer to that is a firm ‘No.’ These data are very reassuring and will help clinicians to keep recommending sun protection to the public.”

Study details

Dr. Afarideh and his colleagues from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., looked at data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2017 to 2018, obtaining final information on 3,403 men and women, ages 20-59, who completed a dermatology questionnaire The men and women reported on the three sun-protective habits, and noted whether they followed these practices always or most of the time, sometimes, or never or rarely.

The frequency of the three behaviors was not widespread. Frequent staying in the shade was reported by 31.6% of the sample, wearing long sleeves by 11.8%, and sunscreen use by 26.1%.

The researchers also had data on the participants’ bone mineral density (BMD) scores along with dietary information such as milk consumption, vitamin D supplement use, taking steroid drugs, and exercise activity.

“Moderate sunscreen use was linked with a slightly lower lumbar BMD score,” Dr. Afarideh said, which was “the only significant association that could be interpreted as concerning.” And this was more likely to be seen in older respondents, he said.

However, otherwise they found the practice of the three behaviors was not associated with lower total or site-specific BMD z scores, nor was it linked with an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures. (The BMD z score compares an individual’s bone density to the average bone density of someone their same age and gender.)

The focus on fracture risk is the more important outcome, Dr. Afarideh said. And they found no increased risk overall of osteoporotic fractures in those who practiced sun-protective behaviors.

Moderate to frequent staying in the shade was actually linked with a reduced prevalence of spine fractures in the multivariate model (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.86, P = .02). The researchers say that may be attributable to these respondents also being careful in other areas of life, such as avoiding falls and not participating in high-risk activities that would increase the chance of fractures. “However, this is just an assumption,” Dr. Afarideh said.

Expert perspectives

Other dermatologists not involved in the new research said the study results provide some “real-world” information that’s valuable for clinicians to share with patients.

“I think this is an important study on multiple levels,” said Henry W. Lim, MD, a former president of the American Academy of Dermatology who is a member of the department of dermatology and senior vice president of academic affairs at Henry Ford Health System, Detroit. “It is a well-done study, involving a large number. It is a real-life situation, asking people their photo protective behaviors and then looking at their bone mineral density.” The bottom line, he said: “Bone health is not affected by photo protection habits in real life.”

The findings are important but not surprising, said Antony R. Young, PhD, emeritus professor of experimental photobiology at St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, King’s College, London, who has researched sunscreens and vitamin D status. “My study showed that correct sunscreen use, albeit with a relatively low SPF of 15, did prevent sunburn in a high UVR [ultraviolet radiation] environment but did allow very good vitamin D synthesis. I think this is because the necessary dose of UVB is very low.”

Michele Green, MD, a New York dermatologist and clinical staff member at Lenox Hill Hospital there, said she often hears concerns about bone health from patients. “Every week, patients ask, ‘Why would I wear sunblock? Don’t I need sun for bone health? Don’t I need it for vitamin D?’’’

Now, she said, ‘’Dermatologists can point to the study and say ‘Don’t worry.’ It clarifies that using sunscreen won’t cause you to have osteoporosis.’’

Dr. Afarideh, who was a postdoctoral research fellow at the Mayo Clinic, and his coauthors, Megha M. Tollefson, MD, and Julio C. Sartori-Valinotti, of the Mayo Clinic, and Dr. Green had no disclosures. Dr. Lim and Dr. Young consult for the sunscreen industry.

Using sunscreen and following other sun-protective behaviors such as wearing long sleeves or staying in the shade do not decrease bone mineral density overall or increase the risk of osteoporotic fracture, according to a new study that included more than 3,000 men and women.

Aja Koska/Getty Images

“We have objective data for the first time, and in a large-scale representative population of the U.S. adults, to indicate sun protection is not associated with negative bone-related outcomes,” said study lead author Mohsen Afarideh, MD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the autoimmune skin diseases unit at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The study, published online in JAMA Dermatology, goes a step further than previous research by others that has found sunscreen use does not compromise vitamin D synthesis and has little effect on circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.

In the new study, researchers looked at three sun-protective behaviors – sunscreen use, staying in the shade, wearing long sleeves – and their effects on bone mineral density and the risk of fractures.

While the effects of sun-protective habits on blood levels of vitamin D and BMD scores are important, ‘’what we are more interested to know is if the sun-protective behaviors actually cause or increase the risk of fracture,” Dr. Afarideh said in an interview. “The answer to that is a firm ‘No.’ These data are very reassuring and will help clinicians to keep recommending sun protection to the public.”

Study details

Dr. Afarideh and his colleagues from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., looked at data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2017 to 2018, obtaining final information on 3,403 men and women, ages 20-59, who completed a dermatology questionnaire The men and women reported on the three sun-protective habits, and noted whether they followed these practices always or most of the time, sometimes, or never or rarely.

The frequency of the three behaviors was not widespread. Frequent staying in the shade was reported by 31.6% of the sample, wearing long sleeves by 11.8%, and sunscreen use by 26.1%.

The researchers also had data on the participants’ bone mineral density (BMD) scores along with dietary information such as milk consumption, vitamin D supplement use, taking steroid drugs, and exercise activity.

“Moderate sunscreen use was linked with a slightly lower lumbar BMD score,” Dr. Afarideh said, which was “the only significant association that could be interpreted as concerning.” And this was more likely to be seen in older respondents, he said.

However, otherwise they found the practice of the three behaviors was not associated with lower total or site-specific BMD z scores, nor was it linked with an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures. (The BMD z score compares an individual’s bone density to the average bone density of someone their same age and gender.)

The focus on fracture risk is the more important outcome, Dr. Afarideh said. And they found no increased risk overall of osteoporotic fractures in those who practiced sun-protective behaviors.

Moderate to frequent staying in the shade was actually linked with a reduced prevalence of spine fractures in the multivariate model (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.86, P = .02). The researchers say that may be attributable to these respondents also being careful in other areas of life, such as avoiding falls and not participating in high-risk activities that would increase the chance of fractures. “However, this is just an assumption,” Dr. Afarideh said.

Expert perspectives

Other dermatologists not involved in the new research said the study results provide some “real-world” information that’s valuable for clinicians to share with patients.

“I think this is an important study on multiple levels,” said Henry W. Lim, MD, a former president of the American Academy of Dermatology who is a member of the department of dermatology and senior vice president of academic affairs at Henry Ford Health System, Detroit. “It is a well-done study, involving a large number. It is a real-life situation, asking people their photo protective behaviors and then looking at their bone mineral density.” The bottom line, he said: “Bone health is not affected by photo protection habits in real life.”

The findings are important but not surprising, said Antony R. Young, PhD, emeritus professor of experimental photobiology at St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, King’s College, London, who has researched sunscreens and vitamin D status. “My study showed that correct sunscreen use, albeit with a relatively low SPF of 15, did prevent sunburn in a high UVR [ultraviolet radiation] environment but did allow very good vitamin D synthesis. I think this is because the necessary dose of UVB is very low.”

Michele Green, MD, a New York dermatologist and clinical staff member at Lenox Hill Hospital there, said she often hears concerns about bone health from patients. “Every week, patients ask, ‘Why would I wear sunblock? Don’t I need sun for bone health? Don’t I need it for vitamin D?’’’

Now, she said, ‘’Dermatologists can point to the study and say ‘Don’t worry.’ It clarifies that using sunscreen won’t cause you to have osteoporosis.’’

Dr. Afarideh, who was a postdoctoral research fellow at the Mayo Clinic, and his coauthors, Megha M. Tollefson, MD, and Julio C. Sartori-Valinotti, of the Mayo Clinic, and Dr. Green had no disclosures. Dr. Lim and Dr. Young consult for the sunscreen industry.

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) such as biologics may carry an increased risk for preterm birth or cesarean delivery for pregnant women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to a recent study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

zoranm/Getty Images

The risk was particularly high for women with PsA who received biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), according to Katarina Remaeus, PhD, of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and colleagues.

“The results may indicate that a more severe or active PsA disease that requires antirheumatic treatment during pregnancy, especially bDMARDs, is associated with increased risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to non-PsA pregnancies,” Dr. Remaeus and colleagues write in their study. “The risk of preterm birth in PsA pregnancies is further influenced by parity with the most increased risks observed in first pregnancies.”

In a nationwide, register-based cohort study, the researchers evaluated 921 pregnancies of women with PsA between 2007 and 2017, comparing them to the pregnancies of 9,210 women without PsA over the same time frame. The pregnancies for women with PsA were further categorized based on whether the women had not received antirheumatic treatment in the year prior to and/or during pregnancy (495 pregnancies) or had received antirheumatic treatment at any point in the year before and/or during pregnancy (426 pregnancies).

Of the women in the PsA group who were treated in the year prior to pregnancy (170 women), 39.4% received monotherapy with a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) such as an antimalarial, methotrexate, or sulfasalazine; 24.1% received oral corticosteroids, and 15.9% received a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), whereas about 20% of women received two or more antirheumatic drugs.

In the group of women treated during pregnancy (256 women), 153 did not receive bDMARDs; of these, 41.8% had monotherapy with either a csDMARD or corticosteroids, whereas the group treated with bDMARDs received TNFi monotherapy (43.7%) or TNFi with corticosteroids (35.9%), TNFi with csDMARD (9.7%), or TNFi with csDMARD plus corticosteroids (9.7%).

A majority of women in both groups (70.1%) were between ages 30 and 34 years (37.1%) or older than age 35 years (33%) and had delivered more than one child (63.2%). Women in the PsA group were more likely to be born in a Nordic country (91.8% vs. 82.8%), to have a body mass index between 30.0 and 60.0 kg/m² (19.9% vs. 12.6%), to be a smoker (9.2% vs. 5.3%), to have hypertension (1.4% vs. 0.8%) or diabetes (1.3% vs. 0.5%) prior to pregnancy, and to have a higher level of education (>12 years; 50.1% vs. 43.3%), compared with women in the non-PsA group.

The results showed women in the PsA group were more likely to experience preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.24) and undergo an elective (aOR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.43-2.20) or emergency C-section (aOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10-1.84). The group at highest risk for preterm birth with regard to parity was women with PsA having their first child (aOR, 3.95; 95% CI, 1.43-10.95).

Women who received antirheumatic treatment were at greater risk for experiencing preterm birth (aOR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.49-3.56), and this risk was even higher for treatment with bDMARDs, compared with women without PsA (aOR, 4.49; 95% CI, 2.60-7.79). Use of bDMARDs also was associated with higher risks for spontaneous preterm birth (aOR, 4.73; 95% CI, 2.53-8.87), preterm birth between 32 and 36 weeks’ gestation (aOR, 5.06; 95% CI, 2.91-8.79), elective C-section (aOR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.61-4.59), emergency C-section (aOR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.04-4.07), and preeclampsia (aOR, 2.88, 95% CI, 1.35-6.17).

The researchers note that women with PsA should be evaluated for preterm birth particularly if they are having their first child, and “from a clinical point of view, all women with PsA, regardless of antirheumatic treatment, should be counseled about pregnancy outcomes and receive individualized monitoring during pregnancy.”

Are adverse outcomes linked to disease activity or treatment?

Patients in the study had a higher risk of adverse outcomes when they had a PsA diagnosis, and when they received antirheumatic treatment – but were the adverse outcomes associated with a patient’s high disease activity or need for antirheumatic treatment?

“Our interpretation is that a PsA disease that requires continued antirheumatic treatment during pregnancy is more severe than PsA that does not require treatment,” Dr. Remaeus and colleagues write. “Thus, the increased risk of adverse outcomes in pregnancies with maternal antirheumatic treatment is probably attributed to disease severity rather than an effect of the medication itself.”

Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, of the German Rheumatism Research Centre in Berlin, told this news organization that the results of the study are important because it is one of the first to report differences in risk in pregnancy outcomes for women with and without PsA.

“The information is relevant to guide rheumatologists in advising patients with PsA when planning the first or subsequent pregnancies,” she said. “The results are reassuring in reporting that the elevated risk for PsA patients for adverse pregnancy outcomes is low in patients not in need of antirheumatic medication, presumably in low-disease activity.”

However, the study is still unclear on whether the association with adverse pregnancy outcomes in patients is the result of higher disease activity or the need for antirheumatic treatment, she explained.

“It was only hypothesized that those patients under bDMARD treatment are/were in high disease activity. There [is] no information on disease activity in the data sources, which limits the results,” she said. “The investigation still does not solve the important question – if adverse pregnancy outcomes are rather related to high disease activity or the medication to treat this situation.”

There was no specific funding for this study. The study authors and Dr. Strangfeld have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) such as biologics may carry an increased risk for preterm birth or cesarean delivery for pregnant women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to a recent study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

zoranm/Getty Images

The risk was particularly high for women with PsA who received biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), according to Katarina Remaeus, PhD, of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and colleagues.

“The results may indicate that a more severe or active PsA disease that requires antirheumatic treatment during pregnancy, especially bDMARDs, is associated with increased risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to non-PsA pregnancies,” Dr. Remaeus and colleagues write in their study. “The risk of preterm birth in PsA pregnancies is further influenced by parity with the most increased risks observed in first pregnancies.”

In a nationwide, register-based cohort study, the researchers evaluated 921 pregnancies of women with PsA between 2007 and 2017, comparing them to the pregnancies of 9,210 women without PsA over the same time frame. The pregnancies for women with PsA were further categorized based on whether the women had not received antirheumatic treatment in the year prior to and/or during pregnancy (495 pregnancies) or had received antirheumatic treatment at any point in the year before and/or during pregnancy (426 pregnancies).

Of the women in the PsA group who were treated in the year prior to pregnancy (170 women), 39.4% received monotherapy with a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) such as an antimalarial, methotrexate, or sulfasalazine; 24.1% received oral corticosteroids, and 15.9% received a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), whereas about 20% of women received two or more antirheumatic drugs.

In the group of women treated during pregnancy (256 women), 153 did not receive bDMARDs; of these, 41.8% had monotherapy with either a csDMARD or corticosteroids, whereas the group treated with bDMARDs received TNFi monotherapy (43.7%) or TNFi with corticosteroids (35.9%), TNFi with csDMARD (9.7%), or TNFi with csDMARD plus corticosteroids (9.7%).

A majority of women in both groups (70.1%) were between ages 30 and 34 years (37.1%) or older than age 35 years (33%) and had delivered more than one child (63.2%). Women in the PsA group were more likely to be born in a Nordic country (91.8% vs. 82.8%), to have a body mass index between 30.0 and 60.0 kg/m² (19.9% vs. 12.6%), to be a smoker (9.2% vs. 5.3%), to have hypertension (1.4% vs. 0.8%) or diabetes (1.3% vs. 0.5%) prior to pregnancy, and to have a higher level of education (>12 years; 50.1% vs. 43.3%), compared with women in the non-PsA group.

The results showed women in the PsA group were more likely to experience preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.24) and undergo an elective (aOR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.43-2.20) or emergency C-section (aOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10-1.84). The group at highest risk for preterm birth with regard to parity was women with PsA having their first child (aOR, 3.95; 95% CI, 1.43-10.95).

Women who received antirheumatic treatment were at greater risk for experiencing preterm birth (aOR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.49-3.56), and this risk was even higher for treatment with bDMARDs, compared with women without PsA (aOR, 4.49; 95% CI, 2.60-7.79). Use of bDMARDs also was associated with higher risks for spontaneous preterm birth (aOR, 4.73; 95% CI, 2.53-8.87), preterm birth between 32 and 36 weeks’ gestation (aOR, 5.06; 95% CI, 2.91-8.79), elective C-section (aOR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.61-4.59), emergency C-section (aOR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.04-4.07), and preeclampsia (aOR, 2.88, 95% CI, 1.35-6.17).

The researchers note that women with PsA should be evaluated for preterm birth particularly if they are having their first child, and “from a clinical point of view, all women with PsA, regardless of antirheumatic treatment, should be counseled about pregnancy outcomes and receive individualized monitoring during pregnancy.”

Are adverse outcomes linked to disease activity or treatment?

Patients in the study had a higher risk of adverse outcomes when they had a PsA diagnosis, and when they received antirheumatic treatment – but were the adverse outcomes associated with a patient’s high disease activity or need for antirheumatic treatment?

“Our interpretation is that a PsA disease that requires continued antirheumatic treatment during pregnancy is more severe than PsA that does not require treatment,” Dr. Remaeus and colleagues write. “Thus, the increased risk of adverse outcomes in pregnancies with maternal antirheumatic treatment is probably attributed to disease severity rather than an effect of the medication itself.”

Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, of the German Rheumatism Research Centre in Berlin, told this news organization that the results of the study are important because it is one of the first to report differences in risk in pregnancy outcomes for women with and without PsA.

“The information is relevant to guide rheumatologists in advising patients with PsA when planning the first or subsequent pregnancies,” she said. “The results are reassuring in reporting that the elevated risk for PsA patients for adverse pregnancy outcomes is low in patients not in need of antirheumatic medication, presumably in low-disease activity.”

However, the study is still unclear on whether the association with adverse pregnancy outcomes in patients is the result of higher disease activity or the need for antirheumatic treatment, she explained.

“It was only hypothesized that those patients under bDMARD treatment are/were in high disease activity. There [is] no information on disease activity in the data sources, which limits the results,” she said. “The investigation still does not solve the important question – if adverse pregnancy outcomes are rather related to high disease activity or the medication to treat this situation.”

There was no specific funding for this study. The study authors and Dr. Strangfeld have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) such as biologics may carry an increased risk for preterm birth or cesarean delivery for pregnant women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to a recent study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

zoranm/Getty Images

The risk was particularly high for women with PsA who received biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), according to Katarina Remaeus, PhD, of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and colleagues.

“The results may indicate that a more severe or active PsA disease that requires antirheumatic treatment during pregnancy, especially bDMARDs, is associated with increased risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to non-PsA pregnancies,” Dr. Remaeus and colleagues write in their study. “The risk of preterm birth in PsA pregnancies is further influenced by parity with the most increased risks observed in first pregnancies.”

In a nationwide, register-based cohort study, the researchers evaluated 921 pregnancies of women with PsA between 2007 and 2017, comparing them to the pregnancies of 9,210 women without PsA over the same time frame. The pregnancies for women with PsA were further categorized based on whether the women had not received antirheumatic treatment in the year prior to and/or during pregnancy (495 pregnancies) or had received antirheumatic treatment at any point in the year before and/or during pregnancy (426 pregnancies).

Of the women in the PsA group who were treated in the year prior to pregnancy (170 women), 39.4% received monotherapy with a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) such as an antimalarial, methotrexate, or sulfasalazine; 24.1% received oral corticosteroids, and 15.9% received a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), whereas about 20% of women received two or more antirheumatic drugs.

In the group of women treated during pregnancy (256 women), 153 did not receive bDMARDs; of these, 41.8% had monotherapy with either a csDMARD or corticosteroids, whereas the group treated with bDMARDs received TNFi monotherapy (43.7%) or TNFi with corticosteroids (35.9%), TNFi with csDMARD (9.7%), or TNFi with csDMARD plus corticosteroids (9.7%).

A majority of women in both groups (70.1%) were between ages 30 and 34 years (37.1%) or older than age 35 years (33%) and had delivered more than one child (63.2%). Women in the PsA group were more likely to be born in a Nordic country (91.8% vs. 82.8%), to have a body mass index between 30.0 and 60.0 kg/m² (19.9% vs. 12.6%), to be a smoker (9.2% vs. 5.3%), to have hypertension (1.4% vs. 0.8%) or diabetes (1.3% vs. 0.5%) prior to pregnancy, and to have a higher level of education (>12 years; 50.1% vs. 43.3%), compared with women in the non-PsA group.

The results showed women in the PsA group were more likely to experience preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.24) and undergo an elective (aOR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.43-2.20) or emergency C-section (aOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10-1.84). The group at highest risk for preterm birth with regard to parity was women with PsA having their first child (aOR, 3.95; 95% CI, 1.43-10.95).

Women who received antirheumatic treatment were at greater risk for experiencing preterm birth (aOR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.49-3.56), and this risk was even higher for treatment with bDMARDs, compared with women without PsA (aOR, 4.49; 95% CI, 2.60-7.79). Use of bDMARDs also was associated with higher risks for spontaneous preterm birth (aOR, 4.73; 95% CI, 2.53-8.87), preterm birth between 32 and 36 weeks’ gestation (aOR, 5.06; 95% CI, 2.91-8.79), elective C-section (aOR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.61-4.59), emergency C-section (aOR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.04-4.07), and preeclampsia (aOR, 2.88, 95% CI, 1.35-6.17).

The researchers note that women with PsA should be evaluated for preterm birth particularly if they are having their first child, and “from a clinical point of view, all women with PsA, regardless of antirheumatic treatment, should be counseled about pregnancy outcomes and receive individualized monitoring during pregnancy.”

Are adverse outcomes linked to disease activity or treatment?

Patients in the study had a higher risk of adverse outcomes when they had a PsA diagnosis, and when they received antirheumatic treatment – but were the adverse outcomes associated with a patient’s high disease activity or need for antirheumatic treatment?

“Our interpretation is that a PsA disease that requires continued antirheumatic treatment during pregnancy is more severe than PsA that does not require treatment,” Dr. Remaeus and colleagues write. “Thus, the increased risk of adverse outcomes in pregnancies with maternal antirheumatic treatment is probably attributed to disease severity rather than an effect of the medication itself.”

Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, of the German Rheumatism Research Centre in Berlin, told this news organization that the results of the study are important because it is one of the first to report differences in risk in pregnancy outcomes for women with and without PsA.

“The information is relevant to guide rheumatologists in advising patients with PsA when planning the first or subsequent pregnancies,” she said. “The results are reassuring in reporting that the elevated risk for PsA patients for adverse pregnancy outcomes is low in patients not in need of antirheumatic medication, presumably in low-disease activity.”

However, the study is still unclear on whether the association with adverse pregnancy outcomes in patients is the result of higher disease activity or the need for antirheumatic treatment, she explained.

“It was only hypothesized that those patients under bDMARD treatment are/were in high disease activity. There [is] no information on disease activity in the data sources, which limits the results,” she said. “The investigation still does not solve the important question – if adverse pregnancy outcomes are rather related to high disease activity or the medication to treat this situation.”

There was no specific funding for this study. The study authors and Dr. Strangfeld have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Social media isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but for those who want to become a significant influencer on Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, or other platforms, “you have to enjoy it,” Sandra Lee, MD, said during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy.

“I admit that I’m somewhat obsessed with it. I kind of blame it on my work as a dermatologist, that I’m trying to grow my social media as well. It’s interesting to me, fascinating, and I want to understand it more. I think that’s the mindset you need to approach it with.”

Perhaps no other public figure in dermatology has enjoyed success in social media more than Dr. Lee, a board-certified dermatologist who practices in Upland, Calif. In the fall of 2014, she started using Instagram to provide followers a glimpse into her life as a dermatologist, everything from Mohs surgery and Botox to keloid removals and ear lobe repair surgeries. From this she formed her alter ego, “Dr. Pimple Popper,” and became a YouTube sensation, building 7.1 million subscribers over the course of a few years, amounting to 4.5 billion lifetime views. She also grew 12 million followers on TikTok, 4.4 million followers on Instagram, 3 million on Facebook, and more than 139,000 on Twitter. About 80% of her followers are women who range between 18 and 40 years of age.

During the meeting she offered five social media marketing tips for busy clinicians:

You have to ‘play’ to ‘win.’ Active participation in social media is required to develop followers. “You cannot delegate this content,” Dr. Lee said. “You can hire people to help you or leave the task to a social media-savvy medical assistant in your office, but the content should be your responsibility ultimately, because you are the physician,” she added. Not everyone chooses to participate in social media, but it’s also something not to shy away from out of intimidation. “There is some talent associated with it, but it takes a lot of persistence as well,” she said.

Patients come first. Protect them at all costs. Dr. Lee rarely posts the faces of patients she cares for unless they grant consent in advance. “I try to show the work that I do and the beauty of dermatology,” she said during the meeting, which was named “Laser & Aesthetic Skin Therapy: What’s the Truth?” and was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. She added that taking part in social media can help you improve communication skills by engaging with followers who like, share, or respond to the material posted. “When you look back at your posts objectively, you learn about yourself and how you relate to your patients,” she said. “It helps to hone my bedside manner and my skills as a dermatologist.”

Show that you are human. Many dermatologists and other “skin influencers” have established their presence on the Internet and may be direct competitors for patients, but that doesn’t mean you can’t establish your own identity. One way to stand out is by posting content related to your authentic self, such as a photo or video that shows you engaged in a hobby, dining at a favorite restaurant, or visiting a beloved vacation spot. “Your followers don’t want a robot, someone who thinks they’re amazing and can do everything,” said Dr. Lee, who stars in her own TV reality show on TLC. “Show that you have a funny side. You want them to fall in love with you and see a little bit of your world, whatever it might be. Charm the socks off of them.”

Entertain first, educate a close second. The main way you’re going to get people to follow and watch you is to provide some entertainment, “not at the expense of a patient or your practice, though,” she said. “Then you’re going to educate people. We dermatologists have something to teach the world because we are experts on skin, hair, and nails. You want to impart this knowledge in a way that captivates people.” It’s like the sense of accomplishment that comes from learning something new after reading a book or watching a movie, she explained. “You feel good about it, and you can take that knowledge with you somewhere else. I love it when kids come up to me and tell me they know what a lipoma is, what a cyst is, and what psoriasis is because they’ve seen my show, or because they follow me on social media. It’s wonderful because I can see that I’ve educated them.”

Be kind and don’t activate the trolls. Dr. Lee allows positivity and kindness to rule the day on her social media content. “This is what I try to relay to followers, but I also do not engage with the negativity,” she said. “Every now and then, there will be someone who tries to insult what you do or who insults you personally. If you engage with them, it almost invites them to do it more. It almost gives them the ability to fight with you. Try to stay above that; just put out goodness and kindness.”

Several years ago, YouTube and Instagram temporarily shut down Dr. Lee’s accounts because she posted graphic images of skin lesions and procedures – a practice that wasn’t so commonplace at the time. “Don’t just post a graphic image just to be graphic,” she advised. “Make sure it has an educational message associated with it. That will help to validate your content. Posting a warning sign that some images may be graphic could help, too.”

Dr. Lee reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Social media isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but for those who want to become a significant influencer on Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, or other platforms, “you have to enjoy it,” Sandra Lee, MD, said during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy.

“I admit that I’m somewhat obsessed with it. I kind of blame it on my work as a dermatologist, that I’m trying to grow my social media as well. It’s interesting to me, fascinating, and I want to understand it more. I think that’s the mindset you need to approach it with.”

Perhaps no other public figure in dermatology has enjoyed success in social media more than Dr. Lee, a board-certified dermatologist who practices in Upland, Calif. In the fall of 2014, she started using Instagram to provide followers a glimpse into her life as a dermatologist, everything from Mohs surgery and Botox to keloid removals and ear lobe repair surgeries. From this she formed her alter ego, “Dr. Pimple Popper,” and became a YouTube sensation, building 7.1 million subscribers over the course of a few years, amounting to 4.5 billion lifetime views. She also grew 12 million followers on TikTok, 4.4 million followers on Instagram, 3 million on Facebook, and more than 139,000 on Twitter. About 80% of her followers are women who range between 18 and 40 years of age.

During the meeting she offered five social media marketing tips for busy clinicians:

You have to ‘play’ to ‘win.’ Active participation in social media is required to develop followers. “You cannot delegate this content,” Dr. Lee said. “You can hire people to help you or leave the task to a social media-savvy medical assistant in your office, but the content should be your responsibility ultimately, because you are the physician,” she added. Not everyone chooses to participate in social media, but it’s also something not to shy away from out of intimidation. “There is some talent associated with it, but it takes a lot of persistence as well,” she said.

Patients come first. Protect them at all costs. Dr. Lee rarely posts the faces of patients she cares for unless they grant consent in advance. “I try to show the work that I do and the beauty of dermatology,” she said during the meeting, which was named “Laser & Aesthetic Skin Therapy: What’s the Truth?” and was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. She added that taking part in social media can help you improve communication skills by engaging with followers who like, share, or respond to the material posted. “When you look back at your posts objectively, you learn about yourself and how you relate to your patients,” she said. “It helps to hone my bedside manner and my skills as a dermatologist.”

Show that you are human. Many dermatologists and other “skin influencers” have established their presence on the Internet and may be direct competitors for patients, but that doesn’t mean you can’t establish your own identity. One way to stand out is by posting content related to your authentic self, such as a photo or video that shows you engaged in a hobby, dining at a favorite restaurant, or visiting a beloved vacation spot. “Your followers don’t want a robot, someone who thinks they’re amazing and can do everything,” said Dr. Lee, who stars in her own TV reality show on TLC. “Show that you have a funny side. You want them to fall in love with you and see a little bit of your world, whatever it might be. Charm the socks off of them.”

Entertain first, educate a close second. The main way you’re going to get people to follow and watch you is to provide some entertainment, “not at the expense of a patient or your practice, though,” she said. “Then you’re going to educate people. We dermatologists have something to teach the world because we are experts on skin, hair, and nails. You want to impart this knowledge in a way that captivates people.” It’s like the sense of accomplishment that comes from learning something new after reading a book or watching a movie, she explained. “You feel good about it, and you can take that knowledge with you somewhere else. I love it when kids come up to me and tell me they know what a lipoma is, what a cyst is, and what psoriasis is because they’ve seen my show, or because they follow me on social media. It’s wonderful because I can see that I’ve educated them.”

Be kind and don’t activate the trolls. Dr. Lee allows positivity and kindness to rule the day on her social media content. “This is what I try to relay to followers, but I also do not engage with the negativity,” she said. “Every now and then, there will be someone who tries to insult what you do or who insults you personally. If you engage with them, it almost invites them to do it more. It almost gives them the ability to fight with you. Try to stay above that; just put out goodness and kindness.”

Several years ago, YouTube and Instagram temporarily shut down Dr. Lee’s accounts because she posted graphic images of skin lesions and procedures – a practice that wasn’t so commonplace at the time. “Don’t just post a graphic image just to be graphic,” she advised. “Make sure it has an educational message associated with it. That will help to validate your content. Posting a warning sign that some images may be graphic could help, too.”

Dr. Lee reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Social media isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but for those who want to become a significant influencer on Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, or other platforms, “you have to enjoy it,” Sandra Lee, MD, said during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy.

“I admit that I’m somewhat obsessed with it. I kind of blame it on my work as a dermatologist, that I’m trying to grow my social media as well. It’s interesting to me, fascinating, and I want to understand it more. I think that’s the mindset you need to approach it with.”

Perhaps no other public figure in dermatology has enjoyed success in social media more than Dr. Lee, a board-certified dermatologist who practices in Upland, Calif. In the fall of 2014, she started using Instagram to provide followers a glimpse into her life as a dermatologist, everything from Mohs surgery and Botox to keloid removals and ear lobe repair surgeries. From this she formed her alter ego, “Dr. Pimple Popper,” and became a YouTube sensation, building 7.1 million subscribers over the course of a few years, amounting to 4.5 billion lifetime views. She also grew 12 million followers on TikTok, 4.4 million followers on Instagram, 3 million on Facebook, and more than 139,000 on Twitter. About 80% of her followers are women who range between 18 and 40 years of age.

During the meeting she offered five social media marketing tips for busy clinicians:

You have to ‘play’ to ‘win.’ Active participation in social media is required to develop followers. “You cannot delegate this content,” Dr. Lee said. “You can hire people to help you or leave the task to a social media-savvy medical assistant in your office, but the content should be your responsibility ultimately, because you are the physician,” she added. Not everyone chooses to participate in social media, but it’s also something not to shy away from out of intimidation. “There is some talent associated with it, but it takes a lot of persistence as well,” she said.

Patients come first. Protect them at all costs. Dr. Lee rarely posts the faces of patients she cares for unless they grant consent in advance. “I try to show the work that I do and the beauty of dermatology,” she said during the meeting, which was named “Laser & Aesthetic Skin Therapy: What’s the Truth?” and was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. She added that taking part in social media can help you improve communication skills by engaging with followers who like, share, or respond to the material posted. “When you look back at your posts objectively, you learn about yourself and how you relate to your patients,” she said. “It helps to hone my bedside manner and my skills as a dermatologist.”

Show that you are human. Many dermatologists and other “skin influencers” have established their presence on the Internet and may be direct competitors for patients, but that doesn’t mean you can’t establish your own identity. One way to stand out is by posting content related to your authentic self, such as a photo or video that shows you engaged in a hobby, dining at a favorite restaurant, or visiting a beloved vacation spot. “Your followers don’t want a robot, someone who thinks they’re amazing and can do everything,” said Dr. Lee, who stars in her own TV reality show on TLC. “Show that you have a funny side. You want them to fall in love with you and see a little bit of your world, whatever it might be. Charm the socks off of them.”

Entertain first, educate a close second. The main way you’re going to get people to follow and watch you is to provide some entertainment, “not at the expense of a patient or your practice, though,” she said. “Then you’re going to educate people. We dermatologists have something to teach the world because we are experts on skin, hair, and nails. You want to impart this knowledge in a way that captivates people.” It’s like the sense of accomplishment that comes from learning something new after reading a book or watching a movie, she explained. “You feel good about it, and you can take that knowledge with you somewhere else. I love it when kids come up to me and tell me they know what a lipoma is, what a cyst is, and what psoriasis is because they’ve seen my show, or because they follow me on social media. It’s wonderful because I can see that I’ve educated them.”

Be kind and don’t activate the trolls. Dr. Lee allows positivity and kindness to rule the day on her social media content. “This is what I try to relay to followers, but I also do not engage with the negativity,” she said. “Every now and then, there will be someone who tries to insult what you do or who insults you personally. If you engage with them, it almost invites them to do it more. It almost gives them the ability to fight with you. Try to stay above that; just put out goodness and kindness.”

Several years ago, YouTube and Instagram temporarily shut down Dr. Lee’s accounts because she posted graphic images of skin lesions and procedures – a practice that wasn’t so commonplace at the time. “Don’t just post a graphic image just to be graphic,” she advised. “Make sure it has an educational message associated with it. That will help to validate your content. Posting a warning sign that some images may be graphic could help, too.”

Dr. Lee reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Placebo treatment was found to be superior to treatment with risankizumab with respect to time to first asthma worsening and annualized rate of asthma worsening for adults with severe persistent asthma in a phase 2a clinical trial.

The randomized, double-blind, 24-week, parallel group, multicenter trial assessed risankizumab efficacy and safety in 214 adults with severe persistent asthma. The results were reported in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Risankizumab is a humanized, monoclonal antibody directed against subunit p19 of interleukin-23. It is approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis.

Interleukin-23 has been implicated in airway inflammation mediated by type 2 and type 17 cytokines. Noting that inhibition of interleukin-23 is effective in the treatment of psoriasis and Crohn’s disease, Christopher E. Brightling, MD, and colleagues investigated whether targeting interleukin-23 in asthma patients would improve disease control and reduce airway inflammation.
 

Study details

Patients received either 90 mg of risankizumab (subcutaneous) (n = 105) or placebo (n = 109) once every 4 weeks. Time to first asthma worsening was the primary endpoint. Worsening was defined as decline from baseline on 2 or more consecutive days. Deterioration was defined as a decrease of at least 30% in the morning peak expiratory flow or an increase from baseline of at least 50% in rescue medication puffs over 24 hours. In addition, a severe asthma exacerbation or an increase of 0.75 or more points on the five-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating less control) were considered to be evidence of worsening. Annualized rate of asthma worsening was a secondary endpoint.

The mean age of the patients was 53 years; 66.5% of the patients were women.
 

Disappointing results

In the risankizumab group, median time to first asthma worsening was 40 days, significantly worse than the 86 days reported for the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-2.04; P = .03). For annualized asthma worsening, the rate ratio for the comparison of risankizumab with placebo was 1.49 (95% CI, 1.12-1.99).

Among key secondary endpoints, the adjusted mean change in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎ from baseline to week 24 was –0.05 L in the risankizumab group and –0.01 L in the placebo group. The adjusted mean change in FEV₁ after bronchodilator use from baseline to week 24 was –0.10 L in the risankizumab group and –0.03 L in the placebo group. Sputum transcriptomic pathway analysis showed that genes involved in the activation of natural killer cells and cytotoxic T cells and the activation of type 1 helper T and type 17 helper T transcription factors were downregulated by risankizumab. Rates of adverse events were similar among patients receiving risankizumab and those taking placebo.
 

Further trials unwarranted

“The findings not only failed to show benefit for any outcome but also showed asthma worsening occurred earlier and more frequently in those treated with risankizumab versus placebo,” Dr. Brightling, professor in the department of respiratory sciences at University of Leicester, England, said in an interview. “This study does not support any further trials for anti-IL23 in asthma.” Dr. Brightling speculated on the cause of accelerated asthma worsening with risankizumab.

“We found that the gene expression of key molecules involved in our response to infection was decreased in airway samples in those treated with risankizumab versus placebo. It is possible that the increased asthma worsening following risankizumab was related to this suppression of antimicrobial immunity,” he said.

He noted that risankizumab did not affect type-2/eosinophilic inflammation, which is the target for current asthma biologics, or gene expression of T2 molecules. “That suggests that this type of inflammation would have continued in the asthma patients during the trial irrespective of receiving risankizumab or placebo,” he said.
 

Caution with investigating biologicals

Downstream biologic responses to risankizumab were detectable, Philip G. Bardin, PhD, and Paul S. Foster, DSc, observed in an accompanying editorial, but there was no discernible clinical benefit, implying attenuation of apposite pathways. Current understanding of the basic science relevant to asthma, they stated, offers clues to the failure of risankizumab to benefit these patients with severe asthma. Although targeting the interleukin-23 and Th17 axis with risankizumab can reduce development of pathogenic Th17 cells, interleukin-23 is not critical for the development of Th17 cells.

“In contrast to pathways operated by interleukin-5 and interleukin-4R alpha, interleukin-23 has only a limited auxiliary role in amplifying type 2 responses. It is possible that the trial conducted by Brightling and colleagues failed because signaling through alternative disease pathways nullified inhibition of inter-leukin-23,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Bardin and Dr. Foster further speculate that because interleukin-23 is vital for effective mucosal immunity, risankizumab may have conferred to patients a predisposition to more severe or more frequent virus-induced exacerbations. They stated that generally, however, the reasons for risankizumab’s poorer outcomes compared to placebo are unclear. “Overall, these findings support a cautious approach in future research investigating biologic therapies in asthma,” they concluded.

The clinical trial was sponsored and funded by BI/AbbVie.

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

Placebo treatment was found to be superior to treatment with risankizumab with respect to time to first asthma worsening and annualized rate of asthma worsening for adults with severe persistent asthma in a phase 2a clinical trial.

The randomized, double-blind, 24-week, parallel group, multicenter trial assessed risankizumab efficacy and safety in 214 adults with severe persistent asthma. The results were reported in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Risankizumab is a humanized, monoclonal antibody directed against subunit p19 of interleukin-23. It is approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis.

Interleukin-23 has been implicated in airway inflammation mediated by type 2 and type 17 cytokines. Noting that inhibition of interleukin-23 is effective in the treatment of psoriasis and Crohn’s disease, Christopher E. Brightling, MD, and colleagues investigated whether targeting interleukin-23 in asthma patients would improve disease control and reduce airway inflammation.
 

Study details

Patients received either 90 mg of risankizumab (subcutaneous) (n = 105) or placebo (n = 109) once every 4 weeks. Time to first asthma worsening was the primary endpoint. Worsening was defined as decline from baseline on 2 or more consecutive days. Deterioration was defined as a decrease of at least 30% in the morning peak expiratory flow or an increase from baseline of at least 50% in rescue medication puffs over 24 hours. In addition, a severe asthma exacerbation or an increase of 0.75 or more points on the five-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating less control) were considered to be evidence of worsening. Annualized rate of asthma worsening was a secondary endpoint.

The mean age of the patients was 53 years; 66.5% of the patients were women.
 

Disappointing results

In the risankizumab group, median time to first asthma worsening was 40 days, significantly worse than the 86 days reported for the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-2.04; P = .03). For annualized asthma worsening, the rate ratio for the comparison of risankizumab with placebo was 1.49 (95% CI, 1.12-1.99).

Among key secondary endpoints, the adjusted mean change in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎ from baseline to week 24 was –0.05 L in the risankizumab group and –0.01 L in the placebo group. The adjusted mean change in FEV₁ after bronchodilator use from baseline to week 24 was –0.10 L in the risankizumab group and –0.03 L in the placebo group. Sputum transcriptomic pathway analysis showed that genes involved in the activation of natural killer cells and cytotoxic T cells and the activation of type 1 helper T and type 17 helper T transcription factors were downregulated by risankizumab. Rates of adverse events were similar among patients receiving risankizumab and those taking placebo.
 

Further trials unwarranted

“The findings not only failed to show benefit for any outcome but also showed asthma worsening occurred earlier and more frequently in those treated with risankizumab versus placebo,” Dr. Brightling, professor in the department of respiratory sciences at University of Leicester, England, said in an interview. “This study does not support any further trials for anti-IL23 in asthma.” Dr. Brightling speculated on the cause of accelerated asthma worsening with risankizumab.

“We found that the gene expression of key molecules involved in our response to infection was decreased in airway samples in those treated with risankizumab versus placebo. It is possible that the increased asthma worsening following risankizumab was related to this suppression of antimicrobial immunity,” he said.

He noted that risankizumab did not affect type-2/eosinophilic inflammation, which is the target for current asthma biologics, or gene expression of T2 molecules. “That suggests that this type of inflammation would have continued in the asthma patients during the trial irrespective of receiving risankizumab or placebo,” he said.
 

Caution with investigating biologicals

Downstream biologic responses to risankizumab were detectable, Philip G. Bardin, PhD, and Paul S. Foster, DSc, observed in an accompanying editorial, but there was no discernible clinical benefit, implying attenuation of apposite pathways. Current understanding of the basic science relevant to asthma, they stated, offers clues to the failure of risankizumab to benefit these patients with severe asthma. Although targeting the interleukin-23 and Th17 axis with risankizumab can reduce development of pathogenic Th17 cells, interleukin-23 is not critical for the development of Th17 cells.

“In contrast to pathways operated by interleukin-5 and interleukin-4R alpha, interleukin-23 has only a limited auxiliary role in amplifying type 2 responses. It is possible that the trial conducted by Brightling and colleagues failed because signaling through alternative disease pathways nullified inhibition of inter-leukin-23,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Bardin and Dr. Foster further speculate that because interleukin-23 is vital for effective mucosal immunity, risankizumab may have conferred to patients a predisposition to more severe or more frequent virus-induced exacerbations. They stated that generally, however, the reasons for risankizumab’s poorer outcomes compared to placebo are unclear. “Overall, these findings support a cautious approach in future research investigating biologic therapies in asthma,” they concluded.

The clinical trial was sponsored and funded by BI/AbbVie.

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

Placebo treatment was found to be superior to treatment with risankizumab with respect to time to first asthma worsening and annualized rate of asthma worsening for adults with severe persistent asthma in a phase 2a clinical trial.

The randomized, double-blind, 24-week, parallel group, multicenter trial assessed risankizumab efficacy and safety in 214 adults with severe persistent asthma. The results were reported in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Risankizumab is a humanized, monoclonal antibody directed against subunit p19 of interleukin-23. It is approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis.

Interleukin-23 has been implicated in airway inflammation mediated by type 2 and type 17 cytokines. Noting that inhibition of interleukin-23 is effective in the treatment of psoriasis and Crohn’s disease, Christopher E. Brightling, MD, and colleagues investigated whether targeting interleukin-23 in asthma patients would improve disease control and reduce airway inflammation.
 

Study details

Patients received either 90 mg of risankizumab (subcutaneous) (n = 105) or placebo (n = 109) once every 4 weeks. Time to first asthma worsening was the primary endpoint. Worsening was defined as decline from baseline on 2 or more consecutive days. Deterioration was defined as a decrease of at least 30% in the morning peak expiratory flow or an increase from baseline of at least 50% in rescue medication puffs over 24 hours. In addition, a severe asthma exacerbation or an increase of 0.75 or more points on the five-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating less control) were considered to be evidence of worsening. Annualized rate of asthma worsening was a secondary endpoint.

The mean age of the patients was 53 years; 66.5% of the patients were women.
 

Disappointing results

In the risankizumab group, median time to first asthma worsening was 40 days, significantly worse than the 86 days reported for the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-2.04; P = .03). For annualized asthma worsening, the rate ratio for the comparison of risankizumab with placebo was 1.49 (95% CI, 1.12-1.99).

Among key secondary endpoints, the adjusted mean change in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎ from baseline to week 24 was –0.05 L in the risankizumab group and –0.01 L in the placebo group. The adjusted mean change in FEV₁ after bronchodilator use from baseline to week 24 was –0.10 L in the risankizumab group and –0.03 L in the placebo group. Sputum transcriptomic pathway analysis showed that genes involved in the activation of natural killer cells and cytotoxic T cells and the activation of type 1 helper T and type 17 helper T transcription factors were downregulated by risankizumab. Rates of adverse events were similar among patients receiving risankizumab and those taking placebo.
 

Further trials unwarranted

“The findings not only failed to show benefit for any outcome but also showed asthma worsening occurred earlier and more frequently in those treated with risankizumab versus placebo,” Dr. Brightling, professor in the department of respiratory sciences at University of Leicester, England, said in an interview. “This study does not support any further trials for anti-IL23 in asthma.” Dr. Brightling speculated on the cause of accelerated asthma worsening with risankizumab.

“We found that the gene expression of key molecules involved in our response to infection was decreased in airway samples in those treated with risankizumab versus placebo. It is possible that the increased asthma worsening following risankizumab was related to this suppression of antimicrobial immunity,” he said.

He noted that risankizumab did not affect type-2/eosinophilic inflammation, which is the target for current asthma biologics, or gene expression of T2 molecules. “That suggests that this type of inflammation would have continued in the asthma patients during the trial irrespective of receiving risankizumab or placebo,” he said.
 

Caution with investigating biologicals

Downstream biologic responses to risankizumab were detectable, Philip G. Bardin, PhD, and Paul S. Foster, DSc, observed in an accompanying editorial, but there was no discernible clinical benefit, implying attenuation of apposite pathways. Current understanding of the basic science relevant to asthma, they stated, offers clues to the failure of risankizumab to benefit these patients with severe asthma. Although targeting the interleukin-23 and Th17 axis with risankizumab can reduce development of pathogenic Th17 cells, interleukin-23 is not critical for the development of Th17 cells.

“In contrast to pathways operated by interleukin-5 and interleukin-4R alpha, interleukin-23 has only a limited auxiliary role in amplifying type 2 responses. It is possible that the trial conducted by Brightling and colleagues failed because signaling through alternative disease pathways nullified inhibition of inter-leukin-23,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Bardin and Dr. Foster further speculate that because interleukin-23 is vital for effective mucosal immunity, risankizumab may have conferred to patients a predisposition to more severe or more frequent virus-induced exacerbations. They stated that generally, however, the reasons for risankizumab’s poorer outcomes compared to placebo are unclear. “Overall, these findings support a cautious approach in future research investigating biologic therapies in asthma,” they concluded.

The clinical trial was sponsored and funded by BI/AbbVie.

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