MDedge Rheumatology

Pfizer is suspending distribution of the antismoking treatment Chantix after heightened levels of the carcinogen N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) were found in some lots of the pills.

The pharmaceutical company is also recalling some lots of Chantix that may have high levels of NDMA, Reuters reported.

Pfizer told Reuters the distribution pause was ordered out of abundance of caution while further testing is conducted. The FDA approved varenicline, which is marketed as Chantix, in 2006.

“The benefits of Chantix outweigh the very low potential risks, if any, posed by nitrosamine exposure from varenicline on top of other common sources over a lifetime,” Pfizer spokesperson Steven Danehy said in an email, according to Reuters.

The FDA has not issued a recall on Chantix. In Canada, however, health authorities on June 8 instituted a recall for Champix, the name under which the drug is sold in that nation.

The Chantix website says it’s a 3- to 6-month treatment that helps people overcome the need to smoke tobacco. The website says more than 13 million people have been prescribed Chantix.

Other health concerns have been raised about Chantix, such as mental health side effects.

In 2016, however, researchers concluded Chantix did not appear to raise the risk of serious health disorders such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts.

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

Pfizer is suspending distribution of the antismoking treatment Chantix after heightened levels of the carcinogen N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) were found in some lots of the pills.

The pharmaceutical company is also recalling some lots of Chantix that may have high levels of NDMA, Reuters reported.

Pfizer told Reuters the distribution pause was ordered out of abundance of caution while further testing is conducted. The FDA approved varenicline, which is marketed as Chantix, in 2006.

“The benefits of Chantix outweigh the very low potential risks, if any, posed by nitrosamine exposure from varenicline on top of other common sources over a lifetime,” Pfizer spokesperson Steven Danehy said in an email, according to Reuters.

The FDA has not issued a recall on Chantix. In Canada, however, health authorities on June 8 instituted a recall for Champix, the name under which the drug is sold in that nation.

The Chantix website says it’s a 3- to 6-month treatment that helps people overcome the need to smoke tobacco. The website says more than 13 million people have been prescribed Chantix.

Other health concerns have been raised about Chantix, such as mental health side effects.

In 2016, however, researchers concluded Chantix did not appear to raise the risk of serious health disorders such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts.

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

Pfizer is suspending distribution of the antismoking treatment Chantix after heightened levels of the carcinogen N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) were found in some lots of the pills.

The pharmaceutical company is also recalling some lots of Chantix that may have high levels of NDMA, Reuters reported.

Pfizer told Reuters the distribution pause was ordered out of abundance of caution while further testing is conducted. The FDA approved varenicline, which is marketed as Chantix, in 2006.

“The benefits of Chantix outweigh the very low potential risks, if any, posed by nitrosamine exposure from varenicline on top of other common sources over a lifetime,” Pfizer spokesperson Steven Danehy said in an email, according to Reuters.

The FDA has not issued a recall on Chantix. In Canada, however, health authorities on June 8 instituted a recall for Champix, the name under which the drug is sold in that nation.

The Chantix website says it’s a 3- to 6-month treatment that helps people overcome the need to smoke tobacco. The website says more than 13 million people have been prescribed Chantix.

Other health concerns have been raised about Chantix, such as mental health side effects.

In 2016, however, researchers concluded Chantix did not appear to raise the risk of serious health disorders such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts.

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

It was a 95° F day in July 2015, and emergency physician Martin Maag, MD, was driving down Bee Ridge Road, a busy seven-lane thoroughfare in Sarasota, Fla., on his way home from a family dinner. To distance himself from a truck blowing black smoke, Dr. Maag says he had just passed some vehicles, when a motorcycle flew past him in the turning lane and the passenger flipped him off.

“I started laughing because I knew we were coming up to a red light,” said Dr. Maag. “When we pulled up to the light, I put my window down and said: ‘Hey, you ought to be a little more careful about who you’re flipping off! You never know who it might be and what they might do.’ ”

The female passenger cursed at Dr. Maag, and the two traded profanities. The male driver then told Dr. Maag: “Get out of the car, old man,” according to Dr. Maag. Fuming, Dr. Maag got out of his black Tesla, and the two men met in the middle of the street.

“As soon as I got close enough to see him, I could tell he really looked young,” Dr. Maag recalls. “I said: ‘You’re like 12 years old. I’m going to end up beating your ass and then I’m going to go to jail. Go get on your bike, and ride home to your mom.’ I don’t remember what he said to me, but I spun around and said: ‘If you want to act like a man, meet me up the street in a parking lot and let’s have at it like men.’ ”

The motorcyclist got back on his white Suzuki and sped off, and Dr. Maag followed. Both vehicles went racing down the road, swerving between cars, and reaching speeds of 100 miles per hour, Dr. Maag said. At one point, Dr. Maag says he drove in front of the motorcyclist to slow him down, and the motorcycle clipped the back of his car. No one was seriously hurt, but soon Dr. Maag was in the back of a police cruiser headed to jail.

Dr. Maag wishes he could take back his actions that summer day 6 years ago. Those few minutes of fury have had lasting effects on the doctor’s life. The incident resulted in criminal charges, a jail sentence, thousands of dollars in legal fees, and a 3-year departure from emergency medicine. Although Dr. Maag did not lose his medical license as a result of the incident, the physician’s Medicare billing privileges were suspended because of a federal provision that ties some felonies to enrollment revocations.

Dr. Maag, 61, shared his story with this news organization to warn other physicians about the wide-ranging career ramifications that can happen as a result of offenses unrelated to medicine. 

“Every doctor, every health professional needs to know that there are a lot of consequences that go with our actions outside of work,” he said. “In my situation, what happened had nothing to do with medicine, it had nothing to do with patients, it had nothing to do my professional demeanor. But yet it affected my entire career, and I lost the ability to practice emergency medicine for 3 years. Three years for any doctor is a long time. Three years for emergency medicine is a lifetime.”
 

The physician ends up in jail

After the collision, Dr. Maag pulled over in a parking lot and dialed 911. Several passing motorists did the same. It appeared the biker was trying to get away, and Dr. Maag was concerned about the damage to his Tesla, he said. 

When police arrived, they heard very different accounts of what happened. The motorcyclist and his girlfriend claimed Dr. Maag was the aggressor during the altercation, and that he deliberately tried to hit them with his vehicle. Two witnesses at the scene said they had watched Dr. Maag pursue the motorcycle in his vehicle, and that they believed he crossed into their lane intentionally to strike the motorcycle, according to police reports.

“[The motorcyclist] stated that the vehicle struck his right foot when it hit the motorcycle and that he was able to keep his balance and not lay the bike down,” Sarasota County Deputy C. Moore wrote in his report. “The motorcycle was damaged on the right side near [his] foot, verifying his story. Both victims were adamant that the defendant actually and intentionally struck the motorcycle with his car due to the previous altercation.”

Dr. Maag told officers the motorcyclist had initiated the confrontation. He acknowledged racing after the biker, but said it was the motorcyclist who hit his vehicle. In an interview, Dr. Maag disputed the witnesses’ accounts, saying that one of the witnesses was without a car and made claims to police that were impossible from her distance. 

In the end, the officer believed the motorcyclist, writing in his report that the damage to the Tesla was consistent with the biker’s version of events. Dr. Maag was handcuffed and taken to the Sarasota County Jail.

“I was in shock,” he said. “When we got to the jail, they got me booked in and fingerprinted. I sat down and said [to an officer]: ‘So, when do I get to bond out?’ The guy started laughing and said: ‘You’re not going anywhere. You’re spending the night in jail, my friend.’ He said: ‘Your charge is one step below murder.’”
 

‘I like to drive fast’

Aside from speeding tickets, Dr. Maag said he had never been in serious trouble with the law before.

The husband and father of two has practiced emergency medicine for more 15 years, and his license has remained in good standing. Florida Department of Health records show Dr. Maag’s medical license as clear and active with no discipline cases or public complaints on file.

“I did my best for every patient that came through that door,” he said. “There were a lot of people who didn’t like my personality. I’ve said many times: ‘I’m not here to be liked. I’m here to take care of people and provide the best care possible.’ ” 

Sarasota County records show that Dr. Maag has received traffic citations in the past for careless driving, unlawful speed, and failure to stop at a red light, among others. He admits to having a “lead foot,” but says he had never before been involved in a road rage incident.

“I’m not going to lie, I like to drive fast,” he said. “I like that feeling. It just seems to slow everything down for me, the faster I’m going.”

After being booked into jail that July evening in 2015, Dr. Maag called his wife to explain what happened.

“She said, ‘I can’t believe you’ve done this. I’ve told you a million times, don’t worry about how other people drive. Keep your mouth shut,’” he recalled. “I asked her to call my work and let them know I wouldn’t be coming in the next day. Until that happened, I had never missed a day of work since becoming a physician.”

After an anxious night in his jail cell, Dr. Maag lined up with the other inmates the next morning for his bond hearing. His charges included felony, aggravated battery, and felony aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. A prosecutor recommended Dr. Maag’s bond be set at $1 million, which a judge lowered to $500,000.

Michael Fayard, a criminal defense attorney who represented Dr. Maag in the case, said even with the reduction, $500,000 was an outrageous bond for such a case.

“The prosecutor’s arguments to the judge were that he was a physician driving a Tesla,” Mr. Fayard said. “That was his exact argument for charging him a higher bond. It shouldn’t have been that high. I argued he was not a flight risk. He didn’t even have a passport.”

The Florida State Attorney’s Office did not return messages seeking comment about the case.

Dr. Maag spent 2 more nights in jail while he and his wife came up with $50,000 in cash, in accordance with the 10% bond rule. In the meantime, the government put a lien on their house. A circuit court judge later agreed the bond was excessive, according to Mr. Fayard, but by that time, the $50,000 was paid and Dr. Maag was released.
 

New evidence lowers charges 

Dr. Maag ultimately accepted a plea deal from the prosecutor’s office and pled no contest to one count of felony criminal mischief and one count of misdemeanor reckless driving. In return, the state dropped the two more serious felonies. A no-contest plea is not considered an admission of guilt.

Mr. Fayard said his investigation into the road rage victim unearthed evidence that poked holes in the motorcyclist’s credibility, and that contributed to the plea offer.

“We found tons of evidence about the kid being a hot-rodding rider on his motorcycle, videos of him traveling 140 miles an hour, popping wheelies, and darting in and out of traffic,” he said. “There was a lot of mitigation that came up during the course of the investigation.”

The plea deal was a favorable result for Dr. Maag considering his original charges, Mr. Fayard said. He added that the criminal case could have ended much differently.

“Given the facts of this case and given the fact that there were no serious injuries, we supported the state’s decision to accept our mitigation and come out with the sentence that they did,” Mr. Fayard said. “If there would have been injuries, the outcome would have likely been much worse for Dr. Maag.”

With the plea agreement reached, Dr. Maag faced his next consequence – jail time. He was sentenced to 60 days in jail, a $1,000 fine, 12 months of probation, and 8 months of house arrest. Unlike his first jail stay, Dr. Maag said the second, longer stint behind bars was more relaxing. 

“It was the first time since I had become an emergency physician that I remember my dreams,” he recalled. “I had nothing to worry about, nothing to do. All I had to do was get up and eat. Every now and then, I would mop the floors because I’m kind of a clean freak, and I would talk to guys and that was it. It wasn’t bad at all.”

Dr. Maag told no one that he was a doctor because he didn’t want to be treated differently. The anonymity led to interesting tidbits from other inmates about the best pill mills in the area for example, how to make crack cocaine, and selling items for drugs. On his last day in jail, the other inmates learned from his discharge paperwork that Dr. Maag was a physician.

“One of the corrections officers said: ‘You’re a doctor? We’ve never had a doctor in here before!’” Dr. Maag remembers. “He said: ‘What did a doctor do to get into jail?’ I said: ‘Do you really want to know?’ ”

About the time that Dr. Maag was released from jail, the Florida Board of Medicine learned of his charges and began reviewing his case. Mr. Fayard presented the same facts to the board and argued for Dr. Maag to keep his license, emphasizing the offenses in which he was convicted were significantly less severe than the original felonies charged. The board agreed to dismiss the case. 

“The probable cause panel for the board of medicine considered the complaint that has been filed against your client in the above referenced case,” Peter Delia, then-assistant general counsel for the Florida Department of Health, wrote in a letter dated April 27, 2016. “After careful review of all information and evidence obtained in this case, the panel determined that probable cause of a violation does not exist and directed this case to be closed.”
 

A short-lived celebration

Once home, Dr. Maag was on house arrest, but he was granted permission to travel for work. He continued to practice emergency medicine. After several months, authorities dropped the house arrest, and a judge canceled his probation early. It appeared the road rage incident was finally behind him. 

But a year later, in 2018, the doctor received a letter from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services informing him that because of his charges, his Medicare number had been revoked in November 2015.

“It took them 3 years to find me and tell me, even though I never moved,” he said. “Medicare said because I never reported this, they were hitting me up with falsification of documentation because I had signed other Medicare paperwork saying I had never been barred from Medicare, because I didn’t know that I was.”

Dr. Maag hired a different attorney to help him fight the 3-year enrollment ban. He requested reconsideration from CMS, but a hearing officer in October 2017 upheld the revocation. Because his privileges had been revoked in 2015, Dr. Maag’s practice group had to return all money billed by Dr. Maag to Medicare over the 3-year period, which totaled about $190,000.

A CMS spokeswoman declined to comment about Dr. Maag’s case, referring a reporter for this news organization to an administrative law judge’s decision that summarizes the agency’s findings.

According to the summary, in separate reconsidered determinations, the CMS hearing officer concluded that the revocation was proper under section 424.535(a)(3). The regulation, enacted in 2011, allows CMS to revoke billing privileges if a provider was convicted of a federal or state felony within the preceding 10 years that the agency determines is detrimental to the Medicare program and its beneficiaries.

The hearing officer reasoned that Dr. Maag “had been convicted of a felony that is akin to assault and, even if it were not, his actions showed a reckless disregard for the safety of others.” She concluded also that CMS could appropriately revoke Dr. Maag’s Medicare enrollment because he did not report his felony conviction within 30 days as required.

Dr. Maag went through several phases of fighting the revocation, including an appeal to the Department of Health & Human Services Departmental Appeals Board. He argued that his plea was a no-contest plea, which is not considered an admission of guilt. Dr. Maag and his attorney provided CMS a 15-page paper about his background, education, career accomplishments, and patient care history. They emphasized that Dr. Maag had never harmed or threatened a patient, and that his offense had nothing to do with his practice.

In February 2021, Judge Carolyn Cozad Hughes, an administrative law judge with CMS, upheld the 3-year revocation. In her decision, she wrote that for purposes of revocation under CMS law, “convicted” means that a judgment of conviction has been entered by a federal, state, or local court regardless of whether the judgment of conviction has been expunged or otherwise removed. She disagreed with Dr. Maag’s contention that his was a crime against property and, therefore, not akin to any of the felony offenses enumerated under the revocation section, which are crimes against persons.

“Even disregarding the allegations contained in the probable cause affidavit, Petitioner cannot escape the undisputed fact, established by his conviction and his own admissions, that the ‘property’ he so ‘willfully and maliciously’ damaged was a motorcycle traveling at a high rate of speed, and, that two young people were sitting atop that motorcycle,” Judge Hughes wrote. “Moreover, as part of the same conduct, he was charged – and convicted – of misdemeanor reckless driving with ‘willful and wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.’ Thus, even accepting Petitioner’s description of the events, he unquestionably showed no regard for the safety of the young people on that motorcycle.”

Judge Hughes noted that, although Dr. Maag’s crimes may not be among those specified in the regulation, CMS has broad authority to determine which felonies are detrimental to the best interests of the program and its beneficiaries.
 

A new career path

Unable to practice emergency medicine and beset with debt, Dr. Maag spiraled into a dark depression. His family had to start using retirement money that he was saving for the future care of his son, who has autism.

“I was suicidal,” he said. “There were two times that I came very close to going out to the woods by my house and hanging myself. All I wanted was to have everything go away. My wife saved my life.”

Slowly, Dr. Maag climbed out of the despondency and began considering new career options. After working and training briefly in hair restoration, Dr. Maag became a hair transplant specialist and opened his own hair restoration practice. It was a way to practice and help patients without having to accept Medicare. Today, he is the founder of Honest Hair Restoration in Bradenton, Fla.

Hair restoration is not the type of medicine that he “was designed to do,” Dr. Maag said, but he has embraced its advantages, such as learning about the business aspects of medicine and having a slower-paced work life. The business, which opened in 2019, is doing well and growing steadily.

Earlier this month, Dr. Maag learned CMS had reinstated his Medicare billing privileges. If an opportunity arises to go back into emergency medicine or urgent care, he is open to the possibilities, he said, but he plans to continue hair restoration for now. He hopes the lessons learned from his road rage incident may help others in similar circumstances.

“If I could go back to that very moment, I would’ve just kept my window up and I wouldn’t have said anything,” Dr. Maag said. “I would’ve kept my mouth shut and gone on about my day. Would I have loved it to have never happened? Yeah, and I’d probably be starting my retirement now. Am I stronger now? Well, I’m probably a hell of a lot wiser. But when all is said and done, I don’t want anybody feeling sorry for me. It was all my doing and I have to live with the consequences.”

Mr. Fayard, the attorney, says the case is a cautionary tale for doctors.

“No one is really above the law,” he said. “There aren’t two legal systems. You can’t just pay a little money and be done. At every level, serious charges have serious ramifications for everyone involved. Law enforcement and judges are not going to care of you’re a physician and you commit a crime. But physicians have a lot more on the line than many others. They can lose their ability to practice.”

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

It was a 95° F day in July 2015, and emergency physician Martin Maag, MD, was driving down Bee Ridge Road, a busy seven-lane thoroughfare in Sarasota, Fla., on his way home from a family dinner. To distance himself from a truck blowing black smoke, Dr. Maag says he had just passed some vehicles, when a motorcycle flew past him in the turning lane and the passenger flipped him off.

“I started laughing because I knew we were coming up to a red light,” said Dr. Maag. “When we pulled up to the light, I put my window down and said: ‘Hey, you ought to be a little more careful about who you’re flipping off! You never know who it might be and what they might do.’ ”

The female passenger cursed at Dr. Maag, and the two traded profanities. The male driver then told Dr. Maag: “Get out of the car, old man,” according to Dr. Maag. Fuming, Dr. Maag got out of his black Tesla, and the two men met in the middle of the street.

“As soon as I got close enough to see him, I could tell he really looked young,” Dr. Maag recalls. “I said: ‘You’re like 12 years old. I’m going to end up beating your ass and then I’m going to go to jail. Go get on your bike, and ride home to your mom.’ I don’t remember what he said to me, but I spun around and said: ‘If you want to act like a man, meet me up the street in a parking lot and let’s have at it like men.’ ”

The motorcyclist got back on his white Suzuki and sped off, and Dr. Maag followed. Both vehicles went racing down the road, swerving between cars, and reaching speeds of 100 miles per hour, Dr. Maag said. At one point, Dr. Maag says he drove in front of the motorcyclist to slow him down, and the motorcycle clipped the back of his car. No one was seriously hurt, but soon Dr. Maag was in the back of a police cruiser headed to jail.

Dr. Maag wishes he could take back his actions that summer day 6 years ago. Those few minutes of fury have had lasting effects on the doctor’s life. The incident resulted in criminal charges, a jail sentence, thousands of dollars in legal fees, and a 3-year departure from emergency medicine. Although Dr. Maag did not lose his medical license as a result of the incident, the physician’s Medicare billing privileges were suspended because of a federal provision that ties some felonies to enrollment revocations.

Dr. Maag, 61, shared his story with this news organization to warn other physicians about the wide-ranging career ramifications that can happen as a result of offenses unrelated to medicine. 

“Every doctor, every health professional needs to know that there are a lot of consequences that go with our actions outside of work,” he said. “In my situation, what happened had nothing to do with medicine, it had nothing to do with patients, it had nothing to do my professional demeanor. But yet it affected my entire career, and I lost the ability to practice emergency medicine for 3 years. Three years for any doctor is a long time. Three years for emergency medicine is a lifetime.”
 

The physician ends up in jail

After the collision, Dr. Maag pulled over in a parking lot and dialed 911. Several passing motorists did the same. It appeared the biker was trying to get away, and Dr. Maag was concerned about the damage to his Tesla, he said. 

When police arrived, they heard very different accounts of what happened. The motorcyclist and his girlfriend claimed Dr. Maag was the aggressor during the altercation, and that he deliberately tried to hit them with his vehicle. Two witnesses at the scene said they had watched Dr. Maag pursue the motorcycle in his vehicle, and that they believed he crossed into their lane intentionally to strike the motorcycle, according to police reports.

“[The motorcyclist] stated that the vehicle struck his right foot when it hit the motorcycle and that he was able to keep his balance and not lay the bike down,” Sarasota County Deputy C. Moore wrote in his report. “The motorcycle was damaged on the right side near [his] foot, verifying his story. Both victims were adamant that the defendant actually and intentionally struck the motorcycle with his car due to the previous altercation.”

Dr. Maag told officers the motorcyclist had initiated the confrontation. He acknowledged racing after the biker, but said it was the motorcyclist who hit his vehicle. In an interview, Dr. Maag disputed the witnesses’ accounts, saying that one of the witnesses was without a car and made claims to police that were impossible from her distance. 

In the end, the officer believed the motorcyclist, writing in his report that the damage to the Tesla was consistent with the biker’s version of events. Dr. Maag was handcuffed and taken to the Sarasota County Jail.

“I was in shock,” he said. “When we got to the jail, they got me booked in and fingerprinted. I sat down and said [to an officer]: ‘So, when do I get to bond out?’ The guy started laughing and said: ‘You’re not going anywhere. You’re spending the night in jail, my friend.’ He said: ‘Your charge is one step below murder.’”
 

‘I like to drive fast’

Aside from speeding tickets, Dr. Maag said he had never been in serious trouble with the law before.

The husband and father of two has practiced emergency medicine for more 15 years, and his license has remained in good standing. Florida Department of Health records show Dr. Maag’s medical license as clear and active with no discipline cases or public complaints on file.

“I did my best for every patient that came through that door,” he said. “There were a lot of people who didn’t like my personality. I’ve said many times: ‘I’m not here to be liked. I’m here to take care of people and provide the best care possible.’ ” 

Sarasota County records show that Dr. Maag has received traffic citations in the past for careless driving, unlawful speed, and failure to stop at a red light, among others. He admits to having a “lead foot,” but says he had never before been involved in a road rage incident.

“I’m not going to lie, I like to drive fast,” he said. “I like that feeling. It just seems to slow everything down for me, the faster I’m going.”

After being booked into jail that July evening in 2015, Dr. Maag called his wife to explain what happened.

“She said, ‘I can’t believe you’ve done this. I’ve told you a million times, don’t worry about how other people drive. Keep your mouth shut,’” he recalled. “I asked her to call my work and let them know I wouldn’t be coming in the next day. Until that happened, I had never missed a day of work since becoming a physician.”

After an anxious night in his jail cell, Dr. Maag lined up with the other inmates the next morning for his bond hearing. His charges included felony, aggravated battery, and felony aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. A prosecutor recommended Dr. Maag’s bond be set at $1 million, which a judge lowered to $500,000.

Michael Fayard, a criminal defense attorney who represented Dr. Maag in the case, said even with the reduction, $500,000 was an outrageous bond for such a case.

“The prosecutor’s arguments to the judge were that he was a physician driving a Tesla,” Mr. Fayard said. “That was his exact argument for charging him a higher bond. It shouldn’t have been that high. I argued he was not a flight risk. He didn’t even have a passport.”

The Florida State Attorney’s Office did not return messages seeking comment about the case.

Dr. Maag spent 2 more nights in jail while he and his wife came up with $50,000 in cash, in accordance with the 10% bond rule. In the meantime, the government put a lien on their house. A circuit court judge later agreed the bond was excessive, according to Mr. Fayard, but by that time, the $50,000 was paid and Dr. Maag was released.
 

New evidence lowers charges 

Dr. Maag ultimately accepted a plea deal from the prosecutor’s office and pled no contest to one count of felony criminal mischief and one count of misdemeanor reckless driving. In return, the state dropped the two more serious felonies. A no-contest plea is not considered an admission of guilt.

Mr. Fayard said his investigation into the road rage victim unearthed evidence that poked holes in the motorcyclist’s credibility, and that contributed to the plea offer.

“We found tons of evidence about the kid being a hot-rodding rider on his motorcycle, videos of him traveling 140 miles an hour, popping wheelies, and darting in and out of traffic,” he said. “There was a lot of mitigation that came up during the course of the investigation.”

The plea deal was a favorable result for Dr. Maag considering his original charges, Mr. Fayard said. He added that the criminal case could have ended much differently.

“Given the facts of this case and given the fact that there were no serious injuries, we supported the state’s decision to accept our mitigation and come out with the sentence that they did,” Mr. Fayard said. “If there would have been injuries, the outcome would have likely been much worse for Dr. Maag.”

With the plea agreement reached, Dr. Maag faced his next consequence – jail time. He was sentenced to 60 days in jail, a $1,000 fine, 12 months of probation, and 8 months of house arrest. Unlike his first jail stay, Dr. Maag said the second, longer stint behind bars was more relaxing. 

“It was the first time since I had become an emergency physician that I remember my dreams,” he recalled. “I had nothing to worry about, nothing to do. All I had to do was get up and eat. Every now and then, I would mop the floors because I’m kind of a clean freak, and I would talk to guys and that was it. It wasn’t bad at all.”

Dr. Maag told no one that he was a doctor because he didn’t want to be treated differently. The anonymity led to interesting tidbits from other inmates about the best pill mills in the area for example, how to make crack cocaine, and selling items for drugs. On his last day in jail, the other inmates learned from his discharge paperwork that Dr. Maag was a physician.

“One of the corrections officers said: ‘You’re a doctor? We’ve never had a doctor in here before!’” Dr. Maag remembers. “He said: ‘What did a doctor do to get into jail?’ I said: ‘Do you really want to know?’ ”

About the time that Dr. Maag was released from jail, the Florida Board of Medicine learned of his charges and began reviewing his case. Mr. Fayard presented the same facts to the board and argued for Dr. Maag to keep his license, emphasizing the offenses in which he was convicted were significantly less severe than the original felonies charged. The board agreed to dismiss the case. 

“The probable cause panel for the board of medicine considered the complaint that has been filed against your client in the above referenced case,” Peter Delia, then-assistant general counsel for the Florida Department of Health, wrote in a letter dated April 27, 2016. “After careful review of all information and evidence obtained in this case, the panel determined that probable cause of a violation does not exist and directed this case to be closed.”
 

A short-lived celebration

Once home, Dr. Maag was on house arrest, but he was granted permission to travel for work. He continued to practice emergency medicine. After several months, authorities dropped the house arrest, and a judge canceled his probation early. It appeared the road rage incident was finally behind him. 

But a year later, in 2018, the doctor received a letter from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services informing him that because of his charges, his Medicare number had been revoked in November 2015.

“It took them 3 years to find me and tell me, even though I never moved,” he said. “Medicare said because I never reported this, they were hitting me up with falsification of documentation because I had signed other Medicare paperwork saying I had never been barred from Medicare, because I didn’t know that I was.”

Dr. Maag hired a different attorney to help him fight the 3-year enrollment ban. He requested reconsideration from CMS, but a hearing officer in October 2017 upheld the revocation. Because his privileges had been revoked in 2015, Dr. Maag’s practice group had to return all money billed by Dr. Maag to Medicare over the 3-year period, which totaled about $190,000.

A CMS spokeswoman declined to comment about Dr. Maag’s case, referring a reporter for this news organization to an administrative law judge’s decision that summarizes the agency’s findings.

According to the summary, in separate reconsidered determinations, the CMS hearing officer concluded that the revocation was proper under section 424.535(a)(3). The regulation, enacted in 2011, allows CMS to revoke billing privileges if a provider was convicted of a federal or state felony within the preceding 10 years that the agency determines is detrimental to the Medicare program and its beneficiaries.

The hearing officer reasoned that Dr. Maag “had been convicted of a felony that is akin to assault and, even if it were not, his actions showed a reckless disregard for the safety of others.” She concluded also that CMS could appropriately revoke Dr. Maag’s Medicare enrollment because he did not report his felony conviction within 30 days as required.

Dr. Maag went through several phases of fighting the revocation, including an appeal to the Department of Health & Human Services Departmental Appeals Board. He argued that his plea was a no-contest plea, which is not considered an admission of guilt. Dr. Maag and his attorney provided CMS a 15-page paper about his background, education, career accomplishments, and patient care history. They emphasized that Dr. Maag had never harmed or threatened a patient, and that his offense had nothing to do with his practice.

In February 2021, Judge Carolyn Cozad Hughes, an administrative law judge with CMS, upheld the 3-year revocation. In her decision, she wrote that for purposes of revocation under CMS law, “convicted” means that a judgment of conviction has been entered by a federal, state, or local court regardless of whether the judgment of conviction has been expunged or otherwise removed. She disagreed with Dr. Maag’s contention that his was a crime against property and, therefore, not akin to any of the felony offenses enumerated under the revocation section, which are crimes against persons.

“Even disregarding the allegations contained in the probable cause affidavit, Petitioner cannot escape the undisputed fact, established by his conviction and his own admissions, that the ‘property’ he so ‘willfully and maliciously’ damaged was a motorcycle traveling at a high rate of speed, and, that two young people were sitting atop that motorcycle,” Judge Hughes wrote. “Moreover, as part of the same conduct, he was charged – and convicted – of misdemeanor reckless driving with ‘willful and wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.’ Thus, even accepting Petitioner’s description of the events, he unquestionably showed no regard for the safety of the young people on that motorcycle.”

Judge Hughes noted that, although Dr. Maag’s crimes may not be among those specified in the regulation, CMS has broad authority to determine which felonies are detrimental to the best interests of the program and its beneficiaries.
 

A new career path

Unable to practice emergency medicine and beset with debt, Dr. Maag spiraled into a dark depression. His family had to start using retirement money that he was saving for the future care of his son, who has autism.

“I was suicidal,” he said. “There were two times that I came very close to going out to the woods by my house and hanging myself. All I wanted was to have everything go away. My wife saved my life.”

Slowly, Dr. Maag climbed out of the despondency and began considering new career options. After working and training briefly in hair restoration, Dr. Maag became a hair transplant specialist and opened his own hair restoration practice. It was a way to practice and help patients without having to accept Medicare. Today, he is the founder of Honest Hair Restoration in Bradenton, Fla.

Hair restoration is not the type of medicine that he “was designed to do,” Dr. Maag said, but he has embraced its advantages, such as learning about the business aspects of medicine and having a slower-paced work life. The business, which opened in 2019, is doing well and growing steadily.

Earlier this month, Dr. Maag learned CMS had reinstated his Medicare billing privileges. If an opportunity arises to go back into emergency medicine or urgent care, he is open to the possibilities, he said, but he plans to continue hair restoration for now. He hopes the lessons learned from his road rage incident may help others in similar circumstances.

“If I could go back to that very moment, I would’ve just kept my window up and I wouldn’t have said anything,” Dr. Maag said. “I would’ve kept my mouth shut and gone on about my day. Would I have loved it to have never happened? Yeah, and I’d probably be starting my retirement now. Am I stronger now? Well, I’m probably a hell of a lot wiser. But when all is said and done, I don’t want anybody feeling sorry for me. It was all my doing and I have to live with the consequences.”

Mr. Fayard, the attorney, says the case is a cautionary tale for doctors.

“No one is really above the law,” he said. “There aren’t two legal systems. You can’t just pay a little money and be done. At every level, serious charges have serious ramifications for everyone involved. Law enforcement and judges are not going to care of you’re a physician and you commit a crime. But physicians have a lot more on the line than many others. They can lose their ability to practice.”

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

It was a 95° F day in July 2015, and emergency physician Martin Maag, MD, was driving down Bee Ridge Road, a busy seven-lane thoroughfare in Sarasota, Fla., on his way home from a family dinner. To distance himself from a truck blowing black smoke, Dr. Maag says he had just passed some vehicles, when a motorcycle flew past him in the turning lane and the passenger flipped him off.

“I started laughing because I knew we were coming up to a red light,” said Dr. Maag. “When we pulled up to the light, I put my window down and said: ‘Hey, you ought to be a little more careful about who you’re flipping off! You never know who it might be and what they might do.’ ”

The female passenger cursed at Dr. Maag, and the two traded profanities. The male driver then told Dr. Maag: “Get out of the car, old man,” according to Dr. Maag. Fuming, Dr. Maag got out of his black Tesla, and the two men met in the middle of the street.

“As soon as I got close enough to see him, I could tell he really looked young,” Dr. Maag recalls. “I said: ‘You’re like 12 years old. I’m going to end up beating your ass and then I’m going to go to jail. Go get on your bike, and ride home to your mom.’ I don’t remember what he said to me, but I spun around and said: ‘If you want to act like a man, meet me up the street in a parking lot and let’s have at it like men.’ ”

The motorcyclist got back on his white Suzuki and sped off, and Dr. Maag followed. Both vehicles went racing down the road, swerving between cars, and reaching speeds of 100 miles per hour, Dr. Maag said. At one point, Dr. Maag says he drove in front of the motorcyclist to slow him down, and the motorcycle clipped the back of his car. No one was seriously hurt, but soon Dr. Maag was in the back of a police cruiser headed to jail.

Dr. Maag wishes he could take back his actions that summer day 6 years ago. Those few minutes of fury have had lasting effects on the doctor’s life. The incident resulted in criminal charges, a jail sentence, thousands of dollars in legal fees, and a 3-year departure from emergency medicine. Although Dr. Maag did not lose his medical license as a result of the incident, the physician’s Medicare billing privileges were suspended because of a federal provision that ties some felonies to enrollment revocations.

Dr. Maag, 61, shared his story with this news organization to warn other physicians about the wide-ranging career ramifications that can happen as a result of offenses unrelated to medicine. 

“Every doctor, every health professional needs to know that there are a lot of consequences that go with our actions outside of work,” he said. “In my situation, what happened had nothing to do with medicine, it had nothing to do with patients, it had nothing to do my professional demeanor. But yet it affected my entire career, and I lost the ability to practice emergency medicine for 3 years. Three years for any doctor is a long time. Three years for emergency medicine is a lifetime.”
 

The physician ends up in jail

After the collision, Dr. Maag pulled over in a parking lot and dialed 911. Several passing motorists did the same. It appeared the biker was trying to get away, and Dr. Maag was concerned about the damage to his Tesla, he said. 

When police arrived, they heard very different accounts of what happened. The motorcyclist and his girlfriend claimed Dr. Maag was the aggressor during the altercation, and that he deliberately tried to hit them with his vehicle. Two witnesses at the scene said they had watched Dr. Maag pursue the motorcycle in his vehicle, and that they believed he crossed into their lane intentionally to strike the motorcycle, according to police reports.

“[The motorcyclist] stated that the vehicle struck his right foot when it hit the motorcycle and that he was able to keep his balance and not lay the bike down,” Sarasota County Deputy C. Moore wrote in his report. “The motorcycle was damaged on the right side near [his] foot, verifying his story. Both victims were adamant that the defendant actually and intentionally struck the motorcycle with his car due to the previous altercation.”

Dr. Maag told officers the motorcyclist had initiated the confrontation. He acknowledged racing after the biker, but said it was the motorcyclist who hit his vehicle. In an interview, Dr. Maag disputed the witnesses’ accounts, saying that one of the witnesses was without a car and made claims to police that were impossible from her distance. 

In the end, the officer believed the motorcyclist, writing in his report that the damage to the Tesla was consistent with the biker’s version of events. Dr. Maag was handcuffed and taken to the Sarasota County Jail.

“I was in shock,” he said. “When we got to the jail, they got me booked in and fingerprinted. I sat down and said [to an officer]: ‘So, when do I get to bond out?’ The guy started laughing and said: ‘You’re not going anywhere. You’re spending the night in jail, my friend.’ He said: ‘Your charge is one step below murder.’”
 

‘I like to drive fast’

Aside from speeding tickets, Dr. Maag said he had never been in serious trouble with the law before.

The husband and father of two has practiced emergency medicine for more 15 years, and his license has remained in good standing. Florida Department of Health records show Dr. Maag’s medical license as clear and active with no discipline cases or public complaints on file.

“I did my best for every patient that came through that door,” he said. “There were a lot of people who didn’t like my personality. I’ve said many times: ‘I’m not here to be liked. I’m here to take care of people and provide the best care possible.’ ” 

Sarasota County records show that Dr. Maag has received traffic citations in the past for careless driving, unlawful speed, and failure to stop at a red light, among others. He admits to having a “lead foot,” but says he had never before been involved in a road rage incident.

“I’m not going to lie, I like to drive fast,” he said. “I like that feeling. It just seems to slow everything down for me, the faster I’m going.”

After being booked into jail that July evening in 2015, Dr. Maag called his wife to explain what happened.

“She said, ‘I can’t believe you’ve done this. I’ve told you a million times, don’t worry about how other people drive. Keep your mouth shut,’” he recalled. “I asked her to call my work and let them know I wouldn’t be coming in the next day. Until that happened, I had never missed a day of work since becoming a physician.”

After an anxious night in his jail cell, Dr. Maag lined up with the other inmates the next morning for his bond hearing. His charges included felony, aggravated battery, and felony aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. A prosecutor recommended Dr. Maag’s bond be set at $1 million, which a judge lowered to $500,000.

Michael Fayard, a criminal defense attorney who represented Dr. Maag in the case, said even with the reduction, $500,000 was an outrageous bond for such a case.

“The prosecutor’s arguments to the judge were that he was a physician driving a Tesla,” Mr. Fayard said. “That was his exact argument for charging him a higher bond. It shouldn’t have been that high. I argued he was not a flight risk. He didn’t even have a passport.”

The Florida State Attorney’s Office did not return messages seeking comment about the case.

Dr. Maag spent 2 more nights in jail while he and his wife came up with $50,000 in cash, in accordance with the 10% bond rule. In the meantime, the government put a lien on their house. A circuit court judge later agreed the bond was excessive, according to Mr. Fayard, but by that time, the $50,000 was paid and Dr. Maag was released.
 

New evidence lowers charges 

Dr. Maag ultimately accepted a plea deal from the prosecutor’s office and pled no contest to one count of felony criminal mischief and one count of misdemeanor reckless driving. In return, the state dropped the two more serious felonies. A no-contest plea is not considered an admission of guilt.

Mr. Fayard said his investigation into the road rage victim unearthed evidence that poked holes in the motorcyclist’s credibility, and that contributed to the plea offer.

“We found tons of evidence about the kid being a hot-rodding rider on his motorcycle, videos of him traveling 140 miles an hour, popping wheelies, and darting in and out of traffic,” he said. “There was a lot of mitigation that came up during the course of the investigation.”

The plea deal was a favorable result for Dr. Maag considering his original charges, Mr. Fayard said. He added that the criminal case could have ended much differently.

“Given the facts of this case and given the fact that there were no serious injuries, we supported the state’s decision to accept our mitigation and come out with the sentence that they did,” Mr. Fayard said. “If there would have been injuries, the outcome would have likely been much worse for Dr. Maag.”

With the plea agreement reached, Dr. Maag faced his next consequence – jail time. He was sentenced to 60 days in jail, a $1,000 fine, 12 months of probation, and 8 months of house arrest. Unlike his first jail stay, Dr. Maag said the second, longer stint behind bars was more relaxing. 

“It was the first time since I had become an emergency physician that I remember my dreams,” he recalled. “I had nothing to worry about, nothing to do. All I had to do was get up and eat. Every now and then, I would mop the floors because I’m kind of a clean freak, and I would talk to guys and that was it. It wasn’t bad at all.”

Dr. Maag told no one that he was a doctor because he didn’t want to be treated differently. The anonymity led to interesting tidbits from other inmates about the best pill mills in the area for example, how to make crack cocaine, and selling items for drugs. On his last day in jail, the other inmates learned from his discharge paperwork that Dr. Maag was a physician.

“One of the corrections officers said: ‘You’re a doctor? We’ve never had a doctor in here before!’” Dr. Maag remembers. “He said: ‘What did a doctor do to get into jail?’ I said: ‘Do you really want to know?’ ”

About the time that Dr. Maag was released from jail, the Florida Board of Medicine learned of his charges and began reviewing his case. Mr. Fayard presented the same facts to the board and argued for Dr. Maag to keep his license, emphasizing the offenses in which he was convicted were significantly less severe than the original felonies charged. The board agreed to dismiss the case. 

“The probable cause panel for the board of medicine considered the complaint that has been filed against your client in the above referenced case,” Peter Delia, then-assistant general counsel for the Florida Department of Health, wrote in a letter dated April 27, 2016. “After careful review of all information and evidence obtained in this case, the panel determined that probable cause of a violation does not exist and directed this case to be closed.”
 

A short-lived celebration

Once home, Dr. Maag was on house arrest, but he was granted permission to travel for work. He continued to practice emergency medicine. After several months, authorities dropped the house arrest, and a judge canceled his probation early. It appeared the road rage incident was finally behind him. 

But a year later, in 2018, the doctor received a letter from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services informing him that because of his charges, his Medicare number had been revoked in November 2015.

“It took them 3 years to find me and tell me, even though I never moved,” he said. “Medicare said because I never reported this, they were hitting me up with falsification of documentation because I had signed other Medicare paperwork saying I had never been barred from Medicare, because I didn’t know that I was.”

Dr. Maag hired a different attorney to help him fight the 3-year enrollment ban. He requested reconsideration from CMS, but a hearing officer in October 2017 upheld the revocation. Because his privileges had been revoked in 2015, Dr. Maag’s practice group had to return all money billed by Dr. Maag to Medicare over the 3-year period, which totaled about $190,000.

A CMS spokeswoman declined to comment about Dr. Maag’s case, referring a reporter for this news organization to an administrative law judge’s decision that summarizes the agency’s findings.

According to the summary, in separate reconsidered determinations, the CMS hearing officer concluded that the revocation was proper under section 424.535(a)(3). The regulation, enacted in 2011, allows CMS to revoke billing privileges if a provider was convicted of a federal or state felony within the preceding 10 years that the agency determines is detrimental to the Medicare program and its beneficiaries.

The hearing officer reasoned that Dr. Maag “had been convicted of a felony that is akin to assault and, even if it were not, his actions showed a reckless disregard for the safety of others.” She concluded also that CMS could appropriately revoke Dr. Maag’s Medicare enrollment because he did not report his felony conviction within 30 days as required.

Dr. Maag went through several phases of fighting the revocation, including an appeal to the Department of Health & Human Services Departmental Appeals Board. He argued that his plea was a no-contest plea, which is not considered an admission of guilt. Dr. Maag and his attorney provided CMS a 15-page paper about his background, education, career accomplishments, and patient care history. They emphasized that Dr. Maag had never harmed or threatened a patient, and that his offense had nothing to do with his practice.

In February 2021, Judge Carolyn Cozad Hughes, an administrative law judge with CMS, upheld the 3-year revocation. In her decision, she wrote that for purposes of revocation under CMS law, “convicted” means that a judgment of conviction has been entered by a federal, state, or local court regardless of whether the judgment of conviction has been expunged or otherwise removed. She disagreed with Dr. Maag’s contention that his was a crime against property and, therefore, not akin to any of the felony offenses enumerated under the revocation section, which are crimes against persons.

“Even disregarding the allegations contained in the probable cause affidavit, Petitioner cannot escape the undisputed fact, established by his conviction and his own admissions, that the ‘property’ he so ‘willfully and maliciously’ damaged was a motorcycle traveling at a high rate of speed, and, that two young people were sitting atop that motorcycle,” Judge Hughes wrote. “Moreover, as part of the same conduct, he was charged – and convicted – of misdemeanor reckless driving with ‘willful and wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.’ Thus, even accepting Petitioner’s description of the events, he unquestionably showed no regard for the safety of the young people on that motorcycle.”

Judge Hughes noted that, although Dr. Maag’s crimes may not be among those specified in the regulation, CMS has broad authority to determine which felonies are detrimental to the best interests of the program and its beneficiaries.
 

A new career path

Unable to practice emergency medicine and beset with debt, Dr. Maag spiraled into a dark depression. His family had to start using retirement money that he was saving for the future care of his son, who has autism.

“I was suicidal,” he said. “There were two times that I came very close to going out to the woods by my house and hanging myself. All I wanted was to have everything go away. My wife saved my life.”

Slowly, Dr. Maag climbed out of the despondency and began considering new career options. After working and training briefly in hair restoration, Dr. Maag became a hair transplant specialist and opened his own hair restoration practice. It was a way to practice and help patients without having to accept Medicare. Today, he is the founder of Honest Hair Restoration in Bradenton, Fla.

Hair restoration is not the type of medicine that he “was designed to do,” Dr. Maag said, but he has embraced its advantages, such as learning about the business aspects of medicine and having a slower-paced work life. The business, which opened in 2019, is doing well and growing steadily.

Earlier this month, Dr. Maag learned CMS had reinstated his Medicare billing privileges. If an opportunity arises to go back into emergency medicine or urgent care, he is open to the possibilities, he said, but he plans to continue hair restoration for now. He hopes the lessons learned from his road rage incident may help others in similar circumstances.

“If I could go back to that very moment, I would’ve just kept my window up and I wouldn’t have said anything,” Dr. Maag said. “I would’ve kept my mouth shut and gone on about my day. Would I have loved it to have never happened? Yeah, and I’d probably be starting my retirement now. Am I stronger now? Well, I’m probably a hell of a lot wiser. But when all is said and done, I don’t want anybody feeling sorry for me. It was all my doing and I have to live with the consequences.”

Mr. Fayard, the attorney, says the case is a cautionary tale for doctors.

“No one is really above the law,” he said. “There aren’t two legal systems. You can’t just pay a little money and be done. At every level, serious charges have serious ramifications for everyone involved. Law enforcement and judges are not going to care of you’re a physician and you commit a crime. But physicians have a lot more on the line than many others. They can lose their ability to practice.”

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

Dr. Richard Furie presents highlights in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and its various complications—such as lupus nephritis (LN), pulmonary involvement, and cutaneous manifestations—from the EULAR 2021 Virtual Congress.

The 6-month open-label extension of BLISS-LN assessed patients with LN after 2 years of double-blind treatment. Primary efficacy renal response and complete renal response (CRR) increased in both the belimumab-naïve and belimumab-experienced groups, with no new safety concerns.

The phase 2 TULIP-LN trial evaluated anifrolumab vs placebo alongside standard therapy in patients with active proliferative LN. Anifrolumab 900 mg for 3 doses, 300 mg thereafter was associated with improvements in CRR at week 52.

Another phase 2 study assessed BI 655064 vs placebo in patients with active proliferative LN. A high response to placebo prompted an exploratory analysis requiring confirmation of endpoint during weeks 46 and 52. Proportions of patients achieving confirmed CRR were higher in the 180- and 240-mg dosing groups vs placebo.

A single-center cohort of 300 patients assessed the frequency of pulmonary involvement; 16% had interstitial lung disease, nearly 7% had pulmonary hypertension, and 3% had shrinking lung syndrome.

The last 2 presentations are on cutaneous lupus. In one study, iberdomide had beneficial effects on cutaneous manifestations in patients with SLE, particularly those with subacute and chronic acute subtypes as well as those with high Aiolos or interferon gene expression signatures.

Lastly, a post hoc analysis of a phase 2 study evaluated the effects of BIIB059 on cutaneous lupus, and found that a greater proportion of participants achieved milder skin disease or clear/almost clear skin status in the BIIB059 groups vs placebo.

--

Professor, Department of Medicine, Zucker School of Medicine, Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead;
Chief, Department of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Northwell Health
Great Neck, New York

Richard Furie, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AstraZeneca; Biogen; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol-Myers Squibb; GlaxoSmithKline

Received research grant from: AstraZeneca; Biogen; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Boehringer Ingelheim; GlaxoSmithKline

Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: AstraZeneca; Biogen; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Boehringer Ingelheim; GlaxoSmithKline

Dr. Richard Furie presents highlights in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and its various complications—such as lupus nephritis (LN), pulmonary involvement, and cutaneous manifestations—from the EULAR 2021 Virtual Congress.

The 6-month open-label extension of BLISS-LN assessed patients with LN after 2 years of double-blind treatment. Primary efficacy renal response and complete renal response (CRR) increased in both the belimumab-naïve and belimumab-experienced groups, with no new safety concerns.

The phase 2 TULIP-LN trial evaluated anifrolumab vs placebo alongside standard therapy in patients with active proliferative LN. Anifrolumab 900 mg for 3 doses, 300 mg thereafter was associated with improvements in CRR at week 52.

Another phase 2 study assessed BI 655064 vs placebo in patients with active proliferative LN. A high response to placebo prompted an exploratory analysis requiring confirmation of endpoint during weeks 46 and 52. Proportions of patients achieving confirmed CRR were higher in the 180- and 240-mg dosing groups vs placebo.

A single-center cohort of 300 patients assessed the frequency of pulmonary involvement; 16% had interstitial lung disease, nearly 7% had pulmonary hypertension, and 3% had shrinking lung syndrome.

The last 2 presentations are on cutaneous lupus. In one study, iberdomide had beneficial effects on cutaneous manifestations in patients with SLE, particularly those with subacute and chronic acute subtypes as well as those with high Aiolos or interferon gene expression signatures.

Lastly, a post hoc analysis of a phase 2 study evaluated the effects of BIIB059 on cutaneous lupus, and found that a greater proportion of participants achieved milder skin disease or clear/almost clear skin status in the BIIB059 groups vs placebo.

--

Professor, Department of Medicine, Zucker School of Medicine, Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead;
Chief, Department of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Northwell Health
Great Neck, New York

Richard Furie, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AstraZeneca; Biogen; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol-Myers Squibb; GlaxoSmithKline

Received research grant from: AstraZeneca; Biogen; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Boehringer Ingelheim; GlaxoSmithKline

Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: AstraZeneca; Biogen; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Boehringer Ingelheim; GlaxoSmithKline

Dr. Richard Furie presents highlights in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and its various complications—such as lupus nephritis (LN), pulmonary involvement, and cutaneous manifestations—from the EULAR 2021 Virtual Congress.

The 6-month open-label extension of BLISS-LN assessed patients with LN after 2 years of double-blind treatment. Primary efficacy renal response and complete renal response (CRR) increased in both the belimumab-naïve and belimumab-experienced groups, with no new safety concerns.

The phase 2 TULIP-LN trial evaluated anifrolumab vs placebo alongside standard therapy in patients with active proliferative LN. Anifrolumab 900 mg for 3 doses, 300 mg thereafter was associated with improvements in CRR at week 52.

Another phase 2 study assessed BI 655064 vs placebo in patients with active proliferative LN. A high response to placebo prompted an exploratory analysis requiring confirmation of endpoint during weeks 46 and 52. Proportions of patients achieving confirmed CRR were higher in the 180- and 240-mg dosing groups vs placebo.

A single-center cohort of 300 patients assessed the frequency of pulmonary involvement; 16% had interstitial lung disease, nearly 7% had pulmonary hypertension, and 3% had shrinking lung syndrome.

The last 2 presentations are on cutaneous lupus. In one study, iberdomide had beneficial effects on cutaneous manifestations in patients with SLE, particularly those with subacute and chronic acute subtypes as well as those with high Aiolos or interferon gene expression signatures.

Lastly, a post hoc analysis of a phase 2 study evaluated the effects of BIIB059 on cutaneous lupus, and found that a greater proportion of participants achieved milder skin disease or clear/almost clear skin status in the BIIB059 groups vs placebo.

--

Professor, Department of Medicine, Zucker School of Medicine, Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead;
Chief, Department of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Northwell Health
Great Neck, New York

Richard Furie, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AstraZeneca; Biogen; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol-Myers Squibb; GlaxoSmithKline

Received research grant from: AstraZeneca; Biogen; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Boehringer Ingelheim; GlaxoSmithKline

Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: AstraZeneca; Biogen; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Boehringer Ingelheim; GlaxoSmithKline

Dr. Richard Furie presents highlights in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and its various complications—such as lupus nephritis (LN), pulmonary involvement, and cutaneous manifestations—from the EULAR 2021 Virtual Congress.

The 6-month open-label extension of BLISS-LN assessed patients with LN after 2 years of double-blind treatment. Primary efficacy renal response and complete renal response (CRR) increased in both the belimumab-naïve and belimumab-experienced groups, with no new safety concerns.

The phase 2 TULIP-LN trial evaluated anifrolumab vs placebo alongside standard therapy in patients with active proliferative LN. Anifrolumab 900 mg for 3 doses, 300 mg thereafter was associated with improvements in CRR at week 52.

Another phase 2 study assessed BI 655064 vs placebo in patients with active proliferative LN. A high response to placebo prompted an exploratory analysis requiring confirmation of endpoint during weeks 46 and 52. Proportions of patients achieving confirmed CRR were higher in the 180- and 240-mg dosing groups vs placebo.

A single-center cohort of 300 patients assessed the frequency of pulmonary involvement; 16% had interstitial lung disease, nearly 7% had pulmonary hypertension, and 3% had shrinking lung syndrome.

The last 2 presentations are on cutaneous lupus. In one study, iberdomide had beneficial effects on cutaneous manifestations in patients with SLE, particularly those with subacute and chronic acute subtypes as well as those with high Aiolos or interferon gene expression signatures.

Lastly, a post hoc analysis of a phase 2 study evaluated the effects of BIIB059 on cutaneous lupus, and found that a greater proportion of participants achieved milder skin disease or clear/almost clear skin status in the BIIB059 groups vs placebo.

--

Professor, Department of Medicine, Zucker School of Medicine, Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead;
Chief, Department of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Northwell Health
Great Neck, New York

Richard Furie, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AstraZeneca; Biogen; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol-Myers Squibb; GlaxoSmithKline

Received research grant from: AstraZeneca; Biogen; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Boehringer Ingelheim; GlaxoSmithKline

Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: AstraZeneca; Biogen; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Boehringer Ingelheim; GlaxoSmithKline

Dr. Richard Furie presents highlights in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and its various complications—such as lupus nephritis (LN), pulmonary involvement, and cutaneous manifestations—from the EULAR 2021 Virtual Congress.

The 6-month open-label extension of BLISS-LN assessed patients with LN after 2 years of double-blind treatment. Primary efficacy renal response and complete renal response (CRR) increased in both the belimumab-naïve and belimumab-experienced groups, with no new safety concerns.

The phase 2 TULIP-LN trial evaluated anifrolumab vs placebo alongside standard therapy in patients with active proliferative LN. Anifrolumab 900 mg for 3 doses, 300 mg thereafter was associated with improvements in CRR at week 52.

Another phase 2 study assessed BI 655064 vs placebo in patients with active proliferative LN. A high response to placebo prompted an exploratory analysis requiring confirmation of endpoint during weeks 46 and 52. Proportions of patients achieving confirmed CRR were higher in the 180- and 240-mg dosing groups vs placebo.

A single-center cohort of 300 patients assessed the frequency of pulmonary involvement; 16% had interstitial lung disease, nearly 7% had pulmonary hypertension, and 3% had shrinking lung syndrome.

The last 2 presentations are on cutaneous lupus. In one study, iberdomide had beneficial effects on cutaneous manifestations in patients with SLE, particularly those with subacute and chronic acute subtypes as well as those with high Aiolos or interferon gene expression signatures.

Lastly, a post hoc analysis of a phase 2 study evaluated the effects of BIIB059 on cutaneous lupus, and found that a greater proportion of participants achieved milder skin disease or clear/almost clear skin status in the BIIB059 groups vs placebo.

--

Professor, Department of Medicine, Zucker School of Medicine, Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead;
Chief, Department of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Northwell Health
Great Neck, New York

Richard Furie, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AstraZeneca; Biogen; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol-Myers Squibb; GlaxoSmithKline

Received research grant from: AstraZeneca; Biogen; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Boehringer Ingelheim; GlaxoSmithKline

Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: AstraZeneca; Biogen; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Boehringer Ingelheim; GlaxoSmithKline

Dr. Richard Furie presents highlights in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and its various complications—such as lupus nephritis (LN), pulmonary involvement, and cutaneous manifestations—from the EULAR 2021 Virtual Congress.

The 6-month open-label extension of BLISS-LN assessed patients with LN after 2 years of double-blind treatment. Primary efficacy renal response and complete renal response (CRR) increased in both the belimumab-naïve and belimumab-experienced groups, with no new safety concerns.

The phase 2 TULIP-LN trial evaluated anifrolumab vs placebo alongside standard therapy in patients with active proliferative LN. Anifrolumab 900 mg for 3 doses, 300 mg thereafter was associated with improvements in CRR at week 52.

Another phase 2 study assessed BI 655064 vs placebo in patients with active proliferative LN. A high response to placebo prompted an exploratory analysis requiring confirmation of endpoint during weeks 46 and 52. Proportions of patients achieving confirmed CRR were higher in the 180- and 240-mg dosing groups vs placebo.

A single-center cohort of 300 patients assessed the frequency of pulmonary involvement; 16% had interstitial lung disease, nearly 7% had pulmonary hypertension, and 3% had shrinking lung syndrome.

The last 2 presentations are on cutaneous lupus. In one study, iberdomide had beneficial effects on cutaneous manifestations in patients with SLE, particularly those with subacute and chronic acute subtypes as well as those with high Aiolos or interferon gene expression signatures.

Lastly, a post hoc analysis of a phase 2 study evaluated the effects of BIIB059 on cutaneous lupus, and found that a greater proportion of participants achieved milder skin disease or clear/almost clear skin status in the BIIB059 groups vs placebo.

--

Professor, Department of Medicine, Zucker School of Medicine, Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead;
Chief, Department of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Northwell Health
Great Neck, New York

Richard Furie, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AstraZeneca; Biogen; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol-Myers Squibb; GlaxoSmithKline

Received research grant from: AstraZeneca; Biogen; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Boehringer Ingelheim; GlaxoSmithKline

Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: AstraZeneca; Biogen; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Boehringer Ingelheim; GlaxoSmithKline

In May 2020, two major scientific journals published and subsequently retracted studies that relied on data provided by the now-disgraced data analytics company Surgisphere.

One of the studies, published in The Lancet, reported an association between the antimalarial drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine and increased in-hospital mortality and cardiac arrhythmias in patients with COVID-19. The second study, which appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, described an association between underlying cardiovascular disease, but not related drug therapy, with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients.

The retractions in June 2020 followed an open letter to each publication penned by scientists, ethicists, and clinicians who flagged serious methodological and ethical anomalies in the data used in the studies.

On the 1-year anniversary, researchers and journal editors spoke about what was learned to reduce the risk of something like this happening again.

“The Surgisphere incident served as a wake-up call for everyone involved with scientific research to make sure that data have integrity and are robust,” Sunil Rao, MD, professor of medicine, Duke University Health System, Durham, N.C., and editor-in-chief of Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, said in an interview.

“I’m sure this isn’t going to be the last incident of this nature, and we have to be vigilant about new datasets or datasets that we haven’t heard of as having a track record of publication,” Dr. Rao said.
 

Spotlight on authors

The editors of the Lancet Group responded to the “wake-up call” with a statement, Learning From a Retraction, which announced changes to reduce the risks of research and publication misconduct.

The changes affect multiple phases of the publication process. For example, the declaration form that authors must sign “will require that more than one author has directly accessed and verified the data reported in the manuscript.” Additionally, when a research article is the result of an academic and commercial partnership – as was the case in the two retracted studies – “one of the authors named as having accessed and verified data must be from the academic team.”

This was particularly important because it appears that the academic coauthors of the retracted studies did not have access to the data provided by Surgisphere, a private commercial entity.

Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who was the lead author of both studies, declined to be interviewed for this article. In a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine editors requesting that the article be retracted, he wrote: “Because all the authors were not granted access to the raw data and the raw data could not be made available to a third-party auditor, we are unable to validate the primary data sources underlying our article.”

In a similar communication with The Lancet, Dr. Mehra wrote even more pointedly that, in light of the refusal of Surgisphere to make the data available to the third-party auditor, “we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources.”

“It is very disturbing that the authors were willing to put their names on a paper without ever seeing and verifying the data,” Mario Malički, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at METRICS at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview. “Saying that they could ‘no longer vouch’ suggests that at one point they could vouch for it. Most likely they took its existence and veracity entirely on trust.”

Dr. Malički pointed out that one of the four criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors for being an author on a study is the “agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.”

The new policies put forth by The Lancet are “encouraging,” but perhaps do not go far enough. “Every author, not only one or two authors, should personally take responsibility for the integrity of data,” he stated.

Many journals “adhere to ICMJE rules in principle and have checkboxes for authors to confirm that they guarantee the veracity of the data.” However, they “do not have the resources to verify the authors’ statements.”

Ideally, “it is the institutions where the researchers work that should guarantee the veracity of the raw data – but I do not know any university or institute that does this,” he said.
 

No ‘good-housekeeping’ seal

For articles based on large, real-world datasets, the Lancet Group will now require that editors ensure that at least one peer reviewer is “knowledgeable about the details of the dataset being reported and can understand its strengths and limitations in relation to the question being addressed.”

For studies that use “very large datasets,” the editors are now required to ensure that, in addition to a statistical peer review, a review from an “expert in data science” is obtained. Reviewers will also be explicitly asked if they have “concerns about research integrity or publication ethics regarding the manuscript they are reviewing.”

Although these changes are encouraging, Harlan Krumholz, MD, professor of medicine (cardiology), Yale University, New Haven, Conn., is not convinced that they are realistic.

Dr. Krumholz, who is also the founder and director of the Yale New Haven Hospital Center for Outcome Research and Evaluation, said in an interview that “large, real-world datasets” are of two varieties. Datasets drawn from publicly available sources, such as Medicare or Medicaid health records, are utterly transparent.

By contrast, Surgisphere was a privately owned database, and “it is not unusual for privately owned databases to have proprietary data from multiple sources that the company may choose to keep confidential,” Dr. Krumholz said.

He noted that several large datasets are widely used for research purposes, such as IBM, Optum, and Komodo – a data analytics company that recently entered into partnership with a fourth company, PicnicHealth.

These companies receive deidentified electronic health records from health systems and insurers nationwide. Komodo boasts “real-time and longitudinal data on more than 325 million patients, representing more than 65 billion clinical encounters with 15 million new encounters added daily.”

“One has to raise an eyebrow – how were these data acquired? And, given that the U.S. has a population of around 328 million people, is it really plausible that a single company has health records of almost the entire U.S. population?” Dr. Krumholz commented. (A spokesperson for Komodo said in an interview that the company has records on 325 million U.S. patients.)

This is “an issue across the board with ‘real-world evidence,’ which is that it’s like the ‘Wild West’ – the transparencies of private databases are less than optimal and there are no common standards to help us move forward,” Dr. Krumholz said, noting that there is “no external authority overseeing, validating, or auditing these databases. In the end, we are trusting the companies.”

Although the Food and Drug Administration has laid out a framework for how real-world data and real-world evidence can be used to advance scientific research, the FDA does not oversee the databases.

“Thus, there is no ‘good housekeeping seal’ that a peer reviewer or author would be in a position to evaluate,” Dr. Krumholz said. “No journal can do an audit of these types of private databases, so ultimately, it boils down to trust.”

Nevertheless, there were red flags with Surgisphere, Dr. Rao pointed out. Unlike more established and widely used databases, the Surgisphere database had been catapulted from relative obscurity onto center stage, which should have given researchers pause.
 

AI-assisted peer review

A series of investigative reports by The Guardian raised questions about Sapan Desai, the CEO of Surgisphere, including the fact that hospitals purporting to have contributed data to Surgisphere had never heard of the company.

However, peer reviewers are not expected to be investigative reporters, explained Dr. Malički.

“In an ideal world, editors and peer reviewers would have a chance to look at raw data or would have a certificate from the academic institution the authors are affiliated with that the data have been inspected by the institution, but in the real world, of course, this does not happen,” he said.

Artificial intelligence software is being developed and deployed to assist in the peer review process, Dr. Malički noted. In July 2020, Frontiers Science News debuted its Artificial Intelligence Review Assistant to help editors, reviewers, and authors evaluate the quality of a manuscript. The program can make up to 20 recommendations, including “the assessment of language quality, the detection of plagiarism, and identification of potential conflicts of interest.” The program is now in use in all 103 journals published by Frontiers. Preliminary software is also available to detect statistical errors.

Another system under development is FAIRware, an initiative of the Research on Research Institute in partnership with the Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research. The partnership’s goal is to “develop an automated online tool (or suite of tools) to help researchers ensure that the datasets they produce are ‘FAIR’ at the point of creation,” said Dr. Malički, referring to the findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR) guiding principles for data management. The principles aim to increase the ability of machines to automatically find and use the data, as well as to support its reuse by individuals.

He added that these advanced tools cannot replace human reviewers, who will “likely always be a necessary quality check in the process.”
 

Greater transparency needed

Another limitation of peer review is the reviewers themselves, according to Dr. Malički. “It’s a step in the right direction that The Lancet is now requesting a peer reviewer with expertise in big datasets, but it does not go far enough to increase accountability of peer reviewers,” he said.

Dr. Malički is the co–editor-in-chief of the journal Research Integrity and Peer Review , which has “an open and transparent review process – meaning that we reveal the names of the reviewers to the public and we publish the full review report alongside the paper.” The publication also allows the authors to make public the original version they sent.

Dr. Malički cited several advantages to transparent peer review, particularly the increased accountability that results from placing potential conflicts of interest under the microscope.

As for the concern that identifying the reviewers might soften the review process, “there is little evidence to substantiate that concern,” he added.

Dr. Malički emphasized that making reviews public “is not a problem – people voice strong opinions at conferences and elsewhere. The question remains, who gets to decide if the criticism has been adequately addressed, so that the findings of the study still stand?”

He acknowledged that, “as in politics and on many social platforms, rage, hatred, and personal attacks divert the discussion from the topic at hand, which is why a good moderator is needed.”

A journal editor or a moderator at a scientific conference may be tasked with “stopping all talk not directly related to the topic.”
 

Widening the circle of scrutiny

Dr. Malički added: “A published paper should not be considered the ‘final word,’ even if it has gone through peer review and is published in a reputable journal. The peer-review process means that a limited number of people have seen the study.”

Once the study is published, “the whole world gets to see it and criticize it, and that widens the circle of scrutiny.”

One classic way to raise concerns about a study post publication is to write a letter to the journal editor. But there is no guarantee that the letter will be published or the authors notified of the feedback.

Dr. Malički encourages readers to use PubPeer, an online forum in which members of the public can post comments on scientific studies and articles.

Once a comment is posted, the authors are alerted. “There is no ‘police department’ that forces authors to acknowledge comments or forces journal editors to take action, but at least PubPeer guarantees that readers’ messages will reach the authors and – depending on how many people raise similar issues – the comments can lead to errata or even full retractions,” he said.

PubPeer was key in pointing out errors in a suspect study from France (which did not involve Surgisphere) that supported the use of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19.
 

A message to policy makers

High stakes are involved in ensuring the integrity of scientific publications: The French government revoked a decree that allowed hospitals to prescribe hydroxychloroquine for certain COVID-19 patients.

After the Surgisphere Lancet article, the World Health Organization temporarily halted enrollment in the hydroxychloroquine component of the Solidarity international randomized trial of medications to treat COVID-19.

Similarly, the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency instructed the organizers of COPCOV, an international trial of the use of hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis against COVID-19, to suspend recruitment of patients. The SOLIDARITY trial briefly resumed, but that arm of the trial was ultimately suspended after a preliminary analysis suggested that hydroxychloroquine provided no benefit for patients with COVID-19.

Dr. Malički emphasized that governments and organizations should not “blindly trust journal articles” and make policy decisions based exclusively on study findings in published journals – even with the current improvements in the peer review process – without having their own experts conduct a thorough review of the data.

“If you are not willing to do your own due diligence, then at least be brave enough and say transparently why you are making this policy, or any other changes, and clearly state if your decision is based primarily or solely on the fact that ‘X’ study was published in ‘Y’ journal,” he stated.

Dr. Rao believes that the most important take-home message of the Surgisphere scandal is “that we should be skeptical and do our own due diligence about the kinds of data published – a responsibility that applies to all of us, whether we are investigators, editors at journals, the press, scientists, and readers.”

Dr. Rao reported being on the steering committee of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–sponsored MINT trial and the Bayer-sponsored PACIFIC AMI trial. Dr. Malički reports being a postdoc at METRICS Stanford in the past 3 years. Dr. Krumholz received expenses and/or personal fees from UnitedHealth, Element Science, Aetna, Facebook, the Siegfried and Jensen Law Firm, Arnold and Porter Law Firm, Martin/Baughman Law Firm, F-Prime, and the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases in Beijing. He is an owner of Refactor Health and HugoHealth and had grants and/or contracts from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the FDA, Johnson & Johnson, and the Shenzhen Center for Health Information.

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

In May 2020, two major scientific journals published and subsequently retracted studies that relied on data provided by the now-disgraced data analytics company Surgisphere.

One of the studies, published in The Lancet, reported an association between the antimalarial drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine and increased in-hospital mortality and cardiac arrhythmias in patients with COVID-19. The second study, which appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, described an association between underlying cardiovascular disease, but not related drug therapy, with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients.

The retractions in June 2020 followed an open letter to each publication penned by scientists, ethicists, and clinicians who flagged serious methodological and ethical anomalies in the data used in the studies.

On the 1-year anniversary, researchers and journal editors spoke about what was learned to reduce the risk of something like this happening again.

“The Surgisphere incident served as a wake-up call for everyone involved with scientific research to make sure that data have integrity and are robust,” Sunil Rao, MD, professor of medicine, Duke University Health System, Durham, N.C., and editor-in-chief of Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, said in an interview.

“I’m sure this isn’t going to be the last incident of this nature, and we have to be vigilant about new datasets or datasets that we haven’t heard of as having a track record of publication,” Dr. Rao said.
 

Spotlight on authors

The editors of the Lancet Group responded to the “wake-up call” with a statement, Learning From a Retraction, which announced changes to reduce the risks of research and publication misconduct.

The changes affect multiple phases of the publication process. For example, the declaration form that authors must sign “will require that more than one author has directly accessed and verified the data reported in the manuscript.” Additionally, when a research article is the result of an academic and commercial partnership – as was the case in the two retracted studies – “one of the authors named as having accessed and verified data must be from the academic team.”

This was particularly important because it appears that the academic coauthors of the retracted studies did not have access to the data provided by Surgisphere, a private commercial entity.

Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who was the lead author of both studies, declined to be interviewed for this article. In a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine editors requesting that the article be retracted, he wrote: “Because all the authors were not granted access to the raw data and the raw data could not be made available to a third-party auditor, we are unable to validate the primary data sources underlying our article.”

In a similar communication with The Lancet, Dr. Mehra wrote even more pointedly that, in light of the refusal of Surgisphere to make the data available to the third-party auditor, “we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources.”

“It is very disturbing that the authors were willing to put their names on a paper without ever seeing and verifying the data,” Mario Malički, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at METRICS at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview. “Saying that they could ‘no longer vouch’ suggests that at one point they could vouch for it. Most likely they took its existence and veracity entirely on trust.”

Dr. Malički pointed out that one of the four criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors for being an author on a study is the “agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.”

The new policies put forth by The Lancet are “encouraging,” but perhaps do not go far enough. “Every author, not only one or two authors, should personally take responsibility for the integrity of data,” he stated.

Many journals “adhere to ICMJE rules in principle and have checkboxes for authors to confirm that they guarantee the veracity of the data.” However, they “do not have the resources to verify the authors’ statements.”

Ideally, “it is the institutions where the researchers work that should guarantee the veracity of the raw data – but I do not know any university or institute that does this,” he said.
 

No ‘good-housekeeping’ seal

For articles based on large, real-world datasets, the Lancet Group will now require that editors ensure that at least one peer reviewer is “knowledgeable about the details of the dataset being reported and can understand its strengths and limitations in relation to the question being addressed.”

For studies that use “very large datasets,” the editors are now required to ensure that, in addition to a statistical peer review, a review from an “expert in data science” is obtained. Reviewers will also be explicitly asked if they have “concerns about research integrity or publication ethics regarding the manuscript they are reviewing.”

Although these changes are encouraging, Harlan Krumholz, MD, professor of medicine (cardiology), Yale University, New Haven, Conn., is not convinced that they are realistic.

Dr. Krumholz, who is also the founder and director of the Yale New Haven Hospital Center for Outcome Research and Evaluation, said in an interview that “large, real-world datasets” are of two varieties. Datasets drawn from publicly available sources, such as Medicare or Medicaid health records, are utterly transparent.

By contrast, Surgisphere was a privately owned database, and “it is not unusual for privately owned databases to have proprietary data from multiple sources that the company may choose to keep confidential,” Dr. Krumholz said.

He noted that several large datasets are widely used for research purposes, such as IBM, Optum, and Komodo – a data analytics company that recently entered into partnership with a fourth company, PicnicHealth.

These companies receive deidentified electronic health records from health systems and insurers nationwide. Komodo boasts “real-time and longitudinal data on more than 325 million patients, representing more than 65 billion clinical encounters with 15 million new encounters added daily.”

“One has to raise an eyebrow – how were these data acquired? And, given that the U.S. has a population of around 328 million people, is it really plausible that a single company has health records of almost the entire U.S. population?” Dr. Krumholz commented. (A spokesperson for Komodo said in an interview that the company has records on 325 million U.S. patients.)

This is “an issue across the board with ‘real-world evidence,’ which is that it’s like the ‘Wild West’ – the transparencies of private databases are less than optimal and there are no common standards to help us move forward,” Dr. Krumholz said, noting that there is “no external authority overseeing, validating, or auditing these databases. In the end, we are trusting the companies.”

Although the Food and Drug Administration has laid out a framework for how real-world data and real-world evidence can be used to advance scientific research, the FDA does not oversee the databases.

“Thus, there is no ‘good housekeeping seal’ that a peer reviewer or author would be in a position to evaluate,” Dr. Krumholz said. “No journal can do an audit of these types of private databases, so ultimately, it boils down to trust.”

Nevertheless, there were red flags with Surgisphere, Dr. Rao pointed out. Unlike more established and widely used databases, the Surgisphere database had been catapulted from relative obscurity onto center stage, which should have given researchers pause.
 

AI-assisted peer review

A series of investigative reports by The Guardian raised questions about Sapan Desai, the CEO of Surgisphere, including the fact that hospitals purporting to have contributed data to Surgisphere had never heard of the company.

However, peer reviewers are not expected to be investigative reporters, explained Dr. Malički.

“In an ideal world, editors and peer reviewers would have a chance to look at raw data or would have a certificate from the academic institution the authors are affiliated with that the data have been inspected by the institution, but in the real world, of course, this does not happen,” he said.

Artificial intelligence software is being developed and deployed to assist in the peer review process, Dr. Malički noted. In July 2020, Frontiers Science News debuted its Artificial Intelligence Review Assistant to help editors, reviewers, and authors evaluate the quality of a manuscript. The program can make up to 20 recommendations, including “the assessment of language quality, the detection of plagiarism, and identification of potential conflicts of interest.” The program is now in use in all 103 journals published by Frontiers. Preliminary software is also available to detect statistical errors.

Another system under development is FAIRware, an initiative of the Research on Research Institute in partnership with the Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research. The partnership’s goal is to “develop an automated online tool (or suite of tools) to help researchers ensure that the datasets they produce are ‘FAIR’ at the point of creation,” said Dr. Malički, referring to the findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR) guiding principles for data management. The principles aim to increase the ability of machines to automatically find and use the data, as well as to support its reuse by individuals.

He added that these advanced tools cannot replace human reviewers, who will “likely always be a necessary quality check in the process.”
 

Greater transparency needed

Another limitation of peer review is the reviewers themselves, according to Dr. Malički. “It’s a step in the right direction that The Lancet is now requesting a peer reviewer with expertise in big datasets, but it does not go far enough to increase accountability of peer reviewers,” he said.

Dr. Malički is the co–editor-in-chief of the journal Research Integrity and Peer Review , which has “an open and transparent review process – meaning that we reveal the names of the reviewers to the public and we publish the full review report alongside the paper.” The publication also allows the authors to make public the original version they sent.

Dr. Malički cited several advantages to transparent peer review, particularly the increased accountability that results from placing potential conflicts of interest under the microscope.

As for the concern that identifying the reviewers might soften the review process, “there is little evidence to substantiate that concern,” he added.

Dr. Malički emphasized that making reviews public “is not a problem – people voice strong opinions at conferences and elsewhere. The question remains, who gets to decide if the criticism has been adequately addressed, so that the findings of the study still stand?”

He acknowledged that, “as in politics and on many social platforms, rage, hatred, and personal attacks divert the discussion from the topic at hand, which is why a good moderator is needed.”

A journal editor or a moderator at a scientific conference may be tasked with “stopping all talk not directly related to the topic.”
 

Widening the circle of scrutiny

Dr. Malički added: “A published paper should not be considered the ‘final word,’ even if it has gone through peer review and is published in a reputable journal. The peer-review process means that a limited number of people have seen the study.”

Once the study is published, “the whole world gets to see it and criticize it, and that widens the circle of scrutiny.”

One classic way to raise concerns about a study post publication is to write a letter to the journal editor. But there is no guarantee that the letter will be published or the authors notified of the feedback.

Dr. Malički encourages readers to use PubPeer, an online forum in which members of the public can post comments on scientific studies and articles.

Once a comment is posted, the authors are alerted. “There is no ‘police department’ that forces authors to acknowledge comments or forces journal editors to take action, but at least PubPeer guarantees that readers’ messages will reach the authors and – depending on how many people raise similar issues – the comments can lead to errata or even full retractions,” he said.

PubPeer was key in pointing out errors in a suspect study from France (which did not involve Surgisphere) that supported the use of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19.
 

A message to policy makers

High stakes are involved in ensuring the integrity of scientific publications: The French government revoked a decree that allowed hospitals to prescribe hydroxychloroquine for certain COVID-19 patients.

After the Surgisphere Lancet article, the World Health Organization temporarily halted enrollment in the hydroxychloroquine component of the Solidarity international randomized trial of medications to treat COVID-19.

Similarly, the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency instructed the organizers of COPCOV, an international trial of the use of hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis against COVID-19, to suspend recruitment of patients. The SOLIDARITY trial briefly resumed, but that arm of the trial was ultimately suspended after a preliminary analysis suggested that hydroxychloroquine provided no benefit for patients with COVID-19.

Dr. Malički emphasized that governments and organizations should not “blindly trust journal articles” and make policy decisions based exclusively on study findings in published journals – even with the current improvements in the peer review process – without having their own experts conduct a thorough review of the data.

“If you are not willing to do your own due diligence, then at least be brave enough and say transparently why you are making this policy, or any other changes, and clearly state if your decision is based primarily or solely on the fact that ‘X’ study was published in ‘Y’ journal,” he stated.

Dr. Rao believes that the most important take-home message of the Surgisphere scandal is “that we should be skeptical and do our own due diligence about the kinds of data published – a responsibility that applies to all of us, whether we are investigators, editors at journals, the press, scientists, and readers.”

Dr. Rao reported being on the steering committee of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–sponsored MINT trial and the Bayer-sponsored PACIFIC AMI trial. Dr. Malički reports being a postdoc at METRICS Stanford in the past 3 years. Dr. Krumholz received expenses and/or personal fees from UnitedHealth, Element Science, Aetna, Facebook, the Siegfried and Jensen Law Firm, Arnold and Porter Law Firm, Martin/Baughman Law Firm, F-Prime, and the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases in Beijing. He is an owner of Refactor Health and HugoHealth and had grants and/or contracts from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the FDA, Johnson & Johnson, and the Shenzhen Center for Health Information.

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

In May 2020, two major scientific journals published and subsequently retracted studies that relied on data provided by the now-disgraced data analytics company Surgisphere.

One of the studies, published in The Lancet, reported an association between the antimalarial drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine and increased in-hospital mortality and cardiac arrhythmias in patients with COVID-19. The second study, which appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, described an association between underlying cardiovascular disease, but not related drug therapy, with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients.

The retractions in June 2020 followed an open letter to each publication penned by scientists, ethicists, and clinicians who flagged serious methodological and ethical anomalies in the data used in the studies.

On the 1-year anniversary, researchers and journal editors spoke about what was learned to reduce the risk of something like this happening again.

“The Surgisphere incident served as a wake-up call for everyone involved with scientific research to make sure that data have integrity and are robust,” Sunil Rao, MD, professor of medicine, Duke University Health System, Durham, N.C., and editor-in-chief of Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, said in an interview.

“I’m sure this isn’t going to be the last incident of this nature, and we have to be vigilant about new datasets or datasets that we haven’t heard of as having a track record of publication,” Dr. Rao said.
 

Spotlight on authors

The editors of the Lancet Group responded to the “wake-up call” with a statement, Learning From a Retraction, which announced changes to reduce the risks of research and publication misconduct.

The changes affect multiple phases of the publication process. For example, the declaration form that authors must sign “will require that more than one author has directly accessed and verified the data reported in the manuscript.” Additionally, when a research article is the result of an academic and commercial partnership – as was the case in the two retracted studies – “one of the authors named as having accessed and verified data must be from the academic team.”

This was particularly important because it appears that the academic coauthors of the retracted studies did not have access to the data provided by Surgisphere, a private commercial entity.

Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who was the lead author of both studies, declined to be interviewed for this article. In a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine editors requesting that the article be retracted, he wrote: “Because all the authors were not granted access to the raw data and the raw data could not be made available to a third-party auditor, we are unable to validate the primary data sources underlying our article.”

In a similar communication with The Lancet, Dr. Mehra wrote even more pointedly that, in light of the refusal of Surgisphere to make the data available to the third-party auditor, “we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources.”

“It is very disturbing that the authors were willing to put their names on a paper without ever seeing and verifying the data,” Mario Malički, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at METRICS at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview. “Saying that they could ‘no longer vouch’ suggests that at one point they could vouch for it. Most likely they took its existence and veracity entirely on trust.”

Dr. Malički pointed out that one of the four criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors for being an author on a study is the “agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.”

The new policies put forth by The Lancet are “encouraging,” but perhaps do not go far enough. “Every author, not only one or two authors, should personally take responsibility for the integrity of data,” he stated.

Many journals “adhere to ICMJE rules in principle and have checkboxes for authors to confirm that they guarantee the veracity of the data.” However, they “do not have the resources to verify the authors’ statements.”

Ideally, “it is the institutions where the researchers work that should guarantee the veracity of the raw data – but I do not know any university or institute that does this,” he said.
 

No ‘good-housekeeping’ seal

For articles based on large, real-world datasets, the Lancet Group will now require that editors ensure that at least one peer reviewer is “knowledgeable about the details of the dataset being reported and can understand its strengths and limitations in relation to the question being addressed.”

For studies that use “very large datasets,” the editors are now required to ensure that, in addition to a statistical peer review, a review from an “expert in data science” is obtained. Reviewers will also be explicitly asked if they have “concerns about research integrity or publication ethics regarding the manuscript they are reviewing.”

Although these changes are encouraging, Harlan Krumholz, MD, professor of medicine (cardiology), Yale University, New Haven, Conn., is not convinced that they are realistic.

Dr. Krumholz, who is also the founder and director of the Yale New Haven Hospital Center for Outcome Research and Evaluation, said in an interview that “large, real-world datasets” are of two varieties. Datasets drawn from publicly available sources, such as Medicare or Medicaid health records, are utterly transparent.

By contrast, Surgisphere was a privately owned database, and “it is not unusual for privately owned databases to have proprietary data from multiple sources that the company may choose to keep confidential,” Dr. Krumholz said.

He noted that several large datasets are widely used for research purposes, such as IBM, Optum, and Komodo – a data analytics company that recently entered into partnership with a fourth company, PicnicHealth.

These companies receive deidentified electronic health records from health systems and insurers nationwide. Komodo boasts “real-time and longitudinal data on more than 325 million patients, representing more than 65 billion clinical encounters with 15 million new encounters added daily.”

“One has to raise an eyebrow – how were these data acquired? And, given that the U.S. has a population of around 328 million people, is it really plausible that a single company has health records of almost the entire U.S. population?” Dr. Krumholz commented. (A spokesperson for Komodo said in an interview that the company has records on 325 million U.S. patients.)

This is “an issue across the board with ‘real-world evidence,’ which is that it’s like the ‘Wild West’ – the transparencies of private databases are less than optimal and there are no common standards to help us move forward,” Dr. Krumholz said, noting that there is “no external authority overseeing, validating, or auditing these databases. In the end, we are trusting the companies.”

Although the Food and Drug Administration has laid out a framework for how real-world data and real-world evidence can be used to advance scientific research, the FDA does not oversee the databases.

“Thus, there is no ‘good housekeeping seal’ that a peer reviewer or author would be in a position to evaluate,” Dr. Krumholz said. “No journal can do an audit of these types of private databases, so ultimately, it boils down to trust.”

Nevertheless, there were red flags with Surgisphere, Dr. Rao pointed out. Unlike more established and widely used databases, the Surgisphere database had been catapulted from relative obscurity onto center stage, which should have given researchers pause.
 

AI-assisted peer review

A series of investigative reports by The Guardian raised questions about Sapan Desai, the CEO of Surgisphere, including the fact that hospitals purporting to have contributed data to Surgisphere had never heard of the company.

However, peer reviewers are not expected to be investigative reporters, explained Dr. Malički.

“In an ideal world, editors and peer reviewers would have a chance to look at raw data or would have a certificate from the academic institution the authors are affiliated with that the data have been inspected by the institution, but in the real world, of course, this does not happen,” he said.

Artificial intelligence software is being developed and deployed to assist in the peer review process, Dr. Malički noted. In July 2020, Frontiers Science News debuted its Artificial Intelligence Review Assistant to help editors, reviewers, and authors evaluate the quality of a manuscript. The program can make up to 20 recommendations, including “the assessment of language quality, the detection of plagiarism, and identification of potential conflicts of interest.” The program is now in use in all 103 journals published by Frontiers. Preliminary software is also available to detect statistical errors.

Another system under development is FAIRware, an initiative of the Research on Research Institute in partnership with the Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research. The partnership’s goal is to “develop an automated online tool (or suite of tools) to help researchers ensure that the datasets they produce are ‘FAIR’ at the point of creation,” said Dr. Malički, referring to the findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR) guiding principles for data management. The principles aim to increase the ability of machines to automatically find and use the data, as well as to support its reuse by individuals.

He added that these advanced tools cannot replace human reviewers, who will “likely always be a necessary quality check in the process.”
 

Greater transparency needed

Another limitation of peer review is the reviewers themselves, according to Dr. Malički. “It’s a step in the right direction that The Lancet is now requesting a peer reviewer with expertise in big datasets, but it does not go far enough to increase accountability of peer reviewers,” he said.

Dr. Malički is the co–editor-in-chief of the journal Research Integrity and Peer Review , which has “an open and transparent review process – meaning that we reveal the names of the reviewers to the public and we publish the full review report alongside the paper.” The publication also allows the authors to make public the original version they sent.

Dr. Malički cited several advantages to transparent peer review, particularly the increased accountability that results from placing potential conflicts of interest under the microscope.

As for the concern that identifying the reviewers might soften the review process, “there is little evidence to substantiate that concern,” he added.

Dr. Malički emphasized that making reviews public “is not a problem – people voice strong opinions at conferences and elsewhere. The question remains, who gets to decide if the criticism has been adequately addressed, so that the findings of the study still stand?”

He acknowledged that, “as in politics and on many social platforms, rage, hatred, and personal attacks divert the discussion from the topic at hand, which is why a good moderator is needed.”

A journal editor or a moderator at a scientific conference may be tasked with “stopping all talk not directly related to the topic.”
 

Widening the circle of scrutiny

Dr. Malički added: “A published paper should not be considered the ‘final word,’ even if it has gone through peer review and is published in a reputable journal. The peer-review process means that a limited number of people have seen the study.”

Once the study is published, “the whole world gets to see it and criticize it, and that widens the circle of scrutiny.”

One classic way to raise concerns about a study post publication is to write a letter to the journal editor. But there is no guarantee that the letter will be published or the authors notified of the feedback.

Dr. Malički encourages readers to use PubPeer, an online forum in which members of the public can post comments on scientific studies and articles.

Once a comment is posted, the authors are alerted. “There is no ‘police department’ that forces authors to acknowledge comments or forces journal editors to take action, but at least PubPeer guarantees that readers’ messages will reach the authors and – depending on how many people raise similar issues – the comments can lead to errata or even full retractions,” he said.

PubPeer was key in pointing out errors in a suspect study from France (which did not involve Surgisphere) that supported the use of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19.
 

A message to policy makers

High stakes are involved in ensuring the integrity of scientific publications: The French government revoked a decree that allowed hospitals to prescribe hydroxychloroquine for certain COVID-19 patients.

After the Surgisphere Lancet article, the World Health Organization temporarily halted enrollment in the hydroxychloroquine component of the Solidarity international randomized trial of medications to treat COVID-19.

Similarly, the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency instructed the organizers of COPCOV, an international trial of the use of hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis against COVID-19, to suspend recruitment of patients. The SOLIDARITY trial briefly resumed, but that arm of the trial was ultimately suspended after a preliminary analysis suggested that hydroxychloroquine provided no benefit for patients with COVID-19.

Dr. Malički emphasized that governments and organizations should not “blindly trust journal articles” and make policy decisions based exclusively on study findings in published journals – even with the current improvements in the peer review process – without having their own experts conduct a thorough review of the data.

“If you are not willing to do your own due diligence, then at least be brave enough and say transparently why you are making this policy, or any other changes, and clearly state if your decision is based primarily or solely on the fact that ‘X’ study was published in ‘Y’ journal,” he stated.

Dr. Rao believes that the most important take-home message of the Surgisphere scandal is “that we should be skeptical and do our own due diligence about the kinds of data published – a responsibility that applies to all of us, whether we are investigators, editors at journals, the press, scientists, and readers.”

Dr. Rao reported being on the steering committee of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–sponsored MINT trial and the Bayer-sponsored PACIFIC AMI trial. Dr. Malički reports being a postdoc at METRICS Stanford in the past 3 years. Dr. Krumholz received expenses and/or personal fees from UnitedHealth, Element Science, Aetna, Facebook, the Siegfried and Jensen Law Firm, Arnold and Porter Law Firm, Martin/Baughman Law Firm, F-Prime, and the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases in Beijing. He is an owner of Refactor Health and HugoHealth and had grants and/or contracts from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the FDA, Johnson & Johnson, and the Shenzhen Center for Health Information.

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

Key clinical point: Axial involvement in psoriatic arthritis (axPsA) is a unique phenotype with characteristics lying between axial spondyloarthritis and pure peripheral PsA. Male gender, elevated C-reactive protein (CRP), and absence of psoriasis were associated with axPsA.

Major finding: Axial involvement was observed in 35.5% of patients with PsA, and they were thus classified as axPsA. Being male (odds ratio [OR], 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-2.61), having elevated CRP (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.80-4.60), and absence of psoriasis (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15-0.72) were independently associated with axPsA.

Study details: The data come from an observational, cross-sectional ASAS-perSpA study of 3,684 patients with axial spondyloarthritis or PsA.

Disclosures: The ASAS-PerSpA study was funded by Pfizer, Lilly, AbbVie, Novartis, UCB, Janssen, and Merck. The authors including the lead author reported receiving consulting fees, speaking fees, and/or honoraria from various sources including AbbVie. Three authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Source: Benavent D et al. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2021 May 5. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2021.04.018.

Key clinical point: Axial involvement in psoriatic arthritis (axPsA) is a unique phenotype with characteristics lying between axial spondyloarthritis and pure peripheral PsA. Male gender, elevated C-reactive protein (CRP), and absence of psoriasis were associated with axPsA.

Major finding: Axial involvement was observed in 35.5% of patients with PsA, and they were thus classified as axPsA. Being male (odds ratio [OR], 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-2.61), having elevated CRP (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.80-4.60), and absence of psoriasis (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15-0.72) were independently associated with axPsA.

Study details: The data come from an observational, cross-sectional ASAS-perSpA study of 3,684 patients with axial spondyloarthritis or PsA.

Disclosures: The ASAS-PerSpA study was funded by Pfizer, Lilly, AbbVie, Novartis, UCB, Janssen, and Merck. The authors including the lead author reported receiving consulting fees, speaking fees, and/or honoraria from various sources including AbbVie. Three authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Source: Benavent D et al. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2021 May 5. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2021.04.018.

Key clinical point: Axial involvement in psoriatic arthritis (axPsA) is a unique phenotype with characteristics lying between axial spondyloarthritis and pure peripheral PsA. Male gender, elevated C-reactive protein (CRP), and absence of psoriasis were associated with axPsA.

Major finding: Axial involvement was observed in 35.5% of patients with PsA, and they were thus classified as axPsA. Being male (odds ratio [OR], 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-2.61), having elevated CRP (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.80-4.60), and absence of psoriasis (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15-0.72) were independently associated with axPsA.

Study details: The data come from an observational, cross-sectional ASAS-perSpA study of 3,684 patients with axial spondyloarthritis or PsA.

Disclosures: The ASAS-PerSpA study was funded by Pfizer, Lilly, AbbVie, Novartis, UCB, Janssen, and Merck. The authors including the lead author reported receiving consulting fees, speaking fees, and/or honoraria from various sources including AbbVie. Three authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Source: Benavent D et al. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2021 May 5. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2021.04.018.

Key clinical point: The prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) was significantly higher in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) than those with psoriasis or rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: Patients with PsA were 1.61 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.49-1.74) and 1.66 (95% CI, 1.54-1.79) times more likely to have MetS than patients with psoriasis and RA, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 24, 89, and 53 studies on PsA, psoriasis, and RA, respectively.

Disclosures: The study reported no source of funding and conflicts of interest.

Source: Loganathan A et al. Int J Rheum Dis. 2021 Jun 2. doi: 10.1111/1   756-185X.14147.

Key clinical point: The prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) was significantly higher in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) than those with psoriasis or rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: Patients with PsA were 1.61 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.49-1.74) and 1.66 (95% CI, 1.54-1.79) times more likely to have MetS than patients with psoriasis and RA, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 24, 89, and 53 studies on PsA, psoriasis, and RA, respectively.

Disclosures: The study reported no source of funding and conflicts of interest.

Source: Loganathan A et al. Int J Rheum Dis. 2021 Jun 2. doi: 10.1111/1   756-185X.14147.

Key clinical point: The prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) was significantly higher in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) than those with psoriasis or rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: Patients with PsA were 1.61 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.49-1.74) and 1.66 (95% CI, 1.54-1.79) times more likely to have MetS than patients with psoriasis and RA, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 24, 89, and 53 studies on PsA, psoriasis, and RA, respectively.

Disclosures: The study reported no source of funding and conflicts of interest.

Source: Loganathan A et al. Int J Rheum Dis. 2021 Jun 2. doi: 10.1111/1   756-185X.14147.

Key clinical point: Women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were at greater risk of discontinuing biologic or targeted synthetic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/ts DMARDs) because of both lack of efficacy and adverse events. Moreover, the first-line treatment was associated with a lower risk for treatment discontinuation.

Major finding: Women (hazard ratio [HR], 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-1.62) and patients receiving the second and further lines of treatment (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.41-2.03) were at greater risk of discontinuing treatment because of lack of efficacy. The risk for discontinuation because of adverse events was higher in women (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.44-2.56) and older patients (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.03).

Study details: Findings are from a real-world multicenter prospective study of 4,752 patients with rheumatic disease from the BIODASER registry who were initiated on b/ts DMARDs, of which 1,250 patients had PsA.

Disclosures: BIOBADASER is supported by the Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Devices, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion Healthcare, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Samsung Bioepis. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Prior-Español A et al. Sci Rep. 2021 May 27. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-90442-w.

Key clinical point: Women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were at greater risk of discontinuing biologic or targeted synthetic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/ts DMARDs) because of both lack of efficacy and adverse events. Moreover, the first-line treatment was associated with a lower risk for treatment discontinuation.

Major finding: Women (hazard ratio [HR], 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-1.62) and patients receiving the second and further lines of treatment (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.41-2.03) were at greater risk of discontinuing treatment because of lack of efficacy. The risk for discontinuation because of adverse events was higher in women (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.44-2.56) and older patients (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.03).

Study details: Findings are from a real-world multicenter prospective study of 4,752 patients with rheumatic disease from the BIODASER registry who were initiated on b/ts DMARDs, of which 1,250 patients had PsA.

Disclosures: BIOBADASER is supported by the Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Devices, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion Healthcare, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Samsung Bioepis. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Prior-Español A et al. Sci Rep. 2021 May 27. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-90442-w.

Key clinical point: Women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were at greater risk of discontinuing biologic or targeted synthetic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/ts DMARDs) because of both lack of efficacy and adverse events. Moreover, the first-line treatment was associated with a lower risk for treatment discontinuation.

Major finding: Women (hazard ratio [HR], 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-1.62) and patients receiving the second and further lines of treatment (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.41-2.03) were at greater risk of discontinuing treatment because of lack of efficacy. The risk for discontinuation because of adverse events was higher in women (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.44-2.56) and older patients (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.03).

Study details: Findings are from a real-world multicenter prospective study of 4,752 patients with rheumatic disease from the BIODASER registry who were initiated on b/ts DMARDs, of which 1,250 patients had PsA.

Disclosures: BIOBADASER is supported by the Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Devices, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion Healthcare, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Samsung Bioepis. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Prior-Español A et al. Sci Rep. 2021 May 27. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-90442-w.

Key clinical point: Treatment with tildrakizumab was more effective than placebo and was well tolerated through 52 weeks of treatment in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: At week 24, the proportion of patients achieving at least 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology response was significantly higher for any dose of tildrakizumab vs. placebo (71.4%-79.5% vs. 50.6%; all P less than or equal to .0125). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and serious TEAEs occurred in 64.5% and 3.3%, respectively, and were comparable among treatment arms.

Study details: Findings are from a 52-week phase 2b study of 391 patients with PsA who were randomly assigned to tildrakizumab 200 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W), tildrakizumab 200 mg, 100 mg, or 20 mg every 12 weeks or placebo Q4W.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Sun Pharma Global FZE, and the analyses were funded by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Princeton, NJ, USA. Some of the authors reported receiving research grants, honoraria, consulting fees, and/or speaker fees from various sources. AM Mendelsohn and SJ Rozzo reported being an employee of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. and/or holding shares in Johnson and Johnson.

Source: Mease PJ et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 May 13. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219014.

Key clinical point: Treatment with tildrakizumab was more effective than placebo and was well tolerated through 52 weeks of treatment in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: At week 24, the proportion of patients achieving at least 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology response was significantly higher for any dose of tildrakizumab vs. placebo (71.4%-79.5% vs. 50.6%; all P less than or equal to .0125). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and serious TEAEs occurred in 64.5% and 3.3%, respectively, and were comparable among treatment arms.

Study details: Findings are from a 52-week phase 2b study of 391 patients with PsA who were randomly assigned to tildrakizumab 200 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W), tildrakizumab 200 mg, 100 mg, or 20 mg every 12 weeks or placebo Q4W.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Sun Pharma Global FZE, and the analyses were funded by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Princeton, NJ, USA. Some of the authors reported receiving research grants, honoraria, consulting fees, and/or speaker fees from various sources. AM Mendelsohn and SJ Rozzo reported being an employee of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. and/or holding shares in Johnson and Johnson.

Source: Mease PJ et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 May 13. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219014.

Key clinical point: Treatment with tildrakizumab was more effective than placebo and was well tolerated through 52 weeks of treatment in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: At week 24, the proportion of patients achieving at least 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology response was significantly higher for any dose of tildrakizumab vs. placebo (71.4%-79.5% vs. 50.6%; all P less than or equal to .0125). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and serious TEAEs occurred in 64.5% and 3.3%, respectively, and were comparable among treatment arms.

Study details: Findings are from a 52-week phase 2b study of 391 patients with PsA who were randomly assigned to tildrakizumab 200 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W), tildrakizumab 200 mg, 100 mg, or 20 mg every 12 weeks or placebo Q4W.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Sun Pharma Global FZE, and the analyses were funded by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Princeton, NJ, USA. Some of the authors reported receiving research grants, honoraria, consulting fees, and/or speaker fees from various sources. AM Mendelsohn and SJ Rozzo reported being an employee of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. and/or holding shares in Johnson and Johnson.

Source: Mease PJ et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 May 13. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219014.

Key clinical point: A range of novel metabolite markers associated with the risk for cardiovascular (CV) events when combined in a model matched with age and sex showed improved performance in predicting CV diseases in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic disease (PsA).

Major finding: Alanine, tyrosine, degree of unsaturation of fatty acids, and high-density lipoprotein particles were associated with decreased CV risk, whereas glycoprotein acetyls, apolipoprotein B, and cholesterol remnants were associated with increased CV risk (all P less than .05). The addition of 13 metabolites in the expanded model improved CV risk prediction beyond the base model with only age and sex (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve, 79.9 vs. 72.6; P = .02).

Study details: This was a prospective study of 977 patients with psoriasis and PsA.

Disclosures: The study was supported by a grant from the National Psoriasis Foundation and Arthritis Society. Some of the authors including the lead author declared receiving grants, personal fees, and/or advisory roles for various sources.

Source: Colaco K et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 May 28. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220168.

Key clinical point: A range of novel metabolite markers associated with the risk for cardiovascular (CV) events when combined in a model matched with age and sex showed improved performance in predicting CV diseases in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic disease (PsA).

Major finding: Alanine, tyrosine, degree of unsaturation of fatty acids, and high-density lipoprotein particles were associated with decreased CV risk, whereas glycoprotein acetyls, apolipoprotein B, and cholesterol remnants were associated with increased CV risk (all P less than .05). The addition of 13 metabolites in the expanded model improved CV risk prediction beyond the base model with only age and sex (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve, 79.9 vs. 72.6; P = .02).

Study details: This was a prospective study of 977 patients with psoriasis and PsA.

Disclosures: The study was supported by a grant from the National Psoriasis Foundation and Arthritis Society. Some of the authors including the lead author declared receiving grants, personal fees, and/or advisory roles for various sources.

Source: Colaco K et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 May 28. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220168.

Key clinical point: A range of novel metabolite markers associated with the risk for cardiovascular (CV) events when combined in a model matched with age and sex showed improved performance in predicting CV diseases in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic disease (PsA).

Major finding: Alanine, tyrosine, degree of unsaturation of fatty acids, and high-density lipoprotein particles were associated with decreased CV risk, whereas glycoprotein acetyls, apolipoprotein B, and cholesterol remnants were associated with increased CV risk (all P less than .05). The addition of 13 metabolites in the expanded model improved CV risk prediction beyond the base model with only age and sex (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve, 79.9 vs. 72.6; P = .02).

Study details: This was a prospective study of 977 patients with psoriasis and PsA.

Disclosures: The study was supported by a grant from the National Psoriasis Foundation and Arthritis Society. Some of the authors including the lead author declared receiving grants, personal fees, and/or advisory roles for various sources.

Source: Colaco K et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 May 28. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220168.