Rheumatology News

CLEVELAND – Documenting the prevalence of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) among Black Americans has been difficult because of little published data, but new research suggests that when Black Americans do have the disease, it seems to be more severe.

Iman Abutineh, MD, of the University of Tennessee, Memphis, discussed her team’s work at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN).

A total of 244 patients with axSpA were identified, including 168 (69%) males, 78 (32%) Black patients, and 143 (59%) White patients.

Average age of onset for patients overall was 27.7 years, and age at diagnosis was 36.1 years with a 7-year delay in diagnosis. Sixty-six (27%) patients had nonradiographic axSpA, 83% were on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, and 38% were prescribed glucocorticoids.

The researchers found several differences by race.

White patients were more likely to be HLA-B27 positive (77% vs. 59%; P = .010). White patients also had higher prevalence of psoriasis, coronary artery disease, and family history of SpA. White females had a higher prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease, fibromyalgia, depression, and lower grades of sacroiliitis.
 

Black patients had more hip involvement

A higher percentage of Black patients had elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), and hip involvement. In comparing hip involvement, the researchers found that 39 (39%) White males had hip involvement as did 9 (21%) White females. In comparison, 22 (45%) Black men in the study and 14 (54%) Black women showed hip involvement (P = .035).

After adjustment for age, sex, HLA-B27, and insurance status, Black patients had higher grades of sacroiliitis with an odds ratio of 2.32 (95% confidence interval, 1.23-4.44). Black patients had a numerically longer delay in diagnosis, compared with Whites (7.93 vs. 6.64 years), but this did not achieve statistical significance (P = .454), the researchers wrote.
 

Study addresses racial disparities

“Traditionally we think of axial spondyloarthritis largely in Caucasian males who are HLA-B27 positive,” Dr. Abutineh said, “and we found that there is still a significant portion of patients who don’t meet the criteria that do have disease that is very significant.”

Although actual prevalence was not clear from this study, Dr. Abutineh said their data suggest a 3-to-1 ratio of White-to-Black patients with spondyloarthritis, “but of the Black patients who are diagnosed, their disease is almost always more severe. That points to why it’s important to have a high index of suspicion for this disease in that patient population because if you miss it, it could be detrimental to the patients.”

Swetha Alexander, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who was not part of the study, said in an interview, “It is an excellent and timely study addressing the racial disparities and inequities surrounding axSpA diagnosis. It highlights the delay in diagnosis and increased burden of disease among Black Americans.”

She said the study may prompt a further look into barriers to care for Black Americans and their beliefs regarding seeking health care for their pain.
 

Higher rates of nonradiographic axSpA among Black patients

The rate of nonradiographic axSpA among Black Americans was more than twice that of their White counterparts, which, Dr. Alexander noted, could make it more difficult to diagnose axSpA in that population.

The odds ratio for Black patients having nonradiographic axSpA, compared with Whites, was 2.265 (95% CI, 1.082-4.999; P = .035), after adjustment for age, sex, and HLA-B27 status.

Adult patients with axSpA were identified from rheumatology clinics at four major hospital systems and one private clinic in Shelby County, Tenn., between 2011 and 2021. Patients met modified New York (mNY) or Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria as assessed by reviewers.

The authors and Dr. Alexander reported no relevant financial relationships.

CLEVELAND – Documenting the prevalence of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) among Black Americans has been difficult because of little published data, but new research suggests that when Black Americans do have the disease, it seems to be more severe.

Iman Abutineh, MD, of the University of Tennessee, Memphis, discussed her team’s work at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN).

A total of 244 patients with axSpA were identified, including 168 (69%) males, 78 (32%) Black patients, and 143 (59%) White patients.

Average age of onset for patients overall was 27.7 years, and age at diagnosis was 36.1 years with a 7-year delay in diagnosis. Sixty-six (27%) patients had nonradiographic axSpA, 83% were on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, and 38% were prescribed glucocorticoids.

The researchers found several differences by race.

White patients were more likely to be HLA-B27 positive (77% vs. 59%; P = .010). White patients also had higher prevalence of psoriasis, coronary artery disease, and family history of SpA. White females had a higher prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease, fibromyalgia, depression, and lower grades of sacroiliitis.
 

Black patients had more hip involvement

A higher percentage of Black patients had elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), and hip involvement. In comparing hip involvement, the researchers found that 39 (39%) White males had hip involvement as did 9 (21%) White females. In comparison, 22 (45%) Black men in the study and 14 (54%) Black women showed hip involvement (P = .035).

After adjustment for age, sex, HLA-B27, and insurance status, Black patients had higher grades of sacroiliitis with an odds ratio of 2.32 (95% confidence interval, 1.23-4.44). Black patients had a numerically longer delay in diagnosis, compared with Whites (7.93 vs. 6.64 years), but this did not achieve statistical significance (P = .454), the researchers wrote.
 

Study addresses racial disparities

“Traditionally we think of axial spondyloarthritis largely in Caucasian males who are HLA-B27 positive,” Dr. Abutineh said, “and we found that there is still a significant portion of patients who don’t meet the criteria that do have disease that is very significant.”

Although actual prevalence was not clear from this study, Dr. Abutineh said their data suggest a 3-to-1 ratio of White-to-Black patients with spondyloarthritis, “but of the Black patients who are diagnosed, their disease is almost always more severe. That points to why it’s important to have a high index of suspicion for this disease in that patient population because if you miss it, it could be detrimental to the patients.”

Swetha Alexander, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who was not part of the study, said in an interview, “It is an excellent and timely study addressing the racial disparities and inequities surrounding axSpA diagnosis. It highlights the delay in diagnosis and increased burden of disease among Black Americans.”

She said the study may prompt a further look into barriers to care for Black Americans and their beliefs regarding seeking health care for their pain.
 

Higher rates of nonradiographic axSpA among Black patients

The rate of nonradiographic axSpA among Black Americans was more than twice that of their White counterparts, which, Dr. Alexander noted, could make it more difficult to diagnose axSpA in that population.

The odds ratio for Black patients having nonradiographic axSpA, compared with Whites, was 2.265 (95% CI, 1.082-4.999; P = .035), after adjustment for age, sex, and HLA-B27 status.

Adult patients with axSpA were identified from rheumatology clinics at four major hospital systems and one private clinic in Shelby County, Tenn., between 2011 and 2021. Patients met modified New York (mNY) or Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria as assessed by reviewers.

The authors and Dr. Alexander reported no relevant financial relationships.

CLEVELAND – Documenting the prevalence of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) among Black Americans has been difficult because of little published data, but new research suggests that when Black Americans do have the disease, it seems to be more severe.

Iman Abutineh, MD, of the University of Tennessee, Memphis, discussed her team’s work at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN).

A total of 244 patients with axSpA were identified, including 168 (69%) males, 78 (32%) Black patients, and 143 (59%) White patients.

Average age of onset for patients overall was 27.7 years, and age at diagnosis was 36.1 years with a 7-year delay in diagnosis. Sixty-six (27%) patients had nonradiographic axSpA, 83% were on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, and 38% were prescribed glucocorticoids.

The researchers found several differences by race.

White patients were more likely to be HLA-B27 positive (77% vs. 59%; P = .010). White patients also had higher prevalence of psoriasis, coronary artery disease, and family history of SpA. White females had a higher prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease, fibromyalgia, depression, and lower grades of sacroiliitis.
 

Black patients had more hip involvement

A higher percentage of Black patients had elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), and hip involvement. In comparing hip involvement, the researchers found that 39 (39%) White males had hip involvement as did 9 (21%) White females. In comparison, 22 (45%) Black men in the study and 14 (54%) Black women showed hip involvement (P = .035).

After adjustment for age, sex, HLA-B27, and insurance status, Black patients had higher grades of sacroiliitis with an odds ratio of 2.32 (95% confidence interval, 1.23-4.44). Black patients had a numerically longer delay in diagnosis, compared with Whites (7.93 vs. 6.64 years), but this did not achieve statistical significance (P = .454), the researchers wrote.
 

Study addresses racial disparities

“Traditionally we think of axial spondyloarthritis largely in Caucasian males who are HLA-B27 positive,” Dr. Abutineh said, “and we found that there is still a significant portion of patients who don’t meet the criteria that do have disease that is very significant.”

Although actual prevalence was not clear from this study, Dr. Abutineh said their data suggest a 3-to-1 ratio of White-to-Black patients with spondyloarthritis, “but of the Black patients who are diagnosed, their disease is almost always more severe. That points to why it’s important to have a high index of suspicion for this disease in that patient population because if you miss it, it could be detrimental to the patients.”

Swetha Alexander, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who was not part of the study, said in an interview, “It is an excellent and timely study addressing the racial disparities and inequities surrounding axSpA diagnosis. It highlights the delay in diagnosis and increased burden of disease among Black Americans.”

She said the study may prompt a further look into barriers to care for Black Americans and their beliefs regarding seeking health care for their pain.
 

Higher rates of nonradiographic axSpA among Black patients

The rate of nonradiographic axSpA among Black Americans was more than twice that of their White counterparts, which, Dr. Alexander noted, could make it more difficult to diagnose axSpA in that population.

The odds ratio for Black patients having nonradiographic axSpA, compared with Whites, was 2.265 (95% CI, 1.082-4.999; P = .035), after adjustment for age, sex, and HLA-B27 status.

Adult patients with axSpA were identified from rheumatology clinics at four major hospital systems and one private clinic in Shelby County, Tenn., between 2011 and 2021. Patients met modified New York (mNY) or Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria as assessed by reviewers.

The authors and Dr. Alexander reported no relevant financial relationships.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 22 approved a new autoinjection option for adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo), a biosimilar to AbbVie’s adalimumab (Humira), ahead of Cyltezo’s commercial launch on July 1, 2023.

Cyltezo was approved by the FDA in 2017 as a prefilled syringe and was the first biosimilar deemed to be interchangeable with Humira in 2021. It is indicated to treat multiple chronic inflammatory conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and hidradenitis suppurativa. This new design, which features one-button, three-step activation, has been certified as an “Ease of Use” product by the Arthritis Foundation, Boehringer Ingelheim said in a press release. The 40-mg, prefilled Cyltezo Pen will be available in two-, four-, and six-pack options.

“The FDA approval of the Cyltezo Pen is great news for patients living with chronic inflammatory diseases who may prefer administering the medication needed to manage their conditions via an autoinjector,” said Stephen Pagnotta, the executive director and biosimilar commercial lead at Boehringer Ingelheim in a statement; “we’re excited to be able to offer the Cyltezo Pen as an additional option to patients at Cyltezo’s launch on July 1.”

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 22 approved a new autoinjection option for adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo), a biosimilar to AbbVie’s adalimumab (Humira), ahead of Cyltezo’s commercial launch on July 1, 2023.

Cyltezo was approved by the FDA in 2017 as a prefilled syringe and was the first biosimilar deemed to be interchangeable with Humira in 2021. It is indicated to treat multiple chronic inflammatory conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and hidradenitis suppurativa. This new design, which features one-button, three-step activation, has been certified as an “Ease of Use” product by the Arthritis Foundation, Boehringer Ingelheim said in a press release. The 40-mg, prefilled Cyltezo Pen will be available in two-, four-, and six-pack options.

“The FDA approval of the Cyltezo Pen is great news for patients living with chronic inflammatory diseases who may prefer administering the medication needed to manage their conditions via an autoinjector,” said Stephen Pagnotta, the executive director and biosimilar commercial lead at Boehringer Ingelheim in a statement; “we’re excited to be able to offer the Cyltezo Pen as an additional option to patients at Cyltezo’s launch on July 1.”

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 22 approved a new autoinjection option for adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo), a biosimilar to AbbVie’s adalimumab (Humira), ahead of Cyltezo’s commercial launch on July 1, 2023.

Cyltezo was approved by the FDA in 2017 as a prefilled syringe and was the first biosimilar deemed to be interchangeable with Humira in 2021. It is indicated to treat multiple chronic inflammatory conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and hidradenitis suppurativa. This new design, which features one-button, three-step activation, has been certified as an “Ease of Use” product by the Arthritis Foundation, Boehringer Ingelheim said in a press release. The 40-mg, prefilled Cyltezo Pen will be available in two-, four-, and six-pack options.

“The FDA approval of the Cyltezo Pen is great news for patients living with chronic inflammatory diseases who may prefer administering the medication needed to manage their conditions via an autoinjector,” said Stephen Pagnotta, the executive director and biosimilar commercial lead at Boehringer Ingelheim in a statement; “we’re excited to be able to offer the Cyltezo Pen as an additional option to patients at Cyltezo’s launch on July 1.”

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

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – Nearly 8% of people with lupus nephritis who achieve complete remission of disease within 1 year of starting treatment will still go on to develop advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), according to a presentation at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus.

Rheumatologist Dafna Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and codirector of the Lupus Clinic at Toronto Western Hospital, showed data from the Lupus Clinic’s prospective longitudinal cohort study in 273 patients with confirmed lupus nephritis who achieved complete remission within 12 months of baseline.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

Remission was defined as less than 0.5 g proteinuria over 24 hours, inactive urinary sediment, and serum creatinine less than 120% of baseline.

Of this group, 21 (7.7%) progressed to advanced CKD during follow-up, which ranged from 0.7 to 31.7 years with a median of 5.8 years, after enrollment.

Patients who had experienced at least one flare during their first 5 years were around 4.5 times more likely to progress to advanced CKD than were those who did not experience a flare.

While the study excluded patients who already had advanced CKD, the analysis found those with evidence of impaired kidney function at baseline also had more than a fourfold higher risk of developing advanced CKD.

Other significant risk factors for progression were having low complement C3 levels at baseline and having had a longer duration of disease before enrollment.

“Those patients already have abnormal renal function, so the message is that patients who are already in trouble, you’ve got to watch them very carefully,” Dr. Gladman said in an interview.

The study also looked at whether there was a difference between patients who developed advanced CKD earlier – before the median of 5.8 years – or later. While the numbers were small, Dr. Gladman said patients who progressed earlier tended to be older and were more likely to be on antihypertensive treatment and have lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and a lower Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index–2K, compared with those who progressed later. Some patients also were noncompliant and/or experienced concomitant infections; four had moderate to severe interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy.

“We conclude that such patients should be monitored closely despite early remission, and we also highlight the importance of maintenance therapy, which should be communicated to the patients to prevent noncompliance and subsequent flare,” Dr. Gladman told the conference.

Dr. Gladman said her clinic told patients from the very beginning of their treatment that they would need to be seen at 2- to 6-month intervals, regardless of how well their disease was doing.

Commenting on the presentation, rheumatologist Mandana Nikpour MD, PhD, of St. Vincent’s Hospital in Melbourne, said the findings showed the importance of keeping a close eye on patients with lupus nephritis, even if their disease appears to be in remission.

“If you’ve had nephritis, and you go into remission, you may already have a degree of damage in your kidneys,” said Dr. Nikpour, also from the University of Melbourne. “If there’s a degree of uncontrolled hypertension, or if a patient is noncompliant with their treatment, and there’s a degree of grumbling disease activity, that can all conspire and add up to result in long-term kidney damage and loss of renal function.”

Dr. Gladman has received grants or research support from, or has consulted for, Amgen, AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, and Gilead.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – Nearly 8% of people with lupus nephritis who achieve complete remission of disease within 1 year of starting treatment will still go on to develop advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), according to a presentation at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus.

Rheumatologist Dafna Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and codirector of the Lupus Clinic at Toronto Western Hospital, showed data from the Lupus Clinic’s prospective longitudinal cohort study in 273 patients with confirmed lupus nephritis who achieved complete remission within 12 months of baseline.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

Remission was defined as less than 0.5 g proteinuria over 24 hours, inactive urinary sediment, and serum creatinine less than 120% of baseline.

Of this group, 21 (7.7%) progressed to advanced CKD during follow-up, which ranged from 0.7 to 31.7 years with a median of 5.8 years, after enrollment.

Patients who had experienced at least one flare during their first 5 years were around 4.5 times more likely to progress to advanced CKD than were those who did not experience a flare.

While the study excluded patients who already had advanced CKD, the analysis found those with evidence of impaired kidney function at baseline also had more than a fourfold higher risk of developing advanced CKD.

Other significant risk factors for progression were having low complement C3 levels at baseline and having had a longer duration of disease before enrollment.

“Those patients already have abnormal renal function, so the message is that patients who are already in trouble, you’ve got to watch them very carefully,” Dr. Gladman said in an interview.

The study also looked at whether there was a difference between patients who developed advanced CKD earlier – before the median of 5.8 years – or later. While the numbers were small, Dr. Gladman said patients who progressed earlier tended to be older and were more likely to be on antihypertensive treatment and have lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and a lower Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index–2K, compared with those who progressed later. Some patients also were noncompliant and/or experienced concomitant infections; four had moderate to severe interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy.

“We conclude that such patients should be monitored closely despite early remission, and we also highlight the importance of maintenance therapy, which should be communicated to the patients to prevent noncompliance and subsequent flare,” Dr. Gladman told the conference.

Dr. Gladman said her clinic told patients from the very beginning of their treatment that they would need to be seen at 2- to 6-month intervals, regardless of how well their disease was doing.

Commenting on the presentation, rheumatologist Mandana Nikpour MD, PhD, of St. Vincent’s Hospital in Melbourne, said the findings showed the importance of keeping a close eye on patients with lupus nephritis, even if their disease appears to be in remission.

“If you’ve had nephritis, and you go into remission, you may already have a degree of damage in your kidneys,” said Dr. Nikpour, also from the University of Melbourne. “If there’s a degree of uncontrolled hypertension, or if a patient is noncompliant with their treatment, and there’s a degree of grumbling disease activity, that can all conspire and add up to result in long-term kidney damage and loss of renal function.”

Dr. Gladman has received grants or research support from, or has consulted for, Amgen, AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, and Gilead.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – Nearly 8% of people with lupus nephritis who achieve complete remission of disease within 1 year of starting treatment will still go on to develop advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), according to a presentation at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus.

Rheumatologist Dafna Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and codirector of the Lupus Clinic at Toronto Western Hospital, showed data from the Lupus Clinic’s prospective longitudinal cohort study in 273 patients with confirmed lupus nephritis who achieved complete remission within 12 months of baseline.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

Remission was defined as less than 0.5 g proteinuria over 24 hours, inactive urinary sediment, and serum creatinine less than 120% of baseline.

Of this group, 21 (7.7%) progressed to advanced CKD during follow-up, which ranged from 0.7 to 31.7 years with a median of 5.8 years, after enrollment.

Patients who had experienced at least one flare during their first 5 years were around 4.5 times more likely to progress to advanced CKD than were those who did not experience a flare.

While the study excluded patients who already had advanced CKD, the analysis found those with evidence of impaired kidney function at baseline also had more than a fourfold higher risk of developing advanced CKD.

Other significant risk factors for progression were having low complement C3 levels at baseline and having had a longer duration of disease before enrollment.

“Those patients already have abnormal renal function, so the message is that patients who are already in trouble, you’ve got to watch them very carefully,” Dr. Gladman said in an interview.

The study also looked at whether there was a difference between patients who developed advanced CKD earlier – before the median of 5.8 years – or later. While the numbers were small, Dr. Gladman said patients who progressed earlier tended to be older and were more likely to be on antihypertensive treatment and have lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and a lower Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index–2K, compared with those who progressed later. Some patients also were noncompliant and/or experienced concomitant infections; four had moderate to severe interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy.

“We conclude that such patients should be monitored closely despite early remission, and we also highlight the importance of maintenance therapy, which should be communicated to the patients to prevent noncompliance and subsequent flare,” Dr. Gladman told the conference.

Dr. Gladman said her clinic told patients from the very beginning of their treatment that they would need to be seen at 2- to 6-month intervals, regardless of how well their disease was doing.

Commenting on the presentation, rheumatologist Mandana Nikpour MD, PhD, of St. Vincent’s Hospital in Melbourne, said the findings showed the importance of keeping a close eye on patients with lupus nephritis, even if their disease appears to be in remission.

“If you’ve had nephritis, and you go into remission, you may already have a degree of damage in your kidneys,” said Dr. Nikpour, also from the University of Melbourne. “If there’s a degree of uncontrolled hypertension, or if a patient is noncompliant with their treatment, and there’s a degree of grumbling disease activity, that can all conspire and add up to result in long-term kidney damage and loss of renal function.”

Dr. Gladman has received grants or research support from, or has consulted for, Amgen, AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, and Gilead.

CLEVELAND – With early diagnosis an ongoing complex target for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), new research may help to answer where the biggest delays lie.

Gregory McDermott, MD, a research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, led a pilot study with data from Mass General Brigham electronic health records. He shared top results at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN) , where addressing delay in diagnosis was a major theme.

Included in the cohort were 554 patients who had three ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes and an imaging report of sacroiliitis, ankylosis, or syndesmophytes, and were screened via manual chart review for modified New York and Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society criteria.

The average diagnostic delay for axSpA was 6.8 years in this study (median, 3.8 years), relatively consistent with findings in previous studies globally, and the average age of onset was 29.5.

The researchers also factored in history of specialty care for back pain (orthopedics, physical medicine and rehabilitation, pain medicine) or extra-articular manifestations (ophthalmology, dermatology, gastroenterology) before axSpA diagnosis. Other factors included smoking and insurance status, along with age, sex, race, and other demographic data.

The results showed shorter delays in diagnosing axSpA were associated with older age at symptom onset and peripheral arthritis, whereas longer delays (more than 4 years) were associated with a history of uveitis, ankylosing spondylitis at diagnosis, and being among those in the 80-99th percentile on the social vulnerability index (SVI). The SVI includes U.S. census data on factors including housing type, household composition and disability status, employment status, minority status, non-English speaking, educational attainment, transportation, and mean income level.
 

Notable uveitis finding

Dr. McDermott said the team was surprised by the association between having had uveitis and delayed axSpA diagnosis.

Among patients with uveitis, 12% had a short delay from symptom onset to axSpA diagnosis of 0-1 years, but more than twice that percentage (27%) had a delay of more than 4 years (P < .001).

“We thought the finding related to uveitis was interesting and potentially clinically meaningful as 27% of axSpA patients in our cohort with more than 4 years of diagnostic delay sought ophthalmology care prior to their diagnosis, [compared with 13% of patients with a diagnosis within 1 year],” Dr. McDermott said. “This practice setting in particular may be a place where we can intervene with simple screening or increased education in order to get people appropriately referred to rheumatology care.”

Longer delays can lead to more functional impairment, radiographic progression, and work disability, as well as poorer quality of life, increased depression, and higher unemployment and health care costs, Dr. McDermott said.
 

Patients may miss key treatment window

Maureen Dubreuil, MD, MSc, assistant professor at Boston University and a rheumatologist with the VA Boston Healthcare System, who was not part of the study, said: “This study addressed a critically important problem in the field – that diagnosis of axSpA is delayed by 7 years, which is much longer than the average time to diagnosis for other forms of arthritis, such as rheumatoid arthritis, which is under 6 months.

“It is critical that diagnostic delay is reduced in axSpA because undiagnosed individuals may miss an important window of opportunity to receive treatment that prevents permanent structural damage and functional declines. This work, if confirmed in other data, would allow development of interventions to improve timely evaluation of individuals with chronic back pain who may have axSpA, particularly among those with within lower socioeconomic strata, and those who are older or have uveitis.”
 

Study tests screening tool

Among the ideas proposed for reducing the delay was a referral strategy with a screening tool.

Swetha Alexander, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who presented her team’s poster, noted that, in the United States, patients with chronic back pain often come first to a primary care doctor or another specialty and not to a rheumatologist.

As an internal medicine resident at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., Dr. Alexander and colleagues there conducted the Finding Axial Spondyloarthritis (FaxSpA) study to test whether patient self-referral or referral by other physicians, guided by answers to a screening tool, could help to speed the process of getting patients more likely to have axSpA to a rheumatologist.

Dr. Alexander said they found that using the screening tool was better than having no referral strategy, explaining that screening helped diagnose about 34% of the study population with axSpA, whereas if a patient came in with chronic back pain to a primary care physician without any screening and ultimately to a rheumatologist, “you’re only capturing about 20%,” she said, citing estimates in the literature.
 

Questions may need rewording

However, the researchers found that patient interpretation of the screening questions was different depending on whether they were answering online or directly from a rheumatologist’s in-person questions. For more success, Dr. Alexander said, the questions may need to be reworded or more education may be needed for both patients and physicians to get more valid information.

For instance, she said, when the screening tool asks about inflammation, the patient may assume the physician is asking about pain and answer one way, but when a rheumatologist asks the question a slightly different way in the clinic, the patient may give a different answer.
 

First questions in portal, on social media

In the screening intervention (called A-tool) patients first answered three questions via the MyChart portal or Facebook. If they answered all three questions positively, they would move on to another round of questions and the answers would decide whether they would be eligible to come into the rheumatologist to get evaluated for axSpA.

At the study visit, rheumatologists asked the same questions as the online A-tool, which focus on SpA features with reasonable sensitivity and specificity for axSpA (no labs or imaging included). Clinicians’ judgment was considered the gold standard for diagnosis of axSpA.

The authors reported that 1,274 patients answered questions with the screening tool via Facebook (50%) and MyChart (50%) from April 2019 to February 2022. Among the responders, 507 (40%) were eligible for a rheumatologist visit.

As of May 2022, 100 patients were enrolled. Of the enrolled patients, 86 patients completed all the study procedures, including study visit, labs, and imaging (x-ray and MRI of the pelvis). Of the 86 patients, 29 (34%) were diagnosed with axSpA.

The tool appears to help narrow the chronic back pain patients who need to be seen by a rheumatologist for potential axSpA, Dr. Alexander said, which may help to speed diagnosis and also save time and resources.

Dr. McDermott, Dr. Dubreuil, and Dr. Alexander reported no relevant financial relationships. The FaxSpA study was supported with funding from Novartis and the Spondylitis Association of America.

CLEVELAND – With early diagnosis an ongoing complex target for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), new research may help to answer where the biggest delays lie.

Gregory McDermott, MD, a research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, led a pilot study with data from Mass General Brigham electronic health records. He shared top results at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN) , where addressing delay in diagnosis was a major theme.

Included in the cohort were 554 patients who had three ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes and an imaging report of sacroiliitis, ankylosis, or syndesmophytes, and were screened via manual chart review for modified New York and Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society criteria.

The average diagnostic delay for axSpA was 6.8 years in this study (median, 3.8 years), relatively consistent with findings in previous studies globally, and the average age of onset was 29.5.

The researchers also factored in history of specialty care for back pain (orthopedics, physical medicine and rehabilitation, pain medicine) or extra-articular manifestations (ophthalmology, dermatology, gastroenterology) before axSpA diagnosis. Other factors included smoking and insurance status, along with age, sex, race, and other demographic data.

The results showed shorter delays in diagnosing axSpA were associated with older age at symptom onset and peripheral arthritis, whereas longer delays (more than 4 years) were associated with a history of uveitis, ankylosing spondylitis at diagnosis, and being among those in the 80-99th percentile on the social vulnerability index (SVI). The SVI includes U.S. census data on factors including housing type, household composition and disability status, employment status, minority status, non-English speaking, educational attainment, transportation, and mean income level.
 

Notable uveitis finding

Dr. McDermott said the team was surprised by the association between having had uveitis and delayed axSpA diagnosis.

Among patients with uveitis, 12% had a short delay from symptom onset to axSpA diagnosis of 0-1 years, but more than twice that percentage (27%) had a delay of more than 4 years (P < .001).

“We thought the finding related to uveitis was interesting and potentially clinically meaningful as 27% of axSpA patients in our cohort with more than 4 years of diagnostic delay sought ophthalmology care prior to their diagnosis, [compared with 13% of patients with a diagnosis within 1 year],” Dr. McDermott said. “This practice setting in particular may be a place where we can intervene with simple screening or increased education in order to get people appropriately referred to rheumatology care.”

Longer delays can lead to more functional impairment, radiographic progression, and work disability, as well as poorer quality of life, increased depression, and higher unemployment and health care costs, Dr. McDermott said.
 

Patients may miss key treatment window

Maureen Dubreuil, MD, MSc, assistant professor at Boston University and a rheumatologist with the VA Boston Healthcare System, who was not part of the study, said: “This study addressed a critically important problem in the field – that diagnosis of axSpA is delayed by 7 years, which is much longer than the average time to diagnosis for other forms of arthritis, such as rheumatoid arthritis, which is under 6 months.

“It is critical that diagnostic delay is reduced in axSpA because undiagnosed individuals may miss an important window of opportunity to receive treatment that prevents permanent structural damage and functional declines. This work, if confirmed in other data, would allow development of interventions to improve timely evaluation of individuals with chronic back pain who may have axSpA, particularly among those with within lower socioeconomic strata, and those who are older or have uveitis.”
 

Study tests screening tool

Among the ideas proposed for reducing the delay was a referral strategy with a screening tool.

Swetha Alexander, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who presented her team’s poster, noted that, in the United States, patients with chronic back pain often come first to a primary care doctor or another specialty and not to a rheumatologist.

As an internal medicine resident at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., Dr. Alexander and colleagues there conducted the Finding Axial Spondyloarthritis (FaxSpA) study to test whether patient self-referral or referral by other physicians, guided by answers to a screening tool, could help to speed the process of getting patients more likely to have axSpA to a rheumatologist.

Dr. Alexander said they found that using the screening tool was better than having no referral strategy, explaining that screening helped diagnose about 34% of the study population with axSpA, whereas if a patient came in with chronic back pain to a primary care physician without any screening and ultimately to a rheumatologist, “you’re only capturing about 20%,” she said, citing estimates in the literature.
 

Questions may need rewording

However, the researchers found that patient interpretation of the screening questions was different depending on whether they were answering online or directly from a rheumatologist’s in-person questions. For more success, Dr. Alexander said, the questions may need to be reworded or more education may be needed for both patients and physicians to get more valid information.

For instance, she said, when the screening tool asks about inflammation, the patient may assume the physician is asking about pain and answer one way, but when a rheumatologist asks the question a slightly different way in the clinic, the patient may give a different answer.
 

First questions in portal, on social media

In the screening intervention (called A-tool) patients first answered three questions via the MyChart portal or Facebook. If they answered all three questions positively, they would move on to another round of questions and the answers would decide whether they would be eligible to come into the rheumatologist to get evaluated for axSpA.

At the study visit, rheumatologists asked the same questions as the online A-tool, which focus on SpA features with reasonable sensitivity and specificity for axSpA (no labs or imaging included). Clinicians’ judgment was considered the gold standard for diagnosis of axSpA.

The authors reported that 1,274 patients answered questions with the screening tool via Facebook (50%) and MyChart (50%) from April 2019 to February 2022. Among the responders, 507 (40%) were eligible for a rheumatologist visit.

As of May 2022, 100 patients were enrolled. Of the enrolled patients, 86 patients completed all the study procedures, including study visit, labs, and imaging (x-ray and MRI of the pelvis). Of the 86 patients, 29 (34%) were diagnosed with axSpA.

The tool appears to help narrow the chronic back pain patients who need to be seen by a rheumatologist for potential axSpA, Dr. Alexander said, which may help to speed diagnosis and also save time and resources.

Dr. McDermott, Dr. Dubreuil, and Dr. Alexander reported no relevant financial relationships. The FaxSpA study was supported with funding from Novartis and the Spondylitis Association of America.

CLEVELAND – With early diagnosis an ongoing complex target for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), new research may help to answer where the biggest delays lie.

Gregory McDermott, MD, a research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, led a pilot study with data from Mass General Brigham electronic health records. He shared top results at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN) , where addressing delay in diagnosis was a major theme.

Included in the cohort were 554 patients who had three ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes and an imaging report of sacroiliitis, ankylosis, or syndesmophytes, and were screened via manual chart review for modified New York and Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society criteria.

The average diagnostic delay for axSpA was 6.8 years in this study (median, 3.8 years), relatively consistent with findings in previous studies globally, and the average age of onset was 29.5.

The researchers also factored in history of specialty care for back pain (orthopedics, physical medicine and rehabilitation, pain medicine) or extra-articular manifestations (ophthalmology, dermatology, gastroenterology) before axSpA diagnosis. Other factors included smoking and insurance status, along with age, sex, race, and other demographic data.

The results showed shorter delays in diagnosing axSpA were associated with older age at symptom onset and peripheral arthritis, whereas longer delays (more than 4 years) were associated with a history of uveitis, ankylosing spondylitis at diagnosis, and being among those in the 80-99th percentile on the social vulnerability index (SVI). The SVI includes U.S. census data on factors including housing type, household composition and disability status, employment status, minority status, non-English speaking, educational attainment, transportation, and mean income level.
 

Notable uveitis finding

Dr. McDermott said the team was surprised by the association between having had uveitis and delayed axSpA diagnosis.

Among patients with uveitis, 12% had a short delay from symptom onset to axSpA diagnosis of 0-1 years, but more than twice that percentage (27%) had a delay of more than 4 years (P < .001).

“We thought the finding related to uveitis was interesting and potentially clinically meaningful as 27% of axSpA patients in our cohort with more than 4 years of diagnostic delay sought ophthalmology care prior to their diagnosis, [compared with 13% of patients with a diagnosis within 1 year],” Dr. McDermott said. “This practice setting in particular may be a place where we can intervene with simple screening or increased education in order to get people appropriately referred to rheumatology care.”

Longer delays can lead to more functional impairment, radiographic progression, and work disability, as well as poorer quality of life, increased depression, and higher unemployment and health care costs, Dr. McDermott said.
 

Patients may miss key treatment window

Maureen Dubreuil, MD, MSc, assistant professor at Boston University and a rheumatologist with the VA Boston Healthcare System, who was not part of the study, said: “This study addressed a critically important problem in the field – that diagnosis of axSpA is delayed by 7 years, which is much longer than the average time to diagnosis for other forms of arthritis, such as rheumatoid arthritis, which is under 6 months.

“It is critical that diagnostic delay is reduced in axSpA because undiagnosed individuals may miss an important window of opportunity to receive treatment that prevents permanent structural damage and functional declines. This work, if confirmed in other data, would allow development of interventions to improve timely evaluation of individuals with chronic back pain who may have axSpA, particularly among those with within lower socioeconomic strata, and those who are older or have uveitis.”
 

Study tests screening tool

Among the ideas proposed for reducing the delay was a referral strategy with a screening tool.

Swetha Alexander, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who presented her team’s poster, noted that, in the United States, patients with chronic back pain often come first to a primary care doctor or another specialty and not to a rheumatologist.

As an internal medicine resident at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., Dr. Alexander and colleagues there conducted the Finding Axial Spondyloarthritis (FaxSpA) study to test whether patient self-referral or referral by other physicians, guided by answers to a screening tool, could help to speed the process of getting patients more likely to have axSpA to a rheumatologist.

Dr. Alexander said they found that using the screening tool was better than having no referral strategy, explaining that screening helped diagnose about 34% of the study population with axSpA, whereas if a patient came in with chronic back pain to a primary care physician without any screening and ultimately to a rheumatologist, “you’re only capturing about 20%,” she said, citing estimates in the literature.
 

Questions may need rewording

However, the researchers found that patient interpretation of the screening questions was different depending on whether they were answering online or directly from a rheumatologist’s in-person questions. For more success, Dr. Alexander said, the questions may need to be reworded or more education may be needed for both patients and physicians to get more valid information.

For instance, she said, when the screening tool asks about inflammation, the patient may assume the physician is asking about pain and answer one way, but when a rheumatologist asks the question a slightly different way in the clinic, the patient may give a different answer.
 

First questions in portal, on social media

In the screening intervention (called A-tool) patients first answered three questions via the MyChart portal or Facebook. If they answered all three questions positively, they would move on to another round of questions and the answers would decide whether they would be eligible to come into the rheumatologist to get evaluated for axSpA.

At the study visit, rheumatologists asked the same questions as the online A-tool, which focus on SpA features with reasonable sensitivity and specificity for axSpA (no labs or imaging included). Clinicians’ judgment was considered the gold standard for diagnosis of axSpA.

The authors reported that 1,274 patients answered questions with the screening tool via Facebook (50%) and MyChart (50%) from April 2019 to February 2022. Among the responders, 507 (40%) were eligible for a rheumatologist visit.

As of May 2022, 100 patients were enrolled. Of the enrolled patients, 86 patients completed all the study procedures, including study visit, labs, and imaging (x-ray and MRI of the pelvis). Of the 86 patients, 29 (34%) were diagnosed with axSpA.

The tool appears to help narrow the chronic back pain patients who need to be seen by a rheumatologist for potential axSpA, Dr. Alexander said, which may help to speed diagnosis and also save time and resources.

Dr. McDermott, Dr. Dubreuil, and Dr. Alexander reported no relevant financial relationships. The FaxSpA study was supported with funding from Novartis and the Spondylitis Association of America.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – A panel of urinary biomarkers may do better than measuring proteinuria in predicting which patients with lupus nephritis are going to respond to treatment, according to a presentation at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus.

Physician-scientist Andrea Fava, MD, of the division of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, presented data from a study using urine proteomics to identify biomarkers present in the urine of patients with lupus nephritis at 3 months after starting treatment that were linked to better outcomes from that treatment at 1 year.

While proteinuria is the standard measure used to guide decisions about whether to do a kidney biopsy and how to treat lupus nephritis, it doesn’t always correlate with what’s actually going on inside the kidney in terms of histology and inflammation, Dr. Fava said.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

He pointed to an earlier study in which researchers did kidney biopsies 6 months after patients with lupus nephritis started treatment with mycophenolate. This suggested that around half of patients who showed a clinical response to treatment – defined as proteinuria below 500 mg/day – still had significant histologic disease activity. Another study suggested that this elevated histologic disease activity is associated with a risk of flare, which can result in significant nephron loss. On the flip side, nearly two-thirds of patients in complete histologic remission still had elevated proteinuria.

Unfortunately, it’s not possible or practical to biopsy patients on a regular basis, Dr. Fava said. “So we need better biomarkers, and to do so, we need better knowledge of the pathophysiology because if we have biomarkers that reflect tissue biology in real-time, that may surely guide personalized treatments,” he said at the congress.

Dr. Fava and colleagues enrolled 225 patients with SLE who were undergoing kidney biopsy and 10 healthy controls and used proteomics to quantify the urinary levels of around 1,200 proteins at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months after initiating treatment.

The team then analyzed these data to look for protein signatures that correlated with histologic phenotypes – particularly the amount of inflammation in the kidney – and clinical features such as response to treatment.

They found several protein biomarkers that appeared to be linked to histologic activity in the kidney, including interleukin (IL)-16, CD163, and neutrophil granule proteins.

Initially, the team looked at baseline levels of these proteins to see if they predicted who responded to treatment, but found no difference between responders and nonresponders.

However, when they looked at levels at 3 months after treatment, a pattern emerged. “We found that in patients who were not responding, there were no changes after 3 months of treatment in the urine proteome,” Dr. Fava said. Among those who did respond to treatment, the levels of these proteins – IL-16, CD163, galectin-1, and CD206 – decreased significantly.

“So the proteins that are linked to renal activity decrease only in responders, suggesting that effective immunosuppression is effective in reducing intrarenal inflammation, which eventually results in low proteinuria at 1 year.”

The decline in these biomarkers persisted at 1 year, and the study suggested it was a better predictor of which patients would respond to treatment at 1 year than proteinuria.

Dr. Fava said in an interview that better biomarkers could revolutionize the treatment and management of lupus nephritis.

“First of all, it can shift the management strategy from treatment to prevention, because at the very beginning we can nip it in the bud maybe with very gentle treatment,” he said. Different panels of urine biomarkers could identify patients at risk of treatment failure, and also help patients to taper off their immunosuppressive therapy without an increased risk of flare. “If we have a way to tell us there’s still inflammation that needs treatment, that could change the way we do it,” he said.

He acknowledged there are significant challenges to developing these biomarkers for clinical use; one is the decision of how to define disease activity without relying on proteinuria as a measure. “Why do I want a biomarker that can predict another biomarker?” he said.

Another presentation during the same session, by Huihua Ding, MD, of Shanghai Jiao Tong University in Shanghai, China, reported on the use of urinary L-selectin to assess renal disease activity and response to treatment in a multiethnic cohort.

This study, involving 474 patients with SLE with or without renal involvement in the United States and China, found levels of urinary L-selectin were elevated only in patients with active lupus nephritis and showed patterns that correlated with renal histologic characteristics.

Clinical rheumatologist Eric F. Morand, MD, PhD, and head of the School of Clinical Sciences at Monash University in Melbourne said one challenge with using urinary biomarkers was that it was not yet clear what these biomarkers reveal about the kidney. “It will be important to see whether this proteomic data actually link to renal outcomes,” Dr. Morand said in an interview. “I think predicting the response to treatment should be based around GFR [glomerular filtration rate] preservation, and I don’t think I’ve seen data yet that the urine biomarkers are going to tell us how to do that better.”

Dr. Morand is optimistic that urine biomarkers will one day be able to achieve that, but he stressed the importance of having urine biomarker tests available in the field at low cost. “You’re going to be doing the tests repeatedly, so therefore, you’re probably going to need to come down to a smaller list of proteins that you measure.”

Dr. Fava reported receiving support from Sanofi and Annexion Bio.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – A panel of urinary biomarkers may do better than measuring proteinuria in predicting which patients with lupus nephritis are going to respond to treatment, according to a presentation at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus.

Physician-scientist Andrea Fava, MD, of the division of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, presented data from a study using urine proteomics to identify biomarkers present in the urine of patients with lupus nephritis at 3 months after starting treatment that were linked to better outcomes from that treatment at 1 year.

While proteinuria is the standard measure used to guide decisions about whether to do a kidney biopsy and how to treat lupus nephritis, it doesn’t always correlate with what’s actually going on inside the kidney in terms of histology and inflammation, Dr. Fava said.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

He pointed to an earlier study in which researchers did kidney biopsies 6 months after patients with lupus nephritis started treatment with mycophenolate. This suggested that around half of patients who showed a clinical response to treatment – defined as proteinuria below 500 mg/day – still had significant histologic disease activity. Another study suggested that this elevated histologic disease activity is associated with a risk of flare, which can result in significant nephron loss. On the flip side, nearly two-thirds of patients in complete histologic remission still had elevated proteinuria.

Unfortunately, it’s not possible or practical to biopsy patients on a regular basis, Dr. Fava said. “So we need better biomarkers, and to do so, we need better knowledge of the pathophysiology because if we have biomarkers that reflect tissue biology in real-time, that may surely guide personalized treatments,” he said at the congress.

Dr. Fava and colleagues enrolled 225 patients with SLE who were undergoing kidney biopsy and 10 healthy controls and used proteomics to quantify the urinary levels of around 1,200 proteins at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months after initiating treatment.

The team then analyzed these data to look for protein signatures that correlated with histologic phenotypes – particularly the amount of inflammation in the kidney – and clinical features such as response to treatment.

They found several protein biomarkers that appeared to be linked to histologic activity in the kidney, including interleukin (IL)-16, CD163, and neutrophil granule proteins.

Initially, the team looked at baseline levels of these proteins to see if they predicted who responded to treatment, but found no difference between responders and nonresponders.

However, when they looked at levels at 3 months after treatment, a pattern emerged. “We found that in patients who were not responding, there were no changes after 3 months of treatment in the urine proteome,” Dr. Fava said. Among those who did respond to treatment, the levels of these proteins – IL-16, CD163, galectin-1, and CD206 – decreased significantly.

“So the proteins that are linked to renal activity decrease only in responders, suggesting that effective immunosuppression is effective in reducing intrarenal inflammation, which eventually results in low proteinuria at 1 year.”

The decline in these biomarkers persisted at 1 year, and the study suggested it was a better predictor of which patients would respond to treatment at 1 year than proteinuria.

Dr. Fava said in an interview that better biomarkers could revolutionize the treatment and management of lupus nephritis.

“First of all, it can shift the management strategy from treatment to prevention, because at the very beginning we can nip it in the bud maybe with very gentle treatment,” he said. Different panels of urine biomarkers could identify patients at risk of treatment failure, and also help patients to taper off their immunosuppressive therapy without an increased risk of flare. “If we have a way to tell us there’s still inflammation that needs treatment, that could change the way we do it,” he said.

He acknowledged there are significant challenges to developing these biomarkers for clinical use; one is the decision of how to define disease activity without relying on proteinuria as a measure. “Why do I want a biomarker that can predict another biomarker?” he said.

Another presentation during the same session, by Huihua Ding, MD, of Shanghai Jiao Tong University in Shanghai, China, reported on the use of urinary L-selectin to assess renal disease activity and response to treatment in a multiethnic cohort.

This study, involving 474 patients with SLE with or without renal involvement in the United States and China, found levels of urinary L-selectin were elevated only in patients with active lupus nephritis and showed patterns that correlated with renal histologic characteristics.

Clinical rheumatologist Eric F. Morand, MD, PhD, and head of the School of Clinical Sciences at Monash University in Melbourne said one challenge with using urinary biomarkers was that it was not yet clear what these biomarkers reveal about the kidney. “It will be important to see whether this proteomic data actually link to renal outcomes,” Dr. Morand said in an interview. “I think predicting the response to treatment should be based around GFR [glomerular filtration rate] preservation, and I don’t think I’ve seen data yet that the urine biomarkers are going to tell us how to do that better.”

Dr. Morand is optimistic that urine biomarkers will one day be able to achieve that, but he stressed the importance of having urine biomarker tests available in the field at low cost. “You’re going to be doing the tests repeatedly, so therefore, you’re probably going to need to come down to a smaller list of proteins that you measure.”

Dr. Fava reported receiving support from Sanofi and Annexion Bio.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – A panel of urinary biomarkers may do better than measuring proteinuria in predicting which patients with lupus nephritis are going to respond to treatment, according to a presentation at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus.

Physician-scientist Andrea Fava, MD, of the division of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, presented data from a study using urine proteomics to identify biomarkers present in the urine of patients with lupus nephritis at 3 months after starting treatment that were linked to better outcomes from that treatment at 1 year.

While proteinuria is the standard measure used to guide decisions about whether to do a kidney biopsy and how to treat lupus nephritis, it doesn’t always correlate with what’s actually going on inside the kidney in terms of histology and inflammation, Dr. Fava said.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

He pointed to an earlier study in which researchers did kidney biopsies 6 months after patients with lupus nephritis started treatment with mycophenolate. This suggested that around half of patients who showed a clinical response to treatment – defined as proteinuria below 500 mg/day – still had significant histologic disease activity. Another study suggested that this elevated histologic disease activity is associated with a risk of flare, which can result in significant nephron loss. On the flip side, nearly two-thirds of patients in complete histologic remission still had elevated proteinuria.

Unfortunately, it’s not possible or practical to biopsy patients on a regular basis, Dr. Fava said. “So we need better biomarkers, and to do so, we need better knowledge of the pathophysiology because if we have biomarkers that reflect tissue biology in real-time, that may surely guide personalized treatments,” he said at the congress.

Dr. Fava and colleagues enrolled 225 patients with SLE who were undergoing kidney biopsy and 10 healthy controls and used proteomics to quantify the urinary levels of around 1,200 proteins at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months after initiating treatment.

The team then analyzed these data to look for protein signatures that correlated with histologic phenotypes – particularly the amount of inflammation in the kidney – and clinical features such as response to treatment.

They found several protein biomarkers that appeared to be linked to histologic activity in the kidney, including interleukin (IL)-16, CD163, and neutrophil granule proteins.

Initially, the team looked at baseline levels of these proteins to see if they predicted who responded to treatment, but found no difference between responders and nonresponders.

However, when they looked at levels at 3 months after treatment, a pattern emerged. “We found that in patients who were not responding, there were no changes after 3 months of treatment in the urine proteome,” Dr. Fava said. Among those who did respond to treatment, the levels of these proteins – IL-16, CD163, galectin-1, and CD206 – decreased significantly.

“So the proteins that are linked to renal activity decrease only in responders, suggesting that effective immunosuppression is effective in reducing intrarenal inflammation, which eventually results in low proteinuria at 1 year.”

The decline in these biomarkers persisted at 1 year, and the study suggested it was a better predictor of which patients would respond to treatment at 1 year than proteinuria.

Dr. Fava said in an interview that better biomarkers could revolutionize the treatment and management of lupus nephritis.

“First of all, it can shift the management strategy from treatment to prevention, because at the very beginning we can nip it in the bud maybe with very gentle treatment,” he said. Different panels of urine biomarkers could identify patients at risk of treatment failure, and also help patients to taper off their immunosuppressive therapy without an increased risk of flare. “If we have a way to tell us there’s still inflammation that needs treatment, that could change the way we do it,” he said.

He acknowledged there are significant challenges to developing these biomarkers for clinical use; one is the decision of how to define disease activity without relying on proteinuria as a measure. “Why do I want a biomarker that can predict another biomarker?” he said.

Another presentation during the same session, by Huihua Ding, MD, of Shanghai Jiao Tong University in Shanghai, China, reported on the use of urinary L-selectin to assess renal disease activity and response to treatment in a multiethnic cohort.

This study, involving 474 patients with SLE with or without renal involvement in the United States and China, found levels of urinary L-selectin were elevated only in patients with active lupus nephritis and showed patterns that correlated with renal histologic characteristics.

Clinical rheumatologist Eric F. Morand, MD, PhD, and head of the School of Clinical Sciences at Monash University in Melbourne said one challenge with using urinary biomarkers was that it was not yet clear what these biomarkers reveal about the kidney. “It will be important to see whether this proteomic data actually link to renal outcomes,” Dr. Morand said in an interview. “I think predicting the response to treatment should be based around GFR [glomerular filtration rate] preservation, and I don’t think I’ve seen data yet that the urine biomarkers are going to tell us how to do that better.”

Dr. Morand is optimistic that urine biomarkers will one day be able to achieve that, but he stressed the importance of having urine biomarker tests available in the field at low cost. “You’re going to be doing the tests repeatedly, so therefore, you’re probably going to need to come down to a smaller list of proteins that you measure.”

Dr. Fava reported receiving support from Sanofi and Annexion Bio.

CLEVELAND – Patients with axial spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis who used Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors did not have higher risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or venous thromboembolism (VTE), compared with those who used tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), according to new research.

The information was presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN).

Patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have increased cardiovascular risk compared with the general population. Emerging evidence has suggested that TNFi may protect the cardiovascular system and that there are cardiovascular and thrombotic concerns with JAK inhibitors.

Sali Merjanah, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Boston University, and colleagues, compared how drugs in the two treatment classes affected the likelihood of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or VTE. MACE in this study were myocardial infarction and stroke.

In a search of the Marketscan Database during 2006-2021, the researchers identified 1,621 TNFi and 47 JAK inhibitor users with 273 and 8 cases of MACE, respectively. They identified 2,507 TNFi and 96 JAK users with 452 and 26 cases of VTE, respectively. Patients were aged 18-65 years and had at least one inpatient or two outpatient axSpA or PsA ICD-9 or ICD-10 diagnosis codes separated by at least 7 days.

The likelihood of MACE was 14% lower among JAK inhibitor users than TNFi users (the reference group), whereas the likelihood of VTE was 39% higher for JAK inhibitor users, but neither comparison was statistically significant. JAK/TNFi nonusers had a statistically significant 27% greater likelihood of MACE than did TNFi users. The likelihood for VTE was 12% higher for JAK/TNFi nonusers, compared with TNFi users, but this finding was not statistically significant. The researchers adjusted comparisons for age, medications, and comorbidities.
 

Small numbers complicate the research

Lianne Gensler, MD, director of the Ankylosing Spondylitis Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, who was not part of the study, said the limitations the authors list are important to note. The researchers said that the study’s small number of JAK inhibitor users, short duration of exposure, and low event rate limit its precision, and there is potential misclassification of TNF/JAK inhibitor exposure, as well as confounding by indication.

Dr. Gensler noted that these same limitations apply to studies of patients with RA as well that try to answer the question of risk for MACE and malignancy when using these drugs,

“MACE is a rare event, malignancy is a rare event. So it’s like finding a needle in a haystack, and the haystack is really big. You either have to enrich the haystack with more needles or you have to make a smaller haystack,” Dr. Gensler said.

Nevertheless, she said, she credits the researchers for bringing the available information to light.

“I think we have to do this many different ways to try to get at the answer in a partial way,” she said.

The data were drawn from 2006 to 2021, but JAK inhibitors have only been approved for axSpA in the last one and a half years and for PsA at the end of 2017.

Additionally, the people taking JAK inhibitors would have likely already failed TNFis, she said, adding that this can make it hard to tell whether an event was linked with the JAK or the TNFi.
 

Nonusers may have other risk factors

She pointed out that in this study patients who were not using TNF or JAK inhibitors had slightly higher risk numerically for both MACE and VTE than did those using TNFis.

“There, the assumption is always that this is confounding by indication, meaning it is likely that the people who are nonusers have other risk factors for MACE, which is why we’re not giving them these drugs.”

Having heart failure, for instance, is a contraindication for using a TNF inhibitor, she noted. “So it’s not that these are protective compared to nonusers. It’s probably that the nonuser has higher risk and is not getting treated with these drugs to begin with.”

The authors properly concluded from the data that patients using JAK inhibitors did not have higher risk of MACE or VTE, compared with those who used TNFis, she said, but larger studies with more follow-up are needed.

“No evidence doesn’t mean no effect,” she said. “Part of it depends on the [statistical] power and the population you’re studying.”

Dr. Gensler is a consultant for AbbVie, Acceleron, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; and has received grant support from Novartis and UCB. The authors’ financial relationships were not available.

CLEVELAND – Patients with axial spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis who used Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors did not have higher risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or venous thromboembolism (VTE), compared with those who used tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), according to new research.

The information was presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN).

Patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have increased cardiovascular risk compared with the general population. Emerging evidence has suggested that TNFi may protect the cardiovascular system and that there are cardiovascular and thrombotic concerns with JAK inhibitors.

Sali Merjanah, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Boston University, and colleagues, compared how drugs in the two treatment classes affected the likelihood of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or VTE. MACE in this study were myocardial infarction and stroke.

In a search of the Marketscan Database during 2006-2021, the researchers identified 1,621 TNFi and 47 JAK inhibitor users with 273 and 8 cases of MACE, respectively. They identified 2,507 TNFi and 96 JAK users with 452 and 26 cases of VTE, respectively. Patients were aged 18-65 years and had at least one inpatient or two outpatient axSpA or PsA ICD-9 or ICD-10 diagnosis codes separated by at least 7 days.

The likelihood of MACE was 14% lower among JAK inhibitor users than TNFi users (the reference group), whereas the likelihood of VTE was 39% higher for JAK inhibitor users, but neither comparison was statistically significant. JAK/TNFi nonusers had a statistically significant 27% greater likelihood of MACE than did TNFi users. The likelihood for VTE was 12% higher for JAK/TNFi nonusers, compared with TNFi users, but this finding was not statistically significant. The researchers adjusted comparisons for age, medications, and comorbidities.
 

Small numbers complicate the research

Lianne Gensler, MD, director of the Ankylosing Spondylitis Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, who was not part of the study, said the limitations the authors list are important to note. The researchers said that the study’s small number of JAK inhibitor users, short duration of exposure, and low event rate limit its precision, and there is potential misclassification of TNF/JAK inhibitor exposure, as well as confounding by indication.

Dr. Gensler noted that these same limitations apply to studies of patients with RA as well that try to answer the question of risk for MACE and malignancy when using these drugs,

“MACE is a rare event, malignancy is a rare event. So it’s like finding a needle in a haystack, and the haystack is really big. You either have to enrich the haystack with more needles or you have to make a smaller haystack,” Dr. Gensler said.

Nevertheless, she said, she credits the researchers for bringing the available information to light.

“I think we have to do this many different ways to try to get at the answer in a partial way,” she said.

The data were drawn from 2006 to 2021, but JAK inhibitors have only been approved for axSpA in the last one and a half years and for PsA at the end of 2017.

Additionally, the people taking JAK inhibitors would have likely already failed TNFis, she said, adding that this can make it hard to tell whether an event was linked with the JAK or the TNFi.
 

Nonusers may have other risk factors

She pointed out that in this study patients who were not using TNF or JAK inhibitors had slightly higher risk numerically for both MACE and VTE than did those using TNFis.

“There, the assumption is always that this is confounding by indication, meaning it is likely that the people who are nonusers have other risk factors for MACE, which is why we’re not giving them these drugs.”

Having heart failure, for instance, is a contraindication for using a TNF inhibitor, she noted. “So it’s not that these are protective compared to nonusers. It’s probably that the nonuser has higher risk and is not getting treated with these drugs to begin with.”

The authors properly concluded from the data that patients using JAK inhibitors did not have higher risk of MACE or VTE, compared with those who used TNFis, she said, but larger studies with more follow-up are needed.

“No evidence doesn’t mean no effect,” she said. “Part of it depends on the [statistical] power and the population you’re studying.”

Dr. Gensler is a consultant for AbbVie, Acceleron, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; and has received grant support from Novartis and UCB. The authors’ financial relationships were not available.

CLEVELAND – Patients with axial spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis who used Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors did not have higher risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or venous thromboembolism (VTE), compared with those who used tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), according to new research.

The information was presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN).

Patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have increased cardiovascular risk compared with the general population. Emerging evidence has suggested that TNFi may protect the cardiovascular system and that there are cardiovascular and thrombotic concerns with JAK inhibitors.

Sali Merjanah, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Boston University, and colleagues, compared how drugs in the two treatment classes affected the likelihood of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or VTE. MACE in this study were myocardial infarction and stroke.

In a search of the Marketscan Database during 2006-2021, the researchers identified 1,621 TNFi and 47 JAK inhibitor users with 273 and 8 cases of MACE, respectively. They identified 2,507 TNFi and 96 JAK users with 452 and 26 cases of VTE, respectively. Patients were aged 18-65 years and had at least one inpatient or two outpatient axSpA or PsA ICD-9 or ICD-10 diagnosis codes separated by at least 7 days.

The likelihood of MACE was 14% lower among JAK inhibitor users than TNFi users (the reference group), whereas the likelihood of VTE was 39% higher for JAK inhibitor users, but neither comparison was statistically significant. JAK/TNFi nonusers had a statistically significant 27% greater likelihood of MACE than did TNFi users. The likelihood for VTE was 12% higher for JAK/TNFi nonusers, compared with TNFi users, but this finding was not statistically significant. The researchers adjusted comparisons for age, medications, and comorbidities.
 

Small numbers complicate the research

Lianne Gensler, MD, director of the Ankylosing Spondylitis Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, who was not part of the study, said the limitations the authors list are important to note. The researchers said that the study’s small number of JAK inhibitor users, short duration of exposure, and low event rate limit its precision, and there is potential misclassification of TNF/JAK inhibitor exposure, as well as confounding by indication.

Dr. Gensler noted that these same limitations apply to studies of patients with RA as well that try to answer the question of risk for MACE and malignancy when using these drugs,

“MACE is a rare event, malignancy is a rare event. So it’s like finding a needle in a haystack, and the haystack is really big. You either have to enrich the haystack with more needles or you have to make a smaller haystack,” Dr. Gensler said.

Nevertheless, she said, she credits the researchers for bringing the available information to light.

“I think we have to do this many different ways to try to get at the answer in a partial way,” she said.

The data were drawn from 2006 to 2021, but JAK inhibitors have only been approved for axSpA in the last one and a half years and for PsA at the end of 2017.

Additionally, the people taking JAK inhibitors would have likely already failed TNFis, she said, adding that this can make it hard to tell whether an event was linked with the JAK or the TNFi.
 

Nonusers may have other risk factors

She pointed out that in this study patients who were not using TNF or JAK inhibitors had slightly higher risk numerically for both MACE and VTE than did those using TNFis.

“There, the assumption is always that this is confounding by indication, meaning it is likely that the people who are nonusers have other risk factors for MACE, which is why we’re not giving them these drugs.”

Having heart failure, for instance, is a contraindication for using a TNF inhibitor, she noted. “So it’s not that these are protective compared to nonusers. It’s probably that the nonuser has higher risk and is not getting treated with these drugs to begin with.”

The authors properly concluded from the data that patients using JAK inhibitors did not have higher risk of MACE or VTE, compared with those who used TNFis, she said, but larger studies with more follow-up are needed.

“No evidence doesn’t mean no effect,” she said. “Part of it depends on the [statistical] power and the population you’re studying.”

Dr. Gensler is a consultant for AbbVie, Acceleron, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; and has received grant support from Novartis and UCB. The authors’ financial relationships were not available.

AURORA, COLO. – Artificial Intelligence has arrived at medical offices, whether or not clinicians feel ready for it.

AI might result in more accurate, efficient, and cost-effective care. But it’s possible it could cause harm. That’s according to Benjamin Collins, MD, at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., who spoke on the subject at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

Understanding the nuances of AI is even more important because of the quick development of the algorithms.

“When I submitted this workshop, there was no ChatGPT,” said Dr. Collins, referring to Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer, a recently released natural language processing model. “A lot has already changed.”
 

Biased data

Biased data are perhaps the biggest pitfall of AI algorithms, Dr. Collins said. If garbage data go in, garbage predictions come out.

If the dataset that trains the algorithm underrepresents a particular gender or ethnic group, for example, the algorithm may not respond accurately to prompts. When an AI tool compounds existing inequalities related to socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, the algorithm is biased, according to Harvard researchers.

“People often assume that artificial intelligence is free of bias due to the use of scientific processes and its development,” he said. “But whatever flaws exist in data collection and old data can lead to poor representation or underrepresentation in the data used to train the AI tool.”

Racial minorities are underrepresented in studies; therefore, data input into an AI tool might skew results for these patients.

The Framingham Heart Study, for example, which began in 1948, examined heart disease in mainly White participants. The findings from the study resulted in the creation of a sex-specific algorithm that was used to estimate the 10-year cardiovascular risk of a patient. While the cardiovascular risk score was accurate for White persons, it was less accurate for Black patients.

A study published in Science in 2019 revealed bias in an algorithm that used health care costs as a proxy for health needs. Because less money was spent on Black patients who had the same level of need as their White counterparts, the output inaccurately showed that Black patients were healthier and thus did not require extra care.

Developers can also be a source of bias, inasmuch as AI often reflects preexisting human biases, Dr. Collins said.

“Algorithmic bias presents a clear risk of harm that clinicians must play against the benefits of using AI,” Dr. Collins said. “That risk of harm is often disproportionately distributed to marginalized populations.”

As clinicians use AI algorithms to diagnose and detect disease, predict outcomes, and guide treatment, trouble comes when those algorithms perform well for some patients and poorly for others. This gap can exacerbate existing disparities in health care outcomes.

Dr. Collins advised clinicians to push to find out what data were used to train AI algorithms to determine how bias could have influenced the model and whether the developers risk-adjusted for bias. If the training data are not available, clinicians should ask their employers and AI developers to know more about the system.

Clinicians may face the so-called black box phenomenon, which occurs when developers cannot or will not explain what data went into an AI model, Dr. Collins said.

According to Stanford (Calif.) University, AI must be trained on large datasets of images that have been annotated by human experts. Those datasets can cost millions of dollars to create, meaning corporations often fund them and do not always share the data publicly.

Some groups, such as Stanford’s Center for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine and Imaging, are working to acquire annotated datasets so researchers who train AI models can know where the data came from.

Paul Haidet, MD, MPH, an internist at Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, sees the technology as a tool that requires careful handling.

“It takes a while to learn how to use a stethoscope, and AI is like that,” Dr. Haidet said. “The thing about AI, though, is that it can be just dropped into a system and no one knows how it works.”

Dr. Haidet said he likes knowing how the sausage is made, something AI developers are often reticent to make known.

“If you’re just putting blind faith in a tool, that’s scary,” Dr. Haidet said.
 

Transparency and ‘explainability’

The ability to explain what goes into tools is essential to maintaining trust in the health care system, Dr. Collins said.

“Part of knowing how much trust to place in the system is the transparency of those systems and the ability to audit how well the algorithm is performing,” Dr. Collins said. “The system should also regularly report to users the level of certainty with which it is providing an output rather than providing a simple binary output.”

Dr. Collins recommends that providers develop an understanding of the limits of AI regulations as well, which might including learning how the system was approved and how it is monitored.

“The FDA has oversight over some applications of AI and health care for software as a medical device, but there’s currently no dedicated process to evaluate the systems for the presence of bias,” Dr. Collins said. “The gaps in regulation leave the door open for the use of AI in clinical care that contain significant biases.”

Dr. Haidet likened AI tools to the Global Positioning System: A good GPS system will let users see alternate routes, opt out of toll roads or highways, and will highlight why routes have changed. But users need to understand how to read the map so they can tell when something seems amiss.

Dr. Collins and Dr. Haidet report no relevant financial relationships

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

AURORA, COLO. – Artificial Intelligence has arrived at medical offices, whether or not clinicians feel ready for it.

AI might result in more accurate, efficient, and cost-effective care. But it’s possible it could cause harm. That’s according to Benjamin Collins, MD, at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., who spoke on the subject at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

Understanding the nuances of AI is even more important because of the quick development of the algorithms.

“When I submitted this workshop, there was no ChatGPT,” said Dr. Collins, referring to Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer, a recently released natural language processing model. “A lot has already changed.”
 

Biased data

Biased data are perhaps the biggest pitfall of AI algorithms, Dr. Collins said. If garbage data go in, garbage predictions come out.

If the dataset that trains the algorithm underrepresents a particular gender or ethnic group, for example, the algorithm may not respond accurately to prompts. When an AI tool compounds existing inequalities related to socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, the algorithm is biased, according to Harvard researchers.

“People often assume that artificial intelligence is free of bias due to the use of scientific processes and its development,” he said. “But whatever flaws exist in data collection and old data can lead to poor representation or underrepresentation in the data used to train the AI tool.”

Racial minorities are underrepresented in studies; therefore, data input into an AI tool might skew results for these patients.

The Framingham Heart Study, for example, which began in 1948, examined heart disease in mainly White participants. The findings from the study resulted in the creation of a sex-specific algorithm that was used to estimate the 10-year cardiovascular risk of a patient. While the cardiovascular risk score was accurate for White persons, it was less accurate for Black patients.

A study published in Science in 2019 revealed bias in an algorithm that used health care costs as a proxy for health needs. Because less money was spent on Black patients who had the same level of need as their White counterparts, the output inaccurately showed that Black patients were healthier and thus did not require extra care.

Developers can also be a source of bias, inasmuch as AI often reflects preexisting human biases, Dr. Collins said.

“Algorithmic bias presents a clear risk of harm that clinicians must play against the benefits of using AI,” Dr. Collins said. “That risk of harm is often disproportionately distributed to marginalized populations.”

As clinicians use AI algorithms to diagnose and detect disease, predict outcomes, and guide treatment, trouble comes when those algorithms perform well for some patients and poorly for others. This gap can exacerbate existing disparities in health care outcomes.

Dr. Collins advised clinicians to push to find out what data were used to train AI algorithms to determine how bias could have influenced the model and whether the developers risk-adjusted for bias. If the training data are not available, clinicians should ask their employers and AI developers to know more about the system.

Clinicians may face the so-called black box phenomenon, which occurs when developers cannot or will not explain what data went into an AI model, Dr. Collins said.

According to Stanford (Calif.) University, AI must be trained on large datasets of images that have been annotated by human experts. Those datasets can cost millions of dollars to create, meaning corporations often fund them and do not always share the data publicly.

Some groups, such as Stanford’s Center for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine and Imaging, are working to acquire annotated datasets so researchers who train AI models can know where the data came from.

Paul Haidet, MD, MPH, an internist at Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, sees the technology as a tool that requires careful handling.

“It takes a while to learn how to use a stethoscope, and AI is like that,” Dr. Haidet said. “The thing about AI, though, is that it can be just dropped into a system and no one knows how it works.”

Dr. Haidet said he likes knowing how the sausage is made, something AI developers are often reticent to make known.

“If you’re just putting blind faith in a tool, that’s scary,” Dr. Haidet said.
 

Transparency and ‘explainability’

The ability to explain what goes into tools is essential to maintaining trust in the health care system, Dr. Collins said.

“Part of knowing how much trust to place in the system is the transparency of those systems and the ability to audit how well the algorithm is performing,” Dr. Collins said. “The system should also regularly report to users the level of certainty with which it is providing an output rather than providing a simple binary output.”

Dr. Collins recommends that providers develop an understanding of the limits of AI regulations as well, which might including learning how the system was approved and how it is monitored.

“The FDA has oversight over some applications of AI and health care for software as a medical device, but there’s currently no dedicated process to evaluate the systems for the presence of bias,” Dr. Collins said. “The gaps in regulation leave the door open for the use of AI in clinical care that contain significant biases.”

Dr. Haidet likened AI tools to the Global Positioning System: A good GPS system will let users see alternate routes, opt out of toll roads or highways, and will highlight why routes have changed. But users need to understand how to read the map so they can tell when something seems amiss.

Dr. Collins and Dr. Haidet report no relevant financial relationships

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

AURORA, COLO. – Artificial Intelligence has arrived at medical offices, whether or not clinicians feel ready for it.

AI might result in more accurate, efficient, and cost-effective care. But it’s possible it could cause harm. That’s according to Benjamin Collins, MD, at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., who spoke on the subject at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

Understanding the nuances of AI is even more important because of the quick development of the algorithms.

“When I submitted this workshop, there was no ChatGPT,” said Dr. Collins, referring to Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer, a recently released natural language processing model. “A lot has already changed.”
 

Biased data

Biased data are perhaps the biggest pitfall of AI algorithms, Dr. Collins said. If garbage data go in, garbage predictions come out.

If the dataset that trains the algorithm underrepresents a particular gender or ethnic group, for example, the algorithm may not respond accurately to prompts. When an AI tool compounds existing inequalities related to socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, the algorithm is biased, according to Harvard researchers.

“People often assume that artificial intelligence is free of bias due to the use of scientific processes and its development,” he said. “But whatever flaws exist in data collection and old data can lead to poor representation or underrepresentation in the data used to train the AI tool.”

Racial minorities are underrepresented in studies; therefore, data input into an AI tool might skew results for these patients.

The Framingham Heart Study, for example, which began in 1948, examined heart disease in mainly White participants. The findings from the study resulted in the creation of a sex-specific algorithm that was used to estimate the 10-year cardiovascular risk of a patient. While the cardiovascular risk score was accurate for White persons, it was less accurate for Black patients.

A study published in Science in 2019 revealed bias in an algorithm that used health care costs as a proxy for health needs. Because less money was spent on Black patients who had the same level of need as their White counterparts, the output inaccurately showed that Black patients were healthier and thus did not require extra care.

Developers can also be a source of bias, inasmuch as AI often reflects preexisting human biases, Dr. Collins said.

“Algorithmic bias presents a clear risk of harm that clinicians must play against the benefits of using AI,” Dr. Collins said. “That risk of harm is often disproportionately distributed to marginalized populations.”

As clinicians use AI algorithms to diagnose and detect disease, predict outcomes, and guide treatment, trouble comes when those algorithms perform well for some patients and poorly for others. This gap can exacerbate existing disparities in health care outcomes.

Dr. Collins advised clinicians to push to find out what data were used to train AI algorithms to determine how bias could have influenced the model and whether the developers risk-adjusted for bias. If the training data are not available, clinicians should ask their employers and AI developers to know more about the system.

Clinicians may face the so-called black box phenomenon, which occurs when developers cannot or will not explain what data went into an AI model, Dr. Collins said.

According to Stanford (Calif.) University, AI must be trained on large datasets of images that have been annotated by human experts. Those datasets can cost millions of dollars to create, meaning corporations often fund them and do not always share the data publicly.

Some groups, such as Stanford’s Center for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine and Imaging, are working to acquire annotated datasets so researchers who train AI models can know where the data came from.

Paul Haidet, MD, MPH, an internist at Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, sees the technology as a tool that requires careful handling.

“It takes a while to learn how to use a stethoscope, and AI is like that,” Dr. Haidet said. “The thing about AI, though, is that it can be just dropped into a system and no one knows how it works.”

Dr. Haidet said he likes knowing how the sausage is made, something AI developers are often reticent to make known.

“If you’re just putting blind faith in a tool, that’s scary,” Dr. Haidet said.
 

Transparency and ‘explainability’

The ability to explain what goes into tools is essential to maintaining trust in the health care system, Dr. Collins said.

“Part of knowing how much trust to place in the system is the transparency of those systems and the ability to audit how well the algorithm is performing,” Dr. Collins said. “The system should also regularly report to users the level of certainty with which it is providing an output rather than providing a simple binary output.”

Dr. Collins recommends that providers develop an understanding of the limits of AI regulations as well, which might including learning how the system was approved and how it is monitored.

“The FDA has oversight over some applications of AI and health care for software as a medical device, but there’s currently no dedicated process to evaluate the systems for the presence of bias,” Dr. Collins said. “The gaps in regulation leave the door open for the use of AI in clinical care that contain significant biases.”

Dr. Haidet likened AI tools to the Global Positioning System: A good GPS system will let users see alternate routes, opt out of toll roads or highways, and will highlight why routes have changed. But users need to understand how to read the map so they can tell when something seems amiss.

Dr. Collins and Dr. Haidet report no relevant financial relationships

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

AURORA, COLO. – How often do you talk with patients about how to lower their out-of-pocket costs for medical care?

For most clinicians, the answer is: not often enough. But having those conversations can improve medication adherence and strengthen the patient-clinician relationship, according to panelists at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

The inverse association between out-of-pocket expenditures and fidelity to prescriptions is clear. A 2020 study by the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, for example, found that rates of prescription abandonment are less than 5% when a given medication carries no out-of-pocket cost for patients. That figure rises to 45% when the cost is more than $125, and to 60% when it exceeds $500. One in five Americans said cost prevented them from adhering to medication regimens, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers surveyed more than 2,000 men and women, 40.4% of whom were aged 75 or older. They found that nearly 90% of respondents said they would not be uncomfortable being asked about drug costs before a visit with a physician. A similar share (89.5%) said they would welcome the use by their physician of a real-time tool to determine the cost of their medication.

But the survey results contained a note of warning for clinicians: A significant number of respondents said they would be “extremely” upset if the cost of their medication exceeded the estimate from the pricing tool. And many also said they would be “moderately” or “extremely” angry if their physician used a pricing tool but failed to share the results with them.

“Real-time benefit tools may support medication cost conversations and cost-conscious prescribing, and patients are enthusiastic about their use,” the authors write. “However, if disclosed prices are inaccurate, there is potential for harm through loss of confidence in the physician and nonadherence to prescribed medications.”

While having conversations about cost can be difficult for both clinicians and patients, studies have shown that patients who discuss cost concerns with their doctors feel as if they have stronger relationships as a result.

Clinicians often avoid conversations about out-of-pocket expenses because they don’t know specific price information, they lack solutions to address cost, or they are uncomfortable bringing up the issue.

One member of the audience at the SGIM meeting recalled a patient who worked in a warehouse for a large company. The man, who had type 2 diabetes, had medical insurance, but even with insurance, insulin was going to cost him $150 per month. He struggled to afford the necessary treatment.

“He looked at me and said, ‘What do they want me to do? Do they want me to actually not be able to work for them and not manage my diabetes?’ ”

The clinician said he offered empathy in the moment but felt he could do little else.

Panelists acknowledged that clinicians are crunched on time when seeing patients, but being willing to initiate conversations about cost with patients and to offer resources can help patients get necessary treatment.
 

Start the conversation

Panel member Caroline Sloan, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said making patients aware that you know cost can make a big difference.

The American College of Physicians advises clinicians to ask patients whether they are worried about the cost of care and to not assume which patients may have concerns.

The conversation could be started like this: “I’d like to discuss any concerns you might have about the cost of your health care.”

Normalize the concern by making it more general, and reassure your patient that your goal is to get them the best care. Say something like, “I’ve heard from many patients the cost of medications or tests is becoming hard to manage.”

Once a patient’s concerns are clear, you can direct them to resources for assistance in reducing their costs, Dr. Sloan said, such as ClearHealthCosts, FAIR Health, Healthcare Bluebook, New Choice Health, GoodRx, PharmacyChecker, HealthWell Foundation, Patient Advocate Foundation, Good Days, Good Health Will, Mercy Medical Angels, and the American Association of Family Physicians Neighborhood Navigator.

Dr. Sloan said she knows clinicians don’t have time to understand every insurance plan and other issues related to cost. “But at least know to ask about costs,” she said. “Practice, practice, practice. It feels awkward at first, but it gets easier every time.”

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

AURORA, COLO. – How often do you talk with patients about how to lower their out-of-pocket costs for medical care?

For most clinicians, the answer is: not often enough. But having those conversations can improve medication adherence and strengthen the patient-clinician relationship, according to panelists at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

The inverse association between out-of-pocket expenditures and fidelity to prescriptions is clear. A 2020 study by the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, for example, found that rates of prescription abandonment are less than 5% when a given medication carries no out-of-pocket cost for patients. That figure rises to 45% when the cost is more than $125, and to 60% when it exceeds $500. One in five Americans said cost prevented them from adhering to medication regimens, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers surveyed more than 2,000 men and women, 40.4% of whom were aged 75 or older. They found that nearly 90% of respondents said they would not be uncomfortable being asked about drug costs before a visit with a physician. A similar share (89.5%) said they would welcome the use by their physician of a real-time tool to determine the cost of their medication.

But the survey results contained a note of warning for clinicians: A significant number of respondents said they would be “extremely” upset if the cost of their medication exceeded the estimate from the pricing tool. And many also said they would be “moderately” or “extremely” angry if their physician used a pricing tool but failed to share the results with them.

“Real-time benefit tools may support medication cost conversations and cost-conscious prescribing, and patients are enthusiastic about their use,” the authors write. “However, if disclosed prices are inaccurate, there is potential for harm through loss of confidence in the physician and nonadherence to prescribed medications.”

While having conversations about cost can be difficult for both clinicians and patients, studies have shown that patients who discuss cost concerns with their doctors feel as if they have stronger relationships as a result.

Clinicians often avoid conversations about out-of-pocket expenses because they don’t know specific price information, they lack solutions to address cost, or they are uncomfortable bringing up the issue.

One member of the audience at the SGIM meeting recalled a patient who worked in a warehouse for a large company. The man, who had type 2 diabetes, had medical insurance, but even with insurance, insulin was going to cost him $150 per month. He struggled to afford the necessary treatment.

“He looked at me and said, ‘What do they want me to do? Do they want me to actually not be able to work for them and not manage my diabetes?’ ”

The clinician said he offered empathy in the moment but felt he could do little else.

Panelists acknowledged that clinicians are crunched on time when seeing patients, but being willing to initiate conversations about cost with patients and to offer resources can help patients get necessary treatment.
 

Start the conversation

Panel member Caroline Sloan, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said making patients aware that you know cost can make a big difference.

The American College of Physicians advises clinicians to ask patients whether they are worried about the cost of care and to not assume which patients may have concerns.

The conversation could be started like this: “I’d like to discuss any concerns you might have about the cost of your health care.”

Normalize the concern by making it more general, and reassure your patient that your goal is to get them the best care. Say something like, “I’ve heard from many patients the cost of medications or tests is becoming hard to manage.”

Once a patient’s concerns are clear, you can direct them to resources for assistance in reducing their costs, Dr. Sloan said, such as ClearHealthCosts, FAIR Health, Healthcare Bluebook, New Choice Health, GoodRx, PharmacyChecker, HealthWell Foundation, Patient Advocate Foundation, Good Days, Good Health Will, Mercy Medical Angels, and the American Association of Family Physicians Neighborhood Navigator.

Dr. Sloan said she knows clinicians don’t have time to understand every insurance plan and other issues related to cost. “But at least know to ask about costs,” she said. “Practice, practice, practice. It feels awkward at first, but it gets easier every time.”

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

AURORA, COLO. – How often do you talk with patients about how to lower their out-of-pocket costs for medical care?

For most clinicians, the answer is: not often enough. But having those conversations can improve medication adherence and strengthen the patient-clinician relationship, according to panelists at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

The inverse association between out-of-pocket expenditures and fidelity to prescriptions is clear. A 2020 study by the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, for example, found that rates of prescription abandonment are less than 5% when a given medication carries no out-of-pocket cost for patients. That figure rises to 45% when the cost is more than $125, and to 60% when it exceeds $500. One in five Americans said cost prevented them from adhering to medication regimens, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers surveyed more than 2,000 men and women, 40.4% of whom were aged 75 or older. They found that nearly 90% of respondents said they would not be uncomfortable being asked about drug costs before a visit with a physician. A similar share (89.5%) said they would welcome the use by their physician of a real-time tool to determine the cost of their medication.

But the survey results contained a note of warning for clinicians: A significant number of respondents said they would be “extremely” upset if the cost of their medication exceeded the estimate from the pricing tool. And many also said they would be “moderately” or “extremely” angry if their physician used a pricing tool but failed to share the results with them.

“Real-time benefit tools may support medication cost conversations and cost-conscious prescribing, and patients are enthusiastic about their use,” the authors write. “However, if disclosed prices are inaccurate, there is potential for harm through loss of confidence in the physician and nonadherence to prescribed medications.”

While having conversations about cost can be difficult for both clinicians and patients, studies have shown that patients who discuss cost concerns with their doctors feel as if they have stronger relationships as a result.

Clinicians often avoid conversations about out-of-pocket expenses because they don’t know specific price information, they lack solutions to address cost, or they are uncomfortable bringing up the issue.

One member of the audience at the SGIM meeting recalled a patient who worked in a warehouse for a large company. The man, who had type 2 diabetes, had medical insurance, but even with insurance, insulin was going to cost him $150 per month. He struggled to afford the necessary treatment.

“He looked at me and said, ‘What do they want me to do? Do they want me to actually not be able to work for them and not manage my diabetes?’ ”

The clinician said he offered empathy in the moment but felt he could do little else.

Panelists acknowledged that clinicians are crunched on time when seeing patients, but being willing to initiate conversations about cost with patients and to offer resources can help patients get necessary treatment.
 

Start the conversation

Panel member Caroline Sloan, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said making patients aware that you know cost can make a big difference.

The American College of Physicians advises clinicians to ask patients whether they are worried about the cost of care and to not assume which patients may have concerns.

The conversation could be started like this: “I’d like to discuss any concerns you might have about the cost of your health care.”

Normalize the concern by making it more general, and reassure your patient that your goal is to get them the best care. Say something like, “I’ve heard from many patients the cost of medications or tests is becoming hard to manage.”

Once a patient’s concerns are clear, you can direct them to resources for assistance in reducing their costs, Dr. Sloan said, such as ClearHealthCosts, FAIR Health, Healthcare Bluebook, New Choice Health, GoodRx, PharmacyChecker, HealthWell Foundation, Patient Advocate Foundation, Good Days, Good Health Will, Mercy Medical Angels, and the American Association of Family Physicians Neighborhood Navigator.

Dr. Sloan said she knows clinicians don’t have time to understand every insurance plan and other issues related to cost. “But at least know to ask about costs,” she said. “Practice, practice, practice. It feels awkward at first, but it gets easier every time.”

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

Tuesdays and Fridays are tough. Not so much because of clinic, but rather because of the 32 minutes before clinic that I’m on the Peloton bike. They are the mornings I dedicate to training VO_2max. 

Training VO_2max, or maximal oxygen consumption, is simple. Spin for a leisurely, easy-breathing, 4 minutes, then for 4 minutes push yourself until you see the light of heaven and wish for death to come. Then relax for 4 minutes again. Repeat this cycle four to six times. Done justly, you will dread Tuesdays and Fridays too. The punishing cycle of a 4-minute push, then 4-minute recovery is, however, an excellent way to improve cardiovascular fitness. And no, I’m not training for the Boston Marathon, so why am I working so hard? Because I’m training for marathon clinic days for the next 20 years.

Now more than ever, I feel we have to be physically fit to deal with a physicians’ day’s work. By the time the last patient leaves, I’m beat. From the first bell, patients are packed in, our in boxes are overflowing with messages, pathology results are piling up. It’s exhausting. The root cause is too much work, yes, but I believe being physically fit could help. 

I was talking to an 86-year-old patient about this very topic recently. He was short, with a well-manicured goatee and shiny head. He stuck his arm out to shake my hand. “Glad we’re back to handshakes again, doc.” His grip was that of a 30-year-old. “Buff” you’d likely describe him: He is noticeably muscular, not a skinny old man. He’s an old Navy Master Chief who started a business in wholesale flowers, which distributes all over the United States. And he’s still working full time. Impressed, I asked his secret for such vigor. PT, he replied. 

PT, or physical training, is a foundational element of the Navy. Every sailor starts his or her day with morning PT before carrying out their duties. Some 30 years later, this guy is still getting after it. He does push-ups, sit-ups, and pull-ups nearly every morning. Morning PT is what he attributes to his success not only in health, but also business. As he sees it, he has the business savvy and experience of an old guy and the energy and stamina of a college kid. A good combination for a successful life.

I’ve always been pretty fit. Lately, I’ve been trying to take it to the next level, to not just be “physically active,” but rather “high-performance fit.” There are plenty of sources for instruction; how to stay young and healthy isn’t a new idea after all. I mean, Herodotus wrote of finding the Fountain of Youth in the 5th century BCE. A couple thousand years later, it’s still on trend. One of my favorite sages giving health span advice is Peter Attia, MD. I’ve been a fan since I met him at TEDMED in 2013 and I marvel at the astounding body of work he has created since. A Johns Hopkins–trained surgeon, he has spent his career reviewing the scientific literature about longevity and sharing it as actionable content. His book, “Outlive: The Science and Art of Longevity” (New York: Penguin Random House, 2023) is a nice summary of his work. I recommend it. 

Right now I’m switching between type 2 muscle fiber work (lots of jumping like my 2-year-old) and cardiovascular training including the aforementioned VO_2max work. I cannot say that my patient inbox is any cleaner, or that I’m faster in the office, but I’m not flagging by the end of the day anymore. Master Chief challenged me to match his 10 pull-ups before he returns for his follow up visit. I’ll gladly give up Peloton sprints to work on that.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Tuesdays and Fridays are tough. Not so much because of clinic, but rather because of the 32 minutes before clinic that I’m on the Peloton bike. They are the mornings I dedicate to training VO_2max. 

Training VO_2max, or maximal oxygen consumption, is simple. Spin for a leisurely, easy-breathing, 4 minutes, then for 4 minutes push yourself until you see the light of heaven and wish for death to come. Then relax for 4 minutes again. Repeat this cycle four to six times. Done justly, you will dread Tuesdays and Fridays too. The punishing cycle of a 4-minute push, then 4-minute recovery is, however, an excellent way to improve cardiovascular fitness. And no, I’m not training for the Boston Marathon, so why am I working so hard? Because I’m training for marathon clinic days for the next 20 years.

Now more than ever, I feel we have to be physically fit to deal with a physicians’ day’s work. By the time the last patient leaves, I’m beat. From the first bell, patients are packed in, our in boxes are overflowing with messages, pathology results are piling up. It’s exhausting. The root cause is too much work, yes, but I believe being physically fit could help. 

I was talking to an 86-year-old patient about this very topic recently. He was short, with a well-manicured goatee and shiny head. He stuck his arm out to shake my hand. “Glad we’re back to handshakes again, doc.” His grip was that of a 30-year-old. “Buff” you’d likely describe him: He is noticeably muscular, not a skinny old man. He’s an old Navy Master Chief who started a business in wholesale flowers, which distributes all over the United States. And he’s still working full time. Impressed, I asked his secret for such vigor. PT, he replied. 

PT, or physical training, is a foundational element of the Navy. Every sailor starts his or her day with morning PT before carrying out their duties. Some 30 years later, this guy is still getting after it. He does push-ups, sit-ups, and pull-ups nearly every morning. Morning PT is what he attributes to his success not only in health, but also business. As he sees it, he has the business savvy and experience of an old guy and the energy and stamina of a college kid. A good combination for a successful life.

I’ve always been pretty fit. Lately, I’ve been trying to take it to the next level, to not just be “physically active,” but rather “high-performance fit.” There are plenty of sources for instruction; how to stay young and healthy isn’t a new idea after all. I mean, Herodotus wrote of finding the Fountain of Youth in the 5th century BCE. A couple thousand years later, it’s still on trend. One of my favorite sages giving health span advice is Peter Attia, MD. I’ve been a fan since I met him at TEDMED in 2013 and I marvel at the astounding body of work he has created since. A Johns Hopkins–trained surgeon, he has spent his career reviewing the scientific literature about longevity and sharing it as actionable content. His book, “Outlive: The Science and Art of Longevity” (New York: Penguin Random House, 2023) is a nice summary of his work. I recommend it. 

Right now I’m switching between type 2 muscle fiber work (lots of jumping like my 2-year-old) and cardiovascular training including the aforementioned VO_2max work. I cannot say that my patient inbox is any cleaner, or that I’m faster in the office, but I’m not flagging by the end of the day anymore. Master Chief challenged me to match his 10 pull-ups before he returns for his follow up visit. I’ll gladly give up Peloton sprints to work on that.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Tuesdays and Fridays are tough. Not so much because of clinic, but rather because of the 32 minutes before clinic that I’m on the Peloton bike. They are the mornings I dedicate to training VO_2max. 

Training VO_2max, or maximal oxygen consumption, is simple. Spin for a leisurely, easy-breathing, 4 minutes, then for 4 minutes push yourself until you see the light of heaven and wish for death to come. Then relax for 4 minutes again. Repeat this cycle four to six times. Done justly, you will dread Tuesdays and Fridays too. The punishing cycle of a 4-minute push, then 4-minute recovery is, however, an excellent way to improve cardiovascular fitness. And no, I’m not training for the Boston Marathon, so why am I working so hard? Because I’m training for marathon clinic days for the next 20 years.

Now more than ever, I feel we have to be physically fit to deal with a physicians’ day’s work. By the time the last patient leaves, I’m beat. From the first bell, patients are packed in, our in boxes are overflowing with messages, pathology results are piling up. It’s exhausting. The root cause is too much work, yes, but I believe being physically fit could help. 

I was talking to an 86-year-old patient about this very topic recently. He was short, with a well-manicured goatee and shiny head. He stuck his arm out to shake my hand. “Glad we’re back to handshakes again, doc.” His grip was that of a 30-year-old. “Buff” you’d likely describe him: He is noticeably muscular, not a skinny old man. He’s an old Navy Master Chief who started a business in wholesale flowers, which distributes all over the United States. And he’s still working full time. Impressed, I asked his secret for such vigor. PT, he replied. 

PT, or physical training, is a foundational element of the Navy. Every sailor starts his or her day with morning PT before carrying out their duties. Some 30 years later, this guy is still getting after it. He does push-ups, sit-ups, and pull-ups nearly every morning. Morning PT is what he attributes to his success not only in health, but also business. As he sees it, he has the business savvy and experience of an old guy and the energy and stamina of a college kid. A good combination for a successful life.

I’ve always been pretty fit. Lately, I’ve been trying to take it to the next level, to not just be “physically active,” but rather “high-performance fit.” There are plenty of sources for instruction; how to stay young and healthy isn’t a new idea after all. I mean, Herodotus wrote of finding the Fountain of Youth in the 5th century BCE. A couple thousand years later, it’s still on trend. One of my favorite sages giving health span advice is Peter Attia, MD. I’ve been a fan since I met him at TEDMED in 2013 and I marvel at the astounding body of work he has created since. A Johns Hopkins–trained surgeon, he has spent his career reviewing the scientific literature about longevity and sharing it as actionable content. His book, “Outlive: The Science and Art of Longevity” (New York: Penguin Random House, 2023) is a nice summary of his work. I recommend it. 

Right now I’m switching between type 2 muscle fiber work (lots of jumping like my 2-year-old) and cardiovascular training including the aforementioned VO_2max work. I cannot say that my patient inbox is any cleaner, or that I’m faster in the office, but I’m not flagging by the end of the day anymore. Master Chief challenged me to match his 10 pull-ups before he returns for his follow up visit. I’ll gladly give up Peloton sprints to work on that.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.