Dermatology News

The Food and Drug Administration has granted an interchangeability designation to adalimumab-afzb (Abrilada), according to an announcement from Pfizer.

This is the second adalimumab biosimilar granted interchangeability. The first, adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo), became available in July.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

Biosimilars introduce market competition that can help lower drug prices. Adalimumab-afzb is one of nine approved biosimilars for Humira, and the last to launch in 2023.

Adalimumab-afzb is indicated for:

• Adults with rheumatoid arthritis. 
• Polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis in patients 2 years of age and older.
• Adults with psoriatic arthritis.
• Adults with ankylosing spondylitis.
• Crohn’s disease in adults and children 6 years of age and older.
• Adults with ulcerative colitis.
• Adults with plaque psoriasis.
• Adults with hidradenitis suppurativa.
• Adults with noninfectious intermediate and posterior uveitis and panuveitis.

“With this designation, Abrilada is now both biosimilar to and interchangeable with Humira, reinforcing confidence among physicians and pharmacists that there is no decrease in effectiveness or increase in safety risk associated with switching between Abrilada and the reference product,” Roy Fleischmann, MD, clinical professor of medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in Pfizer’s statement.

An interchangeability designation allows pharmacists to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician (according to state law). To achieve this designation, Pfizer submitted data from a phase 3 study led by Dr. Fleischmann that evaluated adalimumab-afzb in patients with RA. Patients who were switched three times between the biosimilar and the reference product had outcomes similar to those of patients continuously treated with the reference product. 

Adalimumab-afzb will be available later in October at a 5% discount from Humira’s price. Later this year, the drug will launch at a second price, a 60% discount from Humira.

Full prescribing information for adalimumab-afzb is available here.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has granted an interchangeability designation to adalimumab-afzb (Abrilada), according to an announcement from Pfizer.

This is the second adalimumab biosimilar granted interchangeability. The first, adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo), became available in July.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

Biosimilars introduce market competition that can help lower drug prices. Adalimumab-afzb is one of nine approved biosimilars for Humira, and the last to launch in 2023.

Adalimumab-afzb is indicated for:

• Adults with rheumatoid arthritis. 
• Polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis in patients 2 years of age and older.
• Adults with psoriatic arthritis.
• Adults with ankylosing spondylitis.
• Crohn’s disease in adults and children 6 years of age and older.
• Adults with ulcerative colitis.
• Adults with plaque psoriasis.
• Adults with hidradenitis suppurativa.
• Adults with noninfectious intermediate and posterior uveitis and panuveitis.

“With this designation, Abrilada is now both biosimilar to and interchangeable with Humira, reinforcing confidence among physicians and pharmacists that there is no decrease in effectiveness or increase in safety risk associated with switching between Abrilada and the reference product,” Roy Fleischmann, MD, clinical professor of medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in Pfizer’s statement.

An interchangeability designation allows pharmacists to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician (according to state law). To achieve this designation, Pfizer submitted data from a phase 3 study led by Dr. Fleischmann that evaluated adalimumab-afzb in patients with RA. Patients who were switched three times between the biosimilar and the reference product had outcomes similar to those of patients continuously treated with the reference product. 

Adalimumab-afzb will be available later in October at a 5% discount from Humira’s price. Later this year, the drug will launch at a second price, a 60% discount from Humira.

Full prescribing information for adalimumab-afzb is available here.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has granted an interchangeability designation to adalimumab-afzb (Abrilada), according to an announcement from Pfizer.

This is the second adalimumab biosimilar granted interchangeability. The first, adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo), became available in July.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

Biosimilars introduce market competition that can help lower drug prices. Adalimumab-afzb is one of nine approved biosimilars for Humira, and the last to launch in 2023.

Adalimumab-afzb is indicated for:

• Adults with rheumatoid arthritis. 
• Polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis in patients 2 years of age and older.
• Adults with psoriatic arthritis.
• Adults with ankylosing spondylitis.
• Crohn’s disease in adults and children 6 years of age and older.
• Adults with ulcerative colitis.
• Adults with plaque psoriasis.
• Adults with hidradenitis suppurativa.
• Adults with noninfectious intermediate and posterior uveitis and panuveitis.

“With this designation, Abrilada is now both biosimilar to and interchangeable with Humira, reinforcing confidence among physicians and pharmacists that there is no decrease in effectiveness or increase in safety risk associated with switching between Abrilada and the reference product,” Roy Fleischmann, MD, clinical professor of medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in Pfizer’s statement.

An interchangeability designation allows pharmacists to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician (according to state law). To achieve this designation, Pfizer submitted data from a phase 3 study led by Dr. Fleischmann that evaluated adalimumab-afzb in patients with RA. Patients who were switched three times between the biosimilar and the reference product had outcomes similar to those of patients continuously treated with the reference product. 

Adalimumab-afzb will be available later in October at a 5% discount from Humira’s price. Later this year, the drug will launch at a second price, a 60% discount from Humira.

Full prescribing information for adalimumab-afzb is available here.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the use of affirmative action in admissions to colleges, universities, medical schools, and nursing schools. This has led to an enormous amount of worry and concern, particularly in medical school admissions in the world I’m in, where people start to say that diversity matters. Diversity is important.

I know many deans of medical schools immediately sent out messages of reassurance to their students, saying New York University or Stanford or Harvard or Minnesota or Case Western is still deeply concerned about diversity, and we’re going to do what we can to preserve attention to diversity.

I’ve served on admissions at a number of schools over the years for med school. I understand – and have been told – that diversity is important, and according to the Supreme Court, not explicitly by race. There are obviously many variables to take into account when trying to keep diversity at the forefront of admissions.

At the schools I’ve been at, including Columbia, NYU, University of Pittsburgh, University of Minnesota, and University of Pennsylvania, there are plenty of qualified students. Happily, we’ve always been engaged in some effort to try and whittle down the class to the size that we can manage and accept, and many qualified students don’t get admitted.

The first order of business for me is not to worry about how to maintain diversity. It’s to recognize that we need more doctors, nurses, and mental health care providers. I will, in a second, say a few words about diversity and where it fits into admissions, but I want to make the point clearly that what we should be doing is trying to expand the pool of students who are going to become doctors, nurses, mental health care providers, and social workers.

There are too many early retirements. We don’t have the person power we need to manage the health care challenges of an aging population. Let’s not get lost in arguing about what characteristics ought to get you into the finest medical schools. Let’s realize that we have to expand the number of schools we have.

We better be working pretty hard to expand our physician assistant programs, to make sure that we give full authority to qualified dentists and nurses who can help deliver some clinical care. We need more folks. That’s really where the battle ought to be: How do we get that done and how do we get it done quickly, not arguing about who’s in, who’s out, and why.

That said, diversity to me has never meant just race. I’m always interested in gender orientation, disability, and geographic input. Sometimes in decisions that you’re looking at, when I have students in front of me, they tell me they play a musical instrument or about the obstacles they had to overcome to get to medical school. Some of them will say they were involved in 4-H and did rodeo in high school or junior high school, which makes them a diverse potential student with characteristics that maybe some others don’t bring.

I’m not against diversity. I think having a rich set of experiences in any class – medicine, nursing, whatever it’s going to be – is beneficial to the students. They learn from each other. It is sometimes said that it’s also good for patients. I’m a little less excited about that, because I think our training goal should be to make every medical student and nursing student qualified to treat anybody.

I don’t think that, just because you’re Latinx or gay, that’s going to make a gay patient feel better. I think we should teach our students how to give care to everybody that they encounter. They shouldn’t have to match up characteristics to feel like they’re going to get quality care. That isn’t the right reason.

Diversity is important, I think, to teach our students, to broaden our research, and to make sure that bias doesn’t creep in to how we teach, learn, or behave. When you have a diverse set of providers, they can call that out and be on the alert for it, and that’s very important.

I also believe that we should think widely and broadly about diversity. Maybe race is out, but certainly other experiences related to income, background, struggle that got you to the point where you’re applying to medical school, motivation, the kinds of experiences you might have had caring for an elderly person, dealing with a disability or learning disability, and trying to overcome, let’s say, going to school in a poor area with not such a wonderful school, really help in terms of forming professionalism, empathy, and a caring point of view.

To me, the main goal is to expand our workforce. The secondary goal is to stay diverse, because we get better providers when we do so.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the use of affirmative action in admissions to colleges, universities, medical schools, and nursing schools. This has led to an enormous amount of worry and concern, particularly in medical school admissions in the world I’m in, where people start to say that diversity matters. Diversity is important.

I know many deans of medical schools immediately sent out messages of reassurance to their students, saying New York University or Stanford or Harvard or Minnesota or Case Western is still deeply concerned about diversity, and we’re going to do what we can to preserve attention to diversity.

I’ve served on admissions at a number of schools over the years for med school. I understand – and have been told – that diversity is important, and according to the Supreme Court, not explicitly by race. There are obviously many variables to take into account when trying to keep diversity at the forefront of admissions.

At the schools I’ve been at, including Columbia, NYU, University of Pittsburgh, University of Minnesota, and University of Pennsylvania, there are plenty of qualified students. Happily, we’ve always been engaged in some effort to try and whittle down the class to the size that we can manage and accept, and many qualified students don’t get admitted.

The first order of business for me is not to worry about how to maintain diversity. It’s to recognize that we need more doctors, nurses, and mental health care providers. I will, in a second, say a few words about diversity and where it fits into admissions, but I want to make the point clearly that what we should be doing is trying to expand the pool of students who are going to become doctors, nurses, mental health care providers, and social workers.

There are too many early retirements. We don’t have the person power we need to manage the health care challenges of an aging population. Let’s not get lost in arguing about what characteristics ought to get you into the finest medical schools. Let’s realize that we have to expand the number of schools we have.

We better be working pretty hard to expand our physician assistant programs, to make sure that we give full authority to qualified dentists and nurses who can help deliver some clinical care. We need more folks. That’s really where the battle ought to be: How do we get that done and how do we get it done quickly, not arguing about who’s in, who’s out, and why.

That said, diversity to me has never meant just race. I’m always interested in gender orientation, disability, and geographic input. Sometimes in decisions that you’re looking at, when I have students in front of me, they tell me they play a musical instrument or about the obstacles they had to overcome to get to medical school. Some of them will say they were involved in 4-H and did rodeo in high school or junior high school, which makes them a diverse potential student with characteristics that maybe some others don’t bring.

I’m not against diversity. I think having a rich set of experiences in any class – medicine, nursing, whatever it’s going to be – is beneficial to the students. They learn from each other. It is sometimes said that it’s also good for patients. I’m a little less excited about that, because I think our training goal should be to make every medical student and nursing student qualified to treat anybody.

I don’t think that, just because you’re Latinx or gay, that’s going to make a gay patient feel better. I think we should teach our students how to give care to everybody that they encounter. They shouldn’t have to match up characteristics to feel like they’re going to get quality care. That isn’t the right reason.

Diversity is important, I think, to teach our students, to broaden our research, and to make sure that bias doesn’t creep in to how we teach, learn, or behave. When you have a diverse set of providers, they can call that out and be on the alert for it, and that’s very important.

I also believe that we should think widely and broadly about diversity. Maybe race is out, but certainly other experiences related to income, background, struggle that got you to the point where you’re applying to medical school, motivation, the kinds of experiences you might have had caring for an elderly person, dealing with a disability or learning disability, and trying to overcome, let’s say, going to school in a poor area with not such a wonderful school, really help in terms of forming professionalism, empathy, and a caring point of view.

To me, the main goal is to expand our workforce. The secondary goal is to stay diverse, because we get better providers when we do so.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the use of affirmative action in admissions to colleges, universities, medical schools, and nursing schools. This has led to an enormous amount of worry and concern, particularly in medical school admissions in the world I’m in, where people start to say that diversity matters. Diversity is important.

I know many deans of medical schools immediately sent out messages of reassurance to their students, saying New York University or Stanford or Harvard or Minnesota or Case Western is still deeply concerned about diversity, and we’re going to do what we can to preserve attention to diversity.

I’ve served on admissions at a number of schools over the years for med school. I understand – and have been told – that diversity is important, and according to the Supreme Court, not explicitly by race. There are obviously many variables to take into account when trying to keep diversity at the forefront of admissions.

At the schools I’ve been at, including Columbia, NYU, University of Pittsburgh, University of Minnesota, and University of Pennsylvania, there are plenty of qualified students. Happily, we’ve always been engaged in some effort to try and whittle down the class to the size that we can manage and accept, and many qualified students don’t get admitted.

The first order of business for me is not to worry about how to maintain diversity. It’s to recognize that we need more doctors, nurses, and mental health care providers. I will, in a second, say a few words about diversity and where it fits into admissions, but I want to make the point clearly that what we should be doing is trying to expand the pool of students who are going to become doctors, nurses, mental health care providers, and social workers.

There are too many early retirements. We don’t have the person power we need to manage the health care challenges of an aging population. Let’s not get lost in arguing about what characteristics ought to get you into the finest medical schools. Let’s realize that we have to expand the number of schools we have.

We better be working pretty hard to expand our physician assistant programs, to make sure that we give full authority to qualified dentists and nurses who can help deliver some clinical care. We need more folks. That’s really where the battle ought to be: How do we get that done and how do we get it done quickly, not arguing about who’s in, who’s out, and why.

That said, diversity to me has never meant just race. I’m always interested in gender orientation, disability, and geographic input. Sometimes in decisions that you’re looking at, when I have students in front of me, they tell me they play a musical instrument or about the obstacles they had to overcome to get to medical school. Some of them will say they were involved in 4-H and did rodeo in high school or junior high school, which makes them a diverse potential student with characteristics that maybe some others don’t bring.

I’m not against diversity. I think having a rich set of experiences in any class – medicine, nursing, whatever it’s going to be – is beneficial to the students. They learn from each other. It is sometimes said that it’s also good for patients. I’m a little less excited about that, because I think our training goal should be to make every medical student and nursing student qualified to treat anybody.

I don’t think that, just because you’re Latinx or gay, that’s going to make a gay patient feel better. I think we should teach our students how to give care to everybody that they encounter. They shouldn’t have to match up characteristics to feel like they’re going to get quality care. That isn’t the right reason.

Diversity is important, I think, to teach our students, to broaden our research, and to make sure that bias doesn’t creep in to how we teach, learn, or behave. When you have a diverse set of providers, they can call that out and be on the alert for it, and that’s very important.

I also believe that we should think widely and broadly about diversity. Maybe race is out, but certainly other experiences related to income, background, struggle that got you to the point where you’re applying to medical school, motivation, the kinds of experiences you might have had caring for an elderly person, dealing with a disability or learning disability, and trying to overcome, let’s say, going to school in a poor area with not such a wonderful school, really help in terms of forming professionalism, empathy, and a caring point of view.

To me, the main goal is to expand our workforce. The secondary goal is to stay diverse, because we get better providers when we do so.

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

With physicians under increasing pressure to see more patients in shorter office visits, developing a social media presence may offer valuable opportunities to connect with patients, explain procedures, combat misinformation, talk through a published article, and even share a joke or meme.

But there are caveats for doctors posting on social media platforms. This news organization spoke to four doctors who successfully use social media. Here is what they want you to know before you post – and how to make your posts personable and helpful to patients and your practice simultaneously.
 

Use social media for the right reasons

While you’re under no obligation to build a social media presence, if you’re going to do it, be sure your intentions are solid, said Don S. Dizon, MD, professor of medicine and professor of surgery at Brown University, Providence, R.I. Dr. Dizon, as @DoctorDon, has 44,700 TikTok followers and uses the platform to answer cancer-related questions.

“It should be your altruism that motivates you to post,” said Dr. Dizon, who is also associate director of community outreach and engagement at the Legorreta Cancer Center in Providence, R.I., and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital. “What we can do for society at large is to provide our input into issues, add informed opinions where there’s controversy, and address misinformation.”

If you don’t know where to start, consider seeking a digital mentor to talk through your options.

“You may never meet this person, but you should choose them if you like their style, their content, their delivery, and their perspective,” Dr. Dizon said. “Find another doctor out there on social media whom you feel you can emulate. Take your time, too. Soon enough, you’ll develop your own style and your own online persona.”
 

Post clear, accurate information

If you want to be lighthearted on social media, that’s your choice. But Jennifer Trachtenberg, a pediatrician with nearly 7,000 Instagram followers in New York who posts as @askdrjen, prefers to offer vaccine scheduling tips, alert parents about COVID-19 rates, and offer advice on cold and flu prevention.

“Right now, I’m mainly doing this to educate patients and make them aware of topics that I think are important and that I see my patients needing more information on,” she said. “We have to be clear: People take what we say seriously. So, while it’s important to be relatable, it’s even more important to share evidence-based information.”
 

Many patients get their information on social media

While patients once came to the doctor armed with information sourced via “Doctor Google,” today, just as many patients use social media to learn about their condition or the medications they’re taking.

Unfortunately, a recent Ohio State University, Columbus, study found that the majority of gynecologic cancer advice on TikTok, for example, was either misleading or inaccurate.

“This misinformation should be a motivator for physicians to explore the social media space,” Dr. Dizon said. “Our voices need to be on there.”
 

Break down barriers – and make connections

Mike Natter, MD, an endocrinologist in New York, has type 1 diabetes. This informs his work – and his life – and he’s passionate about sharing it with his 117,000 followers as @mike.natter on Instagram.

“A lot of type 1s follow me, so there’s an advocacy component to what I do,” he said. “I enjoy being able to raise awareness and keep people up to date on the newest research and treatment.”

But that’s not all: Dr. Natter is also an artist who went to art school before he went to medical school, and his account is rife with his cartoons and illustrations about everything from valvular disease to diabetic ketoacidosis.

“I found that I was drawing a lot of my notes in medical school,” he said. “When I drew my notes, I did quite well, and I think that using art and illustration is a great tool. It breaks down barriers and makes health information all the more accessible to everyone.”
 

Share your expertise as a doctor – and a person

As a mom and pediatrician, Krupa Playforth, MD, who practices in Vienna, Va., knows that what she posts carries weight. So, whether she’s writing about backpack safety tips, choking hazards, or separation anxiety, her followers can rest assured that she’s posting responsibly.

“Pediatricians often underestimate how smart parents are,” said Dr. Playforth, who has three kids, ages 8, 5, and 2, and has 137,000 followers on @thepediatricianmom, her Instagram account. “Their anxiety comes from an understandable place, which is why I see my role as that of a parent and pediatrician who can translate the knowledge pediatricians have into something parents can understand.”

Dr. Playforth, who jumped on social media during COVID-19 and experienced a positive response in her local community, said being on social media is imperative if you’re a pediatrician.

“This is the future of pediatric medicine in particular,” she said. “A lot of pediatricians don’t want to embrace social media, but I think that’s a mistake. After all, while parents think pediatricians have all the answers, when we think of our own children, most doctors are like other parents – we can’t think objectively about our kids. It’s helpful for me to share that and to help parents feel less alone.”

If you’re not yet using social media to the best of your physician abilities, you might take a shot at becoming widely recognizable. Pick a preferred platform, answer common patient questions, dispel medical myths, provide pertinent information, and let your personality shine.

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

With physicians under increasing pressure to see more patients in shorter office visits, developing a social media presence may offer valuable opportunities to connect with patients, explain procedures, combat misinformation, talk through a published article, and even share a joke or meme.

But there are caveats for doctors posting on social media platforms. This news organization spoke to four doctors who successfully use social media. Here is what they want you to know before you post – and how to make your posts personable and helpful to patients and your practice simultaneously.
 

Use social media for the right reasons

While you’re under no obligation to build a social media presence, if you’re going to do it, be sure your intentions are solid, said Don S. Dizon, MD, professor of medicine and professor of surgery at Brown University, Providence, R.I. Dr. Dizon, as @DoctorDon, has 44,700 TikTok followers and uses the platform to answer cancer-related questions.

“It should be your altruism that motivates you to post,” said Dr. Dizon, who is also associate director of community outreach and engagement at the Legorreta Cancer Center in Providence, R.I., and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital. “What we can do for society at large is to provide our input into issues, add informed opinions where there’s controversy, and address misinformation.”

If you don’t know where to start, consider seeking a digital mentor to talk through your options.

“You may never meet this person, but you should choose them if you like their style, their content, their delivery, and their perspective,” Dr. Dizon said. “Find another doctor out there on social media whom you feel you can emulate. Take your time, too. Soon enough, you’ll develop your own style and your own online persona.”
 

Post clear, accurate information

If you want to be lighthearted on social media, that’s your choice. But Jennifer Trachtenberg, a pediatrician with nearly 7,000 Instagram followers in New York who posts as @askdrjen, prefers to offer vaccine scheduling tips, alert parents about COVID-19 rates, and offer advice on cold and flu prevention.

“Right now, I’m mainly doing this to educate patients and make them aware of topics that I think are important and that I see my patients needing more information on,” she said. “We have to be clear: People take what we say seriously. So, while it’s important to be relatable, it’s even more important to share evidence-based information.”
 

Many patients get their information on social media

While patients once came to the doctor armed with information sourced via “Doctor Google,” today, just as many patients use social media to learn about their condition or the medications they’re taking.

Unfortunately, a recent Ohio State University, Columbus, study found that the majority of gynecologic cancer advice on TikTok, for example, was either misleading or inaccurate.

“This misinformation should be a motivator for physicians to explore the social media space,” Dr. Dizon said. “Our voices need to be on there.”
 

Break down barriers – and make connections

Mike Natter, MD, an endocrinologist in New York, has type 1 diabetes. This informs his work – and his life – and he’s passionate about sharing it with his 117,000 followers as @mike.natter on Instagram.

“A lot of type 1s follow me, so there’s an advocacy component to what I do,” he said. “I enjoy being able to raise awareness and keep people up to date on the newest research and treatment.”

But that’s not all: Dr. Natter is also an artist who went to art school before he went to medical school, and his account is rife with his cartoons and illustrations about everything from valvular disease to diabetic ketoacidosis.

“I found that I was drawing a lot of my notes in medical school,” he said. “When I drew my notes, I did quite well, and I think that using art and illustration is a great tool. It breaks down barriers and makes health information all the more accessible to everyone.”
 

Share your expertise as a doctor – and a person

As a mom and pediatrician, Krupa Playforth, MD, who practices in Vienna, Va., knows that what she posts carries weight. So, whether she’s writing about backpack safety tips, choking hazards, or separation anxiety, her followers can rest assured that she’s posting responsibly.

“Pediatricians often underestimate how smart parents are,” said Dr. Playforth, who has three kids, ages 8, 5, and 2, and has 137,000 followers on @thepediatricianmom, her Instagram account. “Their anxiety comes from an understandable place, which is why I see my role as that of a parent and pediatrician who can translate the knowledge pediatricians have into something parents can understand.”

Dr. Playforth, who jumped on social media during COVID-19 and experienced a positive response in her local community, said being on social media is imperative if you’re a pediatrician.

“This is the future of pediatric medicine in particular,” she said. “A lot of pediatricians don’t want to embrace social media, but I think that’s a mistake. After all, while parents think pediatricians have all the answers, when we think of our own children, most doctors are like other parents – we can’t think objectively about our kids. It’s helpful for me to share that and to help parents feel less alone.”

If you’re not yet using social media to the best of your physician abilities, you might take a shot at becoming widely recognizable. Pick a preferred platform, answer common patient questions, dispel medical myths, provide pertinent information, and let your personality shine.

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

With physicians under increasing pressure to see more patients in shorter office visits, developing a social media presence may offer valuable opportunities to connect with patients, explain procedures, combat misinformation, talk through a published article, and even share a joke or meme.

But there are caveats for doctors posting on social media platforms. This news organization spoke to four doctors who successfully use social media. Here is what they want you to know before you post – and how to make your posts personable and helpful to patients and your practice simultaneously.
 

Use social media for the right reasons

While you’re under no obligation to build a social media presence, if you’re going to do it, be sure your intentions are solid, said Don S. Dizon, MD, professor of medicine and professor of surgery at Brown University, Providence, R.I. Dr. Dizon, as @DoctorDon, has 44,700 TikTok followers and uses the platform to answer cancer-related questions.

“It should be your altruism that motivates you to post,” said Dr. Dizon, who is also associate director of community outreach and engagement at the Legorreta Cancer Center in Providence, R.I., and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital. “What we can do for society at large is to provide our input into issues, add informed opinions where there’s controversy, and address misinformation.”

If you don’t know where to start, consider seeking a digital mentor to talk through your options.

“You may never meet this person, but you should choose them if you like their style, their content, their delivery, and their perspective,” Dr. Dizon said. “Find another doctor out there on social media whom you feel you can emulate. Take your time, too. Soon enough, you’ll develop your own style and your own online persona.”
 

Post clear, accurate information

If you want to be lighthearted on social media, that’s your choice. But Jennifer Trachtenberg, a pediatrician with nearly 7,000 Instagram followers in New York who posts as @askdrjen, prefers to offer vaccine scheduling tips, alert parents about COVID-19 rates, and offer advice on cold and flu prevention.

“Right now, I’m mainly doing this to educate patients and make them aware of topics that I think are important and that I see my patients needing more information on,” she said. “We have to be clear: People take what we say seriously. So, while it’s important to be relatable, it’s even more important to share evidence-based information.”
 

Many patients get their information on social media

While patients once came to the doctor armed with information sourced via “Doctor Google,” today, just as many patients use social media to learn about their condition or the medications they’re taking.

Unfortunately, a recent Ohio State University, Columbus, study found that the majority of gynecologic cancer advice on TikTok, for example, was either misleading or inaccurate.

“This misinformation should be a motivator for physicians to explore the social media space,” Dr. Dizon said. “Our voices need to be on there.”
 

Break down barriers – and make connections

Mike Natter, MD, an endocrinologist in New York, has type 1 diabetes. This informs his work – and his life – and he’s passionate about sharing it with his 117,000 followers as @mike.natter on Instagram.

“A lot of type 1s follow me, so there’s an advocacy component to what I do,” he said. “I enjoy being able to raise awareness and keep people up to date on the newest research and treatment.”

But that’s not all: Dr. Natter is also an artist who went to art school before he went to medical school, and his account is rife with his cartoons and illustrations about everything from valvular disease to diabetic ketoacidosis.

“I found that I was drawing a lot of my notes in medical school,” he said. “When I drew my notes, I did quite well, and I think that using art and illustration is a great tool. It breaks down barriers and makes health information all the more accessible to everyone.”
 

Share your expertise as a doctor – and a person

As a mom and pediatrician, Krupa Playforth, MD, who practices in Vienna, Va., knows that what she posts carries weight. So, whether she’s writing about backpack safety tips, choking hazards, or separation anxiety, her followers can rest assured that she’s posting responsibly.

“Pediatricians often underestimate how smart parents are,” said Dr. Playforth, who has three kids, ages 8, 5, and 2, and has 137,000 followers on @thepediatricianmom, her Instagram account. “Their anxiety comes from an understandable place, which is why I see my role as that of a parent and pediatrician who can translate the knowledge pediatricians have into something parents can understand.”

Dr. Playforth, who jumped on social media during COVID-19 and experienced a positive response in her local community, said being on social media is imperative if you’re a pediatrician.

“This is the future of pediatric medicine in particular,” she said. “A lot of pediatricians don’t want to embrace social media, but I think that’s a mistake. After all, while parents think pediatricians have all the answers, when we think of our own children, most doctors are like other parents – we can’t think objectively about our kids. It’s helpful for me to share that and to help parents feel less alone.”

If you’re not yet using social media to the best of your physician abilities, you might take a shot at becoming widely recognizable. Pick a preferred platform, answer common patient questions, dispel medical myths, provide pertinent information, and let your personality shine.

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

CARLSBAD, CALIF. – Spironolactone may be an effective and safe treatment option for women with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), regardless of whether they report having menstrual HS flares or have been diagnosed with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

Those are the key findings from a single-center retrospective study that Jennifer L. Hsiao, MD, and colleagues presented during a poster session at the annual symposium of the California Society of Dermatology & Dermatologic Surgery.

In an interview after the meeting, Dr. Hsiao, a dermatologist who directs the hidradenitis suppurativa clinic at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said that hormones are thought to play a role in HS pathogenesis given the typical HS symptom onset around puberty and fluctuations in disease activity with menses (typically premenstrual flares) and pregnancy. “Spironolactone, an anti-androgenic agent, is used to treat HS in women; however, there is a paucity of data on the efficacy of spironolactone for HS and whether certain patient characteristics may influence treatment response,” she told this news organization. “This study is unique in that we contribute to existing literature regarding spironolactone efficacy in HS and we also investigate whether the presence of menstrual HS flares or polycystic ovarian syndrome influences the likelihood of response to spironolactone.”

Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International

For the analysis, Dr. Hsiao and colleagues retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 53 adult women with HS who were prescribed spironolactone and who received care at USC’s HS clinic between January 2015 and December 2021. They collected data on demographics, comorbidities, HS medications, treatment response at 3 and 6 months, as well as adverse events. They also evaluated physician-assessed response to treatment when available.

The mean age of patients was 31 years, 37% were White, 30.4% were Black, 21.7% were Hispanic, 6.5% were Asian, and the remainder were biracial. The mean age at HS diagnosis was 25.1 years and the three most common comorbidities were acne (50.9%), obesity (45.3%), and anemia (37.7%). As for menstrual history, 56.6% had perimenstrual HS flares and 37.7% had irregular menstrual cycles. The top three classes of concomitant medications were antibiotics (58.5%), oral contraceptives (50.9%), and other birth control methods (18.9%).

The mean spironolactone dose was 104 mg/day; 84.1% of the women experienced improvement of HS 3 months after starting the drug, while 81.8% had improvement of their HS 6 months after starting the drug. The researchers also found that 56.6% of women had documented perimenstrual HS flares and 7.5% had PCOS.

“Spironolactone is often thought of as a helpful medication to consider if a patient reports having HS flares around menses or features of PCOS,” Dr. Hsiao said. However, she added, “our study found that there was no statistically significant difference in the response to spironolactone based on the presence of premenstrual flares or concomitant PCOS.” She said that spironolactone may be used as an adjunct therapeutic option in patients with more severe disease in addition to other medical and surgical therapies for HS. “Combining different treatment options that target different pathophysiologic factors is usually required to achieve adequate disease control in HS,” she said.

Dr. Hsiao acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its single-center design and small sample size. “A confounding variable is that some patients were on other medications in addition to spironolactone, which may have influenced treatment outcomes,” she noted. “Larger prospective studies are needed to identify optimal dosing for spironolactone therapy in HS as well as predictors of treatment response.”

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that with only one FDA-approved systemic medication for the management of HS (adalimumab), “we off-label bandits must be creative to curtail the incredibly painful impact this chronic, destructive inflammatory disease can have on our patients.”

“The evidence supporting our approaches, whether it be antibiotics, immunomodulators, or in this case, antihormonal therapies, is limited, so more data is always welcome,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study. “One very interesting point raised by the authors, one I share with my trainees frequently from my own experience, is that regardless of menstrual cycle abnormalities, spironolactone can be impactful. This is important to remember, in that overt signs of hormonal influences is not a requisite for the use or effectiveness of antihormonal therapy.”

Dr. Hsiao disclosed that she is a member of board of directors for the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation. She has also served as a consultant for AbbVie, Aclaris, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, UCB, as a speaker for AbbVie, and as an investigator for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Incyte. Dr. Friedman reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

CARLSBAD, CALIF. – Spironolactone may be an effective and safe treatment option for women with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), regardless of whether they report having menstrual HS flares or have been diagnosed with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

Those are the key findings from a single-center retrospective study that Jennifer L. Hsiao, MD, and colleagues presented during a poster session at the annual symposium of the California Society of Dermatology & Dermatologic Surgery.

In an interview after the meeting, Dr. Hsiao, a dermatologist who directs the hidradenitis suppurativa clinic at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said that hormones are thought to play a role in HS pathogenesis given the typical HS symptom onset around puberty and fluctuations in disease activity with menses (typically premenstrual flares) and pregnancy. “Spironolactone, an anti-androgenic agent, is used to treat HS in women; however, there is a paucity of data on the efficacy of spironolactone for HS and whether certain patient characteristics may influence treatment response,” she told this news organization. “This study is unique in that we contribute to existing literature regarding spironolactone efficacy in HS and we also investigate whether the presence of menstrual HS flares or polycystic ovarian syndrome influences the likelihood of response to spironolactone.”

Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International

For the analysis, Dr. Hsiao and colleagues retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 53 adult women with HS who were prescribed spironolactone and who received care at USC’s HS clinic between January 2015 and December 2021. They collected data on demographics, comorbidities, HS medications, treatment response at 3 and 6 months, as well as adverse events. They also evaluated physician-assessed response to treatment when available.

The mean age of patients was 31 years, 37% were White, 30.4% were Black, 21.7% were Hispanic, 6.5% were Asian, and the remainder were biracial. The mean age at HS diagnosis was 25.1 years and the three most common comorbidities were acne (50.9%), obesity (45.3%), and anemia (37.7%). As for menstrual history, 56.6% had perimenstrual HS flares and 37.7% had irregular menstrual cycles. The top three classes of concomitant medications were antibiotics (58.5%), oral contraceptives (50.9%), and other birth control methods (18.9%).

The mean spironolactone dose was 104 mg/day; 84.1% of the women experienced improvement of HS 3 months after starting the drug, while 81.8% had improvement of their HS 6 months after starting the drug. The researchers also found that 56.6% of women had documented perimenstrual HS flares and 7.5% had PCOS.

“Spironolactone is often thought of as a helpful medication to consider if a patient reports having HS flares around menses or features of PCOS,” Dr. Hsiao said. However, she added, “our study found that there was no statistically significant difference in the response to spironolactone based on the presence of premenstrual flares or concomitant PCOS.” She said that spironolactone may be used as an adjunct therapeutic option in patients with more severe disease in addition to other medical and surgical therapies for HS. “Combining different treatment options that target different pathophysiologic factors is usually required to achieve adequate disease control in HS,” she said.

Dr. Hsiao acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its single-center design and small sample size. “A confounding variable is that some patients were on other medications in addition to spironolactone, which may have influenced treatment outcomes,” she noted. “Larger prospective studies are needed to identify optimal dosing for spironolactone therapy in HS as well as predictors of treatment response.”

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that with only one FDA-approved systemic medication for the management of HS (adalimumab), “we off-label bandits must be creative to curtail the incredibly painful impact this chronic, destructive inflammatory disease can have on our patients.”

“The evidence supporting our approaches, whether it be antibiotics, immunomodulators, or in this case, antihormonal therapies, is limited, so more data is always welcome,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study. “One very interesting point raised by the authors, one I share with my trainees frequently from my own experience, is that regardless of menstrual cycle abnormalities, spironolactone can be impactful. This is important to remember, in that overt signs of hormonal influences is not a requisite for the use or effectiveness of antihormonal therapy.”

Dr. Hsiao disclosed that she is a member of board of directors for the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation. She has also served as a consultant for AbbVie, Aclaris, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, UCB, as a speaker for AbbVie, and as an investigator for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Incyte. Dr. Friedman reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

CARLSBAD, CALIF. – Spironolactone may be an effective and safe treatment option for women with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), regardless of whether they report having menstrual HS flares or have been diagnosed with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

Those are the key findings from a single-center retrospective study that Jennifer L. Hsiao, MD, and colleagues presented during a poster session at the annual symposium of the California Society of Dermatology & Dermatologic Surgery.

In an interview after the meeting, Dr. Hsiao, a dermatologist who directs the hidradenitis suppurativa clinic at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said that hormones are thought to play a role in HS pathogenesis given the typical HS symptom onset around puberty and fluctuations in disease activity with menses (typically premenstrual flares) and pregnancy. “Spironolactone, an anti-androgenic agent, is used to treat HS in women; however, there is a paucity of data on the efficacy of spironolactone for HS and whether certain patient characteristics may influence treatment response,” she told this news organization. “This study is unique in that we contribute to existing literature regarding spironolactone efficacy in HS and we also investigate whether the presence of menstrual HS flares or polycystic ovarian syndrome influences the likelihood of response to spironolactone.”

Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International

For the analysis, Dr. Hsiao and colleagues retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 53 adult women with HS who were prescribed spironolactone and who received care at USC’s HS clinic between January 2015 and December 2021. They collected data on demographics, comorbidities, HS medications, treatment response at 3 and 6 months, as well as adverse events. They also evaluated physician-assessed response to treatment when available.

The mean age of patients was 31 years, 37% were White, 30.4% were Black, 21.7% were Hispanic, 6.5% were Asian, and the remainder were biracial. The mean age at HS diagnosis was 25.1 years and the three most common comorbidities were acne (50.9%), obesity (45.3%), and anemia (37.7%). As for menstrual history, 56.6% had perimenstrual HS flares and 37.7% had irregular menstrual cycles. The top three classes of concomitant medications were antibiotics (58.5%), oral contraceptives (50.9%), and other birth control methods (18.9%).

The mean spironolactone dose was 104 mg/day; 84.1% of the women experienced improvement of HS 3 months after starting the drug, while 81.8% had improvement of their HS 6 months after starting the drug. The researchers also found that 56.6% of women had documented perimenstrual HS flares and 7.5% had PCOS.

“Spironolactone is often thought of as a helpful medication to consider if a patient reports having HS flares around menses or features of PCOS,” Dr. Hsiao said. However, she added, “our study found that there was no statistically significant difference in the response to spironolactone based on the presence of premenstrual flares or concomitant PCOS.” She said that spironolactone may be used as an adjunct therapeutic option in patients with more severe disease in addition to other medical and surgical therapies for HS. “Combining different treatment options that target different pathophysiologic factors is usually required to achieve adequate disease control in HS,” she said.

Dr. Hsiao acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its single-center design and small sample size. “A confounding variable is that some patients were on other medications in addition to spironolactone, which may have influenced treatment outcomes,” she noted. “Larger prospective studies are needed to identify optimal dosing for spironolactone therapy in HS as well as predictors of treatment response.”

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that with only one FDA-approved systemic medication for the management of HS (adalimumab), “we off-label bandits must be creative to curtail the incredibly painful impact this chronic, destructive inflammatory disease can have on our patients.”

“The evidence supporting our approaches, whether it be antibiotics, immunomodulators, or in this case, antihormonal therapies, is limited, so more data is always welcome,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study. “One very interesting point raised by the authors, one I share with my trainees frequently from my own experience, is that regardless of menstrual cycle abnormalities, spironolactone can be impactful. This is important to remember, in that overt signs of hormonal influences is not a requisite for the use or effectiveness of antihormonal therapy.”

Dr. Hsiao disclosed that she is a member of board of directors for the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation. She has also served as a consultant for AbbVie, Aclaris, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, UCB, as a speaker for AbbVie, and as an investigator for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Incyte. Dr. Friedman reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

She went by the name “Dr. Roxy” on social media and became something of a sensation on TikTok, where she livestreamed her patients’ operations. Ultimately, however, plastic surgeon Katharine Roxanne Grawe, MD, lost her medical license based partly on her “life-altering, reckless treatment,” heightened by her social media fame. In July, the Ohio state medical board permanently revoked Dr. Grawe’s license after twice reprimanding her for her failure to meet the standard of care. The board also determined that, by livestreaming procedures, she placed her patients in danger of immediate and serious harm.

Although most doctors don’t use social media to the degree that Dr. Grawe did, using the various platforms – from X (formerly Twitter) to Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok – can be a slippery slope. Medscape’s Physician Behavior Report 2023 revealed that doctors have seen their share of unprofessional or offensive social media use from their peers. Nearly 7 in 10 said it is unethical for a doctor to act rudely, offensively, or unprofessionally on social media, even if their medical practice isn’t mentioned. As one physician put it: “Professional is not a 9-to-5 descriptor.”

In today’s world, social media use is almost a given. Doctors must tread cautiously when they approach it – maybe even more so. “There’s still a stigma attached,” said Liudmila Schafer, MD, an oncologist with The Doctor Connect, a career consulting firm. “Physicians face a tougher challenge due to societal expectations of perfection, with greater consequences for mistakes. We’re under constant ‘observation’ from peers, employers, and patients.”

Beverly Hills plastic surgeon Jay Calvert, MD, says he holds firm boundaries with how he uses social media. “I do comedy on the side, but it’s not acceptable for me as a doctor to share that on social media,” he said. “People want doctors who are professional, and I’m always concerned about how I present myself.”

Dr. Calvert said it is fairly easy to spot doctors who cross the line with social media. “You have to hold yourself back when posting. Doing things like dancing in the OR are out of whack with the profession.”

According to Dr. Schafer, a definite line to avoid crossing is offering medical advice or guidance on social media. “You also can’t discuss confidential practice details, respond to unfamiliar contacts, or discuss institutional policies without permission,” she said. “It’s important to add disclaimers if a personal scientific opinion is shared without reference [or] research or with unchecked sources.”
 

Navigating the many social media sites

Each social media platform has its pros and cons. Doctors need to determine why to use them and what the payback of each might be. Dr. Schafer uses multiple sites, including LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, Threads, YouTube, and, to a lesser degree, Clubhouse. How and what she posts on each varies. “I use them almost 95% professionally,” she said. “It’s challenging to meet and engage in person, so that is where social media helps.”

Stephen Pribut, MD, a Washington-based podiatrist, likes to use X as an information source. He follows pretty simple rules when it comes to what he tweets and shares on various sites: “I stay away from politics and religion,” he said. “I also avoid controversial topics online, such as vaccines.”

Joseph Daibes, DO, who specializes in cardiovascular medicine at New Jersey Heart and Vein, Clifton, said he has changed how he uses social media. “Initially, I was a passive consumer, but as I recognized the importance of accurate medical information online, I became more active in weighing in responsibly, occasionally sharing studies, debunking myths, and engaging in meaningful conversations,” he said. “Social media can get dangerous, so we have a duty to use it responsibly, and I cannot stress that enough.”

For plastic surgeons like Dr. Calvert, the visual platforms such as Instagram can prove invaluable for marketing purposes. “I’ve been using Instagram since 2012, and it’s been my most positive experience,” he said. “I don’t generate business from it, but I use it to back up my qualifications as a surgeon.”

Potential patients like to scroll through posts by plastic surgeons to learn what their finished product looks like, Dr. Calvert said. In many cases, plastic surgeons hire social media experts to cultivate their content. “I’ve hired and fired social media managers over the years, ultimately deciding I should develop my own content,” he said. “I want people to see the same doctor on social media that they will see in the office. I like an authentic presentation, not glitzy.”
 

Social media gone wrong

Dr. Calvert said that in the world of plastic surgery, some doctors use social media to present “before and after” compilations that in his opinion aren’t necessarily fully authentic, and this rubs him wrong. “There’s a bit of ‘cheating’ in some of these posts, using filters, making the ‘befores’ particularly bad, and other tricks,” he said.

Dr. Daibes has also seen his share of social media misuse: ”Red flags include oversharing personal indulgences, engaging in online spats, or making unfounded medical claims,” he said. “It’s essential to remember our role as educators and advocates, and to present ourselves in a way that upholds the dignity of our profession.”

At the end of the day, social media can have positive uses for physicians, and it is clearly here to stay. The onus for responsible use ultimately falls to the physicians using it.

Dr. Daibes emphasizes the fact that a doctor’s words carry weight – perhaps more so than those of other professionals. “The added scrutiny is good because it keeps us accountable; it’s crucial that our information is accurate,” he said. “The downside is that the scrutiny can be stifling at times and lead to self-censorship, even on nonmedical matters.”

Physicians have suggested eight guidelines for doctors to follow when using social media:

• Remember that you represent your profession, even if posting on personal accounts.
• Never post from the operating room, the emergency department, or any sort of medical space.
• If you’re employed, before you post, check with your employer to see whether they have any rules or guidance surrounding social media.
• Never use social media to badmouth colleagues, hospitals, or other healthcare organizations.
• Never use social media to dispense medical advice.
• Steer clear of the obvious hot-button issues, like religion and politics.
• Always protect patient privacy when posting.
• Be careful with how and whom you engage on social media.

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

She went by the name “Dr. Roxy” on social media and became something of a sensation on TikTok, where she livestreamed her patients’ operations. Ultimately, however, plastic surgeon Katharine Roxanne Grawe, MD, lost her medical license based partly on her “life-altering, reckless treatment,” heightened by her social media fame. In July, the Ohio state medical board permanently revoked Dr. Grawe’s license after twice reprimanding her for her failure to meet the standard of care. The board also determined that, by livestreaming procedures, she placed her patients in danger of immediate and serious harm.

Although most doctors don’t use social media to the degree that Dr. Grawe did, using the various platforms – from X (formerly Twitter) to Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok – can be a slippery slope. Medscape’s Physician Behavior Report 2023 revealed that doctors have seen their share of unprofessional or offensive social media use from their peers. Nearly 7 in 10 said it is unethical for a doctor to act rudely, offensively, or unprofessionally on social media, even if their medical practice isn’t mentioned. As one physician put it: “Professional is not a 9-to-5 descriptor.”

In today’s world, social media use is almost a given. Doctors must tread cautiously when they approach it – maybe even more so. “There’s still a stigma attached,” said Liudmila Schafer, MD, an oncologist with The Doctor Connect, a career consulting firm. “Physicians face a tougher challenge due to societal expectations of perfection, with greater consequences for mistakes. We’re under constant ‘observation’ from peers, employers, and patients.”

Beverly Hills plastic surgeon Jay Calvert, MD, says he holds firm boundaries with how he uses social media. “I do comedy on the side, but it’s not acceptable for me as a doctor to share that on social media,” he said. “People want doctors who are professional, and I’m always concerned about how I present myself.”

Dr. Calvert said it is fairly easy to spot doctors who cross the line with social media. “You have to hold yourself back when posting. Doing things like dancing in the OR are out of whack with the profession.”

According to Dr. Schafer, a definite line to avoid crossing is offering medical advice or guidance on social media. “You also can’t discuss confidential practice details, respond to unfamiliar contacts, or discuss institutional policies without permission,” she said. “It’s important to add disclaimers if a personal scientific opinion is shared without reference [or] research or with unchecked sources.”
 

Navigating the many social media sites

Each social media platform has its pros and cons. Doctors need to determine why to use them and what the payback of each might be. Dr. Schafer uses multiple sites, including LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, Threads, YouTube, and, to a lesser degree, Clubhouse. How and what she posts on each varies. “I use them almost 95% professionally,” she said. “It’s challenging to meet and engage in person, so that is where social media helps.”

Stephen Pribut, MD, a Washington-based podiatrist, likes to use X as an information source. He follows pretty simple rules when it comes to what he tweets and shares on various sites: “I stay away from politics and religion,” he said. “I also avoid controversial topics online, such as vaccines.”

Joseph Daibes, DO, who specializes in cardiovascular medicine at New Jersey Heart and Vein, Clifton, said he has changed how he uses social media. “Initially, I was a passive consumer, but as I recognized the importance of accurate medical information online, I became more active in weighing in responsibly, occasionally sharing studies, debunking myths, and engaging in meaningful conversations,” he said. “Social media can get dangerous, so we have a duty to use it responsibly, and I cannot stress that enough.”

For plastic surgeons like Dr. Calvert, the visual platforms such as Instagram can prove invaluable for marketing purposes. “I’ve been using Instagram since 2012, and it’s been my most positive experience,” he said. “I don’t generate business from it, but I use it to back up my qualifications as a surgeon.”

Potential patients like to scroll through posts by plastic surgeons to learn what their finished product looks like, Dr. Calvert said. In many cases, plastic surgeons hire social media experts to cultivate their content. “I’ve hired and fired social media managers over the years, ultimately deciding I should develop my own content,” he said. “I want people to see the same doctor on social media that they will see in the office. I like an authentic presentation, not glitzy.”
 

Social media gone wrong

Dr. Calvert said that in the world of plastic surgery, some doctors use social media to present “before and after” compilations that in his opinion aren’t necessarily fully authentic, and this rubs him wrong. “There’s a bit of ‘cheating’ in some of these posts, using filters, making the ‘befores’ particularly bad, and other tricks,” he said.

Dr. Daibes has also seen his share of social media misuse: ”Red flags include oversharing personal indulgences, engaging in online spats, or making unfounded medical claims,” he said. “It’s essential to remember our role as educators and advocates, and to present ourselves in a way that upholds the dignity of our profession.”

At the end of the day, social media can have positive uses for physicians, and it is clearly here to stay. The onus for responsible use ultimately falls to the physicians using it.

Dr. Daibes emphasizes the fact that a doctor’s words carry weight – perhaps more so than those of other professionals. “The added scrutiny is good because it keeps us accountable; it’s crucial that our information is accurate,” he said. “The downside is that the scrutiny can be stifling at times and lead to self-censorship, even on nonmedical matters.”

Physicians have suggested eight guidelines for doctors to follow when using social media:

• Remember that you represent your profession, even if posting on personal accounts.
• Never post from the operating room, the emergency department, or any sort of medical space.
• If you’re employed, before you post, check with your employer to see whether they have any rules or guidance surrounding social media.
• Never use social media to badmouth colleagues, hospitals, or other healthcare organizations.
• Never use social media to dispense medical advice.
• Steer clear of the obvious hot-button issues, like religion and politics.
• Always protect patient privacy when posting.
• Be careful with how and whom you engage on social media.

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

She went by the name “Dr. Roxy” on social media and became something of a sensation on TikTok, where she livestreamed her patients’ operations. Ultimately, however, plastic surgeon Katharine Roxanne Grawe, MD, lost her medical license based partly on her “life-altering, reckless treatment,” heightened by her social media fame. In July, the Ohio state medical board permanently revoked Dr. Grawe’s license after twice reprimanding her for her failure to meet the standard of care. The board also determined that, by livestreaming procedures, she placed her patients in danger of immediate and serious harm.

Although most doctors don’t use social media to the degree that Dr. Grawe did, using the various platforms – from X (formerly Twitter) to Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok – can be a slippery slope. Medscape’s Physician Behavior Report 2023 revealed that doctors have seen their share of unprofessional or offensive social media use from their peers. Nearly 7 in 10 said it is unethical for a doctor to act rudely, offensively, or unprofessionally on social media, even if their medical practice isn’t mentioned. As one physician put it: “Professional is not a 9-to-5 descriptor.”

In today’s world, social media use is almost a given. Doctors must tread cautiously when they approach it – maybe even more so. “There’s still a stigma attached,” said Liudmila Schafer, MD, an oncologist with The Doctor Connect, a career consulting firm. “Physicians face a tougher challenge due to societal expectations of perfection, with greater consequences for mistakes. We’re under constant ‘observation’ from peers, employers, and patients.”

Beverly Hills plastic surgeon Jay Calvert, MD, says he holds firm boundaries with how he uses social media. “I do comedy on the side, but it’s not acceptable for me as a doctor to share that on social media,” he said. “People want doctors who are professional, and I’m always concerned about how I present myself.”

Dr. Calvert said it is fairly easy to spot doctors who cross the line with social media. “You have to hold yourself back when posting. Doing things like dancing in the OR are out of whack with the profession.”

According to Dr. Schafer, a definite line to avoid crossing is offering medical advice or guidance on social media. “You also can’t discuss confidential practice details, respond to unfamiliar contacts, or discuss institutional policies without permission,” she said. “It’s important to add disclaimers if a personal scientific opinion is shared without reference [or] research or with unchecked sources.”
 

Navigating the many social media sites

Each social media platform has its pros and cons. Doctors need to determine why to use them and what the payback of each might be. Dr. Schafer uses multiple sites, including LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, Threads, YouTube, and, to a lesser degree, Clubhouse. How and what she posts on each varies. “I use them almost 95% professionally,” she said. “It’s challenging to meet and engage in person, so that is where social media helps.”

Stephen Pribut, MD, a Washington-based podiatrist, likes to use X as an information source. He follows pretty simple rules when it comes to what he tweets and shares on various sites: “I stay away from politics and religion,” he said. “I also avoid controversial topics online, such as vaccines.”

Joseph Daibes, DO, who specializes in cardiovascular medicine at New Jersey Heart and Vein, Clifton, said he has changed how he uses social media. “Initially, I was a passive consumer, but as I recognized the importance of accurate medical information online, I became more active in weighing in responsibly, occasionally sharing studies, debunking myths, and engaging in meaningful conversations,” he said. “Social media can get dangerous, so we have a duty to use it responsibly, and I cannot stress that enough.”

For plastic surgeons like Dr. Calvert, the visual platforms such as Instagram can prove invaluable for marketing purposes. “I’ve been using Instagram since 2012, and it’s been my most positive experience,” he said. “I don’t generate business from it, but I use it to back up my qualifications as a surgeon.”

Potential patients like to scroll through posts by plastic surgeons to learn what their finished product looks like, Dr. Calvert said. In many cases, plastic surgeons hire social media experts to cultivate their content. “I’ve hired and fired social media managers over the years, ultimately deciding I should develop my own content,” he said. “I want people to see the same doctor on social media that they will see in the office. I like an authentic presentation, not glitzy.”
 

Social media gone wrong

Dr. Calvert said that in the world of plastic surgery, some doctors use social media to present “before and after” compilations that in his opinion aren’t necessarily fully authentic, and this rubs him wrong. “There’s a bit of ‘cheating’ in some of these posts, using filters, making the ‘befores’ particularly bad, and other tricks,” he said.

Dr. Daibes has also seen his share of social media misuse: ”Red flags include oversharing personal indulgences, engaging in online spats, or making unfounded medical claims,” he said. “It’s essential to remember our role as educators and advocates, and to present ourselves in a way that upholds the dignity of our profession.”

At the end of the day, social media can have positive uses for physicians, and it is clearly here to stay. The onus for responsible use ultimately falls to the physicians using it.

Dr. Daibes emphasizes the fact that a doctor’s words carry weight – perhaps more so than those of other professionals. “The added scrutiny is good because it keeps us accountable; it’s crucial that our information is accurate,” he said. “The downside is that the scrutiny can be stifling at times and lead to self-censorship, even on nonmedical matters.”

Physicians have suggested eight guidelines for doctors to follow when using social media:

• Remember that you represent your profession, even if posting on personal accounts.
• Never post from the operating room, the emergency department, or any sort of medical space.
• If you’re employed, before you post, check with your employer to see whether they have any rules or guidance surrounding social media.
• Never use social media to badmouth colleagues, hospitals, or other healthcare organizations.
• Never use social media to dispense medical advice.
• Steer clear of the obvious hot-button issues, like religion and politics.
• Always protect patient privacy when posting.
• Be careful with how and whom you engage on social media.

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

The question looms large for patients with stable systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE): to taper or not to taper corticosteroids or immunosuppressive therapy? For patients and the physicians treating them, the evidence points in both directions. Flares are exacerbated by tapering, but simultaneously organ damage is tempered. Where is the balance? What competing factors together inform decision-making?

A recent multinational, observational cohort study conducted by Jiacai Cho, MBBS, of National University Hospital, Singapore, and colleagues, and published in The Lancet Rheumatology concluded that, given the odds of excess flares associated with tapering of corticosteroids and immunosuppressive therapy in patients with stable SLE, drug tapering warrants careful consideration of risks and benefits and is best reserved for those in complete clinical and serological remission with stable disease for at least 6 months. However, in an accompanying editorial, Yann Nguyen, MD, MPH, and Nathalie Costedoat-Chalumeau, MD, PhD, of the National Referral Center for Rare Autoimmune and Systemic Diseases at Cochin Hospital, Paris, and the Center for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics at Paris City University, argued for tipping the scale back from some of those expressed cautions.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

In interviews, experts in the field expressed both strong appreciation for the cohort study and, like the editorialists, cognizance of its limitations.

Dr. Cho and colleagues recruited 3,002 adult patients with SLE (92.2% female, median age 39.5 years), from 25 sites across 13 Asia-Pacific countries. They were receiving routine clinical care and had achieved stable disease in at least one of two or more visits. Stable disease was defined by meeting criteria for Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS; SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 [SLEDAI-2K] score ≤ 4, Physician Global Assessment [PGA] ≤ 1, and prednisolone ≤ 7.5 mg/day), the 2021 DORIS definition of remission (clinical SLEDAI-2K score 0, PGA score < 0.5, and prednisolone dose ≤ 5 mg/day), or DORIS complete remission on therapy (SLEDAI-2K score 0, PGA score < 0.5, and prednisolone dose ≤ 5 mg/day). Any decrease in dose of corticosteroids or immunosuppressive therapy (mycophenolate mofetil, calcineurin inhibitors, azathioprine, leflunomide, or methotrexate) defined tapering. The investigators compared the odds of disease flares (SELENA-SLEDAI Flare Index) at the visit following tapering among those with tapering versus those who had continued the same drug doses.
 

Higher odds of flare with tapering

Tapering, compared with continuing with the same dose, was clearly associated with higher odds of flare at the next visit (11.4% with continuing vs. 17.0% with tapering; odds ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.39; P = .0005). Flares among patients who tapered were also slightly more often severe than with continuing the same dose (21.5% of flares vs. 19.7%). The level of remission at the time of tapering also mattered. Of 2,095 continuous tapering attempts, 860 (41.1%) were initiated in LLDAS, 596 (28.4%) in remission, and 639 (30.5%) in complete remission. Tapering when in LLDAS or remission, compared with complete remission, was associated with a higher likelihood of flare by 1 year (LLDAS: OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.03-1.81; P = .029; and remission: OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.08-1.94; P = .013). Time to first flare followed the same pattern. Also, sustained LLDAS, remission, or complete remission for at least 6 months just before the time of taper was associated with lower odds of flare at next visit and flares in 1 year, and longer time to flare.

Take baseline disease status, hydroxychloroquine’s effect into account

Dr. Nguyen and Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau underscored several factors that may soften the risk for flares seen with tapering. They pointed to higher baseline doses of prednisone and immunosuppressants (and thus likely more severe disease that is more likely to flare) in the patients with tapering. Also, the SELENA-SLEDAI Flare Index used in the study classifies some clinically insignificant flares as mild to moderate and ignores the benefit of tapering. (It classifies patients as having a severe flare even when starting a new immunosuppressant prescription, such as azathioprine, methotrexate, or both, in an effort to reduce corticosteroid use.) They wrote that the study did not assess the rate of clinically meaningful flares (“essentially renal flares”), nor did it highlight that the “tiny” increase in absolute risk of severe flares (from 2.2% to 3.7%) could be further contextualized by the offset of the smaller, unmeasured rate of clinically significant flares and the “extremely relevant” risk of concomitant damage from prolonged treatment.

Dr. Nguyen and Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau urged hydroxychloroquine use for all patients unless clearly contraindicated. In their own research, they have detailed hydroxychloroquine benefits in reducing not only flare risk, but also comorbidities, damage, and mortality. In the current study, the prevalence of hydroxychloroquine use in all the patient visits was only 63.3%. “We can assume that if more patients had been treated with hydroxychloroquine, both the number of flares and the difference between the two strategies would have been lower,” they wrote. They cited findings from a study of patients in remission for 2 years or longer in the Toronto Lupus Cohort in which a gradual taper of corticosteroids over 1 year was safe and feasible and resulted in less damage accrual at 24 months than not tapering. Optimizing tapering can minimize flare risk, they concluded.

McGill University Health Center

Tapering SLE medications always involves some chance of flare and has to be considered a calculated risk, Sasha Bernatsky, MD, the James McGill professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview. “Long-term prednisone is not good for patients. I have heard it called ‘the miracle drug from hell’ – meaning that, yes, it controls disease, but at a cost of long-term complications. So we must be conscientious about tapering prednisone.” She observed that in the short-term, there may not be a huge risk to keeping a patient on an antimalarial and counseling patients to stay on it because their risk of flare is higher if they taper. Rheumatologists usually agree, however, that after 10 years or more, there is a real chance of retinal toxicity. “In our Montreal cohort, the risk of retinal toxicity was 5% after an average of 12.8 years of antimalarial use. My concern is that if a patient develops SLE in their 20s, how do we decide if we should keep them on an antimalarial for the next 60 or 70 years? If we keep them on the drug from age 25 to 45, and they then get retinal toxicity, they would essentially never be able to be on the drug again. So I do try to keep patients on the lowest dose of an antimalarial that is possible.”

Dr. Bernatsky pointed out further, “We think about tapering other immunosuppressants (such as methotrexate or mycophenolate or azathioprine) quite differently than prednisone tapering. We take our time a bit more, since many patients will tolerate being on standard doses of these drugs fairly well. If or when we do consider tapering these drugs, both our intuition and the literature suggests that someone with worse baseline disease activity or severity, who has needed a lot of steroids and multiple combinations of drugs to control disease, has a higher chance of flaring than someone with milder disease. As the editorial points out, lupus physicians (and their patients) need to think carefully about the patient’s risk profile, and be sure to tailor follow-up based on flare risk.”

Frank discussions with patients about the risks of tapering are needed, she said. “On one hand, there is consensus about how some aspects of lupus should be managed (for example, aggressive treatment of severe nephritis), but on the other hand, when it comes to long-term management and especially discussing tapering, we must have good discussions with patients. When a patient asks if they can taper a drug – many just lower or stop their drugs without asking – I am as honest as I can be, but ultimately have to admit any taper could be associated with a flare. It’s helpful to have actual figures to discuss with patients.”
 

No surprises

“This is an interesting study, which did not produce any surprises,” Dafna D. Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at University of Toronto and senior scientist at the university’s Schroeder Arthritis Institute, said when asked to comment. “We already knew from previous studies that abrupt withdrawal is not a good idea, and that if you taper when a patient is under conditions of remission, the rate of flare is actually lower than the usual rate of flare that occurs in people who continue on these medications. But the major limitation is that they did not specifically look at those who we would taper in clinical practice. In addition, they do not specify that the patients had to be on low-dose glucocorticoids before tapering, and they combined both immunosuppressive and steroids. It is not clear from the study what the excess flare rate was, or whether the flares were mild or severe. Most flares in patients with SLE are mild, consisting of skin and joint manifestations, while only a few patients have flares in kidney or neurologic manifestations.”

Dr. Gladman described her approach to tapering: “We aim for our patients to be taking no more than 5 mg of prednisone and to be in at least clinical remission with a SLEDAI-2K of 0 for at least 2 years before we would taper to glucocorticoids withdrawal. We always withdraw glucocorticoids first and immunosuppressives later, and keep patients on antimalarials the longest, unless there are specific side effects to the immunosuppressive or antimalarials which require their cessation earlier.”
 

Uncertainty persists

Other SLE experts weighing in confirmed the view that future research should aim to achieve clarity about the relative risks and benefits of tapering SLE drug regimens to maintain disease remission while minimizing potential for organ damage.

Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation

“Steroids are our friend and our enemy,” Joan T. Merrill, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said in an interview. “If a person with lupus is in a lot of trouble, corticosteroids are almost universally a good option to get them out. But for too many decades, for too many patients, despite all the improvements we have made in better understanding the disease and developing some promising new treatments, we have yet to shed the inexorable toxicity in multiple organs of steroid dependence.” She continued, “Corticosteroids, even at low dose, may have broad-spectrum effects. But, in fact, so do many of the more ‘targeted’ agents. If all patients were lined up at the beginning of a study while being given azathioprine or a calcineurin inhibitor or belimumab at a stable, tolerable dose, you might see the same data if you tapered that agent down. What we really need is improved individualized guidance about when and how fast to remove immune modulators from stable patients with lupus without disturbing the balance that had been achieved in such a quiescent patient.”

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

That enduring uncertainty was echoed by Daniel J. Wallace, MD, professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles: “The take-home message from this interesting paper,” he commented, “is that current lupus biomarkers are not adequate. They do not guide the practitioner well enough, so that all too often medication regimens are tapered even though the risks are not really well known. Also, there is evidence in the literature that fibrosis and ‘damage’ progress even if acute phase reactants such as sedimentation rate, [C-reactive protein], complement 3 and 4, and anti-dsDNA are normal. We don’t have a good metric to detect them.”

Dr. Cho and colleagues’ study was funded by AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, and UCB. Dr. Gladman disclosed consulting and/or research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

The question looms large for patients with stable systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE): to taper or not to taper corticosteroids or immunosuppressive therapy? For patients and the physicians treating them, the evidence points in both directions. Flares are exacerbated by tapering, but simultaneously organ damage is tempered. Where is the balance? What competing factors together inform decision-making?

A recent multinational, observational cohort study conducted by Jiacai Cho, MBBS, of National University Hospital, Singapore, and colleagues, and published in The Lancet Rheumatology concluded that, given the odds of excess flares associated with tapering of corticosteroids and immunosuppressive therapy in patients with stable SLE, drug tapering warrants careful consideration of risks and benefits and is best reserved for those in complete clinical and serological remission with stable disease for at least 6 months. However, in an accompanying editorial, Yann Nguyen, MD, MPH, and Nathalie Costedoat-Chalumeau, MD, PhD, of the National Referral Center for Rare Autoimmune and Systemic Diseases at Cochin Hospital, Paris, and the Center for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics at Paris City University, argued for tipping the scale back from some of those expressed cautions.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

In interviews, experts in the field expressed both strong appreciation for the cohort study and, like the editorialists, cognizance of its limitations.

Dr. Cho and colleagues recruited 3,002 adult patients with SLE (92.2% female, median age 39.5 years), from 25 sites across 13 Asia-Pacific countries. They were receiving routine clinical care and had achieved stable disease in at least one of two or more visits. Stable disease was defined by meeting criteria for Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS; SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 [SLEDAI-2K] score ≤ 4, Physician Global Assessment [PGA] ≤ 1, and prednisolone ≤ 7.5 mg/day), the 2021 DORIS definition of remission (clinical SLEDAI-2K score 0, PGA score < 0.5, and prednisolone dose ≤ 5 mg/day), or DORIS complete remission on therapy (SLEDAI-2K score 0, PGA score < 0.5, and prednisolone dose ≤ 5 mg/day). Any decrease in dose of corticosteroids or immunosuppressive therapy (mycophenolate mofetil, calcineurin inhibitors, azathioprine, leflunomide, or methotrexate) defined tapering. The investigators compared the odds of disease flares (SELENA-SLEDAI Flare Index) at the visit following tapering among those with tapering versus those who had continued the same drug doses.
 

Higher odds of flare with tapering

Tapering, compared with continuing with the same dose, was clearly associated with higher odds of flare at the next visit (11.4% with continuing vs. 17.0% with tapering; odds ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.39; P = .0005). Flares among patients who tapered were also slightly more often severe than with continuing the same dose (21.5% of flares vs. 19.7%). The level of remission at the time of tapering also mattered. Of 2,095 continuous tapering attempts, 860 (41.1%) were initiated in LLDAS, 596 (28.4%) in remission, and 639 (30.5%) in complete remission. Tapering when in LLDAS or remission, compared with complete remission, was associated with a higher likelihood of flare by 1 year (LLDAS: OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.03-1.81; P = .029; and remission: OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.08-1.94; P = .013). Time to first flare followed the same pattern. Also, sustained LLDAS, remission, or complete remission for at least 6 months just before the time of taper was associated with lower odds of flare at next visit and flares in 1 year, and longer time to flare.

Take baseline disease status, hydroxychloroquine’s effect into account

Dr. Nguyen and Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau underscored several factors that may soften the risk for flares seen with tapering. They pointed to higher baseline doses of prednisone and immunosuppressants (and thus likely more severe disease that is more likely to flare) in the patients with tapering. Also, the SELENA-SLEDAI Flare Index used in the study classifies some clinically insignificant flares as mild to moderate and ignores the benefit of tapering. (It classifies patients as having a severe flare even when starting a new immunosuppressant prescription, such as azathioprine, methotrexate, or both, in an effort to reduce corticosteroid use.) They wrote that the study did not assess the rate of clinically meaningful flares (“essentially renal flares”), nor did it highlight that the “tiny” increase in absolute risk of severe flares (from 2.2% to 3.7%) could be further contextualized by the offset of the smaller, unmeasured rate of clinically significant flares and the “extremely relevant” risk of concomitant damage from prolonged treatment.

Dr. Nguyen and Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau urged hydroxychloroquine use for all patients unless clearly contraindicated. In their own research, they have detailed hydroxychloroquine benefits in reducing not only flare risk, but also comorbidities, damage, and mortality. In the current study, the prevalence of hydroxychloroquine use in all the patient visits was only 63.3%. “We can assume that if more patients had been treated with hydroxychloroquine, both the number of flares and the difference between the two strategies would have been lower,” they wrote. They cited findings from a study of patients in remission for 2 years or longer in the Toronto Lupus Cohort in which a gradual taper of corticosteroids over 1 year was safe and feasible and resulted in less damage accrual at 24 months than not tapering. Optimizing tapering can minimize flare risk, they concluded.

McGill University Health Center

Tapering SLE medications always involves some chance of flare and has to be considered a calculated risk, Sasha Bernatsky, MD, the James McGill professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview. “Long-term prednisone is not good for patients. I have heard it called ‘the miracle drug from hell’ – meaning that, yes, it controls disease, but at a cost of long-term complications. So we must be conscientious about tapering prednisone.” She observed that in the short-term, there may not be a huge risk to keeping a patient on an antimalarial and counseling patients to stay on it because their risk of flare is higher if they taper. Rheumatologists usually agree, however, that after 10 years or more, there is a real chance of retinal toxicity. “In our Montreal cohort, the risk of retinal toxicity was 5% after an average of 12.8 years of antimalarial use. My concern is that if a patient develops SLE in their 20s, how do we decide if we should keep them on an antimalarial for the next 60 or 70 years? If we keep them on the drug from age 25 to 45, and they then get retinal toxicity, they would essentially never be able to be on the drug again. So I do try to keep patients on the lowest dose of an antimalarial that is possible.”

Dr. Bernatsky pointed out further, “We think about tapering other immunosuppressants (such as methotrexate or mycophenolate or azathioprine) quite differently than prednisone tapering. We take our time a bit more, since many patients will tolerate being on standard doses of these drugs fairly well. If or when we do consider tapering these drugs, both our intuition and the literature suggests that someone with worse baseline disease activity or severity, who has needed a lot of steroids and multiple combinations of drugs to control disease, has a higher chance of flaring than someone with milder disease. As the editorial points out, lupus physicians (and their patients) need to think carefully about the patient’s risk profile, and be sure to tailor follow-up based on flare risk.”

Frank discussions with patients about the risks of tapering are needed, she said. “On one hand, there is consensus about how some aspects of lupus should be managed (for example, aggressive treatment of severe nephritis), but on the other hand, when it comes to long-term management and especially discussing tapering, we must have good discussions with patients. When a patient asks if they can taper a drug – many just lower or stop their drugs without asking – I am as honest as I can be, but ultimately have to admit any taper could be associated with a flare. It’s helpful to have actual figures to discuss with patients.”
 

No surprises

“This is an interesting study, which did not produce any surprises,” Dafna D. Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at University of Toronto and senior scientist at the university’s Schroeder Arthritis Institute, said when asked to comment. “We already knew from previous studies that abrupt withdrawal is not a good idea, and that if you taper when a patient is under conditions of remission, the rate of flare is actually lower than the usual rate of flare that occurs in people who continue on these medications. But the major limitation is that they did not specifically look at those who we would taper in clinical practice. In addition, they do not specify that the patients had to be on low-dose glucocorticoids before tapering, and they combined both immunosuppressive and steroids. It is not clear from the study what the excess flare rate was, or whether the flares were mild or severe. Most flares in patients with SLE are mild, consisting of skin and joint manifestations, while only a few patients have flares in kidney or neurologic manifestations.”

Dr. Gladman described her approach to tapering: “We aim for our patients to be taking no more than 5 mg of prednisone and to be in at least clinical remission with a SLEDAI-2K of 0 for at least 2 years before we would taper to glucocorticoids withdrawal. We always withdraw glucocorticoids first and immunosuppressives later, and keep patients on antimalarials the longest, unless there are specific side effects to the immunosuppressive or antimalarials which require their cessation earlier.”
 

Uncertainty persists

Other SLE experts weighing in confirmed the view that future research should aim to achieve clarity about the relative risks and benefits of tapering SLE drug regimens to maintain disease remission while minimizing potential for organ damage.

Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation

“Steroids are our friend and our enemy,” Joan T. Merrill, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said in an interview. “If a person with lupus is in a lot of trouble, corticosteroids are almost universally a good option to get them out. But for too many decades, for too many patients, despite all the improvements we have made in better understanding the disease and developing some promising new treatments, we have yet to shed the inexorable toxicity in multiple organs of steroid dependence.” She continued, “Corticosteroids, even at low dose, may have broad-spectrum effects. But, in fact, so do many of the more ‘targeted’ agents. If all patients were lined up at the beginning of a study while being given azathioprine or a calcineurin inhibitor or belimumab at a stable, tolerable dose, you might see the same data if you tapered that agent down. What we really need is improved individualized guidance about when and how fast to remove immune modulators from stable patients with lupus without disturbing the balance that had been achieved in such a quiescent patient.”

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

That enduring uncertainty was echoed by Daniel J. Wallace, MD, professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles: “The take-home message from this interesting paper,” he commented, “is that current lupus biomarkers are not adequate. They do not guide the practitioner well enough, so that all too often medication regimens are tapered even though the risks are not really well known. Also, there is evidence in the literature that fibrosis and ‘damage’ progress even if acute phase reactants such as sedimentation rate, [C-reactive protein], complement 3 and 4, and anti-dsDNA are normal. We don’t have a good metric to detect them.”

Dr. Cho and colleagues’ study was funded by AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, and UCB. Dr. Gladman disclosed consulting and/or research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

The question looms large for patients with stable systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE): to taper or not to taper corticosteroids or immunosuppressive therapy? For patients and the physicians treating them, the evidence points in both directions. Flares are exacerbated by tapering, but simultaneously organ damage is tempered. Where is the balance? What competing factors together inform decision-making?

A recent multinational, observational cohort study conducted by Jiacai Cho, MBBS, of National University Hospital, Singapore, and colleagues, and published in The Lancet Rheumatology concluded that, given the odds of excess flares associated with tapering of corticosteroids and immunosuppressive therapy in patients with stable SLE, drug tapering warrants careful consideration of risks and benefits and is best reserved for those in complete clinical and serological remission with stable disease for at least 6 months. However, in an accompanying editorial, Yann Nguyen, MD, MPH, and Nathalie Costedoat-Chalumeau, MD, PhD, of the National Referral Center for Rare Autoimmune and Systemic Diseases at Cochin Hospital, Paris, and the Center for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics at Paris City University, argued for tipping the scale back from some of those expressed cautions.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

In interviews, experts in the field expressed both strong appreciation for the cohort study and, like the editorialists, cognizance of its limitations.

Dr. Cho and colleagues recruited 3,002 adult patients with SLE (92.2% female, median age 39.5 years), from 25 sites across 13 Asia-Pacific countries. They were receiving routine clinical care and had achieved stable disease in at least one of two or more visits. Stable disease was defined by meeting criteria for Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS; SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 [SLEDAI-2K] score ≤ 4, Physician Global Assessment [PGA] ≤ 1, and prednisolone ≤ 7.5 mg/day), the 2021 DORIS definition of remission (clinical SLEDAI-2K score 0, PGA score < 0.5, and prednisolone dose ≤ 5 mg/day), or DORIS complete remission on therapy (SLEDAI-2K score 0, PGA score < 0.5, and prednisolone dose ≤ 5 mg/day). Any decrease in dose of corticosteroids or immunosuppressive therapy (mycophenolate mofetil, calcineurin inhibitors, azathioprine, leflunomide, or methotrexate) defined tapering. The investigators compared the odds of disease flares (SELENA-SLEDAI Flare Index) at the visit following tapering among those with tapering versus those who had continued the same drug doses.
 

Higher odds of flare with tapering

Tapering, compared with continuing with the same dose, was clearly associated with higher odds of flare at the next visit (11.4% with continuing vs. 17.0% with tapering; odds ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.39; P = .0005). Flares among patients who tapered were also slightly more often severe than with continuing the same dose (21.5% of flares vs. 19.7%). The level of remission at the time of tapering also mattered. Of 2,095 continuous tapering attempts, 860 (41.1%) were initiated in LLDAS, 596 (28.4%) in remission, and 639 (30.5%) in complete remission. Tapering when in LLDAS or remission, compared with complete remission, was associated with a higher likelihood of flare by 1 year (LLDAS: OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.03-1.81; P = .029; and remission: OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.08-1.94; P = .013). Time to first flare followed the same pattern. Also, sustained LLDAS, remission, or complete remission for at least 6 months just before the time of taper was associated with lower odds of flare at next visit and flares in 1 year, and longer time to flare.

Take baseline disease status, hydroxychloroquine’s effect into account

Dr. Nguyen and Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau underscored several factors that may soften the risk for flares seen with tapering. They pointed to higher baseline doses of prednisone and immunosuppressants (and thus likely more severe disease that is more likely to flare) in the patients with tapering. Also, the SELENA-SLEDAI Flare Index used in the study classifies some clinically insignificant flares as mild to moderate and ignores the benefit of tapering. (It classifies patients as having a severe flare even when starting a new immunosuppressant prescription, such as azathioprine, methotrexate, or both, in an effort to reduce corticosteroid use.) They wrote that the study did not assess the rate of clinically meaningful flares (“essentially renal flares”), nor did it highlight that the “tiny” increase in absolute risk of severe flares (from 2.2% to 3.7%) could be further contextualized by the offset of the smaller, unmeasured rate of clinically significant flares and the “extremely relevant” risk of concomitant damage from prolonged treatment.

Dr. Nguyen and Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau urged hydroxychloroquine use for all patients unless clearly contraindicated. In their own research, they have detailed hydroxychloroquine benefits in reducing not only flare risk, but also comorbidities, damage, and mortality. In the current study, the prevalence of hydroxychloroquine use in all the patient visits was only 63.3%. “We can assume that if more patients had been treated with hydroxychloroquine, both the number of flares and the difference between the two strategies would have been lower,” they wrote. They cited findings from a study of patients in remission for 2 years or longer in the Toronto Lupus Cohort in which a gradual taper of corticosteroids over 1 year was safe and feasible and resulted in less damage accrual at 24 months than not tapering. Optimizing tapering can minimize flare risk, they concluded.

McGill University Health Center

Tapering SLE medications always involves some chance of flare and has to be considered a calculated risk, Sasha Bernatsky, MD, the James McGill professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview. “Long-term prednisone is not good for patients. I have heard it called ‘the miracle drug from hell’ – meaning that, yes, it controls disease, but at a cost of long-term complications. So we must be conscientious about tapering prednisone.” She observed that in the short-term, there may not be a huge risk to keeping a patient on an antimalarial and counseling patients to stay on it because their risk of flare is higher if they taper. Rheumatologists usually agree, however, that after 10 years or more, there is a real chance of retinal toxicity. “In our Montreal cohort, the risk of retinal toxicity was 5% after an average of 12.8 years of antimalarial use. My concern is that if a patient develops SLE in their 20s, how do we decide if we should keep them on an antimalarial for the next 60 or 70 years? If we keep them on the drug from age 25 to 45, and they then get retinal toxicity, they would essentially never be able to be on the drug again. So I do try to keep patients on the lowest dose of an antimalarial that is possible.”

Dr. Bernatsky pointed out further, “We think about tapering other immunosuppressants (such as methotrexate or mycophenolate or azathioprine) quite differently than prednisone tapering. We take our time a bit more, since many patients will tolerate being on standard doses of these drugs fairly well. If or when we do consider tapering these drugs, both our intuition and the literature suggests that someone with worse baseline disease activity or severity, who has needed a lot of steroids and multiple combinations of drugs to control disease, has a higher chance of flaring than someone with milder disease. As the editorial points out, lupus physicians (and their patients) need to think carefully about the patient’s risk profile, and be sure to tailor follow-up based on flare risk.”

Frank discussions with patients about the risks of tapering are needed, she said. “On one hand, there is consensus about how some aspects of lupus should be managed (for example, aggressive treatment of severe nephritis), but on the other hand, when it comes to long-term management and especially discussing tapering, we must have good discussions with patients. When a patient asks if they can taper a drug – many just lower or stop their drugs without asking – I am as honest as I can be, but ultimately have to admit any taper could be associated with a flare. It’s helpful to have actual figures to discuss with patients.”
 

No surprises

“This is an interesting study, which did not produce any surprises,” Dafna D. Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at University of Toronto and senior scientist at the university’s Schroeder Arthritis Institute, said when asked to comment. “We already knew from previous studies that abrupt withdrawal is not a good idea, and that if you taper when a patient is under conditions of remission, the rate of flare is actually lower than the usual rate of flare that occurs in people who continue on these medications. But the major limitation is that they did not specifically look at those who we would taper in clinical practice. In addition, they do not specify that the patients had to be on low-dose glucocorticoids before tapering, and they combined both immunosuppressive and steroids. It is not clear from the study what the excess flare rate was, or whether the flares were mild or severe. Most flares in patients with SLE are mild, consisting of skin and joint manifestations, while only a few patients have flares in kidney or neurologic manifestations.”

Dr. Gladman described her approach to tapering: “We aim for our patients to be taking no more than 5 mg of prednisone and to be in at least clinical remission with a SLEDAI-2K of 0 for at least 2 years before we would taper to glucocorticoids withdrawal. We always withdraw glucocorticoids first and immunosuppressives later, and keep patients on antimalarials the longest, unless there are specific side effects to the immunosuppressive or antimalarials which require their cessation earlier.”
 

Uncertainty persists

Other SLE experts weighing in confirmed the view that future research should aim to achieve clarity about the relative risks and benefits of tapering SLE drug regimens to maintain disease remission while minimizing potential for organ damage.

Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation

“Steroids are our friend and our enemy,” Joan T. Merrill, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said in an interview. “If a person with lupus is in a lot of trouble, corticosteroids are almost universally a good option to get them out. But for too many decades, for too many patients, despite all the improvements we have made in better understanding the disease and developing some promising new treatments, we have yet to shed the inexorable toxicity in multiple organs of steroid dependence.” She continued, “Corticosteroids, even at low dose, may have broad-spectrum effects. But, in fact, so do many of the more ‘targeted’ agents. If all patients were lined up at the beginning of a study while being given azathioprine or a calcineurin inhibitor or belimumab at a stable, tolerable dose, you might see the same data if you tapered that agent down. What we really need is improved individualized guidance about when and how fast to remove immune modulators from stable patients with lupus without disturbing the balance that had been achieved in such a quiescent patient.”

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

That enduring uncertainty was echoed by Daniel J. Wallace, MD, professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles: “The take-home message from this interesting paper,” he commented, “is that current lupus biomarkers are not adequate. They do not guide the practitioner well enough, so that all too often medication regimens are tapered even though the risks are not really well known. Also, there is evidence in the literature that fibrosis and ‘damage’ progress even if acute phase reactants such as sedimentation rate, [C-reactive protein], complement 3 and 4, and anti-dsDNA are normal. We don’t have a good metric to detect them.”

Dr. Cho and colleagues’ study was funded by AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, and UCB. Dr. Gladman disclosed consulting and/or research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

In a striking convergence of veterinary biology and medical science, researchers from the University of Sheffield (England) have unveiled findings that could potentially advance the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers, a condition affecting an estimated 18.6 million people worldwide. The unexpected ingredient in this potentially transformative therapy? Feces from endangered species, sourced from Yorkshire Wildlife Park, Doncaster, England.

The scourge of antibiotic resistance

Diabetic foot ulcers are a significant challenge in health care, not only because of their prevalence but also because of the alarming rise of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. Current antibiotic treatments frequently fail, leading to life-altering consequences like amputations and significant health care costs – estimated at one-third of the total direct costs of diabetes care. The critical need for alternative therapies has propelled scientists into a pressing search for novel antimicrobial agents.

A pioneering approach: zoo poo as bioactive goldmine

Led by Professor Graham Stafford, chair of molecular microbiology at the University of Sheffield, the research team began to explore a rather unorthodox resource: the fecal matter of endangered animals like Guinea baboons, lemurs, and Visayan pigs. While such a source might seem surprising at first glance, the rationale becomes clear when considering the nature of bacteriophages.

What are bacteriophages?

Bacteriophages, commonly known as phages, are viruses that selectively target and kill bacteria. Despite being the most prevalent biological entities on Earth, their therapeutic potential has remained largely untapped. What makes bacteriophages particularly interesting is their ability to kill antibiotic-resistant bacteria – a feature making them prime candidates for treating otherwise unmanageable diabetic foot ulcers. (Armstrong DG, et al; Fish R, et al).

Findings and future directions

Professor Stafford and his team discovered that the feces of several endangered animals harbored bacteriophages capable of killing bacterial strains resistant to antibiotics. The findings not only hold promise for a groundbreaking treatment but also provide another compelling reason to conserve endangered species: Their inherent biodiversity might contain cures for a range of infectious diseases.

While research is ongoing and clinical trials have not yet begun, the preliminary results are overwhelmingly promising. Phages isolated from the feces could potentially be incorporated into dressings for ulcers, creating a novel treatment modality that is both effective and cost-saving.

We often look to complex technologies and synthetic materials for medical science breakthroughs, yet sometimes the most innovative solutions can be found in the most overlooked places. In this case, the feces of endangered species could turn out to be a vital asset in battling antibiotic resistance, thus affecting diabetic foot care in ways we never imagined possible.

The research conducted at the University of Sheffield also serves as a powerful argument for a One Health approach – a multidisciplinary field focusing on the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health.

This intriguing work reaffirms the need for an interdisciplinary approach in tackling the world’s pressing health care challenges. The collaborative efforts between the University of Sheffield and Yorkshire Wildlife Park exemplify how academic research and conservation can come together to yield solutions for some of the most devastating and costly health conditions, while also underscoring the invaluable role that biodiversity plays in our collective well-being. Here’s to teaming up to act against amputation worldwide.

Dr. Armstrong is professor of surgery and director of limb preservation at University of Southern California, Los Angeles. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a striking convergence of veterinary biology and medical science, researchers from the University of Sheffield (England) have unveiled findings that could potentially advance the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers, a condition affecting an estimated 18.6 million people worldwide. The unexpected ingredient in this potentially transformative therapy? Feces from endangered species, sourced from Yorkshire Wildlife Park, Doncaster, England.

The scourge of antibiotic resistance

Diabetic foot ulcers are a significant challenge in health care, not only because of their prevalence but also because of the alarming rise of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. Current antibiotic treatments frequently fail, leading to life-altering consequences like amputations and significant health care costs – estimated at one-third of the total direct costs of diabetes care. The critical need for alternative therapies has propelled scientists into a pressing search for novel antimicrobial agents.

A pioneering approach: zoo poo as bioactive goldmine

Led by Professor Graham Stafford, chair of molecular microbiology at the University of Sheffield, the research team began to explore a rather unorthodox resource: the fecal matter of endangered animals like Guinea baboons, lemurs, and Visayan pigs. While such a source might seem surprising at first glance, the rationale becomes clear when considering the nature of bacteriophages.

What are bacteriophages?

Bacteriophages, commonly known as phages, are viruses that selectively target and kill bacteria. Despite being the most prevalent biological entities on Earth, their therapeutic potential has remained largely untapped. What makes bacteriophages particularly interesting is their ability to kill antibiotic-resistant bacteria – a feature making them prime candidates for treating otherwise unmanageable diabetic foot ulcers. (Armstrong DG, et al; Fish R, et al).

Findings and future directions

Professor Stafford and his team discovered that the feces of several endangered animals harbored bacteriophages capable of killing bacterial strains resistant to antibiotics. The findings not only hold promise for a groundbreaking treatment but also provide another compelling reason to conserve endangered species: Their inherent biodiversity might contain cures for a range of infectious diseases.

While research is ongoing and clinical trials have not yet begun, the preliminary results are overwhelmingly promising. Phages isolated from the feces could potentially be incorporated into dressings for ulcers, creating a novel treatment modality that is both effective and cost-saving.

We often look to complex technologies and synthetic materials for medical science breakthroughs, yet sometimes the most innovative solutions can be found in the most overlooked places. In this case, the feces of endangered species could turn out to be a vital asset in battling antibiotic resistance, thus affecting diabetic foot care in ways we never imagined possible.

The research conducted at the University of Sheffield also serves as a powerful argument for a One Health approach – a multidisciplinary field focusing on the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health.

This intriguing work reaffirms the need for an interdisciplinary approach in tackling the world’s pressing health care challenges. The collaborative efforts between the University of Sheffield and Yorkshire Wildlife Park exemplify how academic research and conservation can come together to yield solutions for some of the most devastating and costly health conditions, while also underscoring the invaluable role that biodiversity plays in our collective well-being. Here’s to teaming up to act against amputation worldwide.

Dr. Armstrong is professor of surgery and director of limb preservation at University of Southern California, Los Angeles. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a striking convergence of veterinary biology and medical science, researchers from the University of Sheffield (England) have unveiled findings that could potentially advance the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers, a condition affecting an estimated 18.6 million people worldwide. The unexpected ingredient in this potentially transformative therapy? Feces from endangered species, sourced from Yorkshire Wildlife Park, Doncaster, England.

The scourge of antibiotic resistance

Diabetic foot ulcers are a significant challenge in health care, not only because of their prevalence but also because of the alarming rise of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. Current antibiotic treatments frequently fail, leading to life-altering consequences like amputations and significant health care costs – estimated at one-third of the total direct costs of diabetes care. The critical need for alternative therapies has propelled scientists into a pressing search for novel antimicrobial agents.

A pioneering approach: zoo poo as bioactive goldmine

Led by Professor Graham Stafford, chair of molecular microbiology at the University of Sheffield, the research team began to explore a rather unorthodox resource: the fecal matter of endangered animals like Guinea baboons, lemurs, and Visayan pigs. While such a source might seem surprising at first glance, the rationale becomes clear when considering the nature of bacteriophages.

What are bacteriophages?

Bacteriophages, commonly known as phages, are viruses that selectively target and kill bacteria. Despite being the most prevalent biological entities on Earth, their therapeutic potential has remained largely untapped. What makes bacteriophages particularly interesting is their ability to kill antibiotic-resistant bacteria – a feature making them prime candidates for treating otherwise unmanageable diabetic foot ulcers. (Armstrong DG, et al; Fish R, et al).

Findings and future directions

Professor Stafford and his team discovered that the feces of several endangered animals harbored bacteriophages capable of killing bacterial strains resistant to antibiotics. The findings not only hold promise for a groundbreaking treatment but also provide another compelling reason to conserve endangered species: Their inherent biodiversity might contain cures for a range of infectious diseases.

While research is ongoing and clinical trials have not yet begun, the preliminary results are overwhelmingly promising. Phages isolated from the feces could potentially be incorporated into dressings for ulcers, creating a novel treatment modality that is both effective and cost-saving.

We often look to complex technologies and synthetic materials for medical science breakthroughs, yet sometimes the most innovative solutions can be found in the most overlooked places. In this case, the feces of endangered species could turn out to be a vital asset in battling antibiotic resistance, thus affecting diabetic foot care in ways we never imagined possible.

The research conducted at the University of Sheffield also serves as a powerful argument for a One Health approach – a multidisciplinary field focusing on the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health.

This intriguing work reaffirms the need for an interdisciplinary approach in tackling the world’s pressing health care challenges. The collaborative efforts between the University of Sheffield and Yorkshire Wildlife Park exemplify how academic research and conservation can come together to yield solutions for some of the most devastating and costly health conditions, while also underscoring the invaluable role that biodiversity plays in our collective well-being. Here’s to teaming up to act against amputation worldwide.

Dr. Armstrong is professor of surgery and director of limb preservation at University of Southern California, Los Angeles. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a complete response letter regarding lebrikizumab, an investigational biologic for the treatment of adult and adolescent patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, describing concerns about findings made during an inspection of a third-party contract manufacturer that included the “monoclonal antibody drug substance” for lebrikizumab, Eli Lilly announced in an Oct. 2 press release.

Lebrikizumab is under FDA review for treating atopic dermatitis; a complete response letter indicates that the review has been completed, and highlights issues that need to be addressed before a final decision on approval is made.

The press release noted that the agency did not raise any concerns about the clinical data package, safety, or label for lebrikizumab, an investigational, monoclonal antibody that binds to the cytokine interleukin (IL)-13, and is designed to be administered once per month.

In the press release, the company said it would work with the third-party manufacturer and the FDA to address the feedback “in order to make lebrikizumab available to patients.”

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a complete response letter regarding lebrikizumab, an investigational biologic for the treatment of adult and adolescent patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, describing concerns about findings made during an inspection of a third-party contract manufacturer that included the “monoclonal antibody drug substance” for lebrikizumab, Eli Lilly announced in an Oct. 2 press release.

Lebrikizumab is under FDA review for treating atopic dermatitis; a complete response letter indicates that the review has been completed, and highlights issues that need to be addressed before a final decision on approval is made.

The press release noted that the agency did not raise any concerns about the clinical data package, safety, or label for lebrikizumab, an investigational, monoclonal antibody that binds to the cytokine interleukin (IL)-13, and is designed to be administered once per month.

In the press release, the company said it would work with the third-party manufacturer and the FDA to address the feedback “in order to make lebrikizumab available to patients.”

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a complete response letter regarding lebrikizumab, an investigational biologic for the treatment of adult and adolescent patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, describing concerns about findings made during an inspection of a third-party contract manufacturer that included the “monoclonal antibody drug substance” for lebrikizumab, Eli Lilly announced in an Oct. 2 press release.

Lebrikizumab is under FDA review for treating atopic dermatitis; a complete response letter indicates that the review has been completed, and highlights issues that need to be addressed before a final decision on approval is made.

The press release noted that the agency did not raise any concerns about the clinical data package, safety, or label for lebrikizumab, an investigational, monoclonal antibody that binds to the cytokine interleukin (IL)-13, and is designed to be administered once per month.

In the press release, the company said it would work with the third-party manufacturer and the FDA to address the feedback “in order to make lebrikizumab available to patients.”

The risk for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) was increased among children and adults with atopic dermatitis (AD), with the risk increasing with AD severity, according to data from a large cohort study published recently in JAMA Dermatology.

The study also found an increased risk for Crohn’s disease (CD) in adults and children with AD, as well as an increased risk for ulcerative colitis (UC) in adults with AD and in children with severe AD, researchers reported.

“It is imperative for clinicians to understand atopic dermatitis and the trajectory of our patients with it in order to provide the best standard of care,” senior author Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor in clinical investigation with the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in a news release.

Courtesy Dr. Gelfand

“There are new and better treatments for AD today, and there will likely continue to be more,” continued Dr. Gelfand. “But providers have to understand how those treatments could impact other autoimmune diseases. For patients with AD and another autoimmune disease, some currently available medications can exacerbate symptoms of their other disease or can help treat two immune diseases at the same time.”

The study results support the idea that AD and IBD may have some common underlying causes, said Sheilagh Maguiness, MD, pediatric dermatologist and associate professor in the department of dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, who was asked to comment on the findings.

“As the pathogenesis of AD is becoming better understood, we are recognizing that, rather than simply a cutaneous disease, the underlying inflammation and immune dysregulation that leads to AD best categorizes it as a systemic inflammatory disease with significant comorbidities,” she told this news organization. “I will be more likely to ask patients and families about GI symptoms, and if positive, may plan to refer to GI more readily than in the past,” added Dr. Maguiness, who was not involved in the study.

UK general practice cohort

AD has been associated with an increasing number of comorbidities, including IBD, but studies linking AD with IBD, including UC, have had mixed results, the authors wrote. And few studies have separately examined how AD or AD severity may be linked with UC or CD risk.

To examine the risk for new-onset IBD, UC, and CD in children and adults with atopic dermatitis, the researchers conducted a population-based cohort study using the THIN (The Health Improvement Network) electronic medical record database of patients registered with United Kingdom general practices. They used 21 years of data collected from January 1994 to February 2015.

The researchers matched each patient who had AD with up to five controls based on age, practice, and index date. Because THIN does not capture AD severity, they used treatment exposure assessed by dermatologic referrals and treatments patients received as proxy for severity. The authors used logistic regression to examine the risks for IBD, UC, and CD in children (aged 1-10) with AD, and in adults (aged 30-68) with AD, and they compared their outcomes with the outcomes for controls.

In the pediatric cohort, the team compared 409,431 children who had AD with 1.8 million children without AD. Slightly more than half were boys. In the adult cohort, they compared 625,083 people who had AD with 2.68 million controls, and slightly more than half were women. Data on race or ethnicity were not available, the authors wrote, but the THIN database is considered to be representative of the UK population.
 

AD severity linked with IBD risk

The risk for new-onset inflammatory bowel disease appears to be higher in children and adults with AD, and the risk varies based on age, AD severity, and subtype of inflammatory bowel disease, the authors reported.

Overall, AD in children was associated with a 44% increased risk for IBD (adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-1.58) compared with controls, the authors reported. They found a 74% increased risk for CD in children with AD compared with controls (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.54-1.97). More severe AD was linked with increased risk for both IBD and CD.

AD did not appear to increase risk for UC in children, except those with severe AD (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.02-2.67).

Overall, adults with AD had a 34% (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.27-1.40) increased risk for IBD, a 36% (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.26-1.47) increased risk for CD, and a 32% (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.24-1.41) increased risk for UC, with risk increasing with increased AD severity.

Robust data with cautionary note

“This study provides the most robust data to date on the association between IBD and AD. It provides clear evidence for an association that most dermatologists or primary care providers are not typically taught in training,” Kelly Scarberry, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, told this news organization. “I will be much more likely to pursue diagnostic workup in my AD patients who have GI complaints.”

Case Western Reserve University

However, AD severity was measured by proxy, added Dr. Scarberry, who was not involved in the study, and the study lacked important racial and ethnic data.

Lindsay C. Strowd, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., also not involved in the study, said in an interview that she found the size of the cohort and the longitudinal data to be strengths of the study.

Wake Forest University

But, she added, the “lack of family IBD history, race and ethnicity, and comorbidities, are limitations, as is treatment exposure used as a proxy for disease severity, given that physician treatment practices differ.”

For Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest, “the most important conclusion, and it is a definitive finding, [is] that IBD is uncommon, even in patients with AD.

“The findings could be misinterpreted,” cautioned Dr. Feldman, who was not involved in the study. “While there is an increased relative risk, the absolute risk is small.” The study found that “the highest relative risk group is children with severe AD, who have a roughly fivefold increased risk for CD.” However, he added, the incidence rates of CD were 0.68 per 1,000 person-years in children with severe AD and 0.08 per 1,000 person-years in controls.

Wake Forest University

“Basically, because Crohn’s disease and IBD don’t happen very often, the modest increase in relative risk the investigators found doesn’t amount to much we’d have to worry about,” he said. “The findings do not show any need to screen patients with atopic dermatitis for IBD any more than we’d need to screen patients without atopic dermatitis.”

The increased relative risk “could be a clue to possible genetic connections between diseases,” he added. “But when we’re making clinical decisions, those decisions should be based on the absolute risk that some event may occur.”

Susan Massick, MD, dermatologist and associate professor at The Ohio State University in Columbus, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview, “We are still scratching the surface of the complexity of the immune and inflammatory pathways in AD and IBD.

The Ohio State Wexner Medical Center

“It is important to remember that correlation does not mean causation,” Dr. Massick said. “It would be premature to draw direct conclusions based on this study alone.”

The authors recommend future related studies in more diverse populations.

Dr. Gelfand and two coauthors reported ties with Pfizer, which supported the study. Dr. Gelfand and three coauthors reported ties with other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Maguiness, Dr. Scarberry, Dr. Strowd, and Dr. Massick reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Feldman reported ties with Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The risk for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) was increased among children and adults with atopic dermatitis (AD), with the risk increasing with AD severity, according to data from a large cohort study published recently in JAMA Dermatology.

The study also found an increased risk for Crohn’s disease (CD) in adults and children with AD, as well as an increased risk for ulcerative colitis (UC) in adults with AD and in children with severe AD, researchers reported.

“It is imperative for clinicians to understand atopic dermatitis and the trajectory of our patients with it in order to provide the best standard of care,” senior author Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor in clinical investigation with the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in a news release.

Courtesy Dr. Gelfand

“There are new and better treatments for AD today, and there will likely continue to be more,” continued Dr. Gelfand. “But providers have to understand how those treatments could impact other autoimmune diseases. For patients with AD and another autoimmune disease, some currently available medications can exacerbate symptoms of their other disease or can help treat two immune diseases at the same time.”

The study results support the idea that AD and IBD may have some common underlying causes, said Sheilagh Maguiness, MD, pediatric dermatologist and associate professor in the department of dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, who was asked to comment on the findings.

“As the pathogenesis of AD is becoming better understood, we are recognizing that, rather than simply a cutaneous disease, the underlying inflammation and immune dysregulation that leads to AD best categorizes it as a systemic inflammatory disease with significant comorbidities,” she told this news organization. “I will be more likely to ask patients and families about GI symptoms, and if positive, may plan to refer to GI more readily than in the past,” added Dr. Maguiness, who was not involved in the study.

UK general practice cohort

AD has been associated with an increasing number of comorbidities, including IBD, but studies linking AD with IBD, including UC, have had mixed results, the authors wrote. And few studies have separately examined how AD or AD severity may be linked with UC or CD risk.

To examine the risk for new-onset IBD, UC, and CD in children and adults with atopic dermatitis, the researchers conducted a population-based cohort study using the THIN (The Health Improvement Network) electronic medical record database of patients registered with United Kingdom general practices. They used 21 years of data collected from January 1994 to February 2015.

The researchers matched each patient who had AD with up to five controls based on age, practice, and index date. Because THIN does not capture AD severity, they used treatment exposure assessed by dermatologic referrals and treatments patients received as proxy for severity. The authors used logistic regression to examine the risks for IBD, UC, and CD in children (aged 1-10) with AD, and in adults (aged 30-68) with AD, and they compared their outcomes with the outcomes for controls.

In the pediatric cohort, the team compared 409,431 children who had AD with 1.8 million children without AD. Slightly more than half were boys. In the adult cohort, they compared 625,083 people who had AD with 2.68 million controls, and slightly more than half were women. Data on race or ethnicity were not available, the authors wrote, but the THIN database is considered to be representative of the UK population.
 

AD severity linked with IBD risk

The risk for new-onset inflammatory bowel disease appears to be higher in children and adults with AD, and the risk varies based on age, AD severity, and subtype of inflammatory bowel disease, the authors reported.

Overall, AD in children was associated with a 44% increased risk for IBD (adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-1.58) compared with controls, the authors reported. They found a 74% increased risk for CD in children with AD compared with controls (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.54-1.97). More severe AD was linked with increased risk for both IBD and CD.

AD did not appear to increase risk for UC in children, except those with severe AD (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.02-2.67).

Overall, adults with AD had a 34% (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.27-1.40) increased risk for IBD, a 36% (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.26-1.47) increased risk for CD, and a 32% (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.24-1.41) increased risk for UC, with risk increasing with increased AD severity.

Robust data with cautionary note

“This study provides the most robust data to date on the association between IBD and AD. It provides clear evidence for an association that most dermatologists or primary care providers are not typically taught in training,” Kelly Scarberry, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, told this news organization. “I will be much more likely to pursue diagnostic workup in my AD patients who have GI complaints.”

Case Western Reserve University

However, AD severity was measured by proxy, added Dr. Scarberry, who was not involved in the study, and the study lacked important racial and ethnic data.

Lindsay C. Strowd, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., also not involved in the study, said in an interview that she found the size of the cohort and the longitudinal data to be strengths of the study.

Wake Forest University

But, she added, the “lack of family IBD history, race and ethnicity, and comorbidities, are limitations, as is treatment exposure used as a proxy for disease severity, given that physician treatment practices differ.”

For Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest, “the most important conclusion, and it is a definitive finding, [is] that IBD is uncommon, even in patients with AD.

“The findings could be misinterpreted,” cautioned Dr. Feldman, who was not involved in the study. “While there is an increased relative risk, the absolute risk is small.” The study found that “the highest relative risk group is children with severe AD, who have a roughly fivefold increased risk for CD.” However, he added, the incidence rates of CD were 0.68 per 1,000 person-years in children with severe AD and 0.08 per 1,000 person-years in controls.

Wake Forest University

“Basically, because Crohn’s disease and IBD don’t happen very often, the modest increase in relative risk the investigators found doesn’t amount to much we’d have to worry about,” he said. “The findings do not show any need to screen patients with atopic dermatitis for IBD any more than we’d need to screen patients without atopic dermatitis.”

The increased relative risk “could be a clue to possible genetic connections between diseases,” he added. “But when we’re making clinical decisions, those decisions should be based on the absolute risk that some event may occur.”

Susan Massick, MD, dermatologist and associate professor at The Ohio State University in Columbus, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview, “We are still scratching the surface of the complexity of the immune and inflammatory pathways in AD and IBD.

The Ohio State Wexner Medical Center

“It is important to remember that correlation does not mean causation,” Dr. Massick said. “It would be premature to draw direct conclusions based on this study alone.”

The authors recommend future related studies in more diverse populations.

Dr. Gelfand and two coauthors reported ties with Pfizer, which supported the study. Dr. Gelfand and three coauthors reported ties with other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Maguiness, Dr. Scarberry, Dr. Strowd, and Dr. Massick reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Feldman reported ties with Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The risk for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) was increased among children and adults with atopic dermatitis (AD), with the risk increasing with AD severity, according to data from a large cohort study published recently in JAMA Dermatology.

The study also found an increased risk for Crohn’s disease (CD) in adults and children with AD, as well as an increased risk for ulcerative colitis (UC) in adults with AD and in children with severe AD, researchers reported.

“It is imperative for clinicians to understand atopic dermatitis and the trajectory of our patients with it in order to provide the best standard of care,” senior author Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor in clinical investigation with the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in a news release.

Courtesy Dr. Gelfand

“There are new and better treatments for AD today, and there will likely continue to be more,” continued Dr. Gelfand. “But providers have to understand how those treatments could impact other autoimmune diseases. For patients with AD and another autoimmune disease, some currently available medications can exacerbate symptoms of their other disease or can help treat two immune diseases at the same time.”

The study results support the idea that AD and IBD may have some common underlying causes, said Sheilagh Maguiness, MD, pediatric dermatologist and associate professor in the department of dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, who was asked to comment on the findings.

“As the pathogenesis of AD is becoming better understood, we are recognizing that, rather than simply a cutaneous disease, the underlying inflammation and immune dysregulation that leads to AD best categorizes it as a systemic inflammatory disease with significant comorbidities,” she told this news organization. “I will be more likely to ask patients and families about GI symptoms, and if positive, may plan to refer to GI more readily than in the past,” added Dr. Maguiness, who was not involved in the study.

UK general practice cohort

AD has been associated with an increasing number of comorbidities, including IBD, but studies linking AD with IBD, including UC, have had mixed results, the authors wrote. And few studies have separately examined how AD or AD severity may be linked with UC or CD risk.

To examine the risk for new-onset IBD, UC, and CD in children and adults with atopic dermatitis, the researchers conducted a population-based cohort study using the THIN (The Health Improvement Network) electronic medical record database of patients registered with United Kingdom general practices. They used 21 years of data collected from January 1994 to February 2015.

The researchers matched each patient who had AD with up to five controls based on age, practice, and index date. Because THIN does not capture AD severity, they used treatment exposure assessed by dermatologic referrals and treatments patients received as proxy for severity. The authors used logistic regression to examine the risks for IBD, UC, and CD in children (aged 1-10) with AD, and in adults (aged 30-68) with AD, and they compared their outcomes with the outcomes for controls.

In the pediatric cohort, the team compared 409,431 children who had AD with 1.8 million children without AD. Slightly more than half were boys. In the adult cohort, they compared 625,083 people who had AD with 2.68 million controls, and slightly more than half were women. Data on race or ethnicity were not available, the authors wrote, but the THIN database is considered to be representative of the UK population.
 

AD severity linked with IBD risk

The risk for new-onset inflammatory bowel disease appears to be higher in children and adults with AD, and the risk varies based on age, AD severity, and subtype of inflammatory bowel disease, the authors reported.

Overall, AD in children was associated with a 44% increased risk for IBD (adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-1.58) compared with controls, the authors reported. They found a 74% increased risk for CD in children with AD compared with controls (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.54-1.97). More severe AD was linked with increased risk for both IBD and CD.

AD did not appear to increase risk for UC in children, except those with severe AD (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.02-2.67).

Overall, adults with AD had a 34% (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.27-1.40) increased risk for IBD, a 36% (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.26-1.47) increased risk for CD, and a 32% (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.24-1.41) increased risk for UC, with risk increasing with increased AD severity.

Robust data with cautionary note

“This study provides the most robust data to date on the association between IBD and AD. It provides clear evidence for an association that most dermatologists or primary care providers are not typically taught in training,” Kelly Scarberry, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, told this news organization. “I will be much more likely to pursue diagnostic workup in my AD patients who have GI complaints.”

Case Western Reserve University

However, AD severity was measured by proxy, added Dr. Scarberry, who was not involved in the study, and the study lacked important racial and ethnic data.

Lindsay C. Strowd, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., also not involved in the study, said in an interview that she found the size of the cohort and the longitudinal data to be strengths of the study.

Wake Forest University

But, she added, the “lack of family IBD history, race and ethnicity, and comorbidities, are limitations, as is treatment exposure used as a proxy for disease severity, given that physician treatment practices differ.”

For Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest, “the most important conclusion, and it is a definitive finding, [is] that IBD is uncommon, even in patients with AD.

“The findings could be misinterpreted,” cautioned Dr. Feldman, who was not involved in the study. “While there is an increased relative risk, the absolute risk is small.” The study found that “the highest relative risk group is children with severe AD, who have a roughly fivefold increased risk for CD.” However, he added, the incidence rates of CD were 0.68 per 1,000 person-years in children with severe AD and 0.08 per 1,000 person-years in controls.

Wake Forest University

“Basically, because Crohn’s disease and IBD don’t happen very often, the modest increase in relative risk the investigators found doesn’t amount to much we’d have to worry about,” he said. “The findings do not show any need to screen patients with atopic dermatitis for IBD any more than we’d need to screen patients without atopic dermatitis.”

The increased relative risk “could be a clue to possible genetic connections between diseases,” he added. “But when we’re making clinical decisions, those decisions should be based on the absolute risk that some event may occur.”

Susan Massick, MD, dermatologist and associate professor at The Ohio State University in Columbus, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview, “We are still scratching the surface of the complexity of the immune and inflammatory pathways in AD and IBD.

The Ohio State Wexner Medical Center

“It is important to remember that correlation does not mean causation,” Dr. Massick said. “It would be premature to draw direct conclusions based on this study alone.”

The authors recommend future related studies in more diverse populations.

Dr. Gelfand and two coauthors reported ties with Pfizer, which supported the study. Dr. Gelfand and three coauthors reported ties with other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Maguiness, Dr. Scarberry, Dr. Strowd, and Dr. Massick reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Feldman reported ties with Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Cutaneous immune-related adverse events are associated with improved overall and progression-free survival among patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).

METHODOLOGY:

• Emerging evidence suggests that the presence of cutaneous immune-related adverse events may be linked with favorable outcomes among patients with cancer who receive ICIs.
• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that included 23 studies and a total of 22,749 patients with cancer who received ICI treatment; studies compared outcomes among patients with and those without cutaneous immune-related adverse events.
• The major outcomes evaluated in the analysis were overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS); subgroup analyses assessed cutaneous immune-related adverse event type, cancer type, and other factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• The occurrence of cutaneous immune-related adverse events was associated with improved PFS (hazard ratio, 0.52; P < .001) and overall survival (HR, 0.61; P < .001).
• In the subgroup analysis, patients with eczematous (HR, 0.69), lichenoid or lichen planus–like skin lesions (HR, 0.51), pruritus without rash (HR, 0.70), psoriasis (HR, 0.63), or vitiligo (HR, 0.30) demonstrated a significant overall survival advantage. Vitiligo was the only adverse event associated with a PFS advantage (HR, 0.28).
• Among patients with melanoma, analyses revealed a significant association between the incidence of cutaneous immune-related adverse events and improved overall survival (HR, 0.51) and PFS (HR, 0.45). The authors highlighted similar findings among patients with non–small cell lung cancer (HR, 0.50 for overall survival and 0.61 for PFS).

IN PRACTICE:

“These data suggest that [cutaneous immune-related adverse events] may have useful prognostic value in ICI treatment,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The analysis, led by Fei Wang, MD, Zhong Da Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, China, was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Most of the data came from retrospective studies, and there were limited data on specific patient subgroups. The Egger tests, used to assess potential publication bias in meta-analyses, revealed publication bias.

DISCLOSURES:

No disclosures were reported. The study was supported by a grant from the Postgraduate Research and Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province.

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

TOPLINE:

Cutaneous immune-related adverse events are associated with improved overall and progression-free survival among patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).

METHODOLOGY:

• Emerging evidence suggests that the presence of cutaneous immune-related adverse events may be linked with favorable outcomes among patients with cancer who receive ICIs.
• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that included 23 studies and a total of 22,749 patients with cancer who received ICI treatment; studies compared outcomes among patients with and those without cutaneous immune-related adverse events.
• The major outcomes evaluated in the analysis were overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS); subgroup analyses assessed cutaneous immune-related adverse event type, cancer type, and other factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• The occurrence of cutaneous immune-related adverse events was associated with improved PFS (hazard ratio, 0.52; P < .001) and overall survival (HR, 0.61; P < .001).
• In the subgroup analysis, patients with eczematous (HR, 0.69), lichenoid or lichen planus–like skin lesions (HR, 0.51), pruritus without rash (HR, 0.70), psoriasis (HR, 0.63), or vitiligo (HR, 0.30) demonstrated a significant overall survival advantage. Vitiligo was the only adverse event associated with a PFS advantage (HR, 0.28).
• Among patients with melanoma, analyses revealed a significant association between the incidence of cutaneous immune-related adverse events and improved overall survival (HR, 0.51) and PFS (HR, 0.45). The authors highlighted similar findings among patients with non–small cell lung cancer (HR, 0.50 for overall survival and 0.61 for PFS).

IN PRACTICE:

“These data suggest that [cutaneous immune-related adverse events] may have useful prognostic value in ICI treatment,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The analysis, led by Fei Wang, MD, Zhong Da Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, China, was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Most of the data came from retrospective studies, and there were limited data on specific patient subgroups. The Egger tests, used to assess potential publication bias in meta-analyses, revealed publication bias.

DISCLOSURES:

No disclosures were reported. The study was supported by a grant from the Postgraduate Research and Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province.

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

TOPLINE:

Cutaneous immune-related adverse events are associated with improved overall and progression-free survival among patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).

METHODOLOGY:

• Emerging evidence suggests that the presence of cutaneous immune-related adverse events may be linked with favorable outcomes among patients with cancer who receive ICIs.
• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that included 23 studies and a total of 22,749 patients with cancer who received ICI treatment; studies compared outcomes among patients with and those without cutaneous immune-related adverse events.
• The major outcomes evaluated in the analysis were overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS); subgroup analyses assessed cutaneous immune-related adverse event type, cancer type, and other factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• The occurrence of cutaneous immune-related adverse events was associated with improved PFS (hazard ratio, 0.52; P < .001) and overall survival (HR, 0.61; P < .001).
• In the subgroup analysis, patients with eczematous (HR, 0.69), lichenoid or lichen planus–like skin lesions (HR, 0.51), pruritus without rash (HR, 0.70), psoriasis (HR, 0.63), or vitiligo (HR, 0.30) demonstrated a significant overall survival advantage. Vitiligo was the only adverse event associated with a PFS advantage (HR, 0.28).
• Among patients with melanoma, analyses revealed a significant association between the incidence of cutaneous immune-related adverse events and improved overall survival (HR, 0.51) and PFS (HR, 0.45). The authors highlighted similar findings among patients with non–small cell lung cancer (HR, 0.50 for overall survival and 0.61 for PFS).

IN PRACTICE:

“These data suggest that [cutaneous immune-related adverse events] may have useful prognostic value in ICI treatment,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The analysis, led by Fei Wang, MD, Zhong Da Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, China, was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Most of the data came from retrospective studies, and there were limited data on specific patient subgroups. The Egger tests, used to assess potential publication bias in meta-analyses, revealed publication bias.

DISCLOSURES:

No disclosures were reported. The study was supported by a grant from the Postgraduate Research and Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province.

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