Dermatology News

U.S. regulators this year will begin to demand reports from cosmetics manufacturers about the ingredients used in their products. They are also preparing to assess potential risks of so-called forever chemicals in these products.

The Food and Drug Administration last year gained new authority over cosmetics when Congress passed the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) by adding this bill to a December budget package.

Yulia Lisitsa/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“On average, consumers in the U.S. use six to 12 cosmetics products daily. But, until recently the FDA didn’t have the authority to require manufacturers to submit cosmetic product listings, including a list of ingredients used in these products, or register the facilities where they were produced,” Namandjé Bumpus, PhD, FDA’s chief scientist, said in a press release.

In the statement, the FDA announced the release of a draft guidance document that is intended to help companies comply with the transparency requirements slated to kick in this December. The agency is accepting comments on this draft guidance through Sept. 7.

“Later this year, registration and listing of cosmetic product facilities and products will become a requirement, making information about cosmetic products, including the ingredients used in products and the facilities where they are produced, readily available to the agency,” Dr. Bumpus said.

The products, according to the FDA statement, include makeup, nail polishes, shaving creams, other grooming products, perfumes, face and body cleansers, hair products, moisturizers, and other skin care items.

MoCRA “represents a sea change in how FDA regulates the cosmetics industry,” attorneys Frederick R. Ball, Alyson Walker Lotman, and Kelly A. Bonner, wrote in an article for the Food and Drug Law Institute published in spring 2023.

The FDA has called the MoCRA law “the most significant expansion” of its authority to regulate cosmetics since the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was passed in 1938.

The agency is in the process of expanding its staff to carry out newly authorized duties, including the tracking of adverse events. The FDA budget request for fiscal 2024, which begins Oct. 1, seeks $5 million for work needed to implement MoCRA.

PFAS, or ‘forever chemicals’

Some of the requested FDA funding is intended to prepare the agency to assess the use of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in cosmetics.

MoCRA sets a 3-year deadline for the FDA to issue an assessment of the use and potential risks of PFAS in cosmetics products. PFAS are sometimes added as ingredients in some cosmetic products, including lotions, cleansers, nail polish, shaving cream, foundation, lipstick, eyeliner, eyeshadow, and mascara, according to the FDA. Sometimes the presence of PFAS in cosmetics is unintentional and is the result of impurities in raw materials or is due to the breakdown of ingredients, the FDA said.

The FDA’s website says that so far, the available research doesn’t allow for “definitive conclusions about the potential health risks of PFAS in cosmetics.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that research has suggested potential links between high levels of certain PFAS, in general, with increased cholesterol levels, changes in liver enzyme levels, increased risk of hypertension or preeclampsia in pregnant women, and increased risk of kidney or testicular cancer.

PFAS compounds often are used to resist grease, oil, water, and heat in industrial settings. They are used in thousands of products, from nonstick cookware to firefighting foams and protective gear, because they can reduce friction, according to a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on PFAS that was issued last year.

PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they contain a carbon-fluorine bond, which does not break naturally. Even when PFAS are transformed in the body, they can assume other forms of PFAS that preserve the troublesome carbon-fluorine bond. With PFAS, the human body is confronted with a substance it doesn’t have the tools to process.

This is in contrast to proteins and carbohydrates, which are in a sense prepackaged for relatively easy disassembly in the human body. Many of these compounds have weak links that enzymes and stomach acid can take apart, such as sulfur-to-sulfur (disulfide) bonds. That’s why protein-based biotech drugs are injected instead of administered as pills. The ultimate goal of this digestion is for the body to gain energy from these compounds.

But with PFAS, the body faces the challenge of carbon-fluorine bonds that are very hard to break down, and there is no payoff for these efforts, Graham F. Peaslee, PhD, professor of physics at the University of Notre Dame (Indiana), told this news organization.

“Nothing will naturally eat it because when you break the bond, it’s like eating celery,” he said. “You use more calories to eat the celery than you gain back from it.”
 

Interest from a U.S. senator

Dr. Peaslee was one of the authors of a 2021 article about PFAS in cosmetics that appeared in the journal Environmental Science and Technology Letters.

In the article, Dr. Peaslee and colleagues reported on their screening of 231 cosmetic products purchased in the United States and Canada using particle-induced gamma-ray emission spectroscopy. They found cases of undisclosed PFAS in cosmetic products. Foundations, mascaras, and lip products were noted as being especially problematic.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) cited Dr. Peaslee’s article in a 2021 floor speech as she argued for having the FDA ban the intentional addition of PFAS to cosmetics.

“The findings of this study are particularly alarming, as many of these products are subject to direct human exposure,” Sen. Collins said. “For example, lipstick is often inadvertently ingested, and mascara is sometimes absorbed through tear ducts.”

In addition, workers at cosmetics plants may be exposed to PFAS and discarded cosmetics that have these compounds, which could potentially contaminate drinking water, Sen. Collins said. In 2021, she introduced legislation seeking a ban on PFAS that are intentionally added to cosmetics. That legislation did not advance through the Senate.

But the Senate Appropriations Committee, on which Sen. Collins is the ranking Republican, wants the FDA to keep a ban on PFAS in mind.

The Senate Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, which oversees the FDA’s budget, raised the issue of PFAS and cosmetics in a June report. The FDA should develop a plan outlining research needed to inform “regulatory decision making, including potential development of a proposed rule to ban intentionally added PFAS substances in cosmetics,” the subcommittee said.
 

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

U.S. regulators this year will begin to demand reports from cosmetics manufacturers about the ingredients used in their products. They are also preparing to assess potential risks of so-called forever chemicals in these products.

The Food and Drug Administration last year gained new authority over cosmetics when Congress passed the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) by adding this bill to a December budget package.

Yulia Lisitsa/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“On average, consumers in the U.S. use six to 12 cosmetics products daily. But, until recently the FDA didn’t have the authority to require manufacturers to submit cosmetic product listings, including a list of ingredients used in these products, or register the facilities where they were produced,” Namandjé Bumpus, PhD, FDA’s chief scientist, said in a press release.

In the statement, the FDA announced the release of a draft guidance document that is intended to help companies comply with the transparency requirements slated to kick in this December. The agency is accepting comments on this draft guidance through Sept. 7.

“Later this year, registration and listing of cosmetic product facilities and products will become a requirement, making information about cosmetic products, including the ingredients used in products and the facilities where they are produced, readily available to the agency,” Dr. Bumpus said.

The products, according to the FDA statement, include makeup, nail polishes, shaving creams, other grooming products, perfumes, face and body cleansers, hair products, moisturizers, and other skin care items.

MoCRA “represents a sea change in how FDA regulates the cosmetics industry,” attorneys Frederick R. Ball, Alyson Walker Lotman, and Kelly A. Bonner, wrote in an article for the Food and Drug Law Institute published in spring 2023.

The FDA has called the MoCRA law “the most significant expansion” of its authority to regulate cosmetics since the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was passed in 1938.

The agency is in the process of expanding its staff to carry out newly authorized duties, including the tracking of adverse events. The FDA budget request for fiscal 2024, which begins Oct. 1, seeks $5 million for work needed to implement MoCRA.

PFAS, or ‘forever chemicals’

Some of the requested FDA funding is intended to prepare the agency to assess the use of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in cosmetics.

MoCRA sets a 3-year deadline for the FDA to issue an assessment of the use and potential risks of PFAS in cosmetics products. PFAS are sometimes added as ingredients in some cosmetic products, including lotions, cleansers, nail polish, shaving cream, foundation, lipstick, eyeliner, eyeshadow, and mascara, according to the FDA. Sometimes the presence of PFAS in cosmetics is unintentional and is the result of impurities in raw materials or is due to the breakdown of ingredients, the FDA said.

The FDA’s website says that so far, the available research doesn’t allow for “definitive conclusions about the potential health risks of PFAS in cosmetics.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that research has suggested potential links between high levels of certain PFAS, in general, with increased cholesterol levels, changes in liver enzyme levels, increased risk of hypertension or preeclampsia in pregnant women, and increased risk of kidney or testicular cancer.

PFAS compounds often are used to resist grease, oil, water, and heat in industrial settings. They are used in thousands of products, from nonstick cookware to firefighting foams and protective gear, because they can reduce friction, according to a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on PFAS that was issued last year.

PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they contain a carbon-fluorine bond, which does not break naturally. Even when PFAS are transformed in the body, they can assume other forms of PFAS that preserve the troublesome carbon-fluorine bond. With PFAS, the human body is confronted with a substance it doesn’t have the tools to process.

This is in contrast to proteins and carbohydrates, which are in a sense prepackaged for relatively easy disassembly in the human body. Many of these compounds have weak links that enzymes and stomach acid can take apart, such as sulfur-to-sulfur (disulfide) bonds. That’s why protein-based biotech drugs are injected instead of administered as pills. The ultimate goal of this digestion is for the body to gain energy from these compounds.

But with PFAS, the body faces the challenge of carbon-fluorine bonds that are very hard to break down, and there is no payoff for these efforts, Graham F. Peaslee, PhD, professor of physics at the University of Notre Dame (Indiana), told this news organization.

“Nothing will naturally eat it because when you break the bond, it’s like eating celery,” he said. “You use more calories to eat the celery than you gain back from it.”
 

Interest from a U.S. senator

Dr. Peaslee was one of the authors of a 2021 article about PFAS in cosmetics that appeared in the journal Environmental Science and Technology Letters.

In the article, Dr. Peaslee and colleagues reported on their screening of 231 cosmetic products purchased in the United States and Canada using particle-induced gamma-ray emission spectroscopy. They found cases of undisclosed PFAS in cosmetic products. Foundations, mascaras, and lip products were noted as being especially problematic.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) cited Dr. Peaslee’s article in a 2021 floor speech as she argued for having the FDA ban the intentional addition of PFAS to cosmetics.

“The findings of this study are particularly alarming, as many of these products are subject to direct human exposure,” Sen. Collins said. “For example, lipstick is often inadvertently ingested, and mascara is sometimes absorbed through tear ducts.”

In addition, workers at cosmetics plants may be exposed to PFAS and discarded cosmetics that have these compounds, which could potentially contaminate drinking water, Sen. Collins said. In 2021, she introduced legislation seeking a ban on PFAS that are intentionally added to cosmetics. That legislation did not advance through the Senate.

But the Senate Appropriations Committee, on which Sen. Collins is the ranking Republican, wants the FDA to keep a ban on PFAS in mind.

The Senate Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, which oversees the FDA’s budget, raised the issue of PFAS and cosmetics in a June report. The FDA should develop a plan outlining research needed to inform “regulatory decision making, including potential development of a proposed rule to ban intentionally added PFAS substances in cosmetics,” the subcommittee said.
 

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

U.S. regulators this year will begin to demand reports from cosmetics manufacturers about the ingredients used in their products. They are also preparing to assess potential risks of so-called forever chemicals in these products.

The Food and Drug Administration last year gained new authority over cosmetics when Congress passed the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) by adding this bill to a December budget package.

Yulia Lisitsa/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“On average, consumers in the U.S. use six to 12 cosmetics products daily. But, until recently the FDA didn’t have the authority to require manufacturers to submit cosmetic product listings, including a list of ingredients used in these products, or register the facilities where they were produced,” Namandjé Bumpus, PhD, FDA’s chief scientist, said in a press release.

In the statement, the FDA announced the release of a draft guidance document that is intended to help companies comply with the transparency requirements slated to kick in this December. The agency is accepting comments on this draft guidance through Sept. 7.

“Later this year, registration and listing of cosmetic product facilities and products will become a requirement, making information about cosmetic products, including the ingredients used in products and the facilities where they are produced, readily available to the agency,” Dr. Bumpus said.

The products, according to the FDA statement, include makeup, nail polishes, shaving creams, other grooming products, perfumes, face and body cleansers, hair products, moisturizers, and other skin care items.

MoCRA “represents a sea change in how FDA regulates the cosmetics industry,” attorneys Frederick R. Ball, Alyson Walker Lotman, and Kelly A. Bonner, wrote in an article for the Food and Drug Law Institute published in spring 2023.

The FDA has called the MoCRA law “the most significant expansion” of its authority to regulate cosmetics since the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was passed in 1938.

The agency is in the process of expanding its staff to carry out newly authorized duties, including the tracking of adverse events. The FDA budget request for fiscal 2024, which begins Oct. 1, seeks $5 million for work needed to implement MoCRA.

PFAS, or ‘forever chemicals’

Some of the requested FDA funding is intended to prepare the agency to assess the use of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in cosmetics.

MoCRA sets a 3-year deadline for the FDA to issue an assessment of the use and potential risks of PFAS in cosmetics products. PFAS are sometimes added as ingredients in some cosmetic products, including lotions, cleansers, nail polish, shaving cream, foundation, lipstick, eyeliner, eyeshadow, and mascara, according to the FDA. Sometimes the presence of PFAS in cosmetics is unintentional and is the result of impurities in raw materials or is due to the breakdown of ingredients, the FDA said.

The FDA’s website says that so far, the available research doesn’t allow for “definitive conclusions about the potential health risks of PFAS in cosmetics.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that research has suggested potential links between high levels of certain PFAS, in general, with increased cholesterol levels, changes in liver enzyme levels, increased risk of hypertension or preeclampsia in pregnant women, and increased risk of kidney or testicular cancer.

PFAS compounds often are used to resist grease, oil, water, and heat in industrial settings. They are used in thousands of products, from nonstick cookware to firefighting foams and protective gear, because they can reduce friction, according to a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on PFAS that was issued last year.

PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they contain a carbon-fluorine bond, which does not break naturally. Even when PFAS are transformed in the body, they can assume other forms of PFAS that preserve the troublesome carbon-fluorine bond. With PFAS, the human body is confronted with a substance it doesn’t have the tools to process.

This is in contrast to proteins and carbohydrates, which are in a sense prepackaged for relatively easy disassembly in the human body. Many of these compounds have weak links that enzymes and stomach acid can take apart, such as sulfur-to-sulfur (disulfide) bonds. That’s why protein-based biotech drugs are injected instead of administered as pills. The ultimate goal of this digestion is for the body to gain energy from these compounds.

But with PFAS, the body faces the challenge of carbon-fluorine bonds that are very hard to break down, and there is no payoff for these efforts, Graham F. Peaslee, PhD, professor of physics at the University of Notre Dame (Indiana), told this news organization.

“Nothing will naturally eat it because when you break the bond, it’s like eating celery,” he said. “You use more calories to eat the celery than you gain back from it.”
 

Interest from a U.S. senator

Dr. Peaslee was one of the authors of a 2021 article about PFAS in cosmetics that appeared in the journal Environmental Science and Technology Letters.

In the article, Dr. Peaslee and colleagues reported on their screening of 231 cosmetic products purchased in the United States and Canada using particle-induced gamma-ray emission spectroscopy. They found cases of undisclosed PFAS in cosmetic products. Foundations, mascaras, and lip products were noted as being especially problematic.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) cited Dr. Peaslee’s article in a 2021 floor speech as she argued for having the FDA ban the intentional addition of PFAS to cosmetics.

“The findings of this study are particularly alarming, as many of these products are subject to direct human exposure,” Sen. Collins said. “For example, lipstick is often inadvertently ingested, and mascara is sometimes absorbed through tear ducts.”

In addition, workers at cosmetics plants may be exposed to PFAS and discarded cosmetics that have these compounds, which could potentially contaminate drinking water, Sen. Collins said. In 2021, she introduced legislation seeking a ban on PFAS that are intentionally added to cosmetics. That legislation did not advance through the Senate.

But the Senate Appropriations Committee, on which Sen. Collins is the ranking Republican, wants the FDA to keep a ban on PFAS in mind.

The Senate Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, which oversees the FDA’s budget, raised the issue of PFAS and cosmetics in a June report. The FDA should develop a plan outlining research needed to inform “regulatory decision making, including potential development of a proposed rule to ban intentionally added PFAS substances in cosmetics,” the subcommittee said.
 

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

The American College of Rheumatology has released a summary of upcoming guidelines on screening, monitoring, and treatment for interstitial lung disease (ILD) in patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease.

The recommendations apply to adults with rheumatic diseases at greater risk for ILD: rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis (SSc), mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), Sjögren’s disease (SjD), and idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM).

“Interstitial lung disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality across several systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases,” Sindhu R. Johnson, MD, PhD, lead author of the new guidelines and director of the clinical epidemiology and health care research program at the University of Toronto, said in an ACR press release. “Guidance was needed for which tests to use for screening and monitoring this particular disease.”

The two documents are summaries of part of a larger manuscript currently awaiting peer review, according to the ACR, and the final guidelines are anticipated to be published by early 2024.

The recommendations were developed using “the best available evidence and consensus across a range of expert opinions and incorporated patient values and preferences,” according to the press release.

Highlights of recommendations for screening and monitoring ILD are:

• Providers can screen patients at higher risk for ILD with pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high-resolution CT of the chest.
• PFTs, chest high-resolution CT, and ambulatory desaturation testing are conditionally recommended for monitoring ILD progression.
• It is conditionally recommended that providers do not use 6-minute walk test distance, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy for screening or monitoring disease.
• It is suggested that patients with IIM-ILD and SSc-ILD receive PFTs for monitoring every 3-6 months during the first year, then less frequently once stable.
• It is suggested that patients with RA-ILD, SjD-ILD, and MCTD-ILD receive PFTs every 3-12 months for the first year, then less frequently once stable.

Suggestions on how often to screen for ILD were not present in the summary documents, but will be made available in the larger manuscript, said Elana Bernstein, MD, director of the Columbia University Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital scleroderma program, New York. She is co–first author of the guidelines.

Nearly all recommendations are conditional, primarily because the certainty of evidence behind many of these recommendations is low or very low, she said in an interview. More clinical data on ILD in patients with rheumatic disease would help strengthen evidence, she said, particularly for best practices in frequency of testing. “We need more research on how often patients should be screened for ILD and how often they should be monitored for ILD progression,” she said. “That would enable us to provide recommendations, rather than just suggestions.”

Highlights of recommendations for ILD treatment are:

• The guidelines strongly recommend against using glucocorticoids for first-line ILD treatment in patients with SSc-ILD.
• Short-term glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended as a first-line ILD treatment for patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease–related ILD (SARD-ILD), excluding SSc-ILD.
• Mycophenolate, azathioprine, rituximab, and cyclophosphamide are all potential first-line ILD treatment options for patients with SARD-ILD.
• It is conditionally recommended that patients with SARD-ILD do not receive leflunomide, methotrexate, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, or abatacept as first-line ILD treatment.
• If SARD-ILD progresses despite first-line therapy, mycophenolate, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and nintedanib are potential secondary treatment options.
• If RA-ILD progresses following initial therapy, pirfenidone is a treatment option.
• The guidelines conditionally recommend against pirfenidone as a secondary treatment option for SARD-ILD other than RA-ILD.

These summary guidelines appear “comprehensive,” but there has yet to be information published on the basis of these recommendations, Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, said in an interview.

“It’s important to understand that we don’t know whether most of these recommendations were just driven by expert opinion versus actual evidence from randomized, controlled clinical trials,” said Dr. Volkmann, who codirects the connective tissue disease–related interstitial lung disease program at the University of California, Los Angeles. She was not involved with creating the guidelines.

She expects that many of the recommendations for first- and second-line ILD treatment options were based on expert opinion, as there have been no randomized clinical trials looking at that specific topic, she said. For example, nintedanib is conditionally recommended as a first-line treatment option for SSc-ILD, but as a second-line treatment for SjD-ILD, IIM-ILD, and MCTD-ILD. “There’s no literature to support one or the other – whether nintedanib is first-line or second-line [treatment].”

The decision to publish the summary recommendations online prior to peer review is unusual, she said, as these recommendations could be altered during that process; however, Dr. Bernstein noted that was not likely.

By releasing the summary guideline now, the ACR can “get the needed information to clinicians earlier as the manuscript goes through its remaining stages and is finalized,” an ACR representative explained.

Prior to the expected publication of these guidelines in early 2024, Dr. Volkmann noted that the American Thoracic Society will be publishing guidelines on the treatment of SSc-ILD in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine in September.

Dr. Bernstein reported grants/contracts with the Department of Defense, the Scleroderma Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, Eicos, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kadmon, and Pfizer. Dr. Volkmann has received consulting and speaking fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and GlaxoSmithKline and institutional support for performing studies on systemic sclerosis for Kadmon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Horizon, and Prometheus.

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

The American College of Rheumatology has released a summary of upcoming guidelines on screening, monitoring, and treatment for interstitial lung disease (ILD) in patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease.

The recommendations apply to adults with rheumatic diseases at greater risk for ILD: rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis (SSc), mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), Sjögren’s disease (SjD), and idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM).

“Interstitial lung disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality across several systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases,” Sindhu R. Johnson, MD, PhD, lead author of the new guidelines and director of the clinical epidemiology and health care research program at the University of Toronto, said in an ACR press release. “Guidance was needed for which tests to use for screening and monitoring this particular disease.”

The two documents are summaries of part of a larger manuscript currently awaiting peer review, according to the ACR, and the final guidelines are anticipated to be published by early 2024.

The recommendations were developed using “the best available evidence and consensus across a range of expert opinions and incorporated patient values and preferences,” according to the press release.

Highlights of recommendations for screening and monitoring ILD are:

• Providers can screen patients at higher risk for ILD with pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high-resolution CT of the chest.
• PFTs, chest high-resolution CT, and ambulatory desaturation testing are conditionally recommended for monitoring ILD progression.
• It is conditionally recommended that providers do not use 6-minute walk test distance, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy for screening or monitoring disease.
• It is suggested that patients with IIM-ILD and SSc-ILD receive PFTs for monitoring every 3-6 months during the first year, then less frequently once stable.
• It is suggested that patients with RA-ILD, SjD-ILD, and MCTD-ILD receive PFTs every 3-12 months for the first year, then less frequently once stable.

Suggestions on how often to screen for ILD were not present in the summary documents, but will be made available in the larger manuscript, said Elana Bernstein, MD, director of the Columbia University Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital scleroderma program, New York. She is co–first author of the guidelines.

Nearly all recommendations are conditional, primarily because the certainty of evidence behind many of these recommendations is low or very low, she said in an interview. More clinical data on ILD in patients with rheumatic disease would help strengthen evidence, she said, particularly for best practices in frequency of testing. “We need more research on how often patients should be screened for ILD and how often they should be monitored for ILD progression,” she said. “That would enable us to provide recommendations, rather than just suggestions.”

Highlights of recommendations for ILD treatment are:

• The guidelines strongly recommend against using glucocorticoids for first-line ILD treatment in patients with SSc-ILD.
• Short-term glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended as a first-line ILD treatment for patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease–related ILD (SARD-ILD), excluding SSc-ILD.
• Mycophenolate, azathioprine, rituximab, and cyclophosphamide are all potential first-line ILD treatment options for patients with SARD-ILD.
• It is conditionally recommended that patients with SARD-ILD do not receive leflunomide, methotrexate, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, or abatacept as first-line ILD treatment.
• If SARD-ILD progresses despite first-line therapy, mycophenolate, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and nintedanib are potential secondary treatment options.
• If RA-ILD progresses following initial therapy, pirfenidone is a treatment option.
• The guidelines conditionally recommend against pirfenidone as a secondary treatment option for SARD-ILD other than RA-ILD.

These summary guidelines appear “comprehensive,” but there has yet to be information published on the basis of these recommendations, Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, said in an interview.

“It’s important to understand that we don’t know whether most of these recommendations were just driven by expert opinion versus actual evidence from randomized, controlled clinical trials,” said Dr. Volkmann, who codirects the connective tissue disease–related interstitial lung disease program at the University of California, Los Angeles. She was not involved with creating the guidelines.

She expects that many of the recommendations for first- and second-line ILD treatment options were based on expert opinion, as there have been no randomized clinical trials looking at that specific topic, she said. For example, nintedanib is conditionally recommended as a first-line treatment option for SSc-ILD, but as a second-line treatment for SjD-ILD, IIM-ILD, and MCTD-ILD. “There’s no literature to support one or the other – whether nintedanib is first-line or second-line [treatment].”

The decision to publish the summary recommendations online prior to peer review is unusual, she said, as these recommendations could be altered during that process; however, Dr. Bernstein noted that was not likely.

By releasing the summary guideline now, the ACR can “get the needed information to clinicians earlier as the manuscript goes through its remaining stages and is finalized,” an ACR representative explained.

Prior to the expected publication of these guidelines in early 2024, Dr. Volkmann noted that the American Thoracic Society will be publishing guidelines on the treatment of SSc-ILD in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine in September.

Dr. Bernstein reported grants/contracts with the Department of Defense, the Scleroderma Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, Eicos, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kadmon, and Pfizer. Dr. Volkmann has received consulting and speaking fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and GlaxoSmithKline and institutional support for performing studies on systemic sclerosis for Kadmon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Horizon, and Prometheus.

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

The American College of Rheumatology has released a summary of upcoming guidelines on screening, monitoring, and treatment for interstitial lung disease (ILD) in patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease.

The recommendations apply to adults with rheumatic diseases at greater risk for ILD: rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis (SSc), mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), Sjögren’s disease (SjD), and idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM).

“Interstitial lung disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality across several systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases,” Sindhu R. Johnson, MD, PhD, lead author of the new guidelines and director of the clinical epidemiology and health care research program at the University of Toronto, said in an ACR press release. “Guidance was needed for which tests to use for screening and monitoring this particular disease.”

The two documents are summaries of part of a larger manuscript currently awaiting peer review, according to the ACR, and the final guidelines are anticipated to be published by early 2024.

The recommendations were developed using “the best available evidence and consensus across a range of expert opinions and incorporated patient values and preferences,” according to the press release.

Highlights of recommendations for screening and monitoring ILD are:

• Providers can screen patients at higher risk for ILD with pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high-resolution CT of the chest.
• PFTs, chest high-resolution CT, and ambulatory desaturation testing are conditionally recommended for monitoring ILD progression.
• It is conditionally recommended that providers do not use 6-minute walk test distance, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy for screening or monitoring disease.
• It is suggested that patients with IIM-ILD and SSc-ILD receive PFTs for monitoring every 3-6 months during the first year, then less frequently once stable.
• It is suggested that patients with RA-ILD, SjD-ILD, and MCTD-ILD receive PFTs every 3-12 months for the first year, then less frequently once stable.

Suggestions on how often to screen for ILD were not present in the summary documents, but will be made available in the larger manuscript, said Elana Bernstein, MD, director of the Columbia University Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital scleroderma program, New York. She is co–first author of the guidelines.

Nearly all recommendations are conditional, primarily because the certainty of evidence behind many of these recommendations is low or very low, she said in an interview. More clinical data on ILD in patients with rheumatic disease would help strengthen evidence, she said, particularly for best practices in frequency of testing. “We need more research on how often patients should be screened for ILD and how often they should be monitored for ILD progression,” she said. “That would enable us to provide recommendations, rather than just suggestions.”

Highlights of recommendations for ILD treatment are:

• The guidelines strongly recommend against using glucocorticoids for first-line ILD treatment in patients with SSc-ILD.
• Short-term glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended as a first-line ILD treatment for patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease–related ILD (SARD-ILD), excluding SSc-ILD.
• Mycophenolate, azathioprine, rituximab, and cyclophosphamide are all potential first-line ILD treatment options for patients with SARD-ILD.
• It is conditionally recommended that patients with SARD-ILD do not receive leflunomide, methotrexate, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, or abatacept as first-line ILD treatment.
• If SARD-ILD progresses despite first-line therapy, mycophenolate, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and nintedanib are potential secondary treatment options.
• If RA-ILD progresses following initial therapy, pirfenidone is a treatment option.
• The guidelines conditionally recommend against pirfenidone as a secondary treatment option for SARD-ILD other than RA-ILD.

These summary guidelines appear “comprehensive,” but there has yet to be information published on the basis of these recommendations, Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, said in an interview.

“It’s important to understand that we don’t know whether most of these recommendations were just driven by expert opinion versus actual evidence from randomized, controlled clinical trials,” said Dr. Volkmann, who codirects the connective tissue disease–related interstitial lung disease program at the University of California, Los Angeles. She was not involved with creating the guidelines.

She expects that many of the recommendations for first- and second-line ILD treatment options were based on expert opinion, as there have been no randomized clinical trials looking at that specific topic, she said. For example, nintedanib is conditionally recommended as a first-line treatment option for SSc-ILD, but as a second-line treatment for SjD-ILD, IIM-ILD, and MCTD-ILD. “There’s no literature to support one or the other – whether nintedanib is first-line or second-line [treatment].”

The decision to publish the summary recommendations online prior to peer review is unusual, she said, as these recommendations could be altered during that process; however, Dr. Bernstein noted that was not likely.

By releasing the summary guideline now, the ACR can “get the needed information to clinicians earlier as the manuscript goes through its remaining stages and is finalized,” an ACR representative explained.

Prior to the expected publication of these guidelines in early 2024, Dr. Volkmann noted that the American Thoracic Society will be publishing guidelines on the treatment of SSc-ILD in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine in September.

Dr. Bernstein reported grants/contracts with the Department of Defense, the Scleroderma Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, Eicos, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kadmon, and Pfizer. Dr. Volkmann has received consulting and speaking fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and GlaxoSmithKline and institutional support for performing studies on systemic sclerosis for Kadmon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Horizon, and Prometheus.

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

People on Medicare may in 2026 see prices drop for 10 medicines, including pricey diabetes, cancer, blood clot, and arthritis treatments, if advocates for federal drug-price negotiations can implement their plans amid tough opposition.

The Biden administration on Aug. 29 revealed the first 10 drugs selected for direct Medicare price negotiations in accordance with a process mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

It’s unclear at this time, though, how these negotiations will play out. The Chamber of Commerce has sided with pharmaceutical companies in bids to block direct Medicare negotiation of drug prices. Many influential Republicans in Congress oppose this plan, which has deep support from both Democrats and AARP.

While facing strong opposition to negotiations, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sought in its announcement to illustrate the high costs of the selected medicines.

CMS provided data on total Part D costs for selected medicines for the period from June 2022 to May 2023, along with tallies of the number of people taking these drugs. The 10 selected medicines are as follows:
 

• Eliquis (generic name: apixaban), used to prevent and treat serious blood clots. It is taken by about 3.7 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $16.4 billion.
• Jardiance (generic name: empagliflozin), used for diabetes and heart failure. It is taken by almost 1.6 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $7.06 billion.
• Xarelto (generic name: rivaroxaban), used for blood clots. It is taken by about 1.3 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $6 billion.
• Januvia (generic name: sitagliptin), used for diabetes. It is taken by about 869,00 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $4.1 billion.
• Farxiga (generic name: dapagliflozin), used for diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. It is taken by about 799,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is almost $3.3 billion.
• Entresto (generic name: sacubitril/valsartan), used to treat heart failure. It is taken by 587,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.9 billion.
• Enbrel( generic name: etanercept), used for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is taken by 48,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.8 billion.
• Imbruvica (generic name: ibrutinib), used to treat some blood cancers. It is taken by about 20,000 people in Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.7 billion.
• Stelara (generic name: ustekinumab), used to treat plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or certain bowel conditions (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis). It is used by about 22,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.
• Fiasp; Fiasp FlexTouch; Fiasp PenFill; NovoLog; NovoLog FlexPen; NovoLog PenFill. These are forms of insulin used to treat diabetes. They are used by about 777,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.

A vocal critic of Medicare drug negotiations, Joel White, president of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, called the announcement of the 10 drugs selected for negotiation “a hollow victory lap.” A former Republican staffer on the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. White aided with the development of the Medicare Part D plans and has kept tabs on the pharmacy programs since its launch in 2006.

“No one’s costs will go down now or for years because of this announcement” about Part D negotiations, Mr. White said in a statement.

According to its website, CAHC includes among its members the American Academy of Ophthalmology as well as some patient groups, drugmakers, such as Johnson & Johnson, and insurers and industry groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers.

Separately, the influential Chamber of Commerce is making a strong push to at least delay the implementation of the Medicare Part D drug negotiations. On Aug. 28, the chamber released a letter sent to the Biden administration, raising concerns about a “rush” to implement the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The chamber also has filed suit to challenge the drug negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction by Oct. 1, 2023.

Other pending legal challenges to direct Medicare drug negotiations include suits filed by Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca, according to an email from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA also said it is a party to a case.

In addition, the three congressional Republicans with most direct influence over Medicare policy issued on Aug. 29 a joint statement outlining their objections to the planned negotiations on drug prices.

This drug-negotiation proposal is “an unworkable, legally dubious scheme that will lead to higher prices for new drugs coming to market, stifle the development of new cures, and destroy jobs,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.), and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).

Democrats were equally firm and vocal in their support of the negotiations. Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued a statement on Aug. 29 that said the release of the list of the 10 drugs selected for Medicare drug negotiations is part of a “seismic shift in the relationship between Big Pharma, the federal government, and seniors who are counting on lower prices.

“I will be following the negotiation process closely and will fight any attempt by Big Pharma to undo or undermine the progress that’s been made,” Mr. Wyden said.

In addition, AARP issued a statement of its continued support for Medicare drug negotiations.

“The No. 1 reason seniors skip or ration their prescriptions is because they can’t afford them. This must stop,” said AARP executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer Nancy LeaMond in the statement. “The big drug companies and their allies continue suing to overturn the Medicare drug price negotiation program to keep up their price gouging. We can’t allow seniors to be Big Pharma’s cash machine anymore.”

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

People on Medicare may in 2026 see prices drop for 10 medicines, including pricey diabetes, cancer, blood clot, and arthritis treatments, if advocates for federal drug-price negotiations can implement their plans amid tough opposition.

The Biden administration on Aug. 29 revealed the first 10 drugs selected for direct Medicare price negotiations in accordance with a process mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

It’s unclear at this time, though, how these negotiations will play out. The Chamber of Commerce has sided with pharmaceutical companies in bids to block direct Medicare negotiation of drug prices. Many influential Republicans in Congress oppose this plan, which has deep support from both Democrats and AARP.

While facing strong opposition to negotiations, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sought in its announcement to illustrate the high costs of the selected medicines.

CMS provided data on total Part D costs for selected medicines for the period from June 2022 to May 2023, along with tallies of the number of people taking these drugs. The 10 selected medicines are as follows:
 

• Eliquis (generic name: apixaban), used to prevent and treat serious blood clots. It is taken by about 3.7 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $16.4 billion.
• Jardiance (generic name: empagliflozin), used for diabetes and heart failure. It is taken by almost 1.6 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $7.06 billion.
• Xarelto (generic name: rivaroxaban), used for blood clots. It is taken by about 1.3 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $6 billion.
• Januvia (generic name: sitagliptin), used for diabetes. It is taken by about 869,00 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $4.1 billion.
• Farxiga (generic name: dapagliflozin), used for diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. It is taken by about 799,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is almost $3.3 billion.
• Entresto (generic name: sacubitril/valsartan), used to treat heart failure. It is taken by 587,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.9 billion.
• Enbrel( generic name: etanercept), used for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is taken by 48,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.8 billion.
• Imbruvica (generic name: ibrutinib), used to treat some blood cancers. It is taken by about 20,000 people in Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.7 billion.
• Stelara (generic name: ustekinumab), used to treat plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or certain bowel conditions (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis). It is used by about 22,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.
• Fiasp; Fiasp FlexTouch; Fiasp PenFill; NovoLog; NovoLog FlexPen; NovoLog PenFill. These are forms of insulin used to treat diabetes. They are used by about 777,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.

A vocal critic of Medicare drug negotiations, Joel White, president of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, called the announcement of the 10 drugs selected for negotiation “a hollow victory lap.” A former Republican staffer on the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. White aided with the development of the Medicare Part D plans and has kept tabs on the pharmacy programs since its launch in 2006.

“No one’s costs will go down now or for years because of this announcement” about Part D negotiations, Mr. White said in a statement.

According to its website, CAHC includes among its members the American Academy of Ophthalmology as well as some patient groups, drugmakers, such as Johnson & Johnson, and insurers and industry groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers.

Separately, the influential Chamber of Commerce is making a strong push to at least delay the implementation of the Medicare Part D drug negotiations. On Aug. 28, the chamber released a letter sent to the Biden administration, raising concerns about a “rush” to implement the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The chamber also has filed suit to challenge the drug negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction by Oct. 1, 2023.

Other pending legal challenges to direct Medicare drug negotiations include suits filed by Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca, according to an email from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA also said it is a party to a case.

In addition, the three congressional Republicans with most direct influence over Medicare policy issued on Aug. 29 a joint statement outlining their objections to the planned negotiations on drug prices.

This drug-negotiation proposal is “an unworkable, legally dubious scheme that will lead to higher prices for new drugs coming to market, stifle the development of new cures, and destroy jobs,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.), and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).

Democrats were equally firm and vocal in their support of the negotiations. Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued a statement on Aug. 29 that said the release of the list of the 10 drugs selected for Medicare drug negotiations is part of a “seismic shift in the relationship between Big Pharma, the federal government, and seniors who are counting on lower prices.

“I will be following the negotiation process closely and will fight any attempt by Big Pharma to undo or undermine the progress that’s been made,” Mr. Wyden said.

In addition, AARP issued a statement of its continued support for Medicare drug negotiations.

“The No. 1 reason seniors skip or ration their prescriptions is because they can’t afford them. This must stop,” said AARP executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer Nancy LeaMond in the statement. “The big drug companies and their allies continue suing to overturn the Medicare drug price negotiation program to keep up their price gouging. We can’t allow seniors to be Big Pharma’s cash machine anymore.”

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

People on Medicare may in 2026 see prices drop for 10 medicines, including pricey diabetes, cancer, blood clot, and arthritis treatments, if advocates for federal drug-price negotiations can implement their plans amid tough opposition.

The Biden administration on Aug. 29 revealed the first 10 drugs selected for direct Medicare price negotiations in accordance with a process mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

It’s unclear at this time, though, how these negotiations will play out. The Chamber of Commerce has sided with pharmaceutical companies in bids to block direct Medicare negotiation of drug prices. Many influential Republicans in Congress oppose this plan, which has deep support from both Democrats and AARP.

While facing strong opposition to negotiations, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sought in its announcement to illustrate the high costs of the selected medicines.

CMS provided data on total Part D costs for selected medicines for the period from June 2022 to May 2023, along with tallies of the number of people taking these drugs. The 10 selected medicines are as follows:
 

• Eliquis (generic name: apixaban), used to prevent and treat serious blood clots. It is taken by about 3.7 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $16.4 billion.
• Jardiance (generic name: empagliflozin), used for diabetes and heart failure. It is taken by almost 1.6 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $7.06 billion.
• Xarelto (generic name: rivaroxaban), used for blood clots. It is taken by about 1.3 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $6 billion.
• Januvia (generic name: sitagliptin), used for diabetes. It is taken by about 869,00 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $4.1 billion.
• Farxiga (generic name: dapagliflozin), used for diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. It is taken by about 799,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is almost $3.3 billion.
• Entresto (generic name: sacubitril/valsartan), used to treat heart failure. It is taken by 587,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.9 billion.
• Enbrel( generic name: etanercept), used for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is taken by 48,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.8 billion.
• Imbruvica (generic name: ibrutinib), used to treat some blood cancers. It is taken by about 20,000 people in Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.7 billion.
• Stelara (generic name: ustekinumab), used to treat plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or certain bowel conditions (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis). It is used by about 22,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.
• Fiasp; Fiasp FlexTouch; Fiasp PenFill; NovoLog; NovoLog FlexPen; NovoLog PenFill. These are forms of insulin used to treat diabetes. They are used by about 777,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.

A vocal critic of Medicare drug negotiations, Joel White, president of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, called the announcement of the 10 drugs selected for negotiation “a hollow victory lap.” A former Republican staffer on the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. White aided with the development of the Medicare Part D plans and has kept tabs on the pharmacy programs since its launch in 2006.

“No one’s costs will go down now or for years because of this announcement” about Part D negotiations, Mr. White said in a statement.

According to its website, CAHC includes among its members the American Academy of Ophthalmology as well as some patient groups, drugmakers, such as Johnson & Johnson, and insurers and industry groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers.

Separately, the influential Chamber of Commerce is making a strong push to at least delay the implementation of the Medicare Part D drug negotiations. On Aug. 28, the chamber released a letter sent to the Biden administration, raising concerns about a “rush” to implement the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The chamber also has filed suit to challenge the drug negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction by Oct. 1, 2023.

Other pending legal challenges to direct Medicare drug negotiations include suits filed by Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca, according to an email from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA also said it is a party to a case.

In addition, the three congressional Republicans with most direct influence over Medicare policy issued on Aug. 29 a joint statement outlining their objections to the planned negotiations on drug prices.

This drug-negotiation proposal is “an unworkable, legally dubious scheme that will lead to higher prices for new drugs coming to market, stifle the development of new cures, and destroy jobs,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.), and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).

Democrats were equally firm and vocal in their support of the negotiations. Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued a statement on Aug. 29 that said the release of the list of the 10 drugs selected for Medicare drug negotiations is part of a “seismic shift in the relationship between Big Pharma, the federal government, and seniors who are counting on lower prices.

“I will be following the negotiation process closely and will fight any attempt by Big Pharma to undo or undermine the progress that’s been made,” Mr. Wyden said.

In addition, AARP issued a statement of its continued support for Medicare drug negotiations.

“The No. 1 reason seniors skip or ration their prescriptions is because they can’t afford them. This must stop,” said AARP executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer Nancy LeaMond in the statement. “The big drug companies and their allies continue suing to overturn the Medicare drug price negotiation program to keep up their price gouging. We can’t allow seniors to be Big Pharma’s cash machine anymore.”

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

SAN DIEGO – The need for antibiotic prophylaxis in dermatologic surgery depends on the type of procedure, the patient, what infection you’re trying to keep at bay, and the type of wound, according to Tissa Hata, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.

Among the many studies in the medical literature that have examined the use of antibiotics to prevent surgical site infections, one study published in 2006 has the largest number of patients to date, Dr. Hata said at a conference on superficial anatomy and cutaneous surgery sponsored by UCSD and Scripps Clinic. In the prospective study of wound infections in patients undergoing dermatologic surgery without prophylactic antibiotics, researchers in Australia prospectively examined 5,091 lesions, mostly nonmelanoma skin cancers, in 2,424 patients over the course of 3 years.

By procedure, the infection rate was highest for skin grafts (8.70%) and wedge excision of the lip or ear (8.57%), followed by skin flap repairs (2.94%), curettage (0.73%), and simple excision and closure (0.54%). By anatomic site, groin excisional surgery had the highest infection rate (10%), followed by surgical procedures below the knee (6.92%), while those performed on the face had a low rate (0.81%). “Based on their analysis, they suggest antibiotic prophylaxis for all procedures below the knee and groin, wedge excisions of the lip and ear, and all skin grafts,” Dr. Hata said.

In 2008, an advisory statement published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology expanded the procedure location and techniques requiring antibiotic prophylaxis to include procedures on the nose and the lower extremity (especially the leg), and for patients with extensive inflammatory disease. According to the statement, in patients without a penicillin allergy, the suggested antibiotic prophylaxis regimen for wedge excision of the lip/ear, flaps on the nose, or all skin grafts include 2 g oral cephalexin or dicloxacillin. In patients with penicillin allergy, the recommended prophylaxis regimen for wedge excision of the lip/ear, flaps on the nose, or all skin grafts include 600 mg oral clindamycin or 500 mg oral azithromycin/clarithromycin.

In the statement, for patients with no penicillin allergy, the suggested prophylaxis regimen for lesions in the groin or on the lower extremities include 2 g oral cephalexin, 1 tablet of oral trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) DS, or 500 mg of levofloxacin. In patients with penicillin allergy, the recommended prophylaxis regimen for lesions on the groin and lower extremities is 1 tablet of TMP-SMX DS or 500 mg of levofloxacin.

In 2020, a meta-analysis of surgical site infections in patients undergoing Mohs surgery of the ear and nose found that there was no difference in infections in those locations whether patients received oral antibiotic prophylaxis or not. “But the researchers did not specify the type of closure, whether it was a graft or a flap closure,” Dr. Hata commented.

Endocarditis prophylaxis

Dr. Hata also discussed antibiotic recommendations for endocarditis prophylaxis, noting that the mortality rate from endocarditis is as high as 76%, and an estimated 40% of affected patients require heart valve replacement within 5-8 years. “But the good news is that fewer than 10 cases have been possibly linked to dermatologic procedures,” she said.

During outpatient dermatologic surgery, the incidence of bacteremia is in the range of 1.9%-3%, similar to the incidence of 2% that occurs spontaneously in healthy adults, according to Dr. Hata. She said that the following activities or procedures pose a much higher risk of bacteremia: mastication (17%-24%), tooth brushing (24%-40%), tooth extraction (60%-90%), and incision and drainage of an abscess (38%).

American Heart Association guidelines from 2007 recommend antibiotic prophylaxis in only the highest-risk categories of patients. These guidelines were updated in 2017 to include patients with transcatheter prosthetic valves and those with prosthetic material in valve repair. “The primary reason for revision of guidelines is that endocarditis is much more likely to result from frequent exposure to random bacteremia associated with daily activity such as brushing our teeth or having a tooth extracted,” Dr. Hata explained. “Prophylaxis may prevent an exceedingly small number of cases. Authors of the guidelines concluded that the risk of antibiotic-associated adverse event exceeds the benefit of prophylactic therapy, and that maintenance of optimal oral health is more important than prophylactic antibiotics.”

The 2017 AHA guidelines recommend antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with the following cardiac conditions: those with a prosthetic cardiac valve including transcatheter-implanted prostheses and homografts; those with previous endocarditis; those with prosthetic material used for heart valve repair, such as annuloplasty rings, chords or clips; cardiac transplantation recipients who develop cardiac valvulopathy; and those with certain types of congenital heart disease, including unrepaired cyanotic CHD, a completely repaired congenital heart defect with a prosthetic material or device during the first 6 months after the procedure, and repaired CHD with residual defects at the site or adjacent to the site of a prosthetic patch or prosthetic device.

Procedures that may require prophylaxis for endocarditis include all dental procedures that involve manipulation of the gingival tissue or the periapical region of teeth or perforation of the oral mucosa, and respiratory tract procedures that involve incision or biopsy of the respiratory mucosa such as tonsillectomy or adenoidectomy. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended for procedures involving the gastrointestinal tract or the genitourinary tract unless an active infection is present. As for skin procedures, the guidelines recommend antibiotic prophylaxis for patients in the high-risk category who undergo a surgical procedure that involves infected skin, skin structure, or musculoskeletal tissue.

In the 2017 AHA guidelines, patients with no penicillin allergy, the suggested antibiotic prophylaxis regimen for endocarditis in non-oral sites includes 2 g oral cephalexin or dicloxacillin, while in patients with penicillin allergy, the suggested prophylaxis for endocarditis in non-oral sites includes 600 mg oral clindamycin or 500 mg oral azithromycin/clarithromycin. In patients without a penicillin allergy, the suggested prophylaxis for endocarditis in oral sites is 2 g oral amoxicillin, while in those with penicillin allergy, the suggested antibiotic prophylaxis for endocarditis in oral sites is 500 mg azithromycin/clarithromycin or doxycycline 100 mg.

“Antibiotic prophylaxis for endocarditis should be given 30-60 minutes prior to surgery, and a follow-up dose of antibiotics is no longer recommended,” Dr. Hata said. “If you forget [to administer the antibiotics] or the patient forgets, antibiotics may be given up to 2 hours after the procedure.”

Dr. Hata reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – The need for antibiotic prophylaxis in dermatologic surgery depends on the type of procedure, the patient, what infection you’re trying to keep at bay, and the type of wound, according to Tissa Hata, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.

Among the many studies in the medical literature that have examined the use of antibiotics to prevent surgical site infections, one study published in 2006 has the largest number of patients to date, Dr. Hata said at a conference on superficial anatomy and cutaneous surgery sponsored by UCSD and Scripps Clinic. In the prospective study of wound infections in patients undergoing dermatologic surgery without prophylactic antibiotics, researchers in Australia prospectively examined 5,091 lesions, mostly nonmelanoma skin cancers, in 2,424 patients over the course of 3 years.

By procedure, the infection rate was highest for skin grafts (8.70%) and wedge excision of the lip or ear (8.57%), followed by skin flap repairs (2.94%), curettage (0.73%), and simple excision and closure (0.54%). By anatomic site, groin excisional surgery had the highest infection rate (10%), followed by surgical procedures below the knee (6.92%), while those performed on the face had a low rate (0.81%). “Based on their analysis, they suggest antibiotic prophylaxis for all procedures below the knee and groin, wedge excisions of the lip and ear, and all skin grafts,” Dr. Hata said.

In 2008, an advisory statement published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology expanded the procedure location and techniques requiring antibiotic prophylaxis to include procedures on the nose and the lower extremity (especially the leg), and for patients with extensive inflammatory disease. According to the statement, in patients without a penicillin allergy, the suggested antibiotic prophylaxis regimen for wedge excision of the lip/ear, flaps on the nose, or all skin grafts include 2 g oral cephalexin or dicloxacillin. In patients with penicillin allergy, the recommended prophylaxis regimen for wedge excision of the lip/ear, flaps on the nose, or all skin grafts include 600 mg oral clindamycin or 500 mg oral azithromycin/clarithromycin.

In the statement, for patients with no penicillin allergy, the suggested prophylaxis regimen for lesions in the groin or on the lower extremities include 2 g oral cephalexin, 1 tablet of oral trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) DS, or 500 mg of levofloxacin. In patients with penicillin allergy, the recommended prophylaxis regimen for lesions on the groin and lower extremities is 1 tablet of TMP-SMX DS or 500 mg of levofloxacin.

In 2020, a meta-analysis of surgical site infections in patients undergoing Mohs surgery of the ear and nose found that there was no difference in infections in those locations whether patients received oral antibiotic prophylaxis or not. “But the researchers did not specify the type of closure, whether it was a graft or a flap closure,” Dr. Hata commented.

Endocarditis prophylaxis

Dr. Hata also discussed antibiotic recommendations for endocarditis prophylaxis, noting that the mortality rate from endocarditis is as high as 76%, and an estimated 40% of affected patients require heart valve replacement within 5-8 years. “But the good news is that fewer than 10 cases have been possibly linked to dermatologic procedures,” she said.

During outpatient dermatologic surgery, the incidence of bacteremia is in the range of 1.9%-3%, similar to the incidence of 2% that occurs spontaneously in healthy adults, according to Dr. Hata. She said that the following activities or procedures pose a much higher risk of bacteremia: mastication (17%-24%), tooth brushing (24%-40%), tooth extraction (60%-90%), and incision and drainage of an abscess (38%).

American Heart Association guidelines from 2007 recommend antibiotic prophylaxis in only the highest-risk categories of patients. These guidelines were updated in 2017 to include patients with transcatheter prosthetic valves and those with prosthetic material in valve repair. “The primary reason for revision of guidelines is that endocarditis is much more likely to result from frequent exposure to random bacteremia associated with daily activity such as brushing our teeth or having a tooth extracted,” Dr. Hata explained. “Prophylaxis may prevent an exceedingly small number of cases. Authors of the guidelines concluded that the risk of antibiotic-associated adverse event exceeds the benefit of prophylactic therapy, and that maintenance of optimal oral health is more important than prophylactic antibiotics.”

The 2017 AHA guidelines recommend antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with the following cardiac conditions: those with a prosthetic cardiac valve including transcatheter-implanted prostheses and homografts; those with previous endocarditis; those with prosthetic material used for heart valve repair, such as annuloplasty rings, chords or clips; cardiac transplantation recipients who develop cardiac valvulopathy; and those with certain types of congenital heart disease, including unrepaired cyanotic CHD, a completely repaired congenital heart defect with a prosthetic material or device during the first 6 months after the procedure, and repaired CHD with residual defects at the site or adjacent to the site of a prosthetic patch or prosthetic device.

Procedures that may require prophylaxis for endocarditis include all dental procedures that involve manipulation of the gingival tissue or the periapical region of teeth or perforation of the oral mucosa, and respiratory tract procedures that involve incision or biopsy of the respiratory mucosa such as tonsillectomy or adenoidectomy. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended for procedures involving the gastrointestinal tract or the genitourinary tract unless an active infection is present. As for skin procedures, the guidelines recommend antibiotic prophylaxis for patients in the high-risk category who undergo a surgical procedure that involves infected skin, skin structure, or musculoskeletal tissue.

In the 2017 AHA guidelines, patients with no penicillin allergy, the suggested antibiotic prophylaxis regimen for endocarditis in non-oral sites includes 2 g oral cephalexin or dicloxacillin, while in patients with penicillin allergy, the suggested prophylaxis for endocarditis in non-oral sites includes 600 mg oral clindamycin or 500 mg oral azithromycin/clarithromycin. In patients without a penicillin allergy, the suggested prophylaxis for endocarditis in oral sites is 2 g oral amoxicillin, while in those with penicillin allergy, the suggested antibiotic prophylaxis for endocarditis in oral sites is 500 mg azithromycin/clarithromycin or doxycycline 100 mg.

“Antibiotic prophylaxis for endocarditis should be given 30-60 minutes prior to surgery, and a follow-up dose of antibiotics is no longer recommended,” Dr. Hata said. “If you forget [to administer the antibiotics] or the patient forgets, antibiotics may be given up to 2 hours after the procedure.”

Dr. Hata reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – The need for antibiotic prophylaxis in dermatologic surgery depends on the type of procedure, the patient, what infection you’re trying to keep at bay, and the type of wound, according to Tissa Hata, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.

Among the many studies in the medical literature that have examined the use of antibiotics to prevent surgical site infections, one study published in 2006 has the largest number of patients to date, Dr. Hata said at a conference on superficial anatomy and cutaneous surgery sponsored by UCSD and Scripps Clinic. In the prospective study of wound infections in patients undergoing dermatologic surgery without prophylactic antibiotics, researchers in Australia prospectively examined 5,091 lesions, mostly nonmelanoma skin cancers, in 2,424 patients over the course of 3 years.

By procedure, the infection rate was highest for skin grafts (8.70%) and wedge excision of the lip or ear (8.57%), followed by skin flap repairs (2.94%), curettage (0.73%), and simple excision and closure (0.54%). By anatomic site, groin excisional surgery had the highest infection rate (10%), followed by surgical procedures below the knee (6.92%), while those performed on the face had a low rate (0.81%). “Based on their analysis, they suggest antibiotic prophylaxis for all procedures below the knee and groin, wedge excisions of the lip and ear, and all skin grafts,” Dr. Hata said.

In 2008, an advisory statement published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology expanded the procedure location and techniques requiring antibiotic prophylaxis to include procedures on the nose and the lower extremity (especially the leg), and for patients with extensive inflammatory disease. According to the statement, in patients without a penicillin allergy, the suggested antibiotic prophylaxis regimen for wedge excision of the lip/ear, flaps on the nose, or all skin grafts include 2 g oral cephalexin or dicloxacillin. In patients with penicillin allergy, the recommended prophylaxis regimen for wedge excision of the lip/ear, flaps on the nose, or all skin grafts include 600 mg oral clindamycin or 500 mg oral azithromycin/clarithromycin.

In the statement, for patients with no penicillin allergy, the suggested prophylaxis regimen for lesions in the groin or on the lower extremities include 2 g oral cephalexin, 1 tablet of oral trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) DS, or 500 mg of levofloxacin. In patients with penicillin allergy, the recommended prophylaxis regimen for lesions on the groin and lower extremities is 1 tablet of TMP-SMX DS or 500 mg of levofloxacin.

In 2020, a meta-analysis of surgical site infections in patients undergoing Mohs surgery of the ear and nose found that there was no difference in infections in those locations whether patients received oral antibiotic prophylaxis or not. “But the researchers did not specify the type of closure, whether it was a graft or a flap closure,” Dr. Hata commented.

Endocarditis prophylaxis

Dr. Hata also discussed antibiotic recommendations for endocarditis prophylaxis, noting that the mortality rate from endocarditis is as high as 76%, and an estimated 40% of affected patients require heart valve replacement within 5-8 years. “But the good news is that fewer than 10 cases have been possibly linked to dermatologic procedures,” she said.

During outpatient dermatologic surgery, the incidence of bacteremia is in the range of 1.9%-3%, similar to the incidence of 2% that occurs spontaneously in healthy adults, according to Dr. Hata. She said that the following activities or procedures pose a much higher risk of bacteremia: mastication (17%-24%), tooth brushing (24%-40%), tooth extraction (60%-90%), and incision and drainage of an abscess (38%).

American Heart Association guidelines from 2007 recommend antibiotic prophylaxis in only the highest-risk categories of patients. These guidelines were updated in 2017 to include patients with transcatheter prosthetic valves and those with prosthetic material in valve repair. “The primary reason for revision of guidelines is that endocarditis is much more likely to result from frequent exposure to random bacteremia associated with daily activity such as brushing our teeth or having a tooth extracted,” Dr. Hata explained. “Prophylaxis may prevent an exceedingly small number of cases. Authors of the guidelines concluded that the risk of antibiotic-associated adverse event exceeds the benefit of prophylactic therapy, and that maintenance of optimal oral health is more important than prophylactic antibiotics.”

The 2017 AHA guidelines recommend antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with the following cardiac conditions: those with a prosthetic cardiac valve including transcatheter-implanted prostheses and homografts; those with previous endocarditis; those with prosthetic material used for heart valve repair, such as annuloplasty rings, chords or clips; cardiac transplantation recipients who develop cardiac valvulopathy; and those with certain types of congenital heart disease, including unrepaired cyanotic CHD, a completely repaired congenital heart defect with a prosthetic material or device during the first 6 months after the procedure, and repaired CHD with residual defects at the site or adjacent to the site of a prosthetic patch or prosthetic device.

Procedures that may require prophylaxis for endocarditis include all dental procedures that involve manipulation of the gingival tissue or the periapical region of teeth or perforation of the oral mucosa, and respiratory tract procedures that involve incision or biopsy of the respiratory mucosa such as tonsillectomy or adenoidectomy. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended for procedures involving the gastrointestinal tract or the genitourinary tract unless an active infection is present. As for skin procedures, the guidelines recommend antibiotic prophylaxis for patients in the high-risk category who undergo a surgical procedure that involves infected skin, skin structure, or musculoskeletal tissue.

In the 2017 AHA guidelines, patients with no penicillin allergy, the suggested antibiotic prophylaxis regimen for endocarditis in non-oral sites includes 2 g oral cephalexin or dicloxacillin, while in patients with penicillin allergy, the suggested prophylaxis for endocarditis in non-oral sites includes 600 mg oral clindamycin or 500 mg oral azithromycin/clarithromycin. In patients without a penicillin allergy, the suggested prophylaxis for endocarditis in oral sites is 2 g oral amoxicillin, while in those with penicillin allergy, the suggested antibiotic prophylaxis for endocarditis in oral sites is 500 mg azithromycin/clarithromycin or doxycycline 100 mg.

“Antibiotic prophylaxis for endocarditis should be given 30-60 minutes prior to surgery, and a follow-up dose of antibiotics is no longer recommended,” Dr. Hata said. “If you forget [to administer the antibiotics] or the patient forgets, antibiotics may be given up to 2 hours after the procedure.”

Dr. Hata reported having no relevant disclosures.

Systemic sclerosis patients with both interstitial lung disease and pulmonary hypertension had worse survival than those without both conditions, based on data from more than 3,000 individuals.

Pulmonary complications are now the most common causes of death in adults with systemic sclerosis (SSc), but the impact of patient characteristics and risk factors such as interstitial lung disease (ILD) and pulmonary hypertension (PH) on SSc outcomes remains unclear, wrote Pia Moinzadeh, MD, of University Hospital Cologne (Germany) and colleagues.

Although the role of ILD and PH in different SSc subtypes has been studied, larger studies of the effects of ILD and combining ILD and PH on outcomes are needed, since survival rates can change over time with new classification criteria, diagnostic tools, and improved therapies, they said.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 3,257 adults aged 18 years and older with SSc over a mean follow-up of 3.45 years. Participants were part of the German Network for Systemic Sclerosis (DNSS) that included 25 clinical centers in Germany. The participants were divided into SSc subsets: 54.2% with limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc), 31.4% with diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc), and 14.4% SSc overlapping syndromes.

The baseline prevalence of ILD was 34.5%, including 200 patients with ILD-PH and 923 with ILD but without PH. The baseline prevalence of PH without ILD was 4.5%. ILD was defined as SSc associated when other causes were excluded. PH was defined as an increase in mean arterial pressure of at least 25 mm Hg at rest, and also was defined by an estimated right ventricular systolic pressure greater than 35 mm Hg based on echocardiography.

By the end of the study period, 47.6% of SSc patients had ILD, 15.2% had ILD-PH, and 6.5% had pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Of the SSc patients with ILD, 57.3% had dcSSc; the prevalence of PAH was not significantly different between the SSc subtypes. Patients with dcSSc were more likely to develop ILD-PH (52.2%) and ILD without PH (52.1%); patients with lcSSc were more likely to have PAH (64.9%) or no pulmonary involvement (64.1%).

“For all subsets, a significant increase in the frequency of SSc-ILD was observed during follow-ups,” the researchers noted.

Overall survival at 5 years was worst for patients with both ILD and PH (79.1%). Five-year OS for patients with PAH was 85.0%. OS at 5 years was significantly better for patients with ILD without PH (92.8%) and those with no pulmonary involvement (96.4%), compared with the ILD and PH patients (P < 0.001).

In a multivariate analysis, the risk of death was more than five times higher for patients with ILD-PH, compared with the reference group of patients without pulmonary involvement (hazard ratio, 5.3). Factors associated with reduced risk of death included female sex (HR, 0.3), higher body mass index (HR, 0.9), and higher diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (HR, 0.98).

The findings were limited by several factors including the incomplete data for patients enrolled early in the registry, lack of complete radiology data, and the inability to determine whether the association between pulmonary involvement and survival was related to ILD or to pulmonary vascular disease, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that a combination of ILD and PH is the main predictor of death in patients with SSc and ILD, although the overall survival for SSc patients with and without pulmonary involvement has improved in recent decades thanks to improved therapies, multidisciplinary care, and greater attention to the disease worldwide, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Moinzadeh disclosed lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim.

Systemic sclerosis patients with both interstitial lung disease and pulmonary hypertension had worse survival than those without both conditions, based on data from more than 3,000 individuals.

Pulmonary complications are now the most common causes of death in adults with systemic sclerosis (SSc), but the impact of patient characteristics and risk factors such as interstitial lung disease (ILD) and pulmonary hypertension (PH) on SSc outcomes remains unclear, wrote Pia Moinzadeh, MD, of University Hospital Cologne (Germany) and colleagues.

Although the role of ILD and PH in different SSc subtypes has been studied, larger studies of the effects of ILD and combining ILD and PH on outcomes are needed, since survival rates can change over time with new classification criteria, diagnostic tools, and improved therapies, they said.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 3,257 adults aged 18 years and older with SSc over a mean follow-up of 3.45 years. Participants were part of the German Network for Systemic Sclerosis (DNSS) that included 25 clinical centers in Germany. The participants were divided into SSc subsets: 54.2% with limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc), 31.4% with diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc), and 14.4% SSc overlapping syndromes.

The baseline prevalence of ILD was 34.5%, including 200 patients with ILD-PH and 923 with ILD but without PH. The baseline prevalence of PH without ILD was 4.5%. ILD was defined as SSc associated when other causes were excluded. PH was defined as an increase in mean arterial pressure of at least 25 mm Hg at rest, and also was defined by an estimated right ventricular systolic pressure greater than 35 mm Hg based on echocardiography.

By the end of the study period, 47.6% of SSc patients had ILD, 15.2% had ILD-PH, and 6.5% had pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Of the SSc patients with ILD, 57.3% had dcSSc; the prevalence of PAH was not significantly different between the SSc subtypes. Patients with dcSSc were more likely to develop ILD-PH (52.2%) and ILD without PH (52.1%); patients with lcSSc were more likely to have PAH (64.9%) or no pulmonary involvement (64.1%).

“For all subsets, a significant increase in the frequency of SSc-ILD was observed during follow-ups,” the researchers noted.

Overall survival at 5 years was worst for patients with both ILD and PH (79.1%). Five-year OS for patients with PAH was 85.0%. OS at 5 years was significantly better for patients with ILD without PH (92.8%) and those with no pulmonary involvement (96.4%), compared with the ILD and PH patients (P < 0.001).

In a multivariate analysis, the risk of death was more than five times higher for patients with ILD-PH, compared with the reference group of patients without pulmonary involvement (hazard ratio, 5.3). Factors associated with reduced risk of death included female sex (HR, 0.3), higher body mass index (HR, 0.9), and higher diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (HR, 0.98).

The findings were limited by several factors including the incomplete data for patients enrolled early in the registry, lack of complete radiology data, and the inability to determine whether the association between pulmonary involvement and survival was related to ILD or to pulmonary vascular disease, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that a combination of ILD and PH is the main predictor of death in patients with SSc and ILD, although the overall survival for SSc patients with and without pulmonary involvement has improved in recent decades thanks to improved therapies, multidisciplinary care, and greater attention to the disease worldwide, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Moinzadeh disclosed lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim.

Systemic sclerosis patients with both interstitial lung disease and pulmonary hypertension had worse survival than those without both conditions, based on data from more than 3,000 individuals.

Pulmonary complications are now the most common causes of death in adults with systemic sclerosis (SSc), but the impact of patient characteristics and risk factors such as interstitial lung disease (ILD) and pulmonary hypertension (PH) on SSc outcomes remains unclear, wrote Pia Moinzadeh, MD, of University Hospital Cologne (Germany) and colleagues.

Although the role of ILD and PH in different SSc subtypes has been studied, larger studies of the effects of ILD and combining ILD and PH on outcomes are needed, since survival rates can change over time with new classification criteria, diagnostic tools, and improved therapies, they said.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 3,257 adults aged 18 years and older with SSc over a mean follow-up of 3.45 years. Participants were part of the German Network for Systemic Sclerosis (DNSS) that included 25 clinical centers in Germany. The participants were divided into SSc subsets: 54.2% with limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc), 31.4% with diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc), and 14.4% SSc overlapping syndromes.

The baseline prevalence of ILD was 34.5%, including 200 patients with ILD-PH and 923 with ILD but without PH. The baseline prevalence of PH without ILD was 4.5%. ILD was defined as SSc associated when other causes were excluded. PH was defined as an increase in mean arterial pressure of at least 25 mm Hg at rest, and also was defined by an estimated right ventricular systolic pressure greater than 35 mm Hg based on echocardiography.

By the end of the study period, 47.6% of SSc patients had ILD, 15.2% had ILD-PH, and 6.5% had pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Of the SSc patients with ILD, 57.3% had dcSSc; the prevalence of PAH was not significantly different between the SSc subtypes. Patients with dcSSc were more likely to develop ILD-PH (52.2%) and ILD without PH (52.1%); patients with lcSSc were more likely to have PAH (64.9%) or no pulmonary involvement (64.1%).

“For all subsets, a significant increase in the frequency of SSc-ILD was observed during follow-ups,” the researchers noted.

Overall survival at 5 years was worst for patients with both ILD and PH (79.1%). Five-year OS for patients with PAH was 85.0%. OS at 5 years was significantly better for patients with ILD without PH (92.8%) and those with no pulmonary involvement (96.4%), compared with the ILD and PH patients (P < 0.001).

In a multivariate analysis, the risk of death was more than five times higher for patients with ILD-PH, compared with the reference group of patients without pulmonary involvement (hazard ratio, 5.3). Factors associated with reduced risk of death included female sex (HR, 0.3), higher body mass index (HR, 0.9), and higher diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (HR, 0.98).

The findings were limited by several factors including the incomplete data for patients enrolled early in the registry, lack of complete radiology data, and the inability to determine whether the association between pulmonary involvement and survival was related to ILD or to pulmonary vascular disease, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that a combination of ILD and PH is the main predictor of death in patients with SSc and ILD, although the overall survival for SSc patients with and without pulmonary involvement has improved in recent decades thanks to improved therapies, multidisciplinary care, and greater attention to the disease worldwide, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Moinzadeh disclosed lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim.

Those who run Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour have something in common with those who run ERAS, the Electronic Residency Application Service. They cause agita to the people they purport to serve.

Most medical students won’t see Taylor Swift perform her hit song “Cruel Summer,” but they will spend thousands of dollars on ERAS as they prepare for the 2024 residency match. Medical students applying for residency tend to be as stressed out as Swifties trying to score concert tickets. Aside from the expenses of residency applications, students also face an increasingly complex application process: a match algorithm many of them do not understand and major changes to the application process that most learn about right before the application cycle begins.

I have gone through two matches myself, one for internal medicine and one for neurology, and I have also guided students through the process for almost a decade as a dean of student affairs at a medical school. Every summer, the application process is filled with numerous changes, often with little, if any, warning for the students. One year, for example, a specialty required additional essays tailored to each program. Though this requirement may have helped programs discern which students are most enthusiastic about their programs, it also disadvantaged students working on busier rotations, strapped for time to write as many as 70 additional essays in a matter of weeks.

Other recent changes have included “signaling” programs, selecting preferred regions, and preinterview recordings for some specialties. In 2023, students cannot include more than 10 activities on their ERAS application. I have spoken to students at numerous medical schools concerned about the difficulty of selecting 10 activities out of dozens of meaningful pursuits throughout their journeys; this challenge is particularly acute for students who had other careers before entering medical school.

The stress continues to mount even after residency applications have been submitted. Students often feel tied to their phones because offers for residency interviews roll in day and night by email, and if they wait more than a few hours to respond, they’re often moved to a waiting list for their preferred interview date. One year, while we were rounding on patients, a student stepped away to schedule an interview; while doing so, he missed out on managing a patient who developed a neurologic emergency. Thankfully, many but not all specialties have put rules in place to allow students more time to think through interview offers. Having more time to think, even if it’s just 48 hours, may decrease stress, limit the negative impacts on medical education, and promote informed decisions during interview season.

To be sure, most changes are being made in an effort to improve the experience of the students and programs. But as with anything, the result has been a mix of good and bad. The transition to virtual interviews allowed students to apply more broadly to programs without worrying about travel costs. The move also benefits students with disabilities who face accessibility and other challenges with traveling. However, virtual interviews came with several downsides, including but not limited to an increased number of applications submitted (recall that this was also a benefit), interview hoarding, and challenges of connecting personally via virtual platform. Despite the virtual format, applicants increasingly are doing in-person second looks, which some worry may give those applicants an additional advantage over applicants who do not have the time or financial resources to travel for a second look. Despite these shortcomings, it is important that virtual interviews remain an option for those applicants who need it.

Another change, which has been extensively debated in medical education in recent years, was the switch to pass/fail on the USMLE Step 1 exam. Though this move decreased the stress students experienced in the first 2 years of medical school, it has resulted in a new challenge as many residency programs put more emphasis on USMLE Step 2. Many medical students feel they do not have a good gauge of their competitiveness until a few weeks before they submit their application, particularly those applicants attending medical schools that do not provide them with information regarding their class standing until right before they submit their applications.

By the time Swift’s Eras Tour ends in the summer of 2024, medical students will already have matched and started their residency programs. At the same time, a new batch of students will be entering the next year’s match. Though the number of anticipated changes may not reach the level of seismic activity caused by the Swifties at her Seattle concert, many medical students fear that the changes may be just like tectonic plates shifting the match process away from its original purpose: to provide an orderly and fair mechanism for matching the preferences of applicants for U.S. residency positions with the preferences of residency program directors.

Dr. Etienne is with WMCHealth Good Samaritan Hospital, New York, and New York Medical College. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Those who run Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour have something in common with those who run ERAS, the Electronic Residency Application Service. They cause agita to the people they purport to serve.

Most medical students won’t see Taylor Swift perform her hit song “Cruel Summer,” but they will spend thousands of dollars on ERAS as they prepare for the 2024 residency match. Medical students applying for residency tend to be as stressed out as Swifties trying to score concert tickets. Aside from the expenses of residency applications, students also face an increasingly complex application process: a match algorithm many of them do not understand and major changes to the application process that most learn about right before the application cycle begins.

I have gone through two matches myself, one for internal medicine and one for neurology, and I have also guided students through the process for almost a decade as a dean of student affairs at a medical school. Every summer, the application process is filled with numerous changes, often with little, if any, warning for the students. One year, for example, a specialty required additional essays tailored to each program. Though this requirement may have helped programs discern which students are most enthusiastic about their programs, it also disadvantaged students working on busier rotations, strapped for time to write as many as 70 additional essays in a matter of weeks.

Other recent changes have included “signaling” programs, selecting preferred regions, and preinterview recordings for some specialties. In 2023, students cannot include more than 10 activities on their ERAS application. I have spoken to students at numerous medical schools concerned about the difficulty of selecting 10 activities out of dozens of meaningful pursuits throughout their journeys; this challenge is particularly acute for students who had other careers before entering medical school.

The stress continues to mount even after residency applications have been submitted. Students often feel tied to their phones because offers for residency interviews roll in day and night by email, and if they wait more than a few hours to respond, they’re often moved to a waiting list for their preferred interview date. One year, while we were rounding on patients, a student stepped away to schedule an interview; while doing so, he missed out on managing a patient who developed a neurologic emergency. Thankfully, many but not all specialties have put rules in place to allow students more time to think through interview offers. Having more time to think, even if it’s just 48 hours, may decrease stress, limit the negative impacts on medical education, and promote informed decisions during interview season.

To be sure, most changes are being made in an effort to improve the experience of the students and programs. But as with anything, the result has been a mix of good and bad. The transition to virtual interviews allowed students to apply more broadly to programs without worrying about travel costs. The move also benefits students with disabilities who face accessibility and other challenges with traveling. However, virtual interviews came with several downsides, including but not limited to an increased number of applications submitted (recall that this was also a benefit), interview hoarding, and challenges of connecting personally via virtual platform. Despite the virtual format, applicants increasingly are doing in-person second looks, which some worry may give those applicants an additional advantage over applicants who do not have the time or financial resources to travel for a second look. Despite these shortcomings, it is important that virtual interviews remain an option for those applicants who need it.

Another change, which has been extensively debated in medical education in recent years, was the switch to pass/fail on the USMLE Step 1 exam. Though this move decreased the stress students experienced in the first 2 years of medical school, it has resulted in a new challenge as many residency programs put more emphasis on USMLE Step 2. Many medical students feel they do not have a good gauge of their competitiveness until a few weeks before they submit their application, particularly those applicants attending medical schools that do not provide them with information regarding their class standing until right before they submit their applications.

By the time Swift’s Eras Tour ends in the summer of 2024, medical students will already have matched and started their residency programs. At the same time, a new batch of students will be entering the next year’s match. Though the number of anticipated changes may not reach the level of seismic activity caused by the Swifties at her Seattle concert, many medical students fear that the changes may be just like tectonic plates shifting the match process away from its original purpose: to provide an orderly and fair mechanism for matching the preferences of applicants for U.S. residency positions with the preferences of residency program directors.

Dr. Etienne is with WMCHealth Good Samaritan Hospital, New York, and New York Medical College. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Those who run Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour have something in common with those who run ERAS, the Electronic Residency Application Service. They cause agita to the people they purport to serve.

Most medical students won’t see Taylor Swift perform her hit song “Cruel Summer,” but they will spend thousands of dollars on ERAS as they prepare for the 2024 residency match. Medical students applying for residency tend to be as stressed out as Swifties trying to score concert tickets. Aside from the expenses of residency applications, students also face an increasingly complex application process: a match algorithm many of them do not understand and major changes to the application process that most learn about right before the application cycle begins.

I have gone through two matches myself, one for internal medicine and one for neurology, and I have also guided students through the process for almost a decade as a dean of student affairs at a medical school. Every summer, the application process is filled with numerous changes, often with little, if any, warning for the students. One year, for example, a specialty required additional essays tailored to each program. Though this requirement may have helped programs discern which students are most enthusiastic about their programs, it also disadvantaged students working on busier rotations, strapped for time to write as many as 70 additional essays in a matter of weeks.

Other recent changes have included “signaling” programs, selecting preferred regions, and preinterview recordings for some specialties. In 2023, students cannot include more than 10 activities on their ERAS application. I have spoken to students at numerous medical schools concerned about the difficulty of selecting 10 activities out of dozens of meaningful pursuits throughout their journeys; this challenge is particularly acute for students who had other careers before entering medical school.

The stress continues to mount even after residency applications have been submitted. Students often feel tied to their phones because offers for residency interviews roll in day and night by email, and if they wait more than a few hours to respond, they’re often moved to a waiting list for their preferred interview date. One year, while we were rounding on patients, a student stepped away to schedule an interview; while doing so, he missed out on managing a patient who developed a neurologic emergency. Thankfully, many but not all specialties have put rules in place to allow students more time to think through interview offers. Having more time to think, even if it’s just 48 hours, may decrease stress, limit the negative impacts on medical education, and promote informed decisions during interview season.

To be sure, most changes are being made in an effort to improve the experience of the students and programs. But as with anything, the result has been a mix of good and bad. The transition to virtual interviews allowed students to apply more broadly to programs without worrying about travel costs. The move also benefits students with disabilities who face accessibility and other challenges with traveling. However, virtual interviews came with several downsides, including but not limited to an increased number of applications submitted (recall that this was also a benefit), interview hoarding, and challenges of connecting personally via virtual platform. Despite the virtual format, applicants increasingly are doing in-person second looks, which some worry may give those applicants an additional advantage over applicants who do not have the time or financial resources to travel for a second look. Despite these shortcomings, it is important that virtual interviews remain an option for those applicants who need it.

Another change, which has been extensively debated in medical education in recent years, was the switch to pass/fail on the USMLE Step 1 exam. Though this move decreased the stress students experienced in the first 2 years of medical school, it has resulted in a new challenge as many residency programs put more emphasis on USMLE Step 2. Many medical students feel they do not have a good gauge of their competitiveness until a few weeks before they submit their application, particularly those applicants attending medical schools that do not provide them with information regarding their class standing until right before they submit their applications.

By the time Swift’s Eras Tour ends in the summer of 2024, medical students will already have matched and started their residency programs. At the same time, a new batch of students will be entering the next year’s match. Though the number of anticipated changes may not reach the level of seismic activity caused by the Swifties at her Seattle concert, many medical students fear that the changes may be just like tectonic plates shifting the match process away from its original purpose: to provide an orderly and fair mechanism for matching the preferences of applicants for U.S. residency positions with the preferences of residency program directors.

Dr. Etienne is with WMCHealth Good Samaritan Hospital, New York, and New York Medical College. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Clinical trials of treatments for rheumatologic conditions appear especially vulnerable to inadvertent unblinding, because of noticeable side effects of some drugs and subjective outcome measures, according to a new analysis.

Until more is known about the potential for unblinding, clinicians need to keep in mind that patients and physicians could often guess accurately who was getting placebo or active drug, first author Cody Bruggemeyer, MD, a resident at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview.

Dr. Bruggemeyer

“It’s important that rheumatologists be aware of this potential issue and use their clinical reasoning and their ability to critically assess papers to evaluate the study design” of research on treatments, he said in an interview.

Dr. Bruggemeyer and coauthors at the Medical College of Wisconsin presented their assessment of the potential for unblinding in a Viewpoint article in The Lancet Rheumatology.
 

A sample of pivotal clinical trials

The authors selected a sample of pivotal studies of 14 commonly prescribed drugs for rheumatic conditions for which double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the active ingredient with a placebo were available.

The 14 trials involved treatments classified as disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), some of which were likely to produce side effects that placebos would not mimic, such as injection site and infusion reactions and difference in readings in lab reports, the authors wrote.

In their analysis, Dr. Bruggemeyer and colleagues evaluated discrepancies in the rates of adverse events reported between active drugs and placebos and classified the 14 studies as follows:

• High unblinding risk: Nine studies had a high estimated risk of unblinding, including trials of adalimumab with citrate (Humira), anakinra (Kineret), anifrolumab (Saphnelo), apremilast (Otezla), ixekizumab (Taltz), leflunomide (Arava), methotrexate, risankizumab (Skyrizi) and tofacitinib (Xeljanz).
• Moderate unblinding risk: Three studies had a moderate estimated risk of unblinding, including trials of azathioprine (Imuran), mycophenolate mofetil and tocilizumab (Actemra).
• Low unblinding risk: Two studies had a low estimated risk of unblinding. These involved tests of belimumab (Benlysta) and rituximab (Rituxan).

Many of the effectiveness measurements of treatments used in rheumatology depend on patients’ reports of relief of pain and other disease symptoms. For example, the widely used American College of Rheumatology 20% response for rheumatoid arthritis includes components that rely on patient and physician assessment of disease activity.
 

Unblinding risk to clinical trial validity

CTs are the highest level of evidence to establish efficacy, because the study design aims to mask whether the experimental treatment is a drug or placebo. In cases where patients and physicians are more likely to correctly detect use of an active drug, there can be biases that skew results toward reports of symptom improvement. Other patients’ views of their treatment may be distorted by accurate guesses that they have been given placebo, Dr. Bruggemeyer and coauthors wrote.

“The degree of these effects cannot be predicted, but they tend to erroneously inflate the perceived benefit of novel interventions,” they wrote.

The consequences of this unblinding may be minimal in cases where there’s a clear difference between the placebo and active drug, they said. As an example, they cited trials of interleukin-23 inhibitors for psoriasis, where skin clearance as measured by the Psoriatic Area and Severity Index 75 differed by more than 50% in absolute terms between the treatment and placebo groups.

But in other cases, there needs to be more attention paid to the potential role of unblinding, they wrote.

“Studies where effect sizes were small, contradictory, or dependent on subgroup analyses might be especially problematic, but commentary rarely reflects this issue or acknowledges the potential influence of unblinding,” they wrote.

In the paper, they call for more analysis of previous trials to look for unreported assessments of unblinding, while also asking that researchers consider surveying participants in future trials to evaluate the degree to which unblinding occurs.

“Advocacy from professional societies and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration itself might be necessary, but in the interim, rheumatologists should assume unblinding has occurred to some degree in most trials,” they wrote.
 

Unblinding measure needs validation

In an interview, Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, co–medical director of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center in Dallas, raised some objections to the paper. The paper addresses an interesting question about unblinding, but there should have been more work done, such as finding “a measure that is validated that can say whether you’ve been unblinded or not.”

He added that he was surprised the paper on unblinding in rheumatology trials was published in its current form.

“I would have sent it for a major rewrite” if asked to review this paper before publication, said Dr. Fleischmann, who as a reviewer for Lancet Rheumatology. “I would have said: ‘Okay, 90% of this paper is okay, but your gist is not correct.’ It should be: ‘Is this a problem?’ ”

Dr. Fleischmann said he would have recommended a different perspective to the paper. “That is, this could occur. Should we be looking at this, and how would we look at this?”

In the paper, the authors acknowledge their approach has not been validated, “but it highlights the potential effect of idiosyncratic adverse events,” they wrote.

There’s less funding in general for meta-research than for studies involving treatments, so researchers look for approaches that can be handled without requiring significant funding, and much of the research on the quality of research is conducted like this analysis of rheumatology trials, Michael Putman, MD, the corresponding author and is a rheumatologist and an assistant professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, said in an interview.

“You’re mostly doing on a shoestring budget with yourself and trainees,” he said. Dr. Putman is an associate editor at the journal Rheumatology and also involved in meta-research, or efforts to understand how studies and trials answer questions about how medical treatments work.

In an Aug. 16 tweet, Dr. Putman said this issue of unintentional unblinding with rheumatology trials was something he’d “been ruminating about for awhile; took two all star trainees to push it over the top!”

One of the barriers to funding of meta-research is a tendency for major funding for medical studies to be focused on specific diseases or targets. With meta-research, it may be more difficult to explain how a specific project will advance efforts to treat or prevent a certain disease, Dr. Putman said.

“It’s a little more esoteric and maybe not quite as clear how these projects will move things forward,” Dr. Putman said.

In addition, the nature of meta-research is to question and often be critical of work that’s already been published, adding another hurdle in attempts to secure funding, he said.

Dr. Putman is supported by a Rheumatology Research Foundation Scientist Development Grant, receives research funding related to clinical trials by AbbVie and AstraZeneca, and consulting fees from Novartis. The other authors declared no competing interests.

Clinical trials of treatments for rheumatologic conditions appear especially vulnerable to inadvertent unblinding, because of noticeable side effects of some drugs and subjective outcome measures, according to a new analysis.

Until more is known about the potential for unblinding, clinicians need to keep in mind that patients and physicians could often guess accurately who was getting placebo or active drug, first author Cody Bruggemeyer, MD, a resident at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview.

Dr. Bruggemeyer

“It’s important that rheumatologists be aware of this potential issue and use their clinical reasoning and their ability to critically assess papers to evaluate the study design” of research on treatments, he said in an interview.

Dr. Bruggemeyer and coauthors at the Medical College of Wisconsin presented their assessment of the potential for unblinding in a Viewpoint article in The Lancet Rheumatology.
 

A sample of pivotal clinical trials

The authors selected a sample of pivotal studies of 14 commonly prescribed drugs for rheumatic conditions for which double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the active ingredient with a placebo were available.

The 14 trials involved treatments classified as disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), some of which were likely to produce side effects that placebos would not mimic, such as injection site and infusion reactions and difference in readings in lab reports, the authors wrote.

In their analysis, Dr. Bruggemeyer and colleagues evaluated discrepancies in the rates of adverse events reported between active drugs and placebos and classified the 14 studies as follows:

• High unblinding risk: Nine studies had a high estimated risk of unblinding, including trials of adalimumab with citrate (Humira), anakinra (Kineret), anifrolumab (Saphnelo), apremilast (Otezla), ixekizumab (Taltz), leflunomide (Arava), methotrexate, risankizumab (Skyrizi) and tofacitinib (Xeljanz).
• Moderate unblinding risk: Three studies had a moderate estimated risk of unblinding, including trials of azathioprine (Imuran), mycophenolate mofetil and tocilizumab (Actemra).
• Low unblinding risk: Two studies had a low estimated risk of unblinding. These involved tests of belimumab (Benlysta) and rituximab (Rituxan).

Many of the effectiveness measurements of treatments used in rheumatology depend on patients’ reports of relief of pain and other disease symptoms. For example, the widely used American College of Rheumatology 20% response for rheumatoid arthritis includes components that rely on patient and physician assessment of disease activity.
 

Unblinding risk to clinical trial validity

CTs are the highest level of evidence to establish efficacy, because the study design aims to mask whether the experimental treatment is a drug or placebo. In cases where patients and physicians are more likely to correctly detect use of an active drug, there can be biases that skew results toward reports of symptom improvement. Other patients’ views of their treatment may be distorted by accurate guesses that they have been given placebo, Dr. Bruggemeyer and coauthors wrote.

“The degree of these effects cannot be predicted, but they tend to erroneously inflate the perceived benefit of novel interventions,” they wrote.

The consequences of this unblinding may be minimal in cases where there’s a clear difference between the placebo and active drug, they said. As an example, they cited trials of interleukin-23 inhibitors for psoriasis, where skin clearance as measured by the Psoriatic Area and Severity Index 75 differed by more than 50% in absolute terms between the treatment and placebo groups.

But in other cases, there needs to be more attention paid to the potential role of unblinding, they wrote.

“Studies where effect sizes were small, contradictory, or dependent on subgroup analyses might be especially problematic, but commentary rarely reflects this issue or acknowledges the potential influence of unblinding,” they wrote.

In the paper, they call for more analysis of previous trials to look for unreported assessments of unblinding, while also asking that researchers consider surveying participants in future trials to evaluate the degree to which unblinding occurs.

“Advocacy from professional societies and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration itself might be necessary, but in the interim, rheumatologists should assume unblinding has occurred to some degree in most trials,” they wrote.
 

Unblinding measure needs validation

In an interview, Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, co–medical director of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center in Dallas, raised some objections to the paper. The paper addresses an interesting question about unblinding, but there should have been more work done, such as finding “a measure that is validated that can say whether you’ve been unblinded or not.”

He added that he was surprised the paper on unblinding in rheumatology trials was published in its current form.

“I would have sent it for a major rewrite” if asked to review this paper before publication, said Dr. Fleischmann, who as a reviewer for Lancet Rheumatology. “I would have said: ‘Okay, 90% of this paper is okay, but your gist is not correct.’ It should be: ‘Is this a problem?’ ”

Dr. Fleischmann said he would have recommended a different perspective to the paper. “That is, this could occur. Should we be looking at this, and how would we look at this?”

In the paper, the authors acknowledge their approach has not been validated, “but it highlights the potential effect of idiosyncratic adverse events,” they wrote.

There’s less funding in general for meta-research than for studies involving treatments, so researchers look for approaches that can be handled without requiring significant funding, and much of the research on the quality of research is conducted like this analysis of rheumatology trials, Michael Putman, MD, the corresponding author and is a rheumatologist and an assistant professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, said in an interview.

“You’re mostly doing on a shoestring budget with yourself and trainees,” he said. Dr. Putman is an associate editor at the journal Rheumatology and also involved in meta-research, or efforts to understand how studies and trials answer questions about how medical treatments work.

In an Aug. 16 tweet, Dr. Putman said this issue of unintentional unblinding with rheumatology trials was something he’d “been ruminating about for awhile; took two all star trainees to push it over the top!”

One of the barriers to funding of meta-research is a tendency for major funding for medical studies to be focused on specific diseases or targets. With meta-research, it may be more difficult to explain how a specific project will advance efforts to treat or prevent a certain disease, Dr. Putman said.

“It’s a little more esoteric and maybe not quite as clear how these projects will move things forward,” Dr. Putman said.

In addition, the nature of meta-research is to question and often be critical of work that’s already been published, adding another hurdle in attempts to secure funding, he said.

Dr. Putman is supported by a Rheumatology Research Foundation Scientist Development Grant, receives research funding related to clinical trials by AbbVie and AstraZeneca, and consulting fees from Novartis. The other authors declared no competing interests.

Clinical trials of treatments for rheumatologic conditions appear especially vulnerable to inadvertent unblinding, because of noticeable side effects of some drugs and subjective outcome measures, according to a new analysis.

Until more is known about the potential for unblinding, clinicians need to keep in mind that patients and physicians could often guess accurately who was getting placebo or active drug, first author Cody Bruggemeyer, MD, a resident at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview.

Dr. Bruggemeyer

“It’s important that rheumatologists be aware of this potential issue and use their clinical reasoning and their ability to critically assess papers to evaluate the study design” of research on treatments, he said in an interview.

Dr. Bruggemeyer and coauthors at the Medical College of Wisconsin presented their assessment of the potential for unblinding in a Viewpoint article in The Lancet Rheumatology.
 

A sample of pivotal clinical trials

The authors selected a sample of pivotal studies of 14 commonly prescribed drugs for rheumatic conditions for which double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the active ingredient with a placebo were available.

The 14 trials involved treatments classified as disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), some of which were likely to produce side effects that placebos would not mimic, such as injection site and infusion reactions and difference in readings in lab reports, the authors wrote.

In their analysis, Dr. Bruggemeyer and colleagues evaluated discrepancies in the rates of adverse events reported between active drugs and placebos and classified the 14 studies as follows:

• High unblinding risk: Nine studies had a high estimated risk of unblinding, including trials of adalimumab with citrate (Humira), anakinra (Kineret), anifrolumab (Saphnelo), apremilast (Otezla), ixekizumab (Taltz), leflunomide (Arava), methotrexate, risankizumab (Skyrizi) and tofacitinib (Xeljanz).
• Moderate unblinding risk: Three studies had a moderate estimated risk of unblinding, including trials of azathioprine (Imuran), mycophenolate mofetil and tocilizumab (Actemra).
• Low unblinding risk: Two studies had a low estimated risk of unblinding. These involved tests of belimumab (Benlysta) and rituximab (Rituxan).

Many of the effectiveness measurements of treatments used in rheumatology depend on patients’ reports of relief of pain and other disease symptoms. For example, the widely used American College of Rheumatology 20% response for rheumatoid arthritis includes components that rely on patient and physician assessment of disease activity.
 

Unblinding risk to clinical trial validity

CTs are the highest level of evidence to establish efficacy, because the study design aims to mask whether the experimental treatment is a drug or placebo. In cases where patients and physicians are more likely to correctly detect use of an active drug, there can be biases that skew results toward reports of symptom improvement. Other patients’ views of their treatment may be distorted by accurate guesses that they have been given placebo, Dr. Bruggemeyer and coauthors wrote.

“The degree of these effects cannot be predicted, but they tend to erroneously inflate the perceived benefit of novel interventions,” they wrote.

The consequences of this unblinding may be minimal in cases where there’s a clear difference between the placebo and active drug, they said. As an example, they cited trials of interleukin-23 inhibitors for psoriasis, where skin clearance as measured by the Psoriatic Area and Severity Index 75 differed by more than 50% in absolute terms between the treatment and placebo groups.

But in other cases, there needs to be more attention paid to the potential role of unblinding, they wrote.

“Studies where effect sizes were small, contradictory, or dependent on subgroup analyses might be especially problematic, but commentary rarely reflects this issue or acknowledges the potential influence of unblinding,” they wrote.

In the paper, they call for more analysis of previous trials to look for unreported assessments of unblinding, while also asking that researchers consider surveying participants in future trials to evaluate the degree to which unblinding occurs.

“Advocacy from professional societies and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration itself might be necessary, but in the interim, rheumatologists should assume unblinding has occurred to some degree in most trials,” they wrote.
 

Unblinding measure needs validation

In an interview, Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, co–medical director of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center in Dallas, raised some objections to the paper. The paper addresses an interesting question about unblinding, but there should have been more work done, such as finding “a measure that is validated that can say whether you’ve been unblinded or not.”

He added that he was surprised the paper on unblinding in rheumatology trials was published in its current form.

“I would have sent it for a major rewrite” if asked to review this paper before publication, said Dr. Fleischmann, who as a reviewer for Lancet Rheumatology. “I would have said: ‘Okay, 90% of this paper is okay, but your gist is not correct.’ It should be: ‘Is this a problem?’ ”

Dr. Fleischmann said he would have recommended a different perspective to the paper. “That is, this could occur. Should we be looking at this, and how would we look at this?”

In the paper, the authors acknowledge their approach has not been validated, “but it highlights the potential effect of idiosyncratic adverse events,” they wrote.

There’s less funding in general for meta-research than for studies involving treatments, so researchers look for approaches that can be handled without requiring significant funding, and much of the research on the quality of research is conducted like this analysis of rheumatology trials, Michael Putman, MD, the corresponding author and is a rheumatologist and an assistant professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, said in an interview.

“You’re mostly doing on a shoestring budget with yourself and trainees,” he said. Dr. Putman is an associate editor at the journal Rheumatology and also involved in meta-research, or efforts to understand how studies and trials answer questions about how medical treatments work.

In an Aug. 16 tweet, Dr. Putman said this issue of unintentional unblinding with rheumatology trials was something he’d “been ruminating about for awhile; took two all star trainees to push it over the top!”

One of the barriers to funding of meta-research is a tendency for major funding for medical studies to be focused on specific diseases or targets. With meta-research, it may be more difficult to explain how a specific project will advance efforts to treat or prevent a certain disease, Dr. Putman said.

“It’s a little more esoteric and maybe not quite as clear how these projects will move things forward,” Dr. Putman said.

In addition, the nature of meta-research is to question and often be critical of work that’s already been published, adding another hurdle in attempts to secure funding, he said.

Dr. Putman is supported by a Rheumatology Research Foundation Scientist Development Grant, receives research funding related to clinical trials by AbbVie and AstraZeneca, and consulting fees from Novartis. The other authors declared no competing interests.

A consumer watchdog group is pressing for broader public access to a confidential federal database that tracks disciplinary records for physicians in a new report, arguing that extra public scrutiny could pressure state medical boards to be more aggressive watchdogs.

Public Citizen’s report includes an analysis of how frequently medical boards sanctioned physicians in 2019, 2020, and 2021. These sanctions include license revocations, suspensions, voluntary surrenders of licenses, and limitations on practice while under investigation.

The report used data from the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), a federal repository of reports about state licensure, discipline, and certification actions as well as medical malpractice payments. The database is closed to the public, but hospitals, malpractice insurers, and investigators can query it.

According to Public Citizen’s calculations, states most likely to take serious disciplinary action against physicians were:

• Michigan: 1.74 serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 physicians per year
• Ohio: 1.61
• North Dakota: 1.60
• Colorado: 1.55
• Arizona: 1.53
• The states least likely to do so were:
• Nevada: 0.24 serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 physicians per year
• New Hampshire: 0.25
• Georgia: 0.27
• Indiana: 0.28
• Nebraska: 0.32
• California, the largest U.S. state by both population and number of physicians, landed near the middle, ranking 27th with a rate of 0.83 serious actions per 1,000 physicians, Public Citizen said.

“There is no evidence that physicians in any state are, overall, more or less likely to be incompetent or miscreant than the physicians in any other state,” said Robert Oshel, PhD, a former NPDB associate director for research and an author of the report.

The differences instead reflect variations in boards’ enforcement of medical practice laws, domination of licensing boards by physicians, and inadequate budgets, he noted.

Public Citizen said Congress should change federal law to let members of the public get information from the NPDB to do a background check on physicians whom they are considering seeing or are already seeing. This would not only help individuals but also would spur state licensing boards to do their own checks with the NPDB, the group said.

“If licensing boards routinely queried the NPDB, they would not be faulted by the public and state legislators for not knowing about malpractice payments or disciplinary actions affecting their licensees and therefore not taking reasonable actions concerning their licensees found to have poor records,” the report said.
 

Questioning NPDB access for consumers

Michelle Mello, JD, PhD, a professor of law and health policy at Stanford (Calif.) University, has studied the current applications of the NPDB. In 2019, she published an article in The New England Journal of Medicine examining changes in practice patterns for clinicians who faced multiple malpractice claims.

Dr. Mello questioned what benefit consumers would get from direct access to the NPDB’s information.

“It provides almost no context for the information it reports, making it even harder for patients to make sense of what they see there,” Dr. Mello said in an interview.

Hospitals are already required to routinely query the NPDB. This legal requirement should be expanded to include licensing boards, which the report called “the last line of defense for the public from incompetent and miscreant physicians,” Public Citizen said.

“Ideally, this amendment should include free continuous query access by medical boards for all their licensees,” the report said. “In the absence of any action by Congress, individual state legislatures should require their licensing boards to query all their licensees or enroll in continuous query, as a few states already do.”

The Federation of State Medical Boards agreed with some of the other suggestions Public Citizen offered in the report. The two concur on the need for increased funding to state medical boards to ensure that they have adequate resources and staffing to fulfill their duties, FSMB said in a statement.

But FSMB disagreed with Public Citizens’ approach to ranking boards, saying it could mislead. The report lacks context about how boards’ funding and authority vary, Humayun Chaudhry, DO, FSMB’s chief executive officer, said. He also questioned the decision to focus only on serious disciplinary actions.

“The Public Citizen report does not take into account the wide range of disciplinary steps boards can take such as letters of reprimand or fines, which are often enough to stop problem behaviors – preempting further problems in the future,” Dr. Chaudhry said.
 

D.C. gets worst rating

The District of Columbia earned the worst mark in the Public Citizen ranking, holding the 51st spot, the same place it held in the group’s similar ranking on actions taken in the 2017-2019 period. There were 0.19 serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 physicians a year in Washington, Public Citizen said.

In an email to this news organization, Dr. Oshel said that the Public Citizen analysis focused on the number of licensed physicians in each state and D.C. that can be obtained and compared reliably. It avoided using the term “practicing physicians” owing in part to doubts about the reliability of these counts, he said.

As many as 20% of physicians nationwide are focused primarily on work outside of clinical care, Dr. Oshel estimated. In D.C., perhaps 40% of physicians may fall into this category. Of the more than 13,700 physicians licensed in D.C., there may be only about 8,126 actively practicing, according to Dr. Oshel.

But even using that lower estimate of practicing physicians would only raise D.C.’s ranking to 46, signaling a need for stepped-up enforcement, Dr. Oshel said.

“[Whether it’s] 46th or 51st, both are bad,” Dr. Oshel said.

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

A consumer watchdog group is pressing for broader public access to a confidential federal database that tracks disciplinary records for physicians in a new report, arguing that extra public scrutiny could pressure state medical boards to be more aggressive watchdogs.

Public Citizen’s report includes an analysis of how frequently medical boards sanctioned physicians in 2019, 2020, and 2021. These sanctions include license revocations, suspensions, voluntary surrenders of licenses, and limitations on practice while under investigation.

The report used data from the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), a federal repository of reports about state licensure, discipline, and certification actions as well as medical malpractice payments. The database is closed to the public, but hospitals, malpractice insurers, and investigators can query it.

According to Public Citizen’s calculations, states most likely to take serious disciplinary action against physicians were:

• Michigan: 1.74 serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 physicians per year
• Ohio: 1.61
• North Dakota: 1.60
• Colorado: 1.55
• Arizona: 1.53
• The states least likely to do so were:
• Nevada: 0.24 serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 physicians per year
• New Hampshire: 0.25
• Georgia: 0.27
• Indiana: 0.28
• Nebraska: 0.32
• California, the largest U.S. state by both population and number of physicians, landed near the middle, ranking 27th with a rate of 0.83 serious actions per 1,000 physicians, Public Citizen said.

“There is no evidence that physicians in any state are, overall, more or less likely to be incompetent or miscreant than the physicians in any other state,” said Robert Oshel, PhD, a former NPDB associate director for research and an author of the report.

The differences instead reflect variations in boards’ enforcement of medical practice laws, domination of licensing boards by physicians, and inadequate budgets, he noted.

Public Citizen said Congress should change federal law to let members of the public get information from the NPDB to do a background check on physicians whom they are considering seeing or are already seeing. This would not only help individuals but also would spur state licensing boards to do their own checks with the NPDB, the group said.

“If licensing boards routinely queried the NPDB, they would not be faulted by the public and state legislators for not knowing about malpractice payments or disciplinary actions affecting their licensees and therefore not taking reasonable actions concerning their licensees found to have poor records,” the report said.
 

Questioning NPDB access for consumers

Michelle Mello, JD, PhD, a professor of law and health policy at Stanford (Calif.) University, has studied the current applications of the NPDB. In 2019, she published an article in The New England Journal of Medicine examining changes in practice patterns for clinicians who faced multiple malpractice claims.

Dr. Mello questioned what benefit consumers would get from direct access to the NPDB’s information.

“It provides almost no context for the information it reports, making it even harder for patients to make sense of what they see there,” Dr. Mello said in an interview.

Hospitals are already required to routinely query the NPDB. This legal requirement should be expanded to include licensing boards, which the report called “the last line of defense for the public from incompetent and miscreant physicians,” Public Citizen said.

“Ideally, this amendment should include free continuous query access by medical boards for all their licensees,” the report said. “In the absence of any action by Congress, individual state legislatures should require their licensing boards to query all their licensees or enroll in continuous query, as a few states already do.”

The Federation of State Medical Boards agreed with some of the other suggestions Public Citizen offered in the report. The two concur on the need for increased funding to state medical boards to ensure that they have adequate resources and staffing to fulfill their duties, FSMB said in a statement.

But FSMB disagreed with Public Citizens’ approach to ranking boards, saying it could mislead. The report lacks context about how boards’ funding and authority vary, Humayun Chaudhry, DO, FSMB’s chief executive officer, said. He also questioned the decision to focus only on serious disciplinary actions.

“The Public Citizen report does not take into account the wide range of disciplinary steps boards can take such as letters of reprimand or fines, which are often enough to stop problem behaviors – preempting further problems in the future,” Dr. Chaudhry said.
 

D.C. gets worst rating

The District of Columbia earned the worst mark in the Public Citizen ranking, holding the 51st spot, the same place it held in the group’s similar ranking on actions taken in the 2017-2019 period. There were 0.19 serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 physicians a year in Washington, Public Citizen said.

In an email to this news organization, Dr. Oshel said that the Public Citizen analysis focused on the number of licensed physicians in each state and D.C. that can be obtained and compared reliably. It avoided using the term “practicing physicians” owing in part to doubts about the reliability of these counts, he said.

As many as 20% of physicians nationwide are focused primarily on work outside of clinical care, Dr. Oshel estimated. In D.C., perhaps 40% of physicians may fall into this category. Of the more than 13,700 physicians licensed in D.C., there may be only about 8,126 actively practicing, according to Dr. Oshel.

But even using that lower estimate of practicing physicians would only raise D.C.’s ranking to 46, signaling a need for stepped-up enforcement, Dr. Oshel said.

“[Whether it’s] 46th or 51st, both are bad,” Dr. Oshel said.

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

A consumer watchdog group is pressing for broader public access to a confidential federal database that tracks disciplinary records for physicians in a new report, arguing that extra public scrutiny could pressure state medical boards to be more aggressive watchdogs.

Public Citizen’s report includes an analysis of how frequently medical boards sanctioned physicians in 2019, 2020, and 2021. These sanctions include license revocations, suspensions, voluntary surrenders of licenses, and limitations on practice while under investigation.

The report used data from the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), a federal repository of reports about state licensure, discipline, and certification actions as well as medical malpractice payments. The database is closed to the public, but hospitals, malpractice insurers, and investigators can query it.

According to Public Citizen’s calculations, states most likely to take serious disciplinary action against physicians were:

• Michigan: 1.74 serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 physicians per year
• Ohio: 1.61
• North Dakota: 1.60
• Colorado: 1.55
• Arizona: 1.53
• The states least likely to do so were:
• Nevada: 0.24 serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 physicians per year
• New Hampshire: 0.25
• Georgia: 0.27
• Indiana: 0.28
• Nebraska: 0.32
• California, the largest U.S. state by both population and number of physicians, landed near the middle, ranking 27th with a rate of 0.83 serious actions per 1,000 physicians, Public Citizen said.

“There is no evidence that physicians in any state are, overall, more or less likely to be incompetent or miscreant than the physicians in any other state,” said Robert Oshel, PhD, a former NPDB associate director for research and an author of the report.

The differences instead reflect variations in boards’ enforcement of medical practice laws, domination of licensing boards by physicians, and inadequate budgets, he noted.

Public Citizen said Congress should change federal law to let members of the public get information from the NPDB to do a background check on physicians whom they are considering seeing or are already seeing. This would not only help individuals but also would spur state licensing boards to do their own checks with the NPDB, the group said.

“If licensing boards routinely queried the NPDB, they would not be faulted by the public and state legislators for not knowing about malpractice payments or disciplinary actions affecting their licensees and therefore not taking reasonable actions concerning their licensees found to have poor records,” the report said.
 

Questioning NPDB access for consumers

Michelle Mello, JD, PhD, a professor of law and health policy at Stanford (Calif.) University, has studied the current applications of the NPDB. In 2019, she published an article in The New England Journal of Medicine examining changes in practice patterns for clinicians who faced multiple malpractice claims.

Dr. Mello questioned what benefit consumers would get from direct access to the NPDB’s information.

“It provides almost no context for the information it reports, making it even harder for patients to make sense of what they see there,” Dr. Mello said in an interview.

Hospitals are already required to routinely query the NPDB. This legal requirement should be expanded to include licensing boards, which the report called “the last line of defense for the public from incompetent and miscreant physicians,” Public Citizen said.

“Ideally, this amendment should include free continuous query access by medical boards for all their licensees,” the report said. “In the absence of any action by Congress, individual state legislatures should require their licensing boards to query all their licensees or enroll in continuous query, as a few states already do.”

The Federation of State Medical Boards agreed with some of the other suggestions Public Citizen offered in the report. The two concur on the need for increased funding to state medical boards to ensure that they have adequate resources and staffing to fulfill their duties, FSMB said in a statement.

But FSMB disagreed with Public Citizens’ approach to ranking boards, saying it could mislead. The report lacks context about how boards’ funding and authority vary, Humayun Chaudhry, DO, FSMB’s chief executive officer, said. He also questioned the decision to focus only on serious disciplinary actions.

“The Public Citizen report does not take into account the wide range of disciplinary steps boards can take such as letters of reprimand or fines, which are often enough to stop problem behaviors – preempting further problems in the future,” Dr. Chaudhry said.
 

D.C. gets worst rating

The District of Columbia earned the worst mark in the Public Citizen ranking, holding the 51st spot, the same place it held in the group’s similar ranking on actions taken in the 2017-2019 period. There were 0.19 serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 physicians a year in Washington, Public Citizen said.

In an email to this news organization, Dr. Oshel said that the Public Citizen analysis focused on the number of licensed physicians in each state and D.C. that can be obtained and compared reliably. It avoided using the term “practicing physicians” owing in part to doubts about the reliability of these counts, he said.

As many as 20% of physicians nationwide are focused primarily on work outside of clinical care, Dr. Oshel estimated. In D.C., perhaps 40% of physicians may fall into this category. Of the more than 13,700 physicians licensed in D.C., there may be only about 8,126 actively practicing, according to Dr. Oshel.

But even using that lower estimate of practicing physicians would only raise D.C.’s ranking to 46, signaling a need for stepped-up enforcement, Dr. Oshel said.

“[Whether it’s] 46th or 51st, both are bad,” Dr. Oshel said.

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

A new strain of COVID-19 that was identified only a week ago in the United States has prompted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to take the rare step of issuing a formal message that it could evade vaccines or the protection of natural immunity. 

The strain is called BA.2.86 and is of particular concern because of its more than 30 mutations, which means it may behave very differently than previous versions of the virus. That number of mutations is on par with the difference between variants so serious that they were formally named, such as between Delta and Omicron, the CDC explained in the risk assessment issued Aug. 23.

Worldwide, health agencies are issuing a flurry of updates on BA.2.86. The strain only recently landed on the World Health Organization’s radar when it was named a “variant under monitoring” on Aug. 17. The CDC announced the same day that it had been detected in the United States.

Among the characteristics the CDC monitors for are how contagious a strain is, how well it responds to treatment, and how severely it affects people.

“BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines,” the CDC risk assessment stated.

The agency is evaluating how well the forthcoming updated vaccine, due out in September, performs against BA.2.86.

A new forecast also released this week by the CDC predicts hospitalizations due to the virus will continue their upward trend through at least mid-September. Currently, about 1,800 people are hospitalized daily with COVID-19. The new prediction shows that number has a small potential to drop as low as 1,100 daily, but it could also increase by as many as 7,500 per day. The most likely scenario lands somewhere in the middle of that range, with daily hospital admissions of between 2,000 and 4,000 people by Sept. 18.

The CDC said there is “no evidence” that BA.2.86 is causing more severe illness but said that could change as more information becomes available. Health experts typically gauge severity by the rate of COVID hospitalizations.

The journal Nature reported that many scientists see similarities between the emergence of BA.2.86 and that of Omicron, which rapidly spread around the world in late 2021.

“There’s a little bit of déjà vu all over again,” University of Michigan virologist Adam Lauring, MD, PhD, whose lab detected one of the first U.S. cases of BA.2.86, told Nature.

Dr. Lauring, as well as the CDC and the WHO, all caution that more data is needed to truly understand the threat posed by BA.2.86.

“There’s good reason to think it won’t be like the Omicron wave, but it’s early days,” Dr. Lauring said.

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

A new strain of COVID-19 that was identified only a week ago in the United States has prompted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to take the rare step of issuing a formal message that it could evade vaccines or the protection of natural immunity. 

The strain is called BA.2.86 and is of particular concern because of its more than 30 mutations, which means it may behave very differently than previous versions of the virus. That number of mutations is on par with the difference between variants so serious that they were formally named, such as between Delta and Omicron, the CDC explained in the risk assessment issued Aug. 23.

Worldwide, health agencies are issuing a flurry of updates on BA.2.86. The strain only recently landed on the World Health Organization’s radar when it was named a “variant under monitoring” on Aug. 17. The CDC announced the same day that it had been detected in the United States.

Among the characteristics the CDC monitors for are how contagious a strain is, how well it responds to treatment, and how severely it affects people.

“BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines,” the CDC risk assessment stated.

The agency is evaluating how well the forthcoming updated vaccine, due out in September, performs against BA.2.86.

A new forecast also released this week by the CDC predicts hospitalizations due to the virus will continue their upward trend through at least mid-September. Currently, about 1,800 people are hospitalized daily with COVID-19. The new prediction shows that number has a small potential to drop as low as 1,100 daily, but it could also increase by as many as 7,500 per day. The most likely scenario lands somewhere in the middle of that range, with daily hospital admissions of between 2,000 and 4,000 people by Sept. 18.

The CDC said there is “no evidence” that BA.2.86 is causing more severe illness but said that could change as more information becomes available. Health experts typically gauge severity by the rate of COVID hospitalizations.

The journal Nature reported that many scientists see similarities between the emergence of BA.2.86 and that of Omicron, which rapidly spread around the world in late 2021.

“There’s a little bit of déjà vu all over again,” University of Michigan virologist Adam Lauring, MD, PhD, whose lab detected one of the first U.S. cases of BA.2.86, told Nature.

Dr. Lauring, as well as the CDC and the WHO, all caution that more data is needed to truly understand the threat posed by BA.2.86.

“There’s good reason to think it won’t be like the Omicron wave, but it’s early days,” Dr. Lauring said.

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

A new strain of COVID-19 that was identified only a week ago in the United States has prompted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to take the rare step of issuing a formal message that it could evade vaccines or the protection of natural immunity. 

The strain is called BA.2.86 and is of particular concern because of its more than 30 mutations, which means it may behave very differently than previous versions of the virus. That number of mutations is on par with the difference between variants so serious that they were formally named, such as between Delta and Omicron, the CDC explained in the risk assessment issued Aug. 23.

Worldwide, health agencies are issuing a flurry of updates on BA.2.86. The strain only recently landed on the World Health Organization’s radar when it was named a “variant under monitoring” on Aug. 17. The CDC announced the same day that it had been detected in the United States.

Among the characteristics the CDC monitors for are how contagious a strain is, how well it responds to treatment, and how severely it affects people.

“BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines,” the CDC risk assessment stated.

The agency is evaluating how well the forthcoming updated vaccine, due out in September, performs against BA.2.86.

A new forecast also released this week by the CDC predicts hospitalizations due to the virus will continue their upward trend through at least mid-September. Currently, about 1,800 people are hospitalized daily with COVID-19. The new prediction shows that number has a small potential to drop as low as 1,100 daily, but it could also increase by as many as 7,500 per day. The most likely scenario lands somewhere in the middle of that range, with daily hospital admissions of between 2,000 and 4,000 people by Sept. 18.

The CDC said there is “no evidence” that BA.2.86 is causing more severe illness but said that could change as more information becomes available. Health experts typically gauge severity by the rate of COVID hospitalizations.

The journal Nature reported that many scientists see similarities between the emergence of BA.2.86 and that of Omicron, which rapidly spread around the world in late 2021.

“There’s a little bit of déjà vu all over again,” University of Michigan virologist Adam Lauring, MD, PhD, whose lab detected one of the first U.S. cases of BA.2.86, told Nature.

Dr. Lauring, as well as the CDC and the WHO, all caution that more data is needed to truly understand the threat posed by BA.2.86.

“There’s good reason to think it won’t be like the Omicron wave, but it’s early days,” Dr. Lauring said.

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

Pregnant women with atopic dermatitis (AD) are more likely to be colonized with group B streptococcus (GBS), compared with other pregnant women, results from a large cross-sectional study suggest.

“The rate of GBS colonization among pregnant females with a history of AD has not been previously reported, but AD could be a risk factor for maternal carriage of GBS,” corresponding author David J. Margolis, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published as a letter to the editor online in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology. “GBS reporting in a large administrative database represents a unique opportunity to conduct a population-based evaluation of GBS carriage with AD. Understanding this association could expand our understanding of microbial changes associated with AD,” they noted.

To determine if an association between GBS and AD in pregnant women exists, the researchers performed a cross-sectional study using a random sample from an Optum administrative database of pregnant women who had vaginal deliveries between May of 2007 and September 2021. The primary outcome of interest was the presence of GBS based on American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists–recommended codes for GBS during 36 0/7 to 37 6/7 weeks of pregnancy. They used descriptive statistics to summarize categorical and continuous variables as proportions and means, and logistic regression to examine the association between AD and GBS status.

The cohort included 566,467 pregnant women with an average age of 38.8 years. Of these, 2.9% had a diagnosis of AD or a history of AD, and 24.9% had diagnoses of asthma, seasonal allergies, or both. Women with AD had an increased odds ratio of asthma (OR, 2.55), seasonal allergies (OR, 3.39), or both (OR, 5.35), compared with those without AD.

GBS was reported in 20.6% of the cohort. The median time of follow-up for those with and without GBS was 494 days and 468 days, respectively (P = .134). Among the women with AD, 24.1% had GBS, compared with 20.51% of the women without AD (P <.0001), which translated into an OR of 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.27).

Among the women with GBS, the OR of asthma was 1.08 (95% CI, 1.06-1.10) and was 1.07 (95% CI, 1.05-1.09) among those with seasonal allergies. When adjusted for potential confounders, these findings did not change substantively.

“It is not apparent why pregnant females with AD are more likely to specifically carry GBS,” the authors wrote. “However, several studies have shown that individuals with AD are more likely to carry [Staphylococcus] aureus and that individuals with AD might be deficient in host defenses against S. aureus and other pathogens,” they added.

“Individuals with AD frequently receive antibiotics as part of their AD treatment and this might alter their resident microbiome. Carriage rates may be enhanced by the inhibition of an important barrier protein called filaggrin (FLG) and FLG loss of function genetic variation is known to decrease barrier proteins thought to inhibit the colonization of S. aureus and other pathogens,” the researchers wrote.

They acknowledged certain limitations of their study, including its reliance on an administrative database that does not contain information on past disease.

Asked to comment on the results, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was not involved with the study, characterized AD as “the poster child for cutaneous dysbiosis – an altered petri dish, so to speak, [that] facilitates survival of the few, leading to decreased microbial diversity that can both enable potential pathogen invasion and immune dysregulation.”

Though it’s not surprising that pregnant AD patients have dysbiosis, the focus on GBS, “which can be a bad actor in the perinatal period, is an interesting connection,” he said. “Will this change practices? Pregnant women should be screened for GBS regardless, but maybe more attention or counseling can be offered to AD patients about the importance of screening. Would decolonization regimens be employed early in pregnancy? This study can’t answer that but certainly raises good questions.”

Dr. Margolis disclosed that he is or recently has been a consultant for Pfizer, Leo, and Sanofi with respect to studies of atopic dermatitis and served on an advisory board for the National Eczema Association. Another author disclosed receiving grants from companies related to work with AD; other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Friedman reported having no relevant disclosures.

Pregnant women with atopic dermatitis (AD) are more likely to be colonized with group B streptococcus (GBS), compared with other pregnant women, results from a large cross-sectional study suggest.

“The rate of GBS colonization among pregnant females with a history of AD has not been previously reported, but AD could be a risk factor for maternal carriage of GBS,” corresponding author David J. Margolis, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published as a letter to the editor online in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology. “GBS reporting in a large administrative database represents a unique opportunity to conduct a population-based evaluation of GBS carriage with AD. Understanding this association could expand our understanding of microbial changes associated with AD,” they noted.

To determine if an association between GBS and AD in pregnant women exists, the researchers performed a cross-sectional study using a random sample from an Optum administrative database of pregnant women who had vaginal deliveries between May of 2007 and September 2021. The primary outcome of interest was the presence of GBS based on American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists–recommended codes for GBS during 36 0/7 to 37 6/7 weeks of pregnancy. They used descriptive statistics to summarize categorical and continuous variables as proportions and means, and logistic regression to examine the association between AD and GBS status.

The cohort included 566,467 pregnant women with an average age of 38.8 years. Of these, 2.9% had a diagnosis of AD or a history of AD, and 24.9% had diagnoses of asthma, seasonal allergies, or both. Women with AD had an increased odds ratio of asthma (OR, 2.55), seasonal allergies (OR, 3.39), or both (OR, 5.35), compared with those without AD.

GBS was reported in 20.6% of the cohort. The median time of follow-up for those with and without GBS was 494 days and 468 days, respectively (P = .134). Among the women with AD, 24.1% had GBS, compared with 20.51% of the women without AD (P <.0001), which translated into an OR of 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.27).

Among the women with GBS, the OR of asthma was 1.08 (95% CI, 1.06-1.10) and was 1.07 (95% CI, 1.05-1.09) among those with seasonal allergies. When adjusted for potential confounders, these findings did not change substantively.

“It is not apparent why pregnant females with AD are more likely to specifically carry GBS,” the authors wrote. “However, several studies have shown that individuals with AD are more likely to carry [Staphylococcus] aureus and that individuals with AD might be deficient in host defenses against S. aureus and other pathogens,” they added.

“Individuals with AD frequently receive antibiotics as part of their AD treatment and this might alter their resident microbiome. Carriage rates may be enhanced by the inhibition of an important barrier protein called filaggrin (FLG) and FLG loss of function genetic variation is known to decrease barrier proteins thought to inhibit the colonization of S. aureus and other pathogens,” the researchers wrote.

They acknowledged certain limitations of their study, including its reliance on an administrative database that does not contain information on past disease.

Asked to comment on the results, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was not involved with the study, characterized AD as “the poster child for cutaneous dysbiosis – an altered petri dish, so to speak, [that] facilitates survival of the few, leading to decreased microbial diversity that can both enable potential pathogen invasion and immune dysregulation.”

Though it’s not surprising that pregnant AD patients have dysbiosis, the focus on GBS, “which can be a bad actor in the perinatal period, is an interesting connection,” he said. “Will this change practices? Pregnant women should be screened for GBS regardless, but maybe more attention or counseling can be offered to AD patients about the importance of screening. Would decolonization regimens be employed early in pregnancy? This study can’t answer that but certainly raises good questions.”

Dr. Margolis disclosed that he is or recently has been a consultant for Pfizer, Leo, and Sanofi with respect to studies of atopic dermatitis and served on an advisory board for the National Eczema Association. Another author disclosed receiving grants from companies related to work with AD; other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Friedman reported having no relevant disclosures.

Pregnant women with atopic dermatitis (AD) are more likely to be colonized with group B streptococcus (GBS), compared with other pregnant women, results from a large cross-sectional study suggest.

“The rate of GBS colonization among pregnant females with a history of AD has not been previously reported, but AD could be a risk factor for maternal carriage of GBS,” corresponding author David J. Margolis, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published as a letter to the editor online in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology. “GBS reporting in a large administrative database represents a unique opportunity to conduct a population-based evaluation of GBS carriage with AD. Understanding this association could expand our understanding of microbial changes associated with AD,” they noted.

To determine if an association between GBS and AD in pregnant women exists, the researchers performed a cross-sectional study using a random sample from an Optum administrative database of pregnant women who had vaginal deliveries between May of 2007 and September 2021. The primary outcome of interest was the presence of GBS based on American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists–recommended codes for GBS during 36 0/7 to 37 6/7 weeks of pregnancy. They used descriptive statistics to summarize categorical and continuous variables as proportions and means, and logistic regression to examine the association between AD and GBS status.

The cohort included 566,467 pregnant women with an average age of 38.8 years. Of these, 2.9% had a diagnosis of AD or a history of AD, and 24.9% had diagnoses of asthma, seasonal allergies, or both. Women with AD had an increased odds ratio of asthma (OR, 2.55), seasonal allergies (OR, 3.39), or both (OR, 5.35), compared with those without AD.

GBS was reported in 20.6% of the cohort. The median time of follow-up for those with and without GBS was 494 days and 468 days, respectively (P = .134). Among the women with AD, 24.1% had GBS, compared with 20.51% of the women without AD (P <.0001), which translated into an OR of 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.27).

Among the women with GBS, the OR of asthma was 1.08 (95% CI, 1.06-1.10) and was 1.07 (95% CI, 1.05-1.09) among those with seasonal allergies. When adjusted for potential confounders, these findings did not change substantively.

“It is not apparent why pregnant females with AD are more likely to specifically carry GBS,” the authors wrote. “However, several studies have shown that individuals with AD are more likely to carry [Staphylococcus] aureus and that individuals with AD might be deficient in host defenses against S. aureus and other pathogens,” they added.

“Individuals with AD frequently receive antibiotics as part of their AD treatment and this might alter their resident microbiome. Carriage rates may be enhanced by the inhibition of an important barrier protein called filaggrin (FLG) and FLG loss of function genetic variation is known to decrease barrier proteins thought to inhibit the colonization of S. aureus and other pathogens,” the researchers wrote.

They acknowledged certain limitations of their study, including its reliance on an administrative database that does not contain information on past disease.

Asked to comment on the results, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was not involved with the study, characterized AD as “the poster child for cutaneous dysbiosis – an altered petri dish, so to speak, [that] facilitates survival of the few, leading to decreased microbial diversity that can both enable potential pathogen invasion and immune dysregulation.”

Though it’s not surprising that pregnant AD patients have dysbiosis, the focus on GBS, “which can be a bad actor in the perinatal period, is an interesting connection,” he said. “Will this change practices? Pregnant women should be screened for GBS regardless, but maybe more attention or counseling can be offered to AD patients about the importance of screening. Would decolonization regimens be employed early in pregnancy? This study can’t answer that but certainly raises good questions.”

Dr. Margolis disclosed that he is or recently has been a consultant for Pfizer, Leo, and Sanofi with respect to studies of atopic dermatitis and served on an advisory board for the National Eczema Association. Another author disclosed receiving grants from companies related to work with AD; other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Friedman reported having no relevant disclosures.