Strength training is the most effective form of exercise for reducing migraine, with high-intensity aerobics coming in second, and both beating top-line migraine medications topiramate and amitriptyline, new research suggests.

The new results should encourage clinicians to recommend patients with migraine engage in strength-training exercise whenever possible, study investigator Yohannes W. Woldeamanuel, MD, a physician-scientist and instructor, department of neurology and neurological sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University, told this news organization.

“Exercise is something patients can do all their lives and use it to prevent migraine attacks instead of taking daily medications or repetitive injections that have several adverse effects.”

The findings were published online in the Journal of Headache and Pain.
 

Head-to-head comparison

Several clinical trials have shown exercise is effective for migraine management, but to date, there have been no head-to-head comparisons of strength training and aerobic exercise, said Dr. Woldeamanuel.

This new study used a systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA), which compares multiple interventions and ranks the efficacy of each one.

After a literature search, researchers included 21 clinical trials with an exercise regimen arm and a comparison control arm. All study data reported monthly frequency of migraine at baseline and at the end of the intervention.

The total combined sample size was 1,195 patients with migraine, who were a mean age of 35.5 years, with a female-to-male ratio of 6.7:1. All studies used International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) criteria for migraine diagnosis.

The NMA provided 27 pairwise comparisons and 8 indirect comparisons. The pairwise comparisons provided direct evidence between the different interventions.

Researchers combined strength training, including weightlifting, with resistance training. Both modalities target muscles, while aerobic exercise targets cardiovascular health.

The average number of weeks was 9.3, 9.3, and 10.7, and the average number of hours per session for strength/resistance training, high-intensity aerobic exercise, and moderate-intensity aerobic exercise interventions was 50, 56, and 45.3, respectively.

The analysis showed all exercise interventions were more effective than the placebo groups in reducing the frequency of migraine. In terms of ranking, strength training came out on top, with a mean difference in monthly migraine days of −3.55 (95% confidence interval, −6.15 to −0.95) between the active and placebo groups.

Next was high-intensity aerobic exercise (−3.13; 95% CI, −5.28 to −0.97) and moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (−2.18; 95% CI, −3.25 to −1.11), followed by topiramate, placebo, and then amitriptyline.

Strength/resistance training was superior possibly because it targets muscle strengthening, particularly major muscles in the neck and shoulder area, which can be a source of the pain trigger, said Dr. Woldeamanuel. He added neck pain is highly comorbid with migraine.

Interestingly, patients doing exercises that focus on unaffected muscles – for example, squats – still get the benefits of less migraine burden, said Dr. Woldeamanuel.
 

Training recommendations

Strength training also increases or preserves lean muscle mass, which is associated with reduced migraine frequency. Research shows preservation of lean body mass combats central sensitization in various pain syndromes, said Dr. Woldeamanuel.

The superior effects of high- versus moderate-intensity aerobic exercise may be due to recruitment of endogenous molecules involved in exercise-mediated hypoalgesia (pain reduction).

The most common pathways are the opioid and endocannabinoid systems, although other systems are also likely involved, said Dr. Woldeamanuel. He noted migraine has been linked to a deficiency of both opioidergic and endocannabinoidergic signaling.

Dr. Woldeamanuel commented on the difficulty of comparing exercise interventions for patients with chronic versus episodic migraine, as many studies include both.

However, the two studies with moderate-intensity aerobic exercise exclusively involving patients with chronic migraine showed large effect sizes (Cohen’s d) of 0.80 and 1.10 in reducing monthly headache frequency.

Based on these new results and their own experience, the researchers recommend strength training start with 50% of repetition maximum (RM) with 2-3 sets of 12-15 repetitions three times a week along with 10 minutes of warm-up, stretching, and cool-down, totaling 45-60 minutes per session. Weight/resistance load can then be increased weekly by 5% of RM if the patient is capable of successfully completing three sets.

They also recommend including active recovery days (low-intensity exercise) between training days. All major muscles, including neck, shoulder, and upper limb muscles, should be trained in a rotation.

For high-intensity aerobic exercise, the authors recommend starting with interval training at 55% VO_2max (maximum respiratory capacity), or 50% HRmax (maximal heart rate) for 45-60 minutes per session, including 10 minutes of warm-up and cool-down, three times per week. The intensity can then be increased by 5%-10% each week to reach a maximum target of 80%-90% by week 12.

It is best for patients to start with a trainer for guidance and supervision, but once they master the routines, they can do the exercises independently, said Dr. Woldeamanuel.
 

Managing flare-ups

Headache flare-ups are normal during exercise, which may be caused by “boom and bust cycles” – exercising excessively when feeling good then completely stopping when feeling bad, said Dr. Woldeamanuel. He noted these flare-ups don’t mean “there’s something wrong with the brain or there’s some injury to muscles.”

The best way to manage such flare-ups is to use a pacing strategy that involves “not going overboard on good days and avoiding excessive rest on bad days,” the investigators note.

Dr. Woldeamanuel noted exercise is a lifestyle-based intervention; it not only helps reduce migraine attacks but also helps control other known comorbidities such as obesity and hypertension.

In a comment, Elizabeth Loder, MD, vice-chair, academic affairs, department of neurology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and professor of neurology, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said, “It’s useful to collect and summarize all of these studies, and to focus on helping patients and doctors understand the possible value of different kinds of exercise.”

The review was “well done,” said Dr. Loder, adding the researchers “have looked carefully at the quality of included studies.”

The study received support from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Woldeamanuel has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Strength training is the most effective form of exercise for reducing migraine, with high-intensity aerobics coming in second, and both beating top-line migraine medications topiramate and amitriptyline, new research suggests.

The new results should encourage clinicians to recommend patients with migraine engage in strength-training exercise whenever possible, study investigator Yohannes W. Woldeamanuel, MD, a physician-scientist and instructor, department of neurology and neurological sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University, told this news organization.

“Exercise is something patients can do all their lives and use it to prevent migraine attacks instead of taking daily medications or repetitive injections that have several adverse effects.”

The findings were published online in the Journal of Headache and Pain.
 

Head-to-head comparison

Several clinical trials have shown exercise is effective for migraine management, but to date, there have been no head-to-head comparisons of strength training and aerobic exercise, said Dr. Woldeamanuel.

This new study used a systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA), which compares multiple interventions and ranks the efficacy of each one.

After a literature search, researchers included 21 clinical trials with an exercise regimen arm and a comparison control arm. All study data reported monthly frequency of migraine at baseline and at the end of the intervention.

The total combined sample size was 1,195 patients with migraine, who were a mean age of 35.5 years, with a female-to-male ratio of 6.7:1. All studies used International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) criteria for migraine diagnosis.

The NMA provided 27 pairwise comparisons and 8 indirect comparisons. The pairwise comparisons provided direct evidence between the different interventions.

Researchers combined strength training, including weightlifting, with resistance training. Both modalities target muscles, while aerobic exercise targets cardiovascular health.

The average number of weeks was 9.3, 9.3, and 10.7, and the average number of hours per session for strength/resistance training, high-intensity aerobic exercise, and moderate-intensity aerobic exercise interventions was 50, 56, and 45.3, respectively.

The analysis showed all exercise interventions were more effective than the placebo groups in reducing the frequency of migraine. In terms of ranking, strength training came out on top, with a mean difference in monthly migraine days of −3.55 (95% confidence interval, −6.15 to −0.95) between the active and placebo groups.

Next was high-intensity aerobic exercise (−3.13; 95% CI, −5.28 to −0.97) and moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (−2.18; 95% CI, −3.25 to −1.11), followed by topiramate, placebo, and then amitriptyline.

Strength/resistance training was superior possibly because it targets muscle strengthening, particularly major muscles in the neck and shoulder area, which can be a source of the pain trigger, said Dr. Woldeamanuel. He added neck pain is highly comorbid with migraine.

Interestingly, patients doing exercises that focus on unaffected muscles – for example, squats – still get the benefits of less migraine burden, said Dr. Woldeamanuel.
 

Training recommendations

Strength training also increases or preserves lean muscle mass, which is associated with reduced migraine frequency. Research shows preservation of lean body mass combats central sensitization in various pain syndromes, said Dr. Woldeamanuel.

The superior effects of high- versus moderate-intensity aerobic exercise may be due to recruitment of endogenous molecules involved in exercise-mediated hypoalgesia (pain reduction).

The most common pathways are the opioid and endocannabinoid systems, although other systems are also likely involved, said Dr. Woldeamanuel. He noted migraine has been linked to a deficiency of both opioidergic and endocannabinoidergic signaling.

Dr. Woldeamanuel commented on the difficulty of comparing exercise interventions for patients with chronic versus episodic migraine, as many studies include both.

However, the two studies with moderate-intensity aerobic exercise exclusively involving patients with chronic migraine showed large effect sizes (Cohen’s d) of 0.80 and 1.10 in reducing monthly headache frequency.

Based on these new results and their own experience, the researchers recommend strength training start with 50% of repetition maximum (RM) with 2-3 sets of 12-15 repetitions three times a week along with 10 minutes of warm-up, stretching, and cool-down, totaling 45-60 minutes per session. Weight/resistance load can then be increased weekly by 5% of RM if the patient is capable of successfully completing three sets.

They also recommend including active recovery days (low-intensity exercise) between training days. All major muscles, including neck, shoulder, and upper limb muscles, should be trained in a rotation.

For high-intensity aerobic exercise, the authors recommend starting with interval training at 55% VO_2max (maximum respiratory capacity), or 50% HRmax (maximal heart rate) for 45-60 minutes per session, including 10 minutes of warm-up and cool-down, three times per week. The intensity can then be increased by 5%-10% each week to reach a maximum target of 80%-90% by week 12.

It is best for patients to start with a trainer for guidance and supervision, but once they master the routines, they can do the exercises independently, said Dr. Woldeamanuel.
 

Managing flare-ups

Headache flare-ups are normal during exercise, which may be caused by “boom and bust cycles” – exercising excessively when feeling good then completely stopping when feeling bad, said Dr. Woldeamanuel. He noted these flare-ups don’t mean “there’s something wrong with the brain or there’s some injury to muscles.”

The best way to manage such flare-ups is to use a pacing strategy that involves “not going overboard on good days and avoiding excessive rest on bad days,” the investigators note.

Dr. Woldeamanuel noted exercise is a lifestyle-based intervention; it not only helps reduce migraine attacks but also helps control other known comorbidities such as obesity and hypertension.

In a comment, Elizabeth Loder, MD, vice-chair, academic affairs, department of neurology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and professor of neurology, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said, “It’s useful to collect and summarize all of these studies, and to focus on helping patients and doctors understand the possible value of different kinds of exercise.”

The review was “well done,” said Dr. Loder, adding the researchers “have looked carefully at the quality of included studies.”

The study received support from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Woldeamanuel has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Strength training is the most effective form of exercise for reducing migraine, with high-intensity aerobics coming in second, and both beating top-line migraine medications topiramate and amitriptyline, new research suggests.

The new results should encourage clinicians to recommend patients with migraine engage in strength-training exercise whenever possible, study investigator Yohannes W. Woldeamanuel, MD, a physician-scientist and instructor, department of neurology and neurological sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University, told this news organization.

“Exercise is something patients can do all their lives and use it to prevent migraine attacks instead of taking daily medications or repetitive injections that have several adverse effects.”

The findings were published online in the Journal of Headache and Pain.
 

Head-to-head comparison

Several clinical trials have shown exercise is effective for migraine management, but to date, there have been no head-to-head comparisons of strength training and aerobic exercise, said Dr. Woldeamanuel.

This new study used a systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA), which compares multiple interventions and ranks the efficacy of each one.

After a literature search, researchers included 21 clinical trials with an exercise regimen arm and a comparison control arm. All study data reported monthly frequency of migraine at baseline and at the end of the intervention.

The total combined sample size was 1,195 patients with migraine, who were a mean age of 35.5 years, with a female-to-male ratio of 6.7:1. All studies used International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) criteria for migraine diagnosis.

The NMA provided 27 pairwise comparisons and 8 indirect comparisons. The pairwise comparisons provided direct evidence between the different interventions.

Researchers combined strength training, including weightlifting, with resistance training. Both modalities target muscles, while aerobic exercise targets cardiovascular health.

The average number of weeks was 9.3, 9.3, and 10.7, and the average number of hours per session for strength/resistance training, high-intensity aerobic exercise, and moderate-intensity aerobic exercise interventions was 50, 56, and 45.3, respectively.

The analysis showed all exercise interventions were more effective than the placebo groups in reducing the frequency of migraine. In terms of ranking, strength training came out on top, with a mean difference in monthly migraine days of −3.55 (95% confidence interval, −6.15 to −0.95) between the active and placebo groups.

Next was high-intensity aerobic exercise (−3.13; 95% CI, −5.28 to −0.97) and moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (−2.18; 95% CI, −3.25 to −1.11), followed by topiramate, placebo, and then amitriptyline.

Strength/resistance training was superior possibly because it targets muscle strengthening, particularly major muscles in the neck and shoulder area, which can be a source of the pain trigger, said Dr. Woldeamanuel. He added neck pain is highly comorbid with migraine.

Interestingly, patients doing exercises that focus on unaffected muscles – for example, squats – still get the benefits of less migraine burden, said Dr. Woldeamanuel.
 

Training recommendations

Strength training also increases or preserves lean muscle mass, which is associated with reduced migraine frequency. Research shows preservation of lean body mass combats central sensitization in various pain syndromes, said Dr. Woldeamanuel.

The superior effects of high- versus moderate-intensity aerobic exercise may be due to recruitment of endogenous molecules involved in exercise-mediated hypoalgesia (pain reduction).

The most common pathways are the opioid and endocannabinoid systems, although other systems are also likely involved, said Dr. Woldeamanuel. He noted migraine has been linked to a deficiency of both opioidergic and endocannabinoidergic signaling.

Dr. Woldeamanuel commented on the difficulty of comparing exercise interventions for patients with chronic versus episodic migraine, as many studies include both.

However, the two studies with moderate-intensity aerobic exercise exclusively involving patients with chronic migraine showed large effect sizes (Cohen’s d) of 0.80 and 1.10 in reducing monthly headache frequency.

Based on these new results and their own experience, the researchers recommend strength training start with 50% of repetition maximum (RM) with 2-3 sets of 12-15 repetitions three times a week along with 10 minutes of warm-up, stretching, and cool-down, totaling 45-60 minutes per session. Weight/resistance load can then be increased weekly by 5% of RM if the patient is capable of successfully completing three sets.

They also recommend including active recovery days (low-intensity exercise) between training days. All major muscles, including neck, shoulder, and upper limb muscles, should be trained in a rotation.

For high-intensity aerobic exercise, the authors recommend starting with interval training at 55% VO_2max (maximum respiratory capacity), or 50% HRmax (maximal heart rate) for 45-60 minutes per session, including 10 minutes of warm-up and cool-down, three times per week. The intensity can then be increased by 5%-10% each week to reach a maximum target of 80%-90% by week 12.

It is best for patients to start with a trainer for guidance and supervision, but once they master the routines, they can do the exercises independently, said Dr. Woldeamanuel.
 

Managing flare-ups

Headache flare-ups are normal during exercise, which may be caused by “boom and bust cycles” – exercising excessively when feeling good then completely stopping when feeling bad, said Dr. Woldeamanuel. He noted these flare-ups don’t mean “there’s something wrong with the brain or there’s some injury to muscles.”

The best way to manage such flare-ups is to use a pacing strategy that involves “not going overboard on good days and avoiding excessive rest on bad days,” the investigators note.

Dr. Woldeamanuel noted exercise is a lifestyle-based intervention; it not only helps reduce migraine attacks but also helps control other known comorbidities such as obesity and hypertension.

In a comment, Elizabeth Loder, MD, vice-chair, academic affairs, department of neurology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and professor of neurology, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said, “It’s useful to collect and summarize all of these studies, and to focus on helping patients and doctors understand the possible value of different kinds of exercise.”

The review was “well done,” said Dr. Loder, adding the researchers “have looked carefully at the quality of included studies.”

The study received support from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Woldeamanuel has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Highly processed foods meet the same criteria as tobacco for addiction, and labeling them as such might benefit public health, according to a new U.S. study that proposes a set of criteria to assess the addictive potential of some foods.

The research suggests that health care professionals are taking steps toward framing food addiction as a clinical entity in its own right; it currently lacks validated treatment protocols and recognition as a clinical diagnosis.

Meanwhile, other data, reported by researchers at the 2022 Diabetes Professional Care conference in London also add support to the clinical recognition of food addiction.

Clinical psychologist Jen Unwin, PhD, from Southport, England, showed that a 3-month online program of low-carbohydrate diet together with psychoeducational support significantly reduced food addiction symptoms among a varied group of individuals, not all of whom were overweight or had obesity.

Dr. Unwin said her new data represent the first wide-scale clinical audit of its kind, other than a prior report of three patients with food addiction who were successfully treated with a ketogenic diet. 

“Food addiction explains so much of what we see in clinical practice, where intelligent people understand what we tell them about the physiology associated with a low-carb diet, and they follow it for a while, but then they relapse,” said Dr. Unwin, explaining the difficulties faced by around 20% of her patients who are considered to have food addiction.

Meanwhile, the authors of the U.S. study, led by Ashley N. Gearhardt, PhD, a psychologist from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote that the ability of highly processed foods (HPFs) “to rapidly deliver high doses of refined carbohydrates and/or fat appear key to their addictive potential. Thus, we conclude that HPFs can be considered addictive substances based on scientifically established criteria.”

They asserted that the contribution to preventable deaths by a diet dominated by highly processed foods is comparable with that of tobacco products, and as such, like Dr. Unwin, the authors sought clinical recognition and a more formalized protocol to manage food addiction.

“Understanding whether addiction contributes to HPF intake may lead to new treatments, as preliminary research finds that behavioral and pharmacological interventions that target addictive mechanisms may reduce compulsive HPF intake,” they stated.

The study led by Dr. Gearhardt was published in the journal Addiction, and the study led by Unwin was also recently published in Frontiers in Psychiatry.
 

Addiction criteria similar to tobacco

HPFs can be associated with an eating phenotype “that reflects the hallmarks of addiction,” said Dr. Gearhardt and coauthors; typically, loss of control over intake, intense cravings, inability to cut down, and continued use despite negative consequences.

Acknowledging the lack of a single addictive agent, they explain that food addiction reflects mechanisms implicated in other addictive disorders such as smoking.

As such, in their study, Dr. Gearhardt and colleagues proposed a set of scientifically based criteria for the evaluation of whether certain foods are addictive. “Specifically, we propose the primary criteria used to resolve one of the last major controversies over whether a substance, tobacco products, was addictive.”

They consider certain foods according to the primary criteria that have stood the test of time after being proposed in 1988 by the U.S. Surgeon General to establish the addictive potential of tobacco: they trigger compulsive use, they have psychoactive effects, and they are reinforcing.

They have updated these criteria to include the ability to trigger urges and cravings, and added that “both these products [tobacco and HPFs] are legal, easily accessible, inexpensive, lack an intoxication syndrome, and are major causes of preventable death.”

For example, with compulsive use, tobacco meets this criterion because evidence suggests that most smokers would like to quit but are unable to do so.

Likewise, wrote Dr. Gearhardt and colleagues, even “in the face of significant diet-related health consequences (e.g., diabetes and cardiovascular disease), the majority of patients are unable to adhere to medically recommended dietary plans that require a reduction in HPF intake.”

Reinforcement, through tobacco use, is demonstrated by its ‘being sufficiently rewarding to maintain self-administration” because of its ability to deliver nicotine, they said, quoting the Surgeon General’s report, and likewise, with food addiction, “both adults and children will self-administer HPFs (e.g., potato chips, candy, and cookies) even when satiated.”
 

Online group food addiction intervention study

Dr. Unwin and coauthors want people with food addiction to be able to access a validated treatment protocol. Their study aimed to evaluate an online group intervention across multiple sites in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, involving an abstinent, low-carbohydrate diet and biopsychosocial education focused on addiction and recovery in people self-identifying as having food addiction.

“Lots of people with food addiction go to GPs who don’t clinically recognize this, or if they attend addiction services and psychiatry, then they tend to only specialize in drugs, alcohol, and gambling. Eating disorder services are linked but their programs mostly don’t work for a food addict,” Dr. Unwin remarked in an interview.

“We feel running groups, as well as training professionals to run groups, is the best way to manage food addiction,” she said, reflecting on the scale of the problem, with around 10% of adults in the U.K. general population considered to have food addiction. In Dr. Unwin’s study, some people had type 2 diabetes and some overweight/obesity, but she added that some participants were underweight or of normal weight.

Initially, the 103 participants received weekly group (8-24 people) sessions for 10-14 weeks, and then monthly maintenance comprising follow-up that involved coaching participants on how to cope with relapse and get back on track.

Food addiction symptoms were assessed pre- and post program using the modified Yale Food Addiction Scale (mYFAS) 2.0; ICD-10 symptoms of food-related substance use disorder (CRAVED); and mental health well-being measured using the short version of the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing scale and body weight.

“The program eliminates processed foods with a personalized, abstinence food plan that involves education around mechanisms involved,” said Dr. Unwin, who explained that processed foods deliver a dopamine high, and in response to this, the brain lowers the number of dopamine receptors to effectively counteract the increase in dopamine. This drop in dopamine receptors explains the depression often associated with food addiction.

Dr. Unwin reported that food addiction symptoms were significantly reduced, with the mYFAS dropping by 1.52, the CRAVED score by 1.53, and body weight by 2.34 kg (5.2 lb). Mental health, as measured by the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing scale, improved by 2.37 points.

“We were very interested in mental health and well-being because it impacts so much across our lives, and we saw significant improvements here, but we were less interested in weight because food addicts come in all shapes and sizes with some people underweight,” said Dr. Unwin. “Food addiction symptoms were significantly improved in the group, but we now need to look at the longer-term outcomes.”

Dr. Unwin runs a low-carbohydrate program for type 2 diabetes with her husband David Unwin, MD, who is a GP in Southport, England. She said that they ask patients if they think they have food addiction, and most say they do.

“I always try to explain to patients about the dopamine high, and how this starts the craving which makes people wonder when and where they can find the next sugar hit. Just thinking about the next chocolate bar gets the dopamine running for many people, and the more they tread this path then the worse it gets because the dopamine receptors keep reducing.”

Lorraine Avery, RN, a diabetes nurse specialist for Solent NHS Trust, who attended the DPC conference, welcomed Dr. Unwin’s presentation.

“My concern as a diabetes nurse specialist is that I’m unsure all our patients recognize their food addiction, and there are often more drivers to eating than just the food in front of them,” she said in an interview. “I think there’s an emotional element, too. These people are often ‘yo-yo’ dieters, and they join lots of expert companies to help them lose weight, but these companies want them to regain and re-join their programs,” she said.

“I think there is something about helping patients recognize they have a food addiction and they need to consider that other approaches might be helpful.”

Dr. Unwin reported no relevant financial relationships; some other authors have fee-paying clients with food addiction. Dr. Gearhardt and Ms. Avery reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Highly processed foods meet the same criteria as tobacco for addiction, and labeling them as such might benefit public health, according to a new U.S. study that proposes a set of criteria to assess the addictive potential of some foods.

The research suggests that health care professionals are taking steps toward framing food addiction as a clinical entity in its own right; it currently lacks validated treatment protocols and recognition as a clinical diagnosis.

Meanwhile, other data, reported by researchers at the 2022 Diabetes Professional Care conference in London also add support to the clinical recognition of food addiction.

Clinical psychologist Jen Unwin, PhD, from Southport, England, showed that a 3-month online program of low-carbohydrate diet together with psychoeducational support significantly reduced food addiction symptoms among a varied group of individuals, not all of whom were overweight or had obesity.

Dr. Unwin said her new data represent the first wide-scale clinical audit of its kind, other than a prior report of three patients with food addiction who were successfully treated with a ketogenic diet. 

“Food addiction explains so much of what we see in clinical practice, where intelligent people understand what we tell them about the physiology associated with a low-carb diet, and they follow it for a while, but then they relapse,” said Dr. Unwin, explaining the difficulties faced by around 20% of her patients who are considered to have food addiction.

Meanwhile, the authors of the U.S. study, led by Ashley N. Gearhardt, PhD, a psychologist from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote that the ability of highly processed foods (HPFs) “to rapidly deliver high doses of refined carbohydrates and/or fat appear key to their addictive potential. Thus, we conclude that HPFs can be considered addictive substances based on scientifically established criteria.”

They asserted that the contribution to preventable deaths by a diet dominated by highly processed foods is comparable with that of tobacco products, and as such, like Dr. Unwin, the authors sought clinical recognition and a more formalized protocol to manage food addiction.

“Understanding whether addiction contributes to HPF intake may lead to new treatments, as preliminary research finds that behavioral and pharmacological interventions that target addictive mechanisms may reduce compulsive HPF intake,” they stated.

The study led by Dr. Gearhardt was published in the journal Addiction, and the study led by Unwin was also recently published in Frontiers in Psychiatry.
 

Addiction criteria similar to tobacco

HPFs can be associated with an eating phenotype “that reflects the hallmarks of addiction,” said Dr. Gearhardt and coauthors; typically, loss of control over intake, intense cravings, inability to cut down, and continued use despite negative consequences.

Acknowledging the lack of a single addictive agent, they explain that food addiction reflects mechanisms implicated in other addictive disorders such as smoking.

As such, in their study, Dr. Gearhardt and colleagues proposed a set of scientifically based criteria for the evaluation of whether certain foods are addictive. “Specifically, we propose the primary criteria used to resolve one of the last major controversies over whether a substance, tobacco products, was addictive.”

They consider certain foods according to the primary criteria that have stood the test of time after being proposed in 1988 by the U.S. Surgeon General to establish the addictive potential of tobacco: they trigger compulsive use, they have psychoactive effects, and they are reinforcing.

They have updated these criteria to include the ability to trigger urges and cravings, and added that “both these products [tobacco and HPFs] are legal, easily accessible, inexpensive, lack an intoxication syndrome, and are major causes of preventable death.”

For example, with compulsive use, tobacco meets this criterion because evidence suggests that most smokers would like to quit but are unable to do so.

Likewise, wrote Dr. Gearhardt and colleagues, even “in the face of significant diet-related health consequences (e.g., diabetes and cardiovascular disease), the majority of patients are unable to adhere to medically recommended dietary plans that require a reduction in HPF intake.”

Reinforcement, through tobacco use, is demonstrated by its ‘being sufficiently rewarding to maintain self-administration” because of its ability to deliver nicotine, they said, quoting the Surgeon General’s report, and likewise, with food addiction, “both adults and children will self-administer HPFs (e.g., potato chips, candy, and cookies) even when satiated.”
 

Online group food addiction intervention study

Dr. Unwin and coauthors want people with food addiction to be able to access a validated treatment protocol. Their study aimed to evaluate an online group intervention across multiple sites in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, involving an abstinent, low-carbohydrate diet and biopsychosocial education focused on addiction and recovery in people self-identifying as having food addiction.

“Lots of people with food addiction go to GPs who don’t clinically recognize this, or if they attend addiction services and psychiatry, then they tend to only specialize in drugs, alcohol, and gambling. Eating disorder services are linked but their programs mostly don’t work for a food addict,” Dr. Unwin remarked in an interview.

“We feel running groups, as well as training professionals to run groups, is the best way to manage food addiction,” she said, reflecting on the scale of the problem, with around 10% of adults in the U.K. general population considered to have food addiction. In Dr. Unwin’s study, some people had type 2 diabetes and some overweight/obesity, but she added that some participants were underweight or of normal weight.

Initially, the 103 participants received weekly group (8-24 people) sessions for 10-14 weeks, and then monthly maintenance comprising follow-up that involved coaching participants on how to cope with relapse and get back on track.

Food addiction symptoms were assessed pre- and post program using the modified Yale Food Addiction Scale (mYFAS) 2.0; ICD-10 symptoms of food-related substance use disorder (CRAVED); and mental health well-being measured using the short version of the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing scale and body weight.

“The program eliminates processed foods with a personalized, abstinence food plan that involves education around mechanisms involved,” said Dr. Unwin, who explained that processed foods deliver a dopamine high, and in response to this, the brain lowers the number of dopamine receptors to effectively counteract the increase in dopamine. This drop in dopamine receptors explains the depression often associated with food addiction.

Dr. Unwin reported that food addiction symptoms were significantly reduced, with the mYFAS dropping by 1.52, the CRAVED score by 1.53, and body weight by 2.34 kg (5.2 lb). Mental health, as measured by the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing scale, improved by 2.37 points.

“We were very interested in mental health and well-being because it impacts so much across our lives, and we saw significant improvements here, but we were less interested in weight because food addicts come in all shapes and sizes with some people underweight,” said Dr. Unwin. “Food addiction symptoms were significantly improved in the group, but we now need to look at the longer-term outcomes.”

Dr. Unwin runs a low-carbohydrate program for type 2 diabetes with her husband David Unwin, MD, who is a GP in Southport, England. She said that they ask patients if they think they have food addiction, and most say they do.

“I always try to explain to patients about the dopamine high, and how this starts the craving which makes people wonder when and where they can find the next sugar hit. Just thinking about the next chocolate bar gets the dopamine running for many people, and the more they tread this path then the worse it gets because the dopamine receptors keep reducing.”

Lorraine Avery, RN, a diabetes nurse specialist for Solent NHS Trust, who attended the DPC conference, welcomed Dr. Unwin’s presentation.

“My concern as a diabetes nurse specialist is that I’m unsure all our patients recognize their food addiction, and there are often more drivers to eating than just the food in front of them,” she said in an interview. “I think there’s an emotional element, too. These people are often ‘yo-yo’ dieters, and they join lots of expert companies to help them lose weight, but these companies want them to regain and re-join their programs,” she said.

“I think there is something about helping patients recognize they have a food addiction and they need to consider that other approaches might be helpful.”

Dr. Unwin reported no relevant financial relationships; some other authors have fee-paying clients with food addiction. Dr. Gearhardt and Ms. Avery reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Highly processed foods meet the same criteria as tobacco for addiction, and labeling them as such might benefit public health, according to a new U.S. study that proposes a set of criteria to assess the addictive potential of some foods.

The research suggests that health care professionals are taking steps toward framing food addiction as a clinical entity in its own right; it currently lacks validated treatment protocols and recognition as a clinical diagnosis.

Meanwhile, other data, reported by researchers at the 2022 Diabetes Professional Care conference in London also add support to the clinical recognition of food addiction.

Clinical psychologist Jen Unwin, PhD, from Southport, England, showed that a 3-month online program of low-carbohydrate diet together with psychoeducational support significantly reduced food addiction symptoms among a varied group of individuals, not all of whom were overweight or had obesity.

Dr. Unwin said her new data represent the first wide-scale clinical audit of its kind, other than a prior report of three patients with food addiction who were successfully treated with a ketogenic diet. 

“Food addiction explains so much of what we see in clinical practice, where intelligent people understand what we tell them about the physiology associated with a low-carb diet, and they follow it for a while, but then they relapse,” said Dr. Unwin, explaining the difficulties faced by around 20% of her patients who are considered to have food addiction.

Meanwhile, the authors of the U.S. study, led by Ashley N. Gearhardt, PhD, a psychologist from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote that the ability of highly processed foods (HPFs) “to rapidly deliver high doses of refined carbohydrates and/or fat appear key to their addictive potential. Thus, we conclude that HPFs can be considered addictive substances based on scientifically established criteria.”

They asserted that the contribution to preventable deaths by a diet dominated by highly processed foods is comparable with that of tobacco products, and as such, like Dr. Unwin, the authors sought clinical recognition and a more formalized protocol to manage food addiction.

“Understanding whether addiction contributes to HPF intake may lead to new treatments, as preliminary research finds that behavioral and pharmacological interventions that target addictive mechanisms may reduce compulsive HPF intake,” they stated.

The study led by Dr. Gearhardt was published in the journal Addiction, and the study led by Unwin was also recently published in Frontiers in Psychiatry.
 

Addiction criteria similar to tobacco

HPFs can be associated with an eating phenotype “that reflects the hallmarks of addiction,” said Dr. Gearhardt and coauthors; typically, loss of control over intake, intense cravings, inability to cut down, and continued use despite negative consequences.

Acknowledging the lack of a single addictive agent, they explain that food addiction reflects mechanisms implicated in other addictive disorders such as smoking.

As such, in their study, Dr. Gearhardt and colleagues proposed a set of scientifically based criteria for the evaluation of whether certain foods are addictive. “Specifically, we propose the primary criteria used to resolve one of the last major controversies over whether a substance, tobacco products, was addictive.”

They consider certain foods according to the primary criteria that have stood the test of time after being proposed in 1988 by the U.S. Surgeon General to establish the addictive potential of tobacco: they trigger compulsive use, they have psychoactive effects, and they are reinforcing.

They have updated these criteria to include the ability to trigger urges and cravings, and added that “both these products [tobacco and HPFs] are legal, easily accessible, inexpensive, lack an intoxication syndrome, and are major causes of preventable death.”

For example, with compulsive use, tobacco meets this criterion because evidence suggests that most smokers would like to quit but are unable to do so.

Likewise, wrote Dr. Gearhardt and colleagues, even “in the face of significant diet-related health consequences (e.g., diabetes and cardiovascular disease), the majority of patients are unable to adhere to medically recommended dietary plans that require a reduction in HPF intake.”

Reinforcement, through tobacco use, is demonstrated by its ‘being sufficiently rewarding to maintain self-administration” because of its ability to deliver nicotine, they said, quoting the Surgeon General’s report, and likewise, with food addiction, “both adults and children will self-administer HPFs (e.g., potato chips, candy, and cookies) even when satiated.”
 

Online group food addiction intervention study

Dr. Unwin and coauthors want people with food addiction to be able to access a validated treatment protocol. Their study aimed to evaluate an online group intervention across multiple sites in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, involving an abstinent, low-carbohydrate diet and biopsychosocial education focused on addiction and recovery in people self-identifying as having food addiction.

“Lots of people with food addiction go to GPs who don’t clinically recognize this, or if they attend addiction services and psychiatry, then they tend to only specialize in drugs, alcohol, and gambling. Eating disorder services are linked but their programs mostly don’t work for a food addict,” Dr. Unwin remarked in an interview.

“We feel running groups, as well as training professionals to run groups, is the best way to manage food addiction,” she said, reflecting on the scale of the problem, with around 10% of adults in the U.K. general population considered to have food addiction. In Dr. Unwin’s study, some people had type 2 diabetes and some overweight/obesity, but she added that some participants were underweight or of normal weight.

Initially, the 103 participants received weekly group (8-24 people) sessions for 10-14 weeks, and then monthly maintenance comprising follow-up that involved coaching participants on how to cope with relapse and get back on track.

Food addiction symptoms were assessed pre- and post program using the modified Yale Food Addiction Scale (mYFAS) 2.0; ICD-10 symptoms of food-related substance use disorder (CRAVED); and mental health well-being measured using the short version of the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing scale and body weight.

“The program eliminates processed foods with a personalized, abstinence food plan that involves education around mechanisms involved,” said Dr. Unwin, who explained that processed foods deliver a dopamine high, and in response to this, the brain lowers the number of dopamine receptors to effectively counteract the increase in dopamine. This drop in dopamine receptors explains the depression often associated with food addiction.

Dr. Unwin reported that food addiction symptoms were significantly reduced, with the mYFAS dropping by 1.52, the CRAVED score by 1.53, and body weight by 2.34 kg (5.2 lb). Mental health, as measured by the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing scale, improved by 2.37 points.

“We were very interested in mental health and well-being because it impacts so much across our lives, and we saw significant improvements here, but we were less interested in weight because food addicts come in all shapes and sizes with some people underweight,” said Dr. Unwin. “Food addiction symptoms were significantly improved in the group, but we now need to look at the longer-term outcomes.”

Dr. Unwin runs a low-carbohydrate program for type 2 diabetes with her husband David Unwin, MD, who is a GP in Southport, England. She said that they ask patients if they think they have food addiction, and most say they do.

“I always try to explain to patients about the dopamine high, and how this starts the craving which makes people wonder when and where they can find the next sugar hit. Just thinking about the next chocolate bar gets the dopamine running for many people, and the more they tread this path then the worse it gets because the dopamine receptors keep reducing.”

Lorraine Avery, RN, a diabetes nurse specialist for Solent NHS Trust, who attended the DPC conference, welcomed Dr. Unwin’s presentation.

“My concern as a diabetes nurse specialist is that I’m unsure all our patients recognize their food addiction, and there are often more drivers to eating than just the food in front of them,” she said in an interview. “I think there’s an emotional element, too. These people are often ‘yo-yo’ dieters, and they join lots of expert companies to help them lose weight, but these companies want them to regain and re-join their programs,” she said.

“I think there is something about helping patients recognize they have a food addiction and they need to consider that other approaches might be helpful.”

Dr. Unwin reported no relevant financial relationships; some other authors have fee-paying clients with food addiction. Dr. Gearhardt and Ms. Avery reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hepatitis B virus (HBV), which can lead to acute and chronic hepatitis, infects more than 2 billion people worldwide, according to serological evidence. Although vaccines and treatments are available, there are approximately 1.5 million new HBV infections each year globally.

A new study has revealed a key step in the HBV life cycle: Researchers found that HBV virions can be released within exosomes, which are capable of infecting neighboring cells. The authors, led by Qingyan Wu of the department of virology, Paul-Ehrlich-Institute, Langen, Germany, suggest this strategy may help the virus escape immune surveillance and target a new hepatocyte.

The study was published online in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

The researchers isolated exosomes from the supernatants of HBV-producing cells using exosomal and HBV markers. Electron microscopy using ultrathin sectioning along with immunogold labeling confirmed the presence of intact HBV virions in exosomes. The ultracentrifugation enabled the separation of the free virion fraction from the virions enclosed in exosomes. These findings fit in with previous discoveries of quasi-enveloped hepatitis A virus and hepatitis E virus.

The exosomes released free HBV virion and naked capsid after exposure to detergent. Cellular exposure to exosome morphogenesis inhibitors interfered with the release of exosome-packaged HBV. The researchers also observed large HBV surface antigens (LHB) on the external surface of the exosomes and found that the antigens allowed the exosome to infect susceptible cells through interaction with the sodium-taurocholate co-transporting polypeptide. LHB may also play an additional role in infectivity by countering the ability of antibodies to neutralize HBV.

However, the researchers also found that an LHB-specific neutralizing antibody inhibited infection of differentiated HepaRG cells with exosome-containing HBV. One explanation is that the antibody blocks the interaction between LHB and the target cell. Another is that the exosome disassembles near the target cell membrane and releases the virus, which is then blocked by the antibody since it can block entry of released virus.

To investigate the release pathway, the researchers used three different exosome release inhibitors and found that all three interfered with HBV exosomal release. They also found that cells deficient in the exosome proteins Alix and syntenin did not release exosomal HBV.

Alix appears to be involved in HBV exosomal release, as evidenced by the fact that release of exosomal HBV is boosted in Alix-deficient cells following rescue through overexpression of mCherry-Alix fusion construct. Overexpression of mCherry-Alix had no effect on release of free HBV virions.

The researchers also found evidence that two other exosomal proteins, CD63 and TSG101, play a role in incorporation of LHBs in the HBV envelope, as well as release of HBV through interactions with the protein alpha-taxilin. CD63 and TSG101 are also critical to the formation of exosomes, and the authors suggest further research into their functioning could be fruitful.

Whether exosome-released HBV results from crosstalk between the virus and host cells still needs to be determined. If host factors play a role in connecting HBV to exosomes, it will be interesting to work out which conditions trigger this process, as well as determine which events trigger the release of free virus through multivesicular bodies.

The researchers posit that LHBs could perform a similar function as classical hepatitis B surface antigens and filaments in foiling the immune response. Such a function would require that the virus escape from antibodies before opsonin proteins tag the antigens. It’s also possible that LHBs enable infection of nonhepatic tissues, though this would likely be inefficient.

Many other host proteins have been observed in exosomes released by HBV-infected hepatocytes, suggesting that host proteins may play other roles. A proteomics analysis found proteasome subunit proteins in HepAD38-derived exosomes. The authors suggest that those proteins may allow the exosomes to mediate transcellular immune regulation.

Subviral particles may enhance viral infection, and exosomes from HBV-positive cells may contribute, possibly through exosome surface LHBs, according to the authors. They found that an LHB-specific neutralizing antibody inhibited infection of differentiated HepaRG cells. One explanation is that the antibody blocks the interaction between LHB and the target cell. Another is that the exosome disassembles near the target cell membrane and releases the virus, which is then blocked by the antibody since it can block entry of released virus.

“This previously undiscovered strategy of sequestering HBV particles in exosomes could be a strategy to escape from the immune response and to target them, protected by the exosomal membrane, to the hepatocyte. Exosomes that carry HBV particles seem also to have the potential to deliver HBV to nonpermissive cells with low efficiency. This suggests that exosomes could be an additional factor that contributes to the spread of HBV,” the authors wrote.

The authors had no financial conflicts. This research was funded by the LOEWE Center ACLF, DRUID, the Germany Research Foundation, and the China Scholarship Council.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV), which can lead to acute and chronic hepatitis, infects more than 2 billion people worldwide, according to serological evidence. Although vaccines and treatments are available, there are approximately 1.5 million new HBV infections each year globally.

A new study has revealed a key step in the HBV life cycle: Researchers found that HBV virions can be released within exosomes, which are capable of infecting neighboring cells. The authors, led by Qingyan Wu of the department of virology, Paul-Ehrlich-Institute, Langen, Germany, suggest this strategy may help the virus escape immune surveillance and target a new hepatocyte.

The study was published online in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

The researchers isolated exosomes from the supernatants of HBV-producing cells using exosomal and HBV markers. Electron microscopy using ultrathin sectioning along with immunogold labeling confirmed the presence of intact HBV virions in exosomes. The ultracentrifugation enabled the separation of the free virion fraction from the virions enclosed in exosomes. These findings fit in with previous discoveries of quasi-enveloped hepatitis A virus and hepatitis E virus.

The exosomes released free HBV virion and naked capsid after exposure to detergent. Cellular exposure to exosome morphogenesis inhibitors interfered with the release of exosome-packaged HBV. The researchers also observed large HBV surface antigens (LHB) on the external surface of the exosomes and found that the antigens allowed the exosome to infect susceptible cells through interaction with the sodium-taurocholate co-transporting polypeptide. LHB may also play an additional role in infectivity by countering the ability of antibodies to neutralize HBV.

However, the researchers also found that an LHB-specific neutralizing antibody inhibited infection of differentiated HepaRG cells with exosome-containing HBV. One explanation is that the antibody blocks the interaction between LHB and the target cell. Another is that the exosome disassembles near the target cell membrane and releases the virus, which is then blocked by the antibody since it can block entry of released virus.

To investigate the release pathway, the researchers used three different exosome release inhibitors and found that all three interfered with HBV exosomal release. They also found that cells deficient in the exosome proteins Alix and syntenin did not release exosomal HBV.

Alix appears to be involved in HBV exosomal release, as evidenced by the fact that release of exosomal HBV is boosted in Alix-deficient cells following rescue through overexpression of mCherry-Alix fusion construct. Overexpression of mCherry-Alix had no effect on release of free HBV virions.

The researchers also found evidence that two other exosomal proteins, CD63 and TSG101, play a role in incorporation of LHBs in the HBV envelope, as well as release of HBV through interactions with the protein alpha-taxilin. CD63 and TSG101 are also critical to the formation of exosomes, and the authors suggest further research into their functioning could be fruitful.

Whether exosome-released HBV results from crosstalk between the virus and host cells still needs to be determined. If host factors play a role in connecting HBV to exosomes, it will be interesting to work out which conditions trigger this process, as well as determine which events trigger the release of free virus through multivesicular bodies.

The researchers posit that LHBs could perform a similar function as classical hepatitis B surface antigens and filaments in foiling the immune response. Such a function would require that the virus escape from antibodies before opsonin proteins tag the antigens. It’s also possible that LHBs enable infection of nonhepatic tissues, though this would likely be inefficient.

Many other host proteins have been observed in exosomes released by HBV-infected hepatocytes, suggesting that host proteins may play other roles. A proteomics analysis found proteasome subunit proteins in HepAD38-derived exosomes. The authors suggest that those proteins may allow the exosomes to mediate transcellular immune regulation.

Subviral particles may enhance viral infection, and exosomes from HBV-positive cells may contribute, possibly through exosome surface LHBs, according to the authors. They found that an LHB-specific neutralizing antibody inhibited infection of differentiated HepaRG cells. One explanation is that the antibody blocks the interaction between LHB and the target cell. Another is that the exosome disassembles near the target cell membrane and releases the virus, which is then blocked by the antibody since it can block entry of released virus.

“This previously undiscovered strategy of sequestering HBV particles in exosomes could be a strategy to escape from the immune response and to target them, protected by the exosomal membrane, to the hepatocyte. Exosomes that carry HBV particles seem also to have the potential to deliver HBV to nonpermissive cells with low efficiency. This suggests that exosomes could be an additional factor that contributes to the spread of HBV,” the authors wrote.

The authors had no financial conflicts. This research was funded by the LOEWE Center ACLF, DRUID, the Germany Research Foundation, and the China Scholarship Council.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV), which can lead to acute and chronic hepatitis, infects more than 2 billion people worldwide, according to serological evidence. Although vaccines and treatments are available, there are approximately 1.5 million new HBV infections each year globally.

A new study has revealed a key step in the HBV life cycle: Researchers found that HBV virions can be released within exosomes, which are capable of infecting neighboring cells. The authors, led by Qingyan Wu of the department of virology, Paul-Ehrlich-Institute, Langen, Germany, suggest this strategy may help the virus escape immune surveillance and target a new hepatocyte.

The study was published online in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

The researchers isolated exosomes from the supernatants of HBV-producing cells using exosomal and HBV markers. Electron microscopy using ultrathin sectioning along with immunogold labeling confirmed the presence of intact HBV virions in exosomes. The ultracentrifugation enabled the separation of the free virion fraction from the virions enclosed in exosomes. These findings fit in with previous discoveries of quasi-enveloped hepatitis A virus and hepatitis E virus.

The exosomes released free HBV virion and naked capsid after exposure to detergent. Cellular exposure to exosome morphogenesis inhibitors interfered with the release of exosome-packaged HBV. The researchers also observed large HBV surface antigens (LHB) on the external surface of the exosomes and found that the antigens allowed the exosome to infect susceptible cells through interaction with the sodium-taurocholate co-transporting polypeptide. LHB may also play an additional role in infectivity by countering the ability of antibodies to neutralize HBV.

However, the researchers also found that an LHB-specific neutralizing antibody inhibited infection of differentiated HepaRG cells with exosome-containing HBV. One explanation is that the antibody blocks the interaction between LHB and the target cell. Another is that the exosome disassembles near the target cell membrane and releases the virus, which is then blocked by the antibody since it can block entry of released virus.

To investigate the release pathway, the researchers used three different exosome release inhibitors and found that all three interfered with HBV exosomal release. They also found that cells deficient in the exosome proteins Alix and syntenin did not release exosomal HBV.

Alix appears to be involved in HBV exosomal release, as evidenced by the fact that release of exosomal HBV is boosted in Alix-deficient cells following rescue through overexpression of mCherry-Alix fusion construct. Overexpression of mCherry-Alix had no effect on release of free HBV virions.

The researchers also found evidence that two other exosomal proteins, CD63 and TSG101, play a role in incorporation of LHBs in the HBV envelope, as well as release of HBV through interactions with the protein alpha-taxilin. CD63 and TSG101 are also critical to the formation of exosomes, and the authors suggest further research into their functioning could be fruitful.

Whether exosome-released HBV results from crosstalk between the virus and host cells still needs to be determined. If host factors play a role in connecting HBV to exosomes, it will be interesting to work out which conditions trigger this process, as well as determine which events trigger the release of free virus through multivesicular bodies.

The researchers posit that LHBs could perform a similar function as classical hepatitis B surface antigens and filaments in foiling the immune response. Such a function would require that the virus escape from antibodies before opsonin proteins tag the antigens. It’s also possible that LHBs enable infection of nonhepatic tissues, though this would likely be inefficient.

Many other host proteins have been observed in exosomes released by HBV-infected hepatocytes, suggesting that host proteins may play other roles. A proteomics analysis found proteasome subunit proteins in HepAD38-derived exosomes. The authors suggest that those proteins may allow the exosomes to mediate transcellular immune regulation.

Subviral particles may enhance viral infection, and exosomes from HBV-positive cells may contribute, possibly through exosome surface LHBs, according to the authors. They found that an LHB-specific neutralizing antibody inhibited infection of differentiated HepaRG cells. One explanation is that the antibody blocks the interaction between LHB and the target cell. Another is that the exosome disassembles near the target cell membrane and releases the virus, which is then blocked by the antibody since it can block entry of released virus.

“This previously undiscovered strategy of sequestering HBV particles in exosomes could be a strategy to escape from the immune response and to target them, protected by the exosomal membrane, to the hepatocyte. Exosomes that carry HBV particles seem also to have the potential to deliver HBV to nonpermissive cells with low efficiency. This suggests that exosomes could be an additional factor that contributes to the spread of HBV,” the authors wrote.

The authors had no financial conflicts. This research was funded by the LOEWE Center ACLF, DRUID, the Germany Research Foundation, and the China Scholarship Council.

In advanced and metastatic melanoma patients, fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) from healthy donors in advance of anti–PD-1 immunotherapy led to a 75% clinical benefit rate, defined as complete response, partial response, or stable disease that lasted 6 months or longer. The results come from a small, single arm phase 1 study whose primary endpoint was safety.

“We know that the gut microbiome has shown the ability to affect the systemic antitumor immunity by affecting the CD8+ T cells and CD4+ T cells, and these are the cells that are ultimately important for the function of checkpoint inhibitors. There is now clinical evidence that has shown that changing patient microbiota via fecal microbiota transplantation using stool from previous responder patients has the capacity to sensitize immunotherapy refractory melanomas to anti–PD-1 therapy, (with) about 30% response in this setting,” said Saman Maleki, PhD, during his presentation of the results at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 37th Annual Meeting. He also noted that broad-spectrum antibiotics have been shown to negatively influence responses to immunotherapy.

Rather than using stool from donors who responded to immunotherapy, the researchers chose instead to use stool from healthy donors.

The study included 20 patients with advanced melanoma who had not been treated with anti–PD-1 therapy. The median age was 75.5 years, 40% were female, and 75% had wild type BRAF. All patients underwent bowel prep and then received fecal transplants from healthy donors, followed by a 7-day engraftment period before initiating anti–PD-1 therapy in the form of nivolumab or pembrolizumab.

The primary endpoint of the study was safety, and no grade 3 or 4 toxicities were observed during the FMT, and safety signals associated with anti–PD-1 therapies were in line with previous experience.

Fifteen percent of patients had a complete response, 50% had a partial response, 15% had stable disease, and 20% had progressive disease. Seventy-five percent of patients had a complete response, partial response, or stable disease that lasted at least 6 months.

Analysis of the microbiomes showed much higher diversity in the donor microbiomes than in patients. “What was really interesting was that the success of engraftment and retention of the donor microbiome was really key in determining between responders and nonresponders. Responders had successful engraftment that lasted over time, and in nonresponders we did not see that,” said Dr. Maleki, who is a cancer immunology researcher at the University of Western Ontario, London.

They also saw differences between responders and nonresponders in how their microbiome evolved over time. Responders had enrichment in Ruminococcus callidus and other bacteria, while nonresponders had enrichment in different bacteria, among them Catabacter hongkongensis, which has previously been implicated as negatively impacting anti–PD-1 responses, according to Dr. Maleki.

Microbiomes from healthy donors had greater diversity than the patients. Following FMT, patients’ microbiomes increased regardless of clinical response to immunotherapy. However, the tendency for patients to trend toward and retain greater diversity over time was associated with treatment success. “What we saw that was key in patients’ response to immunotherapy was the ability of the patients to retain the donor microbiome. All patients’ microbiomes changed and shifted toward the donors’ post FMT. However, only the responders were able to keep the donor microbiome over time, and the nonresponders’ microbiomes reverted to the previous microbiome,” Dr. Maleki said.

The researchers also conducted a mouse version of the clinical trial. They transplanted mice with the baseline fecal samples of a human responder and then exposed the animals to tumors. They then conducted a second FMT with stool from the human donor, and the animals then responded to anti–PD-1 therapy. The results further confirm “that the donor still has the capacity to drive response in this setting,” Dr. Maleki said.

Dr. Maleki is a board member of IMV Inc.

In advanced and metastatic melanoma patients, fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) from healthy donors in advance of anti–PD-1 immunotherapy led to a 75% clinical benefit rate, defined as complete response, partial response, or stable disease that lasted 6 months or longer. The results come from a small, single arm phase 1 study whose primary endpoint was safety.

“We know that the gut microbiome has shown the ability to affect the systemic antitumor immunity by affecting the CD8+ T cells and CD4+ T cells, and these are the cells that are ultimately important for the function of checkpoint inhibitors. There is now clinical evidence that has shown that changing patient microbiota via fecal microbiota transplantation using stool from previous responder patients has the capacity to sensitize immunotherapy refractory melanomas to anti–PD-1 therapy, (with) about 30% response in this setting,” said Saman Maleki, PhD, during his presentation of the results at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 37th Annual Meeting. He also noted that broad-spectrum antibiotics have been shown to negatively influence responses to immunotherapy.

Rather than using stool from donors who responded to immunotherapy, the researchers chose instead to use stool from healthy donors.

The study included 20 patients with advanced melanoma who had not been treated with anti–PD-1 therapy. The median age was 75.5 years, 40% were female, and 75% had wild type BRAF. All patients underwent bowel prep and then received fecal transplants from healthy donors, followed by a 7-day engraftment period before initiating anti–PD-1 therapy in the form of nivolumab or pembrolizumab.

The primary endpoint of the study was safety, and no grade 3 or 4 toxicities were observed during the FMT, and safety signals associated with anti–PD-1 therapies were in line with previous experience.

Fifteen percent of patients had a complete response, 50% had a partial response, 15% had stable disease, and 20% had progressive disease. Seventy-five percent of patients had a complete response, partial response, or stable disease that lasted at least 6 months.

Analysis of the microbiomes showed much higher diversity in the donor microbiomes than in patients. “What was really interesting was that the success of engraftment and retention of the donor microbiome was really key in determining between responders and nonresponders. Responders had successful engraftment that lasted over time, and in nonresponders we did not see that,” said Dr. Maleki, who is a cancer immunology researcher at the University of Western Ontario, London.

They also saw differences between responders and nonresponders in how their microbiome evolved over time. Responders had enrichment in Ruminococcus callidus and other bacteria, while nonresponders had enrichment in different bacteria, among them Catabacter hongkongensis, which has previously been implicated as negatively impacting anti–PD-1 responses, according to Dr. Maleki.

Microbiomes from healthy donors had greater diversity than the patients. Following FMT, patients’ microbiomes increased regardless of clinical response to immunotherapy. However, the tendency for patients to trend toward and retain greater diversity over time was associated with treatment success. “What we saw that was key in patients’ response to immunotherapy was the ability of the patients to retain the donor microbiome. All patients’ microbiomes changed and shifted toward the donors’ post FMT. However, only the responders were able to keep the donor microbiome over time, and the nonresponders’ microbiomes reverted to the previous microbiome,” Dr. Maleki said.

The researchers also conducted a mouse version of the clinical trial. They transplanted mice with the baseline fecal samples of a human responder and then exposed the animals to tumors. They then conducted a second FMT with stool from the human donor, and the animals then responded to anti–PD-1 therapy. The results further confirm “that the donor still has the capacity to drive response in this setting,” Dr. Maleki said.

Dr. Maleki is a board member of IMV Inc.

In advanced and metastatic melanoma patients, fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) from healthy donors in advance of anti–PD-1 immunotherapy led to a 75% clinical benefit rate, defined as complete response, partial response, or stable disease that lasted 6 months or longer. The results come from a small, single arm phase 1 study whose primary endpoint was safety.

“We know that the gut microbiome has shown the ability to affect the systemic antitumor immunity by affecting the CD8+ T cells and CD4+ T cells, and these are the cells that are ultimately important for the function of checkpoint inhibitors. There is now clinical evidence that has shown that changing patient microbiota via fecal microbiota transplantation using stool from previous responder patients has the capacity to sensitize immunotherapy refractory melanomas to anti–PD-1 therapy, (with) about 30% response in this setting,” said Saman Maleki, PhD, during his presentation of the results at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 37th Annual Meeting. He also noted that broad-spectrum antibiotics have been shown to negatively influence responses to immunotherapy.

Rather than using stool from donors who responded to immunotherapy, the researchers chose instead to use stool from healthy donors.

The study included 20 patients with advanced melanoma who had not been treated with anti–PD-1 therapy. The median age was 75.5 years, 40% were female, and 75% had wild type BRAF. All patients underwent bowel prep and then received fecal transplants from healthy donors, followed by a 7-day engraftment period before initiating anti–PD-1 therapy in the form of nivolumab or pembrolizumab.

The primary endpoint of the study was safety, and no grade 3 or 4 toxicities were observed during the FMT, and safety signals associated with anti–PD-1 therapies were in line with previous experience.

Fifteen percent of patients had a complete response, 50% had a partial response, 15% had stable disease, and 20% had progressive disease. Seventy-five percent of patients had a complete response, partial response, or stable disease that lasted at least 6 months.

Analysis of the microbiomes showed much higher diversity in the donor microbiomes than in patients. “What was really interesting was that the success of engraftment and retention of the donor microbiome was really key in determining between responders and nonresponders. Responders had successful engraftment that lasted over time, and in nonresponders we did not see that,” said Dr. Maleki, who is a cancer immunology researcher at the University of Western Ontario, London.

They also saw differences between responders and nonresponders in how their microbiome evolved over time. Responders had enrichment in Ruminococcus callidus and other bacteria, while nonresponders had enrichment in different bacteria, among them Catabacter hongkongensis, which has previously been implicated as negatively impacting anti–PD-1 responses, according to Dr. Maleki.

Microbiomes from healthy donors had greater diversity than the patients. Following FMT, patients’ microbiomes increased regardless of clinical response to immunotherapy. However, the tendency for patients to trend toward and retain greater diversity over time was associated with treatment success. “What we saw that was key in patients’ response to immunotherapy was the ability of the patients to retain the donor microbiome. All patients’ microbiomes changed and shifted toward the donors’ post FMT. However, only the responders were able to keep the donor microbiome over time, and the nonresponders’ microbiomes reverted to the previous microbiome,” Dr. Maleki said.

The researchers also conducted a mouse version of the clinical trial. They transplanted mice with the baseline fecal samples of a human responder and then exposed the animals to tumors. They then conducted a second FMT with stool from the human donor, and the animals then responded to anti–PD-1 therapy. The results further confirm “that the donor still has the capacity to drive response in this setting,” Dr. Maleki said.

Dr. Maleki is a board member of IMV Inc.

Large nonpedunculated rectal polyps (LNPRPs), defined as 20 mm or larger, are associated with a high risk of submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC). Although LNPRPs can be removed by distal colorectal surgery, this approach has an increased risk of morbidity, mortality, and permanent ostomy formation.

The first-line resection technique for LNPRPs is endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR); however, for larger lesions, piecemeal removal is required. When SMIC is revealed after piecemeal resection, surgery is generally recommended, since this is the only way to determine if R0 margins and curative oncologic resection have been achieved.

In such cases, an alternative is endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), but there is no current algorithm to choose between the two procedures based on lesion identity.

Optical methods can determine a lesion’s pit and microvascular pattern in real time to determine if SMIC is present, but the performance is modest. Researchers sought to bolster optical detection by combining it with SMIC risk stratification to streamline the choice between EMR and ESD for LNPRPs.

In a study published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, researchers led by Neal Shahidi, MD, of the division of gastroenterology, St. Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver, described a selective resection algorithm (SRA) that could assist gastroenterologists in determining the best procedure to use when confronted with an LNPRP.

“Cost-effectiveness analyses have shown that an SRA using EMR and ESD is the optimal approach. However, a mechanism to facilitate modality selection has not been delineated. To our knowledge, this study is the first to show that a rectum-specific SRA, based on real-time optical evaluation and covert SMIC risk stratification, increases the frequency of curative oncologic resection and minimizes the risk of piecemeal resection of malignant LNPRPs. ... Piecemeal resection of endoscopically curable malignant LNPRPs negates the very benefit that they are intended to provide. To avoid malignant piecemeal resection, optical evaluation of the lesion’s pit and microvascular surface pattern can be used to predict SMIC prior to resection technique selection,” the authors wrote.

The researchers conducted a prospective observational study of 480 LNPRPs that were detected between July 2008 and April 2021. They compared the performance of the SRA to that of a universal EMR algorithm (UEA) for procedure determination. The SRA flagged LNPRPs with features consistent with SMIC (< 1,000 mm or Kudo pit pattern Vi) for endoscopic dissection. The latter included Paris 0-Is or 0-IIa+Is nongranular, or 0-IIa+Is granular with a dominant nodule 10 mm or larger. Other LNPRPs were designated to undergo EMR.

The median patient age was 67 years, and 54.2% were men; 90.1% of participants were ASA I-II; 290 LNPRPs were evaluated with the UEA and 190 with the SRA. The median lesion size was 40 mm. Overall, 11.7% of LPNRPs were identified as containing SMIC.

In the SRA, only 1.0% of LNPRPs removed by EMR contained SMIC, while the UEA identified cancer in 12.1%, a significant difference (P = .001). The SRA led to 33.3% as curative oncologic resections, while the UEA achieved only 5.7% (P = .010).

There were no significant differences in technical success or adverse events between the two algorithms.

Procedures determined by SRA took longer than those decided by UEA (median resection duration, 45 vs. 29 minutes; P < .001). Among LNPRPs that were removed through EMR and margin thermal ablation, there was no significant difference in recurrence whether SRA or UEA was used to determine the procedure.

Compared with UEA, SRA was associated with higher rates of en bloc resection (90.5% vs. 11.4%; P < .001), R0 resection (85.7% vs. 5.7%; P < .001), and curative oncologic resection (33.3% vs. 5.7%; P = .010).

“In this study, using analogous optical evaluation and covert SMIC risk stratification criteria, only one (1.0%) [of] malignant LNPRP underwent piecemeal resection within the SRA. This is a pivotal advance in the application of minimally invasive endoscopic resection techniques. It demonstrates an effective approach to optical evaluation; thereby, delineating which LNPRPs can be effectively, efficiently, and safely managed by EMR, compared with those which may derive benefit from ESD,” the authors wrote.

The authors recommended ESD only be used for lesions with suspected superficial SMIC or when there is a heightened risk of SMIC.

A key finding of the study is the frequency of curative resection following ESD. “At 33.3%, this represents a critical improvement in patient outcomes and the application of minimally invasive endoscopic resection techniques; especially when taking into consideration the potential negative ramifications of distal colorectal surgery and evidence showing that endoscopic resection does not impair subsequent surgical intervention,” the authors wrote.

There was no significant difference in recurrence at surveillance colonoscopy between SRA and UEA when undergoing margin thermal ablation. The finding suggests that margin thermal ablation should be considered a vital component of EMR, according to the authors.

Dr. Shahidi received speaker honorarium from Boston Scientific and Pharmascience, and one coauthor received research support from Olympus, Cook Medical, and Boston Scientific.

Large nonpedunculated rectal polyps (LNPRPs), defined as 20 mm or larger, are associated with a high risk of submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC). Although LNPRPs can be removed by distal colorectal surgery, this approach has an increased risk of morbidity, mortality, and permanent ostomy formation.

The first-line resection technique for LNPRPs is endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR); however, for larger lesions, piecemeal removal is required. When SMIC is revealed after piecemeal resection, surgery is generally recommended, since this is the only way to determine if R0 margins and curative oncologic resection have been achieved.

In such cases, an alternative is endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), but there is no current algorithm to choose between the two procedures based on lesion identity.

Optical methods can determine a lesion’s pit and microvascular pattern in real time to determine if SMIC is present, but the performance is modest. Researchers sought to bolster optical detection by combining it with SMIC risk stratification to streamline the choice between EMR and ESD for LNPRPs.

In a study published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, researchers led by Neal Shahidi, MD, of the division of gastroenterology, St. Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver, described a selective resection algorithm (SRA) that could assist gastroenterologists in determining the best procedure to use when confronted with an LNPRP.

“Cost-effectiveness analyses have shown that an SRA using EMR and ESD is the optimal approach. However, a mechanism to facilitate modality selection has not been delineated. To our knowledge, this study is the first to show that a rectum-specific SRA, based on real-time optical evaluation and covert SMIC risk stratification, increases the frequency of curative oncologic resection and minimizes the risk of piecemeal resection of malignant LNPRPs. ... Piecemeal resection of endoscopically curable malignant LNPRPs negates the very benefit that they are intended to provide. To avoid malignant piecemeal resection, optical evaluation of the lesion’s pit and microvascular surface pattern can be used to predict SMIC prior to resection technique selection,” the authors wrote.

The researchers conducted a prospective observational study of 480 LNPRPs that were detected between July 2008 and April 2021. They compared the performance of the SRA to that of a universal EMR algorithm (UEA) for procedure determination. The SRA flagged LNPRPs with features consistent with SMIC (< 1,000 mm or Kudo pit pattern Vi) for endoscopic dissection. The latter included Paris 0-Is or 0-IIa+Is nongranular, or 0-IIa+Is granular with a dominant nodule 10 mm or larger. Other LNPRPs were designated to undergo EMR.

The median patient age was 67 years, and 54.2% were men; 90.1% of participants were ASA I-II; 290 LNPRPs were evaluated with the UEA and 190 with the SRA. The median lesion size was 40 mm. Overall, 11.7% of LPNRPs were identified as containing SMIC.

In the SRA, only 1.0% of LNPRPs removed by EMR contained SMIC, while the UEA identified cancer in 12.1%, a significant difference (P = .001). The SRA led to 33.3% as curative oncologic resections, while the UEA achieved only 5.7% (P = .010).

There were no significant differences in technical success or adverse events between the two algorithms.

Procedures determined by SRA took longer than those decided by UEA (median resection duration, 45 vs. 29 minutes; P < .001). Among LNPRPs that were removed through EMR and margin thermal ablation, there was no significant difference in recurrence whether SRA or UEA was used to determine the procedure.

Compared with UEA, SRA was associated with higher rates of en bloc resection (90.5% vs. 11.4%; P < .001), R0 resection (85.7% vs. 5.7%; P < .001), and curative oncologic resection (33.3% vs. 5.7%; P = .010).

“In this study, using analogous optical evaluation and covert SMIC risk stratification criteria, only one (1.0%) [of] malignant LNPRP underwent piecemeal resection within the SRA. This is a pivotal advance in the application of minimally invasive endoscopic resection techniques. It demonstrates an effective approach to optical evaluation; thereby, delineating which LNPRPs can be effectively, efficiently, and safely managed by EMR, compared with those which may derive benefit from ESD,” the authors wrote.

The authors recommended ESD only be used for lesions with suspected superficial SMIC or when there is a heightened risk of SMIC.

A key finding of the study is the frequency of curative resection following ESD. “At 33.3%, this represents a critical improvement in patient outcomes and the application of minimally invasive endoscopic resection techniques; especially when taking into consideration the potential negative ramifications of distal colorectal surgery and evidence showing that endoscopic resection does not impair subsequent surgical intervention,” the authors wrote.

There was no significant difference in recurrence at surveillance colonoscopy between SRA and UEA when undergoing margin thermal ablation. The finding suggests that margin thermal ablation should be considered a vital component of EMR, according to the authors.

Dr. Shahidi received speaker honorarium from Boston Scientific and Pharmascience, and one coauthor received research support from Olympus, Cook Medical, and Boston Scientific.

Large nonpedunculated rectal polyps (LNPRPs), defined as 20 mm or larger, are associated with a high risk of submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC). Although LNPRPs can be removed by distal colorectal surgery, this approach has an increased risk of morbidity, mortality, and permanent ostomy formation.

The first-line resection technique for LNPRPs is endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR); however, for larger lesions, piecemeal removal is required. When SMIC is revealed after piecemeal resection, surgery is generally recommended, since this is the only way to determine if R0 margins and curative oncologic resection have been achieved.

In such cases, an alternative is endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), but there is no current algorithm to choose between the two procedures based on lesion identity.

Optical methods can determine a lesion’s pit and microvascular pattern in real time to determine if SMIC is present, but the performance is modest. Researchers sought to bolster optical detection by combining it with SMIC risk stratification to streamline the choice between EMR and ESD for LNPRPs.

In a study published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, researchers led by Neal Shahidi, MD, of the division of gastroenterology, St. Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver, described a selective resection algorithm (SRA) that could assist gastroenterologists in determining the best procedure to use when confronted with an LNPRP.

“Cost-effectiveness analyses have shown that an SRA using EMR and ESD is the optimal approach. However, a mechanism to facilitate modality selection has not been delineated. To our knowledge, this study is the first to show that a rectum-specific SRA, based on real-time optical evaluation and covert SMIC risk stratification, increases the frequency of curative oncologic resection and minimizes the risk of piecemeal resection of malignant LNPRPs. ... Piecemeal resection of endoscopically curable malignant LNPRPs negates the very benefit that they are intended to provide. To avoid malignant piecemeal resection, optical evaluation of the lesion’s pit and microvascular surface pattern can be used to predict SMIC prior to resection technique selection,” the authors wrote.

The researchers conducted a prospective observational study of 480 LNPRPs that were detected between July 2008 and April 2021. They compared the performance of the SRA to that of a universal EMR algorithm (UEA) for procedure determination. The SRA flagged LNPRPs with features consistent with SMIC (< 1,000 mm or Kudo pit pattern Vi) for endoscopic dissection. The latter included Paris 0-Is or 0-IIa+Is nongranular, or 0-IIa+Is granular with a dominant nodule 10 mm or larger. Other LNPRPs were designated to undergo EMR.

The median patient age was 67 years, and 54.2% were men; 90.1% of participants were ASA I-II; 290 LNPRPs were evaluated with the UEA and 190 with the SRA. The median lesion size was 40 mm. Overall, 11.7% of LPNRPs were identified as containing SMIC.

In the SRA, only 1.0% of LNPRPs removed by EMR contained SMIC, while the UEA identified cancer in 12.1%, a significant difference (P = .001). The SRA led to 33.3% as curative oncologic resections, while the UEA achieved only 5.7% (P = .010).

There were no significant differences in technical success or adverse events between the two algorithms.

Procedures determined by SRA took longer than those decided by UEA (median resection duration, 45 vs. 29 minutes; P < .001). Among LNPRPs that were removed through EMR and margin thermal ablation, there was no significant difference in recurrence whether SRA or UEA was used to determine the procedure.

Compared with UEA, SRA was associated with higher rates of en bloc resection (90.5% vs. 11.4%; P < .001), R0 resection (85.7% vs. 5.7%; P < .001), and curative oncologic resection (33.3% vs. 5.7%; P = .010).

“In this study, using analogous optical evaluation and covert SMIC risk stratification criteria, only one (1.0%) [of] malignant LNPRP underwent piecemeal resection within the SRA. This is a pivotal advance in the application of minimally invasive endoscopic resection techniques. It demonstrates an effective approach to optical evaluation; thereby, delineating which LNPRPs can be effectively, efficiently, and safely managed by EMR, compared with those which may derive benefit from ESD,” the authors wrote.

The authors recommended ESD only be used for lesions with suspected superficial SMIC or when there is a heightened risk of SMIC.

A key finding of the study is the frequency of curative resection following ESD. “At 33.3%, this represents a critical improvement in patient outcomes and the application of minimally invasive endoscopic resection techniques; especially when taking into consideration the potential negative ramifications of distal colorectal surgery and evidence showing that endoscopic resection does not impair subsequent surgical intervention,” the authors wrote.

There was no significant difference in recurrence at surveillance colonoscopy between SRA and UEA when undergoing margin thermal ablation. The finding suggests that margin thermal ablation should be considered a vital component of EMR, according to the authors.

Dr. Shahidi received speaker honorarium from Boston Scientific and Pharmascience, and one coauthor received research support from Olympus, Cook Medical, and Boston Scientific.

LAS VEGAS – Disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of skin of color can stem from incorrect diagnoses and lack of knowledge on the part of clinicians, and also from knowledge gaps on the part of other health care providers and patients, Susan C. Taylor, MD, said in a presentation at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

Additionally, some disparities occur because of gaps in access to health care, said Dr. Taylor, vice chair, diversity, equity and inclusion, in the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who moderated an expert panel discussion of treatment tips for several common dermatologic conditions in skin of color patients.

Atopic dermatitis angles

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is the fourth most common dermatologic complaint in Black patients, based on data from the United States National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Also, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey show that Black children are nearly twice as likely as White children to develop AD after controlling for socioeconomic factors, Dr. Taylor said.

When Black patients present with AD, “you may not see the erythema,” said Valerie D. Callender, MD, of Howard University, Washington, who presented on AD. Instead, “you may see more follicular and papular presentations.” Erythema and erythroderma can present as shades of violet, gray, or dark brown in patients with rich skin tones, added Dr. Callender, who practices in Glenn Dale, Md.

Consequently, disease severity can be misinterpreted, she said, noting that data suggest that scoring systems such as the Eczema Area and Severity Index and Scoring Atopic Dermatitis underestimate AD severity in dark skin.

As for treatment, skin of color patients with AD are often as bothered by postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) as by active lesions, so treatment should take these concerns into account, Dr. Callender said. Studies evaluating the effectiveness of AD treatments in diverse populations are limited by lack of representation of racial groups in clinical trials and lack of subset analyses by race.
 

Acne awareness

An important consideration of acne in skin of color patients is that the acne “might not be red, it might just be darker,” said Andrew F. Alexis, MD, vice-chair for diversity and inclusion in the department of dermatology, and professor of clinical dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. A study published in JAMA Dermatology of nearly 30,000 patients with acne from 2007 to 2017 found that non-Hispanic Black patients were more likely than non-Hispanic White patients to see a dermatologist for acne, but Black patients received fewer prescriptions for acne medications than White patients.

The study also showed that Black patients who received prescriptions for acne were more likely to receive topical retinoids and topical antibiotics, and less likely to receive oral antibiotics, spironolactone, or isotretinoin, compared with White patients. Similarly, Asian patients were more likely to receive topical antibiotics and less likely to receive oral antibiotics, compared with White patients.

Other panelists shared some of their best practices for acne in patients with skin of color, including treatment with topical retinoids (for inflammation) and spironolactone, and therapies that address both inflammation and pigmentation, such as salicylic acid and azelaic acid. Dr. Callender also advised asking patients about makeup, as they may not know that many types of makeup used to cover acne are in fact comedogenic.
 

Melanoma misconceptions

One of the most common misperceptions about melanoma among skin of color patients is that they don’t think they can get it, Dr. Taylor said. Many health care providers don’t think about melanoma in skin of color patients because of the dramatically lower incidence in this population, but as a result, cases may go undiagnosed, and as studies have shown, the mortality rate from melanoma is higher in Black patients.

Consider the palms, soles, nails, and web spaces as possible melanoma sites, Dr. Taylor added.

Educating skin of color patients about melanoma is important, although the incidence is 20 to 30 times lower than in non-Hispanic Whites, said Nada Elbuluk, MD, the founder and director of the University of Southern California Skin of Color Center and Pigmentary Disorders Clinic, Los Angeles. A 2020 editorial published in Cancer Cytopathology pointed out that 1 in 3 Black men or women with a melanoma diagnosis in the United States dies of the disease, compared with 1 in 7 non-Hispanic White men and 1 in 11 non-Hispanic White women with melanoma.

Don’t skip the total body skin exam in these patients, Dr. Elbuluk emphasized. Many patients will only partially undress, and areas such as toes can be missed.
 

Rosacea review

For patients with skin of color, clinicians need to look for different signs of rosacea than those typically seen in White patients, Dr. Elbuluk said. “The most common presentation of rosacea in skin of color is papulopustular,” and the granulomatous variant.

“These patients will often give you a history of sensitivity to products,” Dr. Elbuluk noted. They may not always have the flushing, but they may report warmth or itching, in addition to product sensitivity.

When considering rosacea in skin of color patients, be sure to have good lighting for close examination, as skin thickening is another subtle sign of rosacea in these patients, she said. Skin thickening “is a very early sign that will present in skin of color with no erythema, so keep that in mind.”

Stinging and burning sensations may be reported by skin of color patients with rosacea. Use patient history to confirm the diagnosis of rosacea, which is often delayed in skin of color patients because of a low index of suspicion, she said.

Psoriasis pointers

Psoriasis in skin of color patients used to be considered rare, “but that is far from true,” Dr. Alexis said. In fact, many cases of psoriasis are undiagnosed or the diagnosis is delayed in these patients.

The panelists noted that current guidelines for psoriasis treatment are based on clinical trials composed mainly of White patients, and do not contain specific recommendations for skin of color patients.

Notably, the morphology, location, and color of psoriasis lesions may be different for patients with darker skin, such as thicker plaques and more scaling over larger areas, they said. Also, skin of color patients may experience long-lasting dyspigmentation from psoriasis lesions that have resolved.

When developing a strategy for psoriasis in skin of color patients, consider not only disease severity, but also comorbidities and medications, response (if any) to prior therapies, patient preferences, and quality of life, the panelists said.

Dr. Callender, Dr. Elbuluk, Dr. Taylor, and Dr. Alexis reported conflicts of interest from numerous sources in industry. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

LAS VEGAS – Disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of skin of color can stem from incorrect diagnoses and lack of knowledge on the part of clinicians, and also from knowledge gaps on the part of other health care providers and patients, Susan C. Taylor, MD, said in a presentation at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

Additionally, some disparities occur because of gaps in access to health care, said Dr. Taylor, vice chair, diversity, equity and inclusion, in the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who moderated an expert panel discussion of treatment tips for several common dermatologic conditions in skin of color patients.

Atopic dermatitis angles

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is the fourth most common dermatologic complaint in Black patients, based on data from the United States National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Also, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey show that Black children are nearly twice as likely as White children to develop AD after controlling for socioeconomic factors, Dr. Taylor said.

When Black patients present with AD, “you may not see the erythema,” said Valerie D. Callender, MD, of Howard University, Washington, who presented on AD. Instead, “you may see more follicular and papular presentations.” Erythema and erythroderma can present as shades of violet, gray, or dark brown in patients with rich skin tones, added Dr. Callender, who practices in Glenn Dale, Md.

Consequently, disease severity can be misinterpreted, she said, noting that data suggest that scoring systems such as the Eczema Area and Severity Index and Scoring Atopic Dermatitis underestimate AD severity in dark skin.

As for treatment, skin of color patients with AD are often as bothered by postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) as by active lesions, so treatment should take these concerns into account, Dr. Callender said. Studies evaluating the effectiveness of AD treatments in diverse populations are limited by lack of representation of racial groups in clinical trials and lack of subset analyses by race.
 

Acne awareness

An important consideration of acne in skin of color patients is that the acne “might not be red, it might just be darker,” said Andrew F. Alexis, MD, vice-chair for diversity and inclusion in the department of dermatology, and professor of clinical dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. A study published in JAMA Dermatology of nearly 30,000 patients with acne from 2007 to 2017 found that non-Hispanic Black patients were more likely than non-Hispanic White patients to see a dermatologist for acne, but Black patients received fewer prescriptions for acne medications than White patients.

The study also showed that Black patients who received prescriptions for acne were more likely to receive topical retinoids and topical antibiotics, and less likely to receive oral antibiotics, spironolactone, or isotretinoin, compared with White patients. Similarly, Asian patients were more likely to receive topical antibiotics and less likely to receive oral antibiotics, compared with White patients.

Other panelists shared some of their best practices for acne in patients with skin of color, including treatment with topical retinoids (for inflammation) and spironolactone, and therapies that address both inflammation and pigmentation, such as salicylic acid and azelaic acid. Dr. Callender also advised asking patients about makeup, as they may not know that many types of makeup used to cover acne are in fact comedogenic.
 

Melanoma misconceptions

One of the most common misperceptions about melanoma among skin of color patients is that they don’t think they can get it, Dr. Taylor said. Many health care providers don’t think about melanoma in skin of color patients because of the dramatically lower incidence in this population, but as a result, cases may go undiagnosed, and as studies have shown, the mortality rate from melanoma is higher in Black patients.

Consider the palms, soles, nails, and web spaces as possible melanoma sites, Dr. Taylor added.

Educating skin of color patients about melanoma is important, although the incidence is 20 to 30 times lower than in non-Hispanic Whites, said Nada Elbuluk, MD, the founder and director of the University of Southern California Skin of Color Center and Pigmentary Disorders Clinic, Los Angeles. A 2020 editorial published in Cancer Cytopathology pointed out that 1 in 3 Black men or women with a melanoma diagnosis in the United States dies of the disease, compared with 1 in 7 non-Hispanic White men and 1 in 11 non-Hispanic White women with melanoma.

Don’t skip the total body skin exam in these patients, Dr. Elbuluk emphasized. Many patients will only partially undress, and areas such as toes can be missed.
 

Rosacea review

For patients with skin of color, clinicians need to look for different signs of rosacea than those typically seen in White patients, Dr. Elbuluk said. “The most common presentation of rosacea in skin of color is papulopustular,” and the granulomatous variant.

“These patients will often give you a history of sensitivity to products,” Dr. Elbuluk noted. They may not always have the flushing, but they may report warmth or itching, in addition to product sensitivity.

When considering rosacea in skin of color patients, be sure to have good lighting for close examination, as skin thickening is another subtle sign of rosacea in these patients, she said. Skin thickening “is a very early sign that will present in skin of color with no erythema, so keep that in mind.”

Stinging and burning sensations may be reported by skin of color patients with rosacea. Use patient history to confirm the diagnosis of rosacea, which is often delayed in skin of color patients because of a low index of suspicion, she said.

Psoriasis pointers

Psoriasis in skin of color patients used to be considered rare, “but that is far from true,” Dr. Alexis said. In fact, many cases of psoriasis are undiagnosed or the diagnosis is delayed in these patients.

The panelists noted that current guidelines for psoriasis treatment are based on clinical trials composed mainly of White patients, and do not contain specific recommendations for skin of color patients.

Notably, the morphology, location, and color of psoriasis lesions may be different for patients with darker skin, such as thicker plaques and more scaling over larger areas, they said. Also, skin of color patients may experience long-lasting dyspigmentation from psoriasis lesions that have resolved.

When developing a strategy for psoriasis in skin of color patients, consider not only disease severity, but also comorbidities and medications, response (if any) to prior therapies, patient preferences, and quality of life, the panelists said.

Dr. Callender, Dr. Elbuluk, Dr. Taylor, and Dr. Alexis reported conflicts of interest from numerous sources in industry. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

LAS VEGAS – Disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of skin of color can stem from incorrect diagnoses and lack of knowledge on the part of clinicians, and also from knowledge gaps on the part of other health care providers and patients, Susan C. Taylor, MD, said in a presentation at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

Additionally, some disparities occur because of gaps in access to health care, said Dr. Taylor, vice chair, diversity, equity and inclusion, in the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who moderated an expert panel discussion of treatment tips for several common dermatologic conditions in skin of color patients.

Atopic dermatitis angles

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is the fourth most common dermatologic complaint in Black patients, based on data from the United States National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Also, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey show that Black children are nearly twice as likely as White children to develop AD after controlling for socioeconomic factors, Dr. Taylor said.

When Black patients present with AD, “you may not see the erythema,” said Valerie D. Callender, MD, of Howard University, Washington, who presented on AD. Instead, “you may see more follicular and papular presentations.” Erythema and erythroderma can present as shades of violet, gray, or dark brown in patients with rich skin tones, added Dr. Callender, who practices in Glenn Dale, Md.

Consequently, disease severity can be misinterpreted, she said, noting that data suggest that scoring systems such as the Eczema Area and Severity Index and Scoring Atopic Dermatitis underestimate AD severity in dark skin.

As for treatment, skin of color patients with AD are often as bothered by postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) as by active lesions, so treatment should take these concerns into account, Dr. Callender said. Studies evaluating the effectiveness of AD treatments in diverse populations are limited by lack of representation of racial groups in clinical trials and lack of subset analyses by race.
 

Acne awareness

An important consideration of acne in skin of color patients is that the acne “might not be red, it might just be darker,” said Andrew F. Alexis, MD, vice-chair for diversity and inclusion in the department of dermatology, and professor of clinical dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. A study published in JAMA Dermatology of nearly 30,000 patients with acne from 2007 to 2017 found that non-Hispanic Black patients were more likely than non-Hispanic White patients to see a dermatologist for acne, but Black patients received fewer prescriptions for acne medications than White patients.

The study also showed that Black patients who received prescriptions for acne were more likely to receive topical retinoids and topical antibiotics, and less likely to receive oral antibiotics, spironolactone, or isotretinoin, compared with White patients. Similarly, Asian patients were more likely to receive topical antibiotics and less likely to receive oral antibiotics, compared with White patients.

Other panelists shared some of their best practices for acne in patients with skin of color, including treatment with topical retinoids (for inflammation) and spironolactone, and therapies that address both inflammation and pigmentation, such as salicylic acid and azelaic acid. Dr. Callender also advised asking patients about makeup, as they may not know that many types of makeup used to cover acne are in fact comedogenic.
 

Melanoma misconceptions

One of the most common misperceptions about melanoma among skin of color patients is that they don’t think they can get it, Dr. Taylor said. Many health care providers don’t think about melanoma in skin of color patients because of the dramatically lower incidence in this population, but as a result, cases may go undiagnosed, and as studies have shown, the mortality rate from melanoma is higher in Black patients.

Consider the palms, soles, nails, and web spaces as possible melanoma sites, Dr. Taylor added.

Educating skin of color patients about melanoma is important, although the incidence is 20 to 30 times lower than in non-Hispanic Whites, said Nada Elbuluk, MD, the founder and director of the University of Southern California Skin of Color Center and Pigmentary Disorders Clinic, Los Angeles. A 2020 editorial published in Cancer Cytopathology pointed out that 1 in 3 Black men or women with a melanoma diagnosis in the United States dies of the disease, compared with 1 in 7 non-Hispanic White men and 1 in 11 non-Hispanic White women with melanoma.

Don’t skip the total body skin exam in these patients, Dr. Elbuluk emphasized. Many patients will only partially undress, and areas such as toes can be missed.
 

Rosacea review

For patients with skin of color, clinicians need to look for different signs of rosacea than those typically seen in White patients, Dr. Elbuluk said. “The most common presentation of rosacea in skin of color is papulopustular,” and the granulomatous variant.

“These patients will often give you a history of sensitivity to products,” Dr. Elbuluk noted. They may not always have the flushing, but they may report warmth or itching, in addition to product sensitivity.

When considering rosacea in skin of color patients, be sure to have good lighting for close examination, as skin thickening is another subtle sign of rosacea in these patients, she said. Skin thickening “is a very early sign that will present in skin of color with no erythema, so keep that in mind.”

Stinging and burning sensations may be reported by skin of color patients with rosacea. Use patient history to confirm the diagnosis of rosacea, which is often delayed in skin of color patients because of a low index of suspicion, she said.

Psoriasis pointers

Psoriasis in skin of color patients used to be considered rare, “but that is far from true,” Dr. Alexis said. In fact, many cases of psoriasis are undiagnosed or the diagnosis is delayed in these patients.

The panelists noted that current guidelines for psoriasis treatment are based on clinical trials composed mainly of White patients, and do not contain specific recommendations for skin of color patients.

Notably, the morphology, location, and color of psoriasis lesions may be different for patients with darker skin, such as thicker plaques and more scaling over larger areas, they said. Also, skin of color patients may experience long-lasting dyspigmentation from psoriasis lesions that have resolved.

When developing a strategy for psoriasis in skin of color patients, consider not only disease severity, but also comorbidities and medications, response (if any) to prior therapies, patient preferences, and quality of life, the panelists said.

Dr. Callender, Dr. Elbuluk, Dr. Taylor, and Dr. Alexis reported conflicts of interest from numerous sources in industry. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Dr Carol Wysham, of the University of Washington School of Medicine in Spokane, reports on key studies looking at glucose-lowering therapies in adults with type 2 diabetes, as presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Society of Nephrology. 

Dr Wysham first highlights a real-world study evaluating the long-term use of empagliflozin compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. The researchers used the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) slope as their predictive value for clinical kidney benefit. They found that long-term use of empagliflozin was associated with less impairment of kidney function than DPP-4 inhibitors.  

Next, Dr Wysham discusses a study testing the safety of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with both chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes. Researchers found that in this patient population undergoing routine care, use of SGLT2 inhibitors was associated with an increased risk for nonvertebral fractures, lower-limb amputations, and genital infections. 

Next, Dr Wysham examines a report pooling data from the SUSTAIN 6 and PIONEER 6 studies to determine whether semaglutide improves the eGFR slope. Researchers found that across the A1c and blood pressure subgroups, semaglutide reduced eGFR compared with placebo.  

Finally, Dr Wysham discusses an analysis using data from the Framingham Heart Study to determine whether a demonstrable link could be established between kidney disease and mild cognitive impairment. Researchers reported that patients with albuminuria had an increased risk for brain infarctions.  

--

Carol Wysham, MD, Clinical Professor of Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine; Clinical Endocrinologist, Rockwood Center for Diabetes and Endocrinology, MultiCare Health Systems, Spokane, Washington 

Carol Wysham, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: 

Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Endocrine Society; MultiCare Health Systems 

Received research grant from: Allergan; Abbott; Corcept; Eli Lilly; Mylan; Novo Nordisk; Regeneron 

Dr Carol Wysham, of the University of Washington School of Medicine in Spokane, reports on key studies looking at glucose-lowering therapies in adults with type 2 diabetes, as presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Society of Nephrology. 

Dr Wysham first highlights a real-world study evaluating the long-term use of empagliflozin compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. The researchers used the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) slope as their predictive value for clinical kidney benefit. They found that long-term use of empagliflozin was associated with less impairment of kidney function than DPP-4 inhibitors.  

Next, Dr Wysham discusses a study testing the safety of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with both chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes. Researchers found that in this patient population undergoing routine care, use of SGLT2 inhibitors was associated with an increased risk for nonvertebral fractures, lower-limb amputations, and genital infections. 

Next, Dr Wysham examines a report pooling data from the SUSTAIN 6 and PIONEER 6 studies to determine whether semaglutide improves the eGFR slope. Researchers found that across the A1c and blood pressure subgroups, semaglutide reduced eGFR compared with placebo.  

Finally, Dr Wysham discusses an analysis using data from the Framingham Heart Study to determine whether a demonstrable link could be established between kidney disease and mild cognitive impairment. Researchers reported that patients with albuminuria had an increased risk for brain infarctions.  

--

Carol Wysham, MD, Clinical Professor of Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine; Clinical Endocrinologist, Rockwood Center for Diabetes and Endocrinology, MultiCare Health Systems, Spokane, Washington 

Carol Wysham, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: 

Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Endocrine Society; MultiCare Health Systems 

Received research grant from: Allergan; Abbott; Corcept; Eli Lilly; Mylan; Novo Nordisk; Regeneron 

Dr Carol Wysham, of the University of Washington School of Medicine in Spokane, reports on key studies looking at glucose-lowering therapies in adults with type 2 diabetes, as presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Society of Nephrology. 

Dr Wysham first highlights a real-world study evaluating the long-term use of empagliflozin compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. The researchers used the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) slope as their predictive value for clinical kidney benefit. They found that long-term use of empagliflozin was associated with less impairment of kidney function than DPP-4 inhibitors.  

Next, Dr Wysham discusses a study testing the safety of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with both chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes. Researchers found that in this patient population undergoing routine care, use of SGLT2 inhibitors was associated with an increased risk for nonvertebral fractures, lower-limb amputations, and genital infections. 

Next, Dr Wysham examines a report pooling data from the SUSTAIN 6 and PIONEER 6 studies to determine whether semaglutide improves the eGFR slope. Researchers found that across the A1c and blood pressure subgroups, semaglutide reduced eGFR compared with placebo.  

Finally, Dr Wysham discusses an analysis using data from the Framingham Heart Study to determine whether a demonstrable link could be established between kidney disease and mild cognitive impairment. Researchers reported that patients with albuminuria had an increased risk for brain infarctions.  

--

Carol Wysham, MD, Clinical Professor of Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine; Clinical Endocrinologist, Rockwood Center for Diabetes and Endocrinology, MultiCare Health Systems, Spokane, Washington 

Carol Wysham, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: 

Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Endocrine Society; MultiCare Health Systems 

Received research grant from: Allergan; Abbott; Corcept; Eli Lilly; Mylan; Novo Nordisk; Regeneron 

Competition between five biologic drugs and their skinny-label biosimilars saved Medicare an estimated $1.5 billion during 2015-2020. But these savings accruing to Medicare and the availability of those and other biosimilars through skinny labeling is under threat from recent court rulings, according to a research letter published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The authors highlighted the need for such savings by noting that, while biologics comprise less than 5% of prescription drug use, their price tag amounts to about 40% of U.S. drug spending, Biologic manufacturers often delay the availability of biosimilars for additional years beyond the original patent expiration through further patents for supplemental indications. To provide a counterbalance, federal law allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve “skinny-label” generics and biosimilars that carve out patent-protected indications or regulatory exclusivities. But once a generic drug reaches the market through this process with a skinny label, it may often be substituted for indications that go beyond the ones listed on the skinny label. In fact, some state laws mandate that pharmacists substitute interchangeable generics for brand-name drugs, helping to decrease drug prices. In response to legal threats to the skinny-label pathway, Alexander C. Egilman and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, assessed the frequency of approval and marketing of skinny-label biosimilars from 2015 to 2021 and the resultant savings to Medicare.

TheaDesign/Thinkstock

The authors estimated annual Part B (clinician-administered) savings from skinny-label biosimilars through 2020 by comparing actual biologic and skinny-label biosimilar spending with estimated biologic spending without competition using the Medicare Dashboard. They assumed that the unit price of the biologic would increase at its 5-year compound annual growth rate prior to competition.

In that period, the FDA approved 33 biosimilars linked to 11 biologics. Among them, 22 (66.7%) had a skinny label. Of 21 biosimilars marketed before 2022, 13 (61.9%) were launched with a skinny label. Of the 8 biologics linked to these 21 biosimilars, 5 of the first-to-market biosimilars had skinny labels (bevacizumab, filgrastim, infliximab, pegfilgrastim, and rituximab), leading to earlier competition through 2021.

The estimated $1.5 billion in savings to Medicare from these skinny-label biosimilars over the 2015-2020 span represents 4.9% of the $30.2 billion that Medicare spent on the five biologics during this period. The researchers pointed out that once adalimumab (Humira) faces skinny-label biosimilar competition in 2023, savings will likely grow substantially.

In response to the research letter, an editor’s note by JAMA Internal Medicine Editorial Fellow Eric Ward, MD, and JAMA Internal Medicine Editor at Large and Online Editor Robert Steinbrook, MD, stated that, between 2015 and 2019, 24 (43%) of 56 brand-name drugs had competition from skinny-labeled generic formulations after first becoming available as generics.

The editors also referenced a JAMA Viewpoints article from 2021 that reviewed the most recent case challenging the skinny-label pathway in which GlaxoSmithKline sued Teva for its marketing of a skinny-label generic of the brand-name beta-blocker carvedilol (Coreg) that the plaintive claimed “induced physicians to prescribe carvedilol for indications that had been carved out by Teva’s skinny label, thus infringing GlaxoSmithKline’s patents.” A $235 million judgment against Teva was overturned by a district court and then reversed again by a Federal Circuit court that, after receiving criticism, reconsidered the case, and a panel affirmed the judgment against Teva.

“The Federal Circuit panel’s decision has the potential to put generic drugs that fail to adequately carve out indications from the brand name labeling at risk for damages related to infringement,” the authors wrote. Similar claims of infringement are being heard in other courts, they wrote, and they urged careful targeting of skinny-label carveouts, and suggest also that challenges to the arguments used against Teva focus on preservation of First Amendment rights as protection for lawful and accurate speech in drug labels.

“The legal uncertainties are likely to continue, as manufacturers pursue novel and complex strategies to protect the patents and regulatory exclusivities of brand-name drugs and biologics,” Dr. Ward and Dr. Steinbrook wrote, adding that “the path forward is for Congress to enact additional legislation that reaffirms and strengthens the permissibility of skinny labeling.”

The research letter’s corresponding author, Ameet Sarpatwari, PhD, JD, assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, and assistant director for the Harvard Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law, echoed concerns over the Teva case in an interview. “There has certainly been concern that should the appellate decision stand, there will be a chilling effect. As the lone dissenter in that case noted, ‘no skinny-label generic is safe.’ I think many generic and biosimilar manufacturers are awaiting to see whether the Supreme Court will take the case.”

He added: “I do not believe the likelihood of skinny-label-supportive legislation making it through Congress will be greatly diminished in a divided Congress. Democrats and Republicans alike should seek to promote competition in the marketplace, which is what the skinny-labeling pathway accomplishes.”

The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest. The research was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

Competition between five biologic drugs and their skinny-label biosimilars saved Medicare an estimated $1.5 billion during 2015-2020. But these savings accruing to Medicare and the availability of those and other biosimilars through skinny labeling is under threat from recent court rulings, according to a research letter published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The authors highlighted the need for such savings by noting that, while biologics comprise less than 5% of prescription drug use, their price tag amounts to about 40% of U.S. drug spending, Biologic manufacturers often delay the availability of biosimilars for additional years beyond the original patent expiration through further patents for supplemental indications. To provide a counterbalance, federal law allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve “skinny-label” generics and biosimilars that carve out patent-protected indications or regulatory exclusivities. But once a generic drug reaches the market through this process with a skinny label, it may often be substituted for indications that go beyond the ones listed on the skinny label. In fact, some state laws mandate that pharmacists substitute interchangeable generics for brand-name drugs, helping to decrease drug prices. In response to legal threats to the skinny-label pathway, Alexander C. Egilman and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, assessed the frequency of approval and marketing of skinny-label biosimilars from 2015 to 2021 and the resultant savings to Medicare.

TheaDesign/Thinkstock

The authors estimated annual Part B (clinician-administered) savings from skinny-label biosimilars through 2020 by comparing actual biologic and skinny-label biosimilar spending with estimated biologic spending without competition using the Medicare Dashboard. They assumed that the unit price of the biologic would increase at its 5-year compound annual growth rate prior to competition.

In that period, the FDA approved 33 biosimilars linked to 11 biologics. Among them, 22 (66.7%) had a skinny label. Of 21 biosimilars marketed before 2022, 13 (61.9%) were launched with a skinny label. Of the 8 biologics linked to these 21 biosimilars, 5 of the first-to-market biosimilars had skinny labels (bevacizumab, filgrastim, infliximab, pegfilgrastim, and rituximab), leading to earlier competition through 2021.

The estimated $1.5 billion in savings to Medicare from these skinny-label biosimilars over the 2015-2020 span represents 4.9% of the $30.2 billion that Medicare spent on the five biologics during this period. The researchers pointed out that once adalimumab (Humira) faces skinny-label biosimilar competition in 2023, savings will likely grow substantially.

In response to the research letter, an editor’s note by JAMA Internal Medicine Editorial Fellow Eric Ward, MD, and JAMA Internal Medicine Editor at Large and Online Editor Robert Steinbrook, MD, stated that, between 2015 and 2019, 24 (43%) of 56 brand-name drugs had competition from skinny-labeled generic formulations after first becoming available as generics.

The editors also referenced a JAMA Viewpoints article from 2021 that reviewed the most recent case challenging the skinny-label pathway in which GlaxoSmithKline sued Teva for its marketing of a skinny-label generic of the brand-name beta-blocker carvedilol (Coreg) that the plaintive claimed “induced physicians to prescribe carvedilol for indications that had been carved out by Teva’s skinny label, thus infringing GlaxoSmithKline’s patents.” A $235 million judgment against Teva was overturned by a district court and then reversed again by a Federal Circuit court that, after receiving criticism, reconsidered the case, and a panel affirmed the judgment against Teva.

“The Federal Circuit panel’s decision has the potential to put generic drugs that fail to adequately carve out indications from the brand name labeling at risk for damages related to infringement,” the authors wrote. Similar claims of infringement are being heard in other courts, they wrote, and they urged careful targeting of skinny-label carveouts, and suggest also that challenges to the arguments used against Teva focus on preservation of First Amendment rights as protection for lawful and accurate speech in drug labels.

“The legal uncertainties are likely to continue, as manufacturers pursue novel and complex strategies to protect the patents and regulatory exclusivities of brand-name drugs and biologics,” Dr. Ward and Dr. Steinbrook wrote, adding that “the path forward is for Congress to enact additional legislation that reaffirms and strengthens the permissibility of skinny labeling.”

The research letter’s corresponding author, Ameet Sarpatwari, PhD, JD, assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, and assistant director for the Harvard Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law, echoed concerns over the Teva case in an interview. “There has certainly been concern that should the appellate decision stand, there will be a chilling effect. As the lone dissenter in that case noted, ‘no skinny-label generic is safe.’ I think many generic and biosimilar manufacturers are awaiting to see whether the Supreme Court will take the case.”

He added: “I do not believe the likelihood of skinny-label-supportive legislation making it through Congress will be greatly diminished in a divided Congress. Democrats and Republicans alike should seek to promote competition in the marketplace, which is what the skinny-labeling pathway accomplishes.”

The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest. The research was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

Competition between five biologic drugs and their skinny-label biosimilars saved Medicare an estimated $1.5 billion during 2015-2020. But these savings accruing to Medicare and the availability of those and other biosimilars through skinny labeling is under threat from recent court rulings, according to a research letter published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The authors highlighted the need for such savings by noting that, while biologics comprise less than 5% of prescription drug use, their price tag amounts to about 40% of U.S. drug spending, Biologic manufacturers often delay the availability of biosimilars for additional years beyond the original patent expiration through further patents for supplemental indications. To provide a counterbalance, federal law allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve “skinny-label” generics and biosimilars that carve out patent-protected indications or regulatory exclusivities. But once a generic drug reaches the market through this process with a skinny label, it may often be substituted for indications that go beyond the ones listed on the skinny label. In fact, some state laws mandate that pharmacists substitute interchangeable generics for brand-name drugs, helping to decrease drug prices. In response to legal threats to the skinny-label pathway, Alexander C. Egilman and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, assessed the frequency of approval and marketing of skinny-label biosimilars from 2015 to 2021 and the resultant savings to Medicare.

TheaDesign/Thinkstock

The authors estimated annual Part B (clinician-administered) savings from skinny-label biosimilars through 2020 by comparing actual biologic and skinny-label biosimilar spending with estimated biologic spending without competition using the Medicare Dashboard. They assumed that the unit price of the biologic would increase at its 5-year compound annual growth rate prior to competition.

In that period, the FDA approved 33 biosimilars linked to 11 biologics. Among them, 22 (66.7%) had a skinny label. Of 21 biosimilars marketed before 2022, 13 (61.9%) were launched with a skinny label. Of the 8 biologics linked to these 21 biosimilars, 5 of the first-to-market biosimilars had skinny labels (bevacizumab, filgrastim, infliximab, pegfilgrastim, and rituximab), leading to earlier competition through 2021.

The estimated $1.5 billion in savings to Medicare from these skinny-label biosimilars over the 2015-2020 span represents 4.9% of the $30.2 billion that Medicare spent on the five biologics during this period. The researchers pointed out that once adalimumab (Humira) faces skinny-label biosimilar competition in 2023, savings will likely grow substantially.

In response to the research letter, an editor’s note by JAMA Internal Medicine Editorial Fellow Eric Ward, MD, and JAMA Internal Medicine Editor at Large and Online Editor Robert Steinbrook, MD, stated that, between 2015 and 2019, 24 (43%) of 56 brand-name drugs had competition from skinny-labeled generic formulations after first becoming available as generics.

The editors also referenced a JAMA Viewpoints article from 2021 that reviewed the most recent case challenging the skinny-label pathway in which GlaxoSmithKline sued Teva for its marketing of a skinny-label generic of the brand-name beta-blocker carvedilol (Coreg) that the plaintive claimed “induced physicians to prescribe carvedilol for indications that had been carved out by Teva’s skinny label, thus infringing GlaxoSmithKline’s patents.” A $235 million judgment against Teva was overturned by a district court and then reversed again by a Federal Circuit court that, after receiving criticism, reconsidered the case, and a panel affirmed the judgment against Teva.

“The Federal Circuit panel’s decision has the potential to put generic drugs that fail to adequately carve out indications from the brand name labeling at risk for damages related to infringement,” the authors wrote. Similar claims of infringement are being heard in other courts, they wrote, and they urged careful targeting of skinny-label carveouts, and suggest also that challenges to the arguments used against Teva focus on preservation of First Amendment rights as protection for lawful and accurate speech in drug labels.

“The legal uncertainties are likely to continue, as manufacturers pursue novel and complex strategies to protect the patents and regulatory exclusivities of brand-name drugs and biologics,” Dr. Ward and Dr. Steinbrook wrote, adding that “the path forward is for Congress to enact additional legislation that reaffirms and strengthens the permissibility of skinny labeling.”

The research letter’s corresponding author, Ameet Sarpatwari, PhD, JD, assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, and assistant director for the Harvard Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law, echoed concerns over the Teva case in an interview. “There has certainly been concern that should the appellate decision stand, there will be a chilling effect. As the lone dissenter in that case noted, ‘no skinny-label generic is safe.’ I think many generic and biosimilar manufacturers are awaiting to see whether the Supreme Court will take the case.”

He added: “I do not believe the likelihood of skinny-label-supportive legislation making it through Congress will be greatly diminished in a divided Congress. Democrats and Republicans alike should seek to promote competition in the marketplace, which is what the skinny-labeling pathway accomplishes.”

The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest. The research was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

A new clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association focuses on new technology for the diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus (BE). It also suggests that patients with no symptoms of chronic reflux can be considered for screening, which could significantly increase the number of people eligible for screening.

Current AGA guidelines support endoscopic screening for BE followed by surveillance for the early detection of BE, dysplasia, and neoplasia. However, fewer than 20% of patients eventually diagnosed with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) were previously diagnosed with BE, suggesting that many opportunities for early detection are missed.

The clinical practice update, published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, represents an effort to highlight advances in screening and surveillance with the goal of improving uptake. The main thrust of the document is risk factors other than gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) when considering candidates for screening.

In practice, physicians are already starting to employ other risk factors to select patients for screening, according to coauthor Srinadh Komanduri, MD, who is a professor of medicine and surgery at Northwestern University, Chicago. Specifically, the update suggests screening for individuals with at least three established risk factors for EAC and BE. Risk factors include male sex, non-Hispanic White race, age over 50 years, history of smoking, chronic GERD, obesity, or a family history of BE or EAC.

Another purpose of the update is to highlight noninvasive screening tools, especially nonendoscopic cell collection devices. The authors stress that upper endoscopy with biopsies remains the preferred method for BE diagnosis, but methods that are simple, patient-friendly, and cost-effective have the potential to increase the screened population. One option is transnasal endoscopy, which can be performed in the office with no sedation, but this is expensive and requires expertise.

Recently developed nonendoscopic cell collection devices include Cytosponge (Medtronic GI Solutions), EsoCheck (Lucid Diagnostics), and EsophaCap (Capnostics). All are safe and well-tolerated, and they have good sensitivity for BE. The Cytosponge consists of a swallowable piece of polyurethane foam fitted into a capsule that is attached to suture. The capsule dissolves and the foam expands, collecting cells, and is then withdrawn. It has undergone extensive testing in BE screening in the United Kingdom and was found to have a sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 92.2%. A primary care study showed a 10-fold increase in BE detection compared with usual care.

The EsophaCap works similarly to the Cytosponge but with a smaller diameter. It has 93% sensitivity and 93% specificity for intestinal metaplasia when combined with a panel of five methylated DNA biomarkers.

The EsoCheck device consists of a balloon attached to a catheter, which is inflated and withdrawn. Ridges on the balloon surface capture cells for analysis. A pilot study using two biomarkers found a 90.3% sensitivity and 91.7% specificity.

The update also advises use of high-definition white light endoscopy (HD-WLE) and virtual chromoendoscopy (VC) for screening and surveillance. An updated meta-analysis showed the two methods combined led to a higher detection rate of high grade dysplasia/EAC than HD-WLE alone (14.7% versus 10.1%; relative risk, 1.44). VC and traditional chromoendoscopy have similar dysplasia detection rates, but the former is recommended since it is readily available, requires no extra costs, and avoids issues that can affect dye-based chromoendoscopy. VC from any manufacturer is acceptable, but most data supporting its utility focuses on narrow-band imaging only.

The authors of the update did not suggest a minimum procedure time because of insufficient data, but they noted that the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology recommend a minimum of 7 minutes for upper endoscopy and a minimum of 1 minute per centimeter of the circumferential extent of the Barrett’s mucosa.

The update advises use of the Seattle biopsy protocol for sample during screening and surveillance exams. This includes four-quadrant biopsies taken every 1-2 cm, as well as biopsies from visible lesions. This protocol, however, is not followed in up to 20% of procedures, according to one study. Conceding that fact, the authors also suggest the use of wide area transepithelial sampling (WATS-3D) as a supplementary technique for BE segment sampling.

The Seattle biopsy protocol is associated with a higher dysplasia detection rate (RR, 2.75). This criterion can still be met even if an endoscopist chooses to send a patient for endoscopic resection rather than sample a visible lesion.
 

A new clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association focuses on new technology for the diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus (BE). It also suggests that patients with no symptoms of chronic reflux can be considered for screening, which could significantly increase the number of people eligible for screening.

Current AGA guidelines support endoscopic screening for BE followed by surveillance for the early detection of BE, dysplasia, and neoplasia. However, fewer than 20% of patients eventually diagnosed with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) were previously diagnosed with BE, suggesting that many opportunities for early detection are missed.

The clinical practice update, published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, represents an effort to highlight advances in screening and surveillance with the goal of improving uptake. The main thrust of the document is risk factors other than gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) when considering candidates for screening.

In practice, physicians are already starting to employ other risk factors to select patients for screening, according to coauthor Srinadh Komanduri, MD, who is a professor of medicine and surgery at Northwestern University, Chicago. Specifically, the update suggests screening for individuals with at least three established risk factors for EAC and BE. Risk factors include male sex, non-Hispanic White race, age over 50 years, history of smoking, chronic GERD, obesity, or a family history of BE or EAC.

Another purpose of the update is to highlight noninvasive screening tools, especially nonendoscopic cell collection devices. The authors stress that upper endoscopy with biopsies remains the preferred method for BE diagnosis, but methods that are simple, patient-friendly, and cost-effective have the potential to increase the screened population. One option is transnasal endoscopy, which can be performed in the office with no sedation, but this is expensive and requires expertise.

Recently developed nonendoscopic cell collection devices include Cytosponge (Medtronic GI Solutions), EsoCheck (Lucid Diagnostics), and EsophaCap (Capnostics). All are safe and well-tolerated, and they have good sensitivity for BE. The Cytosponge consists of a swallowable piece of polyurethane foam fitted into a capsule that is attached to suture. The capsule dissolves and the foam expands, collecting cells, and is then withdrawn. It has undergone extensive testing in BE screening in the United Kingdom and was found to have a sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 92.2%. A primary care study showed a 10-fold increase in BE detection compared with usual care.

The EsophaCap works similarly to the Cytosponge but with a smaller diameter. It has 93% sensitivity and 93% specificity for intestinal metaplasia when combined with a panel of five methylated DNA biomarkers.

The EsoCheck device consists of a balloon attached to a catheter, which is inflated and withdrawn. Ridges on the balloon surface capture cells for analysis. A pilot study using two biomarkers found a 90.3% sensitivity and 91.7% specificity.

The update also advises use of high-definition white light endoscopy (HD-WLE) and virtual chromoendoscopy (VC) for screening and surveillance. An updated meta-analysis showed the two methods combined led to a higher detection rate of high grade dysplasia/EAC than HD-WLE alone (14.7% versus 10.1%; relative risk, 1.44). VC and traditional chromoendoscopy have similar dysplasia detection rates, but the former is recommended since it is readily available, requires no extra costs, and avoids issues that can affect dye-based chromoendoscopy. VC from any manufacturer is acceptable, but most data supporting its utility focuses on narrow-band imaging only.

The authors of the update did not suggest a minimum procedure time because of insufficient data, but they noted that the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology recommend a minimum of 7 minutes for upper endoscopy and a minimum of 1 minute per centimeter of the circumferential extent of the Barrett’s mucosa.

The update advises use of the Seattle biopsy protocol for sample during screening and surveillance exams. This includes four-quadrant biopsies taken every 1-2 cm, as well as biopsies from visible lesions. This protocol, however, is not followed in up to 20% of procedures, according to one study. Conceding that fact, the authors also suggest the use of wide area transepithelial sampling (WATS-3D) as a supplementary technique for BE segment sampling.

The Seattle biopsy protocol is associated with a higher dysplasia detection rate (RR, 2.75). This criterion can still be met even if an endoscopist chooses to send a patient for endoscopic resection rather than sample a visible lesion.
 

A new clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association focuses on new technology for the diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus (BE). It also suggests that patients with no symptoms of chronic reflux can be considered for screening, which could significantly increase the number of people eligible for screening.

Current AGA guidelines support endoscopic screening for BE followed by surveillance for the early detection of BE, dysplasia, and neoplasia. However, fewer than 20% of patients eventually diagnosed with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) were previously diagnosed with BE, suggesting that many opportunities for early detection are missed.

The clinical practice update, published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, represents an effort to highlight advances in screening and surveillance with the goal of improving uptake. The main thrust of the document is risk factors other than gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) when considering candidates for screening.

In practice, physicians are already starting to employ other risk factors to select patients for screening, according to coauthor Srinadh Komanduri, MD, who is a professor of medicine and surgery at Northwestern University, Chicago. Specifically, the update suggests screening for individuals with at least three established risk factors for EAC and BE. Risk factors include male sex, non-Hispanic White race, age over 50 years, history of smoking, chronic GERD, obesity, or a family history of BE or EAC.

Another purpose of the update is to highlight noninvasive screening tools, especially nonendoscopic cell collection devices. The authors stress that upper endoscopy with biopsies remains the preferred method for BE diagnosis, but methods that are simple, patient-friendly, and cost-effective have the potential to increase the screened population. One option is transnasal endoscopy, which can be performed in the office with no sedation, but this is expensive and requires expertise.

Recently developed nonendoscopic cell collection devices include Cytosponge (Medtronic GI Solutions), EsoCheck (Lucid Diagnostics), and EsophaCap (Capnostics). All are safe and well-tolerated, and they have good sensitivity for BE. The Cytosponge consists of a swallowable piece of polyurethane foam fitted into a capsule that is attached to suture. The capsule dissolves and the foam expands, collecting cells, and is then withdrawn. It has undergone extensive testing in BE screening in the United Kingdom and was found to have a sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 92.2%. A primary care study showed a 10-fold increase in BE detection compared with usual care.

The EsophaCap works similarly to the Cytosponge but with a smaller diameter. It has 93% sensitivity and 93% specificity for intestinal metaplasia when combined with a panel of five methylated DNA biomarkers.

The EsoCheck device consists of a balloon attached to a catheter, which is inflated and withdrawn. Ridges on the balloon surface capture cells for analysis. A pilot study using two biomarkers found a 90.3% sensitivity and 91.7% specificity.

The update also advises use of high-definition white light endoscopy (HD-WLE) and virtual chromoendoscopy (VC) for screening and surveillance. An updated meta-analysis showed the two methods combined led to a higher detection rate of high grade dysplasia/EAC than HD-WLE alone (14.7% versus 10.1%; relative risk, 1.44). VC and traditional chromoendoscopy have similar dysplasia detection rates, but the former is recommended since it is readily available, requires no extra costs, and avoids issues that can affect dye-based chromoendoscopy. VC from any manufacturer is acceptable, but most data supporting its utility focuses on narrow-band imaging only.

The authors of the update did not suggest a minimum procedure time because of insufficient data, but they noted that the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology recommend a minimum of 7 minutes for upper endoscopy and a minimum of 1 minute per centimeter of the circumferential extent of the Barrett’s mucosa.

The update advises use of the Seattle biopsy protocol for sample during screening and surveillance exams. This includes four-quadrant biopsies taken every 1-2 cm, as well as biopsies from visible lesions. This protocol, however, is not followed in up to 20% of procedures, according to one study. Conceding that fact, the authors also suggest the use of wide area transepithelial sampling (WATS-3D) as a supplementary technique for BE segment sampling.

The Seattle biopsy protocol is associated with a higher dysplasia detection rate (RR, 2.75). This criterion can still be met even if an endoscopist chooses to send a patient for endoscopic resection rather than sample a visible lesion.
 

Rheumatologists tend to order the same types of tests to monitor their patients’ responses to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), but they vary widely in how often they order tests and how they respond to abnormal results, responses to a survey suggest.

“The study found that, although guidelines exist, people didn’t follow them consistently. They also responded to abnormal test results in wildly different ways,” senior study author Philip C. Robinson, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Herston, Australia, said in an interview.

“The take-home message of this study is that everyone is doing something different, which means that the system likely has a lot of low-value activity and that money is being wasted,” he added. “However, we don’t have the evidence to guide people to make better choices.”

The literature on laboratory monitoring of people taking csDMARDs for rheumatic disease is scant, the authors wrote in BMC Rheumatology, and current guidelines on csDMARD monitoring vary, likely because of the lack of high-quality evidence for specific monitoring regimens.

“An enormous amount of money is spent on DMARD monitoring with little evidence to support current practices,” Dr. Robinson said. So he and his colleagues asked rheumatologists and rheumatology trainees about their attitudes and practices related to laboratory monitoring of csDMARDs in an online questionnaire.

They used the Australian Rheumatology Association newsletter to invite around 530 Australian rheumatologists and trainees, around 4,500 of Dr. Robinson’s Twitter followers, and 25 Australian and overseas email contacts, to respond to questions about csDMARDs they prescribed, frequency and patterns of monitoring, influences of additional factors and combination therapy, responses to abnormal tests, and attitudes toward monitoring frequency.

The researchers based their questions on csDMARD monitoring guidelines published by the American College of Rheumatology (which recommends monitoring every 2-4 weeks from initiation to 3 months, every 8-12 weeks during months 3-6, and every 12 weeks from 6 months onward), and from the British Society for Rheumatology (whose guidance is similar but bases monitoring frequency on how long DMARD doses remain stable).

The 221 valid responses they collected included 53 from Australia and 39 from the United States. Overall, 53% of respondents were in public practice, 56% were women, and 56% had practiced rheumatology for 11 or more years.

Respondents reported more frequent monitoring of patients with multiple comorbidities and those taking csDMARD combinations, including methotrexate and leflunomide. Responses to abnormal monitoring results varied widely, and 40% of respondents reported that monitoring tests are performed too often. Compared with females, males reported greater tolerance of significant test abnormalities before acting. They also were more likely to report that guidelines recommend, and doctors perform, tests too frequently.
 

Testing, monitoring patterns can differ from current guidelines

Rheumatologists who were asked to comment on the survey welcomed its results.

They came as no surprise to Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“Most guidelines point out in the introduction that they are recommendations and need to be modified by specific patient and environmental needs,” he noted in an interview.

Stephen Myers, MD, assistant professor of clinical medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said: “The findings seem generally consistent with my observed practices and those of my peers, with the exception of sulfasalazine, which we tend to monitor every 3 months, similar to the way we monitor other csDMARDs.”

Caoilfhionn Connolly, MD, MSc, postdoctoral fellow in rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, called “the variability in monitoring somewhat surprising given that both the American College of Rheumatology and the British Society for Rheumatology provide guidance statements on optimal monitoring.

“As the authors highlight,” she added, “the variability in monitoring and response to lab abnormalities is likely driven by the lack of a high-quality evidence base, which should ideally be derived from clinical trials.”

Medication monitoring is critical to ensuring patient safety in rheumatology and other specialties, said Puja Khanna, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist and clinical associate professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Khanna described how in 2018, the Michigan Medicine health care system revisited its processes and protocols for medication monitoring.

Previously, “we were reliant on society guidelines that were not used consistently across the academic and community rheumatology practices,” she said. “Using lean thinking methodology, we found that we lacked familiarity with laboratory monitoring protocols amongst the interdisciplinary teams involved in the process and that we had a clear need for consensus.

“A consistent departmental protocol was created to help streamline the workflow for ancillary support staff, to close identified operational gaps, and to reduce delays in monitoring that impacted safe practice patterns,” Dr. Khanna added.

“We developed standardized medication- and disease-based monitoring protocols for eight medical specialties, where the person who writes a prescription that requires monitoring can utilize standard work flows to enroll the patient in the medication monitoring program and have dedicated ancillary support staff follow the results periodically and alert clinicians in a timely manner,” she explained. “Almost 15,000 patients are currently monitored in this collaborative program involving clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, and IT and administrative teams.”
 

Guidelines may not capture clinical realities of csDMARD monitoring

Dr. Myers and colleagues may monitor testing more intensively if, for example, a patient becomes ill, has side effects, or has taken medication incorrectly. But they’ll less intensively monitor a patient who’s been stable on a csDMARD.

“In my current academic practice, deciding lab monitoring frequency is left up to physicians. In my previous private practice experience, lab monitoring seemed to be more frequent than the current guidelines for many patients, compared to public or academic practice,” he said. “It would be interesting to compare monitoring practices in private, public, and academic settings.

“The clinical reality is that frequent monitoring depends on the regular follow-up, which for some patients is difficult, due to socioeconomic factors including lack of childcare and public transport,” Dr. Myers added.

Dr. Khanna mentioned that “guidelines tend to provide details of extant practice patterns, usually taken from evidence-based data. With monitoring, however, that is tough to achieve, unless substantial data can be found in large national registries of patients on immunosuppressive medications.”

Experience and comfort with using immunosuppressive medications, and medicolegal liability considerations, especially because many immunomodulatory agents confer adverse effects, can contribute to clinicians’ behaviors varying from guidelines, she added.
 

A good scoping review, and further research needed

“This article did what it was supposed to do: Define the various approaches to monitoring,” Dr. Furst said. “It is the next steps that will make a difference in practice.

“Next steps ... may require delving into large observational data sets such as registries to ascertain the consequences of different monitoring strategies for various patient groups and disparate drugs and drug combinations,” added Dr. Furst, who coauthored a 2017 review summarizing guidelines for laboratory monitoring in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

“A significant oversight is the lack of consideration regarding monitoring for corticosteroids, which are well known to have very consequential adverse events and require careful monitoring,” Dr. Furst observed.

“The difference between men’s and women’s monitoring strategies is of some interest,” he added, “but will only be important if it leads to an understanding of and change in monitoring recommendations.”

Dr. Connolly also noted the differences in strategies between male and female respondents.

“Of interest, male respondents were more likely to feel that monitoring was performed too frequently and were also more tolerant of significant abnormalities,” she said. “This begs the question of whether rheumatologist gender differentially impacts other areas of clinical practice.”

Despite the small sample size that limits generalizability, the results provide preliminary insight into the varied practices among rheumatologists worldwide, Dr. Connolly added.

“Given the frequency of csDMARD prescription, the study highlights the clinical unmet need for a more robust evidence base to guide clinical practice,” she said. “The study also adds to important efforts to provide high-value care to patients with rheumatic diseases and may form the basis for larger studies to facilitate the pragmatic utilization of lab monitoring and ultimately optimize both the quality and value of rheumatological care globally.”

Dr. Robinson and coauthors urged further research. “We need more studies of higher quality to help inform the best strategy for protecting our patients from harm from our commonly used rheumatic medicines,” he said.

Dr. Robinson and two coauthors reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies. The remaining authors and all uninvolved sources, who commented by email, reported no relevant relationships. The study received no funding.

Rheumatologists tend to order the same types of tests to monitor their patients’ responses to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), but they vary widely in how often they order tests and how they respond to abnormal results, responses to a survey suggest.

“The study found that, although guidelines exist, people didn’t follow them consistently. They also responded to abnormal test results in wildly different ways,” senior study author Philip C. Robinson, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Herston, Australia, said in an interview.

“The take-home message of this study is that everyone is doing something different, which means that the system likely has a lot of low-value activity and that money is being wasted,” he added. “However, we don’t have the evidence to guide people to make better choices.”

The literature on laboratory monitoring of people taking csDMARDs for rheumatic disease is scant, the authors wrote in BMC Rheumatology, and current guidelines on csDMARD monitoring vary, likely because of the lack of high-quality evidence for specific monitoring regimens.

“An enormous amount of money is spent on DMARD monitoring with little evidence to support current practices,” Dr. Robinson said. So he and his colleagues asked rheumatologists and rheumatology trainees about their attitudes and practices related to laboratory monitoring of csDMARDs in an online questionnaire.

They used the Australian Rheumatology Association newsletter to invite around 530 Australian rheumatologists and trainees, around 4,500 of Dr. Robinson’s Twitter followers, and 25 Australian and overseas email contacts, to respond to questions about csDMARDs they prescribed, frequency and patterns of monitoring, influences of additional factors and combination therapy, responses to abnormal tests, and attitudes toward monitoring frequency.

The researchers based their questions on csDMARD monitoring guidelines published by the American College of Rheumatology (which recommends monitoring every 2-4 weeks from initiation to 3 months, every 8-12 weeks during months 3-6, and every 12 weeks from 6 months onward), and from the British Society for Rheumatology (whose guidance is similar but bases monitoring frequency on how long DMARD doses remain stable).

The 221 valid responses they collected included 53 from Australia and 39 from the United States. Overall, 53% of respondents were in public practice, 56% were women, and 56% had practiced rheumatology for 11 or more years.

Respondents reported more frequent monitoring of patients with multiple comorbidities and those taking csDMARD combinations, including methotrexate and leflunomide. Responses to abnormal monitoring results varied widely, and 40% of respondents reported that monitoring tests are performed too often. Compared with females, males reported greater tolerance of significant test abnormalities before acting. They also were more likely to report that guidelines recommend, and doctors perform, tests too frequently.
 

Testing, monitoring patterns can differ from current guidelines

Rheumatologists who were asked to comment on the survey welcomed its results.

They came as no surprise to Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“Most guidelines point out in the introduction that they are recommendations and need to be modified by specific patient and environmental needs,” he noted in an interview.

Stephen Myers, MD, assistant professor of clinical medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said: “The findings seem generally consistent with my observed practices and those of my peers, with the exception of sulfasalazine, which we tend to monitor every 3 months, similar to the way we monitor other csDMARDs.”

Caoilfhionn Connolly, MD, MSc, postdoctoral fellow in rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, called “the variability in monitoring somewhat surprising given that both the American College of Rheumatology and the British Society for Rheumatology provide guidance statements on optimal monitoring.

“As the authors highlight,” she added, “the variability in monitoring and response to lab abnormalities is likely driven by the lack of a high-quality evidence base, which should ideally be derived from clinical trials.”

Medication monitoring is critical to ensuring patient safety in rheumatology and other specialties, said Puja Khanna, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist and clinical associate professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Khanna described how in 2018, the Michigan Medicine health care system revisited its processes and protocols for medication monitoring.

Previously, “we were reliant on society guidelines that were not used consistently across the academic and community rheumatology practices,” she said. “Using lean thinking methodology, we found that we lacked familiarity with laboratory monitoring protocols amongst the interdisciplinary teams involved in the process and that we had a clear need for consensus.

“A consistent departmental protocol was created to help streamline the workflow for ancillary support staff, to close identified operational gaps, and to reduce delays in monitoring that impacted safe practice patterns,” Dr. Khanna added.

“We developed standardized medication- and disease-based monitoring protocols for eight medical specialties, where the person who writes a prescription that requires monitoring can utilize standard work flows to enroll the patient in the medication monitoring program and have dedicated ancillary support staff follow the results periodically and alert clinicians in a timely manner,” she explained. “Almost 15,000 patients are currently monitored in this collaborative program involving clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, and IT and administrative teams.”
 

Guidelines may not capture clinical realities of csDMARD monitoring

Dr. Myers and colleagues may monitor testing more intensively if, for example, a patient becomes ill, has side effects, or has taken medication incorrectly. But they’ll less intensively monitor a patient who’s been stable on a csDMARD.

“In my current academic practice, deciding lab monitoring frequency is left up to physicians. In my previous private practice experience, lab monitoring seemed to be more frequent than the current guidelines for many patients, compared to public or academic practice,” he said. “It would be interesting to compare monitoring practices in private, public, and academic settings.

“The clinical reality is that frequent monitoring depends on the regular follow-up, which for some patients is difficult, due to socioeconomic factors including lack of childcare and public transport,” Dr. Myers added.

Dr. Khanna mentioned that “guidelines tend to provide details of extant practice patterns, usually taken from evidence-based data. With monitoring, however, that is tough to achieve, unless substantial data can be found in large national registries of patients on immunosuppressive medications.”

Experience and comfort with using immunosuppressive medications, and medicolegal liability considerations, especially because many immunomodulatory agents confer adverse effects, can contribute to clinicians’ behaviors varying from guidelines, she added.
 

A good scoping review, and further research needed

“This article did what it was supposed to do: Define the various approaches to monitoring,” Dr. Furst said. “It is the next steps that will make a difference in practice.

“Next steps ... may require delving into large observational data sets such as registries to ascertain the consequences of different monitoring strategies for various patient groups and disparate drugs and drug combinations,” added Dr. Furst, who coauthored a 2017 review summarizing guidelines for laboratory monitoring in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

“A significant oversight is the lack of consideration regarding monitoring for corticosteroids, which are well known to have very consequential adverse events and require careful monitoring,” Dr. Furst observed.

“The difference between men’s and women’s monitoring strategies is of some interest,” he added, “but will only be important if it leads to an understanding of and change in monitoring recommendations.”

Dr. Connolly also noted the differences in strategies between male and female respondents.

“Of interest, male respondents were more likely to feel that monitoring was performed too frequently and were also more tolerant of significant abnormalities,” she said. “This begs the question of whether rheumatologist gender differentially impacts other areas of clinical practice.”

Despite the small sample size that limits generalizability, the results provide preliminary insight into the varied practices among rheumatologists worldwide, Dr. Connolly added.

“Given the frequency of csDMARD prescription, the study highlights the clinical unmet need for a more robust evidence base to guide clinical practice,” she said. “The study also adds to important efforts to provide high-value care to patients with rheumatic diseases and may form the basis for larger studies to facilitate the pragmatic utilization of lab monitoring and ultimately optimize both the quality and value of rheumatological care globally.”

Dr. Robinson and coauthors urged further research. “We need more studies of higher quality to help inform the best strategy for protecting our patients from harm from our commonly used rheumatic medicines,” he said.

Dr. Robinson and two coauthors reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies. The remaining authors and all uninvolved sources, who commented by email, reported no relevant relationships. The study received no funding.

Rheumatologists tend to order the same types of tests to monitor their patients’ responses to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), but they vary widely in how often they order tests and how they respond to abnormal results, responses to a survey suggest.

“The study found that, although guidelines exist, people didn’t follow them consistently. They also responded to abnormal test results in wildly different ways,” senior study author Philip C. Robinson, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Herston, Australia, said in an interview.

“The take-home message of this study is that everyone is doing something different, which means that the system likely has a lot of low-value activity and that money is being wasted,” he added. “However, we don’t have the evidence to guide people to make better choices.”

The literature on laboratory monitoring of people taking csDMARDs for rheumatic disease is scant, the authors wrote in BMC Rheumatology, and current guidelines on csDMARD monitoring vary, likely because of the lack of high-quality evidence for specific monitoring regimens.

“An enormous amount of money is spent on DMARD monitoring with little evidence to support current practices,” Dr. Robinson said. So he and his colleagues asked rheumatologists and rheumatology trainees about their attitudes and practices related to laboratory monitoring of csDMARDs in an online questionnaire.

They used the Australian Rheumatology Association newsletter to invite around 530 Australian rheumatologists and trainees, around 4,500 of Dr. Robinson’s Twitter followers, and 25 Australian and overseas email contacts, to respond to questions about csDMARDs they prescribed, frequency and patterns of monitoring, influences of additional factors and combination therapy, responses to abnormal tests, and attitudes toward monitoring frequency.

The researchers based their questions on csDMARD monitoring guidelines published by the American College of Rheumatology (which recommends monitoring every 2-4 weeks from initiation to 3 months, every 8-12 weeks during months 3-6, and every 12 weeks from 6 months onward), and from the British Society for Rheumatology (whose guidance is similar but bases monitoring frequency on how long DMARD doses remain stable).

The 221 valid responses they collected included 53 from Australia and 39 from the United States. Overall, 53% of respondents were in public practice, 56% were women, and 56% had practiced rheumatology for 11 or more years.

Respondents reported more frequent monitoring of patients with multiple comorbidities and those taking csDMARD combinations, including methotrexate and leflunomide. Responses to abnormal monitoring results varied widely, and 40% of respondents reported that monitoring tests are performed too often. Compared with females, males reported greater tolerance of significant test abnormalities before acting. They also were more likely to report that guidelines recommend, and doctors perform, tests too frequently.
 

Testing, monitoring patterns can differ from current guidelines

Rheumatologists who were asked to comment on the survey welcomed its results.

They came as no surprise to Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“Most guidelines point out in the introduction that they are recommendations and need to be modified by specific patient and environmental needs,” he noted in an interview.

Stephen Myers, MD, assistant professor of clinical medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said: “The findings seem generally consistent with my observed practices and those of my peers, with the exception of sulfasalazine, which we tend to monitor every 3 months, similar to the way we monitor other csDMARDs.”

Caoilfhionn Connolly, MD, MSc, postdoctoral fellow in rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, called “the variability in monitoring somewhat surprising given that both the American College of Rheumatology and the British Society for Rheumatology provide guidance statements on optimal monitoring.

“As the authors highlight,” she added, “the variability in monitoring and response to lab abnormalities is likely driven by the lack of a high-quality evidence base, which should ideally be derived from clinical trials.”

Medication monitoring is critical to ensuring patient safety in rheumatology and other specialties, said Puja Khanna, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist and clinical associate professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Khanna described how in 2018, the Michigan Medicine health care system revisited its processes and protocols for medication monitoring.

Previously, “we were reliant on society guidelines that were not used consistently across the academic and community rheumatology practices,” she said. “Using lean thinking methodology, we found that we lacked familiarity with laboratory monitoring protocols amongst the interdisciplinary teams involved in the process and that we had a clear need for consensus.

“A consistent departmental protocol was created to help streamline the workflow for ancillary support staff, to close identified operational gaps, and to reduce delays in monitoring that impacted safe practice patterns,” Dr. Khanna added.

“We developed standardized medication- and disease-based monitoring protocols for eight medical specialties, where the person who writes a prescription that requires monitoring can utilize standard work flows to enroll the patient in the medication monitoring program and have dedicated ancillary support staff follow the results periodically and alert clinicians in a timely manner,” she explained. “Almost 15,000 patients are currently monitored in this collaborative program involving clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, and IT and administrative teams.”
 

Guidelines may not capture clinical realities of csDMARD monitoring

Dr. Myers and colleagues may monitor testing more intensively if, for example, a patient becomes ill, has side effects, or has taken medication incorrectly. But they’ll less intensively monitor a patient who’s been stable on a csDMARD.

“In my current academic practice, deciding lab monitoring frequency is left up to physicians. In my previous private practice experience, lab monitoring seemed to be more frequent than the current guidelines for many patients, compared to public or academic practice,” he said. “It would be interesting to compare monitoring practices in private, public, and academic settings.

“The clinical reality is that frequent monitoring depends on the regular follow-up, which for some patients is difficult, due to socioeconomic factors including lack of childcare and public transport,” Dr. Myers added.

Dr. Khanna mentioned that “guidelines tend to provide details of extant practice patterns, usually taken from evidence-based data. With monitoring, however, that is tough to achieve, unless substantial data can be found in large national registries of patients on immunosuppressive medications.”

Experience and comfort with using immunosuppressive medications, and medicolegal liability considerations, especially because many immunomodulatory agents confer adverse effects, can contribute to clinicians’ behaviors varying from guidelines, she added.
 

A good scoping review, and further research needed

“This article did what it was supposed to do: Define the various approaches to monitoring,” Dr. Furst said. “It is the next steps that will make a difference in practice.

“Next steps ... may require delving into large observational data sets such as registries to ascertain the consequences of different monitoring strategies for various patient groups and disparate drugs and drug combinations,” added Dr. Furst, who coauthored a 2017 review summarizing guidelines for laboratory monitoring in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

“A significant oversight is the lack of consideration regarding monitoring for corticosteroids, which are well known to have very consequential adverse events and require careful monitoring,” Dr. Furst observed.

“The difference between men’s and women’s monitoring strategies is of some interest,” he added, “but will only be important if it leads to an understanding of and change in monitoring recommendations.”

Dr. Connolly also noted the differences in strategies between male and female respondents.

“Of interest, male respondents were more likely to feel that monitoring was performed too frequently and were also more tolerant of significant abnormalities,” she said. “This begs the question of whether rheumatologist gender differentially impacts other areas of clinical practice.”

Despite the small sample size that limits generalizability, the results provide preliminary insight into the varied practices among rheumatologists worldwide, Dr. Connolly added.

“Given the frequency of csDMARD prescription, the study highlights the clinical unmet need for a more robust evidence base to guide clinical practice,” she said. “The study also adds to important efforts to provide high-value care to patients with rheumatic diseases and may form the basis for larger studies to facilitate the pragmatic utilization of lab monitoring and ultimately optimize both the quality and value of rheumatological care globally.”

Dr. Robinson and coauthors urged further research. “We need more studies of higher quality to help inform the best strategy for protecting our patients from harm from our commonly used rheumatic medicines,” he said.

Dr. Robinson and two coauthors reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies. The remaining authors and all uninvolved sources, who commented by email, reported no relevant relationships. The study received no funding.